Monday, March 17, 2014

Shadal, that rabbits ruminate and hide in rocks

On Vayikra 11:5, regarding the shafan and arneves,


ShaDaL writes:
"The shafan: It is the coniglio, and it dwells in rocks (Tehillim 104:18, M
ishlei 30:27). And so too in Latin, cuniculus, which means shafan, its meaning is as well "burrowing in the dirt". And perhaps also in Hebrew the word shafan comes from צפן, so named because it is hidden (נצפן) and concealed in the cracks of rocks. And know that Scheuzer in his book Physique sacree as well as Valmont de Bomaf in the book Dictionnaire d'Histoire naturelle say that the coniglio is a ruminant.
The arneves: It is the lepre, and it is a ruminant, and so wrote Linnaeus and others. Even though it does not have a doubled stomach like other ruminants."
This is mystifying, at first glance.
  1. He says it is the coniglio, which appears to be the contemporary Italian for rabbit.
  2. He gives the Latin etymology, which shows it burrows in dirt; this matches the rabbit.
  3. Yet he cites pesukim in Mishlei and Tehillim that it hides in rocks, which does not match the rabbit.
  4. And he conjectures a Hebrew etymology based on the pesukim, that it is concealed in rocks, which does not match the rabbit.
  5. He ends by citing naturalists that the coniglio is a ruminant. These naturalists were speaking of the rabbit.
This is not mystifying at all, of course. Shadal was no zoologist. He relied on books, and scientific experts of his day. The discrepancy between hiding in rocks and burrowing in the dirt was not one that would be obvious to a non-expert. Especially if Shadal was unaware of any other candidate, such as the hyrax, which unlike the rabbit was native to Eretz Yisrael and does hide in rocks, next to the ibexes in Ein Gedi.

This is a good example, I think, of how you cannot simply rely on descriptions of habits given by non-expert rabbinic persons.

We should not take this as evidence that rabbits ruminated in his day, or hid in rocks in his day (and nishtaneh hateva).

One of the two naturalists he mentions, by the way, is Valmont de Bomare. I posted what I think is the relevant quote last year:
On prétend qu`ils ont , ainsi que le lievre, la propriété de ruminer. 
Or, in English:
It is claimed that they [rabbits] have, and the hare, the property ruminating.
See my brief discussion there.

Jean Jacques Scheuchzer
The other author is Jean Jacques Scheuchzer, a Swiss scientist. The work, Physique Sacree, appears to be a running scientific commentary on the Bible (that is, Tanach plus the Christian books). I could not find the volume for Vayikra online, and thus was unable to find the precise quote.

Anyone reading this post is welcome to try to track this down. Maybe I could make this into another post.

Sunday, March 16, 2014

posts so far for parashat Shemini

2013

1. YUTorah on parshat Shemini.

2.  That Wascally Wabr -- The meaning of words changes over time and over place. 
For example, growing up, I was always confused when Torah translations talked about there being corn in Egpyt. Wasn't corn a plant that was native to America? How then could Yaakov have heard that there was corn in Egypt? Either corn existed in Egypt, or this was a strange translation.

2. Did Saadia Gaon have a masorah on shafan al-wabr? As a follow-up and counterpoint to my earlier post about whether Saadia Gaon dreamed that Pishon was the Nile.

3. Haksav vehaKabbalah on the aquatic skink. And how, in the face of evidence that Chazal's rule was not absolute, he was willing to reinterpret it such that it was not meant as absolute.

4. A review of The Enigma of the Biblical Shafan, part one and part two and part three.



2012

  1. The injunction against kohanim drinking wine --  with the connection, according to Bechor Shor, of it being something served to mourners, rather than it being the sin for which Nadav and Avihu were guilty.
    .
  2. Why mention that one sign is insufficient?  Bechor Shor explains that there is indeed a madreiga in even one sign.
    .
  3. Shemini sources, 2012 edition.
    .
  4. YUTorah on parashat Shemini.
    .
  5. The Rambam on Timtum haLev -- Did he really endorse the kabbalistic understanding of timtum halev?
    .
  6. How many legs does a מַרְבֵּה רַגְלַיִם have? Rashi in parashas Shemini says it is called centipede, and they call it '100 legs'. But of course centipedes have less than this, so lav davka. Still, could it have 32 legs, as Torah Temimah describes?

2011
  1. Shmini sources -- further expanded. For instance, many more meforshei Rashi.
    .
  2. YU Torah on parashat Shemini.
    .
  3. The mercha kfula in parshas Shmini -- How shall we account for it?
    .
  4. Aharon's shame and fear --  Understanding the Rashi by considering his sources.
    .
  5. The movement of the Shalach --  Targum Yonasan on Re'eh is unduly influenced by the Targum and pasuk in parashat Shemini. Or is it working from a Samaritan text?
2010
  1. Shemini sources -- a source roundup. Same idea as last year, but revamped, with over 100 meforshim on the parasha and the haftara, grouped into, e.g. Rashi's supercommentator's, Ibn Ezra's, masoretes, and so on.
    .
  2. Ibn Ezra and the transsexual rabbits -- can hares change their gender? An error based on contemporary science.
    .
  3. Do Chazal darshen the Samaritan version of Vayikra 20:7? This relates to Shemini -- In parashat Kedoshim, yet another instance in which a derashat Chazal matches the Samaritan text of the Chumash instead of our Masoretic text. In this instance, however, it is somewhat plausible that Chazal are merely darshening the union of two similar pesukim; and that the Samaritans, as is their wont, harmonized the two similar pesukim. Still, after considering Minchas Shai, Gra, a few suggestions of my own, and considering Talmudic variants, I conclude that Chazal were once again darshening a non-Masoretic text.
    .
  4. Is the atalef really a bat? Do bats lay eggs? Why the atalef, according to Chazal, was actually a strix.

2009
  • Shemini sources: links by aliyah and perek to an online mikraos gedolos, as well as many, many meforshim on the parsha and haftara.
2008
  1. Why the Ketores? And what foreign fire? The standard morning ketores offering, according to Rashbam. But then Shadal reverses himself and says it was their own separate offering; and that it was not their own fire, but a fire from heaven.
    .
  2. "This is that which the LORD has spoken" But where?
2005
  • Rendering Halachic Decisions Before One's Teacher
    • Another take on Nadav and Avihu's sin, from the gemara. This is a truly sublime midrash, once its nuances are pointed out. The specifics of the law they are rendering (that one should bring from a hedyot fire even though the Divine fire is present) parallels their error, rendering a halacha even though Moshe Rabbenu was present. This homily, I think, is part of the main meaning of the midrash. Also, an analysis of some of the midrash's contributing factors.
2004
  • In Defense of Nadav and Avihu (AKA Conspiracy Theory)
    • I suggest it was a work accident. They brought a "strange fire," but this might just be meant to distinguish it from the holy fire that consumed them. As we see in context, the fire of Hashem came down and consumed the sacrifices, the people saw and fell on their faces. I try to pull a midrash into this as well.
  • Nadav and Avihu - What Did They Do Wrong?
    • A parallel to Korach and his congregation. Perhaps their sin was acting in an instance where only Aharon was supposed to act. Also, explaining the dispute between Aharon and Moshe.
  • This joke just doesn't work in a leap year, at least in its particular form. Oh well.
  • The Remaining Sons Taking The Remaining Mincha
    • Noteret and Notarim are used to describe both of them. The remaining sons should take the remaining of the offering.
  • Gecko vs. Geico (nice animal pictures too!)
    • The Anaka, one of the non-kosher species
to be continued...

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

How can we explain Hevel's sacrifice?

In a previous post on Vayikra, I noted how Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi didn't offer any commentary on the korbanot, because what Rashi and Ibn Ezra wrote already sufficed, and because
I have seen this parasha and many of those [parshiyot] which follow it encircling the details of the zevachim and thekarbonot, which was written by Moshe Rabbenu in his sefer compelled and against his will, for there is no desire to Hashem in olot and zevachim [seeTehillim 51:18], but rather this was compelled by the practice of all the nations in that time which brought them to this.
The Rambam holds similarly as to the purpose of the korbanot. In the comment section, a commenter recently asked:
How do [Ibn] Caspi and the Rambam account for Cain and Abel's sacrifices.
This is a great question, because Kayin and Hevel were very early in the history of mankind, and therefore before the idolatrous practices of the nation. (Indeed, the generation of Enosh is where idolatry began.) If so, why would Kayin have brought korbanot from the plants and why would Hevel have brought korbanot from the flock? And Hashem liked Hevel's korban!

It turns out that this is one of the objections in the Ramban I linked to there:
והנה נח בצאתו מן התיבה עם שלשת בניו אין בעולם כשדי או מצרי הקריב קורבן וייטב בעיני ה' ואמר בו (בראשית ח כא): וירח ה' את ריח הניחוח. וממנו אמר אל לבו לא אוסיף עוד לקלל את האדמה בעבור האדם (שם). והבל הביא גם הוא מבכורות צאנו ומחלביהן, וישע ה' אל הבל ואל מנחתו (שם ד ד), ולא היה עדיין בעולם שמץ ע"ז כלל. 
We could check out what Ibn Caspi has to say in the incident of Kayin and Hevel. I am not sure how informative it is, exactly. He writes in one sefer:

וראוי שתרגיש ג״כ שקין והבל כל אחד מהם היה מכוין להתקרב אל השם במלאכתו, כי כל דרך איש ישר בעיניו.

"And it is appropriate to realize as well that Kayin and Hevel, each of them, intended to draw close to Hashem in his respective work, for all paths of man are right in his eyes."

So perhaps while Hevel's sacrifice was of similar form to later sacrifices, it took this form as a way of drawing close to Hashem within his chosen profession."

In another sefer, Ibn Caspi explains וישע  as less than full desire, רצוי, found by korbanot in general.
וישע. אינו ריצוי גמור וירצה, כמו שיבא עוד בענין קרבנותינו
"וישע -- it is not complete ritzuy like vayeratzeh, like we find in the matter of our own korbanot"

So perhaps there is a sense here that the korban is not entirely appropriate even here. Neither of these is really a satisfying answer.

As I was listening to various shiurim on YUTorah.org this week, I came across this hour-long shiur from last year by Rabbi Netanel Wiederblank:
Rabbi Netanel Wiederblank

The shiur is titled: Rambam's controversial reason for the reason for korbanos. That reason is the one mentioned above, that it was modeled after the idolatrous practice of the surrounding nations, as a way of directing that drive.

At approximately the 5 minute mark, he mentions a series of question by the Ramban, and this question about Hevel's korban is one of them.

At the 35 minute mark, he addresses this Hevel question specifically. The Ritva (in sefer Zikaron, which you can read here) answers the question by saying that one needs to know the secret about what the Rambam writes about Kayin and Hevel. But unfortunately, the Ritva doesn't tell us what that secret it. The footnotes on the Ritva's sefer Zikaron send you to Moreh Nevuchim volume 2 perek 30. There, the idea is developed that neither Kayin nor Hevel were the ones to continue on humanity, but rather Shet was. And we see that Kayin was more physical and Hevel more non-physically oriented. But not in a good way. And their korbanot reflected their natures. So the takeaway is that even Hevel's korban was non-optimal.

But the summary I provided was third-hand. That is, my summary of Rabbi Wiederblank's understanding of the cryptic Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim, where it was already labeled a secret. And which is likely philosophical / mystical, and thus requires the necessary background intellectual background as well as an understanding of the rest of the chapter, as explained by the commentators of the Rambam.

The reference is to this in Moreh Nevuchim:

.וממה שצריך שתדעהו ג״כ ותתעורר
עליו׳ אופני ההנמה בקריאת בני אדם קין והבל והיות
קין הוא ההורג להבל בשדה, ושהם יחד אבדו אף על פי
שתאריך לרוצח,ושלא תתקיים המציאות אלא לשת כי שת לי אלהים זרע אהר הנה כבר התאמת זה

One should listen to the shiur directly. And one should see the Rambam inside.

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

YUTorah on parashat Tzav

parsha banner



Download the YUTorah Parsha Reader for Tzav

Audio Shiurim on Tzav

Articles on Tzav

Parsha Sheets on Tzav

Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Tzav
See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Tzav

New This Week













a

Sunday, March 09, 2014

Posts so far for parshat Tzav

2012

  1. Tzav sources -- further improved.
    .
  2. Tzav in Tetzaveh --  Why does Rashi only analyze the word tzav here?
    .
  3. YUTorah on Tzav for 2012. And also for 2013.

2011

  1. Tzav sources, improved. For example, many more meforshei Rashi.
    .
  2. YU Torah on parshat Tzav.
    .
  3. Zehu midrasho -- a curious, lengthy insertion in parashat Tzav may shed light on a number of such insertions in one Rashi manuscript, and perhaps about this phrase in general.
    .
  4. Shadal's theory about the Urim veTumim -- As a sort of alphabet oracle, similar to Chazal but slightly different.

2010

  1. Tzav sources -- revamped.
    .
  2. Should there be a petucha before Vayikra 7:22 or before Vayikra 7:28? part one and part two. I don't think I got around to part iii, about Or Torah...

2009
  1. Tzav sources -- links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraos Gedolos, and many meforshim on the parsha and haftara. Because of Pesach posts, probably will be all we have for tzav this year. See previous years, though.
    .
  2. Does parshat Haazinu include a promise that Israel will enjoy forbidden fats? cross-listed from Haazinu. Based in part on an Ibn Ezra in Tzav, that Biblically, cheilev of non-korbanos is permitted.
2008
  1. Was a Copper Vessel Purged and Rinsed With Water?
    • Or purged with something else (namely sand), and then rinsed with water, as Shadal suggests. This would have an impact on trup, Shadal suggests, and I illustrate with helpful trup charts. Then I defend the traditional cantillation, even assuming Shadal's semantic shift, making use of Wickes and his rules of cantillation based on part-of-speech tags as determiners of place of syntactic dichotomy.
      a
  2. The definition of shok -- which is what one gives as a gift to the kohen from the shelamim. But what part is the shok on the cow. And relating to tznius, what is the shok on a person?
2006
  1. Cross-listed from Behaalotecha: Why the repetition of Isha Kushit Lakach?
    a
  2. and again: Why Was Miryam, and not Aharon, punished?
2005
  1. Cross listed from parshas Chayyei Sarah: Why A Shalshelet?
    • In which we discuss the semantic and syntactic causes of the shalshelet, an extremely rare cantillation mark, which appears once in parshat Tzav, and only seven times overall in all of Tanach.
2004
  • Human Sacrifice As Hell On Earth
    • The haftara mentions Gei Ben Hinnom, which was a place for child sacrifice to the idol Molech, where the child was passed between the fires (and perhaps burned). This name, Gei Hinnom, is the word for Hell, and thus it was hell on earth. Unlike some other religion(s), Judaism does not relish child sacrifice.
to be continued...

Friday, March 07, 2014

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.

Thursday, March 06, 2014

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}

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin