Parshat Vayikra

Now if his hand cannot attain two turteldoves or two young pigeons,

He is to bring as his offering for what he sinned a tenth of an efah of flour for an offense-offering; he is not to put on it any oil,

He is not to place on it any frankincense, for it is an offense-offering

 

A tenth of an efah- A person's consumption for a single day.

(Ibn Ezra ibid, ibid)

 

Beloved is this mitzvah when performed in its proper time, not delaying it until he becomes wealthy and is able to bring a sheep or goat. And so with evaluation [of a person's worth], he gives a selah immediately and does not wait until he becomes wealthy and brings five selaim.

(Hizkuni, ibid, ibid)

 

For the offense that he has committed - Let us compare the following: "And that concerning which he has sinned from the sanctum" (5:16); "forfeits his life" [lit. "sins against his life"] (Proverbs 20:2); and "forfeits his life" (Habakkuk 2:10). In these passages, the subject of the verb "to sin" is not the sin itself, but that which has been flawed by the sin: an object against which man has sinned and damaged by the sin. This then is the meaning of "his offering for which he sinned": The expression of proximity to God which he forfeited by his transgression.

(R. Shimshon Rafael Hirsch Ibid, ibid)

 

 

A fragrant odor

Yoel Oppenheimer

At the center of the national worship of God was the offering of sacrifices in the Tabernacle and in the Temple. Following the destruction of the Temple over 2000 years ago, prayer -  "worship in the heart" - supplanted sacrifices. Because of this, sacrifices became a strange concept for most of us. Today we find it difficult to comprehend the connection between the slaughtering of an animal and the pouring of its blood onto the altar, and worship of the Creator. In order to understand the inner essence of the sacrifices, we must answer two basic questions. Perhaps through the clarification of these questions, we can make our prayers more meaningful.

 

What is expected of the person who offers a sacrifice?

The prophet Isaiah admonishes the people of Israel: "What need have I of all your sacrifices, says the Lord... Bring no more vain oblations, incense is offensive to Me... Even though you pray at length, I will not listen. Your hands are stained with crime: [What, then, does God request?] Wash yourselves clean, put your evil doings away from My sight, cease to do evil." True sacrifice is dependent upon man's spiritual level; it is not lip service or a mechanical ritual act, but rather spiritual improvement. King David, in his Book of Psalms, emphasizes this idea: "Who may ascend the mountain of the Lord, and who may stand on His holy place? He who has clean hands and pure heart, who has not taken a false oath by My life or sworn deceitfully" [one who is whole in all respects: action, thought, and speech (RaDaK)]. In summation, the bringing of the sacrifice is intended to bring man to a proper and holy condition.

Most offerings are brought by the sinner as part of a process of repentance and atonement. The basic intent of bringing the sacrifices flows from the internalization of the understanding that actually the sinner should have been punished for his sin. The sacrifice process shifts the process from the person to an animal and makes it possible for the person to repent. The author of "Maor VaShemesh" (Poland, 18^th cent.) explains: "Because the person who brings the offering, upon seeing the slaughter of the animal and sprinkling of its blood [on the altar], application of incense and then consummation by fire, he would think that it would have been proper that all this should have done to him because of his transgressions, and his heart is broken to the point of willingness to offer his soul for the Holy Name." In addition, the sacrifice of the animal symbolizes man's desire to eradicate the "animal" forces within him, those that are the source of the various passions.

 

For whom are the sacrifices intended?

Could it possibly be that the Holy One, blessed be He, needs the offering for himself, as is the case in eastern cultures where food and other needs are brought to the gods? In this respect it is written in Psalms "Were I hungry I would not tell you, for mine is the world and all it holds." Even were we to presume that the sacrifice does serve some need (hunger) of the Holy One - something which, of course, totally contradicts every Jewish theological perception - even then He would not ask anything of human beings, because all the universe is the Lord's, and how can little and finite man help Him? We must conclude that the sacrifice is intended for the good of man himself, and not for the good of the Creator. Therefore, the words "A fragrant odor for the Lord", does not refer to some pleasure which the Lord derives from the odor of the burning offering, but to the process which occurs in the soul of the person who brings the sacrifice. If this process is properly executed, then the offering will find favor and will bring true satisfaction [nichoach - fragrant - is understood by Rashi as meaning nachat ruach -"satisfaction, pleasure"] to the Holy One. Therefore the Talmud (Menachot 110a) explains: It is written regarding the burnt offering of a beast [in the passage under discussion] "a fragrant odor", and with regard to the burnt offering of a fowl: "an offering by fire a fragrant odor to the Lord (Vayikra 1), and with the mincha [meal offering]: a fire offering of fragrant odor for God (Vayikra 2). To teach you: It is the same whether one offers much or little, as long as he directs his heart to heaven". In other words, the quality of the observance of the mitzvah is not dependent upon the size of the animal offered upon the altar, but upon the proper intention of the supplicant's heart.

But the concept "nachat ruach" has a deeper and wider meaning. There are always two tracks open to us in our relationship to the other. The first is based upon personal gain. Each step is measured accord to its worthwhileness in fulfilling personal needs, which center about achieving greater pleasure or avoidance of suffering. This track serves only the egoistic drives of the person, with no consideration of the needs of the other (either another person or the Holy One Himself). Observance of mitzvoth, according to this approach, is based upon fear of punishment and anticipation of reward - whether in terms of human relationships or of divine reward in this or the next world. This attitude is termed by the Sages "service out of other motives"; it certainly testifies to a lower level of spiritual, emotional, and moral development.

The second track proposes to set aside self-love and to concentrate on the benefit of the other. This track begins with the attempt to prevent anything which may cause pain to the other. Therefore Hillel paraphrased "Love your fellow as yourself" with: "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow"! And when one succeeds and rises yet higher, he is able to act on the level of a single intention, and that is to give the other a feeling of good and wholeness, or, in other words - nachat ruach. Closeness to God - and also to the other - is achieved by sacrifice, that is to say, by concentration on the needs of the other and giving priority to the other's needs - or God's will - over his own needs, and this is the desired intent in the worship of God, that every act or mitzvah be only "to do nachat ruach before Him", that our behavior in this world give Him cause for joy and satisfaction.

Yoel Oppenheimer is a physician, lives in Mitzpeh Netofah,, and is a founder of the "Ohr P'nimi" organization for dissemination of the teachings of Rav Ashlag

 

Who is the Adam (Person) Who Offers Sacrifice?

Adam includes converts who take the covenant upon themselves as does Israel, including non-Jews who do so. Even though adam here means [a member of] Israel, later in the verse we find the word mikem [from you], which means from you but not from the nations of the world. Together they constitute an instance of one exclusionary phrase being followed by another. [According to the hermeneutic rule] such a double exclusion must imply the inclusion of non-Jews. Similarly, [we apply this rule to the repetitive expression] ish ish ("every man and man"), saying that it includes non-Jews, that they make vows and pledges like Israelites.

(Hizkuni Vayikra 1:2)

 

"Jerusalem was Destroyed Because of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza"

There was an incident involving a certain man whose friend was called "Kamtza" and whose enemy was called "Bar Kamtza." He made a feast, and told his servant: "Bring me Kamtza." He went and [mistakenly] brought him Bar Kamtza. He came and discovered him [Bar Kamtza] sitting [at the feast]. He said to him: "Look, you hate me, what are you doing here? Get up and leave!" He said to him: "Since I am already here, leave me alone, and I will pay you the cost of whatever I eat and drink." He told him: "No!"... "I will pay the cost of your entire feast!"... "No!" They grabbed him by the hand, stood him up, and took him out.

Bar Kamtza said: Since there were sages sitting there and did not protest - they are untroubled [by my humiliation] - I will go and inform on them to the king. He came to the Emperor and told him: "The Jews have rebelled against you"... The Emperor said, "Who can know?

He told the Emperor: Send them an offering and see if they will sacrifice it.

He went and sent a calf with him (Bar Kamtza). On the way, Bar Kamtza mutilated its lip - others say he mutilated the external membrane of the eye - a place that is considered a flaw for us [rendering the animal unfit for sacrifice] but not for them [according to Roman ritual law].

The Sages said it should be sacrificed to preserve the peace of the kingdom. Rabbi Zekhariyah ben Avikolus said to them: "[People] will say, 'unfit animals are sacrificed at the altar!?'"

They said that Bar Kamtza should be killed, so that he would not go and tell the king, Rabbi Zekhariyah told them: "People will say: 'One who blemishes a consecrated animal is to be killed?!'"

Rabbi Yokhanan said: Rabbi Zekhariyah ben Avikolus's humility destroyed our house, burned our temple, and banished us from our land."

(Gittin 55b-56a).

 

More on "a fragrant odor"

A fragrant odor - Since whatever is placed on the fire is consumed and becomes ash, and all that remains of it is the odor, therefore does it say "reyach nichoach"– "a fragrant odor", and the word rayach [usually translated as 'fragrant'] is related to the word 'menucha' - 'rest', and in this context it refers to the resting of the object, as we have explained [in the coming quotes], not, forefend, that the Lord smells the scent, but that the Lord desires the righteous act, everyone who acts justly gives his Maker, as it were, 'nachat ruach' , the satisfaction of His will being done, as we have said [see coming quotes].

(R. Yitzchak Shmuel Reggio, Shemot 28:18)

 

And on the seventh day He rested - The word 'menucha' - 'rest'- does not refer to one who ceased activity because of fatigue, but rather to cessation of movement, and can therefore be applied even to an inanimate subject, as in the case of "and the ark rested" (Bereishit 8:4) and 'fatigue' is not applicable to something that lacks feeling, but it means resting after having been moved, and this movement can be of two sorts, physical and spiritual, and as a rule the spiritual movement and the rest which follows is movement of the inner desire, for someone who desires something as long as the objective exists but he has not achieved it, the objective is as though it was being moved back and forth, and when the objective is attained, it finds rest, and in this borrowed sense the Torah says "And He rested on the seventh day", [...] meaning that when He stopped His work, his supreme will, as it were, rested, teaching that with great desire He created the universe.

(Reggio, Shemot 20:11).

 

And the Lord smelled the fragrant odor - Forefend [that we should understand] that He be affected by the odor, but the meaning of this flowery phrase is as follows: odor is that impression which remains after [an object's] being hidden or having disappeared from the other senses, and one who remembers preserves impressions of things after they have disappeared from the senses, therefore 'reyach' - 'odor'- in the holy tongue is termed 'zecher v'azkara' - 'memory and remembrance', and the sense of smell is equivalent to memory, as is written 'mazkir levona' 'remembrance of frankincense' rather that 'burning of frankincense', and now [we can understand] "And He smelled the fragrant odor", meaning that He remembered the offering and the person who offered it favorably.                        (Reggio, Bereishit 8:21)

 

There are sins which oblige the sinner to bring an offering entitled "raised and lowered" - meaning, if he is wealthy, he offers an costly offering, a sheep: "But if his means do not suffice for a sheep, he shall bring to the Lord, as his penalty for that of which he is guilty, two turtledoves or two pigeons" (Vayikra 5:7), and if he lacks even this: "He shall bring for his offering of that of which he is guilty a tenth of an epha of choice flour."

"Once a woman brought to the Temple a kometz [a handful] of choice flour, and the priest scorned her, saying: What are they offering? What is there to eat? The priest dreamt: Do not scorn her, for it is as if she had offered her soul."

(Vayikra Rabba 3:5)

 

The pauper's meager offering is equal in value to the precious offering of the rich.

(A. Stahl, "Shabbat B'Shabbato" vol. II, p.11)

 

Said R. Abahu: Let a person always be of the pursued and not of the pursuers, because there are no birds pursued more than the dove and its young, and Scripture approved them for offering on the altar.

(Bavli, Bava Kama 93a)

 

 

Asher Nasi Yehta: Governmental Ethics - Reality and Hope

Asher nasi yehta [when a chieftain sins] as in ashrei ["happy is"], happy is the generation whose chieftain takes care to bring a proprietary sacrifice for his errors, all the more so if he shows contrition for his deliberate offenses.

 (Rashi VaYikra 4:22, following Horayot 10b and Sifra 5:1)

 

In all the other cases it says, if the anointed priest sins, if the entire congregation of Israel errs - but regarding the chieftain it says: When a chieftain sins.

Our traditional texts say something very penetrating regarding this. Every soul in Israel, even the anointed priest, even the entire community - may sin. However, this does not necessarily have to occur. That is why it says if. The chieftain, however, will certainly sin. Why? Because he is the chieftain, and the wielding of governmental power is itself sufficient to corrupt a man. Therefore, the Torah does not speak of this as a possible situation ("if a chieftain sins") but rather establishes it from the start: when a chieftain sins - it is a certainty that he will sin. There can be no chieftainship, no regime, in which he who holds power does not sin or transgress. Such is the Torah's general attitude towards political power: The Torah recognizes it and its authority, but - "Honor it and be suspicious of it."

 (From Yeshayahu Leibowitz z"l He'arot le'Parshiyotr Ha'Shavua)

 

Humility is a prerequisite for serving god

"And if a person offends and does any one of all the commands of the Lord that should not be done and does not know and is guilty". It is known that the more a person [truly] worships the Holy One, blessed be He, the more he sees himself as insignificant as compared to the greatness of the Creator. But when one performs a mitzvah, and assumes that he is serving the Lord, this mitzvah is not taken into consideration, and this is the meaning of the passage "And if a person offends", that is to say: What is the offense? "He does any one of all the commands of the Lord that should not be done and does not know and is guilty" meaning that this mitzvah is considered as having not been done, while he thinks that that he has served God properly, he is guilty.

(From "Kedushat Levi", R. Levi Yitzchak of Berdichev's commentary on the Torah}

 

 

Readers react (To Dalia Marx's article, Terumah 5773)

Three relevant thoughts came to mind as I read Dalia Marx's intriguing thoughts on Parashat Teruma.                                                                                                                                                          1. The wise-hearted female weavers in the Torah are judged negatively by R. Eliezer (Yerushalmi, Sotah, Chap. 3): "A woman's wisdom is with the spindle alone", and therefore he refuses to respond to a woman's question on Torah matters. In the Chapters of R. Eliezer, a later composition attributed to him, this same passage is expounded within the framework of praise for the women of Israel, who wove for the Tabernacle and also refused to donate their golden ornaments for the calf, and therefore their reward in this world is the observance of Rosh Chodesh, and in the world to come they will merit renewal.

2. The tradition according to which different images were woven into the two sides of the curtain reminds me of Tamar Ross's story about a synagogue which had a mechitsah (division) on which was embroidered a passage that could be read only from the men's section. Is it not interesting how the parochet, which separated and prevented approach to the Holy Ark, developed not only into the curtain which covers the Holy Ark in our synagogue, but also into a divider.

3.      Another development of the parochet is the pargod, the divider in the celestial spheres. In the poem"Elah Ezkera", stains of the martyrs' blood appear on the pargod. And in the Bavli (Yoma 57a) R. Eliezer b. R. Yossi sees the Temple parochet in Rome, and upon it drops of blood, perhaps the blood of the sacrifices.

Very well done,

Leah Shakdiel, Yerucham

 

 

 

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.

4,500 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.

Shabbat Shalom is available on our website: www.netivot-shalom.org.il

For responses and arranging to write for Shabbat Shalom: pleiser@netvision.net.il