[Par-lite] for Parshat Vayikra - shiur
Menachem Leibtag
tsc at bezeqint.net
Thu Mar 6 10:08:59 EST 2014
[we send out tzav by mistake]
*********************************************
****************
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER
[http://www.tanach.org]
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem
Leibtag
*********************************************
****************
PARSHAT VAYIKRA
Does God need our "korbanot"?
Or, would it be more correct to say that
we 'need' to bring
them, even though He doesn't need them?
In an attempt to answer this
'philosophical' question,
this week's shiur undertakes an analysis of
Parshat Vayikra to
show how its specific topic of "korbanot"
[sacrificial
offerings] relates to one of the primary
themes of the Bible.
INTRODUCTION
The Mishkan certainly emerges as a
primary topic in both
the books of Shmot and Vayikra, and hence, it
would only be
logical to assume that its underlying purpose
must be
thematically important. To appreciate that
purpose, we must
first note a very simple distinction that
explains which
details are found in each book.
In Sefer Shmot, the Torah explains how to
build the mishkan,
and hence Shmot concludes (in Parshat
Pekudei) with the story
of its assembly. In contrast, Sefer Vayikra
explains how to
use the mishkan, and hence Parshat Vayikra
begins with the
laws of the korbanot - i.e. instructions
regarding the
sacrifices that will be offered there.
Even though this distinction explains why
Sefer Vayikra
discusses korbanot in general, it does not
explain why the
Sefer begins specifically with the laws of
korban ola [the
burnt offering]; nor does it explain the
logic of the
progression from one type of korban to the
next. In our
shiur, we begin with a technical analysis of
its internal
progression - but those conclusions will help
us arrive at a
deeper understanding of the purpose of
korbanot in general.
AN OUTLINE for PARSHAT VAYIKRA
In our study questions, we suggested that
you prepare an
outline of chapters one thru five, by
identifying the primary
topic of each individual 'parshia'. The
following table
summarizes our conclusions. Before you
continue, study it
carefully (with a Chumash at hand), noting
how the section
titles provide an explanation of the
progression of its
topics.
[Note how each 'parshia' corresponds to one
line in our
chart. Note also that each asterisk ('*')
in the outline
marks the beginning of a new 'dibra', i.e.
a short
introduction for a new instruction from God
to Moshe [e.g.
"va-yedaber Hashem el Moshe..."].
Note as well how the
outline suggests a short one-line summary
for each parshia,
as well as a title for each section. See
if you agree with
those titles.]
PARSHAT VAYIKRA - THE KORBAN YACHID
===================================
I. KORBAN NEDAVA - Voluntary offerings
(chaps. 1-3)
A. Ola (the entire korban is burnt on
the mizbeiach)
1. 'bakar' - from cattle
2. 'tzon' - from sheep
3. 'of' - from fowl
B. Mincha (a flour offering)
1. 'solet' - plain flour mixed with
oil and 'levona'
2. 'ma'afeh tanur' - baked in the
oven
3. 'al machvat' - on a griddle
4. 'marcheshet' - on a pan (+ misc.
general laws)
5. 'bikkurim' - from wheat of the
early harvest
C. Shlamim (a peace offering, part is
eaten by the owners)
1. bakar - from cattle
2. tzon - from sheep
3. 'ez' - from goats
[Note the key phrase repeated many times
in this unit:
"isheh reiach nichoach
l-Hashem."]
II. KORBAN CHOVA - MANDATORY OFFERINGS
A. * CHATAT (4:1-5:13)
1. for a general transgression
[laws organized according
to violator]
a. 'par kohen mashiach' (High
Priest) - a bull
b. 'par he'elem davar' (bet din) -
a bull
c. 'se'ir nassi' (a king) - a male
goat
d. 'nefesh' (layman) a female
goat or female lamb
2. for specific transgressions ('oleh
ve-yored')
a. a rich person - a female goat
or lamb
b. a poor person - two birds
c. a very poor person - a plain
flour offering
B. * ASHAM (5:14-5:26) - animal is always
an 'ayil' (ram)
1. 'asham me'ilot' - taking from
Temple property
2. 'asham talui' - unsure if he
sinned
[Note the new dibbur at this point
/see Further iyun.]
3. * 'asham gezeilot' - stealing
from another
[Note the key phrase repeated numerous
times in this unit:
"ve-chiper alav... ve-nislach
lo."]
========================
Let's explain why we have chosen these
titles.
TWO GROUPS: NEDAVA & CHOVA
First and foremost, note how our outline
divides Parshat
Vayikra into two distinct sections: 'korbanot
nedava' =
voluntary offerings and 'korbanot chova' -
mandatory
offerings.
The first section is titled "nedava",
for if an
individual wishes to voluntarily offer a
korban to God, he has
three categories to choose from:
1) An OLA - a burnt offering [chapter one];
2) A MINCHA - a flour offering [chapter
two]; or
3) A SHLAMIM - a peace offering [chapter
three]
Note how these three groups are all
included in the first
"dibbur" - and comprise the "nedava"
[voluntary] section.
In contrast, there are instances when a
person may
transgress, thus obligating him to offer a
sin offering - be
it a "chatat" or an "asham" (depending upon
what he did
wrong).
The two categories (chapters 4 and 5)
comprise the second
section, which we titled "chova"
[obligatory].
The Chumash itself stresses a
distinction between these
two sections not only the start of a new
dibbur in 4:1, but
also the repetition of two key phrases that
appear in just
about every closing verse in the parshiot of
both sections,
stressing the primary purpose of each
respective section:
In the nedava section: "isheh reiach
nichoach l-Hashem"
["an offering of fire, a pleasing
odor to the Lord"
See 1:9,13,17; 2:2;
3:5,11,16];
In the chova section: "ve-chiper a'lav
ha-kohen... "
[the kohen shall make expiation on
his behalf..." -
See 4:26,31,35;
5:6,10,13,16,19,26]
With this background in mind, we will
now discuss the
logic behind the internal structure of each
section, to show
how (and why) the nedava section is arranged
by category of
offering and the type of animal, while the
chova section is
arranged by type of transgression committed,
and who
transgressed.
NEDAVA - take your pick
If an individual wishes to offer a
korban nedava, he must
first choose the category that reflects his
personal
preference. First of all, should he prefer
to offer the
entire animal to God, he can choose the ola
category; but
should he prefer (for either financial or
ideological reasons)
to offer flour instead, then he can choose
the mincha
category. Finally, should he prefer not only
the animal
option, but would also like to later partake
in eating from
this korban - then he can choose the shlamim
category.
Once the individual has made this
general choice of
either an ola, mincha, or shlamim - next, he
can pick the sub-
category of his choice.
For example, should one choose to offer
an ola - which is
totally consumed on the mizbeiach - then he
must choose
between cattle, sheep, or fowl.
The Torah explains these three options (in
the first three
parshiot of chapter 1), including precise
instructions
concerning how to offer each of these
animals.
Should the individual choose a mincha -
a flour offering
- instead, then he must select from one of
the five different
options for how to bake the flour,
corresponding to the five
short parshiot in chapter two. In other
words, he can present
his offering as either flour (mixed with
oil), or baked in an
oven ("ma'afe tanur), or fried on a skillet
("al machvat"), or
deep fried ("marcheshet"). Should the flour
offering be from
the wheat of the early harvest ("minchat
bikkurim"), it must
first be roasted and ground in a special
manner (see Ibn Ezra
2:14).
Finally, should he choose the shlamim
option- a peace
offering - then he must select between:
cattle ("bakar");
sheep ("kvasim"); or goats ("izim") -
corresponding to the
three individual parshiot in chapter three.
It should be noted as well that the laws
included in this
korban nedava section also discuss certain
procedural
instructions. For example, before offering
an ola or shlamim,
the owner must perform the act of 'smicha'
(see 1:4,
3:2,8,13). By doing "smicha" - i.e. resting
all his weight on
the animal - the owner symbolically transfers
his identity to
the animal. That is to say, he offers the
animal instead of
himself (see Ramban).
One could suggest that the act of smicha
reflects an
understanding that the korban serves as a
'replacement' for
the owner. This idea may be reflective of
the korban ola that
Avraham Avinu offered at the akeida - when he
offered a ram in
place of his son - "ola tachat bno" (see
Breishit 22:13).
CHOVA - if you've done something wrong
As we explained earlier, the second
category of Parshat
Vayikra discusses the "korban chova"
(chapters 4 & 5) - an
obligatory offering that must be brought by a
person should he
transgress against one of God's laws.
Therefore, this section
is organized by event, for the type of sin
committed will
determine which offering is required.
The first 'event' is an unintentional
transgression of
'any of God's mitzvot' (see 4:2 and the
header of each
consecutive parshia in chapter 4). Chazal
explain that this
refers to the unintentional violation
('shogeg') of any
prohibition of the Torah - that had the
person transgressed
intentionally ("meizid"), his punishment
would have been
'karet' (cut off from the Jewish nation).
[This offering is usually referred to as a
'chatat kavu'a'
(the fixed chatat).]
Should this transgression occur
("b'shogeg"), then the
actual animal that must be brought depends
upon who the sinner
is. If the kohen gadol (high priest) sins,
he must brings a
bull ("par"). If it is the political leader
("nasi"), he must
bring a male goat ("se'ir"). If it was
simply a commoner, he
must bring either a she-goat or lamb
("se'ira" or "kisba").
[There is also a special case of a mistaken
halachic ruling
by the 'elders' [i.e. the 'sanhedrin' - the
supreme halachic
court], which results in the entire nation
inadvertently
sinning. In this case, the members of the
sanhedrin must
bring a special chatat offering - known as
the "par he'elem
davar shel tzibur". See 4:13-21.]
In chapter five we find several
instances of specific
transgressions that require either a "chatat"
or an "asham".
The first category begins with a list of
three specific
types of transgressions, including - the case
when a person
refuses to provide witness (see 5:1), or
should one
accidentally enter the Temple (or Mishkan)
while spiritually
unclean ('tamei' / see 5:2), or should one
not keep a promise
(to do/ or not to do something) made with an
oath ('shvu'at
bitui' / see 5:4).
Should one transgress in regard to any
one of these three
cases (detailed in 5:1-4), the specific
offering that he must
bring depends on his income. If he is:
a) rich - he brings a female lamb or
she-goat;
b) 'middle class' - he can bring two
birds instead;
c) poor - he can bring a simple flour
offering.
Interestingly, this korban is categorized
as a "chatat" (see
5:6,10,13), even though the Torah uses the
word "asham"
[guilt] in reference to these acts (see 5:5).
It makes sense
to consider it a "chatat", because in the
standard case (i.e.
if the transgressor be rich) - the offering
is exactly the
same animal as the regular chatat - i.e. a
female goat or
sheep.
Furthermore, note that these psukim (i.e.
5:1-13) are
included in the same "dibbur" that began in
4:1 that discussed
the classic korban "chatat", while the new
"dibbur" that
discusses the korban "asham" only begins in
5:14!
The rabbis refer to this korban as an
"oleh ve-yored"
[lit. up and down] as this name relates to
its graduated scale
- which depends entirely upon the
individual's financial
status.
One could suggest that the Torah offers
this graduated
scale because these specific transgressions
are very common,
and hence it would become rather costly for
the average person
to offer an animal for each such
transgression.
The final cases (from 5:14 till the end
of the chapter)
include several other categories of
transgressions - that
require what the Torah refers to as a korban
asham - a guilt
offering. In each of these cases, the
transgressor must offer
an ayil [a ram], including:
. when one takes something belonging to
hekdesh ('asham
me'ilot'/ 5:14-16)
. when one is unsure if he must bring a
chatat ('asham
talui'), i.e. he is not sure if he sinned.
. when one falsely denies having illegally
held possession
of someone else's property ('asham gezeilot'
/ 5:20-26), like
not returning a 'lost item' to its owner.
THE GENERAL TITLE - KORBAN YACHID
We titled the entire outline as korban
yachid - the
offering of an individual - for this entire
unit details the
various types of korbanot that an individual
(='yachid') can
(or must) bring. Our choice of this title
reflects the
opening sentence of the Parsha: "adam ki
yakriv..".- any
person should he bring an offering to God..."
(see 1:2).
The korban yachid stands in contrast to
the korbanot
tzibbur - the public offerings - which are
offered by the
entire congregation of Israel (purchased with
the funds
collected from the machatzit ha-shekel). The
laws relating to
korbanot tzibbur we first found in Parshat
Tezaveh in regard
to the daily "olat tamid" offering. They
continue with the
special offering that the nation brings
(collectively) on the
holidays, as detailed primarily in Parshiot
Emor (Vayikra
chapter 23) and in Parshat Pinchas (Bamidbar
chapters 28-29).
WHICH SHOULD COME FIRST?
Now that we have explained the logic of
the internal
order of each section, we must explain why
the laws of korban
nedava precede those of korban chova.
Intuitively, one would
have perhaps introduced the compulsory korban
before the
optional one.
One could suggest that Parshat Vayikra
begins
specifically with the korban nedava since
these korbanot in
particular reflect the individual's
aspiration to improve his
relationship with God. Only afterward does
the Torah detail
the korban chova, which amends that
relationship (when tainted
by sin). Additionally, perhaps, the korban
nedava reflects a
more ideal situation, while the obligatory
sin-offering seeks
to rectify a problematic situation.
We may, however, suggest an even more
fundamental reason
based on the 'double theme' which we
discussed in our study of
the second half of Sefer Shmot.
Recall from our previous shiurim that
the mishkan served
a dual purpose:
A) to perpetuate the experience of Har
Sinai
(emphasized by
Ramban); and
B) to atone for chet ha-egel
(emphasized by Rashi).
(A) REENACTING HAR SINAI
Recall how the covenantal ceremony that
took place at Har
Sinai (when Bnei Yisrael accepted the Torah)
included the
public offering of "olot" & "shlamim" (when
the declared
"na'aseh ve-nishma"/ see Shmot 24:4-7). In
fact, in that
ceremony we find the very first mention in
Chumash of a korban
shlamim, suggesting a conceptual relationship
between the
korban shlamim and Har Sinai.
[Note also that Chumash later refers to the
korban shlamim
as a 'zevach' (see 3:1 & 7:11). The word
zevach itself is
also used to describe a feast, generally in
the context of
an agreement between two parties. For
example, Lavan and
Yaakov conduct a zevach after they enter
into a covenant
('brit') agreeing not to harm each other
(see Br. 31:44-54).
Today, as well, agreements between two
parties are often
followed or accompanied by a lavish feast
of sorts (e.g.
state dinners, weddings, business mergers,
etc.).
Therefore, one could suggest that by
offering a zevach
shlamim, an individual demonstrates shows
his loyalty as a
joint partner in a covenantal relationship
with God.]
The korban ola also relates to Ma'amad
Har Sinai, based
not only on the above parallel, but also
based on a key phrase
- "isheh reiach nichoach l-Hashem" - that the
Torah uses
consistently in its description of the korban
ola. [See
1:9,13,17.]
This exact same phrase is also found in
the Torah's
description of the "olat tamid", the daily
congregational
offering, as inherently connected to Bnei
Yisrael's offerings
at Har Sinai:
"Olat tamid ha-asuya BE-HAR SINAI,
le-reiach nichoach isheh
l-Hashem" (see Bamidbar 28:6).
Similarly, in Parshat Tetzaveh, when the
Torah first
introduces the olat tamid and summarizes its
discussion of the
mishkan - we find the exact same phrase:
"... le-reIach nichoach isheh l-Hashem...
olat tamid le-
doroteichem petach ohel mo'ed..." (Shmot
29:41-42)
Hence, by offering either an ola or a
shlamim - the
efficacious reminders of Ma'amad Har Sinai -
the individual
reaffirms the covenant at Har Sinai of
"na'aseh v'nishma" -
the very basis of our relationship with God
at Ma'amad Har
Sinai.
[One could also suggest that these two
types of korbanot
reflect two different aspects of our
relationship with God.
The ola reflects "yirah" (fear of God),
while the shlamim
may represent "ahava" (love of God).]
Recall also that the last time Bnei
Yisrael had offered
olot & shlamim (i.e. before chet ha-egel) was
at Har Sinai.
But due to the sin of the Golden Calf, God's
shechina had left
Bnei Yisrael, thus precluding the very
possibility of offering
korbanot. Now that the mishkan is finally
built and the
Shchina has returned (as described at the
conclusion of Sefer
Shmot), God's first message to Bnei Yisrael
in Sefer Vayikra
is that they can once again offer olot &
shlamim, just as they
did at Har Sinai - at not only as a nation,
but also as
individuals.
This observation alone can help us
appreciate why the
very first topic in Sefer Vayikra is that of
the voluntary
offerings - of the korban ola & shlamim, and
hence it makes
sense that they would precede the obligatory
offering of
chatat & asham.
(B) KORBAN CHOVA - BACK TO CHET HA-EGEL
In contrast to the 'refrain' of 'isheh
reiach nichoach'
concluding each korban nedava, we noted that
each korban chova
concludes with the phrase "ve-chiper alav
ha-kohen... ve-
nislach lo". Once again, we find a parallel
to the events at
Har Sinai.
Recall our explanation that Aharon acted
as he did at
"chet ha-egel" with the best of intentions;
only the results
were disastrous. With the Shchina present,
any transgression,
even should it be unintentional, can invoke
immediate
punishment (see Shmot 20:2-4 & 23:20-22).
Nevertheless, God's
attributes of mercy, that He declares when He
gives Moshe
Rabeinu the second "luchot", now allow Bnei
Yisrael 'second
chance' should they sin - i.e. the
opportunity to prove to
God their sincerity and resolve to exercise
greater caution in
the future.
We also find a textual parallel in Moshe
Rabeinu's
statement before he ascended Har Sinai to
seek repentance for
chet ha-egel: Recall how Moshe Rabbenu told
the people:
"Atem chatatem chata'a gedola. ulai achapra
be'ad
chatatchem" (Shmot 32:30; read also
32:31-33).
Later, when Moshe actually receives the
thirteen /midot
ha-rachamim' on Har Sinai along with the
second luchot (34:-
9), he requests atonement for chet ha-egel:
"... ve-salachta le-avoneinu
u-lechatoteinu..." (34:9).
This key phrase of the korban chova -
"ve-chiper alav...
ve-nislach lo" - may also relate to this
precedent of God's
capacity and willingness to forgive. The
korban chova serves
as a vehicle by which one can ask forgiveness
for sins
committed "b'shogeg" and beseech God to
activate His "midot ha-
rachamim" [attributes of mercy] to save them
for any
punishment that they may deserve.
Therefore, we may conclude that the
korban nedava
highlights the mishkan's function as the
perpetuation of
Ma'amad Har Sinai, while the korban chova
underscores the
mishkan's role as means of atonement for chet
ha-egel.
WHO NEEDS THE 'KORBAN'?
With this background, one could suggest
that the popular
translation of korban as a sacrifice may be
slightly
misleading. Sacrifice implies giving up
something for nothing
in return. In truth, however, the 'shoresh'
(root) of the
word korban is k.r.v., 'karov' - to come
close. Not only is
the animal brought 'closer' to the mizbeiach,
but the korban
ultimately serves to bring the individual
closer to God. The
animal itself comprises merely the vehicle
through which this
process is facilitated.
Therefore, korbanot involve more than
dry, technical
rituals; they promote the primary purpose of
the mishkan - the
enhancement of man's relationship with God.
In this sense, it becomes rather clear
that it is the
individual who needs to offer the "korban" -
as an expression
of his commitment and loyalty to his Creator.
Certainly it is
not God who needs to consume them!
For the sake of analogy, one could
compare the voluntary
offerings [the korban nedava] to a gift that
a guest brings to
his host.. For example, it is only natural
that someone who
goes to another family for a shabbat - cannot
come 'empty
handed'. Instead, the custom is to bring a
small gift, be it
flowers, or wine, or something sweet.
Certainly, his hosts
don't need the gift, but the guest needs to
bring something.
But the reason why they are spending quality
time together is
for the sake of their relationship. The gift
is only a token
of appreciation - nonetheless a very
important act.
TEFILLA KENEGED KORBANOT
In closing, we can extend our study to
help us better
appreciate our understanding of "tefilla"
[prayer before God].
In the absence of the Bet ha'Mikdash
[the Temple], Chazal
consider 'tefilla' as a 'substitute' for
korbanot. Like
korbanot, tefilla also serves as a vehicle
through which man
can develop and strengthen his relationship
with God. It is
the individual who needs to pray, more so
that God needs to
hear those prayers
As such, what we have learned about
korbanot has meaning
even today - as individual tefilla should
embody both aspects
of the korban yachid: nedava and chova.
Tefilla should primarily reflect one's
aspiration to come
closer to God - an expression of the
recognition of his
existence as a servant of God. And
secondly, if one has
sinned, tefilla becomes an avenue through
which he can amend
the tainted relationship.
Finally, tefilla, just like the korbanot
of the mishkan,
involves more than just the fulfillment of
personal
obligation. Our ability to approach God, and
request that He
evoke His "midot ha-rachamim" - even should
we not be worthy
of them - should be considered a unique
privilege granted to
God's special nation who accepted the Torah
at Har Sinai,
provides an avenue to perfect our
relationship. As such,
tefilla should not be treated as a burden,
but rather as a
special privilege.
shabbat shalom,
menachem
=================
FOR FURTHER IYUN -
A. In regard to the nature of the laws in
Parshat Vayikra;
even though they primarily focus on the
details of what the
owner must do with his korban, this section
also details
certain procedures that can be performed only
by the kohen.
Even though we may have expected to find
those details in
Parshat Tzav (that discusses the korbanot
from the kohen's
perspective), one could explain that these
details are
included here for the kohen's functions as
'shaliach'
(emissary) of the owner. Ideally, the owner
should bring the
korban himself. However, in light of the
events at chet ha-
egel, God decided to limit this work to the
kohanim, who were
chosen to work in the mikdash on behalf of
the rest of the
nation (see Devarim 10:8).
B. Although korban mincha is not mentioned
at Har Sinai, it
may be considered a subset of the general ola
category.
Namely, the mincha may be the korban ola for
the poor person
who cannot afford to bring an animal. Note
that the 'olat ha-
of' is connected to korban mincha by a parsha
stuma. The olat
ha-of, too, is a special provision for one
who cannot afford
a sheep.
C. The two basic levels of kedushat korban
explain why the
ola precedes the shlamim in the discussion in
our parsha. The
greater the portion offered on the altar, the
higher the level
of kedusha:
1) Kodshei Kodashim - the highest level of
kedusha:
ola: cattle, sheep, and fowl.
The entire korban ola is burnt on
the mizbeiach.
mincha: the five various ways to present
the fine flour.
The 'kmitza' (a handful) is burnt
on the mizbeiach;
The 'noteret' (what is left over)
is eaten by the
kohen.
2) Kodashim Kalim - a lower level of kedusha
shlamim: cattle, sheep, and goats.
The fat surrounding the inner organs go
onto the
mizbeiach.
The 'chazeh ve-shok' (breast and thigh)
go to the kohen,
while the meat that remains may be eaten by
the owner.
D. Leaving aside the difficulty in
pinpointing the precise
difference between sins requiring a chatat
and those requiring
an asham, it seems clear that a korban asham
comes to
encourage a person to become more aware of
his surroundings
and actions. For example, if one is unsure
whether or not he
sinned, his korban (asham talui) is more
expensive than the
korban chatat required should he have sinned
for certain. The
Torah demands that one be constantly and
acutely aware of his
actions at all times, so as to avoid even
accidental
wrongdoing.
E. Note that the phrase 'reiach nichoach'
does appear once in
the second (korban chova) section (4:31), in
the context of a
chatat brought by a layman ('me-am
ha-aretz').
The reason may lie in the fact that the
layman may choose
which animal to bring for his chatat - either
a female goat
('se'irat izim') or a female lamb.
Therefore, if he chooses
the more expensive option - the goat - his
offering bears some
nedava quality, thus warranting the
description 'reiach
nichoach'.
Another difference between a lamb and a
goat: is that a
lamb has a fat tail, which prevents one from
identifying the
animal' gender from afar. Therefore, one
looking upon this
korban from a distance might mistake it for
an ola (which is
always male, as opposed to the layman's
chatat which must be
female). A goat, by contrast, has a thin
tail, thus allowing
one to easily determine the animal's gender
and hence its
status as a chatat. Therefore, by bringing a
goat rather than
a lamb, the sinner in a sense broadcasts his
sin and
repentance. This perhaps renders the chatat
a nedava of
sorts, in that the sinner sacrifices his
honor in order to
demonstrate the principle of repentance
("lelamed derech
tshuva la-rabim").
===
F. ASHAM GEZEILOT (a mini-shiur)
The last korban dealt with in the
parsha, korban asham,
atones for three general categories of sins:
5:14-16 Accidental use of 'hekdesh' - known
as asham
me'ilot;
5:17-19 When one is unsure if he sinned at
all - known as an
asham talui;
5:20-26 Several cases for which one brings an
asham vadai.
Although all three categories require
the transgressor to
offer an asham, the final parsha (5:20-26)
begins with a new
dibbur! This suggests a unique quality
latent in this final
group. Indeed, the sins in this category all
involve
intentional transgressions (be-meizid)
against someone else.
The previous cases of asham, by contrast, are
inadvertent sins
(be-shogeg) against God.
It would be hypocritical for one who
sins intentionally
against God to bring a korban. The korban
chova is intended
for a person who strives for closeness with
God but has
inadvertently sinned. The obligation to
bring a korban
teaches him to be more careful. Why should
the Torah allow
one who sins intentionally against God the
opportunity to
cover his guilt? The mishkan is an
environment where man
develops spiritual perfection, not
self-deception.
Why, then, would the Torah provide for a
korban asham in
cases of intentional sin?
This group, known as an 'asham
gezeilot', deals with a
thief who falsely avows his innocence under
oath. The Torah
grants the thief-perjurer atonement through
an asham, but only
after he first repays his victim with an
added one-fifth
penalty.
Why should a korban be necessary at all?
The victim was
repaid and even received a bonus. Why should
God be involved?
The standard explanation is that the
thief sinned against
God by lying under oath. Although this is
undoubtedly the
primary reason for the necessity of a
sacrifice, one question
remains: why does he bring specifically an
asham? All other
instances of perjury require a chatat oleh
ve-yored (see 5:4)!
A textual parallel between this parsha
and a previous one
may provide the answer. The parsha of "asham
gezeilot" opens
as follows:
"nefesh ki techeta, ve-ma'ala ma'al
b-Hashem ve-kichesh be-
amito..." (5:21).
This pasuk defines the transgression
against one's
neighbor as 'me'ila b-Hashem' [taking away
something that
belongs to God]! This very same phrase
describes the first
case - 'asham me'ilot', unintentional
embezzlement of
'hekdesh' (Temple property / see 5:14-16):
"Nefesh ki timol ma'al b-Hashem -
ve-chata bishgaga..."
This textual parallel points to an
equation between these
two types of asham: unintentional theft of
hekdesh and
intentional theft of another person's
property. [Note that
both require the return of the principal and
an added penalty
of 'chomesh'.]
The Torah views stealing from a fellow
man with the same
severity as stealing from God! From this
parallel, the Torah
teaches us that unethical behavior towards
one's neighbor
taints one's relationship with God, as well.
[See also Tosefta Shavuot 3:5!]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20140306/2bcef577/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayik1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 59736 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20140306/2bcef577/attachment-0001.pdf>
More information about the Par-lite
mailing list