๐พ Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to โบ scriptures โบ jewish โบ t โบ Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Levitiโฆ captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:29:42. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
9 โ[1] ** ืืื ืื ืื ืืฉืจ ืชืืคื ืืชื ืืจ, and every meal-offering which is baked in the oven, etc.** The Torah mentions five separate categories of meal-offerings to exclude five matters. 1) The sons of Aaron do not divide the meal-offering according to the formula employed when animal offerings are shared out, i.e. that portions of one offering may be traded off against portions of another offering; rather every priest of the group performing service on that day receives his share of **each** of the meal-offerings presented on that day. 2) Bird-offerings are not shared out in the same way as the meal-offerings. One could have argued that the bird-offerings and the meal-offerings were both offerings presented by the poor and the very poor respectively. This factor does not have a bearing on the method employed in sharing out the meat of the bird-offerings, however. 3) The distribution of the meat of bird-offerings did not parallel that of the offerings consisting of four-legged animals, even though in both cases their blood is sprinkled on the altar. 4) The criteria applicable to the distribution of the parts of one kind of meal-offering are not identical to those of the sharing out of another kind of meal-offering, even though they all consist of flour of some kind. 5) Meal-offerings consisting of baked goods baked in one kind of pan or another kind are not shared out according to the same criteria as other meal-offerings prepared in a similar manner when these meal-offerings served different purposes.
โ[2] Although these five exclusions all concern different kinds of meal-offerings, the exegesis from which we derived these *halachic* differences is based on what is called ืื ืืื ื ืขื ืื, i.e. that if the Torah records certain information which is superfluous in its context, such information may be applied to supplement information lacking in a different context. I have seen that Maimonides in chapter 10, ruling 15 of his *Ma-asseh Hakorbanot* explains the exclusions in our two verses along different lines (other than *Torat Kohanim* which is similar to our author). He bases his exegesis on the fact that the Torah did not include the five kinds of meal-offerings mentioned here in the section dealing with ืื ืืช ืกืืช in 6,7-11 but records it in a different context. This is remarkable seeing that in the case of the meal-offerings which are baked as well as in the meal-offering consisting of fine flour mixed with oil and frankincense the Torah speaks of the offering belonging to the officiating priest. Maimonides reasons that we could have made a case for sharing out the meal-offering consisting of fine flour according to the same criteria as those applicable to some other meal-offering but we do not do so. It is clear from Maimonides' reasoning that he employs the words ืืื ืื ื ืืืจืื "to all the priests" in 7,10 as the basis for his exegesis. This is not what we learned in the *Baraitha* (*Torat Kohanim* ).
โ[3] Maimonides also stresses the fact that the laws of the meal-offering do not all appear in a single paragraph. This teaches that unless the Torah had separated the laws of one kind of meal-offering (the ืื ืืช ืกืืช) which was not baked from the five categories mentioned in our chapter all of which are baked, we could not have used these verses exegetically and we would not have arrived at the conclusions derived by *Torat Kohanim.* Perhaps Maimonides thought that the fact that the Torah artificially separated the legislation pertaining to the offering of the meal-offerings is proof that it did not want us to assume that the formula of trading off by the priest of parts of one meal-offering against parts of another type of meal-offering is acceptable. Having arrived at this principle, it is applied to all the meal-offerings. You may find proof in the fact that in the case of ืื ืืช ืืจืืฉืช and ืื ืืช ืืืืช the Torah does not mention a word about all the priests sharing in it equally. All that is mentioned is that priests not officiating on that day are not entitled to share in it. [the Torah phrases it positively, saying: "it belongs to the priest who offers it which means to the group of priests officiating on that day. Ed.] Whence does Maimonides know then that a meal-offering offered in a pan may not be traded off against a meal-offering offered in a stewing-pan seeing not a word is said about how these meal-offerings are to be shared out? Actually, the five exclusions we cited earlier as the basis of our exegesis are only of the type known as ืืกืืืชื, a "lean-to." This type of exegesis is not binding but serves as a reminder of *halachot* with which we are already familiar. The principal exegetical tool is the fact that the Torah saw fit not to record all six examples of meal-offerings in the same paragraph.
โ[4] We are now left with the problem of why the Torah gave many details repeatedly when all it had to write was that "every meal-offering belongs to the officiating priest, and is to be shared by all the priests officiating on that day." Perhaps -in view of the fact that the Torah already entered into details of different kinds of baked meal-offerings- the Torah was afraid that we would apply totally different criteria to the ืื ืืช ืกืืช and others which were not baked. We find, for instance, in *Menachot* 63 that the Talmud explains the words ืืื ื ืขืฉื ืืืจืืฉืช ืืขื ืืืืช in 7,9 to mean that these meal-offerings and the rules pertaining to them are governed by the type of container they are offered up in and not so much by their composition. The practical significance of this becomes evident when a person vows to bring a meal-offering and he merely identifies the kind of meal-offering he undertakes to bring by naming the vessel it is to be brought in. For instance, he said: "I am obligated to a certain kind of baking pan" [one of the ones which existed in the Temple. Ed]. According to the school of Hillel such a vow is valid seeing the kind of pan he mentioned is a sacred vessel and can be used for the meal-offering and the Torah wrote: "anything prepared in either of these kinds of pans, etc." According to the school of Shammai it is doubtful what this person had in mind. His "offering" would need to remain untouched until the coming of Elijah the prpohet who would resolve our doubts about its validity. Rabbi Yossi the son of Rabbi Yehudah holds that all these meal-offerings are separate categories. Therefore, one may not bring less than a minimal quantity of a meal-offering ืขื ืืืืืช and add to it less than a minimal quantity of a meal-offering ืืืจืืฉืช in order to combine these quantities into a single meal-offering of minimal acceptable quantity. The words ืืฉืจ ืชืืคื ืชื ืืจ, teach that one cannot combine part of a meal-offering baked on a griddle with part of a meal-offering baked in an oven. The only extraneous words which have not yet been explained exegetically are the ones in verse 10 seeing what is written there is also a duplication.
โ[5] Perhaps Rabbi Yossi son of Rabbi Yehudah who holds that the words ืืืคื ืชื ืืจ mean two types of meal-offerings derived his ruling from the fact that the Torah employed the word ืื both in verse 9 and in verse 10. As a result we have a double duplication. First of all there was no need for the extra verse; secondly, if you already had the extra verse, the word ืื did not need to appear in both verses. This is why Rabbi Yossi is careful to mention the source of his ruling, i.e. ืืื ืื ืื,โฆืืื ื ืขืฉื ืืืจืืฉืช, ืืื ืื ืื ืืืืื. He adds: "Just as the word ืืื in verse 10 clearly refers to two separate meal-offerings, i.e. one containing a great deal of oil and one a dry one, so the word ืืื in the previous verse also refers to two different categories of meal-offering. It follows from the above that if the Torah had only written the words ืื ืื ืืืืื, or ืื ืื ืื ืืจืื, I would not have had an exegetical tool with which to derive the various *halachot* we have derived from the repeated use by the Torah of the word ืืื. In fact, one could have argued that if the Torah had written ืื ืื ืื ืืจืื this would furnish proof that the word ืื applied to a single kind of meal-offering, [in spite of the Torah using the word ืื meaning each or every. Ed.] and that when the Torah spoke about this kind of meal-offering without using the word ืื such as in Leviticus 2,4: ืื ืื ืืืคื ืชื ืืจ (Leviticus 2,4), it also referred to only a single category of offering. The Torah had to write all the verses which appear to contain some duplication in order to teach us the various *halachot* we just described.
Version: Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk
Source: http://www.urimpublications.com/or-hachayim-commentary-on-the-torah-5-vols.html
License: CC-BY