subscribe.gif (2332 bytes)

by Zvi Akiva Fleisher

Back to This Week's Parsha| Previous Issues

For sponsorships and advertising opportunities, send e-mail to:SHOLOM613@ROGERS.COM


Ch. 6, v. 2: "Zose toras ho'oloh" - This is the law of the oloh - An oloh sacrifice is totally consumed on the altar, and no part of it is eaten, not even by the Kohanim. An oloh provides atonements for sins in the realm of thought, but not realized in action. It is therefore most befitting that it is totally consumed and elevated to Hashem, just as one's thoughts are the elevated aspect of a person. (Imrei Noam)

Ch. 6, v. 2: "Kol halailoh" - The whole night - As just mentioned, the oloh sacrifice offers atonement for thoughts of sinning. By day a person is in the main involved in action, and by night he has more time to think. Thus, thoughts of sin are mostly at night. Correspondingly, the oloh sacrifice is burned all night long, albeit the slaughtering and other blood service takes place by day. (Toldos Yitzchok)

Ch. 6, v. 2: "V'aiSH hamizbei'aCH tukaD bO" - And fire of the altar shall burn in it - The final letters of these words spell SHOCHaD, bribery. This alludes to the punishment awaiting a judge, even if he is a great scholar, who takes a bribe. (Rabbeinu Efrayim)

Ch. 6, v. 9: "V'hano'serres mi'menoh yochlu Aharon uvonov" - And that which is left of it Aharon and his sons shall consume - Compare this with verse 19, where it says that specifically the Kohein who processed the chatos sacrifice shall eat it, "HaKohein hamcha'tei osoh yochlenoh." To explain this the Meshech Chochmoh cites the Sefer Ho'ikrim maamar 3 chapter 25 writes that the heretics questioned how the taking of the life of an animal or bird brings atonement for a sinner. They therefore shied away from offering korbonos that involved taking a life, and only brought meal, oil, and wine offerings. The Sifri on parshas Eikev at the end of chapter 17 says that "U'l'ovdo b'chol l'vavchem" is a warning for Kohanim to not let their minds run along the lines of these heretics, but rather fully trust in Hashem's dictates when servicing a slaughtered offering. This is why by the animal offering of a chatos the Torah wants specifically the Kohein who did its service to eat it, since if he had a negative thought of "pigul" or "shelo lishmoh," which invalidates the korbon, he himself should partake of it, as it is a very severe sin to consume this disqualified sacrifice. Only after he eats some does verse 22 go on to say that other Kohanim may partake of it, Kol zochor baKohanim yochal osoh." This is akin to the comment made by the Ramban on the gemara Gitin 2b. He explains that a woman is believed that she has not had a menstrual flow and is permitted to her husband. Since she has a great interest to have marital relations, how can the husband trust her? The Ramban explains that since the harsh sin of relations with a "nidoh" rest on the woman's shoulders just as it does on the man, since she would be sinning if she lied, her husband can trust her. Similarly, the Ram"o on Sh.O. Y.D. 246:21 writes that when a Rov concludes that a questionable item is kosher, he should afterwards taste a bit of it to show that he is totally confident in his ruling.

This is why here, by the meal offering, where a life is not taken to process the korbon, the Torah does not spell out that the processing Kohein must partake of it.

This also explains the change in terminology between verse 19 and 22. In verse 19 the consumption is expressed as "yochlenoh," while in verse 22 we have "yochal osoh." As explained by the Rosh in his commentary on the gemara Shvuos 3:16, "yochlenoh" menas eating from a complete item, while "yochal osoh" means eating it, whether it was complete or a left over piece. Applied to these two verses it is very well understood. The processing Kohein must eat a bit from the complete sacrifice, before another Kohein may eat from it, to assure us that he did not disqualify it. Once he has eaten a bit of it, all that is left over should be eaten, "yochal osoh," simply that it not become "nosar."

The Meshech Chochmoh goes so far as to say that if another Kohein ate from the chatos ahead of the processing Kohein, there is no longer a need for him to eat any part of this sacrifice.

Ch. 7, v. 12: "V'hikriv al zevach hatodoh chalos" - And he shall offer along with the thanksgiving sacrifice breads - The gemara M'nochos 78b states that one who slaughters his todoh offering within the wall of the "azoroh," Mikdosh compound, as is required, but the accompanying breads are at that moment outside the "azoroh" walls, the breads have not become consecrated. This can be an allusion for one's attitude about his livelihood. One who experiences a redemption from sickness, a trip into the desert, being in a tremendous storm while in a body of water, or from being incarcerated, is required to offer a "todoh." This is his tangible act of recognition that the salvation came from Hashem. If his offering for one of these incidents is done inside the Mikdosh compound, i.e. he recognizes that it is from Hashem, but his breads, symbol of his livelihood, is outside the sanctified area, i.e. he does not demonstrate that it also comes from Hashem, the breads are not consecrated, it shows that he does not truly realize that his livelihood comes directly from Hashem. (M'oroh Shel Torah)

Ch. 7, v. 17: "V'hanosar mi'menoh" - And that which is left over from it - The Torah expresses this in a fait accompli manner, as if it will likely happen, in contra distinction with Shmos 29:34, "V'im yivo'seir," IF there will be left over. Perhaps this is because a todoh sacrifice is basically a shlomim, just the todoh has one day less to be consumed. Add to this that there are 40 accompanying breads to the todoh. This makes "nosar" a much greater likelihood. (Nirreh li)

Ch. 8, v. 14: "Va'yismoch Aharon uvonov es y'dei'hem" - And Aharon leaned his hands and his sons their hands - Compare this with verse 18 and 22, where the verses say, "Va'yis'm'chu Aharon uvonov es y'dei'hem." The Ibn Ezra cites one who is exceedingly into grammar, who takes note of this difference and concludes that in our verse, expressed in the singular, "va'yismoch," the intention is that Aharon on his own, leaned his hands, and his sons followed after him. In the two verses where it says "va'yis'm'chu," the intention is that they did so simultaneously. However, the Ibn Ezra says that there is no difference, and in all cases they leaned their hands in unison. He does not explain the difference in the text. It also remains to be explained why the Ibn Ezra makes his comment on verse 22, when he could have done so earlier, on verse 18.

Ch. 8, v. 30: "Va'yikach Moshe mishemen hamish'choh umin hadom asher al hamizbei'ach va'yaz al Aharon" - And Moshe took from the anointing oil and from the blood that was on the altar and he sprinkled upon Aharon - The Ramban writes that he does not know if the blood and the oil were first mixed and then sprinkled upon Aharon, just as the blood of the ox and goat of Yom Kippur were mixed and then sprinkled, or if each was sprinkled separately. However, the Abarbanel writes that they were mixed and then sprinkled.

Click here to view a compilation of insights on Megilas Esther.



See also Oroh V'Simchoh - Meshech Chochmoh on the Weekly Parsha, Chasidic Insights and Chamisha Mi Yodei'a

Back to This Week's Parsha| Previous Issues

This article is provided as part of Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Permission is granted to redistribute electronically or on paper,
provided that this notice is included intact.

For information on subscriptions, archives, and
other Shema Yisrael Classes,
send mail to
Jerusalem, Israel