๐พ Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to โบ scriptures โบ jewish โบ t โบ Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Levitiโฆ captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:59:55. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
2 โ[1] ** ืืืจ ืื ืื ื ืืฉืจืื ืืืืจืช, "Speak to the children of Israel and say to them, etc."** The first difficulty is the repetitive: "ืืืจ ืืืืจืช," speak and say!" Besides, why did G'd not say ืืืืจ ืืืืจืช, but changed the instructions in mid-stream from ืืืจ, harsh-sounding instruction, to ืืืืจืช, i.e. a softer approach? The answer is that in this communication G'd issued legislation concerning two different kinds of sacrificial offerings. The first kind of offering mentioned here is one which is prompted by man's goodwill towards G'd, his desire to donate a free-will offering, the ืขืืื, the burnt-offering. The second legislation deals with a sin-offering, a mandatory offering, the result of the owner having committed an inadvertent sin which requires him to obtain atonement. The word ืืืจ, the relatively harsh form of communication applied to the legislation about the sin-offering, whereas the word ืืืืจืช was used when telling the people the rules about the burnt-offering. Alternatively, we can recognise in this differential two separate aspects of the sin-offering legislation. The sin-offering is referred to by the word ืืืืจื seeing G'd has declared Himself ready to accept a sheep, or in the worst case, an ox, as atonement for man's sin; on the other hand, the harsher ืืืจ is justified inasmuch as man should not have committed such a sin, even inadvertently. The basic penalty for the sin in question is the death of the sinner. It is a sobering thought that an animal had to die to atone for man's mistake.
โ[2] The Torah addresses ืื ื ืืฉืจืื. According to *Torat Kohanim* this expression is to exclude the practice of ืกืืืื, the owner of the sacrificial animal placing his weight on the animal before it is slaughtered, when such an animal is offered by a non-Jewish owner (something which will be mentioned shortly in this legislation). The word ืื ื, is to exclude ืื ืืช, females, from this requirement. The word ืืืืจืช is supposed to restrict the procedure of ืกืืืื to peace-offerings. This is difficult to understand seeing the expression ืืืืจื is perceived as something additional to ืืืจ, i.e. as **inclusive**, not **exclusive**. Although the author of *Korban Aharon* claims that the word ืืืืืจ would have taught us the lesson it did even if the word ืืืจ had not occurred at the beginning of this verse, I beg to differ. Without the words ืืืจ ืื ืื ื ืืฉืจืื at the beginning of this verse I could not have deduced what I did from the word ืืืืืจ in the previous verse. There would have been no exegetical value to the word ืืืจ seeing it was needed for the basic message the Torah is trying to convey.
โ[3] Perhaps the author of *Torat Kohanim* felt that seeing it is not clear which of the two words ืืืจ ืืืืจืช was to be used exegetically and which was needed for the basic message, it was in order to use either word exegetically. Alternatively, *Torat Kohanim* did not mean to focus on the word ืืื at all but on the words ืื ื ืืฉืจืื. Seeing that the Torah could have written ืืืจ ืืืืื instead of ืืืจ ืื ืื ื ืืฉืจืื, the extra words are available for exegetical purposes. It was quite obvious that Moses was to address the Israelites and not anyone else. By saying ืื ื, the Torah excluded females as the Torah should have written ืืืจ ืื ืืืช ืืฉืจืื if it intended to include women in the requirement to perform ืกืืืื. The word ืืฉืจืื excluded the ืกืืืื requirement from Gentiles offering sacrifices to G'd. Nonetheless, the alternative we offered earlier is more likely to be the correct one, seeing that somewhere in the commentary by *Torat Kohanim* it is argued that the words ืื ื ืืฉืจืื refer to the nation who had a Covenantal relationship with G'd, something which is related to its interpretation of the line ืืื ืื ืืงืจืื ืืื, i.e. that the word ืืื includes Gentiles.
โ[4] **ืืื ืื ืืงืจืื ืืื, "when any man of you brings an offering, etc."** Why did the Torah have to use the term ืืื? Whereas *Torat Kohanim* here claims that the word includes offerings brought by proselytes as being acceptable, the author of *Korban Aaharon* asks what need there was for the Torah to specifically **include** proselytes seeing we have a ruling in *Menachot* 73 that even sacrifices from Gentiles are acceptable. This ruling is based on either exegesis or logic derived from Leviticus 22,18. The author of *Korban Aharon* suggests as an answer that we could have assumed that once the proselyte had converted he would become subject to the same restriction that the Israelites themselves are subject to as a result of the Torah writing ืื ื ืืฉืจืืโฆ.ืื ืืงืจืื **ืืื**, i.e. that not all the Israelites are entitled to offer such sacrifices. The word ืืื then would confirm that sacrifices are accepted from all proselytes. I do not find this answer as grammatically tenable. Had the Torah not written the word ืืื in our verse which included proselytes, the Talmud would not have been able to include Gentiles based on the wording ืืืฉ ืืืฉ in Leviticus 22,18, but would have included only proselytes as allowed to offer vows and gift-offerings. This is why the author of *Torat Kohanim* chose our verse as the basis for the ruling that offerings from proselytes are acceptable. This is the only reason that the formulation ืืืฉ ืืืฉ in Leviticus 22,18 may be interpreted as a directive to include Gentiles. Once we are clear about this there is no need to come up with forced explanations to justify the *Torat Kohanim* as does the author of *Korban Aharon*.
โ[5] One cannot object that seeing that according to *Baba Metzia* 114 only Israelites are called ืืื and not Gentiles, that therefore the words ืืืฉ ืืืฉ in 22,18 must refer to proselytes seeing the beginning of that verse specifically addressed Israelites and that it would not have occurred to anyone to include Gentiles so that they needed to be excluded specifically. Once we use the verse to expand the group of people from whom sacrificial offerings are acceptable we do not include every category of person but we include the group of people most closely resembling natural-born Israelites, i.e. the proselytes. Only if we find another word in the text which suggests that some other group of people is to be included in this legislation do we use it to include Gentiles. As a result, the law is that the proselyte may bring any kind of sacrificial offering whereas the Torah permits the Gentile only certain types of offerings. Rabbi Akiva holds that the Gentile may only bring a burnt-offering, ืขืืื, whereas Rabbi Yossi Haglili holds that Gentiles may also offer a gift-offering, ืื ืื (*Menachot* 73).
โ[6] *Midrash Tanchuma* item 8 on our portion asks why the Torah used the expression ืืื in our verse in preference to the customary ืืืฉ? The answer given is that the Torah wishes to establish a parallel with the first human being who had sinned, i.e. **ืืื**. We may understand the verse as follows: ืื ืืืื ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืจืืฉืื ืฉืืชืืื ืืืื ืืงืจืื ืงืจืื; "If someone sins as did Adam who was the first human being who sinned, he shall offer a sacrifice." It appears from the wording of the author of the *Tanchuma* that Adam's sin was inadvertent seeing sin-offerings are acceptable only for sins committed inadvertently. The *Midrash* corresponds to what I have written on Genesis 3,12 on the words: "she gave to me." The entire ืคืจืฉื here teaches us that G'd applied a different yardstick to man **after** Adam had sinned initially. Whereas the penalty for Adam's sin had been death, i.e. mortality, and the fact that he offered a sin-offering did **not** absolve him of his guilt, such offerings will help the Israelites to atone for the sins they commit inadvertently. The *Tanchuma* supplied the reason why G'd did not accept Adam's sacrifice as sufficient atonement, i.e. he had been the **first** human to sin; the evil urge had not been an integral part of him so that it would have been difficult to resist the lure of that urge. All subsequent human beings have been afflicted in that evil has become part of their life-force, ื ืคืฉ. The ืืืช ืืืจืืช, the sign of the covenant between us and G'd, i.e. the need to remove the foreskin through the act of circumcision, is the proof of the cardinal difference between us and Adam who had been created minus the foreskin.
โ[7] I believe that this consideration helps to explain a verse in Job 33,29 according to which G'd gives man two or three chances before decreeing something final resulting in his death. Why was Adam not measured by that yardstick? In fact, when it comes to sins committed by a community of people, we know on the authority of Amos 2,1, that G'd will forgive Israel's sins three times and only on the fourth occasion will He no longer forgive. There is, however, a good reason why G'd did not apply the yardsticks mentioned in either Job or Amos to ืืื ืืจืืฉืื, the first man. On the day G'd created Adam He made him of totally good components, so that no part of him was either mentally or physically worthless which would cause him to go astray. Once he sinned he became the prototype of a sinner and the evil his life-force, ื ืคืฉ had absorbed became a part of every subsequent Israelite's body and soul. Even man's body absorbed that vestige of sin and the reminder of that contamination is the foreskin with which males are born. Keeping in mind that we all suffer from a handicap Adam had not suffered from, G'd decided to allow man up to three repetitions of mortal sins before making a decree final. It is man's heritage from the moment he emerges from his mother's womb to be infected with this evil pollutant. This pollutant endeavours to make man sin intentionally. It also endeavours to make him sin through mere thoughtlessness. In this latter case, the sin-offering helps to secure penitent Man atonement for such thoughtlessness. Although it is true that Adam's sin was also due to thoughtlessness, G'd dealt fairly with him by not allowing him a second chance seeing he did not have to overcome a spiritual or physical pollutant which urged him to disobey his Maker.
โ[8] **ืื ืืงืจืื ืืื, "when one of you brings an offering, etc."** We need to analyse why the Torah had to write the word ืืื, "from you." Besides, why is that word written after the Torah had already written the predicate of the verse, i.e. "who offers a sacrifice." Normally, the subject, i.e. the person who performs the act is mentioned before the act he performs. Our sages in *Chulin* 5 state that the word ืืื is intended to exclude Jewish heretics whose offerings are not acceptable. They arrive at this conclusion by viewing the word ืื ืืืืื, as suggesting that sacrifices by a heretic are aceptable. How was such an exegesis arrived at? The word ืืื excluded only a Jew who either practices idolatry, (seeing this sin is equivalent to violation of all the Torah's commandments), or the kind of heretic who rejects all of the Torah's commandments. The wording ืื ืืืืื, on the other hand, suggests another group of animal-like human beings, i.e. heretics who reject only one or several of the commandments. The Torah says that these sinners do qualify for offering of sacrifices. The translation of the verse would be: "a certain animal-like person amongst you who offers a sacrifice, etc." The exegesis offered in *Chulin* helps to explain why the word ืืื in our verse appears after the predicate instead of before. If the Torah had written: ืืื ืืื, in that sequence, the word would have appeared to exclude something instead of including something, or vice-versa. The intention of the verse, however, was that **inclusions** should apply only to proselytes, whereas **exclusions** should apply only to certain members of the Jewish community. The Torah achieved this aim by positioning the words ืื ืืงืจืื between the words ืืื ืืื. We may also justify the position of the word ืืื through reference to a different exegetical approach on the same folio of the Talmud. There the Talmud quotes a *Baraitha* which understands the word ืืื as excluding offerings by heretics, and another *Baraitha* which uses the words ืืขื ืืืจืฅ, (Leviticus 4,27)i.e. "**from** certain types of ืขื ืืืจืฅ not from all of them," as the basis for not accepting sacrifices from such individuals. Rabbi Shimon disagrees saying that the words ืืฉืจ ืื ืชืขืฉืื ื ืืืฉื at the end of that verse make it clear that only an unrepentant heretic is not allowed to offer sacrifices. [Seeing that it seems strange that according to the first view even a repentant heretic should be forbidden to offer a sacrifice, Ed.], the Talmud defines the difference between the two views as applying only when someone who remains guilty of eating forbidden fat has repented for eating blood, and offers a sin-offering to achieve atonement for **that** sin. According to the first view, such an offering would be acceptable, whereas according to the second view it would not as the sinner continues to practice his heresy by eating forbidden fat. The Talmud there adds that one of the verses (1,2) speaks of the acceptance of a burnt-offering from a heretic, whereas the other verse (in Leviticus 4,27) speaks of the acceptance of a sin-offering from a heretic and that we need the exegetically usable words or letters of both verses. Thus far the T almud.
โ[9] Our sages have said in *Torat Kohanim* that the words ืื ืืงืจืื refer only to voluntary offerings. This makes sense in view of the word ืืื appearing after the words ืื ืืงืจืื. The offerings which are excluded are voluntary offerings such as fulfilments of vows, i.e. ืขืืื. This is what the Talmud in *Chulin* 5 meant when it said one verse speaks of the burnt-offering. Logic might have persuaded us that the Torah is willing to accept a **free-will** offering from a sinner who has not repented a specific sin, whereas a **sin-offering** from such a sinner would be rejected. The Torah therefore had to tell us that no offering is acceptable until the sinner has repented all of his sins. At the same time we also need the exclusion implied in the words ืืขื ืืืจืฅ in 4,27 where the Torah speaks of a need to bring a sin-offering. The exclusion in that chapter is quite different from that in chapter one in that the only person from whom we do not accept a burnt-offering is the heretic who rejects **the whole** Torah. In 4,27, however, the Torah excludes sin-offerings even from a Jew who habitually only violates **a single one** of the 613 commandments when such a Jew wishes to offer a sin-offering for a different commandment which he violated unintentionally. Maimonides rules similarly in chapter three of his treatise on *Maaseh Hakorbanot*.
โ[10] If we wish to see a moral-ethical dimension in this verse we may pursue the following path. Seeing that the Jewish people had observed that G'd had brought Moses close to him, and called out only to him from amongst all the Israelites, the Torah goes on record to say that such distinctions are not restricted to Moses, but ืืื ืื ืืงืจืื, "anyone who wishes to come close to G'd, can do so provided ืืื, is a member of the Jewish people." In fact, as we have already pointed out, G'd's call to Moses was only for the sake of the Israelites, for their benefit. Consider the fact that during 38 years of wandering in the desert when the Israelites were sullen [due to the decree that they would perish in the desert after adopting the majority report of the spies Ed.], and G'd kept His distance from them, G'd had not spoken even with Moses. This was clear evidence that when G'd had spoken to Moses out of the Tabernacle it had been for the benefit of the people and not for either G'd's or Moses' benefit.
โ[11] The Torah also wanted to give a hint to the elite amongst the people to influence the hearts of the Israelites so that they would worship G'd willingly. The reason that the offering or sacrifice is called ืงืจืื, i.e. from the root ืงืจื, "to come near," is that it is sin which separates man from his Father in Heaven. We know from Deuteronomy, 4,4 that "you who have cleaved to the Lord are all alive this day." The Israelites instead had become separated and distant from the presence of G'd, the ืฉืืื ื, due to their support for the spies' report and their attempt to return to Egypt. G'd, on the other hand, is anxious to establish a close bond with Israel and commanded the elite to rebuke the sinner in order to bring his heart closer to the Lord his G'd. At the same time G'd punished those who ignored their duty in this regard. A proof that G'd indeed expects those who are the elite to take a leading role in influencing the hearts of the people, is found in the statement by our sages in *Avot* 5,21: "He who leads the multitude in righteousness shall have no sin come into his hand," seeing G'd will protect him against committing errors. These then are the messages contained in our verse.
โ[12] The word ืืื used by the Torah here refers to the spiritually most advanced members of society, the elite. *Zohar Tazria* interprets the sequence of the words ืื ืืงืจืื ืืื, as "whom does one try and bring close to G'd, the ืืื, the ones who have not been close in the first place, i.e. the spiritually lower level of society who have sinned and asked G'd not to bother them with His demands so that they could withdraw from the close bond with G'd." These are the people for the elite to focus on, to try and bring them back closer to G'd. This is why the Torah adds the words ืงืจืื ืืฉื, to be close to G'd, so that they will become what G'd called in the words of Isaiah 60,21: "the shoot that I planned, My handiwork in which I glory." A person of that calibre, involved in bringing others closer to G'd does not have to bring either free-will offerings or sin-offerings. Having finished with describing the task of the elite of the Jewish people, the Torah continues: ืื ืืืืื ืชืงืจืืื ืืช ืงืจืื ืื, i.e. the ordinary people are to offer their various kinds of sacrifices; after all, not everyone is on the spiritual level of those described as ืืื, i.e. able to restore harmonious relations between sinners and G'd.
Version: Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk
Source: http://www.urimpublications.com/or-hachayim-commentary-on-the-torah-5-vols.html
License: CC-BY