A.
Where last week’s parasha discussed the categories of qorbanoth from the point of view of the ba‘alim, the owners of the qorban and those whom they might designate to participate with them, this week’s deals with them from the point of view of the kohanim officiating in the Mishkan.
The first to be discussed is the qorban ‘ola, הוא העלה על מוקדה על המזבח כל הלילה עד הבקר ואש המזבח תוקד בו (“that is, the one which ascends [‘ola] onto the firepit on the altar all night until morning, and the fire of the altar will be directed on it”; VI,2). The ‘ola is burnt up completely on the mizbéach; no part of it is eaten by the kohanim or the ba‘alim.
This is not the case with the other qorbanoth. For instance, the next to be discussed is the qorban mincha, the offering of flour and oil which should be familiar from last week, concerning which we read: והרים ממנו בקמצו מסלת המנחה ומשמנה ואת כל הלבנה אשר על המנחה והקטיר המזבח כו' והנותרת ממנה יאכלו אהרן ובניו מצות תאכל במקום קדוש וגו' (“And [the kohén] will lift from it with his fist, from the flour of the mincha and from its oil and all of the frankincense which is on the mincha, and he will burn it on the altar.... And what is left [v’ha-nothereth] of it Aharon and his sons will eat; [as] matzoth it shall be eaten in a holy place....”; ibid., 8-9).
Similarly, with all of the other standard animal qorbanoth described, the meat is shared between the kohanim, the mizbéach, and sometimes the ba‘alim. Only in the case of the mincha, though, do we find the portion to be eaten described as nothereth. If we scroll through the qorbanoth to shlamim, for instance, we find והנותר מבשר הזבח ביום השלישי באש ישרף כו' והנפש האכלת ממנו עונה תשא (“And what remains [nothar] of the slaughtered animal on the third day will be burnt in the fire.... And the nefesh eating from it will bear its guilt”; VII, 17-18). Nothar and nothereth are the same word, a participle in the masculine and feminine gender, respectively.
What is it about the “remnant”, the nothar/nothereth, that it should be consumed by the kohanim in the case of the mincha, but shunned for human consumption and burnt up completely in the case of the animal qorbanoth?
B.
To begin our search for an answer, we examine another peculiarity mentioned in our parasha.
In discussing the trumath ha-deshen, the disposal of the ashy residue left by the fat meat burnt up on the altar, we are informed: ולבש הכהן מדו בד ומכנסי בד ילבש על בשרו והרים את הדשן אשר תאכל האש וכו' ופשט את בגדיו ולבש בגדים אחרים והוציא את הדשן אל מחוץ למחנה אל מקום טהור (“And the kohén will wear his linen clothing, and linen trousers will be on his flesh; and he will lift the fat which the fire consumes.... And he will take off his garments and put on other garments, and take out the fat outside the camp, to a pure place”; VI, 3-4). The Talmud (יומא כ"ג:) stresses that this second set of garments, though holy like the first, are pechuthim méhem, lower in value. Why?
In a drasha intended for shabbath ha-gadol, the sabbath immediately preceding Passover, the Maharal mi-Prag offers in explanation: כי האדם הזה יש בו חלק אל הש"י ואינו כולו אל הש"י, שאם הי' כולו אל הש"י לא הי' בתחתונים רק בעליונים. כו' ובודאי על זה אמר שילבש בגדים אחרים פחותים, כי אין זה במעלה ובמדרגה כמו הראשונה שהאדם הוא עם הש"י (“For this human being [the kohén] has a portion which is Ha-Shem’s and is not wholly Ha-Shem’s, for if he were wholly Ha-Shem’s he would have no part here below [ba-tachtonim] but would only by in the exalted heights [ba-‘elyonim].... And it is certainly for this reason that He said that [the kohén] should wear other, lesser garments, for this [function] is not on the same exalted level as the first, when the human being was with Ha-Shem”; מהר"ל על הגדה של פסח, ע' רט"ז).
A bit later, the Maharal provides a clue as to what he means: שהפרשה מדברת שמביא קרבן אל הש"י מצד שהוא מלך ומצד הזה קרבנו כולו כליל כו' מביא האדם קרבן מצד שהוא מלך בתחתונים ואצל הש"י אין חשיבות לשום נמצא לכך הקרבן כולו כליל (“For the parasha is speaking of a case in which he brings a qorban to Ha-Shem as though he is a king, and from this standpoint his qorban is entirely consumed.... The human being brings a qorban from the standpoint that he is king of the lower world [ba-tachtonim], and beside Ha-Shem no created being [nmitza’] has any importance whatever; for this reason, the qorban is entirely consumed”).
A qorban ‘ola is a rich man’s qorban, a truly royal gift; the ordinary person cannot often afford to donate an animal to be burnt up entirely, kullo kalil, as the Maharal says. Such a qorban is indicative of man’s Divinely ordained status as orbis dominus terrarum, lord of the earth. As G-d said at the very beginning, פרו ורבו ומלאו את הארץ וכבשה ורדו בדגת הים ובעוף השמים ובכל חי' הרמשת על הארץ (“Be fruitful and multiply and fill up the earth and conquer it, and rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every wild animal crawling on the earth”; Genesis I, 28).
But this exalted state cannot last, for man is the lord only of the tachtonim, the things of this lower, physical world, whilst Ha-Shem is Ribbon kol ha-‘olamim, Master of all the worlds. Mankind’s mastery of this world is due to the metaphysical component in his nature; for this reason, he can exist on the exalted plane in Ha-Shem’s presence, but his physical component inevitably pulls him back down to earth, as it were, to his domain and dominion. This is what is symbolized by the kohén’s change of garments, from the costliest to the pechuthim.
The Maharal contrasts this with the juxtaposed qorban mincha: המנחה מדברת מצד שהאדם הוא עובד הש"י ולפיכך מביא מנחה כי העובד הש"י הוא נכנע ולפיכך קרבנו מנחה שהמנחה שפלה שהרי היא מצה ולא חמץ וזה כי הנכנע לא הוגבה כמו החמץ. (“The mincha speaks from the standpoint that a human being is a servant of Ha-Shem, and therefore he brings a mincha, for one who serves Ha-Shem is humbled, subject [nichna‘] and so his qorban is a mincha for the mincha is humble, for it is matza and not chamétz, this is because a nichna‘ is not puffed up like chamétz....”). The Maharal goes on to explain that humility also distances one from the yétzer ha-ra‘, and makes one fit to receive wisdom, symbolized by the olive oil, source of a pure light, which is added to the mincha.
The very different perspectives of the qorban mincha and all of the animal qorbanoth is illustrated by the Torah’s insistence that the mincha be eaten matzoth, whereas, e.g., the qorban toda, a species of shlamim, must be offered על חלות לחם חמץ (“on cakes of leavened bread”; VII, 13). The exaltation of the animal sacrifice is immediate and obvious, as is the humility of the mincha.
Which leads us to the matter of nothar.
C.
There are two Hebrew words translatable by the English participle “remaining,” nothar and nish’ar. As one might expect, there is a subtle difference between them.
In Leviticus X, 12, in the aftermath of the incident of the ésh zara, the “strange fire” which claimed the lives of Aharon’s sons Nadav and Avihu, we read that Moshe spoke אל אהרן ואל אלעזר ואל איתמר בניו הנותרים (“to Aharon and to El‘azar and Ithamar, his remaining [ha-notharim] sons”). Rashi explains that El‘azar and Ithamar were הנותרים מן המיתה מלמד שאף עליהם נקנסה מיתה כו' ותפלתו של משה בטלה מחצה (“the notharim from death, teaching that they, too, had been included in the death sentence... and Moshe’s prayer nullified half [the sentence]”; מקורו ביומא פ"ז.).
On the other hand, in discussing ‘édim zomemim, false witnesses who attempt to incriminate an innocent man and who receive the sentence they would have imposed on their victim, והנשארים ישמעו ויראו ולא יוסיפו לעשות עוד כדבר הרע הזה (“and the rest [v’ha-nish’arim] will hear and see and not do any more like this evil thing”; Deuteronomy XIX, 20).
From these two examples, it would seem to be the case that a nothar/nothereth is the “remain-der” of a class or group to whom some common status or sentence applied (as in the case of Aharon’s sons), whilst a nish’ar is the rest of a group of people who are not affected by the status of some sub-group. In other words, nothar implies that the noun it modifies was included in a class, whilst nish’ar implies that it was excluded.
With this in mind, we can see that nothar/nothereth applies to qorbanoth, because the “leftovers” partake of the holy status of the qorban when originally offered.
The Torah deals differently with sacrificial meat than it does with the leftover mincha, it seems to me, because of the underlying logic uncovered by the Maharal. The animal qorbanoth, symbolic of man’s exalted status as lord of this world, are immediately but unsustainably exalted; hence, as we have seen. they are offered with chamétz, leavened, raised bread. After the brief, sublime period afforded by such a qorban of basking in the light of the Divine Presence, man sinks back down to earth, as it were, and anything nothar, left over from that exalted state, can no longer be applicable to him. באש ישרף; it must be burnt in the fire, as a sort of ‘ola.
The mincha begins at the other end. Its essence is humility, and for this reason is eaten as matzoth. By recognizing his humble status as an ‘eved Ha-Shem, man achieves a measure of exaltation in his own right. The humble offering becomes holy, and man is able to partake of that holiness, by partaking of its nothereth.
D.
This is precisely the process which we undergo on Pesach. The séder opens with the declaration: הא לחמא עניא די אכלו אבהתנא בארעא דמצרים. כל דכפין ייתי וייכול, כל דצריך ייתי ויפסח (“This is the poor bread which our fathers ate in Egypt; everyone who is hungry may come and eat; everyone who is needy, let him come and engage in Pesach”). By acknowledging our need, by stressing the humbleness of our origins, we enter the exalted world of the qorban Pesach.
Concerning the qorban Pesach we read: ואכלו מן הבשר בלילה הזה צלי אש ומצות אל מררים יאכלהו: אל תאכלו ממנו נא ובשל מבשל במים כי אם צלי אש וגו' (“And [Israel] shall eat of the meat on this night roasted with fire, and matzoth on bitter herbs will they eat it. Do not eat of it half-cooked, or stewed in water, but fire-roasted....”; Exodus XII, 8-9). The Séfer ha-Chinnuch stresses in discussing this mitzva that stewed meat is a dish of a poor man, who has to maximize the food value of any little bit of meat which comes his way. Roasted over a fire is the repast of kings and princes. Yet, we are able to eat it with matza, because we have reached this exaltation through humility, through matzoth.
Even such exaltation comes to an end: והנותר ממנו עד הבקר באש תשרפו (“And the nothar from it by morning shall you burn in the fire”; ibid., 10). But we return to earth with neshamoth recharged and revitalized by the experience, having already begun the count toward the ‘omer: ומנחתו שני עשרנים סלת בלולה בשמן אשה לד' (“and the mincha [of the ‘omer] is two ‘esronim of fine flour mixed with oil, a burnt offering to Ha-Shem”; Leviticus XXIII, 13).
And the cycle begins anew.
No comments:
Post a Comment