[Par-reg] For Parshat Vayikra

Thu Mar 14 08:56:05 EDT 2013

*********************************************
****************

     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-reg/attachments/20130314/eba6a5fb/attachment-0001.html>