[Par-reg] Shmini - questions for self study

Tue Mar 18 10:47:47 EDT 2014

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

        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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20140318/4b280985/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: shminiq.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 49290 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20140318/4b280985/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: shminiq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 35961 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20140318/4b280985/attachment-0001.pdf>