CHAMISHOH MI YODEI'A - FIVE QUESTIONS ON THE WEEKLY SEDRAH - PARSHAS VA'YIKRA 5770 - BS"D

2) Ch. 1, v. 1: "Vayikra el Moshe" - And He called to Moshe - Rashi writes that Hashem's voice reached Moshe's ears, but no one else heard. How is this derived from these words?

3) Ch. 1, v. 3: "Tomim" - Complete - Rashi says that we derive from this word that the sacrifice may not have a disqualifying blemish. This seems to be repeated in Vayikra 22:20, "kol asher bo moom lo sakrivu."

4) Ch. 1, v. 4: "V'somach yodo al rosh ho'oloh" - And he shall lean his hand upon the head of the "oloh" offering - The Rambam in hilchos maa'sei hakorbonos 3:8 writes that all people do the act of "smichoh" save a deaf person, an imbecile, and a minor. Why does the Rambam list this exemption? One only does "s'michoh" on his own sacrifice. These three people listed are incapable of sanctifying an animal. If the Rambam means to exclude them from doing "s'michoh" on another's sacrifice, then not only they, but everyone save the owner is excluded.

5) Ch. 2, v. 11: "Chol s'ore v'chol dvash lo saktiru" - All sourdough and all nectar you shall not burn - Why are these two items excluded?

ANSWERS:

#1

The gemara N'dorim 38a says that Hashem only rests His Holy Spirit upon a person who is wise, strong, wealthy, and modest. Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin asks why the traits of strength and wealth are required. (The Rambam in his "shmoneh prokim" says that strong means that he masters over his inclination and wealthy means that he is happy with his lot.) He answers that if a person is not strong and wealthy his modesty can be suspect. Perhaps because he lacks these two traits he is timid, but does not truly have the characteristic of being humble. However, if one is both strong and wealthy, and still behaves modestly, we realize that his humbleness is genuine.

When Hashem spoke to Moshe in parshas Yisro it was before he had financial wealth. Although the bnei Yisroel left Egypt with untold wealth, Moshe busied himself with the remains of Yoseif. Only after Hashem said to him "p'sol l'cho" (Shmos 34:1), from which we derive that the "p'so'les," the etched out bits of the tablets, a very precious stone called "sanpirin," were given to Moshe, was he wealthy. Only after this would Moshe's modesty be clearly recognized. (Rabbi Shmuel Wolkin)

#2

1) Otherwise the verse should have said "Vayikra, Moshe," Moshe being the noun of direct address. Although it seems that we should have derived this the first time we find EL, Rashi waited until the verse said "vayikra," a terminology of affection, to point out that the voice was only heard by Moshe. (Sifsei Chachomim)

2) The verse should have otherwise said "l'Moshe." Again the same question arises, why didn't Rashi point this out by the first instance of EL. However, since we have a second exclusion in our verse, the word "eilov," it is only conclusive here. (Rabbi Eliyohu Mizrochi who expands upon the second exclusion)

3) This is only derived in tandem with the exclusion of the word "eilov." (Raava"d and B'eir Yitzchok) This seems to be quite a difficult explanation of Rashi, as Rashi clearly says that from "eilov" we derive that Aharon was also excluded. See Droshos hoRan after the 12th "droshoh," where he explains the difference between the exclusion derived from "lo" and that derived from "eilov."

#3

1) We derive from "tomim" that even an elderly animal is not accepted. This is not intrinsically a blemish. (Minchoh V'luloh)

2) We derive from the juxtaposition of "tomim" to the words that teach us that "rova, nirva, ne'evad," and "muktzoh" are disqualified, not just not preferable. (Lekach Tov)

3) Bringing a "tomim" is a positive mitzvoh. Not bringing a "baal moom" is a negative precept. (Rambam in the beginning of hilchos issurei mizbei'ach)

4) If only expressed in the negative manner, "asher bo moom lo sakrivu," we only know that it is a prohibition to sacrifice a definitely blemished animal, but one that we are in doubt about, we may sacrifice. Once the verse clearly states "tomim," we need to definitely know that it is complete, without a blemish. (Malbim)

Why doesn't the Torah only mention "tomim" according to the Malbim?

#4

The Mahari"t Algazi answers that the Rambam's intention is to exclude them from doing "s'michoh" on a sacrifice that belonged to their father that they inherited.

#5

The reason these two items are not accepted as an offering is that they have the nature to swell and ferment, causing expansion. This is symbolic of arrogance, where one makes himself great and large. This is shunned by the Torah. (Chinuch)

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