CHAMISHOH MI YODEI'A - FIVE QUESTIONS ON THE WEEKLY SEDRAH - PARSHAS TZAV 5773 - BS"D
1) Ch. 6, v. 10: "Lo sei'o'feh chometz" - It should not be baked as leavened bread - Chometz is equated with the "yeitzer hora," the evil inclination. This is why a meal offering may have no leavening. The one exception is the two breads of Shovuos. Why is this offering different?
2) Ch. 7, v. 11: "Zevach hashlomim asher yakriv" - Slaughtering of a shlomim that he will offer - This is the most positive expression of offering, "asher yakriv," seemingly "that he SHOULD offer," while by other types of offerings we just have "toras ha……, v'heivi," or the like. Why is the bringing expressed differently here?
3) 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. Why the difference?
4) Ch. 7, v. 37: "Zose hatorah l'oloh l'minchoh ulchatos" - This is the law for an oloh for a minchoh and for a chatos - The Medrash Plioh, a wondrous puzzling collection of statements, says that this is the fulfillment of the verse, "Bidvar Hashem shomayim naasu" (T'hilim 33:6). What is the medrash telling us?
5) 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." Why is Aharon's "smichoh" mentioned singly in our verse and together with his sons in verses 18 and 22?
This is well understood, based on the gemara Shabbos, that when the angels did not want the Torah to enter the lower physical spheres of our world, Moshe countered with, "Do you then have an evil inclination?" (Kli Yokor)
This is because when sacrifices are offered for atonement it is preferable that the person would not have sinned in the first place, and not required atonement. (Sifsei Kohein)
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)
Rabbi Yonoson Eibeschitz in Yaaros Dvash explains this based on the gemara M'nochos 110a, which derives from our verse that studying the laws of an "oloh" accredit a person with having actually offered one, and likewise the other types of offerings. It is readily understood that an "oloh" can be replaced through studying its laws, as the "oloh" brings atonement for sins in the realm of thought or speech, but how does the study of the laws of a "chatos" atone for a physical sin actually having been done? The medrash answers that we find that the heavens were created through the "dvar Hashem." We thus see that words can create a physical reality. Hashem has put this concept into being in the manner he created the heavens, and in turn, reading the words of the laws of a "chatos" can bring in its wake atonement even for a physical sin.
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.
A GUTTEN SHABBOS KODESH. FEEL FREE TO DISTRIBUTE BY COPY OR ELECTRONICALLY.
FEEDBACK IS APPRECIATED. TO SUBSCRIBE, KINDLY SEND REQUEST TO: SHOLOM613@ROGERS.COM
See also Sedrah Selections, Oroh
V'Simchoh - Meshech Chochmoh on the Weekly Parsha and Chasidic Insights