Rashi on *Adam* Ki Yakriv

Summary: Considering the intent of this Rashi, and midrash.

Post: At the start of parashat Vayikra, we have the pasuk and Rashi:

2. Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: When a man from [among] you brings a sacrifice to the Lord; from animals, from cattle or from the flock you shall bring your sacrifice.		ב. דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם אָדָם כִּי יַקְרִיב מִכֶּם קָרְבָּן לַה מִן הַבְּהֵמָה מִן הַבָּקָר וּמִן הַצֹּאן תַּקְרִיבוּ אֶת קָרְבַּנְכֶם:
		אדם כי יקריב מכם: כשיקריב, בקרבנות נדבה דבר הענין:
A man [adam]: why is this said? Just as Adam HaRishon did not offer from stolen property, for all was his, so too you should not bring from stolen property.		אדם: למה נאמר, מה אדם הראשון לא הקריב מן הגזל, שהכל היה שלו, אף אתם לא תקריבו מן הגזל:
		הבהמה: יכול אף חיה בכלל, תלמוד לומר בקר וצאן:

While surrounded by midrash halacha, I think this is midrash aggada, as somewhat homiletic midrash. This is borne out by the sources from which Rashi draws these midrashim. Via Mekorei Rashi: on the previous pasuk, from the Sifra.

On d"h אדם כי יקריב מכם, from the Sifra. Following d"h adam, on הבהמה, from the Sifra. And so on and so forth. This is all midrash halacha, teaching parameters of the halacha in analyzing these legal codes describing the korbanot. And it has the legal midrash halacha feel to it. But Rashi, d"h אדם, has quite a different style to it. And indeed, it is drawn from Midrash Tanchuma or from Vayikra Rabba. That Midrash Tanchuma, on Tzav, reads:

דבר אחר:
וידבר ה', צו את אהרן ואת בניו אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא: קיימו מה שכתוב למעלה מן הענין, ואחר כך זאת תורת העולה.

למה?
כי אני ה' אוהב משפט שונא גזל בעולה (ישעי' סא ח), אפילו בעולה.

מה כתיב למעלה מן הענין?
והיה כי יחטא ואשם והשיב את הגזלה אשר גזל, ואחר כך זאת תורת העולה.

למה?
כי אני ה' אוהב משפט שונא גזל בעולה. אם בקשת להקריב קרבן, לא תגזול לאדם כלום.

למה?
כי אני ה' אוהב משפט שונא גזל בעולה.

ואימתי אתה מעלה עולה ואני מקבלה?
כשתנקה כפיך מן גזל.

מה הוא הגזל?
דוד אמר: מי יעלה בהר ה' ומי יקום במקום קדשו, נקי כפים ובר לבב (תהל' כד ג-ד) זאת תורת העולה, מי שהוא נקי כפים מן הגזל, הוא יעלה בהר ה'.

ומתחילת הקורבנות אתה למד, דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם אדם.

למה אומר אדם?
אלא אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא: כשתהא מקריב לפני, תהיה כאדם הראשון, שלא היה גוזל מאחרים, שהוא היה יחידי בעולם, כך אתה לא תהיה גוזל לברייה.

למה?
כי אני ה' אוהב משפט שונא גזל בעולה. 

Or, from Vayikra Rabba, 2:7:

ז [לא תקריב מן הגזילות]

אמר רבי ברכיה:
א"ל הקב"ה לאדם: זה אדם יהא קרבנך דומה לקרבנו של אדם הראשון שהיה הכל ברשותו ולא הקריב מן הגזילות, ומן החמסים. אף אתה לא תקריב מן הגזילות ולא מן החמסים, ואם עשית כן, (תהלים סט) ותיטב לה' משור פר.  

ח ["אדם" - לשון חיבה]

דבר אחר:
אדם, זה לשון חבה ולשון אחוה ולשון ריעות.
אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא ליחזקאל: בן אדם!
בן אנשים כשרים
בן צדיקים
בן גומלי חסדים
בן שמבזין את עצמן על כבודו של מקום ועל כבודן של ישראל כל ימיו.

Read these carefully and in context, and it becomes clear that this is homiletic, rather than being midrash halacha. To expand on how this works out nicely according to Rashi as homily, consider that Rashi first cites the Sifra and writes:

אדם כי יקריב מכם: כשיקריב, בקרבנות נדבה דבר הענין:

Thus, this pasuk is speaking about a nedava, a non-obligatory offering, and as we see in the next pasuk, an olah. He is trying to develop his connection to Hakadosh Baruch Hu, and also is doing more than the law requires. Yet there are some people, as Yeshaya develops in the pasuk cited in the midrash, who attempt to develop this bein adam laMakom aspect while trampling over bein adam lachaveiro, by stealing, perhaps even stealing the very stuff that makes up the olah offering. Thus, Rashi juxtaposes this derasha from Midrash Rabba and Tanchuma, about Gezel. The pasuk in Yeshaya, 61:8, reads:

ח  כִּי אֲנִי ה אֹהֵב מִשְׁפָּט, שֹׂנֵא גָזֵל בְּעוֹלָה; וְנָתַתִּי פְעֻלָּתָם בֶּאֱמֶת, וּבְרִית עוֹלָם אֶכְרוֹת לָהֶם.

8 For I the LORD love justice, I hate robbery with iniquity; and I will give them their recompense in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.

Peshat is presumably like the English translation, that olah here means "iniquity", but the midrash takes it as a reference to an olah offering.

How should we read this pasuk in Vayikra according to this homiletic midrash? Adam, ki yakriv -- you should be like Adam when you offer a korban.

Had Rashi wished to go with a simple midrash halacha, he could have drawn it from the Sifra, which states:

אדם לרבות את הגרים

Indeed, I found in a Ktav Yad of Rashi, from Rome, in 1470, the following:

Here, they give the Sifra as a davar acher, to include geirim. And not only that, they darshen the word mikem, to exclude the meshumadim; and korban laHashem, and then it picks up with our version of Rashi, with min habehaima. My guess is that someone inserted this run from the Sifra -- either an overeager scribe, or someone else on the margins, where it was subsequently copied into the actual text of Rashi.

I part ways with a bunch of the meforshei Rashi in understanding this Rashi. For instance, Gur Aryeh (and see the elaborate footnote there) follows the Re'em in understanding that the 'problem' is that it says Adam rather than Ish, yet we would have expected Ish here for some reason. (Because Adam is inclusive of woman and children, yet here we would only want to include gedolim but not ketanim.) And because this would have been obvious, that it couldn't be from gezel, because it would not be his, and for other reasons, it must be speaking about a nedava. (As far as I understand the Sifra, we can get this from the ki of ki yakriv, such that it is a reshut and not a chova.) And so on and so forth.

To me, this approach to this Rashi seems too much like an approach to midrash halacha. But Rashi is getting this from midrash aggada. And if it were midrash halacha, why are we now inventing our own derivations and rules? We could just turn to the Sifra.

Have a look at the Taz:

"Adam, why is it said" -- Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi explains 'and it was not stated Ish. And this that the preceded this question {J: that is, why Adam was stated} to that it is speaking about a nedava {voluntary offering}, Maharan explains that this is what it means: It is fine if it were speaking about an obligation, a chova, one could say that that it why it stated Adam, in order to restrict Cutheans {gentiles}, but now that we are speaking of a nedava, and Cutheans as well can bring a nedava, as we state in the first perek of Chullin (13b), Ish, Ish -- to include Cutheans, who came donate nedarim and nedavot like an Israelite -- if so, it is a difficulty why it is stated Adam. And I recorded this for its pilpul value, but it is not emes, for if so, in parashat Tazria, where it is written "an Adam, when he has in the flesh of his skin...", what will you say about it? How come it does not state Ish? And when we delve into what Rashi inscribes, Adam ki yakriv mikem, and it is for no need. Rather, he should have first inscribed Adam and to explain it, and afterwards ki yakriv and to explain it. Rather, Rashi's intent is to resolve the meaning of the language "Adam...Mikem", where it would have sufficed to state "Adam Ki Yakriv" by itself or "Ki Yakriv Mikem" by itself. And this is why Rashi says "Adam, why is it stated?" In other words, it should have been silent and omitted entirely {J: and not, e.g. stating Ish}, and it should only have stated Ki Yakriv Mikem. And since Rashi wished to resolve this difficulty, which is both first and last, for it is doubled, it is fine for him to explain first the Ki Yakriv which precedes, that it is speaking about a nedava, before he explains that which follows, the word mikem which is repetitive of Adam, for one of them is extra. And therefore he first explains ki yakriv, which is earlier, and afterwards Adam, for the difficulty comes by virtue of Mikem which is later. And one who wishes to suspend/connect the question of 'Adam' to the words Ki Yakriv, this is only for pilpul, and it is not in it what is necessary"


I agree with the Taz that if one is going to start making it into midrash halacha, one would expect to make it systematic, and that one can find difficulties with this, just as he found in parashat Tazria. And I agree that in fact, this is pilpul and does not represent the approach of the Sifra or the reasoning of Rashi. I don't think I agree with the Taz, though, in his own explanation of this midrash.

The derasha of the Sifra, where it gets that it is a nedava, is:


אדם כי יקריב יכול גזירה ת״ל כי יקריב אינו אלא רשות


This is letter yud-bet, while its derasha on adam {that it means gerim) is letter yud. So the Sifra, at least, does put them in the order we might expect -- first darshen Adam, and then darshen the phrase ki yakriv. The way it works is first Bnei Yisrael, to which BTW excludes bnot Yisrael from semicha on the korban. But the ones under discussion within this inyan are bnei bris. Therefore, when it encounters Adam, it is inclusive, but not of kutim, meaning gentiles, but instead of geirim. If we want to include gentiles to bring a nedava, that will be from a different pasuk, as we see in Chulin, based on Ish. But here, the focus is on bnei brit, and thus specifically converts. The word mikem is to exclude mumrim or meshumadim, apostates, who are not included in mikem. So there is no duplication in play. Does Rashi include all these derashot? Well, only according to the Ktav Yad I showed above, but in many other kitvei yad, and in our printed text, no.

But my point in all this is that if Rashi were troubled by Adam, or by Mikem, he could have gone to existing midrash halacha, the Sifra, the same place he is drawing all the other derashot in these pesukim. He has ready answers to his questions, and does not need to make up his own midrash halacha, assume there is a difficulty of unnecessary duplication, and answer it in this way. Thus, I would say that the Taz's analysis, as well, is pilpul, rather than the emes in Rashi's intent.

I think the answer to the Taz's difficulty of the ordering is that Rashi's injection of the Midrash Tanchuma / Midrash Rabba is an injection of midrash aggada, and of homily, rather than of midrash halacha. And so, we don't need to resolve it systematically with other uses in the Torah. And so, in terms of the order, it is absolutely fine. Rather than darshening Adam, Ki Yakriv, and Mikem, in the order of the Sifra, he only brings the derasha on Ki Yakriv. (Perhaps this is also a general introductory derasha to the inyan, or on the full phrase adam ki yakriv mikem, to let us know what sort of korban we are speaking of.) Then, he goes on to darshen the word הַבְּהֵמָה, as it is found in the Sifra, and so on and so forth. But when injecting this "davar achar" on this phrase, from a different source, he injects it not as in introduction, for it would not serve as a good introduction, but as another derasha on the phrase before moving on. I would also add that the derasha is not only on the word Adam, but on the word Adam as it appears in the full phrase, just as I explained above. Thus, one should be like Adam [HaRishon] when he brings. There is then this overlap of derashot on the ki yakriv. Thus, I think Taz's difficulty is eminently resolvable in other ways.