Parashath Tzav (Leviticus VI,1-VIII,36) 3/30/12

A.

וידבר ד' אל משה לאמר צו את אהרן ואת בניו לאמר זאת תורת העלה הוא העלה על מקדה על המזבח כל הלילה עד הבקר וגו' (“And Ha-Shem spoke to Moshe to say, This is the Torah of the ‘ola; that is the ‘ola on the fireplace upon the altar all night long until the morning....”). So begins our parasha.

It was pointed out last week that our parasha recounts the sacrificial service, the ‘avoda, of the Mishkan (and later, of the Béyth ha-Miqdash) from the point of view of the officiants, the kohanim who had been assigned the task of serving there.

With this in mind, our attention is drawn to an observation in the Talmud: "שיר המעלות הנה ברכו את ד' כל עבדי ד' העומדים בבית ד' בלילות" מאי בלילות? א"ר יוחנן אלו ת"ח העוסקים בתורה בלילה מעלה עליהן הכתוב כאלו עסוקים בעבודה (“‘A song of ascents, behold, Bless Ha-Shem all the servants of Ha-Shem who stand [ha-‘omëdim] in the house of Ha-Shem during the nights’ [Psalms CXXXIV, 1]? Said Rabbi Yohanan, 'These are talmidei hachamim who engage in Torah at night; Scripture considers them as if they are engaged in the ‘avoda'”; מנחות ק"י.).

The Maharsha asks: דלפי פשוטו דקאי אעבודת בית המקדש מאי "בלילות"? הא עיקר עבודה בימים הוא ולא בלילות (“Since, according to [the verse’s] simple meaning it refers to the ‘avoda of the Béyth ha-Miqdash, why [does it read] ba-léyloth [‘during the nights’]? After all, the essence of the ‘avoda is during the days, not during the nights....”), and responds that it is this which brings Rabbi Yohanan to see in the term ba-léyloth an allusion to talmud Torah at night. But this, it seems to me, still begs the question: Certainly it refers to some sort of activity at night, but what in the verse points specifically to talmud Torah? What really motivated Rabbi Yohanan to suggest this explanation?

B.

It seems to me that the key to Rabbi Yohanan’s thought process here may be discerned in the participle ha-‘omëdim.

Elsewhere in the Talmud (מגילה כ"א.), the gëmara learns from G-d’s instructions to Moshe on Mt Sinai, ואתה פה עמד עמדי (“And you, here, stand with Me...”; Deuteronomy V, 28) to instruct him in Torah, that one may not read the Torah publicly seated; rather, out of respect for the Torah, it must be read standing (עיי' רמב"ם הל' תפלה פי"ב הי"א ושו"ע או"ח סי' קמ"א סעיף א' ). Thus we see that the concept of ‘amida, of “standing,” is linked to the learning and transmittal of Torah.

In yet another place in the Talmud, we learn that אין שירות כשר אלא מעומד (“Service is not proper unless it is [performed whilst] standing”; זבחים כ"ג:), linking ‘amida to the concept of service, in a similar way to that in which it was related to Torah. Thus, the concept of ‘amida serves a sort of logical bridge, connecting talmud Torah and limmud Torah with ‘avoda. It is this, I believe, which enabled Rabbi Yohanan to connect the two ideas together, and tell us that talmidei hachamim involved in Torah may be considered as if they are involved in the ‘avodath Béyth ha-Miqdash.

But the Maharsha says that Rabbi Yohanan saw the remez, the allusion to talmud Torah specifically in the word ba-léyloth, and quite correctly noted that ‘avoda proper takes place by day, when the sacrifices per se are offered on the altar; the nights are reserved for “cleaning up”, as it were, burning the fats and limbs left over from the day (עיי' ברכות ב. במשנה ומגילה כ"א.).

We attest to this in our thrice-daily tëfilloth, even in the present intermediate age when we have no Béyth ha-Miqdash. It is only Shaharith, the morning service, and minha, the afternoon service, which are preceded by the reading of qorbanoth; Ma‘ariv, the evening service, contains no reference to the sacrificial service.

So that said, our question returns: Granted the logical link between Torah and ‘avoda provided by ‘amida, the same link could be applied to other mitzvoth, e.g. tëfilla, whose core is recited standing. The Maharsha tells us that allusion is to be found in ba-léyloth; how does ba-léyloth close the deal?

C. Ma‘ariv, the evening service, provides the clue. During Ma‘ariv we attest that divrei Torah are חיינו ואורך ימינו ובהם נהגה יומם ולילה (“our lives and the length of our days, and we review them day and night”). Here we could profitably ask: Why mention the day in the evening prayers?

The answer is that herein lies the ascendancy of Torah over the ‘avoda which, from our point of view, results from Torah, since without Torah the kohanim would not know how to be ‘ovéd. Talmud Torah takes place round the clock; it is the בריתי יומם ולילה, the “covenant by day and by night” which the prophet tells us justifies the world’s existence and the laws of nature (cf. Jeremiah XXXIII,27).

Hence, the verse’s reference to activity by night by ‘avdei Ha-Shem, ha-‘omëdim bë-véyth Ha-Shem, is an allusion to talmidei hachamim engaged in the activity which truly continues into the night; the béyth Ha-Shem is surely the béyth midrash as much as it is the Béyth ha-Miqdash.

If we now look at the second clause of our parasha’s initial verse, we see that it, too, can be read as an allusion to this vital ascendancy of Torah.

Zoth Torath ha-‘ola...Note that it does not read, as we might expect, zoth huqqath ha-‘ola, “this is the law of the ‘ola”(cf. e.g. Exodus XII,43; Leviticus XVII,7; Numbers XIX,2; XXXI,21). This suggests that we may learn something of Torah and its nature; and what is that? Hi’ ha-‘ola ‘al moqda ‘al ha-mizbéah, that it is ‘ola, “ascendant”, over the fireplace, over the altar (for so the preposition ‘al may also be read), the reason being that it is an occupation which continues kol ha-laila ‘ad ha-boqer (“all night long until morning”), unlike the ‘avoda, whose sacrifices must at least be laid upon the altar by day.

D. Next week we celebrate another Passover. In those periods of our history when we have merited the existence of a Mishkan or Béyth Miqdash, the centre-piece of the séder is the qorban Pesah, a form of shëlamim, as was explained in last week’s parasha. But whether we have the qorban or not, we recite the Haggada shel Pesah, which tells the story of the moral courage of our ancestors in rejecting the Egyptians’ gross idolatry, and thus – barely – meriting their miraculous redemption from that land.

The Haggada also tells us the secret of Israel’s survival throughout the long and bitter exile which has now characterized so much of our history. The passage reads: והיא שעמדה לאבותינו ולנו שלא אחד בלבד עמד עלינו לכלותנו אלא שבכל דור ודור עומדים עלינו לכלותנו והקדוש ברוך הוא מצילנו מידם (“and it is she has stood [she-‘amëda] for us and for our fathers, for not only one has stood upon us to destroy us; rather, in each and every generation they have stood upon us to destroy us; and the Holy One, Blessed is He, rescues us from their hand”).

The feminine pronoun’s antecedent is Torah. It is the merit of Torah, its study and appli-cation, which has stood by us and kept us in existence despite everything. It will be the merit of Torah which will bring about our eventual redemption and the reëstablishment of the ‘avoda, as the prophet tells us: והביאותים אל הר קדשי ושמחתים בבית תפלתי עולותיהם וזבחיהם לרצון על מזבחי כי ביתי בית תפלה יקרא לכל העמים (“And I shall bring them to My holy moun-tain, and I shall make them rejoice in My house of prayer, their ‘oloth and [other] sacrifices acceptable on My altar; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations”; Isaiah LVI,7).

May it happen speedily in our time.

Parshath Tzav (Leviticus VI,1-VIII,36) 3/18/11

A.

Our parasha continues the theme of last week’s reading, the difference being that whereas last week’s reading discussed the qorbanoth from the point of view of the person brining the qorban, our parasha considers them from the point of view of the officiant, the kohén.

At present we have no Béyth ha-Miqdash, no altar on which to offer the sacrifices whose manifest purpose is to obvious from the very word qorban: To establish a qurva (“closeness”) between man G-d, whether on the general human level, the national level for Israel, or the level of “R’ Yisra’él”, the individual. The prophets of Israel are united in assuring us that this lack is temporary, that one day the Beyth ha-Miqdash will re-established, and the holy nation will again be assembled in its holy land under its constitution, the Torah.

B.

With this in mind, our attention is drawn to a form of qorban shëlamim (a sacrifice whose meat is shared between the kohanim and the parties to the sacrifice) called a qorban toda: אם על תודה יקריבנו וגו' (“If for a matter of thangsgiving [toda] one is maqriv it....; VII, 12) begins the passage. The midrash tells us, commenting on this verse: לע"ל כל הקרבנות בטלים וקרבן תודה אינו בטל כל התפילות בטילות ההודאה אינה בטילה ה"ד "קול ששון וקול שמחה קול חתן וקול כלה קול אמרים הודו את ד' צב-אות" וגו זו הודאה. "מבאים תודה בית ד'" זה קרבן תודה. וכן דוד אמר "עלי אלקים נדריך אשלם תודת לך" "תודה" אכ"כ אלא "תודת" ההודאה וקרבן תודה (“In the future to come [i.e., the Messianic age], all the qorbanoth will be abolished and the qorban toda will not be abolished; all the tëfilloth will be abolished, and the hoda’a [“prayer of thanksgiving”] will not be abolished, as it is written: ‘The voice of rejoicing and the voice of happiness, the voice of the groom and the voice of the bride, the voice of those saying, "Give thanks to Ha-Shem Tzëva-oth”' [Jeremiah XXXIII, 11], this is the hoda’a. ‘Those bringing a toda to Ha-Shem’s house’ [ibid.], this is the qorban toda. And so did David say, ‘Upon me, G-d, are Your vows; I shall pay todoth to You’ [Psalms XLVI, 13]; toda is not written here, but todoth, [both] the hoda’a and the qorban toda”; ויקרא רבה פ"ט סי' ז' וע"ע תנחומא פרשת אמור סי' י"ד שם אמרינן כעין זה).

In other words, the various offerings intended to expiate sins will no longer be necessary, because the reign of the yétzer ha-ra‘ will have been broken, and sin in general will be a thing of the past. Similarly, we shall no longer have to beseech Ha-Shem for the restoration of the Davidic line, our return to the Holy Land, the rebuilding of Jerusalem, the restoration of the Sanhedrin, or protection from and the elimination of our enemies, for all of these things will have been accomplished. What will remain are expressions of our thanks, the hoda’a and the qorban toda.

Our midrash emphasizes the link which the Prophet makes between the bride and groom and the qorban toda, and indeed Rabbénu Bëhayé tells us, in a comment on VI, 8, that it is customary when we have a Béyth ha-Miqdash for the bride and groom to bring a qorban toda. And yet, the Talmud defines the purpose of the toda: ארבעה צריכין להודות יורדי הים הולכי מדברות ומי שהי' חולה ונתרפא ומי שהי' חבוש בבית האסורים ויצא וגו' (“Four [people] are required to give thanks: Those who go down to the sea, those who travel in unpopulated areas, one who is sick and recovers, and one who is imprisoned and released....”, all of which are derived from Psalms CVII, 21ff.; ברכות נ"ד: ).
From this it would appear that there is an actual hiyyuv of hoda’a and toda when one has come successfully out of a dangerous situation (with G-d’s help, always and of course). If so, why should Rabbénu Bëhayé think that a newly wed couple should bring a qorban toda? Are we to understand that they are in some physical danger, comparable to a deadly disease, arduous journey, or imprisonment?

C.

Rashi, I believe, provides the clue here. He tells us that the first clause of our passage (cited supra) means אם על דבר הודאה על נס שנעשה לו וגו' (“If, for a matter of thanksgiving due to a miracle [nés] which has been done for him....”), and proceeds to cite the very cases mentioned by the Talmud as obligating one in hoda’a, to include Psalms CVII, 21 in support of the entire premise: יודו לד' חסדו ונפלאותיו לבני אדם (“They should thank Ha-Shem [for] His kindness and His wonders for human beings....”). Hence, we see both that our Talmudic passage relates to the qorban toda as well as the tëfillath hoda’a, and indeed, our psalm goes on: ויזבחו זבחי תודה ויספרו מעשיו ברנה (“And they will slaughter thank offerings and tell of His deeds with joyous song”; ibid., 22).

But the implication of Rashi’s choice of words is that one ought to bring a qorban toda for any nés which one perceives, to include acts of Divine kindness which do not necessarily involve any overt danger. If so, why do Hazal emphasize (and Rashi cite) an obligation to bring a qorban toda stemming from rescue from danger?

The reason is that most people seldom perceive the nissim which surround them on a daily basis. It is a universal human tendency to consider shalom vë-shalva, peace and prosperity, to be a normal, “natural” state of affairs, and moments of great peril, pur‘anuyoth vë-sakkanoth, to be exceptional and extraordinary. If anything, the opposite is true; but we live cocooned in Divine kindness, for the most part, and are, as a rule, sensitive to the reality of the nissim around us only when our noses are rubbed in it, by being shown both the danger and the salvation.

So what Rashi is telling us is that any time one recognizes a nés being done, just as one does when one comes out of a dangerous situation successfully, it is time to bring a qorban toda. This is why our newlyweds should be alive to the miracle of their having found each other, for Hazal say, קשה לזווגם כקריעת ים סוף (“It is as difficult to pair them up as splitting Yam Suf”; סנהדרין כ"ב.), which surely means that Divine intervention, a nés, is necessary. And so is hoda’a.

D.

The Shla”h ha-qadosh tells us (עיי' פרשת וישב) that there is an intimate connection between the parashoth and the seasons in which they are read. As this Sabbath is immediately followed by the holiday of Purim, which celebrates the rescue of the Jews from the evil plot of Haman and Ahashvérosh, as told in the Book of Esther, our parasha must in some way allude to it.

One place to seek this allusion is, I believe, in this matter of the qorban toda. As the daily nissim which occur for our benefit are hidden behind the imaginary veil which we con-ceive to be “nature” and its laws, so, too, is the Divine hand not revealed in the Book of Esther; G-d’s name is not mentioned even once in the entire book. Its events are presented entirely in a naturalistic mode, precisely as it must have appeared to the people of that day. However, the midrash (אסתר רבה פ"ג סי' י') betrays His hiding place, in the 169 occurrences of the word ha-melech (“the king”) not directly associated with the name Ahashvérosh. Indeed, the very name of the great queen and of the Book, Esther, means “hidden,” derived, as it is, from the root samech-tav-réysh “secret, hidden, sheltered” (עיי' חולין קל"ט:).

The recognition of the true source of that epic salvation, and the resultant së‘udath hoda’a with which we mark it to this day, is the heart and core of the Jewish religious consciousness, in the spirit of the qorban toda.

Patrshath Tzav (Leviticus VI,1-VIII,35) 3/26/10

A.

Our parasha appears to repeat many of the details which we read last week concerning the ‘ola, minha, shëlamim, and hattath, but there is often a twist, in that last week we dealt with these qorbanoth mi-tzad ha-bë‘alim, from the point of view of the owners on whose behalf and at whose expense the qorban is brought, whilst our parasha deals with them mi-tzad ha-kohanim, from the point of view of those officiating in the Miqdash (as their title proclaims) and actually performing the act of sacrifice.

This difference is reflected in the way each parasha relates to the kohanim. Last week, for instance, we read that after the kohén has burnt a handful of the minha on the altar, והנותרת מן המנחה לאהרן ולבניו קדש קדשים מאשי ד' (“...and what remains [vëha-nothereth] of the minha [belongs] to Aharon and his sons, a holy of holies from Ha-Shem’s burnt offerings”; III, 3), after which the kohanim are not mentioned again. On the other hand, our parasha states explicitly: והנותרת ממנה יאכלו אהרן ובניו מצות תאכל במקום קדש בחצר אהל מועד יאכלוה (“And what remains of it Aharon and his sons will eat; [as] matzoth it shall be eaten in a holy place, in the courtyard of the Tent of Appointment shall they eat it”; VI, 19).

Similarly, in last week’s account of the hattath we find no mention of kohanim eating anything, but rather ואת כל חלבה יסיר כו' והקטיר הכהן המזבחה לריח ניחח לד' וכפר עליו הכהן ונסלח לו (“And all its tallow he shall remove... and the kohén will burn [it] on the altar as a savory aroma for Ha-Shem, and the kohén will atone for him and it will be forgiven him”; IV, 35). On the other hand, our parasha reads: הכהן המחטא אתה יאכלנו במקום קדש תאכל בחצר אהל מועד (“The kohén who makes it a hattath will eat it; in a holy place will it be eaten, in the courtyard of the Tent of Appointment”), followed by כל זכר בכהנים יאכל אתה קדש קדשים היא (“Any male amongst the kohanim will eat it; it is a holy of holies”; VI, 19, 22; ועיי' פי' המשניות לרמב"ם, אהלות פי"ח שאכילת קדשים מ"ע לכהנים ורא"ש בשבועות פ"ג דאיכא נ"מ בין יאכלנו לבין יאכל אותה בענין עיקר החיוב לאכילתם ואין כאן מקום להאריך).

If we examine the one qorban which is eaten by the bë‘alim, the qorban shëlamim, we similarly find no mention at all of the qorban’s consumption in last week’s parasha, and in ours is referred to in an oddly passive sense, e.g. ובשר זבח תודת שלמיו ביום קרבנו יאכל כו' ואם נדר או נדבה זבח קרבנו ביום הקריבו את זבחו יאכל וממחרת והנותר ממנו יאכל (“And the meat of the zevah of the thank-offering of his shëlamim, his qorban, will be eaten.... And if a vow or gift is the zevah of his qorban, on the day he sacrifices his zevah it will be eaten, and on the next day what remains [vëha-nothar] of it will be eaten”; VII, 15-16; zevah refers to the slaughtered meat).

However, the mattënoth këhunna, the portions awarded to the kohanim, are clearly spelt out: כי את חזה התנופה ואת שוק התרומה לקחתי מאת בני ישראל מזבח שלמיהם ואתן אתם לאהרן הכהן ולבניו לחק עולם מאת בני ישראל (“For the breast [hazeh] of waving [tënufa] and the foreleg [shoq] of donation [tëruma] have I taken from the bënei Yisra’él, from the zevah of their shëlamim, and I have given them to Aharon ha-Kohén and his sons for an eternal law from the bënei Yisra’él”; ibid., 34).

Why is the consumption of the zevah shëlamim by the bë‘alim indicated only in this vague, passive way, but the mattënoth këhunna are clearly spelt out, and emphasized as they are?

B.

We begin by defining a few terms.

The Hebrew word translated “what remain” in the above citations is nothar. We can glean some understanding of the word’s actual meaning from a famous dërasha which the Ponevezher Rav, Hrh”g R’ Yoséf Kahaneman זצ"ל, gave shortly after the Second World War to refugees in London: “We are notharim!” he cried, and went on to explain that he and they had all been slated for immolation in the war’s mass sacrifice, spared only bë-hasdei Ha-Shem for His holy purposes. Thus, nothar or nothereth in our context means that portions awarded to the kohanim possess the same sacred nature as the portions of the minha and hattath consigned to the altar. It is awarded to the kohén, as it were, mi-shulhan gavoah, “from the exalted table” of Ha-Shem.

It is in acknowledgment of this fact that tënufa, “waving,” is mandated for these sacred portions. The kohén physically holds them aloft, recognizing and acknowledging their exalted status.
If we examine our parasha carefully, though, we discern that this exalted sacrificial status, mi-shulhan gavoah, should only apply to the hazeh: ידיו תביאינה את אשי ד' את החלב על החזה יביאנו את החזה להניף אתו תנופה לפני ד' (“[The kohén’s] hands will bring the burnt offerings of Ha-Shem, the tallow on the hazeh; he will bring it with the hazeh to wave it, a tënufa before Ha-Shem”; VII, 30). So what of the shoq?

The shoq is termed a tëruma, commonly translated “donation,” and derived from the root of the verb taram, “to donate.” But herein we see the true genius of the Holy Language, for this root is itself derived from a primal root réysh-vav-mem, which signifies a “high” or “exalted” status. It is by donating something for a noble or holy purpose that the object, and the donor, are ennobled and exalted (עיי' א"ז ישיר, פר' תרומה, לשנת תשנ"ט ).

So the shoq and hazeh are not the same, even though, it turns out, both are exalted and subject to tënufa (cf. X, 15); one is handed down from on high, mi-shulhan gavoah, as we have seen, and the other is mërumam, “raised up” by Israel at Ha-Shem’s command. What does this mean?

C.

The Maharal mi-Prag again comes to our aid in trying to understand the sublime profundities of the qorbanoth. The main thing to note about the hazeh, he tells us, is כי החזה מחבר ומקשר הצלעות (“that the hazeh connects and binds the ribs”). There are twelve ribs in an ox, sheep, or goat, apposite the twelve trines of Israel, and it is the institution of the këhunna which binds Israel together and holds them in essential unity in Ha-Shem’s service, ודבר זה הוא התעלות והנפה לישראל (“and this matter is an exaltation and ‘waving’ for Israel”).

To understand why it is so that Israel unified are a more exalted entity than as separate individuals, consider that the Torah has 613 mitzvoth. The most spiritually ambitious member of Israel cannot possibly keep them all, Some, as we see, are reserved for kohanim; and yet there are others, such as the preparation of the dead for burial, for which no kohén need apply. We are all necessary, together, if the exalted mission of actualizing Torah in this world is to be carried out.

So the kohén, says the Maharal, is Divinely mandated to unify Israel in Ha-Shem’s service; hence the award from Above of the hazeh. But it is up to Israel to ratify, as it were, the kohén’s exalted appointment, ולפיכך שוק התרומה, כי השוק הוא דבק בחזה והשוק עוד מרומם את הגוף מן השפלות, שעל ידי השוק עומד הגוף בהתרוממות, וזה חזה התנופה ושוק התרומה (“And therefore [there is] the shoq ha-tëruma, for the shoq is attached to the hazeh, and more: The shoq raises the body up from lowliness, for by means of the shoq the body stands elevated [bë-hithromëmuth] and this is [the relationship between] the hazé ha-tënufa and the shoq ha-tëruma”). Hence, the passive for eating; what is important, even for the bë‘alim, is not who eats it, but that it is eaten, so the shoq is genuinely nothar from Israel’s portion.

These two awards, he goes on, are made specifically from shëlamim, כי הקרבן שלמים הוא הקשור אל השם ואינו בא על חטא , וזה דכתיב בשלמים "אשר יקריב לד' ", כי קרבן זה בלבד הוא הקרבה כמו שאמרנו ולא בא על חטא, וכל שלום הוא על ידי אמצעי אשר הוא רודף שלום כו' ולפיכך הי' מדתו של אהרן לרדוף שלום גם כן בין המתנגדים ולקרב את הבריות לשמים (“for the qorban shëlamim is the one bound to Ha-Shem, and it does not come because of a sin, and this is what is written: ‘which you will bring close to Ha-Shem’ [VII, 11], for this qorban alone is an approach, as we have said, and does not come because of a sin; and all shalom comes about by means of someone in the middle who pursues shalom... and therefore Aharon’s major characteristic was to pursue peace [עיי' אבות פ"א מי"ב], both between antagonists and to bring Creation closer to Heaven”; פירש על הגש"פ, דרוש נאה לשבת הגדול). Shëlamim signify shelémuth, “perfection” resulting in shalom (as noted last week) and are the vehicle to establish that peace-making focal point for Israel and, indeed, the entire world.

D.

Pesah is nearly upon us, and it is worthwhile noting once again that the qorban Pesah specifically falls into the category of shëlamim. We are unable to bring this qorban (though we act in remembrance of it at the séder), or any of the other qorbanoth mandated by the holiday, because we have no Béyth ha-Miqdash. It was destroyed, Hazal tell us, because of the outbreak of sin’ath hinnam, “groundless hatred” (יומא ד:), amongst factions in Israel which undermined and subverted the unity which the kohanim were tasked with cementing and maintaining.

If we wish to merit the restoration of that unity, and of the Béyth ha-Miqdash and the shalom it can bring about, we must strive toward shëlémuth. The first step is the elimination of the proximate cause of the destruction. Each of us must take a good look at himself, as we finish cleaning the hamétz from our souls as from our houses, and see what can be done to bring the sin’ath hinnam to an end, re-establish the unity of Israel in actualizing Torah, and inaugurate the Bayith Shëlishi, in time for next Pesah.

Parshath Tzav (Leviticus VI,1-VIII,36) 4/3/09

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.

Parshath Tzav (Leviticus VI,1-VIII,35) 3/21/08

A.

וזאת תורת זבח השלמים אשר יקריב לד': אם על תודה יקריבנו והקריב על זבח התודה חלות מצות בלולת בשמן ורקיקי מצות משחים בשמן וסלת מרבכת חלת בלולת בשמן: (“And this is the Torah of the shlamim sacrifice which one may bring to Ha-Shem. If as a thank-offering [toda] one brings it, one should bring with the toda sacrifice matza cakes mixed with oil and wafers of matza smeared with oil and fine flour mixed into cakes with oil;” VII, 11-12).

The cereal component of the toda is intriguing in that it combines matza and chamétz, not least because, a bit earlier in our parasha we read concerning the qorban mincha: לא תאפה חמץ חלקם נתתי אתה מאשי קדש קדשים הוא וגו' (“The portion [of the kohanim] should not be baked [as] chamétz; I have given it from My burnt offerings, it is the holiest of holy things;” VI, 10), to which Chazal add: לומר שאפילו חלקם לא תאפה חמץ (“[which is] to say that even their portion should not be baked [as] chamétz;” מנחות נ"ה.), implying that chamétz and sanctity are incompatible.

So why does the Torah specify it here?

B.

What, exactly, are shlamim?

When the category was introduced in last week’s parasha, Rashi noted, in his comment to III, 1, that they are so called שמטילים שלום בעולם. ד"א שלמים שיש בהם שלום למזבח שלום לכהנים ושלום לבעלים (“because they impose shalom - peace - in the world. Another thing: [They are called] shlamim because through them there is shalom for the altar, shalom for the kohanim, and shalom for the owners [of the sacrifice]”). The very root of the word, shin-lamed-mem, betrays the connection between the two words.

גדול השלום, Chazal tell us, שהוא שקול כנגד הכל. אנו אומרים "עושה שלום ובורא את הכל" (“Great is shalom, for it is equivalent to everything, as we say ‘Who makes shalom and is Creator of everything’ [cf. Isaiah XLV, 7]” במדבר רבה פי"א סי' ט"ז ). And again: גדול השלום שדרי עליונים צריכין שלום, שנאמר "עושה שלום במרומיו", והרי דברים ק"ו, ומה אם במקום שאין איבה ושנאה צריכין שלום ק"ו במקום שיש בו כל המדות הללו (“Great is shalom for even supernal beings need shalom, for it is said, ‘Who makes shalom in His heights’ [Job XXV, 20], and if in a place where there is no jealousy or hatred shalom is needed, how much more so in place where there are all these qualities?” שם, סי' י"ח). And yet again, they advise us: אם אין שלום אין כלום (“If there is no shalom there is nothing at all'” תורת כהנים פר' בחוקותי).

In short, shalom is that supreme quality through which all Creation is mushlam (completed, made whole, fulfilled).

C.

Now, the Torah tells us, concerning Creation: וירא אלקים את כל אשר עשה והנה טוב מאד (“And G-d saw everything that He had made and behold [it was] very good;” Genesis I, 31), prompting Chazal to ask: "והנה טוב מאד" זה יצה"ר. וכי יצה"ר טוב מאד? אתמהא. אלא שאילולי יצה"ר לא בנה שדם בית ולא נשא אשה ולא הוליד (“'And behold it was very good’ this [includes] the evil inclination [yétzer ha-ra].

Is the yétzer ha-ra then good? But, were it not for the yétzer ha-ra, the first man would not have built a household, would not have married a woman and sired children;” בראשית רבה פ"ט סי' ט').

In other words, major mitzvoth in the Torah are dependent upon the existence of physical urges, the yétzer ha-ra. Therefore it follows that as a component of a world containing human beings, in which those mitzvoth are to be observed, and which the Creator Himself called tov m’od, the yétzer ha-ra must be accounted good.

And yet, there can be no doubt that, in and of itself, the yétzer ha-ra is bad. As the Torah also says concerning the human being, וכי יצר מחשבות לבו רק רע כל היום (“...and the yétzer, the thoughts of [man’s] heart, is only bad all day long;” Genesis VI, 5).

So how does this work?

Chazal refer to the yétzer ha-ra metaphorically as השאור שבעיסה, “the leaven in the dough” (עיי' למשל ברכות י"ז.). I have never directly eaten yeast; I rather doubt that it would be very good. But mixed proportionately with the dough, the results are unquestionably very good (especially my kalla’s wonderful challa). Matza, made of the pure dough with no leaven in it, is representative of purest sanctity, purest good. But that is not the nature of the world in which we live, as we have already noted. It is the proper mixture and blending of the two, the yétzer ha-tov and the yétzer ha-ra, the sacred and the (advisedly) profane, which completes and fulfills this world, and restores its connection to its Source, from which it is otherwise so profoundly alienated.

And that is why the mincha accompanying the qorban shlamim consists appropriately of the mixture of matza and chamétz.

D.

That said, we can proceed to another question: A bit later in Leviticus, concerning the holiday of Shavu’ôth, which marks the giving of the Torah, we find that the sacrifice of the day is accompanied by לחם תנופה שתים שני עשרנים סלת תהיינה חמץ תאפינה (“...bread for waving, two; two ethrogim [a measure] of fine flour shall they be, chamétz shall they be baked....” XXIII, 17).

If the purpose of the shlamim is to reconcile and make shalom between incompatible opposites, the metaphysical yétzer ha-tov and the physical yétzer ha-ra, if chamétz is incompatible with the “holiest of holy things,” what is holier than the Torah? What are we to make of this sacrifice?

The answer, it seems to me, is that the Torah constitutes the means through which we can make the reconciliation of shalom and mix properly the correct proportion of the yétzer ha-ra into the yétzer ha-tov. Only through Torah can we navigate the shoals of this world and achieve the reconcilation embodied in the word shalom. As Chazal tell us, The Holy One has declared, בראתי יצר הרע, בראתי לו תורה תבלין (“I created the yétzer ha-ra and I created Torah, a condiment for it;” קדושין ל:).

Hence the sacrifice marking the advent of Torah into the world is appropriately accompanied by the chamétz which it is meant to tame.