Abarbanel chapter 1, into to Vayikra

After the preface to his introduction, Abarbanel begins the first chapter [of the introduction], which deals with the materials of the korbanot: (See prior post.)

"The word זבח and the word קרבן are not synonyms referring always to the same thing. While every זבח is a קרבן, the reverse is not the case, that every קרבן is a זבח. For the זבח refers to a living creature which is slaughtered and offered upon the altar, for זביחה is the name for slaughter, as is stated [Devarim 12:21] 'and you shall slaughter [וזבחת] of your cattle and sheep as I have commanded you.' Therefore every זבח is a קרבן which is offered upon the altar. But there is a קרבן which is not a זבח, which is the קרבן of fowl, for there is no slaughter [שחיטה] in it. And the מנחה as well, which is called a קרבן and is not a living creature for the name זבח to apply to it. If so, the קרבן is a more inclusive term than the זבח, for it refers to anything which is slaughtered and [thus] נזבח which is offered [/brought near] [שיתקרב] upon the altar, and upon the fowl and the מנחה, even though the name זבח does not apply to them. 

And the name קרבן is called so because of two reasons. The first is that it is נקרב [offered] upon the altar. And the second is that is creates great closeness between the owners bringing it and God. And this is as is stated [Devarim 4:7] 'And who is [likewise] a great nation has God so close [קרובים] to them?'

And the Torah mentioned [e.g. at the start of parashat Vayikra] that the קרבן in general, some of them are from the domesticated animals, and these are the three species of בהמה, which is the bovine, sheep, and goats. And some of those are flying species, namely the turtle-doves and young pigeons only. And some of those are from the growing plants which come from the ground, namely the מנחה, and this is of three types, namely the bread, oil, and wine. And added onto them is the frankincense.

And there is no doubt that the choicer and better קרבנות before Him are the three species, namely from the bovines, sheep, and goats only. And therefore there are no turtle-doves or young pigeons in the communal offerings, nor is there a מנחה in a נדבה [voluntary offering]. Rather, all the זבחים of the community are only from these three animal species.

And it is fitting to give a reason, why these that I mentioned were singled out as material for the קרבנות, in contradistinction from the other options and from their larger categories, and this according to that which the Rav, author of Moreh Nevuchim suggested.

Behold, the three species, bovine, sheep and goats are singled out as זבחים and to be offered on the alter for two reasons.

1. Because these three species in their temperament, character, and nature of feeding are choicer and better than all living creatures, save those that speak.
2. They are more readily available. 

Therefore there is no קרבן from the wild animal species, for Hashem did not wish to burden us to bring a קרבן from that which is difficult to find. And this is also why He commanded that the קרבן of fowl be only from the turtle-doves and young pigeons, for these same reasons. And so wrote the Ralbag in his commentary to the Torah.

And their words in this are correct. However, to my mind, there are an additional two reasons.

1. One of them is that these three species [bovine, sheep, goat] hint to our holy forefathers, for behold the bovine alludes to Avraham Avinu. For just as the bovine is the largest of the species of domesticated living creatures, so was Avraham the greatest of the Avos. Also because it is stated about him 'and to the cattle ran Avraham, and he took a calf, soft and good'. And the sheep allude to Yitzchak, for the sheep is the next level after the bovine. And also because of the איל [ram - male sheep] which his father offered as an burnt-offering in his place at the time of the Akeida, as it states 'and he took the ram and offered it as a burnt offering in place of his son'. And the goat alludes to Yaakov, for it is a step down from the sheep, and we find that it was said [by Rivkah] to Yaakov 'Go now to the flock, and take for me from there two young goats'. (And because of the skins from two young goats) which he wore upon his hands and his neck at the time of his father's blessing. And since these three species allude to the three forefathers, Hashem commanded [at the Brit Bein HaBetarim, Bereshit 15:9]:

ט  וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, קְחָה לִי עֶגְלָה מְשֻׁלֶּשֶׁת, וְעֵז מְשֻׁלֶּשֶׁת, וְאַיִל מְשֻׁלָּשׁ [וְתֹר, וְגוֹזָל].

9 And He said unto him: 'Take Me a heifer of three years old, and a she-goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, [and a turtle-dove, and a young pigeon].'

to hint to them as I explained above. And still, the turtle-dove and the young pigeon allude to Moshe and Aharon, as I will explain there. And perhaps for this reason as well, there came in the קרבנות turtle-doves and young pigeons. And this is the first reason.

 2. And the second reason that these species were chosen from the category of those which travel on four legs and those which fly for קרבנות, is to allude to the Israelite nation. For behold the prophets often call them by the name cattle, as is stated [Hoshea 4:16] 'For Israel is stubborn like a stubborn cow..' And they called them the cows of Bashan, and Ephraim a trained cow, and many such. And therefore the קרבן for the communal shegaga was a young bull.

And there are times that they called them by the name שה [individual sheep] and by the name צאן [flock of sheep], such as [for שה specifically, Yirmeyahu 50:17] 'Israel is a scattered sheep'. And Yechezkel said [Yechezkel 34:22] 'and I will judge between sheep and sheep.' And therefore the continual communal offerings [תמידים] was one sheep in the morning and one sheep in the evening. And so too in the language of צאן [flock of sheep, Yechezkel 34:17], 'And as for you, O My flock...', and [Yechezkel 34:31], 'And ye My sheep, the sheep of My pasture', [Yirmeyahu 50:6] 'My people hath been lost sheep', and there are many such.

And there are times that they called the nation by the name goat [עז] and he-goat [שעיר]. And therefore Yeshayahu said [Yeshayahu 25:3] עַל-כֵּן, יְכַבְּדוּךָ עַם-עָז 'Therefore a goat nation [rendered otherwise a strong nation] shall glorify you.' And Yirmeyahu said regarding the nation [Yirmeyahu 48:17] אֵיכָה נִשְׁבַּר מַטֵּה-עֹז, [typically rendered 'How is the strong staff broken', not 'how is the goat staff broken']. And Yechezkel said [Yechezkel 7:24], וְהִשְׁבַּתִּי גְּאוֹן עַזִּים [typically rendered 'I will also make the pride of the strong to cease'], the pride of your strength, such that therefore the he-goat upon which the lottery is to Hashem corresponds to the nation. And Chazal said [Beitza daf 25b, Resh Lakish], there are three עזים [fierce things] and it enumerates Israel among them.

And since these three species allude to the nation, the Navi refers to it as such in the pain of the exile, when he says [Yeshayahu 53:7], 'as a lamb [שה] that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep [רחל] that before her shearers is dumb; yea, he opened not his mouth,' for the words צאן [plural of שה] and רחלים encompass both sheep and goats.

And therefore Hashem commanded that they sacrifice their קרבנות from these species which are similar to them, such that it is like their offered their [own] blood and their [own] flesh. And upon this is said [Vayikra 1:2] אָדָם כִּי-יַקְרִיב מִכֶּם קָרְבָּן, לַה, 'when any man from among you [מִכֶּם] brings a קרבן to Hashem', that from them and those that are similar to them, namely [as the pasuk concludes to inform, מִן-הַבָּקָר וּמִן-הַצֹּאן], which is the bovines and the צאן, which means the שה of sheep and the שה of goats, [תַּקְרִיבוּ, אֶת-קָרְבַּנְכֶם] shall they offer their קרבן.

However, if he is poor, and he is not able to afford this, He commanded that he offer from the turtle-doves and from the pigeons, since the nation is compared to them as well, as is stated [Shir Hashirim 2:14] 'O my dove [יונתי], that art in the clefts of the rock', and it refers in poetic matter to the prayer of the nation, [Shir Hashirim 2:12] 'the time of singing is come, and the voice of the turtle-dove [תור] is heard in our land'.

And the Ramban wrote that these specific two species were chosen from the birds because turtle-doves only have intercourse with their mate, and the pigeons do not abandon their mate. And so too is Israel with Hashem. And his words are correct.

And I have found support for his words in the sefer Deot HaPhilosophim on parashat Shemini, for it is written there as follows:

[Josh: I don't know which of these it is:

]

"And the יונים [pigeons] only mate with the one they are accustomed to of the females, except if she dies, for in rare instances they will then mate with another female. And regarding the females of the תורים [turtle-doves] , there will only be a single male for a given female, and she will not yield to another male." End quote [of Deos Haphilosophim].

And it is possible to say further that the turtle-doves and pigeons were chosen since they are of the portion of stars which impact the houses of the worship of Hashem, which are [the planets] Jupiter [צדק] and Venus [נוגה], for it is written in the Sefer Reishit Chochma [Josh: from Ibn Ezra?] as follows:

Jupiter [צדק], in its portion are the houses of prayer and the place of service of Hashem, and the pure places, and among the birds, the יונים [pigeons]. And Venus [נוגה] has in its portion the love of righteousness [צדק], houses of service of Hashem, and from among the birds, the תורים [turtle-doves]. 

End quote [from Reishit Chochma].

Meanwhile, the substance of the Mincha offering is flour, oil, frankincense, and wine to libate. For behold, since the manner of a Mincha [present] which a person sends to his master, to ascend upon the table of the king, He commanded that its substance be of those more necessary and choice items in the table-food, which are bread, oil, and wine. And this is as the poet said [Tehillim 104:15]: 'And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, making the face brighter than oil, and bread that stayeth man's heart.'

And since it is the manner of people, when they offer a mincha present to their masters, that if it is the harvest time they offer the produce of the land, and if it is the time where there are no fresh fruits, they bring from the flour and oil, and spices to improve the odor of the mincha, and wine to drink upon it -- therefore, Hashem commanded that so should they do as well before the Master of the entire world, that at the start of the fruits they should bring a minchah of bikkurim, and at other times they should bring their mincha from those good things which grow from the field, and those are the bread, oil, and wine. To improve its smell they place upon it frankincense.

And behold, there are four types of Mincha, according to what their custom was at that time, to bring before their masters. And I will further give regarding this another reason, regarding "forms" [צורות] another reason, in the following, second chapter.

Behold, it has been explained that the substance which is most honored and choice to bring from it a korban to Hashem is from the three species of domestic animals which move on four legs; and less than that is chosen, for the one who cannot afford that, two flying species; and less than that was the mincha, whose substance is from the three species of plants which are most choice of the produce of the ground, which come from the field.

End first chapter of Abarbanel's introduction to sefer Vayikra.

Some thoughts on parshat Vayikra

Pasuk 1:

Hashem calls to Moshe, and this is according him honor. We have attention that Hashem called to Moshe, since it is the very beginning of a sefer. This is why the aleph is small:

א  וַיִּקְרָא, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה; וַיְדַבֵּר ה אֵלָיו, מֵאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֵאמֹר.

1 And the LORD called unto Moses, and spoke unto him out of the tent of meeting, saying:

If we eliminate the aleph, it is vayikar, which rather than mere accidental meeting (as it was by Bilaam), it is "and He accorded honor to Moshe."

As we see in Megillat Esther, perek 6:

ג  וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ--מַה-נַּעֲשָׂה יְקָר וּגְדוּלָּה לְמָרְדֳּכַי, עַל-זֶה; וַיֹּאמְרוּ נַעֲרֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ, מְשָׁרְתָיו, לֹא-נַעֲשָׂה עִמּוֹ, דָּבָר.

3 And the king said: 'What honour and dignity hath been done to Mordecai for this?' Then said the king's servants that ministered unto him: 'There is nothing done for him.'

Pasuk 4, Semicha:

ד  וְסָמַךְ יָדוֹ, עַל רֹאשׁ הָעֹלָה; וְנִרְצָה לוֹ, לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו.

4 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.

It seems like the semicha functions somehow to effect the atonement. We might imagine it in a more "primitive" fashion, that his expiation is accomplish by transferring his guilt, or his self, onto the animal, which is then sacrificed.

But is that all that is necessary for atonement?! Religious magic? This seems like a loophole. We could answer that there is emotive force behind it, that besides appointing this as a proxy, he is acknowledging that his own fats should be burning on the altar. And that is therefore an internal admission of guilt and regret.

However, according to the gemara in Yoma 36a, Semicha explicitly entails vidui, confession of one's sin:

תנו רבנן כיצד סומך הזבח עומד בצפון ופניו למערב והסומך עומד במזרח ופניו למערב ומניח שתי ידיו בין שתי קרנות של זבח ובלבד שלא יהא דבר חוצץ בינו לבין הזבח ומתודה על חטאת עון חטאת ועל אשם עון אשם ועל עולה עון לקט שכחה ופאה ומעשר עני דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי רבי עקיבא אומר אין עולה באה אלא על עשה ועל לא תעשה שניתק לעשה

Interpretation (of וכפר, for instance)? Reformation?

See also an interesting Torah Temimah, note 31 (on the bottom of the page) on whether and what viduy one makes on a Shelamim. The gemara notes nothing, Rambam offers that one should say shevach, but gives it as his own idea. Torah Temima points out II Divrei Hayamim 30:22:

כב  וַיְדַבֵּר יְחִזְקִיָּהוּ, עַל-לֵב כָּל-הַלְוִיִּם--הַמַּשְׂכִּילִים שֵׂכֶל-טוֹב, לַה; וַיֹּאכְלוּ אֶת-הַמּוֹעֵד, שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים, מְזַבְּחִים זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים, וּמִתְוַדִּים לַה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵיהֶם.  {ס}

22 And Hezekiah spoke encouragingly unto all the Levites that were well skilled in the service of the LORD. So they did eat throughout the feast for the seven days, offering sacrifices of peace-offerings, and giving thanks to the LORD, the God of their fathers. {S}

In defense of the "Official' video of the rally

The Internet is buzzing about "official" music video of the rally. (e.g. Rationalist Judaism, Cross-Currents),


I watched it. Yuck.

Some thoughts, though:

1) While it is branded with Kikar Shabbat, that doesn't mean they produced it. I think they mark any video they put up with that watermark. Did they put it up because they agreed with it, or because they found it newsworthy? I don't know.

2) Poe's Law states:

Without a blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of extremism or fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing.

I wonder whether this might be the case here. Consider that the chareidim aren't learning Torah (OK, because it is a rally) but are instead shown littering and dancing around, which might be better called devarim beteilim. While meanwhile soldiers are pictured, who aren't doing devarim beteilim (though this might be my own bias creeping in, causing me to misread the author's intent). They would show Bibi at the UN with the red line regarding Iranian nukes as their choice of devarim beteilim?! This shouts out to me that it might just be parody.

3) It could also be that the author had a tin ear, and didn't realize how this was going to be taken. There is a slightly less obnoxious point he might have been advancing.

Namely, that everybody in the video is Ameilim, putting in effort, for the security of the country. The yeshiva students by learning and the soldiers and politicians by physical and political means. But since everything is in the hands of heaven, and so it is ultimately the merit of the Jewish people that counts, those other well-meaning and courageous actions and personal sacrifices amount to devarim beteilim klapei shmaya.

Still obnoxious, and I still disagree with it, but not necessarily the same obnoxious meaning that everyone was attributing to it.

4) There are jerks and idiots in the world. So of course even on Kikar Shabbat, if some people were attacking it, there will be others who will defend it.

But that doesn't mean it necessarily captures the intent of the organizers, or participants, in the rally at large. Or that the rally held in the US is also designed to advance the same message as the video.

YUTorah on parashat Vayikra

Download the YUTorah Parsha Reader for Vayikra Audio Shiurim on Vayikra Rabbi Elchanan Adler: More Than Just a Name Rabbi Hanan Balk: Vayikar or Vayikra: Two Philosophies of Life Rabbi Eli Belizon: Chatas Lo Leshma Rabbi Asher Brander: A Loving Call Rabbi Chaim Brovender: Vayikra vs. Vayedaber: What's the Difference? Rabbi Yitzchok Cohen: Amalek and Safek Rabbi Solomon Drillman: The Uniqueness of Moshe Rabbeinu Rabbi Dovid Ebner: The Balance of the Korban Shlamim Rabbi Ally Ehrman: He'emanti Ki Adaber Rabbi Joel Finkelstein: What We See in Others Rabbi Beinish Ginsburg: Rav Hirsch on the Mishkan and Korbonos Rabbi Efrem Goldberg: Common Courtesy with Common Sense Rabbi Meir Goldwicht: Korbanos as the Key to Defeating Amalek Rabbi Shalom Hammer: Sacrifice and Dedication Rabbi David Hirsch: Being Sur Merah V'aseh Tov in Korbanos Rabbi Jesse Horn: The difference between the Karbonos in Parshas Vayikrah and Tzav Rabbi Ari Kahn: A Covenant of Salt Rabbi Yisroel Kaminetsky: Learning to Serve Hashem Through the Korbonot Rabbi Eliakim Koenigsberg: Environment Makes the Man Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz: The Real You Rabbi Menachem Leibtag: Between Kedusha, Tumah and Shechina in Sefer Vayikra Rabbi Eliezer Lerner: Hearing Hashem's Messages Rabbi Michael Rosensweig: Korban Olah as the Paradigmatic Korban Rabbi Yonason Sacks: L'Shma by Korbanos Mrs Ilana Saks: The Meaning of Sacrifice Rabbi Hershel Schachter: Teshuva requires understanding Rabbi Avi Schneider: Worth the Sacrifice Rabbi Baruch Simon: Becoming "Adam" in Tfilah and with Chaverim Mrs. Shira Smiles: Sweet and Sour Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky: How We View Other People's Money Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik: The Purpose of Korbanos Rabbi Reuven Spolter: Sin, Sacrifices, and Modern Life Rabbi Elly Storch: Korbanot: Nullifying Yourself to the Will of Hashem Rabbi Moshe Taragin: Korbanot in the Modern World Rabbi Michael Taubes: Coercing Someone to Perform a Mitzvah Rabbi Yaacov Thaler: The Importance of Talmud Torah Rabbi Ya'akov Trump: I Think Therefore I Am (Yotze) Rabbi Shmuel Wagner: What is the greatness of Korbanos? Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Weinberg: The Messages in the Big and Small Letters of the Torah Rabbi Netanel Wiederblank: The purpose of korbanos Rabbi Mordechai Willig: Humility and Living Up to Your Potential Rabbi Andi Yudin: Korban & Kiruv Rabbi Eliezer Zwickler: Learning from the First Korbanos Articles on Vayikra Rabbi Shmuel Goldin: The Leadership Quandary Rabbi Avraham Gordimer: Private Avodah Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb: Salt vs. Honey - The Spiritual Taste Test Rabbi Maury Grebenau: The Symbolism of Chometz: Matza, Hold the Honey Rabbi Mordechai Greenberg: נפש כי תחטא בשגגה Rabbi Josh Hoffman: Go with the Flow Rabbi David Horwitz: The Structure of the Laws of Sacrifice Rabbi Ephraim Meth: The Crime of Ignorance Rabbi Avigdor Nebenzahl: Korbanot - Tshuva is the Main Point Rabbi Avraham Rivlin: אסור הקטרת שאור ודבש Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks: Self and Sacrifice Rabbi Shmuel Silber: Failure & Forgiveness Torat Eretz Yisrael Institute: The High Priest and the Collective of the Jewish People Parsha Sheets on Vayikra SOY-YU: Einayim L'Torah HALB: Dvarim Hayotzim Min Halev Yeshiva of Flatbush: Imrei Shefer YU Torah Mitzion Beit Midrash Zichron Dov: Toronto Torah YULA Boys High School: Likutei Ohr Haftorah Shiurim on Vayikra Dr. Shawn Zelig Aster: Yeshayahu Perek 43 Rabbi Philip Moskowitz: God is Not Your ATM Machine Rabbi Zvi Romm: The Folly of Avoda Zara Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik: The Relationship Between the Parshiyot and Haftarot in Sefer Vayikra Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Vayikra See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Vayikra

New This Week Rav Wolbe on Hester Panim Rabbi Elchanan Adler Mesilat Yesharim  on Respecting  Everyone Rabbi Eliyahu Ben-Chaim Yom hak'Purim and Purim: The  Journey to a Romantic  Rendezvous with God Rabbi Kenneth Brander The Story of Whats App  & The Story of Purim:  A Lesson in Emunah Rabbi Chaim Eisenstein Maintaining Rabbinic  Law when the Reason  Seems Inapplicable Rabbi Yonah Gross The Halachos of  Sweeping on Shabbos Rabbi Uri Orlian Have we finally found  the real Techelet? Rabbi Eli Ozarowski The Aveirah of  Embarrassing a Fellow in Public Rabbi Chaggai Raviv Halochos of Tzedukah and Maaser Kesafim Rabbi Hershel Schachter Putting On Makeup on Shabbos Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky The legacy of Amalek  and the implications  for the Jewish people Rabbi Chayim Soloveichik Practical Tips for Remembering Torah Rabbi Yehuda Turetsky Clarity for the Confused: Respecting Chochomim Rabbi Mayer Twersky How To Get High On Purim Rabbi Moshe Weinberger Can we argue with  Chazal on non-Halachic  matters? Rabbi Netanel Wiederblank

Abarbanel Intro to Sefer Vayikra, the foreword

What follows is a rough translation of Abarbanel's introduction to Vayikra, the foreword (four chapters follow). Forest and trees.

"Since, in the first sefer of God's Torah, the Scriptures related the Creation of the World; its renewal; the branching out of the first generations; the matters of our holy forefathers until the descent of Yaakov and his children to Egypt;

and in the second sefer the Torah related that which the Egyptians dealt poorly with them in the exile and servitude; that Hashem redeemed them via Moshe and Aharon; the miracles performed for them in Egypt, upon the Sea, and in the wilderness until they came to Har Sinai; that there all of them reached the level of prophecy and received from the Almighty the Torah and Mitzvot; that they sinned there with the golden calf; how their iniquity was atoned for; that they constructed the Mishkan in order that the Divine Shechina and Upper Providence should reside amongst them, as they saw with their eyes on the day the Mishkan was constructed, that the cloud of Hashem covered the tent and the Glory of Hashem filled the Mishkan;

[therefore] the Torah needed to write after it this third sefer in order to explain it it the service of the Mikdash and how the kohanim serve their God and gain atonement for the sins the Israelites. And that they endeavor always to delve into and know the Torah of Hashem, its statutes, commandments, and laws, in order to keep the nation straight, to teach them the path in which to go, and the actions to take, as is said [Malachi 2:7]:

ז  כִּי-שִׂפְתֵי כֹהֵן יִשְׁמְרוּ-דַעַת, וְתוֹרָה יְבַקְשׁוּ מִפִּיהוּ:  כִּי מַלְאַךְ ה-צְבָאוֹת, הוּא.

7 For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.

And it is stated [Devarim 17:9]:

ט  וּבָאתָ, אֶל-הַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם, וְאֶל-הַשֹּׁפֵט, אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם; וְדָרַשְׁתָּ וְהִגִּידוּ לְךָ, אֵת דְּבַר הַמִּשְׁפָּט.

9 And thou shall come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days; and thou shalt inquire; and they shall declare unto thee the sentence of judgment.

And it is stated [Devarim 33:10, Moshe's blessing to the tribe of Levi]:

י  יוֹרוּ מִשְׁפָּטֶיךָ לְיַעֲקֹב, וְתוֹרָתְךָ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל; יָשִׂימוּ קְטוֹרָה בְּאַפֶּךָ, וְכָלִיל עַל-מִזְבְּחֶךָ.

10 They shall teach Jacob Thine ordinances, and Israel Thy law; they shall put incense before Thee, and whole burnt-offering upon Thine altar.

And see [??] with this to give  the kohanim from the nation their necessary food and required sustenance without effort, such that they should not be distracted by this and them refrain from their task when seeking out their needs and the needs of their wife and children.

And to elevate them, He wished that they be exceptional from the rest of the nation in their dress, virtues, and intellectual level; and that they not become tamei to corpses, nor make a bald patch in their heads nor shave their beards, because of the glory of their faces; and that they should not marry any random woman they encounter, but only one who was fitting for them in purity and cleanliness; and that they stay away from wine and intoxicating beverages when they come to perform the service; and that one with a physical blemish nor an (old person) [non-kohen] should not serve at the altar; and that they should be sanctified in all their matters, just as is said [Vayikra 21:6]

ו  קְדֹשִׁים יִהְיוּ, לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם, וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ, שֵׁם אֱלֹהֵיהֶם:  כִּי אֶת-אִשֵּׁי ה לֶחֶם אֱלֹהֵיהֶם, הֵם מַקְרִיבִם--וְהָיוּ קֹדֶשׁ.

6 They shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God; for the offerings of the LORD made by fire, the bread of their God, they do offer; therefore they shall be holy.

 And He commanded the nation to honor the kohen, as is stated [two pesukim later, 21:8]

ח  וְקִדַּשְׁתּוֹ--כִּי-אֶת-לֶחֶם אֱלֹהֶיךָ, הוּא מַקְרִיב; קָדֹשׁ, יִהְיֶה-לָּךְ--כִּי קָדוֹשׁ, אֲנִי ה מְקַדִּשְׁכֶם.

8 Thou shalt sanctify him therefore; for he offereth the bread of thy God; he shall be holy unto thee; for I the LORD, who sanctify you, am holy.

-- he shall be holy to you.

And since the essence of this sefer is the study of the kohanim and their proper conduct, this sefer is called, in the words of raboteinu za'l, "Torat Kohanim".

Yet this sefer is divided into two main sections. The first deals with the sanctity of the kohanim and the details of their service, and this is from the beginning of seder [=parshat] Vayikra until כמעשה ארץ מצרים [Vayikra 18:3, towards the end of Acharei Mot], which is five and a half sedarim.

And the second section deals with the sanctity of the nation in what they do, and warns them; and this is as stated [towards the beginning of that second section, Vayikra 20:7]:

ז  וְהִתְקַדִּשְׁתֶּם--וִהְיִיתֶם, קְדֹשִׁים:  כִּי אֲנִי ה, אֱלֹהֵיכֶם.

7 Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy; for I am the LORD your God.

And in this way comes the rest of the sedarim in this sefer. Now also within this second section are mixed the commandments and warnings relating towards kohanim, such as you will see in the seder of Emor el haKohanim, since the sanctity of

the nations relates to the sanctity of the kohanim, and the sanctity of the kohanim sanctifies the nation.

And from this perspective, Chazal placed this sefer within the order of Kodshim, since it is entirely dealing with the sanctity of the kohanim, the sanctity of the service, as well as the sanctity of the nation.

And since the knowledge of the sacrifices, despite it being explained in the verses of the Torah, are hidden from us today, since it is not practices and the service has been lost with the destruction of our Temple and glory. And this is as the great Rav the Rambam wrote in the introduction to Mishnayot for the seder of Kodshim. Also because the details of the korbanot are scattered and distributed through the other sefarim of the Torah, for some of them already came in the seder of Tetzaveh, and some of them come afterwards in the seder of Naso, such as the korban Sotah and of the Nazir, and like the korban of the Princes; and some of them in the seder of Behaalotecha such as the korban of the Leviim, and of them many in the seder of Shelach. And some of them in the seder of Korach, in the gifts to the Kohanim; and some of them in the seder of Chukat, namely the Parah Aduma. And some of them in the seder of Pinchas, namely the korbanot of the Temidim and Musafim.

Therefore, I have seen fit to mention here in this place the details of all of the korbanot. I will not innovate from own mind anything, for I will not budge from that which is taught by the text of the Torah and the true kabbalah [Oral Law]. And I will go on at length in the matters according to how they were explained by the great Rav, the Rambam, whose eyes saw with dear intellect. However, I will order them and gather them from all the places they are scattered, and place them in a correct and fittings manner, and in a way of ordered division in such manner that they will not leave our mouths. And so that the matter will be known in its completeness, when its causes and beginning are known, I will explain the details of the korbanot with their causes, and will make, in this study, four chapters.

The first chapter deals with the substance [chomer] of the korbanot. [Josh: e.g. birds, cows]
The second chapter deals with the forms [tzurot] of the korbanot which distinguish them. [Josh: e.g. olah, shelamim, korban tzibbur]
The third chapter deals with the actor [poel] of the korbanot, that is to say he who brings them.
The fourth chapter deals with the purpose [tachlit] of the korbanot, that is to say the encompassing purpose in them; for the individual purposes will be explained afterwards, each one in its place."

End quote.

Some interesting recent shiurim

First, Rav Herschel Schacter on Vayakhel-Pekudei, from last year.


The first ten minutes are about the equitable division of aliyos across parshiyos, and how maftir counts and could affect this. And how some say if add hosafos, redivide the breaks. And how some say not to add hosafos.

Then, at the 10 minute mark, something of particular interest to me, whether gematria is a "real" middah shehaTorah nidreshet bah. It isn't, but is instead a parperet lachachma, and so various derivations of laws (such as number of number of melachos on Shabbos).

Fifteen minute mark, regarding  (Shemot 35)

כו  וְכָל-הַנָּשִׁים--אֲשֶׁר נָשָׂא לִבָּן אֹתָנָה, בְּחָכְמָה:  טָווּ, אֶת-הָעִזִּים.

26 And all the women whose heart stirred them up in wisdom spun the goats' hair.

and Rashi writes that the women spun when it was still attached to the animal

spun the goat hair: This constituted a superior skill, for they [the women] spun it on the backs of the goats. -[from Shab. 74b]

טוו את העזים: היא היתה אומנות יתירה, שמעל גבי העזים טווין אותן:

That gemara in Shabbos 74b is:

SHEARING WOOL AND BLEACHING. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: He who spins wool from off the animal's back on the Sabbath incurs three sin-offerings, one on account of shearing, another on account of hackling, and the third on account of spinning.¹³  R. Kahana said: Neither shearing, hackling, nor spinning is [done] in this manner.¹⁴  But is it not so? Surely it was taught in the name of R. Nehemiah: It was washed [direct] on the goats and spun on the goats:¹⁵  which proves that spinning direct from the animal is designated spinning? — Superior skill is different.¹⁶

Or, in Hebrew / Aramaic:

הגוזז את הצמר והמלבנו:

אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן הטווה צמר שעל גבי בהמה בשבת חייב שלש חטאות אחת משום גוזז ואחת משום מנפץ ואחת משום טווה רב כהנא אמר אין דרך גזיזה בכך ואין דרך מנפץ בכך ואין דרך טווי בכך ולא והתניא משמיה דרבי נחמיה שטוף בעזים וטוו בעזים אלמא טוויה על גבי בהמה שמה טוויה חכמה יתירה שאני

(R Yonasan Eibeshitz, because of niddah, wouldn't be mekabel tuma). And at the 18:20 minute mark, the gemara Shabbos asks what if someone weaves on Shabbos while it is attached to the animal? And the answer is that it kil'achar yad, because mileches machsheves asra Torah. But meleches machsheves is by the Mishkan, and is derived from there to Shabbos. And weaving was done in the manner described above, on the animal. So how could you say that it isn't meleches machsheves?! Rashi and Tosafot have different approaches to understanding the gemara's answer (Rashi: difference between a master craftsman, who is chayav and a regular person, who is not. Meanwhile Tosafot locally explains that batla daatah etzel kol adam. So one could say that specifically in the Mishkan, for the reason mentioned, it was consider normal, as everyone was doing it this way.)

I say: perhaps we could provide an alternate answer to the setama degemara (who pulled this contradiction with Rabbi Nechemia from Shabbos 99a, rather than this idea being initially local to the sugya): that this is a legitimate dispute among Tannaim, and Rabbi Yochanan holds like Rabbi Nechemiah, and Rav Kahana holds like the Chachamim. The gemara on 99a reads:

Our Rabbis taught: The lower curtains [were made] of blue [wool], purple [wool]. crimson thread and fine linen,²  whilst the upper ones were of goats' [hair] manufacture; and greater wisdom [skill] is mentioned in connection with the upper than in connection with the lower. For whereas of the lower ones it is written, And all the women that were wise-hearted did spin with their hands;³  in reference to the upper ones it is written, And all the women whose heart stirred them up in wisdom spun the goats;⁴  and it was taught in R. Nehemiah's name: It was washed [direct] on the goats and spun on the goats.⁵

But the linkage between braytot is provided by the gemara, with the first brayta leaving the specific nature of the wisdom unspecified.

At the 63 minute mark, about whether we accept archaeological evidence in determining halacha. In terms of the tzitz, which was seen in Rome (yet which the Rambam paskens against the eyewitness report), two lines or one line. And an explanation why. In general we do. For instance, Rabba bar bar Chana should have seen the tzitzis of the generation of the wilderness, and they could have determined halacha on this basis. While Rav Soloveitchik seems to oppose integrating archaeological evidence, and has an explanation to that gemara, Rav Schachter appears to hold otherwise bepashtus.

From this year, a fascinating shiur in the halachos of Purim.

In a leap year: when does one observe a yartzeit, when does one read the megila, and when does one recite al hanisim? When Purim falls on Sunday, when does one fast? Is it proper to handle a megila with bare hands? Should one recite the final pasuk by heart, prior to the ba'al koreh? Does one recite the final bracha without a minyan? Should multiple readers, recite the megila? Should women read for themselves? Can one recite the first pasuk by heart? Can a baki, listen to the megila, without a minyan? Does one need bread, by the meal? Does one need a meal at night? Does one need a shaliach, for shalach manos? Can one recite a shehechianu on Purim, without fulfilling any of the mitzvot? Does one need to recite himself,the ten sons of Haman.

As I understand it, sending the mishloach manos by shaliach is not necessary (you can invite the person to a meal), and if you do send, sending specifically by a gadol is a silly thing to insist upon, because this is all premised on the idea that you yourself giving it would be invalid, so why then insist on shlucho shel adam kemoso.

As a general halachic approach, he seems to take the approach that one should not enter into halachically questionable areas (where it is a matter of dispute, or there is a lower level of fulfillment). For example, having a meal crossing over between Rosh Chodesh and after. Either finish before or start after, vehistalek min hasefek. And especially not in order to obtain dubious gains. For example, splitting up the laining among multiple people, because it is more exciting that way, but there is a machlokes in Shulach Aruch if you are yotzei bedieved. And this is apparently common in women's megillah reading. So too, entering into the argument of whether ten women count as a minyan for the purpose of megillah, such that you are only fulfilling bedieved. And you wouldn't say the beracha of harav et riveinu.

I wonder about this though. When Rabbi Lookstein splits up the megillah among students, despite it not being halachically optimal, it is legitimate and justified, because it is for kiruv, to keep the students committed. So perhaps we can then say that sociologically speaking, within certain communities, women's megillah readings are also at present necessary, as a different type of kiruv. While I think there is merit to this line of reasoning, I could also imagine rejoinders to it. For instance, for a specific subgroup of tenuously committed Jews, it is something of a horaas shaah, with targeted divergence from the norm and use of seichel to find the best approach for this limited scenario. But there is no danger of this becoming mainstream practice. But if splitting up aliyos is part of the way things are done in general in this general institution of women's megillah readings, then it is mainstream practice, and it is a permanent approach rather than an admitted horaas shaah. Or alternatively, perhaps within the wider cultural phenomenon of various groups asserting that halacha is an unfair patriarchal system established by men (meaning humans and meaning males), adopting non-"optimal" halachic practices and establishing that as a lechatchila halacha (or even bedieved practice) in order to satisfy this motivation would not be considered a laudatory goal.

Rabbi Hayyim Angel, in Megillat Esther: What they didn't teach us in day school. And Mekoros for it.


The actual discussion is at the 7:20 mark. Step 1: Don't think midrash is in the text. Pull down in order to build up. Examples:

1. Haman's ancestor: Amalek. From Agagi. (Agag was perfectly normal Persian name.)
2. Mordechai: From Shaul. Ben Kish. (Could say going back only 3 generations. Ibn Ezra: Why not say ben Shaul?)
3. Religious state of Jews at the time as bad. Temple vessels, celebrating non-rebuilding. (But maybe just celebrating power of the king. But see how they listen to their leaders and fast. [I don't find this convincing. They knew at that point that there was danger to their life.] Haman accuses them of following their own laws. Opposite of assimilation. Gives midrash to emphasize this peshat point. Gives midrash from gemara in which Rashbi rejects idea suggested by students that punishment for Jews of world for participation of party. But dealing with q of why did they deserve it. Nothing distinctly Jewish in megillah.
4. Why didn't Mordechai bow? Idol around his neck. Ibn Ezra says the same to explain it. (But not in text. Pagan festival is drawn date. But irrelevant. [Couldn't it be relevant on peshat level but only obvious to immediate readers in that generation?]) We have no idea why he is doing it.

Rebuild. Whole chapter of initial party to create vacancy for queen. Taxes in chapter ten, why? He suggests nobody matters (Mordechai vs. Haman) but Achashverosh. Hamelech appears statistically significant. Hashem named zero times. Hester Panim. Achashverosh replaces God. Reread Achashverosh's glory instead of that of Hashem. So we should be heartbroken that this is not about the Bet Hamikdash. Fasting to plead for lives. With Achashverosh rather than Yom Kippur. Palace instead of Bet HaMikdash. That is the point of all those midrashim. Mordechai paraded around. Yet still slated for destruction, so doesn't matter. Haman hanged, and king feels better, rather than reaction of Jews. Death decree still in effect. No Sasson until Mordechai has king's ring. Midrash of Ish Tzar VaOyev, she started pointing to the king. He is the real culprit, while Haman is the front. Midrash on Hu Achashverosh, from beginning to end. No character transformation, despite what you might think. So Mordechai didn't bow, fighting not just against Haman but against Achashverosh. Representative of world-view and how morality in world should be. Ch 10 is that still servants of Achashverosh, no better off.

posts so far for parashat Vayikra

2013

1. Vayikra sources.

2. YUTorah on Vayikra

3. Chasam Sofer explains the small aleph. Moshe Rabbenu only wanted the peshat version...

2012

1. YUTorah on parashat Vayikra.

2. Vayikra sources.

3. Why won't Ibn Caspi discuss parashat Vayikra? Here is an interesting one. Ibn Caspi excuses himself from explaining parashat Vayikra; indeed, all the way until Acharei Mot, for a very interesting reason

4. The derasha that blind people are not valid witnesses -- Found in the Tur, with a basis and derasha in Tosefta Shevuos.

2011

1. Vayikra sources,  further improved. For example, many more meforshei Rashi.
   .
2. Rashi on *Adam* Ki Yakriv -- Considering the intent of this Rashi, and midrash.
   .
3. YU Torah on Vayikra, and Purim
   .
4. What is meant by leimor in Vayikra 1:1? Zehu midrasho --  Further, does Rashi intend this as peshat or derash?
   .
5. The sweet stench of burning feathers --  and how it might relate torei'ach nicho'ach. From parashat Vayikra.  

2010

1. Vayikra sources -- revamped, with more than 100 meforshim on the parasha and the haftara.
   a
2. From where did Hashem call Moshe? Rashbam vs. trup -- Rabbi Yehuda Leib Spira contrasts Rashbam with the trup, as to whether Hashem called to Moshe outside the Ohel Moed. I am not convinced that this would bother Rashbam, though.
   a
3. Is the Samaritan spelling of Yimatzei (with an aleph) correct? Do Chazal have the same? Chizkuni on Vayikra, while masiach lefi tumo, mentions that ימצא is spelled with an א, and notes how Chazal derive something from it. Our masoretic text meanwhile has ימצה. But the Samaritan text has it with an aleph! This variation in spelling of an em hakeriah is much more innocuous than the possibility of having lost an entire word in the masoretic text, discussed in parashat Vayakhel. There is even more to this, which I hope to follow up upon in a subsequent post.
   a
4. And as a follow up to the above, Do Chazal have the Samaritan spelling of Yimatzei? In this second part, I consider how the Chizkuni on parashat Vayikra stacks up against various gemaras in Zevachim, and against differing girsaot of various gemaras in Zevachim.
   .
5. A review of Unlocking the Torah Text on sefer Vayikra.

2009

1. Vayikra sources -- links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraos Gedolos, and many meforshim on the parsha and haftara.
   z
2. The small aleph as an indicator of Moshe's loss of gedulah. I ruminate on Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz's novel interpretation of the small aleph of Vayikra. See also the discussions of this feature from previous years.
   z
3. The role of korbanot, al pi Shadal -- why bring korbanot? what are their purpose? is Shadal reading his own rationalism into the pesukim? And in the comment section, Mississipi Fred MacDowell takes on that question at greater length.
   z
4. Baal HaTurim, Gematriot in parshat Vayikra, and cow and sheep gaits -- an analysis of Baal HaTurim at the beginning of parshat Vayikra. What are his motivations?
   z
5. A short question about the leaven in the Mincha offering. What about chametz that naturally occurs, as opposed to via a leavening agent?
   z
6. The trup on min habeheima, and what is has to do with the relationship between the olah of animals and of birds. Based on Ibn Ezra, Ramban, and finally, Shadal. Ramban's parsing appears to be against the trup. This is also discussed in the third post in the 2008 section, but this is in more detail.

2008

1. Shadal's theory about the small aleph in Vayikra, based on duplication of letters.
   z
2. Bris melach -- Arab princes even today (in the days of Shadal) made covenants by eating together bread with salt. And Milgrom discusses a Neo-Babylonian letter.
   z
3. In Shadal's Vikuach, he discusses how Ramban's reading of a pasuk "if you offer from the animals {as opposed to birds}, then you shall offer from the herd or the flock" is against the trup, since the etnachta would have to be placed earlier. Perhaps in 2009 or 2010 I will have time to expand upon this. Thus, Ramban did not feel bound be trup in giving his perush.

2005

• Moshe's Name. (This was an elaboration of an earlier post on parshat Shemot: The Derivation of Moshe's Name) -- Both of these consider the merits of an Egyptian etymology of Moshe's name, and argue that a Hebrew etymology is better for several reasons.
  .
• Rendering Halachic Decisions Before One's Teacher -- A post based on Daf Yomi Eruvin, but crossing into Vayikra and Shemini. According to one midrash, Nadav and Avihu were punished for rendering a halachic decision before their teacher. The derasha is on the words אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוָּה אֹתָם, that they were not explicitly commanded this. They derived it from a pasuk in Vayikra 1:7:
• 
  

  ז וְנָתְנוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן, אֵשׁ--עַל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ; וְעָרְכוּ עֵצִים, עַל-הָאֵשׁ.

  7 And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay wood in order upon the fire.

2004

• The Small Aleph, Moshe's Shining Face, and Matres Lectiones At The End of Words (titled "A Funny Thing Happened To Me On the Way To The Tent of Meeting") -- The aleph of Vayikra is small. I connect it to Moshe's shining face, which shone from the ink left in the quill. I also consider what the implications of the small aleph might be from a peshat perspective - that even were the aleph to drop, it may still be Vayikra.
  .
• An Alternate Explanation of the Small Aleph in Vayikra, From Shadal, Via Eliyahu - Duplicate Border Letters Dropping Out -- Namely, that the next word begins with an aleph, and that would cause the aleph of Vayikra to drop.

to be continued...