INTPARSHA61 -23: Parashat Vayikra

HHMI Newsgroup Archives

From: "Yeshivat Har Etzion's Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash"
To: yhe-intparsha@vbm-torah.org
Subject: INTPARSHA61 -23: Parashat Vayikra

YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
**************************************************************

PARASHAT VAYIKRA

The Secrets of the Sacrifices
by Rav Zvi Shimon

In our age of satellite and computer technology, many find it difficult to relate to the idea of sacrifices. Since the destruction of the temple we no longer worship God through the offering of sacrifices but rather through prayer. While the words of the prayers reveal their meaning and content, the ideas behind the different sacrifices remain concealed. Parashat Vayikra lists the different types of sacrifices and the manner in which they are offered, but never reveals the meaning behind them. It describes man's desire to offer a sacrifice: "When any of you presents an offering of cattle to the Lord" (Leviticus 1:2). The offering of sacrifices is presented as a given. The Torah assumes that the reader is familiar with the motivations for offering sacrifices. Since the Torah only delineates the laws of each type of sacrifice we must ask, why are there different types of sacrifices and what ideas do they express?

Parashat Vayikra begins with a verse describing God's speaking to Moses: "The Lord called to Moses and spoke..." (1:1). The next appearance of such a verse is in chapter 4: "The Lord spoke to Moses, saying..." (4:1). It can be deduced from this that chapters one through three were said together but chapter four was spoken by God separately. The first three chapters deal with the burnt offering, meal offering and peace offering respectively. Chapters four and five deal with the different sin offerings and guilt offerings. What distinguishes between these two groups? Why were they said separately? The major distinction between these two groups are the circumstances surrounding the offering of the sacrifice. In the first group (the burnt offering, meal offering and peace offering), the sacrifice is brought voluntarily: "When any of you presents an offering of cattle to the Lord" (Leviticus 1:2). Man initiates the bringing of an offering. By contrast, the sin and guilt offerings of chapters four and five are not voluntary but rather obligatory. They must be brought under certain circumstances that are delineated by the Torah. The Torah first describes the voluntary sacrifices in one communication from God and only afterwards treats the obligatory ones in a separate communication.

As stated, there are three types of sacrifices which may be brought voluntarily, the burnt offering, meal offering and peace offering. The Torah lists several possibilities for each type of sacrifice. For example, a burnt offering may either come from cattle, sheep, or birds.

The Malbim (Rabbi Meir Loeb ben Yechiel Michael, Eastern Europe, 1809-1879) points to the difference in the wording used by the Torah in the introduction of a new category, and the wording used in delineating the sub-divisions of each category. A new subject or category is introduced with the word 'Ki' - (WHEN). The sub-divisions of the general category or law will always be introduced with the word 'Im' - (IF). (Examples are numerous, see Exodus chapters 21,22 and Leviticus 2:4-7). Using this linguistic rule, we can identify the subject heading of our chapter and its sub-divisions. The word "when" appears in verse two and introduces the sacrifices: "WHEN any of you presents an offering of cattle to the Lord, he shall choose his offering from the herd or from the flock". Verse 3 then presents the first sub-division of the category introduced by verse 2: "IF his offering is a burnt offering...". The remainder of the first chapter describes the different types of burnt offerings: "IF his offering for a burnt offering is from the flock..."(1:10) and "IF his offering to the Lord is a burnt offering of birds..."(1:14). The word "if" in these verses designates the sub-categories of the burnt offering.

If the burnt offering is a sub-category of verse 2 what is its counterpart? What is the alternative to the burnt offering in verse 3. Rabbi Hoffman (Rabbi David Zvi Hoffman, Germany, 1843-1921), using the linguistic principal formulated by the Malbim, concludes that the peace offering of chapter 3, "And IF his offering be a sacrifice of peace offering".(3:1), is the counterpart of the burnt offering. The word if which introduces the peace offering in chapter 3 parallels the if which introduces the burnt offering, "IF his offering is a burnt offering..."(1:3). To summarize, verse 2 introduces the category of voluntary sacrifices which divide into two sub-categories, the burnt offering of chapter 1 and the peace offering of chapter 3.

What requires elaboration, according to this interpretation, is the function of chapter 2. If chapters 1 and 3 are actually connected, why does chapter two, which deals with the meal offering, appear between them? Rabbi Hoffman answers that the meal offering is connected to the burnt offering and the Torah brings it in chapter two as an appendage to the burnt offering. The meal offering is not one of the sub-divisions of the category introduced in verse two. However it appears where it does because of the connection between it and the burnt offering. The nature of this connection will be explained later. First we must understand the meaning and relationship between the burnt and peace offerings. What makes them the two prototypes of the voluntary sacrifice?

As stated earlier, the meaning of the sacrifices is not revealed by the Torah. The offerer, in the times of the Temple, knew the meaning behind the sacrifices. We, however, can only deduce from the laws of the different sacrifices, what each of them expressed. By comparing the laws of the burnt and peace offerings we will attempt to discover what they represent. As you read the two following texts note the differences between the laws of the burnt and peace offerings.

"The Lord called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting, saying: Speak to the Israelite people, and say to them:

When any of you presents an offering of cattle to the Lord, he shall choose his offering from the herd or from the flock.

If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall make his offering a male without blemish. He shall bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, for acceptance in his behalf before the Lord. He shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, that it may be acceptable in his behalf, in expiation for him. The bull shall be slaughtered before the Lord; and Aaron's sons, the priests, shall offer the blood, dashing the blood against all sides of the altar which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. The burnt offering shall be flayed and cut up into sections. The sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar and lay out wood upon the fire; and Aaron's sons, the priests, shall lay out the sections, with the head and the suet, on the wood that is on the fire upon the altar. Its entrails and legs shall be washed with water, and the priest shall turn the whole into smoke on the altar as a burnt offering, an offering by fire of pleasing odor to the Lord." (Leviticus 1:1-9)

"If his offering is a peace offering -

If he offers of the herd, whether a male or a female, he shall bring before the Lord one without blemish. He shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering and slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting; and Aaron's sons, the priests, shall dash the blood against all sides of the altar. He shall then present from the peace offering, as an offering by fire to the Lord, the fat that covers the entrails and all the fat that is about the entrails; the two kidneys and the fat that is on them, that is at the loins; and the protuberance on the liver, which he shall remove with the kidneys. Aaron's sons shall turn these into smoke on the altar, with the burnt offering which is upon the wood that is on the fire, as an offering by fire, of pleasing odor to the Lord."(3:1-5)

The following are some of the major differences between the burnt and peace offerings:

1. The burnt offering is brought only from male animals while the peace offering may be either male or female.

2. The burnt offering atones while the peace offering does not.

3. In a burnt offering the whole animal is burned on the altar. In a peace offering only the fat of the entrails, the kidneys and their fat, and the protuberance on the liver are offered. The breast of the animal and its right thigh are given to the 'kohanim' (7:31,32), and the remaining flesh of the animal is eaten by the offerer of the sacrifice (7:15).

4. The peace offering is considered a 'Lechem Isheh,' a food offering ("The priest shall turn these into smoke on the altar as food..." 3:11) while the burnt offering is not.

I) The Burnt Offering

In attempting to reveal the meaning of the different sacrifices, the first insight available to us is the name of the sacrifice. "Burnt offering" is the English translation for the Hebrew word olah. The English translation of the word olah is more of an interpretation than a translation. It does not relate to the original Hebrew meaning of the word, olah, but rather offers an English name based on the laws of the sacrifice, namely, its being completely burned on the altar. The commentators offer several explanations for the name olah. One possibility is that it stems from the word 'avela,' a wrongdoing. The burnt offering atones for wrongdoing perpetrated by the offerer. The Ibn Ezra (Rabbi Avraham ben Ezra, Spain, 1092-1167) offers a conceptually similar explanation but based on a different etymology:

"That which is offered to atone for [sinful thoughts] which ARISE in the mind of the offerer is called an olah - a burnt offering." (Ibn Ezra 1:4)

The Ibn Ezra's interpretation is based on one of the explanations offered by our sages for the atonement accomplished by the burnt offering (see Vayikra Rabba 7:3, compare Rashi 1:4). In contrast to the sin offering which is offered for sinful deeds, the burnt offering atones for sinful thoughts. According to this explanation, sin does not only pertain to the realm of action but also to the realm of thought. A "misthought," like a misdeed, requires atonement. The Ibn Ezra suggests that the name olah stems from the root 'Alah' - to rise (as in the word 'Aliya'). It relates to the sinful thoughts "arising" in the mind of the offerer.

However, the Ibn Ezra, himself, apparently found this explanation to be unsatisfactory, since he later offers a different explanation of the word olah. It indeed stems from the Hebrew root which means to rise. However it doesn't relate to that for which the burnt offering atones, namely sinful thoughts, but rather describes the process by which the sacrifice is offered. As stated, the olah is the only sacrifice which is completely burned on the altar. Neither the 'kohanim' nor the offerer receive any part of it. As such it is called an olah, literally, a sacrifice which rises.

II)The Peace Offering

The Hebrew name for this sacrifice is 'zevach SHELAMIM.' The commentators offer different explanations of the etymology of this name. According to the Rashbam (Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir, France, 1080-1160) the source of the name is the word 'Le-shalem,' to pay. The shelamim is brought in fulfillment of vows, and as such is a 'tashlumin,' a payment of a debt. Some modern scholars suggest, in a similar vein, that the shelamim is an offering of thanks, a "repayment" for the good bestowed upon the offerer by God. However this interpretation is difficult since there are numerous examples of this offering being brought in times of affliction, as a request for salvation (see Judges 20:26; 21:4;...). The Ibn Ezra (see short commentary to Exodus 29:28) raises a different possibility. He suggests that the name shelamim stems from the word 'shalem' - perfect, complete. Thus, the name of the sacrifice describes the spiritual state of the offerer. In
contrast to the sin offering which is brought due to a misdeed, the shelamim is brought by a perfect soul unperturbed by sin. Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzchak, France, 1040-1105) ,citing our sages, offers a third interpretation:

" shelamim - They are so called because they bring peace into the world. Another explanation is: they are called shelamim because through them there is peace (harmony and lack of envy) to the altar, to the priests and to the owners (since all these receive a portion)"(3:1).

We stated that the peace offering has the unique quality of being divided between the altar - God, the kohen and the offerer of the sacrifice. This sharing represents harmony and peace between the parties involved. This interpretation is the source for the translation of shelamim as peace offering. This translation is a fine example of a translation which by necessity must be an interpretation.

In summary, the commentators offer three possible etymologies of the word shelamim, either from the verb 'le-shalem' - to pay, or from the word 'shalem' - complete, or from the word 'shalom' - peace.

While we might now be able to understand the meaning of the names of the sacrifices, we are yet to grasp their inner significance. How are they the two prototypes of the voluntary sacrifices? What does the offerer of these sacrifices wish to express?

The major difference between the olah and the shelamim is the fact that the olah is offered totally to God while the shelamim is shared by all the parties involved. This difference is the key to understanding the significance of these sacrifices. The olah stresses the gap between God and man. The olah is burned on the altar and RISES to the heavens. Man has no part in it; he can not partake of it. It belongs to the divine. We noted that one of the differences between the sacrifices is that the olah atones for man's imperfections. Man's faults and shortcomings distance him from the almighty. He senses his many faults and weaknesses and realizes his minuteness when standing before God. He approaches God in total submission, with a sense of awe and fear. The olah represents the worship of God 'Be-Yir'a' - with awe and fear.

The shelamim, by contrast, represent closeness between man and God. It is a banquet, a shared meal in which God, the kohen and the offerer of the sacrifice each partake of part of the animal. Man, the finite, sits with the infinite and eats, as it were, at the same table. The Torah gives expression to this aspect of the sacrifice by calling it a 'Lechem Isheh,' a food offering (see 3:11). The shelamim can be viewed as the food of God since man also partakes of it in a special feast. Man can achieve this sense of closeness with God only when he is in an elevated spiritual state. When man is 'shalem' - complete and perfect, he is worthy of sitting at God's table. Moreover, it is through man's cleaving to God that he achieves this state of perfection. The shelamim represents the worship of God 'Be-Ahava' - with love.

Verse two, ("When any of you presents an offering of cattle to the Lord") introduces the emotions in man's worship of God. God with awe and fear as well as with yearning and love. The Torah informs us that one who desires to bring a sacrifice has two basic possibilities available, a sacrifice expressing fear and submission or a sacrifice expressing love and attachment.

We can now return to the obvious question arising from this analysis. What is the explanation for the placement of the meal offering in chapter two. If chapters one and three are connected and represent the two types of emotion in the worship of God, why does the meal offering of chapter two, appear between them?

The Malbim (beginning of chapter two) points out that chapter two begins with the word 'Ki' - (when), signaling the beginning of a new topic:

"And when an individual presents a meal offering to God..." (2:1).

The difference between the 'mincha' - the meal offering and the olah and shelamim is clear. The mincha is not an animal sacrifice but rather brought from flour. However the Malbim also points out that the chapter begins with the letter 'vav' - "And". As evidenced by the word Ki - (when), the meal offering is a new topic, and yet the letter 'vav' - (And), establishes a connection between the meal offering and the burnt offering of chapter one. This connection is not unique to our parasha. There are several instances in the Bible where the burnt and meal offerings appear connected (see Leviticus 9:17; 23:37; Joshua 22:23; Judges 13:23). How are these sacrifices related? The olah expresses God's ownership of our lives and man's complete submission to His will. The whole animal, symbolizing the totality of life, is offered onto the altar. The mincha, similarly expresses God's ownership of all man's material belongings. The flour, the major component of the mincha, is the basic food ingredient on which man subsists. It symbolizes the material world. By offering a mincha man gives expression to his awareness that the wealth which he has acquired is given to him by God. Therefore, although the mincha is not an animal sacrifice, the Torah mentions it in connection with the olah due to the similarities in the ideas which they express.

The first three chapters of Leviticus deal with the voluntary sacrifices, the olah, mincha and zevach shelamim. The following chapters deal with obligatory sacrifices, the sin and guilt offerings. The precedence of the voluntary sacrifices, according to our sages, shows that they are more desirable than the obligatory sacrifices. What about the order within the voluntary sacrifices themselves? Why does the olah precede the shelamim?

The Torah first describes the olah to teach us that the fear and awe of God are primary in man's relationship with God. An appreciation of the greatness and omnipotence of God is the first step in knowing God. One who loves God without fearing Him becomes attached to God without a proper regard for his greatness. One of the differences between the olah and the shelamim is that the olah may be brought only from male animals while the shelamim may be either male or female. This difference perhaps testifies to the primacy of the olah offering. From a financial perspective the male is viewed as more valuable (see Leviticus chapter 27). The requirement of a male animal in the olah indicates its importance and supremacy over other sacrifices. We must obviously, both fear and love God. However, the fear and awe of God generated by the olah are the foundation for the love of God expressed by the shelamim.

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

YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH
ALON SHEVUT, GUSH ETZION 90433

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

The Meal-Offering

By Rav Yonatan Grossman

Parashat Vayikra describes three types of voluntary sacrifices, i.e., sacrifices which a person decides of his own free will to bring to the mishkan. (Following these, the parasha goes on to describe the obligatory sacrifices: the sin offering [chatat] and the guilt offering [asham], which a person is required to bring under certain circumstances.)

The various options open to a person wishing to bring a voluntary sacrifice are the burnt offering (olah - chapter 1), the mincha (chapter 2) or the shelamim (chapter 3). While the olah and shelamim are animal sacrifices, the mincha is not: "his offering shall be of fine flour (solet)" (2:1).

... Thus, there are two categories of possibilities from which the person wishing to offer an animal sacrifice may choose: either an "olah" (burnt offering) or a "shelamim" (peace offering).

However, the order of the different sacrifices is not as we would have expected. After the laws pertaining to the olah in chapter 1, the text - surprisingly enough - goes on to discuss the mincha (chapter 2). This sacrifice cannot represent an additional instance that falls under the general introduction with which the parasha of the sacrifices began, because the introduction specifically mentions an animal sacrifice, while the mincha is a vegetable sacrifice!

... Chapter 2, then, starts with its own independent introduction, since the Torah is now going to discuss a meal offering, while the original introduction prepared us for animal sacrifices. Why, then, does the text interrupt its discussion of animal sacrifices and start a new discussion concerning the flour offering, and only thereafter continue with another animal sacrifice - the "zevach shelamim," which complements the olah? This is the Abarbanel's ninth question on our parasha:

"Why does the Torah discuss the laws of the mincha in all its varieties prior to the shelamim? After all, since the shelamim is taken from the cattle or from the herds, we would have thought that it should be commanded prior to the mincha."

I follow the lead of R. David Zvi Hoffmann with regard to this question. The Malbim explains that apparently the mincha is mentioned in close proximity with the olah because of the internal connection between them. In other words, the mincha is a sort of "comment in parentheses" that is mentioned here in connection with the olah. R. Hoffmann shows that in essence the mincha too, like the olah, is offered in its entirety to God, but God decides to give of it to His servants, the kohanim. This we learn from the law of a special mincha of which the kohanim are forbidden to partake - the "minchat chinukh shel kohen" (initiatory meal offering of the kohen):

"It is a statute forever to God; it shall be entirely burnt. And every meal offering of the kohen shall be entirely burnt; it shall not be eaten." (6:-15-16)

... Indeed, the mincha is very often juxtaposed with the olah. Sometimes the shelamim is presented in contrast. Thus, for example, in the story of the altar built by the children of Reuven, Gad and the half-tribe of Menasheh: ".or to offer a burnt offering or a meal offering upon it, or to offer peace offerings upon it" (Yehoshua 22:23) - the olah and mincha on one hand, the shelamim on the other.

Because of this connection between the olah and mincha, the text juxtaposes these two sacrifices even though the mincha is not one of the categories that falls under the first heading, which deals specifically with animal sacrifices.

... The essential connection between these two sacrifices (expressed in the halakhic connection between them) turns on the intention of the person who offers them: each involves an attitude of complete sacrifice before the Master of the Universe, a psychological sense of unworthiness to stand before God - an attitude of honor and awe.

[The olah contains a note of atonement even though it is a free-will offering - ".it shall be accepted for him to atone for him" (1:4). This is the impression we gain from the olah sacrifices offered by Iyov for his children: ".for Iyov said, Perhaps my children have sinned, an have cursed God in their hearts" (Iyov 1:5). See also the Ramban's commentary on 1:4.]

But at the same time there would appear to be a fundamental difference between the olah and the mincha (in contrast with the Abarbanel's proposition that they are to be considered identical). The hint at the difference between them is to be found in the two introductions. In the case of the olah, the Torah begins with the words, "adam ki yakriv" (literally, "a person, when he offers."), while the mincha opens with the words, "ve-nefesh ki yakriv" (literally, "a soul, when he offers."). Chazal note this discrepancy:

"For what reason is the [introduction to the] mincha changed, to say 'nefesh?' The Holy One said, Who is it who usually brings a mincha? A poor person. I will [therefore] consider it as though he sacrifices his soul (nefesh) before Me." (Menachot 104b)

The discrepancy in the introduction may also hint at something else. In the context of sacrifices, the term "nefesh" has a clear association:

"For the life (nefesh) of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to atone for your souls (nafshotekhem), for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul (nefesh)." (Vayikra 17:11)

"Nefesh" expresses the life itself, embodied in the blood - including the blood of the olah that is offered upon the altar. We may therefore propose that in the case of those sacrifices whose blood is offered, we cannot speak of a "nefesh" offering the sacrifice, since the nefesh (or at least that which symbolizes it) is sacrificed on the altar. However, in the case of the mincha, where there is no blood - i.e., the nefesh is not offered upon the altar - we may say that it is the nefesh which offers the sacrifice.

In other words, by the act of sacrificing an animal the worshipper declares that his life, his very existence, belongs to his Maker, and therefore he offers a life upon the altar. By offering a mincha he is declaring something not about his life but rather about his food and his other vital needs. A person brings his meal to the mishkan, adds oil (a symbol of wealth [1]) and levona (a symbol of contentment, according to some of the commentaries - see Rav S.R. Hirsch) and declares that all of this does not belong to him and he is not worthy of it, and therefore he brings it to its true Owner - the Master of the Universe.

... This idea also finds expression in the quantity of fine flour that is always required for a mincha offering: a tenth of an "efa." This quantity apparently represents a person's food for one day. This we learn from the parasha of the manna, where Bnei Yisrael are required to take an "omer" per person each day (Shemot 16:16). At the end of the parasha we read, "And the omer is a tenth of an ef"" (Shemot 16:36) - teaching us that a person's food for one day is a tenth of an efa. Rashi immediately comments on the connection with the mincha: "A tenth of an efa. and that is the set quantity for challa and for mincha offerings" (Shemot 16:36). There seems to be a profound connection between the descent of the manna - God providing food for man - and the mincha offering, where man "gives" food upon the altar, but a discussion of this idea lies outside the scope of this shiur. In any event, by bringing a mincha a person offers his daily bread to its true owner - God.

In summary, the mincha offering appears immediately after the laws of the olah because of the close connection between them - a connection related to the religious declaration that accompanies each of these, in which the person expresses his sense of unworthiness of all the good that God is showering upon him.[2] The religious feeling that is expressed in the olah pertains to the person's very existence: he feels that his life is not his own, and he sacrifices a "life" - a "soul" - upon the altar. In contrast - or perhaps as a continuation - the sentiment that finds expression in the mincha pertains to a person's needs - his food and physical welfare. These, as it were, he brings to the altar as a declaration that he is unworthy of them, and that God is their true owner.

(Translated by Kaeren Fish)

FOOTNOTES

[1] We see that oil (shemen) is a symbol of wealth in Yaakov's blessing to Asher: "From Asher his bread will be fat (shemena)" (Bereishit 49:20), and in the instructions Moshe gives to the spies who are sent to Canaan: "Whether [the land] is fat (shemena) or thin" (Bemidbar 13:20).

[2] This is in contrast to the shelamim, which expresses a completely different religious sentiment - a feeling of joy and neighborliness. This idea was addressed in the VBM shiur on parashat Tzav two years ago.

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

YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH
ALON SHEVUT, GUSH ETZION 90433

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

Return to Newsgroup Archives Main Page

Return to our Main Webpage

©2011 Hebraic Heritage Ministries International. Designed by Web Design by JB.