AND IF HIS OFFERING IS [BROUGHT] FROM THE FLOCK FROM SHEEP OR FROM GOATS AS A BURNT OFFERING HE SHALL SACRIFICE IT AN UNBLEMISHED MALE. AND HE SHALL SLAUGHTER IT ON THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE ALTAR, BEFORE THE LORD. AND AARON'S DESCENDANTS, THE PRIESTS, SHALL DASH ITS BLOOD UPON THE ALTAR, AROUND.

(Vayikra 1:11-12)

 

It is better to listen to the reason they give for them [for the sacrifices], that since human deeds involve thought, speech, and action, God commanded them that when someone sins he should bring a sacrifice. He should place his hands upon it - action; he confesses with his mouth - speech; and he should burn the entrails and the kidneys, which are the instruments of thought and desire, the legs symbolize the person's hands and feet, which perform all of his work, and he shall throw the blood on the altar, symbolizing the blood of his soul, so that while he does all this the person will think about how he sinned against his God with his body and soul, and that it would be appropriate that his own blood be spilled and his own body be burned, if not for the grace of the Creator who accepted the sacrifice as a replacement and an atonement, that it be as blood in place of his blood, life for life. The main organs of the sacrifice are in place of his main organs, and the portions are given to sustain the teachers of Torah who will pray for him. The daily sacrifice [is offered], because every day there are many [people] who cannot avoid sinning. These words are accepted and stir the heart as words of aggadah.

(RaMBaN Vayikra 1:9)

 

Do not try to confound this explanation, asking how we could ever bring a voluntary sacrifice. This explanation also works for voluntary sacrifices, since we said that the sacrifice symbolizes the casting down of bodies and the raising up of souls, so that even if he did not knowingly sin, he who offers the sacrifice will still benefit from its message.

(Sefer HaHinukh, commandment 95)

 

Aaron's descendants, the priests, shall dash its blood - The burnt offering and the peace offering call for throwing the blood into a vessel. They wanted many people to merit performing the commandment, so that one would throw [blod] on this corner [of the altar], and another would throw on that corner of the altar. However, for the sin offering given outside (4:7) blood was sprinkled from the finger, and it would not be good manners for one person to stick his finger into blood into which someone else had already dipped his finger - something that would disgust his fellow. So it is written [in the singular], and the priest shall give of the blood on the corners of altar all around.

(Meshekh Hokhma 1:11)

 

 

Calling - a Term of Affection

Danny Segal

And He called to Moses, and the Lord spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting, saying - Every [time God communicated with Moses, whether it was represented by the expression], And He spoke, or and He said, or, and He commanded, it was always preceded by [God] calling [to Moses by name] (Torat Kohanim 1:2-3). [Called] is an expression of affection, the [same] expression is employed by the ministering angels [when addressing each other], as it says, And one called to the other... (Isaiah 6:3). (Rashi on Vayikra 1:1, Judaica Press translation)

Some students told me of a special teacher who had taught them. She would spend an entire hour taking attendance at the beginning of each week: "Are you here? Wonderful! Good Morning... How are you?... How was Shabbat?... You're here? Charming! What are you wearing? How beautiful! Did you travel during vacation?..." Every utterance, every statement, and every request was prefaced with an expression of affection.

It is not happenstance that Rashi begins his commentary on Vayikra in this way. He knows that these pupils have just entered the schools' gates, and, according to ancient tradition, in their very first lesson they will begin the study of Sefer Vayikra. Their very first encounter with their teacher - and their teacher's very first encounter with them, will be devoted to this verse...

Rabbi Yossa said: Why do we begin [the instruction of] children with Torat Kohanim [a traditional name for Vayikra] rather than with Bereishit?

Because the Holy One blessed be He said: The sacrifices are pure and the children are pure; let the pure ones come and busy themselves with pure things. (Pesikta DeRabbi Kahana 6)

If the pupils really begin here, then Rashi is trying to address them, and perhaps even more, he wants to address their teachers - offering them guidance that stresses the gentleness required in educators. It is the first day of school; there is a lot of noise, chaos, eyes still searching for mother, and many worries: "Who will sit next to me? What kind of sandwich did they pack for me? Will they let me play with them in recess? When will this end so we can go home?"

So - before you start making statements and demands, Rashi asks you to read the names - but to do so genuinely. Don't forget to say "Good morning"! "How are you doing?" "How does everyone feel?"

Rashi continues speaking to the teachers of the young pupils:

And He called to Moses... One might think that there was a call for the breaks [between sections of the prophecy]. Scripture, therefore, states, "and [the Lord] spoke [to him]," [denoting that] only for speech, was there a call, but not for the breaks. What was the purpose of these breaks? To give Moses a pause for contemplation between one passage and the next, and between one subject and another. [And if this pause for contemplation was given to the great Moses when being taught by God, then] how much more [necessary is it] for an ordinary person learning [Torah] from another ordinary person [to be allowed pauses between sections and subjects, to carefully contemplate and understand the material being learned].

Rashi wonders about the repetition and He called... and the Lord spoke. He explains that the call was a general invitation, a request for a meeting, but speech did not continue uninterrupted throughout the encounter. There were breaks, simple moments of mutual silence... for thought... for response... for contemplation. It is as if Rashi heard our thoughts coming from the future - "They don't need a recess," "We can manage to learn a bit more," "It's a waste of time," - and he responds: if our rabbi Moses needed a break how much more [necessary is it] for an ordinary person learning [Torah] from another ordinary person...

Rashi is not the only one to address us. RaMBaM's famous comments about the sacrifices are more than just an historical thesis:

It is impossible to switch suddenly from one opposite to the other. Human nature makes it impossible for someone to suddenly abandon his habits...

It takes time to adjust. There is also someone on the other side - where does he come from? What does he need in order to change? What is he going through five minutes before he steps into the classroom?

The issue is taken up by the author of the Shulhan Arukh. He takes pains to explain to us that there is supposed to be a dialogue here, something in which two sides participate:

When should one begin teaching one's child? When he begins to talk, start teaching him: [Moses] commanded the Torah to us, etc.(Devarim 33:4), and the first verse of the Shema passage (Devarim 6:4), and afterwards he should teach him little by little until he is about six or seven years old, and then he should be taken to teachers of young children. (Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 245)

One does not teach from the age when the child is capable of hearing; it is not a matter of delivering one-sided speeches. One must wait until the child can speak. If he can respond and participate, he may be taught.

"When he begins to talk, start teaching him."

However, Rashi is not only addressing children and their teachers; it seems he is also speaking to us.

"[Called] is an expression of affection, the [same] expression employed by the ministering angels [when addressing each other], as it says, And one called to the other... " (Isaiah 6:3). And we continue the verse from Isaiah: And one called to the other, saying, ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts His glory fills all the earth.'" Rashi tells us to look from the verse in Isaiah back at the opening verse of Vayikra.

And He called to Moses - three words [in the Hebrew] that contain an entire book. God speaks to man. There is a connection. True, it could have appeared absolutely distant - Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts... Holy, holy, holy - transcendent, distant, other...

However - the book of Vayikra wants to tell us - His glory fills all the earth. He is here, do not be mistaken in your understanding of holiness...

Not Holy, holy, holy but rather, and you shall be holy - for I am holy. This is not easy to accept - not then and not today.

For when we were little it still sounded logical; as child-scholars there was nothing more natural for us than this dialogue taking place in the world. We spoke with God and announced that He was the most righteous, and stronger than all of them, and He watched over us. We asked Him for a bicycle; we asked for snow to fall so that we could miss school, we shared all our secrets with Him.

And then we grew up.

And the book that had been the most simple and beloved became more complicated for us. We ask questions about it; we are less open and attentive to the conversation. RaMBaM's words from the Guide for the Perplexed are applicable to us as well:

It is impossible to switch suddenly from one opposite to the other. Human nature makes it impossible for someone to suddenly abandon his habits...

To enter the synagogue from the office, from a world of pure reason, of deliberations, negotiations, interests... from an economic world of profit and loss, of balance sheets to Shabbat, Shemitah... and then suddenly: And He called to Moses... So the midrash offers important advice:

Let the pure ones come and busy themselves with pure things.

Come pure! Put aside some of your habits, your overly sophisticated thoughts, leave them in the basket by the door.

Be a little childish, come pure - otherwise, you will miss out on the book.

So Rashi addresses the children, the teachers, the students and the adults, with a word directed to all, with one central request - come pure.

And perhaps, as Rachel put it, if we come in that state we will also be able to arrive at a different conversation, one of true attentiveness and true speech.

Perhaps Shlonsky was referring to that kind of conversation in his very beautiful poem, Zeh La'zeh ["Each to the Other"]

 

Zeh La'zeh

A. Shlonsky

The generation that learned

To make itself heard

But forgot to listen.

That plunged the depths

But did not fly;

Here it stands before you

In the tattered rags of its wealth.

Attentive and attended to, while no one speaks

There had been no one from its birth.

 

How did they open,

How did they open in the course of night,

The gates?

 

Hey! You who awaits there,

From the other side

Thirsty for my calling voice

As it in turn thirsts for a listening ear

And knows and witnesses.

It was not I who knocked

It was not I who called you

Today we called to each other.

Danny Segal lives in Alon. He teaches in the Israeli Academy for Leadership located in that settlement, and in Kolot in Jerusalem.

 

Who is Dependent Upon Whom: The Leadership Upon the People or Vice Versa?

If it is the anointed priest who has incurred guilt, le'ashmat ha'am [so that blame falls upon the people] (4:8). What is the meaning of the article le' in this verse?

There are two approaches to understanding this matter, which may be expressed in the words of the Sages: Does the generation - that is to say, the social, cultural and moral character of a certain population at a certain time - go according to the Prince (i.e., does the leadership determine the people's character)? Or does the Prince go with the people (the leadership is appropriate to the people)? Or as the nations of the world are wont to say, does each nation get the leaders it deserves?

And so, there are two interpretations of if it is the anointed priest who has incurred guilt, le'ashmat ha'am. It can mean that the priest's unintentional sin (i.e., the leadership's mistakes) cause the people to sin as well. That is to say, the sin of the anointed priest also incurs guilt for the people. Or it can be interpreted as saying that the people cause the priest to sin. That is to say, he sins because the people sins.

This returns us to a problem of profound social-political significance: Are the generation's faults to be blamed on the leadership? Or should we say that the character of the leadership reflects the character of the people? There is an important practical consequence to the way we answer these questions. In the one case, we can improve a situation by changing the leadership. In the other case, the people cannot be changed, and improvement would be dependent upon everyone's improving himself.

(Y. Leibowitz, He'arot le'Parshiyot Ha'shavu'a)

 

Remember what Amalek did to you - What should be remembered?

And Timna was a concubine to Eliphaz, son of Esau, and she bore to Eliphaz, Amalek. These are the sons of Adah, the wife of Esau. (Bereishit 36:12)

...and Lotan's sister was Timna (Bereishit 36:22)

and Lotan's sister was Timna - Who was she? Timna was the daughter of kings, as it is written; the aluf [chief] of Lotan, the aluf of Timna (Bereishit 36), and every aluf was an uncrowned king.

She asked to convert.

She went to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but they would not accept her.

[So] she went and became a concubine to Esau's son, Elifaz.

She said: "It is better for me to be a maidservant to this people than to be a matron of another nation."

Amalek, which caused trouble to Israel, descended from her.

What was the reason? Because they should not have rebuffed her.

(Sanhedrin 99b)

 

Now Amalek Came ... did not stand in awe of God

Only Amalek was not afraid; did not stand in awe of God. He alone inherited the character of that nation which chose as its inheritance the sword and which seeks glory in the blood-soaked laurel wreathes; the nation which strives to realize the motto "we will make for ourselves a name." (Bereishit 11:4) with which the aged Nimrod begins the history of the world. And how is this to be achieved? By destroying international peace and human happiness.

(Rabbi S.R. Hirsch on Shemot 17, 8)

 

Readers respond

Dr. Dalia Marx wrote well (Shabbat Shalom issue 536) about her theory of the various stages of the connection between God and human beings, and of the various conduits through which that connection took place, including the Urim and Tumim that are mentioned in parashat Tetzaveh. She was also right to point to the feeling of existential loneliness from which we might suffer today due to the haziness of that connection today.

Despite all of that, I am perplexed. When relating to the spiritual shift described in the famous story of tanuro shel ahna'i in Bava Metzia, Dr. Marx skipped an entire and important spiritual stage. True, the story does present us with the Talmudic disavowal of the bat kol's authority as a conduit for God's communications to us, but at the same time it offers a replacement - engagement in learning Torah and the halakhic process. That is the fifth stage in the development of divine-human communications, and I say that, to a degree, that conduit is still effective today. Why only "to a certain degree"? Because today we are at "stage number five-and-a-half." Dr. Marx was correct to cite attending to natural phenomena and attending to interpersonal phenomena as means for hearing God's voice. However: Torah study, both of halakhah and of aggadah, also serves as a medium for God's voice. I would go so far as to say that Torah study is the principal means for hearing God's voice. However, for those many of us who have - for better or worse - been swayed by the winds of modernity, the matter has become complicated. The interpretive moment and its personal, subjective aspect are most salient for us, and we lack confidence in our having correctly understood the Torah's message - the Divine message - through our study. However, even if there is no straight and direct path for communication with God, there is, in any event, a path.

Gershom (George) Bernard, Cincinnati/Jerusalem

 

Dr. Dalia Marx, author of the article, responds:

I can only agree with most of what Rabbi Bernard has written. The study of Torah in all of its varied aspects and revelations is, of course, a central means for hearing God's voice. However, that claim must be qualified; Torah study is only part of the means at our disposal in the "fifth stage." It is very dangerous to place study at the center of Jewish practice and to make it the principal means for communication with God. One who does this leaves out tens of generation of women who were excluded from serious scholarship, as well as others unversed in Torah or incapable of engaging in its study.

I thank Rabbi Bernard for emphasizing the dimension of Torah study, to which many of us devote our days and our nights. However, I would mention additional modes for communication with God: prayer, good deeds, hearing the voice of God in nature and art, and hearing His plea in moments of kindness between human beings.

That is why I want to say that we have no direct means for communication with God, but, thank God, there are many paths open before those who seek His face.

Dalia Marx, Berlin/Jerusalem

 

 

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew edition distributed in Israel $700
• English edition distributed via email $ 100

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.

In Israel, checks made out to Oz VeShalom may be sent to Oz VeShalom-P.O.B. 4433, Jerusalem 91043. Unfortunately there is no Israeli tax-exemption for local donations.

US and British tax-exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made through:

New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, Great Britain

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NEW ISRAEL FUND IS NO LONGER ACCEPTING DONATIONS UNDER $100.

PEF will also channel donations and provide a tax-exemption. Donations should be sent to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA

All contributions should be marked as donor-advised to Oz ve'Shalom, the Shabbat Shalom project.

 

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 that 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.

5,000 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.