๐พ Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to โบ scriptures โบ jewish โบ t โบ Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Levitiโฆ captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:44:28. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
21 โ[1] ** ืืื ืื ืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืฉืืช, And if he is poor and he cannot afford (3 sheep as the respective offerings).** Why did the Torah have to repeat, i.e. tell us that the meaning of "he is poor" is that "he cannot afford," etc.? Perhaps the *Mishnah* in *Kritut* 27 may clarify this for us. We are told there that "if someone set aside a sheep or nanny-goat as the offering he had to bring, and said animal becomes disqualified for the altar by developing a blemish, and the owner also became poor during the interval, he may sell the animal in question and offer a bird -offering with the proceeds of the sale." The Talmud derives this ruling from the word ืืืืืชื written in the Torah in connection with the sin-offering reserved for the very poor people. There would be good reason to argue that seeing that in the case of a ืืฆืืจืข the Torah had not made provision for a meal-offering by the very poor people to take the place of either the sheep or the birds as the case may be, it is not in order to use words exegetically which were written in a situation that is quite different. [The sin-offering dealt with there is one brought by a person who committed the kind of sin which carries the ืืจืช penalty or worse, if it had been committed knowingly, something that certainly is not the case with the ืืฆืืจืข who brings a guilt-offering. Ed.] It would have been reasonable to suppose that just as the Torah did not allow a very poor ืืฆืืจืข to offer a meal-offering as his guilt-offering, so it would also not allow him to make the kind of substitution discussed in connection with the sin-offering in the Talmud in *Kritut*. The Torah therefore writes the extra words ืืืื ืืื ืืฉืืช, to tell us that the substitution for two turtle doves would be in order also in the case of the ืืฆืืจืข.
โ[2] Alternatively, we could explain the apparently unnecessary words ืืืื ืืื ืืฉืืช by referring to the reverse situation described on the same folio in *Kritut*. A very poor person had set aside the meal-offering required for his sin-offering; it became unfit for the altar. Before this person could arrange a substitute his economic situation improved but not sufficiently to enable him to offer a sheep. He therefore prepared birds. When the same story repeated itself with the birds becoming unfit as an offering, the owner became still better off so that he could afford to bring the sheep as a sin-offering that normally well-situated people have to bring to obtain their atonement. This person has to bring the expensive offering though at the time he became liable for the offering he had indeed been very poor. The extra words ืืืื ืืื ืืฉืืช may therefore be used to teach that the Torah describes a temporary state of affairs and that the words may work to the advantage or the disadvantage of the person described in *Kritut*.
โ[3] *Torat Kohanim* writes as follows: "The words 'he is poor,' might be understood to mean that he used to have 100 dollars and now only has 50 dollars. The Torah tells you that it does not speak about such a subjective 'poverty' but about someone who does not have enough money left to afford to buy a sheep. Alternatively, you may read this backwards. He started out being unable to affordโฆetc. Or, he was able to afford but could not find a sheep to purchase; then the Torah considers him as 'poor' and he brings two birds." We have to understand what is meant by the words 'he could not find.' It may mean that there simply were no sheep to be had, such as happened during the siege of Jerusalem. It is obvious that in such a situation the Torah would not obligate such a person to wait indefinitely with bringing his guilt-offering, but would agree that he bring two birds as do people who cannot afford more. After all, at a time like this the money which normally defines a person as being rich has lost its value to the owner and he now is poor. We would not need *Torat Kohanim* to tell us that such a person fits the definition of 'poor.' It is more likely that the author of *Torat Kohanim* meant that sheep were not available at the regular price and could be bought only at exorbitant prices.
โ[4] We may assume that the obligation to bring a sheep or goat as his guilt-offering is conditional on the owner not depriving himself of the necessities of life. Even if his poverty is only relative to his former wealth he may bring the guilt-offering designated for an objectively poor person and use the balance of his funds to defray his regular expenses. This explanation of our sages does not contradict what we have written. You should know that if the Torah had not wanted to tell us more than what our sages have already explained it would have sufficed for the Torah to write ืืื ืื ืชืืืข ืืื ืื ืฉื ืืืืฉื, ืืืืื as the Torah wrote in Leviticus 5,7 in connection with another guilt-offering. Clearly then the Torah intended to convey the additional message we have pointed out by changing its syntax in this instance.
โ[5] *Torat Kohanim* (verses 30-31) also comments on the three unnecessary expressions the Torah uses in connection with the terms describing a person's ability or lack of ability to afford certain expenses. They are: 1) ืืฉืจ ืชืฉืื ืืื, 2) ืืืฉื ืชืฉืื ืืื, 3) ืืช ืืฉืจ ืชืฉืื ืืื. Here is their comment: The expression ืืฉืจ ืชืฉืื ืืื refers to someone who started out being wealthy but had become impoverished by the time he was required to bring the guilt-offering. The Torah therefore tells us that such a person brings the offering appropriate for a poor person. The words ืืืืฉืจ ืชืฉืื ืืื speak about a person who had been well off and set out to bring the guilt-offering appropriate to a wealthy person but whose offering became disqualified before it reached the altar. The owner of that offering had meanwhile become impoverished. He too is required to bring only the offering appropriate for a poor person. Finally, the words ืืืช ืืฉืจ ืชืฉืื ืืื refer to someone who was poor and had prepared to offer the guilt-offering appropriate to his economic status. He had become wealthy before completing this offering. The Torah tells us that such a person has to bring the offering appropriate for a wealthy person. If, however, he had already offered the sin-offering while in a state of poverty he does not have to bring the rich man's burnt-offering which he is still obligated to offer to complete the process of atonement. This conclusion is derived from the words ืืื ืืืืืช ืืืื ืืขืืื, meaning that both the sin-offering and the burnt-offering must be of the same category, i.e. either both have to be rich man's offerings or both have to be poor man's offerings. All of these exegetical derivations do not include what we have mentioned earlier as based on the repeated expression ืื ืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืฉืืช. Even after we have all the commentaries of *Torat Kohanim* our sages have offered us, my own comments were still necessary to explain the extra verbiage in our verse.
Version: Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk
Source: http://www.urimpublications.com/or-hachayim-commentary-on-the-torah-5-vols.html
License: CC-BY