๐พ Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to โบ scriptures โบ jewish โบ t โบ Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Levitiโฆ captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:35:08. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
5 โ[1] ** ืืฉื ืืื, it is a guilt-offering.** Rabbi Eliezer and the other rabbis disagree in *Torat Kohanim* whether the extraneous word ืืื is intended to teach that if this offering was not slaughtered on the northern side of the altar that it is invalidated. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the word ืืื means that if the guilt-offering was slaughtered while the priest entertained the wrong thoughts i.e. assumed that the animal in question was a different kind of offering, it is invalid. According to his reasoning, the words ืืฉื ืืื emphasise the need for the guilt-offering mentioned in verse 1 of our chapter to have been slaughtered for that purpose in order to be acceptable. We find in *Zevachim* 10 that Rabbi Yehoshua challenged Rabbi Eliezer's exegesis and that thereupon Rabbi Eliezer retracted and derived his ruling that the ืืฉื must be slaughtered as such in order to be valid from the words ืืืืืช ืืืฉื in verse 7 of our chapter. Considering this, we must ask what Rabbi Eliezer learns from the extraneous word ืืื? Perhaps if the word ืืื had not been written here I would have made the comparison made in *Zevachim* 11 between the guilt-offering and the sin-offering described in verse 7 as not applying to the need to perform ืกืืืื on the guilt-offering just as on the sin-offering, but I would have applied it to the need to slaughter either offering with the right intent in order for it to be acceptable. In order to prevent us from making such an error, the Torah wrote the word ืืื next to the word ืืฉื to inform us that this word tells us something about the ืืฉื itself. The Torah wrote the words ืืืืืช ืืืฉื in verse 7 in order to tell us that both these offerings require ืกืืืื as something mandatory. The other rabbis, the ones who disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer who used the word ืืื to invalidate the guilt-offering unless it had been slaughtered on the northern side of the altar, understand that word to refer back to verse 2 where the principle of slaughtering the guilt-offering in the same place as the burnt-offering has first been mentioned. Repeating this by means of the word ืืื indicates that the requirement is mandatory. Although one could challenge these rabbis with similar queries as the ones used by Rabbi Yehoshua to get Rabbi Eliezer to retract, the fact that they did not arrive at a new ืืืื by dint of a ืกืืจื, a process of reasoning, but applied a rule applicable to other sacrifices also to the guilt-offering by their methodology, it is absolutely acceptable that the word ืืื was intended by the Torah to make the site of the slaughtering mandatory. This is all the more so since in the case of the burnt-offering the Torah had spelled this law out in so many words. The contribution of those rabbis is that if we had only had verse 1 in our chapter, I would have reasoned that while it is a desired requirement, failure to slaughter the guilt-offering on the northern side of the altar would not have invalidated it.
Version: Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk
Source: http://www.urimpublications.com/or-hachayim-commentary-on-the-torah-5-vols.html
License: CC-BY