Tzav

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/953.html

Vayikra Answers

VaYikra 5730
Alef.

I Shmuel 26:19

Now therefore, I pray thee, let my lord the king hear the words of his servant. If it be the LORD that hath Stirred thee up against me, let Him “Yerach Mincha” (Accept an offering;) but if it be the children of men, cursed be they before the LORD; for they have driven me out this day that I should not cleave unto the inheritance of the LORD, saying: Go, serve other gods.

Malachi 2:13 And this further ye do: ye cover the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with sighing, insomuch that He Regardeth not “HaMincha”( the offering) any more, neither Receiveth it with good will at your hand.

BaMidbar 16:15 And Moses was very wroth, and said unto the LORD: 'Respect not Thou “Minchatam” (their offering); I have not taken one ass from them, neither have I hurt one of them.'

Yeshayahu 1:13 Bring no more Minchat Shav (vain oblations); it is an offering of abomination unto Me; new moon and sabbath, the holding of convocations--I cannot Endure iniquity along with the solemn assembly.

1.  HaEmek Davar explains that while the adulterous man wishes to bring a Mincha sacrifice to atone for his iniquity, the tears of the wife to whom he was unfaithful cover the altar and thereby prevent his sacrifice from being properly offered. He might wish to claim that he couldn’t help himself, but in fact he could have.¹

2.  Since Moshe believed that the basis for Korach’s rebellion was not due to some twisted personal attribute, but rather premeditated evil that he could have controlled had he chosen to do so, Moshe prays that Korach not be able to offer a Mincha sacrifice that would achieve for him atonement for something for which he deserved to “dangle in the wind”.

3. Yeshayahu by calling the Korbanot Mincha being offered “Minchat Shav” is declaring that the sins of the people  were not due to some internal “crossed wire” which should be atoned for by a Mincha, but rather deliberate transgressions, which in turn renders their representation that a Mincha should atone for them, false.

Beit.

VaYikra 2:1

And when any one bringeth a “Mincha” (meal-offering) unto the LORD, his offering shall be of fine flour; and he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon. 

Beraishit 32:14

And he lodged there that night; and took of that which he had with him a “Mincha” (present) for Esau his brother:

Ibid. 43:11

And their father Israel said unto them: 'If it be so now, do this: take of the choice fruits of the land in your vessels, and carry down the man a “Mincha” (present), a little balm, and a little honey, spicery and ladanum, nuts, and almonds.

I Shmuel 10:27

But certain base fellows said: 'How shall this man save us?' And they despised him, and brought him no “Mincha” (present). But he was as one that held his peace.

II Melachim 8:8

And the king said unto Hazael: 'Take a “Mincha” (present) in thy hand, and go meet the man of God, and inquire of the LORD by him, saying: Shall I recover of this sickness?'

Beraishit 43:34

And “Masot” portions were taken unto them from before him; but Benjamin's portion was five times so much as any of theirs. And they drank, and were merry with him.

II Shmuel 11:8

And David said to Uriah: 'Go down to thy house, and wash thy feet.' And Uriah departed out of the king's house, and there followed him “Masat” (a mess of food) from the king.

Yirmiyahu 40:5

Yet he would not go back.--Go back then to Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan, whom the king of Babylon hath made governor over the cities of Judah, and dwell with him among the people; or go wheresoever it seemeth right unto thee to go.' So the captain of the guard gave him an allowance and “Masat” (a present), and let him go.

1.  The difference between a “Mincha” and a “Masat”, is whereas when one wants a special consideration from either God or another person, the term “Mincha” appears, when one is simply honoring or appeasing someone without a specific request or desire, then the term “Masat” appears.

2.  Tehillim 141:2

Let my prayer be set forth as incense before Thee, the lifting up of my hands as the evening “Mincha” (sacrifice).

On the one hand, when one offers up a regular sacrifice, just as one prays every day at the same time the same prayer, you could say that no specific request is being made and therefore the term “Masat” might be more appropriate. However, it could be said that the entire relationship between God and man is different than that of man and man. By definition, since God is so superior to man that inherently man is dependent upon God for everything, every gesture towards God, be it a sacrifice or a prayer, is a plea for one or more things that only God is Capable of Granting.

Gimel.

1. ויקרא פרק ב

(יג) ... וְלֹא תַשְׁבִּית מֶלַח (בדבר שמסמל) בְּרִית אֱלֹקיךָ , מֵעַל מִנְחָתֶךָ (בגלל שאז הקרבן תפל). עַל כָּל קָרְבָּנְךָ תַּקְרִיב מֶלַח: ס

2.  In VaYikra, the salt is the means by which you show respect for the Brit, i.e., by rendering the Korban tasty rather than bland.

In BaMidbar, the salt is a synonym with the Brit—something that is cut and dried, that does not allow additional things to grow.

Daled.

1.  It would seem that Wiesel with regard to VaYikra is understanding the addition of salt as indicative of a type of law of nature, reflecting the intrinsic quality of the entity. In BaMidbar he interprets that concept as merely reflecting the longevity of the particular relationship.

2. רנה"ו:   ...וְלֹא תַשְׁבִּית מֶלַח (דהיינו בְּרִית אֱלֹקיךָ) מֵעַל מִנְחָתֶךָ...

    שד"ל:   ...וְלֹא תַשְׁבִּית מֶלַח (שהוא סימן ל) בְּרִית אֱלֹקיךָ מֵעַל מִנְחָתֶךָ...

3.  Wiesel understands the role of salt in the sacrifice as indicating the intrinsic internal quality of the covenant between God and man.

ShaDaL sees salt as a ritualistic aspect of the process of entering into any covenant, between man and man or God and man.

4. Particularly in light of Wiesel’s interpretation, the Name “אלקים” is associated with God as the Source of the laws of nature (קל = power, hence אלקים = powers, or the One Who Defined all other powers.)

Heh.

R. Moshe Chefetz focuses upon the analogy between the altar and an individual’s table upon which he consumes food. If in the latter instance, it would be unthinkable that salt not only would be available, but also incorporated in the food that is being eaten, so too on the “Shulchan of HaShem”, salt must be an intrinsic part of the ritual process. (It seems to me that this is an extension of Ibn Ezra’s approach. Whereas that commentator relegates himself to the sacrifice itself, stating that it would be disrespectful for it to be offered up in an “unflavorful” manner, the reason why it could be categorized as “unflavorful” is because of the human preference for tasty meat. In effect, to assume that sacrificial meat must comply with human standards is just another way of saying that the Mizbeach is a table patterned upon human eating habits, in effect a major anthropomorphism.)

Vav.

1.  RaMBaM understands the addition of salt to sacrifices as a deliberate deviation from idolatrous practices that would offer sweet offerings rather than salty, bitter or tart sacrifices.

2.  In VaYikra 2:13, the term “מנחתך” (your offerings) might connote the offerings that human beings typically present, including those for idolatrous purposes. Therefore, the sacrifices of the Jewish people that are to represent the Covenant between themselves and God, must deliberately be markedly different from everyone else’s sacrifices, in the case of the verse in question, by adding salt which would be counter to how everyone else normally sacrifices.

¹ This is reminiscent to some extent of the Talmudic passage that Ruth Calderon cited in her initial speech before the Kenesset:

Thus R. Rehumi who was frequenting [the school] of Raba at Mahuza  used to return home on the Eve of every Day of Atonement. On one occasion  he was so attracted by his subject [that he forgot to return home]. His wife was expecting [him every moment, saying.] 'He is coming soon, he is coming soon'  As he did not arrive she became so depressed that tears began to flow from her eyes. He was [at that moment] sitting on a roof. The roof collapsed under him and he was killed.

Vayikra

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/247.html

Vayakhel Answers

VaYakhel 5719

Alef.

Although the verse stresses the absence of “Melacha”, this is not an end in itself, but rather a means to the end of creating a particular Shabbas’dic atmosphere. MaLBIM’s comment is reminiscent of RaShI on Beraishit 2:2

(ב) וַיְכַל אֱלֹקים בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה וַיִּשְׁבֹּת בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי מִכָּל מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה:

רש"י

... ד"א מה היה העולם חסר? מנוחה. באת שבת, באת מנוחה. כלתה ונגמרה המלאכה:

or the Tora’s conception of “Shabbaton” according to RaMBaN:

ויקרא כג

(כד) דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה לָכֶם שַׁבָּתוֹן זִכְרוֹן תְּרוּעָה מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ:

רמב"ן

(כד) יהיה לכם שבתון שיהיה יום שביתה לנוח בו ואמרו רבותינו (שבת כד:) שבתון עשה הוא והנה העושה מלאכה בי"ט עובר בלאו ועשה, והשובת בו מקיים עשה...

Beit.

1.  The apparent contradiction between RaShI on Shemot 35:2 and VaYikra 19:3 is based upon the structure of the verses. In 35:2, RaShI states that the first of the two elements that are brought into linkage with one another trumps the other, while in VaYikra he says that it is the second of the two elements that trumps the first.

2.  To resolve the contradiction one could distinguish between the two instances. In the latter, we are dealing with a Hekesh, i.e., where both elements appear in the same verse. The former instance is where complete sections of the Tora are juxtaposed next to one another, but without a single verse sharing both elements. When that principle is combined with the assumption of אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה, the ability to draw consistent conclusions regarding which of the two is the more important is compromised.

Gimel.

1.  Abrabanel is explaining why in the middle of all of the discussion of the Mishkan, a reminder to observe Shabbat appears.

2.  Heschel does provide an answer to the question raised by Abrabanel, i.e., despite the fact that holiness of place is significant, it should not be forgotten that by virtue of God’s Sanctifying Shabbat before even Giving man the Tora, He Demonstrates that God is “more Interested” in holiness of time than holiness of place.

3.  When Moshe finally comes down with the second Luchot, he seems to repeat what has already been stated at the beginning of Parashat Teruma:

שמות לה (ד) וַיֹּאמֶר משֶׁה אֶל כָּל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵללֵאמֹר זֶה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְדֹוָד לֵאמֹר: (ה) קְחוּ מֵאִתְּכֶם תְּרוּמָה לַידֹוָד כֹּל נְדִיב לִבּוֹיְבִיאֶהָ אֵת תְּרוּמַת יְדֹוָד זָהָב וָכֶסֶף וּנְחשֶׁת: (ו) וּתְכֵלֶת וְאַרְגָּמָן וְתוֹלַעַת שָׁנִי וְשֵׁשׁ וְעִזִּים: (ז) וְעֹרֹת אֵילִם מְאָדָּמִים וְעֹרֹת תְּחָשִׁים וַעֲצֵישִׁטִּים: (ח) וְשֶׁמֶן לַמָּאוֹר וּבְשָׂמִים לְשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָהוְלִקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים: (ט) וְאַבְנֵי שֹׁהַם וְאַבְנֵי מִלֻּאִים לָאֵפוֹד וְלַחשֶׁן: (י) וְכָל חֲכַם לֵב בָּכֶם יָבֹאוּ וְיַעֲשׂוּ אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁרצִוָּה יְדֹוָד: (יא) אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן אֶת אָהֳלוֹ וְאֶת מִכְסֵהוּ אֶתקְרָסָיו וְאֶת קְרָשָׁיו אֶת בְּרִיחָו אֶת עַמֻּדָיו וְאֶתאֲדָנָיו: (יב) אֶת הָאָרֹן וְאֶת בַּדָּיו אֶת הַכַּפֹּרֶת וְאֵתפָּרֹכֶת הַמָּסָךְ: (יג) אֶת הַשֻּׁלְחָן וְאֶת בַּדָּיו וְאֶת כָּל כֵּלָיו וְאֵתלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים: (יד) וְאֶת מְנֹרַת הַמָּאוֹר וְאֶת כֵּלֶיהָ וְאֶת נֵרֹתֶיהָוְאֵת שֶׁמֶן הַמָּאוֹר: (טו) וְאֶת מִזְבַּח הַקְּטֹרֶת וְאֶת בַּדָּיו וְאֵת שֶׁמֶןהַמִּשְׁחָה וְאֵת קְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים וְאֶת מָסַךְהַפֶּתַח לְפֶתַח הַמִּשְׁכָּן: (טז) אֵת מִזְבַּח הָעֹלָה וְאֶת מִכְבַּר הַנְּחשֶׁתאֲשֶׁר לוֹ אֶת בַּדָּיו וְאֶת כָּל כֵּלָיו אֶת הַכִּיֹּר וְאֶתכַּנּוֹ: (יז) אֵת קַלְעֵי הֶחָצֵר אֶת עַמֻּדָיו וְאֶת אֲדָנֶיהָוְאֵת מָסַךְ שַׁעַר הֶחָצֵר: (יח) אֶת יִתְדֹת הַמִּשְׁכָּן וְאֶת יִתְדֹת הֶחָצֵר וְאֶתמֵיתְרֵיהֶם: (יט) אֶת בִּגְדֵי הַשְּׂרָד לְשָׁרֵת בַּקֹּדֶשׁ אֶת בִּגְדֵיהַקֹּדֶשׁ לְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן וְאֶת בִּגְדֵי בָנָיו לְכַהֵן: (כ) וַיֵּצְאוּ כָּל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִלִּפְנֵי משֶׁה:

שמות כה (א) וַיְדַבֵּר יְדֹוָד אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר: (ב) דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקְחוּ לִי תְּרוּמָה מֵאֵתכָּל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִדְּבֶנּוּ לִבּוֹ תִּקְחוּ אֶת תְּרוּמָתִי: (ג) וְזֹאת הַתְּרוּמָה אֲשֶׁר תִּקְחוּ מֵאִתָּם זָהָבוָכֶסֶף וּנְחשֶׁת: (ד) וּתְכֵלֶת וְאַרְגָּמָן וְתוֹלַעַת שָׁנִי וְשֵׁשׁ וְעִזִּים: (ה) וְעֹרֹת אֵילִם מְאָדָּמִים וְעֹרֹת תְּחָשִׁים וַעֲצֵישִׁטִּים: (ו) שֶׁמֶן לַמָּאֹר בְּשָׂמִים לְשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָהוְלִקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים: (ז) אַבְנֵי שֹׁהַם וְאַבְנֵי מִלֻּאִים לָאֵפֹד וְלַחשֶׁן: (ח) וְעָשׂוּ לִי מִקְדָּשׁ וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹכָם: (ט) כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מַרְאֶה אוֹתְךָ אֵת תַּבְנִיתהַמִּשְׁכָּן וְאֵת תַּבְנִית כָּל כֵּלָיו וְכֵן תַּעֲשׂוּ:

The repetition allows for the interpretation that what was stated earlier was merely a foreshadowing of what will be commanded later, i.e., a manifestation of the principle: תרופה קודמת למכה (the antidote for the problem precedes the problem itself.)

Daled.

א)  שמות לה

(א) וַיַּקְהֵל משֶׁה אֶת כָּל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְדֹוָד לַעֲשׂת אֹתָם:

(ב) שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תֵּעָשֶׂה מְלָאכָה וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי יִהְיֶה לָכֶם קֹדֶשׁ שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן לַידֹוָד כָּל הָעֹשֶׂה בוֹ מְלָאכָה יוּמָת:

(ג) לֹא תְבַעֲרוּ אֵשׁ בְּכֹל משְׁבֹתֵיכֶם בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת:

“Melacha will be done”

The Melacha associated with constructing the Mishkan and fabricating the clothing of the Kohanim will be accomplished during the six days of the week that are not Shabbat. 

ב)  שמות כ

(ח) זָכוֹר אֶת יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת לְקַדְּשׁוֹ:

(ט) שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תַּעֲבֹד וְעָשִׂיתָ כָּל מְלַאכְתֶּךָ:

(י) וְיוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי שַׁבָּת לַידֹוָד אֱלֹקיךָ לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה כָל מְלָאכָה אַתָּה וּבִנְךָ וּבִתֶּךָ עַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתְךָ וּבְהֶמְתֶּךָ וְגֵרְךָ אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ:

(יא) כִּי שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים עָשָׂה יְדֹוָד אֶת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת הָאָרֶץ אֶת הַיָּם וְאֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר בָּם וַיָּנַח בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי עַל כֵּן בֵּרַךְ יְדֹוָד אֶת יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת וַיְקַדְּשֵׁהוּ:

“You will work and do all of your Melacha”

Some interpret this statement that just as it is a Mitzva to refrain from creative physical activity on Shabbat, it is a Mitzva to engage in it (as opposed to simply sleeping, or having others perform work on your behalf) during the part of the week that it is permitted to do so. In this way a person can pursue having a “productive” life.

ג)  שמות כג

(יב) שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תַּעֲשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂיךָ וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי תִּשְׁבֹּת לְמַעַן יָנוּחַ שׁוֹרְךָ וַחֲמֹרֶךָ וְיִנָּפֵשׁ בֶּן אֲמָתְךָ וְהַגֵּר:

“You will do your activities”

We are not concerned with the quality of what you will be doing during the six days of non-Shabbat each week. Rather in this verse, the emphasis is placed upon what you will not be doing on Shabbat, i.e., your own pursuits whatever they may be, and, by implication, in order that you can engage in God’s Activities for at least one day each week.

ד)  שמות לא

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

(יד) וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת כִּי קֹדֶשׁ הִוא לָכֶם מְחַלֲלֶיהָ מוֹת יוּמָת כִּי כָּל הָעֹשֶׂה בָהּ מְלָאכָה וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִקֶּרֶב עַמֶּיהָ:

(טו) שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים יֵעָשֶׂה מְלָאכָה וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן קֹדֶשׁ לַידֹוָד כָּל הָעֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת מוֹת יוּמָת:

(טז) וְשָׁמְרוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת לְדֹרֹתָם בְּרִית עוֹלָם:

(יז) בֵּינִי וּבֵין בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹת הִוא לְעֹלָם כִּי שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים עָשָׂה יְדֹוָד אֶת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת הָאָרֶץ וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי שָׁבַת וַיִּנָּפַשׁ:

 “Melacha will be done.”

The verse emphasizes that Melacha will be done, not so much for its own sake or in the interests of assuring that man will use that time productively, but rather in order that one day per week it will not be done as an indication of the Covenant between HaShem and the Jewish people.

Heh.

שמות פרק יב

(טז) וּבַיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה לָכֶם כָּל מְלָאכָה לֹא יֵעָשֶׂה בָהֶם אַךְ אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל לְכָל נֶפֶשׁ הוּא לְבַדּוֹ יֵעָשֶׂה לָכֶם:

1.  The difficulty that the commentators are addressing is the reason why specifically the Melacha of Havara is singled out from among the 39 possible Melachot listed in Shabbat 7:2.

2.  RaShBaM: the prohibition against Havara on Shabbat is to contrast the rules of Shabbat with those of Yom Tov, during which “Havara” (technically on Yom Tov only the transfer of a flame from one wick to another is permitted, not creating a fire, which the term “Havara” in fact includes) is permitted under the rubric of “Ochel Nefesh”, i.e., since warm food is preferable to cold food, it is considered to fall under the Heter of doing things for the consumption of the “soul”. Contrast of Shabbat and Yom Tov rules.

Chizkuni: Since “Havara” is essentially destructive rather than constructive, in the sense that burning things involves their physical obliteration or at least a change from a more organized material structure to one that is significantly reduced and much more non-corporeal, e.g., a wick to ashes or something singed, one might have thought that it does not qualify as “Melacha” which is defined as “creative physical activity.” The Rabbis defined the type of “Havara” that makes one culpable for a Tora atonement like a sin offering is “Mekalkel Al Menat LeTakein”, lit. a destructive process for the sake of construction. Consequently if having a singed wick, one can get more use out of it than one that is unsigned, in fact singing the wick in the end is a constructive act. Defining something destructive as also Melacha.

Seforno: This commentator does not make use of the principle “Mekalkel Al Menat LeTakein”, but rather states that in recognition of the ubiquitousness of “Havara” in human creative activities, despite its essential destructive quality, the Tora deemed to define it prohibited on Shabbat. Recognizing how basic this action is to human creative activity.