[Par-reg] Shmini - Questions for self study

Mon Mar 24 09:16:24 EDT 2008

********************************************************
*****
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

PARSHAT SHMINI  

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

CHET NADAV & AVIHU  (and a little 'methodology')
1.  The most 'popular' topic in this week's Parsha is
the sin of Nadav and Avihu.  If you are indeed
discussing this at the 'shabbos table', ask anyone who
is listening (or at least yourself): to the best of your
recollection - what did Nadav and Avihu do wrong?
[Most likely you will hear several different answers.
If so, before you continue, try to explain why everyone
has heard so many different answers.]

2.  Now, ask yourself a different question.  In your
opinion, to what degree was their 'sin' intentional,
i.e:
(a) Were they totally aware that they were about to do
something wrong, but intentionally did it anyhow? 
    [what we call 'meizid'.]
(b) Did they unintentionally do something wrong, but
could (and should) have been more careful?
[what we call 'shogeg'.]
(c) Did they have good intentions (i.e. they intended to
do something that they thought was good - sort of like
Aharon's original intentions at 'chet ha-egel'), but
unfortunately it was something that they did not realize
was forbidden?
   [what we call a 'tragedy'.]

    Return now to the various answers (i.e. what their
sin was) that you may have raised in question #1.
Categorize those answers according to these three
possibilities.

3.  Return now to these three possibilities:
	Considering Nadav & Avinu's punishment, which
possibility seems to be the most logical one?
	Can you suggest a reason why their punishment
may have been so severe, even if their sin was not
intentional?
	[Relate to both when and where their sin takes
place.]

4.  Review 8:1-5 and 9:1-6.  As you study and compare
these two sets of psukim, note how Nadav & Avihu's sin
takes place at a 'public gathering' - called to
celebrate the dedication of the Mishkan.  Considering
this 'setting' - that their sin takes place during a
ceremony that was attended by the entire nation, can you
suggest a reason for the severity of their punishment
(even had their intentions been good)?
	In your answer, relate to the phrase "asher lo
tzivah otam" (10:1) in contrast to the phrase "ka'asher
tziva Hashem et Moshe" that is repeated so often in the
Torah's description of the assembly of the Mishkan in
Parshat Pekudei. [For example, see that phrase in Shmot
40:16,19,21,23,25,27,29,32, while noting how the events
in Vayikra chapter 9 take place on the same day as the
events in Shmot chapter 40, i.e. the day of the
dedication of the Mishkan.  Note as well a similar
phrase in Vayikra 8:5,9,13,17,21,29,36 and 9:6!

5.  Next, before we discuss the various opinions of the
commentators (and in order to appreciate the various
opinions), review 9:23 thru10:20, paying attention to
how the Torah tells the story Nadav & Avihu's sin and
its aftermath.  Based on these psukim alone, attempt to
determine on your own what it was that Nadav and Avihu's
did that angered God. 
	How do we know for sure that they sinned?
    In your answer, relate to 10:3, as well as to the
'inserted' 'parshia' from 10:8-11.
	Do the psukim tell us precisely what it was that
they did wrong?  Do they at least 'hint' to what was
done incorrectly?

6.  Next, see Vayikra 16:2 and Bamidbar 3:4 & 26:21.  Do
these psukim add any information that we were not aware
of in Parshat Shmini?  How can they shed light on any of
your answers to the above questions?
	Now, let's study the various interpretations
raised by the classic commentators:

7.  See Rashi on 10:2, noting how he quotes the two
opinions found in Eiruvin 63a [i.e. disrespect to their
elders, or entering the mishkan in a state of
drunkenness].  What is the 'textual basis' for each of
these two opinions?  
	In your opinion, are these two opinions based on
thematic considerations supported by a textual 'nuance',
or visa versa?  
    How would Rashi answer our question in relation to
their intentions (see question #2 above)?
See also Chizkuni on 10:1-3, noting how he also relates
to the two opinions of Chazal (quoted by Rashi), and how
he uses them to provide a very interesting explanation
of these psukim.

8.  Next, see Ibn Ezra, noting how he explains
explicitly that Nadav and Avihu had good intentions.
Nonetheless, they were punished.  Does he explain why?
[Again, relate to question #2 above.]  Relate this to
Ibn Ezra's explanation of Aharon's behavior at "chet
ha-egel" and the phrase "asher lo tziva Hashem" in 10:1.
	Can you explain why Ibn Ezra does not quote
Rashi (i.e. either opinion of Chazal)?

9.  Next, see Ramban on 10:1.  Note how his
interpretation is based primarily on his textual
analysis of 10:1 itself (and the obvious parallel to the
laws of the mizbach ktoret in Shmot 30:9).  Note as well
how Ramban focuses on the 'fire' aspect, in both 10:1
and 10:2, and less so in regard to the 'ktoret' itself. 
	How would Ramban answer question #2 above (re:
their intentions)?  Can you explain why?
	In your opinion, why do you think that Ramban
does not quote Rashi (either to agree or disagree with
the two opinions in Chazal - or even Ibn Ezra) before he
offers his own interpretation?  [What can we infer from
this in regard to Ramban's methodology when he studied
Chumash?]
	Now, see Ramban on 10:3, noting how he quotes
Chazal on a different issue, and Ibn Ezra; and explains
why he disagrees.  
[See footnotes on Ramban 10:1 in either Torat Chaim or
Chavell editions, noting how they explain that Ramban is
alluding to concepts in 'kabbala' in this
interpretation.]

10.  See Seforno on 10:1, noting how he bases in
interpretation on the juxtaposition in Sefer Shmot
between the laws of the daily olah offering (see Shmot
29:38-42) and the laws of the mizbach ha-ktoret (see
Shmot 30:1-10). 
    Note as well how Seforno claims that not only did
Nadav and Avihu have good intentions, they even based
their actions on their own understanding of this
juxtaposition of psukim!
	First of all, relate this to question #2 above!
	In what manner is Seforno's interpretation
similar to Ramban's, and in what manner is his
interpretation different?
[Recall our TSC shiur on Parshat Tetzaveh, in relation
to the location of the laws of mizbach ha-ktoret (in
Shmot 30:1-9) after the completion of the 'Shchina' unit
(chapters 25 thru 29), and hence the ketoret serves as
protection from the "shechina".  Relate the conclusions
of that shiur to Seforno's interpretation!]

	Finally, note how Seforno concludes his
interpretation, claiming that this action is precisely
what Chazal refer to (i.e. R. Eliezer's opinion) that
'they taught a law without consulting Moshe' (quoted by
Rashi on 10:2).  
    However, the Gemara in Eiruvin appears to provide a
different explanation (re: to 'even though fire comes
from heaven, it is a mitzva to bring our own fire as
well').  In your opinion, would Seforno agree with that
interpretation as well, or is he offering a different
explanation for R. Eliezer's opinion?

11.  In regard to these various opinions, can you
explain why the various commentators search for
additional or different reasons for Nadav and Avihu's
sin, even though there are already two answers provided
by Chazal?  
[Note how some of the parshanim attempt to connect their
own explanation to that of Chazal's (e.g. Chizkuni and
Seforno) in an attempt to add insight to what Chazal
said; while others will offer a completely different
interpretation, as long as it based on a thorough
analysis of the psukim (Ibn Ezra and Ramban).  As you
study these commentators, keep this in mind; and see if
this pattern continues!]

12.  For 'afikomen', see Rashbam on 10:1.  Note how he
provides a very clear and concise explanation for what
Nadav and Avihu did wrong (even though they may have had
good intentions).  Note as well how and why he explains
that 10:1 should be understood as 'past perfect' (i.e.
10:1 took place before 9:24), as the fire in 9:24 and
10:2 is the same!
	Then, see Rashbam on 10:2-3 where he explains
this in greater detail, and note how he beautifully
explains 10:3, even though this pasuk (at first glance)
appears to be rather cryptic.
 	Note how Rashbam bases his interpretation on the
laws of Vayikra 21:10-12 (assuming that Aharon was
already aware of those laws -as they were given at an
earlier time).  What major assumption does Rashbam make
in regard to these psukim (that is not written)?  What
does he gain by making this assumption?
	Would you agree that Rashbam's interpretation is
the simple 'pshat' of these difficult psukim?  Explain
why yes, or why not!

THE OHEL MO'ED / OLD & NEW
1.  Recall from Parshat Ki Tisa that in the aftermath of
chet ha-egel, Moshe moved his tent to 'outside the camp'
[read Shmot 33:7, noting its context in 33:1-12].  In
that pasuk, how does the Torah refer to Moshe's tent?
Can you explain why the Torah chose this specific name -
"ohel moed" - to describe his tent?
	To the best of your recollection, does Moshe's
tent ever return to 'inside' the camp? If so, when?
[Relate to Shmot 25:8.]

2. How does this name 'ohel mo'ed' (n 33:7) relate to
the fact that later on the mishkan is also referred to
as an ohel mo'ed? 
	Note the translation of Unkelos for the word
"ohel mo'ed" in Shmot 33:7 and then in Shmot 40:1,34,35,
etc. Is it the same or different? Can you explain why?
	What is the 'shoresh' [root] of the Hebrew word
'mo'ed'?  Relate to the Hebrew word 'va'ad' or 'va'ada'
(a committee - in modern Hebrew).  Relate also to Shmot
25:22 and 29:42-43!

3.  If the word "moed" implies 'metting', 'who would be
meeting whom' in the "ohel moed"?  
    Why is the word "mo'ed" also used to describe a
'yom-tov', as in Vayikra 23:1-4 and Shmot 23:17?  In
that context, does it relate to a 'meeting' of any sort?
If so, who is meeting whom?
	Based on this discussion, how would you explain
the word 'mo'adim' in the phrase "ve-hayu le-otot
u-lemo'adim..." in Breishit 1:14?  In that pasuk, does
"moed" imply 'meetings' or 'holidays'?

KASHRUT OR KEDUSHA?
4.  How would you title the entire section of laws
recorded in chapter 11 (at the end of Parshat Shmini? In
your answer, relate to the summary psukim in 11:43-47.  
    If these laws are more than just 'kashrut' [i.e. the
laws that define what animal are kosher], then explain
what the more general title should be, and why this
section does includes certain laws pertaining to what we
refer to as "kashrut".  [In your answer, relate to what
happens if someone eats an animal that is not 'kosher'.]
	Compare these psukim to the laws in Devarim
14:3-21.  Do the psukim in Devarim deal only with
kashrut or is there a more general topic there as well?

    In what manner is the section in Devarim different
than the one in Vayikra?  [Relate to the difference
between the primary themes of Vayikra and Devarim.]
========

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
The Special Korbanot of Yom ha'Shmini
1.  Review 9:1-6, noting how these psukim introduce the
special ceremony that is to take place on yom ha-shmini
- the day of the mishkan's dedication.  Based on these
psukim, in your opinion, what will be the 'highlight' of
this ceremony?  [Relate to 9:5-6 & 9:22-24.]
    How does this 'highlight' relate to the special set
of korbanot that are to be offered on this day, as
described in 9:1-4?

2. In what manner does this special ceremony on Yom
ha'Shmini parallel the events that took place at Har
Sinai?  [In your answer, relate to Shmot 24:1-17,
especially to 24:5-6 and 24:15-16.]
    How (and why) is this parallel significant?  [Relate
your answer to the first Ramban on Parshat Teruma (Shmot
25:1)].
	In what manner do these korbanot, as detailed in
9:2-4, relate to the sin of the Golden Calf?  Relate to
both their category (i.e. olah, chatat etc.), and the
specific animal. 

3.  Review 9:1-4 once again, and make a chart of all of
the special korbanot that were to be offered on yom
ha-shmini.
	Organize your chart according to:
	a)  the korbanot of Aharon vs. korbanot of the
people,
 &	b)  korbanot olah, chatat, and shlamim.

	Then, using that chart as a base, compare these
korbanot to the korbanot that were offered:
	a)  during the 7 day milu'im ceremony (see
Vayikra 8:1-36)
	b)  at 'brit na'aseh ve-nishma' at Har Sinai
(Shmot 24:4-6)
	c)  yearly on Yom Kippur based on Vayikra
16:1-5.
	d)  yearly on Shavuot with the 'shtei ha-lechem'
(23:17-19).
While doing so, relate to:
	who must bring each korban (Aharon or the
people);
	what categories of korbanot are offered;
    What specific animal is offered for the korban. 
    [Note that an 'egel' is a baby 'par'; & a 'keves' is
a baby 'ayil'.]

    Attempt to explain the thematic significance of
these parallels (i.e. between the korbanot of yom
ha-shmini; Yom Kippur and Mamad Har Sinai) while
relating to 9:4-6 & 9:23-24.
    Relate as well  to Shmot 24:9-11, 24:15-17, and
40:34-38.

5. In what manner does this day (i.e. yom ha-shmini)
coincide with the day of 'hakamat ha-mishkan', as
described in Shmot 40:1-2, and 40:38? 
	In your opinion, which of the korbanot offered
on yom ha-shimini relate directly to the events of
Ma'amad Har Sinai, and which korbanot relate to the
events at chet ha-egel.
	Which of these aspects do we find in the
korbanot offered on Yom Kippur, and which of these
aspects do we find in the special korbanot offered on
Shavuot (in Vayikra 23:17-21)?

    What event at Ma'amad Har Sinai is parallel to
Vayikra 9:23? 
	What event (and/or warning) at Har Sinai is
parallel to Vayikra 10:1-2?  [Relate to Shmot 19:20-24.]

6. Based on that parallel, attempt to explain why are
Nadav & Avihu punished, even though they may have had
good intentions?   [See Chizkuni on Vayikra 10:3!]
	Based on our TSC shiur on Parshat Tetzaveh, why
do you think that Nadav & Avihu thought that it was
necessary to offer ktoret when they saw the "shchina"
descending unto the Mishkan?   [See Seforno on Vayikra
10:1.]
	In what manner is their sin similar to Aharon's
sin at chet ha-egel?  In your answer, relate to the last
phrase in Vayikra 10:1.

========

PART III - PARSHANUT

AHARON'S SPECIAL KORBAN
1.  As you may recall, Parshat Shmini opens by telling
us that Aharon must offer an "egel" [a calf] for a
korban chatat on yom ha-shmini, as it was the first day
that he officiated in the mishkan (see 9:1-2).  In your
opinion, why must Aharon offer specifically an 'egel'
for his chatat on this day?  
	Relate to the fact that during each of the seven
days of milu'im that preceded yom ha-shmini, Aharon
offered a par for a chatat.  [btw, an egel (calf) is a
baby par (bull).]

	Now see Rashi on 9:2.  How does he answer this
question? 
	You may have understood that Rashi explains that
Aharon brings an egel as he needs forgiveness ['kapara']
for his sin at chet ha-egel.  [It's only an assumption,
but 95% of the time that I have asked this question in
class, that is the answer that everyone gives.]

	Now, read this Rashi once again, this time
carefully.  Explain why Rashi begins his commentary with
the phrase: "lehodi'a..." [to make it publicly
known...].  Attempt to arrive at a more precise
understanding of how Rashi relates this egel to chet
ha-egel.  Can you explain why?  In your answer, relate
to Rashi's explanation for why Aharon had to bring a par
for his chatat during each of the seven days of the
milu'im.
	Then, see Rashi on Shmot 29:1-2, where he
explains why Aharon must offer a par on each day of the
seven day milu'im.  Note how this explanation is
different than his explanation for the egel on yom
ha-shmini.  Can you explain why?

	Next, see Chizkuni.  Is his peirush the same as
Rashi's or different?  [See also Ibn Ezra.]  How do they
both relate to the difference between the 'par
la-chatat' during the 7 day milu'im, and the 'egel
la-chatat' on yom ha-shmini?  How does Rashi relate to
this?
	Then, see Ramban on this topic / in his
commentary to 9:2 towards the end - "ve-hinei
ha-korbanot ha-eilu...", and note how and why he argues
with Rashi.  How does he explain why Aharon must bring a
par during the seven day milu'im?
	Can you explain the reason for these respective
opinions of Rashi & Ramban?  Be sure to relate to their
controversy concerning when chet ha-egel took place,
i.e. before the commandment to build the mishkan (Rashi)
or afterwards (Ramban).  [Finally, see Tanchuma on
Vayikra 9:2.]

WHAT CAUSED THE SHCHINA TO APPEAR?
2.  As you review the opening psukim of the Parsha
(9:1-6), note how God informs Moshe that 'kvod Hashem'
would appear - once Aharon & Bnei Yisrael would offer a
certain set of korbanot.  [Note especially 9:4 & 9:6, in
their context.] 
	Then, quickly review 9:6-24, noting how these
commandments are fulfilled.  Based on the concluding
psukim of chapter 9, did "kvod Hashem" appear
immediately upon the completion of these sacrifices, or
did something else happen in between? 
    If there was a need for something additional, can
you explain why?  In your answer, relate to 9:23!
	Then, see Rashi, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra and Chizkuni
on 9:23, and enjoy!

THE FIRST OR EIGHTH OF NISAN?
3.  On what day of the month (of Nissan) did yom
ha-shmini take place?  Consider the following sources:
	Shmot chapter 40, especially 40:2,17,34-35.
	Vayikra 1:1-2; 7:37->8:4; 8:33->9:5
	Bamidbar 7:1-11,88-89.
[Note, that since yom ha-shmini was preceded by the
seven day 'milu'im' ceremony, then it depends if the
seven day milu'im began with the erection of the mishkan
by Moshe on the first of Nissan as described in Shmot
40:1-2,17 or 7 days earlier on the 23rd of Adar. ]
	This is a very complicated sugya, and the source
for a major controversy among the commentators.  Be sure
to see:
	Rashi on Vayikra 9:1 and Vayikra 8:2
	Ibn Ezra (aroch) & Ramban on Shmot 40:1!
	Ramban on Vayikra 8:2 !

be-hatzlacha,
						menachem

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.8/1339 -
Release Date: 3/22/2008 4:43 PM

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: shminiq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 35961 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20080324/61e2b296/attachment-0001.pdf 