<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16414" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>*************************************************************<BR>
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER
[http://www.tanach.org]<BR>
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag<BR> Shiurim in
Chumash & Navi by Menachem
Leibtag<BR>*************************************************************</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
PARSHAT
VAYIKRA<BR>
<BR> Does God need our
"korbanot"?<BR> Or, would it be more correct to say that
we 'need' to bring<BR>them, even though He doesn't need
them?<BR> In an attempt to answer this 'philosophical'
question,<BR>this week's shiur undertakes an analysis of Parshat Vayikra
to<BR>show how its specific topic of "korbanot" [sacrificial<BR>offerings]
relates to one of the primary themes of the Bible.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>INTRODUCTION<BR> The Mishkan
certainly emerges as a primary topic in both<BR>the books of Shmot and Vayikra,
and hence, it would only be<BR>logical to assume that its underlying purpose
must be<BR>thematically important. To appreciate that purpose, we
must<BR>first note a very simple distinction that explains which<BR>details are
found in each book.<BR> In Sefer Shmot, the Torah explains how
to build the mishkan,<BR>and hence Shmot concludes (in Parshat Pekudei) with the
story<BR>of its assembly. In contrast, Sefer Vayikra explains how
to<BR>use the mishkan, and hence Parshat Vayikra begins with the<BR>laws of the
korbanot - i.e. instructions regarding the<BR>sacrifices that will be offered
there.<BR> Even though this distinction explains why Sefer
Vayikra<BR>discusses korbanot in general, it does not explain why the<BR>Sefer
begins specifically with the laws of korban ola [the<BR>burnt offering]; nor
does it explain the logic of the<BR>progression from one type of korban to the
next. In our<BR>shiur, we begin with a technical analysis of its
internal<BR>progression - but those conclusions will help us arrive at
a<BR>deeper understanding of the purpose of korbanot in general.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>AN OUTLINE for PARSHAT
VAYIKRA<BR> In our study questions, we suggested that you
prepare an<BR>outline of chapters one thru five, by identifying the
primary<BR>topic of each individual 'parshia'. The following
table<BR>summarizes our conclusions. Before you continue, study
it<BR>carefully (with a Chumash at hand), noting how the section<BR>titles
provide an explanation of the progression of its<BR>topics.<BR> [Note how
each 'parshia' corresponds to one line in our<BR> chart. Note also
that each asterisk ('*') in the outline<BR> marks the beginning of a new
'dibra', i.e. a short<BR> introduction for a new instruction from God to
Moshe [e.g.<BR> "va-yedaber Hashem el
Moshe..."]. Note as well how the<BR>
outline suggests a short one-line summary for each parshia,<BR> as well as
a title for each section. See if you agree with<BR> those
titles.]<BR> <BR>
PARSHAT VAYIKRA - THE KORBAN
YACHID<BR>
===================================<BR>I. KORBAN NEDAVA - Voluntary
offerings (chaps. 1-3)<BR> A. Ola (the
entire korban is burnt on the
mizbeiach)<BR> 1. 'bakar'
- from cattle<BR> 2.
'tzon' - from sheep<BR> 3.
'of' - from fowl</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> B. Mincha (a flour
offering)<BR> 1. 'solet' -
plain flour mixed with oil and
'levona'<BR> 2. 'ma'afeh
tanur' - baked in the
oven<BR> 3. 'al machvat' -
on a griddle<BR> 4.
'marcheshet' - on a pan (+ misc. general
laws)<BR> 5. 'bikkurim' -
from wheat of the early harvest</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> C. Shlamim (a peace
offering, part is eaten by the
owners)<BR> 1. bakar -
from cattle<BR> 2. tzon -
from sheep<BR> 3. 'ez' -
from goats</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> [Note the key phrase repeated
many times in this
unit:<BR>
"isheh reiach nichoach l-Hashem."]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>II. KORBAN CHOVA - MANDATORY
OFFERINGS<BR> A. * CHATAT
(4:1-5:13)<BR> 1. for a general
transgression<BR>
[laws organized according to
violator]<BR> a.
'par kohen mashiach' (High Priest) - a
bull<BR> b. 'par
he'elem davar' (bet din) - a
bull<BR> c. 'se'ir
nassi' (a king) - a male
goat<BR> d. 'nefesh'
(layman) a female goat or female lamb<BR> 2.
for specific transgressions ('oleh
ve-yored')<BR> a. a
rich person - a female goat or
lamb<BR> b. a poor
person - two birds<BR>
c. a very poor person - a plain flour offering</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> B. * ASHAM (5:14-5:26) - animal is always an
'ayil' (ram)<BR> 1. 'asham
me'ilot' - taking from Temple
property<BR> 2. 'asham
talui' - unsure if he
sinned<BR> [Note the
new dibbur at this point /see Further
iyun.]<BR> 3. * 'asham
gezeilot' - stealing from another</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> [Note the key phrase
repeated numerous times in this
unit:<BR> "ve-chiper
alav... ve-nislach
lo."]<BR>
========================</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Let's explain why we have
chosen these titles.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>TWO GROUPS: NEDAVA &
CHOVA<BR> First and foremost, note how our outline
divides Parshat<BR>Vayikra into two distinct sections: 'korbanot nedava'
=<BR>voluntary offerings and 'korbanot chova' -
mandatory<BR>offerings.<BR> The first section is titled
"nedava", for if an<BR>individual wishes to voluntarily offer a korban to God,
he has<BR>three categories to choose from:<BR> 1) An OLA - a burnt
offering [chapter one];<BR> 2) A MINCHA - a flour offering [chapter two];
or<BR> 3) A SHLAMIM - a peace offering [chapter three]<BR>
<BR> Note how these three groups are all included in the first<BR>"dibbur"
- and comprise the "nedava" [voluntary] section.<BR>
<BR> In contrast, there are instances when a person
may<BR>transgress, thus obligating him to offer a sin offering - be<BR>it a
"chatat" or an "asham" (depending upon what he
did<BR>wrong).<BR> The two categories (chapters 4 and 5)
comprise the second<BR>section, which we titled "chova"
[obligatory].</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> The Chumash itself
stresses a distinction between these<BR>two sections not only the start of a new
dibbur in 4:1, but<BR>also the repetition of two key phrases that appear in
just<BR>about every closing verse in the parshiot of both sections,<BR>stressing
the primary purpose of each respective section:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> In the nedava section:
"isheh reiach nichoach
l-Hashem"<BR> ["an
offering of fire, a pleasing odor to the
Lord"<BR>
See 1:9,13,17; 2:2; 3:5,11,16];</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> In the chova section:
"ve-chiper a'lav ha-kohen...
"<BR> [the kohen shall
make expiation on his behalf..."
-<BR>
See 4:26,31,35; 5:6,10,13,16,19,26]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> With this background in
mind, we will now discuss the<BR>logic behind the internal structure of each
section, to show<BR>how (and why) the nedava section is arranged by category
of<BR>offering and the type of animal, while the chova section is<BR>arranged by
type of transgression committed, and who<BR>transgressed.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>NEDAVA - take your pick<BR>
If an individual wishes to offer a korban nedava, he must<BR>first choose the
category that reflects his personal<BR>preference. First of all, should he
prefer to offer the<BR>entire animal to God, he can choose the ola category;
but<BR>should he prefer (for either financial or ideological reasons)<BR>to
offer flour instead, then he can choose the mincha<BR>category. Finally,
should he prefer not only the animal<BR>option, but would also like to later
partake in eating from<BR>this korban - then he can choose the shlamim
category.<BR> Once the individual has made this general
choice of<BR>either an ola, mincha, or shlamim - next, he can pick the
sub-<BR>category of his choice.<BR> For example, should
one choose to offer an ola - which is<BR>totally consumed on the mizbeiach -
then he must choose<BR>between cattle, sheep, or fowl.<BR> The Torah
explains these three options (in the first three<BR>parshiot of chapter 1),
including precise instructions<BR>concerning how to offer each of these
animals.<BR> Should the individual choose a mincha - a
flour offering<BR>- instead, then he must select from one of the five
different<BR>options for how to bake the flour, corresponding to the
five<BR>short parshiot in chapter two. In other words, he can
present<BR>his offering as either flour (mixed with oil), or baked in an<BR>oven
("ma'afe tanur), or fried on a skillet ("al machvat"), or<BR>deep fried
("marcheshet"). Should the flour offering be from<BR>the wheat of the
early harvest ("minchat bikkurim"), it must<BR>first be roasted and ground in a
special manner (see Ibn Ezra<BR>2:14).<BR> Finally,
should he choose the shlamim option- a peace<BR>offering - then he must select
between: cattle ("bakar");<BR>sheep ("kvasim"); or goats ("izim") -
corresponding to the<BR>three individual parshiot in chapter three.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> It should be noted as well
that the laws included in this<BR>korban nedava section also discuss certain
procedural<BR>instructions. For example, before offering an ola or
shlamim,<BR>the owner must perform the act of 'smicha' (see
1:4,<BR>3:2,8,13). By doing "smicha" - i.e. resting all his weight
on<BR>the animal - the owner symbolically transfers his identity to<BR>the
animal. That is to say, he offers the animal instead of<BR>himself (see
Ramban).<BR> One could suggest that the act of smicha
reflects an<BR>understanding that the korban serves as a 'replacement'
for<BR>the owner. This idea may be reflective of the korban ola
that<BR>Avraham Avinu offered at the akeida - when he offered a ram in<BR>place
of his son - "ola tachat bno" (see Breishit 22:13).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>CHOVA - if you've done something
wrong<BR> As we explained earlier, the second category
of Parshat<BR>Vayikra discusses the "korban chova" (chapters 4 & 5) -
an<BR>obligatory offering that must be brought by a person should
he<BR>transgress against one of God's laws. Therefore, this section<BR>is
organized by event, for the type of sin committed will<BR>determine which
offering is required.<BR> The first 'event' is an
unintentional transgression of<BR>'any of God's mitzvot' (see 4:2 and the header
of each<BR>consecutive parshia in chapter 4). Chazal explain that
this<BR>refers to the unintentional violation ('shogeg') of any<BR>prohibition
of the Torah - that had the person transgressed<BR>intentionally ("meizid"), his
punishment would have been<BR>'karet' (cut off from the Jewish
nation).<BR> [This offering is usually referred to as a 'chatat
kavu'a'<BR> (the fixed chatat).]<BR> <BR>
Should this transgression occur ("b'shogeg"), then the<BR>actual animal that
must be brought depends upon who the sinner<BR>is. If the kohen gadol
(high priest) sins, he must brings a<BR>bull ("par"). If it is the
political leader ("nasi"), he must<BR>bring a male goat ("se'ir"). If it
was simply a commoner, he<BR>must bring either a she-goat or lamb ("se'ira" or
"kisba").<BR> [There is also a special case of a mistaken halachic
ruling<BR> by the 'elders' [i.e. the 'sanhedrin' - the supreme
halachic<BR> court], which results in the entire nation
inadvertently<BR> sinning. In this case, the members of the
sanhedrin must<BR> bring a special chatat offering - known as the "par
he'elem<BR> davar shel tzibur". See 4:13-21.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> In chapter five we find
several instances of specific<BR>transgressions that require either a "chatat"
or an "asham".<BR> The first category begins with a list
of three specific<BR>types of transgressions, including - the case when a
person<BR>refuses to provide witness (see 5:1), or should one<BR>accidentally
enter the Temple (or Mishkan) while spiritually<BR>unclean ('tamei' / see 5:2),
or should one not keep a promise<BR>(to do/ or not to do something) made with an
oath ('shvu'at<BR>bitui' / see 5:4).<BR> Should one
transgress in regard to any one of these three<BR>cases (detailed in 5:1-4), the
specific offering that he must<BR>bring depends on his income. If he
is:<BR> a) rich - he brings a female lamb or
she-goat;<BR> b) 'middle class' - he can bring two birds
instead;<BR> c) poor - he can bring a simple flour
offering.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Interestingly, this korban is categorized as
a "chatat" (see<BR>5:6,10,13), even though the Torah uses the word
"asham"<BR>[guilt] in reference to these acts (see 5:5). It makes
sense<BR>to consider it a "chatat", because in the standard case (i.e.<BR>if the
transgressor be rich) - the offering is exactly the<BR>same animal as the
regular chatat - i.e. a female goat or<BR>sheep.<BR> Furthermore, note
that these psukim (i.e. 5:1-13) are<BR>included in the same "dibbur" that began
in 4:1 that discussed<BR>the classic korban "chatat", while the new "dibbur"
that<BR>discusses the korban "asham" only begins in 5:14!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> The rabbis refer to this
korban as an "oleh ve-yored"<BR>[lit. up and down] as this name relates to its
graduated scale<BR>- which depends entirely upon the individual's
financial<BR>status.<BR> One could suggest that the
Torah offers this graduated<BR>scale because these specific transgressions are
very common,<BR>and hence it would become rather costly for the average
person<BR>to offer an animal for each such
transgression.<BR> The final cases (from 5:14 till the
end of the chapter)<BR>include several other categories of transgressions -
that<BR>require what the Torah refers to as a korban asham - a
guilt<BR>offering. In each of these cases, the transgressor must
offer<BR>an ayil [a ram], including:<BR> · when one
takes something belonging to hekdesh ('asham<BR>
me'ilot'/ 5:14-16)<BR>· when one is unsure if he must bring a
chatat ('asham<BR>talui'), i.e. he is not sure if he
sinned.<BR>· when one falsely denies having illegally held
possession<BR>of someone else's property ('asham gezeilot' / 5:20-26),
like<BR>not returning a 'lost item' to its owner.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>THE GENERAL TITLE - KORBAN
YACHID<BR> We titled the entire outline as korban yachid
- the<BR>offering of an individual - for this entire unit details the<BR>various
types of korbanot that an individual (='yachid') can<BR>(or must) bring.
Our choice of this title reflects the<BR>opening sentence of the Parsha: "adam
ki yakriv..".- any<BR>person should he bring an offering to God..." (see
1:2).<BR> The korban yachid stands in contrast to the
korbanot<BR>tzibbur - the public offerings - which are offered by the<BR>entire
congregation of Israel (purchased with the funds<BR>collected from the machatzit
ha-shekel). The laws relating to<BR>korbanot tzibbur we first found in
Parshat Tezaveh in regard<BR>to the daily "olat tamid" offering. They
continue with the<BR>special offering that the nation brings (collectively) on
the<BR>holidays, as detailed primarily in Parshiot Emor (Vayikra<BR>chapter 23)
and in Parshat Pinchas (Bamidbar chapters 28-29).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>WHICH SHOULD COME
FIRST?<BR> Now that we have explained the logic of the
internal<BR>order of each section, we must explain why the laws of
korban<BR>nedava precede those of korban chova. Intuitively, one
would<BR>have perhaps introduced the compulsory korban before the<BR>optional
one.<BR> One could suggest that Parshat Vayikra
begins<BR>specifically with the korban nedava since these korbanot
in<BR>particular reflect the individual's aspiration to improve
his<BR>relationship with God. Only afterward does the Torah detail<BR>the korban
chova, which amends that relationship (when tainted<BR>by sin).
Additionally, perhaps, the korban nedava reflects a<BR>more ideal situation,
while the obligatory sin-offering seeks<BR>to rectify a problematic
situation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> We may, however, suggest
an even more fundamental reason<BR>based on the 'double theme' which we
discussed in our study of<BR>the second half of Sefer
Shmot.<BR> Recall from our previous shiurim that the
mishkan served<BR>a dual purpose:<BR> A) to
perpetuate the experience of Har
Sinai<BR>
(emphasized by Ramban); and<BR> B) to atone for
chet ha-egel (emphasized by Rashi).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>(A) REENACTING HAR
SINAI<BR> Recall how the covenantal ceremony that took
place at Har<BR>Sinai (when Bnei Yisrael accepted the Torah) included
the<BR>public offering of "olot" & "shlamim" (when the declared<BR>"na'aseh
ve-nishma"/ see Shmot 24:4-7). In fact, in that<BR>ceremony we find the
very first mention in Chumash of a korban<BR>shlamim, suggesting a conceptual
relationship between the<BR>korban shlamim and Har Sinai.<BR> [Note also
that Chumash later refers to the korban shlamim<BR> as a 'zevach' (see 3:1
& 7:11). The word zevach itself is<BR> also used to describe a
feast, generally in the context of<BR> an agreement between two
parties. For example, Lavan and<BR> Yaakov conduct a zevach after
they enter into a covenant<BR> ('brit') agreeing not to harm each other
(see Br. 31:44-54).<BR> Today, as well, agreements between two parties are
often<BR> followed or accompanied by a lavish feast of sorts
(e.g.<BR> state dinners, weddings, business mergers, etc.).<BR>
Therefore, one could suggest that by offering a zevach<BR> shlamim, an
individual demonstrates shows his loyalty as a<BR> joint partner in a
covenantal relationship with God.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> The korban ola also
relates to Ma'amad Har Sinai, based<BR>not only on the above parallel, but also
based on a key phrase<BR>- "isheh reiach nichoach l-Hashem" - that the Torah
uses<BR>consistently in its description of the korban ola.
[See<BR>1:9,13,17.]<BR> This exact same phrase is also
found in the Torah's<BR>description of the "olat tamid", the daily
congregational<BR>offering, as inherently connected to Bnei Yisrael's
offerings<BR>at Har Sinai:<BR> "Olat tamid ha-asuya BE-HAR SINAI,
le-reiach nichoach isheh<BR> l-Hashem" (see Bamidbar 28:6).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Similarly, in Parshat
Tetzaveh, when the Torah first<BR>introduces the olat tamid and summarizes its
discussion of the<BR>mishkan - we find the exact same phrase:<BR> "...
le-reIach nichoach isheh l-Hashem... olat tamid le-<BR> doroteichem petach
ohel mo'ed..." (Shmot 29:41-42)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Hence, by offering either
an ola or a shlamim - the<BR>efficacious reminders of Ma'amad Har Sinai - the
individual<BR>reaffirms the covenant at Har Sinai of "na'aseh v'nishma" -<BR>the
very basis of our relationship with God at Ma'amad Har<BR>Sinai.<BR> [One
could also suggest that these two types of korbanot<BR> reflect two
different aspects of our relationship with God.<BR> The ola reflects
"yirah" (fear of God), while the shlamim<BR> may represent "ahava" (love
of God).]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Recall also that the last
time Bnei Yisrael had offered<BR>olot & shlamim (i.e. before chet ha-egel)
was at Har Sinai.<BR>But due to the sin of the Golden Calf, God's shechina had
left<BR>Bnei Yisrael, thus precluding the very possibility of
offering<BR>korbanot. Now that the mishkan is finally built and
the<BR>Shchina has returned (as described at the conclusion of Sefer<BR>Shmot),
God's first message to Bnei Yisrael in Sefer Vayikra<BR>is that they can once
again offer olot & shlamim, just as they<BR>did at Har Sinai - at not only
as a nation, but also as<BR>individuals.<BR> This
observation alone can help us appreciate why the<BR>very first topic in Sefer
Vayikra is that of the voluntary<BR>offerings - of the korban ola & shlamim,
and hence it makes<BR>sense that they would precede the obligatory offering
of<BR>chatat & asham.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>(B) KORBAN CHOVA - BACK TO CHET
HA-EGEL<BR> In contrast to the 'refrain' of 'isheh
reiach nichoach'<BR>concluding each korban nedava, we noted that each korban
chova<BR>concludes with the phrase "ve-chiper alav ha-kohen... ve-<BR>nislach
lo". Once again, we find a parallel to the events at<BR>Har
Sinai.<BR> Recall our explanation that Aharon acted as
he did at<BR>"chet ha-egel" with the best of intentions; only the
results<BR>were disastrous. With the Shchina present, any
transgression,<BR>even should it be unintentional, can invoke
immediate<BR>punishment (see Shmot 20:2-4 & 23:20-22). Nevertheless,
God's<BR>attributes of mercy, that He declares when He gives Moshe<BR>Rabeinu
the second "luchot", now allow Bnei Yisrael 'second<BR>chance' should they sin -
i.e. the opportunity to prove to<BR>God their sincerity and resolve to
exercise greater caution in<BR>the future.<BR> We also
find a textual parallel in Moshe Rabeinu's<BR>statement before he ascended Har
Sinai to seek repentance for<BR>chet ha-egel: Recall how Moshe Rabbenu told the
people:<BR> "Atem chatatem chata'a gedola… ulai achapra be'ad<BR>
chatatchem" (Shmot 32:30; read also 32:31-33).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Later, when Moshe actually
receives the thirteen /midot<BR>ha-rachamim' on Har Sinai along with the second
luchot (34:-<BR>9), he requests atonement for chet
ha-egel:<BR> "... ve-salachta le-avoneinu
u-lechatoteinu..." (34:9).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> This key phrase of the
korban chova - "ve-chiper alav...<BR>ve-nislach lo" - may also relate to this
precedent of God's<BR>capacity and willingness to forgive. The korban
chova serves<BR>as a vehicle by which one can ask forgiveness for
sins<BR>committed "b'shogeg" and beseech God to activate His "midot
ha-<BR>rachamim" [attributes of mercy] to save them for any<BR>punishment that
they may deserve.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Therefore, we may conclude
that the korban nedava<BR>highlights the mishkan's function as the perpetuation
of<BR>Ma'amad Har Sinai, while the korban chova underscores the<BR>mishkan's
role as means of atonement for chet ha-egel.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>WHO NEEDS THE 'KORBAN'?<BR>
With this background, one could suggest that the popular<BR>translation of
korban as a sacrifice may be slightly<BR>misleading. Sacrifice implies
giving up something for nothing<BR>in return. In truth, however, the
'shoresh' (root) of the<BR>word korban is k.r.v., 'karov' - to come close.
Not only is<BR>the animal brought 'closer' to the mizbeiach, but the
korban<BR>ultimately serves to bring the individual closer to God.
The<BR>animal itself comprises merely the vehicle through which this<BR>process
is facilitated.<BR> Therefore, korbanot involve more
than dry, technical<BR>rituals; they promote the primary purpose of the mishkan
- the<BR>enhancement of man's relationship with God.<BR>
In this sense, it becomes rather clear that it is the<BR>individual who needs to
offer the "korban" - as an expression<BR>of his commitment and loyalty to his
Creator. Certainly it is<BR>not God who needs to consume
them!<BR> For the sake of analogy, one could compare the
voluntary<BR>offerings [the korban nedava] to a gift that a guest brings
to<BR>his host.. For example, it is only natural that someone who<BR>goes
to another family for a shabbat - cannot come 'empty<BR>handed'. Instead,
the custom is to bring a small gift, be it<BR>flowers, or wine, or something
sweet. Certainly, his hosts<BR>don't need the gift, but the guest needs to
bring something.<BR>But the reason why they are spending quality time together
is<BR>for the sake of their relationship. The gift is only a token<BR>of
appreciation - nonetheless a very important act.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> TEFILLA KENEGED
KORBANOT<BR> In closing, we can extend our study to help
us better<BR>appreciate our understanding of "tefilla" [prayer before
God].<BR> In the absence of the Bet ha'Mikdash [the
Temple], Chazal<BR>consider 'tefilla' as a 'substitute' for korbanot.
Like<BR>korbanot, tefilla also serves as a vehicle through which man<BR>can
develop and strengthen his relationship with God. It is<BR>the individual
who needs to pray, more so that God needs to<BR>hear those
prayers<BR> As such, what we have learned about korbanot
has meaning<BR>even today - as individual tefilla should embody both
aspects<BR>of the korban yachid: nedava and chova.<BR> Tefilla should
primarily reflect one's aspiration to come<BR>closer to God - an expression of
the recognition of his<BR>existence as a servant of God. And
secondly, if one has<BR>sinned, tefilla becomes an avenue through which he can
amend<BR>the tainted relationship.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Finally, tefilla, just
like the korbanot of the mishkan,<BR>involves more than just the fulfillment of
personal<BR>obligation. Our ability to approach God, and request that
He<BR>evoke His "midot ha-rachamim" - even should we not be worthy<BR>of them -
should be considered a unique privilege granted to<BR>God's special nation who
accepted the Torah at Har Sinai,<BR>provides an avenue to perfect our
relationship. As such,<BR>tefilla should not be treated as a burden, but
rather as a<BR>special privilege.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
shabbat
shalom,<BR>
menachem</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>=================<BR>FOR FURTHER IYUN -<BR>A.
In regard to the nature of the laws in Parshat Vayikra;<BR>even though they
primarily focus on the details of what the<BR>owner must do with his korban,
this section also details<BR>certain procedures that can be performed only by
the kohen.<BR>Even though we may have expected to find those details
in<BR>Parshat Tzav (that discusses the korbanot from the
kohen's<BR>perspective), one could explain that these details are<BR>included
here for the kohen's functions as 'shaliach'<BR>(emissary) of the owner.
Ideally, the owner should bring the<BR>korban himself. However, in light
of the events at chet ha-<BR>egel, God decided to limit this work to the
kohanim, who were<BR>chosen to work in the mikdash on behalf of the rest of
the<BR>nation (see Devarim 10:8).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>B. Although korban mincha is not mentioned at
Har Sinai, it<BR>may be considered a subset of the general ola
category.<BR>Namely, the mincha may be the korban ola for the poor person<BR>who
cannot afford to bring an animal. Note that the 'olat ha-<BR>of' is
connected to korban mincha by a parsha stuma. The olat<BR>ha-of, too, is a
special provision for one who cannot afford<BR>a sheep.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>C. The two basic levels of kedushat korban
explain why the<BR>ola precedes the shlamim in the discussion in our
parsha. The<BR>greater the portion offered on the altar, the higher the
level<BR>of kedusha:<BR>1) Kodshei Kodashim - the highest level of
kedusha:<BR> ola: cattle, sheep, and
fowl.<BR> The entire
korban ola is burnt on the mizbeiach.<BR> mincha: the
five various ways to present the fine
flour.<BR> The 'kmitza' (a
handful) is burnt on the
mizbeiach;<BR> The
'noteret' (what is left over) is eaten by the<BR>kohen.<BR>2) Kodashim
Kalim - a lower level of kedusha<BR> shlamim: cattle,
sheep, and goats.<BR> The fat surrounding the inner
organs go onto the<BR>mizbeiach.<BR> The 'chazeh
ve-shok' (breast and thigh) go to the kohen,<BR>while the meat that remains may
be eaten by the owner.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>D. Leaving aside the difficulty in
pinpointing the precise<BR>difference between sins requiring a chatat and those
requiring<BR>an asham, it seems clear that a korban asham comes to<BR>encourage
a person to become more aware of his surroundings<BR>and actions. For
example, if one is unsure whether or not he<BR>sinned, his korban (asham talui)
is more expensive than the<BR>korban chatat required should he have sinned for
certain. The<BR>Torah demands that one be constantly and acutely aware of
his<BR>actions at all times, so as to avoid even
accidental<BR>wrongdoing.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>E. Note that the phrase 'reiach nichoach'
does appear once in<BR>the second (korban chova) section (4:31), in the context
of a<BR>chatat brought by a layman ('me-am ha-aretz').<BR> The reason may
lie in the fact that the layman may choose<BR>which animal to bring for his
chatat - either a female goat<BR>('se'irat izim') or a female lamb.
Therefore, if he chooses<BR>the more expensive option – the goat - his offering
bears some<BR>nedava quality, thus warranting the description
'reiach<BR>nichoach'.<BR> Another difference between a
lamb and a goat: is that a<BR>lamb has a fat tail, which prevents one from
identifying the<BR>animal' gender from afar. Therefore, one looking upon
this<BR>korban from a distance might mistake it for an ola (which is<BR>always
male, as opposed to the layman's chatat which must be<BR>female). A goat,
by contrast, has a thin tail, thus allowing<BR>one to easily determine the
animal's gender and hence its<BR>status as a chatat. Therefore, by
bringing a goat rather than<BR>a lamb, the sinner in a sense broadcasts his sin
and<BR>repentance. This perhaps renders the chatat a nedava of<BR>sorts,
in that the sinner sacrifices his honor in order to<BR>demonstrate the principle
of repentance ("lelamed derech<BR>tshuva la-rabim").<BR>===</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>F. ASHAM GEZEILOT (a
mini-shiur)<BR> The last korban dealt with in the
parsha, korban asham,<BR>atones for three general categories of sins:<BR>5:14-16
Accidental use of 'hekdesh' - known as asham<BR>me'ilot;<BR>5:17-19 When one is
unsure if he sinned at all - known as an<BR>asham talui;<BR>5:20-26 Several
cases for which one brings an asham vadai.<BR> Although
all three categories require the transgressor to<BR>offer an asham, the final
parsha (5:20-26) begins with a new<BR>dibbur! This suggests a unique
quality latent in this final<BR>group. Indeed, the sins in this category
all involve<BR>intentional transgressions (be-meizid) against someone
else.<BR>The previous cases of asham, by contrast, are inadvertent
sins<BR>(be-shogeg) against God.<BR> It would be
hypocritical for one who sins intentionally<BR>against God to bring a
korban. The korban chova is intended<BR>for a person who strives for
closeness with God but has<BR>inadvertently sinned. The obligation to
bring a korban<BR>teaches him to be more careful. Why should the Torah
allow<BR>one who sins intentionally against God the opportunity to<BR>cover his
guilt? The mishkan is an environment where man<BR>develops spiritual
perfection, not self-deception.<BR> Why, then, would the
Torah provide for a korban asham in<BR>cases of intentional
sin?<BR> This group, known as an 'asham gezeilot', deals
with a<BR>thief who falsely avows his innocence under oath. The
Torah<BR>grants the thief-perjurer atonement through an asham, but only<BR>after
he first repays his victim with an added
one-fifth<BR>penalty.<BR> Why should a korban be
necessary at all? The victim was<BR>repaid and even received a
bonus. Why should God be involved?<BR> The
standard explanation is that the thief sinned against<BR>God by lying under
oath. Although this is undoubtedly the<BR>primary reason for the necessity
of a sacrifice, one question<BR>remains: why does he bring specifically an
asham? All other<BR>instances of perjury require a chatat oleh ve-yored
(see 5:4)!<BR> A textual parallel between this parsha
and a previous one<BR>may provide the answer. The parsha of "asham gezeilot"
opens<BR>as follows:<BR> "nefesh ki techeta, ve-ma'ala ma'al b-Hashem
ve-kichesh be-<BR> amito..." (5:21).<BR>
<BR> This pasuk defines the transgression against
one's<BR>neighbor as 'me'ila b-Hashem' [taking away something that<BR>belongs to
God]! This very same phrase describes the first<BR>case - 'asham me'ilot',
unintentional embezzlement of<BR>'hekdesh' (Temple property / see
5:14-16):<BR> "Nefesh ki timol ma'al b-Hashem - ve-chata
bishgaga..."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> This textual parallel
points to an equation between these<BR>two types of asham: unintentional theft
of hekdesh and<BR>intentional theft of another person's property. [Note
that<BR>both require the return of the principal and an added penalty<BR>of
'chomesh'.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> The Torah views stealing
from a fellow man with the same<BR>severity as stealing from God! From
this parallel, the Torah<BR>teaches us that unethical behavior towards one's
neighbor<BR>taints one's relationship with God, as
well.<BR> [See also Tosefta Shavuot
3:5!]<BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>