The Sacrifice Symbolizes The Way One Approaches God
Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin said in the name of Rabbi Levi: Come and see how God is considerate of Israel's possessions -
He said to them: If one is obliged to bring an offering, if the offering
is to be an olah - a burnt offering - let him bring from his cattle -
"If his burnt offering is a burnt offering from the herd (Vayikra 1:3); and should he not find from the
herd, let him bring a sheep, - (Ibid., ibid. 10)
"... of sheep"; and should he not find a sheep, let him bring
a goat, (Ibid.) " ... or of the
goats"; and if he does find a goat, let him bring from the
birds and from the fowl, and if he does not find a fowl, let him bring an
offering of meal - "choice flour as a regular meal offering".
Yet more, all [other] offerings may not be brought by halves, but this
latter one is offered by halves - (Vayikra 6) "half
of it in the morning and half of it in the evening." Yet more,
whoever offers this is reckoned as though he offered from one end of the world
to the other end, as is written, "For from where the sun rises to where
it sets, etc."
(Vayikra
Rabba, Parasha 8)
Said Rabbi Abahu: Let a person always be of the pursued and not of the pursuers; among the fowl, none is pursued more than doves and pigeons, and the Torah decreed them acceptable for offering upon the altar.
(Bavli,
Bava Kama 93a)
THE WEE ALEF
Many years ago, when I began to learn Chumash
in Grade 1, the custom in the school where I learned was - as per the
time-honored heder tradition - to begin the study of Bible with Parashat
Vayikra. Many reasons were given for this practice. Among them, following the
Midrash Tanchuma, (91:14):
"Said Rabbi Assya: Why do the children begin their study with the Book of Vayikra?
It is because all the offerings appear in VAYIKRA, and because the little children are pure, and they have not tasted sin and wrongdoing. Therefore The Holy One, Blessed Be He, said that they should first begin with the order of the offerings: Let the pure ones come and study pure matters, and therefore I reckon as if they stand and offer the sacrifices before Me, and I inform you that even though the Temple was destroyed, and offerings are not brought, were it not for children who study the order of the sacrifices, the world could not exist."
The commencement of study was a festive and
ceremonial affair, to which the rabbi and communal leaders were invited. Among
other subjects discussed on this joyful and touching occasion was the written
tradition with which we are all familiar: The letter aleph at the end of
the word Vayikra is diminutive; in the Masorah, the tradition of
Biblical inscription, it is called 'aleph zeira' - 'little aleph'.
Now, fifty years later, I would like to consider afresh this unique phenomenon. I do not intend, within the framework of this d'var Torah, to conduct an extensive survey of the enlarged and diminished letters in the Torah and the Bible as laid down by the Masorah. I do wish to relate, in homiletic fashion, to the possible significance of this diminution, following in the footsteps of some of the commentators who dealt with this phenomenon.
Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher, author of the commentary "Baal HaTurim" (and author of "The Four Turim"), presents the familiar inscription as a compromise between Moshe's will and that of The Holy One, Blessed Be He:
"The aleph of Vayikra is diminutive because Moshe wanted to write only 'Vayiker' ('encountered', as though by chance) as is written in the story of Bil'am, as though God appeared to him by accident. God, however, directed him to write 'Vayikra' - with an aleph. Moshe wrote the aleph - but undersized it."
Rabbi Efrayim of Lunshitz, in his commentary "Kli Yakar", takes in a similar approach, but he does not present the text as a compromise between the will of Moshe and that of God; it is rather a carefully directed message, designed to compare Bil'am's prophecy with that of Moshe - at least in certain aspects:
"The 'aleph' of 'Vayikra' is diminutive, as if it were written 'Vayiker' - 'encountered by chance'. This is intended to compare the prophecy of Moshe to the prophecy of Bil'am ("Now God did encounter Bil'am"), as is written, "There arose no further prophet in Israel like Moshe" - but among the nations there did arise one, and who was that? Bil'am. The meaning of this is not that Bil'am was Moshe's equal in prophecy, God forbid, but this is the explanation: Moshe perceived more that his preparation had prepared him for, as is written "who was known by God" but it does not say "who knew God", meaning that he did not know God beyond his personal capability, but God knew him and granted him additional abundance in Israel, meaning to say "in Israel's merit". None of Israel's other prophets perceived beyond their abilities. But among the nations of the world there did arise one - for the honor of Israel - who did perceive more than his character entitled him to... this teaches us that the two were equal in that both had additional, unplanned perception, in addition to what their personalities entitled them."
True, according to the logic of the above, the text should have read "Vayiker", without the aleph", but "Vayiker" has the connotation not only of something temporary, coincidental; it also has the connotation of impurity, and therefore an "aleph" - a wee aleph - was added on.
It is interesting to examine the Midrashic tradition (Midrash Rabba Parasha 14, beginning with "ub'vo Moshe)" which contrasts Moshe's prophecy with that of Bil'am:
'"When Moshe would come to the Tent of Appointment to speak with Him.' It is taught 'There arose no further prophet in Israel like Moshe' - in Israel there arose no prophet the equal of Moshe, but among the nations there did arise one. This was so that the nations of the world should have no excuse, saying 'If we had a prophet like Moshe, we too would have worshipped The Holy One, Blessed Be He.' And what prophet did they have who was the equal of Moshe? This was Bil'am ben Be'or. There was, however, a difference between the prophecy of Moshe and that of Bil'am. Moshe possessed three qualities, which Bil'am lacked:
- He
would speak with Him standing, as is written, "And you stand
here with Me and I will talk to you'; but He would speak to Bil'am only
when Bil'am was prostrate, as is written, 'Bowed, but with eyes uncovered'.
- Moshe would speak with Him mouth to mouth, as is written 'Mouth to mouth, etc', but with Bil'am, 'Utters the hearer of Godly sayings' - he did not speak to Him mouth to mouth.
- Moshe spoke with Him face to face, as is written 'And God spoke to Moshe face to face"; to Bil'am He spoke only through parables, as is said, 'He took up his parable and said.'
Bil'am had three qualities that Moshe lacked:
- Moshe
knew not who spoke to him, but Bil'am knew who spoke to him, as is written, 'Utters
the hearer of Godly saying who envisages a vision of Shaddai'.
- Moshe
did not know when God spoke to him; Bil'am knew when The Holy One, Blessed Be
He, spoke to him, as is written, 'Who knows the knowledge of the Most High'.
A parable was spun: A king's cook knows what is on the king's table and how
much the king spends on his table. So did Bil'am know what The Holy One,
Blessed Be He, was going to say to him.
- Bil'am
would speak with Him whenever he so desired, as is written, 'Bowed, but with
eyes uncovered' - he would fall on his face and immediately his eyes would
be uncovered in respect to his request; Moshe did not speak with Him whenever
he pleased.
- Rabbi
Shim'on said: Moshe, too, would speak with Him whenever he wished, as is
written 'And when Moshe would enter the Tent of Appointment to speak with
him' - he would immediately hear the voice speaking to him."
In the Yalkut Shimoni (V'Zot Ha-beracha 247:966), we find a somewhat different presentation of the comparison:
"There arose no further prophet in Israel like Moshe' - in Israel there arose no prophet the equal of Moshe, but among the nations there did arise one. And who was that? Bil'am the son of Be'or. But there are differences between the prophecy of Moshe and the prophecy of Bil'am son of Be'or:
- Moshe
did not know who was speaking with him; Bil'am knew who was speaking with him,
as is written, 'utters the hearer of godly sayings'.
- Moshe did not know when God would speak with him before He spoke; Bil'am knew when God would speak to him, as is written, 'Who knows the knowledge of the Most High'.
- Moshe did not speak with Him unless he was standing, as is written, 'And you stand here with Me'; Bil'am spoke with Him while prostrate, as is written, 'Envisages a vision of Shaddai, bowed, but with eyes uncovered'. This may be compared to a king's cook who knows how much the king spends on his table."
In Midrash Rabba, separation is made between those characteristics which make Moshe's prophecy superior - although here too the Midrash does not ignore elements of Bil'am's prophecy which make it the more important. In contrast to this, the comparison drawn by the Yalkut Shimoni tips the scales in favor of Bil'am.
The tension between the prophecy of Moshe and
that of Bil'am appears to be the background for the Rashi's commentary on Vayikra
1:1 - although there is no explicit reference to the diminutive aleph:
"And He called to Moshe" -
All statements and all declarations and all commandments were preceded by a
call, a term of affection, the idiom used with reference to the angels, as is
written (Isaiah 6:3) 'And they called
one to the other'; but to the prophets of the nations of the world He
reveals Himself with expressions connoting the temporary and the impure,
as is written, 'Now God did encounter Bil'am'.
Rashi contrasts "Vayikra" to "Vayiker" - without overt reference to the Masorah.
In my opinion, the diminutive aleph opens an interesting window through which we can observe the difference between the prophecy of Moshe, the greatest of all Israel's prophets ("There arose no further prophet in Israel like Moshe') and the prophecy of Bil'am, greatest of non-Israelite prophets, and perhaps, via these two prophets, we can discern the difference between Israel and the nations.
In Midrash Rabba the (almost) equal
opportunity given Bil'am is presented as an opportunity given the nations of
the world "so that they have no excuse" - but priority is given by
The Holy One, Blessed Be He, to Moshe. In the Yalkut, however, Bil'am is
presented as having a qualitative starting edge over Moshe.
The Baal Ha'Turim paints a Moshe as a humble man who does not see himself intrinsically any better than Bil'am, but The Holy One, Blessed Be He, grants him an advantage, and the 'compromise" (diminutive aleph) is a result of dialogue between The Holy One, Blessed Be He, and Moshe.
The author of the Kli Yakar presents the two as equals in terms of basic God-given attributes; Moshe reaches a higher plane through his own efforts, not through divine favoritism.
It seems to me that these approaches parallel the differences between those who see the concept "Chosen People" as an innate trait, a kind of divine grace -- and those who believe in the basic and intrinsic equality of all men created in His image. The election of the Jewish people, according to this approach is first and foremost an opportunity and a challenge - a little aleph, but great responsibility.
Pinchas Leiser, editor of Shabbat Shalom,
is a psychologist.
"Where ['asher'] a leader sins" ('Asher nasi yech'ta'' is the subject of
multiple translations - 'when a leader sins', 'where a leader
sins', 'a leader who sins' etc., thus making possible the ensuing derashot.)
- The Ethics of Government, Between Reality And Hope
"Where ['asher'] a leader sins" related to "Ashrei" - praiseworthy. Praiseworthy is the generation whose leader is assiduous about bringing offerings of atonement for his unintentional sins; how much more so does he regret his intentional transgressions.
In all the other cases, it is written, "If the anointed
priest sins", "If the entire community of Israel errs' - but
regarding the leader it says, "When the leader sins".
This difference is the subject of a most penetrating insight. Every Jew, even the anointed priest, even the entire assembly of Israel, is liable to sin - although this is neither logically nor realistically inevitable. Ergo, the term "if". But the leader will certainly sin. Why? Because he is a leader; leadership has the inherent tendency to ruin and corrupt the person. Therefore, the Torah does not discuss the possible event (if a leader should sin), but accepts the assumption that "when the leader sins", because the leader will certainly sin. Rule and reign without the leader slipping into sin is impossible. This is the Torah's general attitude to power: It recognizes it and its authority - but 'respect it and suspect it.'
(From Comments on the Weekly Portion, Yeshaaya
Leibowitz, z"l)
The Egyptians worshipped the constellation "Lamb'. Therefore they forbade the slaughter of sheep and abominated shepherds. There were sects of "Tsaaba" (idolaters whose center was in Babylonia) who worshipped demons, believing that they appeared in the form of goats, and therefore they called the demons se'irim' - 'hairy goat demons', and subsequently there were sects which forbade the consumption of goats. Even in our day one finds the Hindus who do not slaughter cattle at all. In order to erase the traces of these fallacious doctrines, we were commanded to offer up to Him these three species in particular, from the flock, from the herd, and from the sheep, so that the act which they considered the height of rebellion was chosen to be the instrument of approaching God; with that act [of sacrificing those animals] sins are atoned for. By going to the opposite extreme, those evil doctrines, which are sicknesses of the soul, are cured.
(Rambam, Guide
of the Perplexed, Part III, Chap. 46)
It was taught in a Barayta of Rabbi Eliezer: The Scroll of Esther was composed with the Holy Spirit, as is written (Esther 6): "And Haman said in his heart."
Rabbi Akiva said: Esther was composed with the Holy Sprit, as is written
(Esther 2) "And the matter became
known to Mordecai".
Rabbi Yossi ben Dormaskis said: Esther was composed with the Holy Sprit,
as is written (Esther 9) "And
they did not partake of the spoils."
Shmuel said: If I were present [among the above Tannaim] I would have
said something superior to all their proofs. It is said "kiymu
v'kiblu" - "they fulfilled and accepted" - they
fulfilled above that which they accepted below.
(Megillah 7a)
Editorial
Board: Pinchas Leiser (Editor), Miriam Fine (Coordinator), Itzhak
Frankenthal and Dr. Menachem Klein
Translation:
Kadish Goldberg
This
weekly publication was made possible by private donors
To
our readers:
We will be happy to have you actively participate in "Shabbat Shalom" by:
· Letters to the editor
· Publication of Divrei Torah (in coordination with the editorial board)
For details, contact Miriam Fine (053-920206)
If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.
Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.
US or British tax-exempt contributions to OzveShalom may be made through the New Israel Fund or through P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc.
Contributions should be marked as donor-advised to OzveShalom/Netivot Shalom, the Shabbat Shalom project.
New Israel Fund, POB 53410, Jerusalem 91534 (Please include Israeli address and telephone number)
New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA
New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, United Kingdom (British tax exemption)
P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA
About us:
Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts which have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.
Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.
Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom's programs include both educational and protest activities. Seminars, lectures, workshops, conferences and weekend programs are held for students, educators and families, as well as joint seminars for Jews, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. Protest activities focus on issues of human rights, co-existence between Jews and Arabs, and responses to issues of particular religious relevance.
9,000 copies of a 4 page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il.
Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom's educational forums draw people of different backgrounds, secular and religious, who are keen to deepen their Jewish knowledge and to hear an alternative religious standpoint on the subjects of peace and social issues.
Oz Veshalom-Netivot
Shalom fills an ideological vacuum in Israel's society. Committed both to
Jewish tradition and observance, and to the furthering of peace and
coexistence, the movement is in a unique position to engage in dialogue with
the secular left and the religious right, with Israeli Arabs and with
Palestinians.
Our activities are funded by donations and are organized by one part time employee.
OzveShalom/Netivot Shalom Tel./Fax 972-2-5664218
Pob 4433 Email: ozshalom@netvision.net.il
Jerusalem 94310, Israel www. netivot-shalom.org.il