Parshat Bechukotai

 BeChukotai 5727
Alef.

1. The individual who makes a vow to perform a Mitzva thinks that this action in itself is a Mitzva, much as one who constructs a private altar and sacrifices to God on it thinks that he too is engaged in a Mitzva performance. The same cannot be said when one vows regarding something that is optional. While it becomes a Mitzva not to violate a vow once it has been uttered, it is difficult to imagine how before the vow is made one thinks that he is engaged in a Mitzva performance.

2. If a person thinks that he has free choice and can use his human abilities in whatever way he pleases, then it is difficult to find fault with one who states a vow and fulfills it. However, if the power of speech is viewed as a special kindness Bestowed upon a person from HaShem, then it behooves the recipient to use that power carefully and responsibly. Consequently, to engage in frivolous verbal activity reflects a lack of appreciation for the origin and intention behind man being given this ability.

3. Since every Mitzva is considered as already having been sworn to uphold from the experience at Sinai where the people said, “We will do and we will hear/understand”, nothing is added when one vows to perform one of these Mitzvot. If anything, it suggests that had the individual not vowed, he would have been under no obligation to carry out the Mitzva, which is certainly not the case. Adding a vow to a Mitzva suggests that rather than performing it as fulfilling God’s Will, the Mitzva is actually a manifestation of man’s will, which could not be further from the case. The Mitzva  in effect is spoiled in terms of its Kavana, much as a sacrifice is deemed disqualified when the Kohen thinks the wrong thoughts, rendering it Pigul.

Beit.

Abrabanel offers two explanations for the placing of the topic of vows of Erchin following the covenant as manifested in the Tochecha in BeChukotai:

1) The matter of Erchin are a type of donation to the Temple which while less holy than a sacrifice, nevertheless is associated with the Tabernacle and Temple. Consequently, before concluding the book of VaYikra which is the volume of the Tora that deals primarily with such matters, these were mentioned before the Sefer concludes.

2)  In VaYikra 27:19, the Tora discusses what is to be done in terms of Erchin with regard to a field that has been dedicated to the Temple and will eventually return to the person after Yovel. So in effect, the laws of Yovel apply also to Erchin and that is why this topic was included before the Parasha and Sefer end. 

Gimel.

1.  It would appear that RaShI is trying to account for the fact that the same value is placed upon a male, between the ages of twenty and sixty. It is hard to understand how those with less life experience or those with greater energy should be worth the same amount as those who are do not have such qualities. Consequently RaShI says that to try to understand this law via the frame of reference of “worth” is inappropriate. When one dedicates the monetary amount corresponding to a male between twenty and sixty, he has dedicated 50 silver Shekalim to the Temple, period. It is not an exercise in determining the specific value of a specific person.

2.  א.

ויקרא פרק כז

(ח) ואם מך הוא מערכך והעמידו לפני הכהן והעריך אתו הכהן על פי אשר תשיג יד הנדר יעריכנו הכהן: ס

The textual difficulty that RaShI is attempting to clarify is the ambiguity arising from the usage of the pronoun “הוא” and the contraction of as well as the full form of the possessive pronoun “אותו”.  Since the object of “ערכך” is the individual who Is dedicating the money, while the objects of the evaluation are the various categories of people mentioned in the verses preceding this verse, one would think that the “הוא” at the beginning of v. 27 referred to the object of the valuation. But in fact it refers to the donor who can’t afford the amount that his dedication requires, and therefore the object of his dedication is given an individual evaluation by a Kohen in light of the donor’s financial ability to pay.

ב.    Ibn Ezra: a) "והעמידו הכהן לפני הכהן" = And the Kohen stood.

                        b)   And the Kohen made the donor stand in front of the evaluator.

RaShI:     c)    And the Kohen made the individual who inspired the donation stand in front of the evaluator.

ג.     According to RaShI, the beginning of the verse “ואם מך הוא מערכך” fits best with RaShI’s interpretation of the continuation, “והעמידו לפני הכהן”, i.e., if the donor is too poor to afford the amount that his donation requires, he is made to stand before the Kohen.

3.   א.  The language of “סדר” is interpreted as referring to taking into consideration not only the ability of the donor to meet this particular obligation, but also to avoid depriving him of the basic necessities of life and work that he needs to continue to exist.

      ב.   In order to combine these two elements pointed out by Ba’al Shem Olam re RaShI’s commentary, you would have to interpret as follows: And if he (the donor) is too poor to afford to pay the evaluation, and he (the donor) causes him (the object of the evaluation) to stand before the Kohen, and the Kohen evaluates him (the donor) in accordance with what the donor can afford, so will the Kohen evaluate him (the donor.)

4.    If RaShI would not have mentioned that this applies to those who are coming to redeem the animal from Hekdesh, one might have thought that it applies even to the individual who originally made the donation. But in v.13, we learn that the person who was the donor would have to add a Chomesh in order to redeem what he has given to Hekdesh.

5.    There’s no indication from the verses that deal with the redemption of the animal dedicated to Hekdesh who had to add the Chomesh were he to redeem it afterwards.

ויקרא פרק כז

(יא) ואם כל בהמה טמאה אשר לא יקריבו ממנה קרבן ליקוק והעמיד את הבהמה לפני הכהן:

(יב) והעריך הכהן אתה בין טוב ובין רע כערכך הכהן כן יהיה:

(יג) ואם גאל יגאלנה ויסף חמישתו על ערכך:

It would be possible to think that anyone, whether the donor or anyone else, who wished to redeem the animal would have to add the Chomesh. Consequently, RaShI puts the verse in context by stating that just as in other instances where a Chomesh has to be added in order to effect redemption, it is only when the donor redeems that which he donated, does a Chomesh have to be added, the same applies to the case listed in these verses.