<!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 BECHUKOTAI</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> THE
CONCLUSION OF SEFER VAYIKRA</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Considering that Sefer Vayikra
is primarily a book of<BR>laws, it would certainly be appropriate to conclude
those laws<BR>by explaining their reward - and that is exactly what we
find<BR>in Parshat Bechukotai! Review Vayikra chapter 26 - better<BR>known
as the 'tochacha' - noting how it describes the reward<BR>(/or punishment) for
keeping (/or defying) God's laws.<BR> Hence, chapter 26
forms a fitting conclusion for the<BR>entire book. So why does Sefer
Vayikra add one additional<BR>chapter (see chapter 27 /the laws of 'erchin')
immediately<BR>afterward?<BR> In this week's shiur we
attempt to explain why.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>INTRODUCTION<BR> Let's
begin by clarifying our opening question. Recall<BR>how Parshat Bechukotai
(the last Parshat ha'shavua in Sefer<BR>Vayikra) contains two distinct
sections:<BR> (1) the tochacha (chapter 26)
-<BR> Bnei Yisrael's reward [and/or punishment] should they
obey<BR> [/or disobey] God's commandments;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> (2) The laws of 'erchin'
(chapter 27) -<BR> A set of specific laws pertaining to the
monetary<BR> evaluation of people or property dedicated to
God.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Considering that Sefer
Vayikra is a book that contains a<BR>collection of mitzvot, a 'tochacha' would
form an appropriate<BR>conclusion - for it outlines how God rewards (or
punishes) Am<BR>Yisrael as a function of how they keep those
mitzvot.<BR> The first section of our shiur will explain
how (and why)<BR>the tochacha should indeed be considered the conclusion
of<BR>Sefer Vayikra. Afterward, we'll attempt to explain why the<BR>Torah
may have 'added on' chapter 27 to form a significant<BR>'epilogue'.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>PART ONE - A PERFECT
FINALE<BR> Recall our explanation of how Sefer Vayikra
divides into<BR>two distinct sections:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> A) Kedushat mishkan -
chapters 1 -> 17.<BR> focusing on laws pertaining to the
mishkan, such as<BR> korbanot, tum'a & tahara,
etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> B) Kedushat ha-am
ve-haaretz - chapters 18 -> 25.<BR> focusing on a wide
range of laws of 'kedusha' outside the<BR> mishkan, to make Am
Yisrael an 'am kadosh'.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> As you review both the
'positive' and 'negative' sides of<BR>the tochacha, note how the reward and
punishment relates to<BR>both these sections, i.e. the mishkan and the
Land:<BR> * On the positive side, should Bnei Yisrael obey
the<BR>mitzvot, then:<BR> B) "and I will put My mishkan
in your midst..." (26:11)<BR> A) "and the land shall
give its produce..." (26:4).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> * On the negative side, should
Bnei Yisrael disobey these<BR>laws, then:<BR> A) "I will
make your mikdash desolate..." (26:31)<BR> B) "the land
will not give its produce..." (26:20,34-35).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> This only strengthens our
claim that the tochacha should<BR>have been the last chapter of Sefer
Vayikra! However, the<BR>best 'proof' is found in its 'final'
pasuk.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>THE FINAL PASUK -<BR> Let's
take a look at the final pasuk of the tochacha, to<BR>show how it relates to
both halves of Sefer Vayikra:<BR> "These are the chukim & mishpatim,
and the torot which God<BR> had given between Him and Bnei Yisrael on Har
Sinai to<BR> Moshe" (26:46).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Clearly, this pasuk forms
a summary of more than just the<BR>tochacha itself. Let's explain
why.<BR> Note how this final pasuk mentions two
categories of<BR>mitzvot that we are already familiar
with:<BR> 1) chukim & mishpatim,
and<BR> 2) torot.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> This implies that whatever
unit this pasuk does summarize<BR>- it includes both 'chukim & mishpatim'
and 'torot' (that were<BR>given to Moshe on Har Sinai). Hence, this pasuk
must<BR>summarize more than the tochacha, for the tochacha itself does<BR>not
contain "chukim & mishpatim", nor "torot".<BR> Aware
of this problem, many commentators attempt to<BR>identify the wider unit that is
summarized in this pasuk.<BR> For example:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>* Rashbam suggests that it
summarizes both Parshiot Behar &<BR>Bechukotai, i.e. chapters 25 &
26. This is quite logical, for<BR>the laws of shmitta and yovel could be
considered the "chukim<BR>& mishpatim". This also makes sense
since both these chapters<BR>are included in the same 'dibbur' which began in
25:1.<BR> However, Rashbam does not explain which laws
in this unit<BR>fit under the category of torot.<BR>
Furthermore, recall our explanation in Parshat Tzav that<BR>a 'torah' implies a
procedural type of law, e.g. 'torat ha-<BR>chatat' - how the kohen executes the
chatat offering, etc.<BR>Within chapters 25 & 26, it is difficult to
pinpoint any such<BR>'procedural' law.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> * Ibn Ezra claims that this pasuk
summarizes not only<BR>Parshat Behar (i.e. Vayikra chapters 25 & 26), but
also<BR>Parshat Mishpatim, i.e. Sefer Shmot chapters 21 -
23!<BR> Ibn Ezra's interpretation is based on his
understanding<BR>that the tochacha in Parshat Bechukotai is none other than
the<BR>'sefer ha-brit' mentioned in Shmot 24:7 [i.e. in the
Torah's<BR>description of the ceremony at Ma'amad Har Sinai when Bnei<BR>Yisrael
proclaimed 'na'aseh ve-nishma']. (See Ibn Ezra on<BR>Vayikra 25:1 and
Shmot 24:7.)<BR> However, it seems rather strange to
find a summary pasuk<BR>for Parshat Mishpatim at the end of Sefer
Vayikra!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> * Ramban agrees with Ibn Ezra
that this pasuk forms a<BR>summary of the mitzvot in Parshat Mishpatim as
well. However,<BR>he reaches this conclusion from a different angle.
Ramban<BR>claims that this parshia of the tochacha was actually given
to<BR>Moshe Rabbeinu during his second set of forty days on Har<BR>Sinai, and
serves as a 'replacement' covenant - to replace the<BR>conditions of the
original na'aseh ve-nishma covenant (as<BR>described in Shmot 24:7). As
such, this summary pasuk<BR>summarizes the mitzvot in Parshat Mishpatim as
well. [See<BR>Ramban on 25:1, towards the end of his lengthy peirush to
that<BR>pasuk. This complicated (but important) Ramban is based on<BR>his
approach to the chronological order of Chumash, but it is<BR>beyond the scope of
this shiur.]<BR> In any case, our above question
regarding Ibn Ezra's<BR>approach would apply to Ramban's as well.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> * Rashi offers the 'widest'
understanding of this summary<BR>pasuk. He claims that this finale pasuk
summarizes not only<BR>the entire 'written law' of the entire Chumash, but also
the<BR>entire 'oral law' as well!<BR> It is interesting
to note that from among all of the<BR>commentators, only Rashi deals with the
problem of determining<BR>the precise meaning of "torot". Rashi solves the
problem by<BR>quoting the Midrash that it refers to 'Torah she-bikhtav
u-<BR>ba'al peh'. However, this interpretation is quite difficult<BR>for
(according to simple pshat) the word 'eileh' [these] at<BR>the beginning of
26:46 summarizes what has been written thus<BR>far, and not what has not been
written yet.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>* Seforno follows a direction
similar to Rashi, but appears<BR>to be a bit more 'realistic'. He claims
that this pasuk<BR>summarizes all of the mitzvot that were mentioned in
Chumash<BR>thus far, i.e. before Parshat Bechukotai. However, Seforno
is<BR>not very precise concerning exactly which mitzvot are<BR>summarized by
this pasuk.<BR> In our shiur, we will follow Seforno's
'lead' and show<BR>how this final pasuk may actually form a summary pasuk for
all<BR>of the mitzvot found in Sefer Vayikra! Our approach will
be<BR>based on identifying more specifically what the phrases chukim<BR>&
mishpatim and torot (in 26:46) may be referring to.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>A FITTING FINALE<BR> Recall
once again how Sefer Vayikra divides into two<BR>sections (see above), and how
the second half of the Sefer<BR>begins in chapter 18 with a set of five psukim
that form an<BR>introduction. [See 18:1-5 and our shiur on Parshat
Acharei<BR>Mot.]<BR> As you review those psukim, note
how these psukim<BR>actually introduce an entire set of chukim
u-mishpatim. For<BR>example:<BR> "Observe My mishpatim and keep My
chukim to follow them, I<BR> am the Lord your God. Keep My chukim
& mishpatim..." (18:4-<BR> 5. See also 18:26-30!).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Therefore, the phrase
chukim ve-mishpatim in our 'finale<BR>pasuk' (26:46) could be understood as the
summary of the<BR>second half of Sefer Vayikra (chapters 18->25), as it
refers<BR>to the numerous chukim u-mishpatim that are recorded in
that<BR>section.<BR> Furthermore, note how often we have
found this phrase in<BR>the second half of Vayikra: see 19:19 & 37, 20:8
& 22, and<BR>25:18!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> In a similar manner, the
word torot could be considered a<BR>summary of the laws found in the first half
of the Sefer.<BR>Recall how the word torah was used numerous times to
describe<BR>the various procedures regarding korbanot. The most
obvious<BR>example would be Parshat Tzav where the phrase 'zot
torat...'<BR>introduced each category of korbanot (see 6:2, 6:7, 6:18,
7:1,<BR>7:11) and also formed its summary (see
7:37!).<BR> However, this phrase was also found numerous
times in<BR>Parshat Tazria/Metzora as well (see 12:7; 13:59; 14:2,32,45;<BR>and
15:32).<BR> Furthermore, even though this phrase is not
mentioned by<BR>the other mitzvot in this section, most of its laws are of
a<BR>procedural nature and could easily fall under this category
of<BR>torot. Certainly, the seven day 'milu'im' & 'yom
ha-shmini'<BR>ceremonies (chapters 8 & 9) are procedures and hence could
be<BR>understood as torot, as is the yearly 'avoda' of the kohen<BR>gadol on Yom
Kippur (see chapter 16).<BR> Hence, the word torot in
26:46 can be understood as a<BR>summary of the procedural laws found in the
first half of<BR>Sefer Vayikra.<BR> Thus, the final
pasuk of the tochacha (26:46) becomes an<BR>almost 'perfect ending' for the
entire sefer:<BR> "These are the chukim & mishpatim [summarizes the
second<BR> half - chapters 18 thru 25] and the torot [summarizes
the<BR> first half - chapters 6 thru 17] which God had given
between<BR> Him and Bnei Yisrael on Har Sinai to Moshe"
(26:46).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> The phrase chukim &
mishpatim summarizes Part Two of<BR>Sefer Vayikra, while the word torot
summarizes Part One!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>THE TOCHACHA & SEFER
SHMOT<BR> Even though we have shown how this finale
pasuk (26:46)<BR>forms a beautiful conclusion for Sefer Vayikra, it contains
an<BR>additional phrase that explains why it could be considered a<BR>conclusion
for the laws in Sefer Shmot as well. [If so, this<BR>would help us
appreciate Ibn Ezra & Ramban's peirush as well,<BR>and the chiastic
structure discussed in our shiur on Parshat<BR>Behar.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Let's take a closer look
at this finale pasuk, noting the<BR>second half of the pasuk:<BR> "These
are the chukim u-mishpatim, and the torot which God<BR> had given - beino
u-vein Bnei Yisrael - between Himself and<BR> Bnei Yisrael, on Har Sinai
through Moshe" (26:46).<BR> <BR> This special
phrase: 'beino u-vein Bnei Yisrael' may<BR>highlight the covenantal nature of
the mitzvot of Sefer<BR>Vayikra. To explain why, we need only quote a
pasuk that we<BR>are all familiar with from 'shabbos davening' [our
sabbath<BR>prayers]. Note how the Torah uses an almost identical
phrase<BR>as it describes how Shabbat should be considered a 'brit'.:<BR>
"Ve-shameru Bnei Yisrael et ha-shabbat... - to keep it as a<BR> day of
rest for all generations - brit olam - an everlasting<BR> covenant - beini
u-vein Bnei Yisrael - an eternal sign..."<BR> (see Shmot
31:16-17).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> In fact, this very concept
of brit is emphasized several<BR>times by the tochacha
itself:<BR> "... ve-hakimoti et briti itchem"
(26:9)<BR> "... lehafrechem et briti"
(26:15)<BR> "ve-zacharti et briti Yaakov ve-af et briti
Yitzchak..."<BR>(26:42)<BR> "ve-zacharti lahem brit
rishonim asher hotzeiti..."<BR>(26:45).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> If this interpretation is
correct, then we have found an<BR>additional thematic connection between the
laws of kedusha in<BR>Sefer Vayikra and the purpose of Matan Torah as described
at<BR>brit Har Sinai. As we have explained, the mitzvot of
Sefer<BR>Vayikra function as a vehicle thru which the goal of brit<BR>Sinai -
"ve-atem tiheyu li mamlechet kohanim ve-goy kadosh" -<BR>can be achieved.
(See Shmot 19:4-6.)<BR> [Once again, note how this thematic connection can
also<BR> explain the chiastic structure that connected the laws
in<BR> Sefer Shmot & Sefer Vayikra, as explained in our shiur
on<BR> Parshat Behar.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Hence, the phrase 'beino
u-vein Bnei Yisrael' in this<BR>summary pasuk may emphasize how the mitzvot of
Sefer Vayikra<BR>strengthen the covenant between God and Bnei Yisrael,
as<BR>forged at Har Sinai, where Am Yisrael took upon themselves to<BR>become
God's special nation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>THE TOCHACHA & SEFER
BREISHIT<BR> Thus far, we have shown how the tochacha
forms a fitting<BR>conclusion for Sefer Vayikra, and thematically relates back
to<BR>covenant at Har Sinai as described in Sefer Shmot. One
could<BR>suggest that it may contain a certain element that<BR>thematically
returns us to Sefer Breishit as well.<BR> Recall our
explanation of how Gan Eden represented an<BR>ideal environment in which man was
capable of developing a<BR>close relationship with God. In that
environment, man's<BR>reward for obeying God was a prosperous life in Gan
Eden;<BR>while his punishment for disobeying God's commandment was<BR>death -
i.e. his banishment from Gan Eden.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> The two sides of the
tochacha describe a similar<BR>environment for Am Yisrael living in Eretz
Yisrael. Should<BR>they keep God's laws, Am Yisrael can enjoy a prosperous
and<BR>secure existence in their land.<BR> For example,
'im be-chukotai teilechu...', i.e. should<BR>you follow God's laws, then
've-achaltem le-sova be-<BR>artzechem' -you will enjoy prosperity in your
land (see 25:3-<BR>6). - This would be in contrast to man's
punishment when he<BR>was expelled from Gan Eden with the curse of 'be-ze'at
apcha<BR>tochal lechem' (see Breishit 3:17-19).<BR>
Recall as well how God was 'mithalech' in Gan Eden (see<BR>Br.3:8).
Similarly, He will now 'mithalech' in Eretz Yisrael<BR>together with His Nation:
'v'e-ithalachti betochachem, ve-<BR>hayiti lachem l-Elokim, ve-atem tihiyu li
le-am' (see Vayikra<BR>25:12).<BR> On the other hand,
should Bnei Yisrael not follow God's<BR>laws ('ve-im lo tishme'u..'), they will
be faced with a<BR>troubled existence, culminating with their expulsion from
the<BR>land (26:33), parallel to man's banishment from Gan Eden.<BR>(This
parallel between Gan Eden and Eretz Yisrael was already<BR>introduced at the
beginning of the second half of Sefer<BR>Vayikra- see 18:24-30).<BR> [In
this manner, the Midrashim that identify Gan Eden as<BR> Eretz Yisrael
relate to more than its geographical location;<BR> rather they underscore
a major biblical theme.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>PARSHAT 'ERCHIN' - WHY
HERE?<BR> We return now to our original question.
If the final<BR>pasuk of the tochacha forms such an appropriate ending
for<BR>Sefer Vayikra, why does the Torah place 'parshat erchin'<BR>immediately
afterward (instead of beforehand in Sefer<BR>Vayikra)? After all, the laws
of erchin, especially those<BR>relating to yovel (see 27:16-25), would have fit
nicely within<BR>Parshat Behar, together with the other laws relating to
yovel.<BR>[See Ramban on 27:1]<BR> Furthermore, the laws
relating to the dedication of<BR>objects to the Temple treasury could have been
included much<BR>earlier in Sefer Vayikra, possibly in Parshat Vayikra
together<BR>with other laws concerning voluntary
offerings.<BR> The simplest explanation is that the
Torah did not want<BR>to conclude the Sefer on a 'sour note', i.e. with
the<BR>tochacha, preferring instead to conclude with something
more<BR>positive.<BR> [Sort of like a adding on a 'happy ending' by
selecting a<BR> 'parshia' that could have been recorded earlier, and
saving<BR> it for the conclusion.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> The Ibn Ezra offers an
explanation based on 'sod',<BR>relating to the deeper meaning of 'bechor' and
'ma'aser' (see<BR>last Ibn Ezra in Vayikra).<BR> Seforno
differentiates between these mitzvot (in chapter<BR>27) that are voluntary, and
the mandatory mitzvot summarized<BR>in 26:46. Because those mitzvot
constituted the essence of<BR>the brit, they were summarized separately.
Once those mitzvot<BR>were completed in chapter 26, chapter 27 records the
mitzvot<BR>of Har Sinai that were not part of that covenant.
(See<BR>Seforno 26:46.)<BR> One could suggest an
alternative approach, by considering<BR>once again the overall structure of
Sefer Vayikra.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Recall from our study of
Parshat Vayikra that the first<BR>five chapters (i.e. the laws of 'korban
yachid') were given to<BR>Moshe Rabbeinu from the ohel mo'ed (see 1:1), while
the next<BR>two chapters (the torot of the korbanot in chapter 6-7) we<BR>given
from Har Sinai (see 7:37-38). Furthermore, since the<BR>laws of Parshat
Vayikra were given from the ohel mo'ed, they<BR>must have been given only after
the shechina had returned to<BR>the mishkan on the yom ha-shmini, and hence
after the story of<BR>the seven day 'milu'im" & "yom ha-shmini' - as
recorded in<BR>Vayikra chapters 8-10.<BR> Therefore, it
appears as though the laws in Parshat<BR>Vayikra were placed intentionally at
the beginning of Sefer<BR>Vayikra, even though they chronologically belong in
the middle<BR>of the Sefer.<BR> Thus, we conclude that
even though both the opening and<BR>concluding units of Sefer Vayikra belong
within the sefer, the<BR>Torah records them as a 'header' and 'footer'
instead.<BR> The following chart reviews this
structure:<BR>CHAPTERS
TOPIC<BR>=========
=====<BR> *
HEADER<BR> 1->5
the laws of korban yachid (mitzvot)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2> I. TOROT of:
[first
section]<BR> 6->7
- how to bring
korbanot<BR> 8->10
- how the milu'im were
offered<BR>11->15
- yoledet, metzora, zav,
zava<BR>16->17
- how to enter kodesh kodashim</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2> II. CHUKIM
U-MISHPATIM [second
section]<BR>18->20
- kedushat
ha-am<BR>21->22
- kedushat
kohanim<BR>23->25
- kedushat zman
u-makom<BR> 26
TOCHACHA ( & summary pasuk/ 26:46)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> *
FOOTER<BR> 27
the laws of erchin (mitzvot)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Now we must explain why
specifically these two parshiot<BR>were chosen to serve as the 'book-ends' of
Sefer Vayikra?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>SPECIAL 'BOOKENDS'<BR>
Parshat Vayikra and the parshia of erchin share a common<BR>theme. They
both deal with an individual dedicating an object<BR>to 'hekdesh'. Both
also begin with cases where a person<BR>offers a voluntary gift (nedava):
Parshat Vayikra begins with<BR>ola & shlamim while parshat erchin begins
with the voluntary<BR>offering of the value of a person, animal, or
field.<BR> [Vayikra deals with korbanot actually offered on
the<BR> mizbeiach (kodshei mizbeiach) while erchin deals with
the<BR> value of objects which cannot be offered, their value
is<BR> given instead to the 'general fund' of the Temple
-<BR> 'kodshei bedek ha-bayit'.]<BR>
One could suggest that the Torah intentionally chose<BR>parshiot dealing with
the offerings of an individual,<BR>primarily the voluntary offerings, to form
the 'book-ends' of<BR>Sefer Vayikra for the following
reason.<BR> As we have seen, Sefer Vayikra focuses on
the kedusha of<BR>the mishkan and of the nation. These lofty goals of
the<BR>Shchina dwelling upon an entire nation can easily lead the<BR>individual
to underestimate his own importance. Furthermore,<BR>the rigid detail of
the mitzvot of Vayikra may lead one to<BR>believe that there is little room for
self-initiated<BR>expression in his own relationship with God, as our
covenantal<BR>obligations could be viewed as dry and
technical.<BR> To counter these possible misconceptions,
the Torah may<BR>have placed these two parshiot at the opening and
concluding<BR>sections of Sefer Vayikra - to stress these two
important<BR>tenets of 'avodat Hashem'. Despite the centrality of
the<BR>community, the individual cannot lose sight of the value
and<BR>importance of his role as an integral part of the
communal<BR>whole. Secondly, the rigidity of Halacha should not
stifle<BR>personal expression. Rather, it should form the solid
base<BR>from which the individual can develop an aspiring, dynamic,<BR>and
personal relationship with God.</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</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>fA. It should be noted that Abarbanel does
raise this<BR>possibility that the final pasuk of the tochacha
summarizes<BR>only chapter 26, and not larger unit. Note how this
forces<BR>him to explain the phrases chukim u-mishpatim & torot in a<BR>very
different manner.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>B. WHEN WERE THE MITZVOT OF SEFER VAYIKRA
GIVEN?<BR> In our shiur, we explained that the torot
mentioned in<BR>Parshat Tzav were given on Har Sinai. How about the
torot in<BR>Tazria Metzora, or basically, how about the rest of
the<BR>mitzvot of Sefer Vayikra - were they given from the ohel mo'ed<BR>or
earlier when Moshe was on Har Sinai? The psukim do not<BR>tell
us.<BR> Based on the above shiur, we can suggest that
most all of<BR>the mitzvot in Vayikra were actually given on Har Sinai,
but<BR>are recorded in Sefer Vayikra for simply thematic reasons<BR>(i.e. 'torat
kohanim'). Surely, Parshat Tzav states<BR>explicitly that its torot were
given to Moshe on Har Sinai<BR>(7:37-8).<BR> Therefore
one can also assume that all of the torot<BR>mentioned in the Sefer were given
on Har Sinai. In fact, this<BR>can explain Shmot 24:12 which states that
Moshe went up to Har<BR>Sinai to receive the torah & mitzva - one could
suggest that<BR>the mitzva refers to the laws of the mishkan which Moshe
is<BR>about to receive that are recorded in the remainder of Sefer<BR>Shmot (see
Shmot 25:1-4!). If so, then torah may refer to the<BR>torot (that relate to the
mishkan). However, most of these<BR>torot are recorded in Sefer Vayikra
and not in Sefer Shmot.<BR> [ha-torah may also refer to the
mitzvot of Sefer Devarim,<BR> but that is a topic for a
different shiur. [note Devarim<BR> 1:5 and the word
torah throughout that Sefer.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> In a similar manner one
could understand that the chukim<BR>u-mishpatim recorded in Sefer Vayikra may
also have been given<BR>to Moshe on Har Sinai. To support this, see
Devarim 5:28 and<BR>its context, as well as Shmot
24:1-4.<BR> Therefore the mention of Har Sinai in this
final pasuk<BR>does not limit its interpretation to referring only
to<BR>Behar/Bechukotai, rather strengthens its interpretation as a<BR>summary of
the entire Sefer. It is also likely that certain<BR>other mitzvot that
were given in reaction to events that<BR>occurred after 'hakamat ha-mishkan',
i.e. after Nadav and<BR>Avihu died etc.) may have been given from the ohel
mo'ed, but<BR>there is no reason why we cannot understand that all the
other<BR>mitzvot recorded in the sefer were first given to Moshe during<BR>his
40 days on Har Sinai. Except of course those mitzvot that<BR>were given
directly to Aharon, which indicate that they were<BR>given from the ohel mo'ed,
and the mitzvot that were given in<BR>response to a question that Moshe did not
have the answer for.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>C. A CHIASTIC STRUCTURE WITHIN SEFER
VAYIKRA<BR> In the above shiur, we have noted a connection between
the<BR>opening and closing parshiot of Sefer Vayikra. This suggests<BR>a
possibility of a chiastic structure within Sefer
Vayikra<BR>itself.<BR> See if you can find this structure, noting
how chapters 18 and<BR>20 'surround' chapter 19, the connection between chapter
21<BR>and chapter 16 in relation to the kohen gadol, chapters 22 and<BR>11-15 in
relation to tum'a & tahara, chapters 9-10 to chapter<BR>23 in relation to
cycles of 7 & 8, chapter 24 and chapter 8 in<BR>relation to the keilim of
the mishkan, and chapters 6-7 and<BR>chapters 25-26 in relations to mitzvot
given at Har Sinai (see<BR>finale psukim of both sections),
've-akmal'!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>D. THE VALUE OF THE INDIVIDUAL<BR> As we
explained above, the "tochacha" in Parsha Bechukotei<BR>(chapter 26) would have
been a most fitting conclusion for<BR>Sefer Vayikra. Nonetheless, Sefer Vayikra
adds one additional<BR>chapter, detailing the laws of "erchin" - i.e. the
'monetary'<BR>assessment of various individuals - should their value
be<BR>dedicated to God.<BR> Even though these laws seem
to be rather technical, from<BR>a certain perspective they do reflect the value
of every<BR>individual. But what does that have to do with the
conclusion<BR>of Sefer Vayikra? As Ramban points out (see middle of
his<BR>commentary to 26:11), the "tochacha" describes 'reward and<BR>punishment'
at the national level. In other words, it<BR>promises prosperity in
relation to the land's agriculture,<BR>political stability, security, and
military success (see 26:1-<BR>11). On the 'down side' - it describes primarily
national<BR>calamities show Bnei Yisrael not keep God's
laws. On the<BR>other hand, God does not promise
every individual (in this<BR>world) reward for his good deeds, or punishment for
his sins.<BR> There may be some thematic logic behind
this distinction.<BR>As Bnei Yisrael were chosen to be 'nation' that will
represent<BR>God among the nations of the world, we are judged as a
nation;<BR>and rewarded as a nation. If we are successful in making
a<BR>'Name for God' by keeping His mitzvot properly, God will not<BR>only 'dwell
in midst' (see 26:11-12), He will also provide us<BR>with material reward - that
enables the nation to continue<BR>'the good job'. On the other hand,
should we embarrass God by<BR>our poor behavior as His special nation, God
promises to<BR>consistently punish us, to various levels, until we
finally<BR>'learn our lesson' (see 26:14-- or even without repentance,<BR>should
our situation becomes too pitiful (see Devarim 32:36).<BR> [To
support this point, note the phrase "l'einei<BR> ha'goyim" -
in the eyes of the nations -in the finale<BR> pasuk (see 26:45
in its context), emphasizing the<BR> connection between God's
covenant with the people of<BR> Israel and their influence on
the rest of mankind.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> This thematic conclusion,
however accurate, can lead to a<BR>very dangerous conclusion. If God's
primary interest with His<BR>people is at the national level, then maybe the
fate of each<BR>individual may not so be important [ask the early leaders
of<BR>communism (like Stalin), if you know your
history].<BR> One could suggest, that it may be
specifically for this<BR>reason that Sefer Vayikra chose specifically the laws
of<BR>"erchin" - reflecting the value of each individual - as its<BR>conclusion,
to 'balance' this possible misunderstanding of the<BR>"tochacha". Surely,
the primary focus of the Bible is on the<BR>existence of Am Yisrael as a nation,
but to truly act as God's<BR>special nation - the importance of every individual
must not<BR>be under-emphasized.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>E. THE CONCLUSION OF VAYIKRA &
SHAVUOT<BR> As many commentators point out, the
"tochacha" relates<BR>directly to the covenant between God and Bnei Yisrael at
Har<BR>Sinai. [Note the tell-tale phrase: "beini u'bein Bnei
Yisrael<BR>b'Har Sinai" in its concluding pasuk (see 26:46), as well as<BR>the
parallel pasuk at the conclusion of the "tochacha" in<BR>Devarim (see Devarim
28:69 - "milvad ha'brit asher karat item<BR>b'chorev"). See also Chizkuni
on Shmot 24:7!]<BR> Even though all the mitzvot of the
Torah are important,<BR>it seems that certain mitzvot, i.e. mitzvot of Parshat
Behar<BR>in Vayikra chapter 25, were singled out to be part of the<BR>'official
covenant.<BR> [Note that all the psukim from 25:1 thru 26:46
form a<BR> single unit, as they are introduced by the same
dibur.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> One could offer a very
'zionistic' explanation for this,<BR>as the laws in chapter 25 deal the
"kedusha" of the Land of<BR>Israel in regard to keeping the laws of "shemitta"
& "yovel"<BR>(see 25:1-13). In other words, one of God's
primary<BR>considerations of how God will (or will not) punish us,<BR>depends on
how meticulously we keep the laws of the "shemitta"<BR>year. [Note as well
26:34.]<BR> On the other hand, chapter 25 contains much
more that the<BR>'technical' laws of "shemitta". If you read that
chapter<BR>carefully, you'll note how its primary topic is the<BR>consequences
of the laws of "shemitta" - reflecting the<BR>Torah's desire that Bnei Yisrael
fulfill every aspect of the<BR>laws of social
justice.<BR> For example, as soon as we mention the laws
of Yovel, the<BR>Torah immediately reminds us not to use those laws
as<BR>'technical loophole' to make a tricky 'real-estate deal'
(see<BR>25:14-17!<BR> Then, the Torah explains why these
laws are so important,<BR>as God reminds us that our purpose as a nation is to
be humble<BR>servants of God, rather than a group of wealthy
landlords<BR>exploiting poor serfs (see 25:23-24).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> The clincher of this
direction are in the following<BR>thirty some psukim (see 25:25-55), which
describe our communal<BR>obligation to help our neighbors in financial distress,
by<BR>lending them resources so they won't need to either sell their<BR>land or
even themselves!<BR> Thus, even though the first
thirteen psukim seem to<BR>describe the technical laws of "shemitta" &
"yovel", the<BR>remaining forty some psukim focus primarily on assuring
social<BR>justice for the poor and needy. In fact, by quoting
the<BR>Torah's brief reference to the laws of "shemitta" in
Parshat<BR>Mishpatim, we find that the very purpose of these 'technical<BR>laws'
is to ensure social justice:<BR> "Six years thou shall sow thy land, and
gather its produce,<BR> but the seventh year thou shall let it rest and
lie fallow,<BR> that the poor of thy people may eat..." (Shmot
2310-11)<BR> [Note as well how social justice was a primary
theme in<BR> most of the laws of Parshat Mishpatim as
well.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> To provide additional
support, I'd like to suggest that<BR>the Torah's reminder to keep God's "chukim
u'mishpatim" in<BR>25:18 may not be referring to the laws of "shemitta"
but<BR>rather to the laws of Vayikra chapters 18 & 19, for the
simple<BR>reason that the opening psukim of chapter 18 introduce exactly<BR>what
God's "chukim u'mishpatim" are all about (see related TSC<BR>shiur on Parshat
Acharei Mot). For those who don't remember,<BR>the intro in Vayikra 18:1-5
leads us to the conclusion that<BR>God's "chukim u'mishpatim" are none other
than the laws of<BR>Parshat "Kedoshim Tihiyu" (i.e. Vayikra chapter
19)!<BR> If these observations are correct, then the
thrust of<BR>God's covenant with His people at Har Sinai, and especially<BR>His
promise of reward (or punishment) should we keep (or not<BR>keep) His mitzvot,
relates primarily to the ability of Bnei<BR>Yisrael to create a society
characterized by acts of social<BR>justice ("tzedek u'mishpat" - see Breishit
18:17-19!), thus<BR>setting an example for other nations to learn from
(see<BR>Devarim 4:5-8).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Should we emphasize this direction, as we
meticulously keep<BR>all of God's mitzvot, may we be worthy of God's promise
of:<BR> "And I will give peace in the land, and ye shall lie
down,<BR> and none shall make you afraid; and I will cause evil
beasts<BR> to cease out of the land, neither shall the sword go
through<BR> your land. And ye shall chase your enemies, and they
shall<BR> fall before you by the sword... and your enemies shall
fall<BR> before you by the sword. And I will have respect unto
you,<BR> and make you fruitful, and multiply you; and will
establish<BR> My covenant with you!" (see Vayikra 26:6-9)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV><SPAN
class=937175610-10052007><FONT face=Arial size=2>
</FONT></SPAN></BODY></HTML>