Tzav answers

Tzav 5731

Alef.

VaYikra 6:3

“And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh; and he shall take up the ashes whereto the fire hath consumed the burnt-offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar. “

The idea expressed by R. Levi in the Yerushalmi  is that while removing the remains from the previous sacrifices would appear to be the kind of activity reserved for lowly classes rather than the priests who perform the Divine Service, since the Mishkan is the place where HaShem Concentrates His Presence, all men, including Kohanim, are considered to be the same when contrasted with God. Consequently, all activities are appropriate for all men, regardless of their official status.

Beit.

              VaYikra 6:4

              “And he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes without the camp unto a clean place.”

1.  The psychological basis for the sources in Masechet Shabbat is that when one prepares oneself for the performance of a Mitzva, greater Kavana is possible, and one reflects a sense that he is moving from one area of activity to a higher one.

2.  The term דברי קבלה is a reference to biblical texts other than the Chumash. Literally, these are words that are exactly handed down from generation to generation because they have been codified into NaCh.

The הוה  אמינא were we only to have the source from VaYikra is that this is a special stringency for the Divine Service in the Tabernacle/Temple. However, for religious practices that do not take place in such a holy place, it might not be necessary to go to such extremes. Consequently the verses in Amos and Yeshayahu demonstrate that this is a principle that applies to all people in all places.

3.  (R. Hirsch’s commentary is cited by Nechama at the end of the Alon HaDeracha that accompanies this Gilayon.)

      According to the Gemora in Shabbat, the change of clothes is associated with performing some new Divine Service, in this case the removal of the ash from the altar. R. Hirsch suggests that the removal of the ash demonstrates that despite the fact that we are about to perform the same act of sacrifice that we did yesterday, today is a new day and the service that we are about to do should be approached as if it is entirely new. This engenders donning new clothes as well.

Gimel.

1.א. VaYikra 6:2

“Command Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the law of the burnt-offering: it is that which goeth up on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morning; and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning thereby. “

RaShI’s comment is generated by the fact that only by the Whole Burnt Offering in Chapt. 6 is the imperative “Tzav” employed. When the text later speaks about the meal offering (v. 7), the offering brought by the Kohanim on the day of their anointment (v. 13), and the sin offering (v. 18), the term “Tzav” does not appear.

ב.  As opposed to the other sacrifices mentioned, the Kohanim receive the least portion of the Korban with respect to the Olah. Consequenlty, to them there is a monetary loss in terms of the portions of the sacrifice allotted to them.

ג.  When a point of view is the singular point of view cited, then the order is “אמר X”; when there is more than one opinion mentioned, the view that responds to the first view follows the sequence: “X אומר”. The RaShI’s in Shemot 22:14 and BaMidbar 11:22, because the text states there was a dispute before mentioning the names and views of the disputants, each view follows the pattern: “X אומר”.

2.  Here is Siftei Chachamim’s explanation for RaShI’s contention that the place where the ashes were placed was to the east of the ramp leading to the top of the altar:

(י) משום דכתיב “אצל המזבח”, והכבש הוא אצל המזבח, ומנלן שהיה במזרחו של כבש? מוכח משום דכתיב “אצל המזבח קדמה” בפרשת ויקרא (לעיל א, טז) וגם שם משמע אצל הכבש’ וכתיב בהדיא קדמה א"כ שמע מינה שמקום הדשן היה במזרחה דהיינו קדמה:

ויקרא א:טז "וְהֵסִיר אֶת מֻרְאָתוֹ בְּנֹצָתָהּ וְהִשְׁלִיךְ אֹתָהּ אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ קֵדְמָה אֶל מְקוֹם הַדָּשֶׁן:"

"And he shall take away its crop with the feathers thereof, and cast it beside the altar on the east part, in the place of the ashes".

3.  The verse reads literally:

)ויקרא פרק ו :ג( וְלָבַשׁ הַכֹּהֵן מִדּוֹ בַד וּמִכְנְסֵי בַד יִלְבַּשׁ עַל בְּשָׂרוֹ וְהֵרִים אֶת הַדֶּשֶׁן אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל הָאֵשׁ אֶת הָעֹלָה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְשָׂמוֹ אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ:

“the ash that the fire consumed the Whole Burnt Offering”. Consequently RaShI explains that the ash was produced by the fire consuming the Whole Burnt Offering.

4.  VaYikra 6:6

      א. “Fire shall be kept burning upon the altar continually; it shall not go out.”

If the end of the verse states that the fire should not be allowed to go out, why does it have to say previously that it should burn continually? Isn’t this redundant?

ב. Nechama’s point apparently is that while the Rabbinic tradition might present a number of interpretations of a certain biblical phrase, RaShI  might not cite all of them.

רש"י ויקרא יט: כו לא תאכלו על הדם - להרבה פנים נדרש בסנהדרין (סנהדרין סג) אזהרה שלא יאכל מבשר קדשים לפני זריקת דמים ואזהרה לאוכל מבהמת חולין טרם שתצא נפשה ועוד הרבה:

However, when he chooses, it might be because he prefers one to the other in terms of the manner in which it explains the biblical text. Consequently, in our case, perhaps he felt that to state that the fire should burn on Shabbat as well as the other days of the week does not account for the redundancy as well as creating a Gezeira Shava with the Menora based on the word “תמיד”.

On the other hand, if there are Rabbinic interpretations and he cites none of them, then he feels that they are digress too far from the simple meaning of the text.

(שמות לא: יג) וְאַתָּה דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר אַךְ אֶת שַׁבְּתֹתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ כִּי אוֹת הִוא בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם לָדַעַת כִּי אֲנִי יְדֹוָד מְקַדִּשְׁכֶם:

רש"י: אך את שבתתי תשמרו - אע"פ שתהיו רדופין וזריזין בזריזות המלאכה שבת אל תדחה מפניה כל אכין ורקין מיעוטין למעט שבת ממלאכת המשכן:

השווה את דברי המפרשים הנ"ל לדברי המכילתא ג':

...מניין לפיקוח נפש שדוחה את השבת? ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר (י"ג): "אך את שבתותי תשמרו" אך – חלק. יש שבתות שאתה דוחה, יש שבתות שאתה שובת. ר' שמעון בן מנסיא אומר: הרי אתה אומר (י"ד): "ושמרתם את השבת כי קודש היא לכם" – לכם שבת מסורה, ואי אתם מסורים לשבת. ר' נתן אומר (ט"ז): "ושמרו בני ישראל את השבת לעשות את השבת לדורותם" – חלל שבת אחת, כדי שתשמור שבתות הרבה.

3.	מדוע לא הלך רש"י בעקבות אחד מהם?

Parshat Tzav

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/1403.html

Parshat Vayikra Answers



VaYikra 5724

Alef.

1.       The view expressed in the Mechilta and in RaShI insists that despite what the verses appear to say, the only time there is an obligation to eat Matza is on the first day specifically upon the night of the Seder. Ibn Ezra in all three of the citations states that there is an obligation according to the Peshat (he leaves open the possibility that using hermeneutical principles, a different conclusion could be arrived at), there is an obligation to eat Matza each of the days of Pesach.

2.    Shemot 12:15 “Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; howbeit the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses; for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel. “

        Ibid. 18            “In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.”

        Ibid. 20             “Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened  bread.”

        Ibid. 35:2          “Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a holy day, a sabbath of solemn rest to the LORD; whosoever doeth any work therein shall be put to death. “

        Devarim 16:3   “Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction; for in haste didst thou come forth out of the land of Egypt; that thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life.”

        Ibid. 8               “Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread; and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the LORD thy God; thou shalt do no work therein. “  but the obligation to eat Matza on the seventh day is not mentioned.

R. Eliyahu Mizrachi states that RaShI’s derivation stems from an inference drawn from the end of Devarim 16:8, rather than from the comparison between the beginnings of Shemot 12:15 and Devarim 16:8, because perhaps one could claim that Shemot 12 is speaking about specifically the Pesach in Egypt, whereas Devarim 16 is speaking about Pesach LeDorot (all the times going forward, following the Exodus.) Consequently, nothing of substance could be established by contrasting these two verses. However if I can make the point internally, within Devarim 16:3, then I have a proper principle that will apply to future generations.

3.     There is a literary parallelism between Shemot 35:2, where the weekdays are being contrasted to Shabbat, and Devarim 16:3, where the first days of Pesach are being compared to the last one with respect to eating Matza. One might have thought that just as during the week, one can perform Melacha if he wishes, but is not obligated to do so, so too re Matza, one can choose eat it during Pesach but it is not necessary, comes Ibn Ezra to say that this might be true about the last day of Pesach, but not the first days when eating Matza is an obligation.

4.      It seems to me that Ibn Ezra mentions that the Jews followed the Anan until Pharoah and his legions drowned at the Sea of Reeds, in order to demonstrate that since they had to subsist on something, i.e., Matza, before they were given Manna to gather, it would make sense to assume that in order to replicate the Exodus, they should be required to eat Matza  during this period.

5.     When compared with the sequence in Shemot 12:15, first the obligation to eat Matza is stated, only then followed by the prohibition to eat Chametz. In 12:20, the opposite sequence appears, i.e., first the prohibition against Chametz and then the obligation to eat Matza. Having both elements in the same verse, and even interchangeably with respect to sequence might buttress Ibn Ezra’s contention about the obligatory nature of eating Matza throughout Pesach, i.e., just as the prohibition regarding Chametz remains the same throughout Pesach, similarly the obligation with respect to Matza also remains the same over the course of the holiday, an obligatory rather than an optional directive.

Beit.

1.      a. אין הכריח לדמיונים.. Just because the Jews may have eaten Matza during the first seven days of their fleeing from Egypt does not mean that we have to do an identical thing when we commemorate the Exodus during Pesach. “There is nothing compelling about comparisons, that they should be absolutely identical with that to which they are being compared.”

          b. והראי' על זה The proof to the fact that we would be commanded to observe seven days of eating Matza, even if the Jews had only eaten one day, is the Mitzva of Sukka. Although the Jews lived in Sukkot for @ the entire forty years of their desert wanderings, the Mitzva to commemorate such a lifestyle is for Jews today to annually live only seven days in the Sukka. So a seven day festival will be Commanded regardless of the actual length of time that was originally experienced during the historical period that is being commemorated.

         c. לאמרה בדברים הנהוגים בטבע Lit. “to say/Command things that are naturally done”. Since bread is the staff of life, and people eat bread regularly for their sustenance, why should a Commandment be given to eat bread (in this case Matza) throughout Pesach; wouldn’t everyone do this anyway whether or not they were Commanded in the Tora?

         d. כי אנו זריזים בזה מאד The term to be “זרוז”, i.e., diligent, carry out with alacrity, is a term that is used with respect to ideal Mitzva observance. Here Ibn Kaspi is employing the term ironically with respect to ordinary, everyday practice, specifically in terms of bread consumption. While an individual might have to will himself to be זריז with respect to a Commandment that does not come naturally, such is not the case with respect to daily bread consumption.

2.      In verse 16, Ibn Kaspi is directing his comments at what Ibn Ezra said in יסוד מורה שער ה' regarding the fact that the reason why there is an obligation to eat Matza for seven days during Pesach is because the Jews ate Matza for the first seven days following the Egyptian Exodus.

         In verse 20, Ibn Kaspi is challenging Ibn Ezra’s comments in 12:16 and יסוד מורה שער ה' where he states that there is an obligation to eat Matza for seven days on Pesach. Ibn Kaspi says it would be a nice thing to do as a commemoration of the Exodus, but it is not obligatory.

3.     By quoting Shemot 20:8 “Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work; ” Ibn Kaspi is illustrating that not everything that the Tora mentions is inherently a Mitzva, but rather could be a description of what is normally done, in this case that aside from resting for a day, people do Melacha for six.

4.      By saying “מן היותר נאות הוא לאיש ואיש שיאכל לפחות כזית מצה יום יום”, he is escalating the practice from optional, mentioned by the Midrash Halacha and RaShI, to either Hiddur Mitzva or Lifnim MiShuat HaDin.

Gimel.

א וַיִּקְרָ֖א אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֑ה וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר ה' אֵלָ֔יו מֵאֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵ֖ד לֵאמֹֽר׃

RaShBaM: Both the “calling” (ויקרא) and the “speaking” (וידבר) emanated from the Tent of Meeting.

HaRechasim LaBika: The Etnachta under the word “משה” instead of “אליו” suggests that a distinction must be made between the act of calling and the act of speaking, with the former not necessarily being connected to the Tent of Meeting, only the latter.

From a logical point of view, as long as the communication took place inside the Tent of Meeting, there is no reason that the calling should have emanated from there as well. Moshe after all would be outside the Tent of Meeting when a Divine Call would come to him. It is possible that the Call would start from within the Tent and then reach Moshe wherever he might be (RaShBaM) but it is equally conceivable that since even if His Presence was Concentrated in the Tent of Meeting, HaShem’s actual Presence is everywhere, Moshe would receive prophetic instruction anywhere he might have happened to be, to go to the Tent of Meeting in order to receive specific instructions.

http://www.nechama.org.il/cgi-bin/pagePrintMode.pl?Id=240

Parshat Vayikra

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/240.html

Parshat Vayakhel answers

VaYakhel 5724.

Alef.

1.  Yerushalmi Shekalim 1:1 : The Jewish people are quick to donate to both very good causes (the Mishkan) and very bad ones (the Golden Calf.) The implication is that nothing can be deduced about the Jewish character from either one of these instances other than Jews can be enlisted to support a wide range of causes.

     Midrash Aggada Teruma #26 : While it might appear that the Jews are very removed from proper belief and behavior by some of the things that they do, in light of other actions, it should be recognized that whatever wrong they may perpetrate, they have the capacity to undo their negative actions by positive and even sacrificial action.

2.  The Yerushalmi probably plays off the Gezeira Shava of “Kol”in the two verses.

שמות פרק לה פסוק כב

וַיָּבֹאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים עַל הַנָּשִׁים כֹּל נְדִיב לֵב הֵבִיאוּ חָח וָנֶזֶם וְטַבַּעַת וְכוּמָז כָּל כְּלִי זָהָב וְכָל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הֵנִיף תְּנוּפַת זָהָב לַיקֹוָק:

שמות פרק לב

(ג) וַיִּתְפָּרְקוּ כָּל הָעָם אֶת נִזְמֵי הַזָּהָב אֲשֶׁר בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶל אַהֲרֹן:

     The Midrash takes its cue from the two verses that state that HaShem Tells the Jews how to  undo their iniquities:

Yechezkel 20:7 “And I said unto them: Cast ye away every man the detestable things of his eyes, and defile not yourselves with the idols of Egypt; I am the LORD your God”. 

Ibid. 16:6 “And when I passed by thee, and saw thee wallowing in thy blood, I said unto thee: In thy blood, live; yea, I said unto thee: In thy blood, live”.

Beit.

1. The difficulty in the verse is the connotation of “נשא לבו”. Previously, in Parashat Teruma, only the phrase “נדבות לב”[1] appeared, an expression that is also used in Shemot 35:21.[2] Consequently, unless we claim that the phrases are poetically redundant, each has to reflect a different human quality.

2. RaMBaN suggests that the new phrase connotes those who engaged in the fabrication of the Tabernacle and its vessels, as opposed to those who merely contributed the materials.

    HaKeTav VeHaKabbala posits that the new expression reflects a different type of donater, i.e., one who not only is attracted to contribute because of his spirit, countering the tendency of his physical reality not to donate and contribute but rather spend the valuables upon himself,--נדבה רוחו—on the one hand, and the person who totally wishes to give both in terms of his spiritual and his physical being—נשא לבו.

3. In 35:26, there is a clear association with the verb נשא and fabricating as opposed to donating:

שמות פרק לה

(כו) וְכָל הַנָּשִׁים אֲשֶׁר נָשָׂא לִבָּן אֹתָנָה בְּחָכְמָה טָווּ אֶת הָעִזִּים:

              Consequently, RaMBaN could argue that the term נשא לבו in 35;21 has a similar connotation.

4. Verses 35:30-5 introduce Betzalel and Ohaliov, who are going to lead the project. But if RaMBaN is correct in his interpretation of 35:21, we already have volunteers from the people who are endowed with native ability to be able to fabricate the various materials that will comprise the Tabernacle. If the Tora states that HaShem Filled B. and O. with wisdom to be able to do these things, does it not imply that the leaders of the project were on a lower level than those who stepped forward to volunteer who already were capable of artistically making the required objects? Consequently, RaMBaN sees v. 30-5 as a flashback of something that had already taken place, the appointment of B. and O. prior to the people’s coming to volunteer. From such a perspective, the individual who is “possessed” by HaShem’s Spirit (much in the way that Shlomo received special Chachma from HaShem [I Melachim 5:9] , or the seventy Zekeinim who were to assist Moshe, received the ability at least temporarily to serve as Prophets [BaMidbar 11:25) would be considered superior to those who are simply innately talented when it comes to artisan work, resulting in the sequence of verses becoming more understandable.

Gimel.

1. The phrase “הֵבִיאוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נְדָבָה לַיקֹוָק” would appear to include as its object the beginning of the verse, “כל אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר נָדַב לִבָּם אֹתָם לְהָבִיא לְכָל הַמְּלָאכָה אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְקֹוָק לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּיַד מֹשֶׁה “, resulting in the strange statement that the Jewish people brought the men and women whose hearts moved them to bring the “מלאכה” that HaShem had Commanded via Moshe.

2. The difference in syntax re the solutions that are offered are as follows:

              Abrabanel: The last phrase ” הֵבִיאוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נְדָבָה לַיקֹוָק” is defining the nature of the bringing of the material mentioned in the first phrase, i.e., what was the intention accompanying the donations being made by the men and women? It was a pure intention as opposed to one designed to win honor or prestige for the bringer.

              MaLBIM: In fact it was the people rather than the articles that HaShem Wished to receive as gifts, i.e., what was important was not so much the gifts themselves, but rather the hearts of the people which were moved to bring them. Consequently, the commentator, suggests, even people who were too poor to actually make a contribution, the fact that they wished to do so was considered by God a contribution to the construction of the Tabernacle.

3.  Abrabanel focuses upon the attitude of the giver which is essentially internal and therefore not readily discernible to others. One might have thought that self-advancement was motivating the givers; the Tora clarifies that this was not the case.

              MaLBIM focuses upon the effect of the opportunity to give on the giver in the sense that the actual materiel is only incidental to the act of giving. The will and desire of the individual to contribute is the gift that HaShem is Desirious of, with the actual giving becoming merely an external confirmation of such a desire.

1

---

[1] שמות פרק כה

(ב) דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקְחוּ לִי תְּרוּמָה מֵאֵת כָּל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִדְּבֶנּוּ לִבּוֹ תִּקְחוּ אֶת תְּרוּמָתִי:

[2] שמות פרק לה פסוק כא

וַיָּבֹאוּ כָּל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר נְשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר נָדְבָה רוּחוֹ אֹתוֹ הֵבִיאוּ אֶת תְּרוּמַת יְקֹוָק לִמְלֶאכֶת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וּלְכָל עֲבֹדָתוֹ וּלְבִגְדֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ