Tzav Answers

פרשת ויקרא




ויקרא פרק א



(ג) אם עלה קרבנו מן הבקר זכר תמים יקריבנו אל פתח אהל מועד יקריב אתו לרצנו לפני יקוק:



ויקרא פרק ב



(א) ונפש כי תקריב קרבן מנחה ליקוק סלת יהיה קרבנו ויצק עליה שמן ונתן עליה לבנה:



ויקרא פרק ג



(א) ואם זבח שלמים קרבנו אם מן הבקר הוא מקריב אם זכר אם נקבה תמים יקריבנו לפני יקוק:



ויקרא פרק ד



(ג) אם הכהן המשיח יחטא לאשמת העם והקריב על חטאתו אשר חטא פר בן בקר תמים ליקוק לחטאת:



ויקרא פרק ה



(ו) והביא את אשמו ליקוק על חטאתו אשר חטא נקבה מן הצאן כשבה או שעירת עזים לחטאת וכפר עליו הכהן מחטאתו:



--> עלה, מנחה, שלמים, חטאת, אשם



פרשת צו



ויקרא פרק ו



(ב) צו את אהרן ואת בניו לאמר זאת תורת העלה הוא העלה על מוקדה על המזבח כל הלילה עד הבקר ואש המזבח תוקד בו:



שם



(ז) וזאת תורת המנחה הקרב אתה בני אהרן לפני יקוק אל פני המזבח:



שם



(יח) דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו לאמר זאת תורת החטאת במקום אשר תשחט העלה תשחט החטאת לפני יקוק קדש קדשים הוא:



ויקרא פרק ז



(א) וזאת תורת האשם קדש קדשים הוא:



שם



(יא) וזאת תורת זבח השלמים אשר יקריב ליקוק:



--> עלה, מנחה, חטאת, אשם, שלמים.



Abrabanel in his commentary accepts the explanation given by RaMBaN for the change in order re Shelamim. This is the reason why Nechama quotes RaMBaN after the question posed by Abrabanel.



A distinction is made between Kodshai Kodashim1 and Kodshai Kalim.2 3 Consequently, since Parashat VaYikra is directed at the people in general, the distinction that is emphasized is between those sacrifices which are optional, i.e., Olah, Mincha and Shlamim, and those that are obligatory4 as a consequence of inadvertent or deliberate sin, i.e., Chatat and Asham. Such an arrangement reflects where the individual has choices and where he has none. With respect to the order in Parashat Tzav, since these verses are directed at the Kohanim, they have to be aware of the various ways in which the sacrifices must be offered and then subsequently handled. Therefore, they are best served by dividing between those of greater holiness-Kodshai Kodashim-and lesse holiness—Kodshai Kallim.





Beit.



The principle that we do not want to publicly humiliate a sinner is reflected in R. Yosi HaGalili’s interpretation (Sota 8:5) of Devarim 20:8, quoted by RaShI, regarding why a “fearful” person is allowed to leave the battlefield with respect to an optional (as opposed to Milchemet Mitzva) war. R. Yosi HaGalili posited that even the other reasons that allowed someone to disengage, i.e., he became engaged but has not been able as yet to perform Nesu’in, he built a house but has not dedicated it, he planted a vineyard but as yet has not enjoyed its produce, were created specifically so that when a person would leave, the onlookers could not automatically conclude that he had a guilty conscience, but rather he was leaving to participate in a happy occasion.5





Gimel.



Abrabanel (ד' כב.) explains that by referring to Chatat and Asham as Kodesh Kodashim, in contrast to Shlamim which are designated as Kodshai Kalim, the Tora is demonstrating its high regard for the Ba’al Teshuva. A Penitent is forced to bring a sacrifice as part of his atonement, and his readiness to repent and do what he has to to resurrect his life is viewed as more admirable than the act of someone who has no guilty conscience, and when he wishes to come close to HaShem, voluntarily offers a Shlamim. This becomes a concretization of the rule (Berachot 34b) that Penitents reach levels that the completely righteous are unable to occupy.





Daled.



If the phrase “Kodesh Kodashim” had a “Heh” in front of the second word, i.e., “Kodesh HaKodashim”, then it could be understood to be a form of Semichut, i.e., the (most) holy of (compared to other) holies, just as “Eved HaAvadim” (Beraishit 9:25) could be interpreted as the (greatest) slave of (compared to other) slaves. But in the absence of the “Heh” in these two phrases, Ibn Ezra interprets the phrase as “one holy” of many “holies” , parallel to “one slave” of many “slaves.”





Heh.



1. According to Ibn Ezra, the verb M-R-K is in a form that parallels B-Sh-L as well as Sh-T-F, even though a Cholam is used rather than a Kubutz since the Reish does not have a Dagesh.



Beiur claims that M-R-K, rather than a verb, is actually a noun referring to the mixture of water and the residue within the Klee from the offering that had been prepared within it. When something is polished, the intent is to remove the small deposits that are interfering with the shine. The same is true for the preparations that women may use to clarify their skin. Consequently the material that remains in the Klee from the Korban is comparable to these small deposits.





2. a. The textual difficulty is that there is an extra word “Lo” that is unnecessary since it had already been stated that the Korban is given “LaKohen HaMakriv Otah”.





b. RaShI assumes that the word has to be accounted for via some sort of Chidush, i.e., in this case, even though the sacrifice can be given to Kohanim beyond the one who offered it up, it nevertheless must remain within the Kohein who offered it up’s family unit. Ibn Ezra seems to be satisfied to say that it is simply an additional clarifier which has no practical significance, a type of “Dibra Tora B’Lashom Benai Adam.”



It would seem that the example from VaYikra is different from the two from Shmot. In the latter, the original reference is made via a pronoun, which is then clarified by an explicit noun. In VaYikra, the original designation is a noun, so it would seem to be superfluous to follow that up with a pronoun.