Untitled

Shemini.doc zeke.doc Download this file

Shmuli Gold and Jason Klein on Rabbi Fran

Parshat Metzora.docx Download this file

Avi Strauss: Rav Hirsch on Nadav and Avihu

[Taken from Rav Hirsch on Parshat Shmini]

Question: Parshat Shmini presents the interesting short story of two of Aharon’s sons, Nadav and Avihu.  They were killed by the hand of god even though it appeared they were doing nothing inherently wrong.  They were taking they’re own initiative for serving hashem yet they were dealt the harshest physical punishment imaginable.  So the question arises, what was wrong with what Nadav and Avihu did?

Explanation:

When evaluating the errs of Nadav and Avihu several issues arise.  It wasn’t just some arbitrary punishment given to say don’t enter the kodesh kedashim, but a direct consequence of a series of mistakes compiled into one sin.

            Firstly, right after the nation was presented with the concept of korbanot, Nadav and Avihu were acting in direct violation with one of its core principles; the acceptance of the torah.  Part of the process of korbanot involves bringing the sacrifices in the nation’s vessels and by doing so, accepting the torah and all of its laws that the nation agreed to abide by.  However, Nadav and Avihu brought their korbanot in their own personal vessels.  And while we are not accusing Nadav and Avihu of straying from any mitzvot, their vessels didn’t carry the same status that the national vessels did in terms of acceptance of hashem’s torah.

            Another problem with their personal korbanot was the spirit behind them.  Kohanim are the priests in charge of representing the entire nation with service.  They are the select few that actually carry out the processes involved in direct service to hashem.  But in this case, the spirit of their korbanot was totally wrong.  They were bringing them for themselves, not for the nation.  This blatant shirking of priestly responsibility deserved punishment not only for its mistake, but to teach the important lesson to all the kohanim that their duty is to the nation. 

            Perhaps the most problematic part of their spontaneous service to hashem was its deviation from hashem’s intent.  Judaism and Paganism both believe in bring sacrifices to their gods, but Judaism does so with one important distinction.  Pagans bring sacrifices with the intent of gaining the service of their god with gifts.  In contrast, Jews bring korbanot to demonstrate our unwavering loyalty to hashem.  We bring them to show we our fervent in our beliefs of hashem and to show our dedication to him.  To bring random sacrifices without any specific command to do so is antithetical to their purpose.  In this sense, the seemingly harsh punishment for action out of goodwill was vital to insure the principles hashem wanted to instill with korbanot. 

Parshat Tetzaveh

Yaakov Linder, Elliot Eisenberg

Parshat Tetzvaveh, Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks

Throughout all of Tetzaveh Moshe takes second place to his brother Aaron, the Cohen Gadol of the people; Moshe’s name is not even mentioned at all. There are many ideas of why this job went to Aaron instead of Moshe, but the most obvious is that Moshe tried to refuse the job of leading the people of Israel.

There is a deeper message here though, more than just “Man plans and God laughs”, we learn here the basic premise of the separation of powers. Human authority needs checks and balances in order to not become corrupt, something we can see even in the United States constitution. Specifically, political and religious leadership should not mix, like the Separation of Church and State.

The question is: how does this work out in a personal relationship between two brothers? The Torah never says it specifically, but hints at it numerous times.

The most commonly known hint is in the text after Moshe has talked to Hashem and is already headed back to Egypt. The Torah says that Aaron is “already on his way to meet you, and he will be glad to see you.” While these may seem like simple words, they are really a praise to Aaron. It would have been natural for Aaron to envy his younger brother, three years his junior, because of the position of leadership he was bestowed with, especially after Moshe’s long absence and adoption by Pharaoh. Compared to Aaron, Moshe was a complete and udder stranger among the Jewish people, so why does Moshe get the job instead of Aaron? Yet Aaron is happy for Moshe, despite everything he may want to be jealous about.

Aaron’s ability to be happy for Moshe stands out from the rest of the pairs of brothers in the Chumash, where the brothers were always involved in intense sibling rivalry, Cain and Abel, Yitzchak and Yishmael, Yaakov and Eisav, and Yosef and the other eleven brothers.  Aaron is a true gentleman when it comes to being happy for his brother, no matter the strain.

The Torah goes on to describe another test, this time for Moshe. Moshe has to create the Cohen Gadol position, one that he will never be able to fill, for his elder brother. The test is to see if he will be able to do it with the same happiness that Aaron displayed when Moshe became the leader. Moshe must show the people that he has the humility to share the leadership position with someone whose has strengths that he does not have, and with someone who is closer to the people.

To quote the end of Rav Sack’s dvar torah, because it really cannot be said any other way:
“True leadership involves humility and magnanimity. The smaller the ego, the great the leader. That’s what Moshe showed in the parsha that does not mention his name.”  

1.       The question asked here is: “what is the significance of moshes name not being mentioned throughout the parsha?” This is a great question because it is odd for Moshe to not be in a parsha, considering he is the leader of bnei yisrael. This question is a very interesting one because he is the leader of bnei yisrael, and it doesn’t make sense for moshe not to be spoken about in the parsha.

2.       The authors main points in this dvor torah are that moshe and aharon both are happy for each other while they are having two opposite roles. There was no true evidence brought. All of the evidence was straight from the torah itself.

3.       We learn from this that people should be happy with what they have, and when something good happens to someone else, then you should be happy for them.

4.       This was an excellent shiur. We agreed that it was both interesting and informal.

Shmulie Schwartz Unlocking The Torah Text Rabbi Golden Parsha Shmini 69-72

Shmulie Schwartz
Why does the Torah need to mention that the Kohanim should not do their commandments while intoxicated? Why does the Torah state a difference between wine and other intoxicating drinks? These are very good questions because we can clearly see that a Kohan should be doing the commandments in awe and fear, why does the Torah need to specify being intoxicated. One time at a museum a guide said that in a century when archeologists are digging at the museum, they will not find a no biking sign. They will see a no smoking sign. This is because at this time people biking in a museum is not a problem but smoking is. From here we can learn that back then drinking was a problem. We know that other religions find that being intoxicated or on drugs can make them closer to their G-d. The Torah could have just said do the commandments in awe and fear but, since back then there was a drinking problem with other nations, the Torah says that being intoxicated might be the way the other nations feel closer to G-d the Jews should not feel that way. The Torah even brings a difference between wine and other intoxicating drinks because the Torah has many times that Jews drink wine to help the holiday. The Torah is showing that even with wine a person should have it in moderation and not get intoxicated. This is a very good answer. This answer is very simple, clear, and very understandable. I think this is a good shuir to give right before Purim to people. I would not share this with my family though even though it is very interesting I do not feel it is meant for a family.

R' Grossman on the Hidden Message of the Megilah - Chaim and Gavi Dov

The Hidden Background of Megilat Esther - R’ Grossman

http://www.vbm-torah.org/purim/pur67-yg.htm

R’ Grossman notes that the Megilah begins not framing the narrative in a time period of Judaic notation - ie, 30 years into the Galut of Yehuda, but rather in a Persian time frame - “V’Yihi Bimai Achasveirosh.... HaMolech M’Hodu V’Ad Kush...”

He notes that most scholars identify Achasveriosh as being the Persian King Xerxes, for several textually based reasons, including the Greek Historian Herodotus identifying Xerxes as a king fond of wine and women, who ruled from a magnificent palace in Shushan and who ruled from Ethiopia (Kush) to India (Hodu). 

We found that this parallel of R’ Grossman to be quite compelling, fitting both with historical evidence as well as rather nicely with the Megilah text. 

However, he notes an immediate problem with accepting Achashveirosh as being Xerxes I. Based on historical evidence, this would require that the Megliah take place about 100 years after Churban Beit Rishon, and ~30 years after Chanukah Beit Sheini. 

This implies that Esther, Mordechai and the Jews of Shushan, and indeed all the Jews of Achashveirosh’s Persian Empire were among those who failed to comply with the proclamation of Cyrus to return to Eretz Yisrael - while the Jews of Israel struggle to rebuild the Jewish homeland, the Jews of Persia sit comfortably in Galut, feasting and partying. 

Evidence to the difficulty in Eretz Yisrael is clear in Nechemiah, who notes the heavy taxes and even the end of Terumah to the Cohanim for financial reasons. 

However, at the beginning of the Megliah, while the Jews of Israel are struggling, there is nothing to indicate that anything is going wrong for the Jews in Persia. According to this perspective, the beginning of the Megliah and the focus on Persia is not as benign as we would have thought - it is an expression of almost guilt, as the author (Esther and Mordechai, the leaders of Am Yisrael, who we note write the Megilah as we see at the end of the text) try and shift attention away from the fact that they are not in Israel. 

IN Ezra, the reference to Haman’s decree mentions a danger to all Jews in both Yehuda and Yerushalayim as well as Persia. R’ Grossman notes this as being a rare event in Tanach, of viewing the same event from two different perspectives - the Jews in Shushan see the decree, which as we know only was decreed against them as a danger only to them. The Jews in Israel note that such a decree endangers all of Klall Yisrael, including the rebuilding effort in Israel. 

The two recordings - that of Ezra and that of Mordechai and Esther - highlight the conflict in the Jewish community of the time, and where the center and focus of Jewish life should be - in Persia or in Eretz Yisrael. 

Looking at Midrash, we can see hints to this idea - the Gemara that cites Achashveirosh was waiting the 70 years (or so he thought) until after the Churban Beit Rishon to use the Ci HaMikdash, as well as many of the physical descriptions of the party of Achashveirosh that also line up with the Mikdash - Butz, fine linen, used both in Esther as well as by the Cohamin, Argamon, a color used almost exclusively to the Miskan and Mikdash is referenced here, and other examples that he cites. Even the idea of the palace (described as having an inner palace and outer palace) is meant to parallel the inner and outer levels of the Mikdash. 

The author of the Megilah is hoping to point out the solidarity in a way that the members of Shushan have - by giving the comparison to the Mikdash, the details that bring associations of the Mikdash make this an atmosphere of mourning in a way - a rebuke of the Jews feasting instead of helping those who have returned. 

Obviously, there are many messages in R’ Grossman’s shiur that apply to the situation in Eretz Yisrael today, particularly for us in Galut, and our need to assist those in Eretz Yisrael. The situation in Israel is similar today - Am Yisrael has been given permission to return to Eretz Yisrael after years of exile. His message is two fold for us - 1. That we need to be willing to answer the call, the invitation from H-shem to finally return for the first time in thousands of years to our nation’s homeland, and that 2. If we cannot or will not make this leap, that we must do everything we can to support our brothers and sisters in Israel, and not leave them to their fates while we sit comfortably in Galut. 

In regard to sharing at a Seduah, we found that the Dvar Torah was extremely compelling (although his last point doesn’t entirely fit with his chronology point he was making earlier - the idea of Achaveirosh counting down for 70 years after to flaunt the Churban doesn’t work if the Beit Hamikdash has already been rebuilt.) Aside from that, we felt that the unique interpretation of the chronology of the Megliah to be interesting, and the incredibly pertinent messages to be particularly enlightening and relevant for today. 

Furthermore, it is also “table-friendly” due to it’s lesser reliance on the text, as well as being based on a text that is more widely familiar. 

avi strauss based on vbm-torah

Question: Megilat Esther appears to be the antithesis of classical tanach; a sefer devoid of even a direct reference to hashem.  This retreat from classic tanach style, but inclusion in tanach itself is obviously meant to deliver a certain message.  What are we supposed to learn from the “topsy-turvy” world of the Megilla?

Explanation:  The Megilla seems to blatantly keep Hashem’s name out of its text.  When Mordachai refers to the salvation that will be brought to the Jewish people, he says it will come from a “different source”.  Another example is when Esther is taken for the beauty contest, one would expect the Megilla would portray it as a tragedy, but instead it glorifies it with a description about the lengthy process.  These instance as well as several others indicates a specific intention to remove a direct connection to god. 

            The Megilla is also devoid of mentions of Israel and only mentions Yerushalyaim once.  Its also curious that the Megilla paints Achashverosh and his kingdom a disgrace and farce marked by his physical indulgence.  It only mentions historical events in the 3^rd, 7^th, and 12^th years of his reign albeit barely.  However, modern day historical evidence shows that during Achashverosh’s rule, major events transpired.  Persia was preparing for a major war with the Greeks.  Under Achashverosh’s rule, the Persians built major canals and roads to transport a massive army to conquer Athens that was ultimately defeated.  But these events are totally neglected even when the tanach would sometimes devote space to mention the major historical occurrences of a time period.

            Also, we know the torah to be particular of its language and it generally tries to “cut the fat” of the story when hashem isn’t connecting to the people.  The torah skims over 200 years of slavery and the bulk of the trip through the desert (38 years) because of the absence of hashem.  So why then here would the tanach devote an entire Megilla to a time period without hashem?

            Furthermore, the Megilla seems to exaggerate the physical, unspiritual, antithetical-to-a-divine-kingdom qualities, that the Persian kingdom represents.  Also, the Jews of the time seem totally devoid of god as well.  They are actively a part of this society, totally assimilated from the Jewish ways and enjoying the parties Achashverosh throws.  Even the names of our heroes, Mordachai and Esther seem to be adopted from the Persian culture names of Morodokh and Ishtar.  No one in the whole story can escape the attraction of assimilation.  Moreover, the Jews fate seems to totally be determined by chance.  Haman wants to kill all of Mordachai’s people and decides when to do so based on a lottery.  There is not one mention of a divine intervention in the day chosen, just a by chance, down to earth, “pur” to determine the Jews fate. 

            So with these major differences, the question returns; what are we supposed to learn from this backwards segment of tanach?  The Megilla is written in this secular way to teach us that hashem is everywhere even when his name or presence might not be clearly expressed.  It just takes a deeper understanding to realize his hand in everything that happens both spiritual AND physical.  Without the Megilla, we would just have a tanach of hashem’s control of all that we do, but no example of him moving the strings behind the scenes.  Therefore, the Megilla is the exception to the norm that is there to prove hashem’s omnipotent control in all that happens. 

            

Parashat Tzav - Eli Lehman

Parashat Tzav

Rabbi Goldin

Rabbi Goldin asks 3 questions on this week’s Parasha. Why is the Kohen a position that’s inherited and not earned? Why even today is honor given to a Kohen just because of lineage? And aren’t we all equal before Hashem?

             Rabbi Goldin asks very interesting question. A person with such a high honor should be someone who deserves it. The questions make me want to read more to find out why exactly honor is given to lineage and not whether he deserves it or not.

             We see other times when someone is given an honor because of lineage like a Bachor. However, we see other people given high positions and honor because they deserve it and not because of lineage like with Moshe. Also during Birkat HaMazon, a Chacham would lead the Ziman before a Kohen. And during Yitzat Mitraim, people who were descendants of Avraham who decided to stay, disappeared in our history and a person who isn’t Jewish at all who joined Bnei Yisrael during Yitzat Mitzraim and accepted the Torah became a full member of Bnei Yisrael. So the commitment to G-d is the factor that determines his affiliation with the Jewish people and not the blood relationship.

             So both roles, inherent and earned, our part of our nation and both are essential for our survival. There will always be opportunities, for people who want to, to receive high positions and honors; however, we need the inheritance role so our nation can continue for centuries.

            This Divar Torah by Rabbi Goldin is very good. He fully explains the answers and the reasoning for the answers with a message to take. The message is that we have lineage honors and positions to keep the Jewish people lasting forever and we have honors and positions for people who want them and deserve them.

Shmuli Gold and Jason Klein

Parsha: Shemini

Shiur Reviewed: Rabbi Yissocher Fran

Reviewed by: Shmuli Gold and Jason Klein

וַאֲחֵיכֶם, כָּל-בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל--יִבְכּוּ אֶת-הַשְּׂרֵפָה, אֲשֶׁר שָׂרַף יְהוָה. 

“And your brethren the entire House of Israel shall bewail the conflagration that HASEM ignited”

The most climactic day of the inauguration if the Mishkahn was the 8th day, the chanukat habayit. Bnei Yisroel are extremely excited for this event because when they see that when aharon brings the korban, and it is consumed by a heavenly flame, they know they have been forgiven for the terrible sin of cheit ha’aygel from only a year ago. However the celebration did not last long, because another heavenly flame came down and consumed Nadav and Avihu. After this event, Bnei Yisroel were very heartbroken and they didn’t know how to move forward. The Chazaal teach us that the deaths of Nadav and Avihu was one of the worst tragedies to the nation. The Zohar is quoted by the Magen Avraham saying, “a person sheds tears over the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, the Lord forgives all his sins and he is guaranteed that he will not have to bury his own children.”(meaning they will outlive him)

The question is, we don’t see anywhere else in regards to Jewish tragedies that when one cries they are absolved from sin. Why is it that the deaths of Nadav and Avihu seem so much more significant than other tragedies in Jewish history?

The Ponevezher Rav zt”l explains, that Moshe consoles Aharon by saying, “I knew that the inauguration of the mishkahn was going to be marred by the loss of the holiest members of the klal.” Moseh continued and said that he always thought that it would be either himself or Aharon but he learned that day that Nadav and Avihu were holier. The Rav goes and and says that the Talmud says that they would have led the Jews into Eretz Yisroel instead of Yehoshua,  who only reflected Moshe’s greatness like the sun reflects the moon.

We know that the Jewish people declined in spirituality after they entered Eretz Yisroel, but who knows maybe had the sons of Aharon led them they could have avoided their major sins and the exiles all together. When mourning the loss of these two greats, we are not only mourning their loss but also the ramifications that they may have had on the people and history.

We read this Parsha during sefira as well. Why? Maybe because just as by Nadav and Avihu we mourn the ramifications of their loss, here too we mourn the ramifications of the loss of these 24,000 students of Rebbe Akiva.

Finally, we see this same idea by the Shoah. we see that people are mourning the loss of how different our nations would look without their losses.

All the calamities that our nation faces are painful but we should look back on our history and take the lessons to heart. But if we forget these lessons, unfortunately we may experience them again. Some tragedies have hit home more than others and therefore must be mourned for on a national level.

The lesson is instilled in us through this dvar torah unfortunately apply very much to us today. With the slaughtering of the Fogel family and the bus bombing in Israel, the lesson of mourning for a cause as a people as whole, continues to apply to us as Jews. Hopefully, B”H, we no longer experience such calamities and will never again have to mourn like we did for nadav and avihu. It also points out the important role that Shabbat played in that time, and in the way we lead our lives today and therefore we would give it over to others and recommend others to do the same. 

Parashat Shmini - Eli Lehman

Parashat Shmini

Rabbi Goldin

 

            After Nadav and Avihu’s death, Hashem tells Aharon about the prohibition of drinking wine while the Kohanim are doing their jobs. Rabbi Goldin says that this is obvious; of course a Kohen can’t do his jobs while intoxicated because he won’t be able to think clearly or do his job well, so why is the Torah saying the obvious? And why is the Torah singling out wine, shouldn’t it be all alcoholic beverages?

 

            Rabbi Goldin asks very good and interesting questions. If the Torah is telling us something obvious, then there is a deeper meaning to it which I would like to continue reading the Divar Torah to find out and it’s also very interesting that the Torah singles out wine because there are a lot of other drinks that have the same effect.

 

            Rabbi Goldin answers by saying we can infer from findings what was common during that time. So when the Torah singles out wine, we can infer that wine drinking was very common at that time. However, there is another answer as well. Wine is found in some of our rituals and services to Hashem. So, if wine is used in moderation, it can be positive in Jewish practice. However, wine can also be used to worship idols and is prohibited to us (yayin nesech).

 

            So if the Torah was only concerned about the Kohanim making a mistake, all alcoholic beverages would be treated equal. However, wine is singled out to show that if used in moderation, it enhances our connection to Hashem. However, if used too much and used to escape reality, it ends up being a bad thing and a separate prohibition.

 

            This Divar Torah by Rabbi Goldin is very good. He shows us a very important message that one thing can be used for good and bad, depending what it’s being used for. And he shows us the Torah has a reason for singling it out which shows it’s separate prohibition that it can have.

Dvar torah for tzav

Tzav Dvar Torah

                In Parshah Tzav the pasukim speak about a person who brings a peace offering and one who brings a general  korban. Nehama quotes the Keli Yakar who comments on the difference between the way the peace offering was worded and the way all the other offerings were worded. He notes that in reference to the peace offering, it says that the peace offering was an offering that wasn’t given after one has done a sin, rather it is just self-prompted. Also, he says that this is a gift from “our own hands”, so when we give it to Hashem, we are personally delivering it. However, for other korbanot, a person only delivers it via a messenger for we are trying to subdue Hashem’s anger after a sin has been done.

This answer is very meaningful one, for it highlights a very important aspect to giving a certain korban over another.

Nehama then continues that even within peace offering, there are subdivisions.  The two groups are the todah, the thanksgiving offering, and the neder, the vowed peace offering.

The pasuk says that for the korban todah, person eats it the night of its sacrifice, and should be finished that night according to the sages. Nehama asks what the reason for this may be.  She quotes a few people for an answer.

First was the Ralbag, who says that the reason the sages limit the eating time to strictly the night is due to the fact that the meat is at its tastiest that night, and gets worse after that.

The Rambam says that the korbanim have to be perfect. So, he figures that the reason the korban has certain time limits is due to the fact that if the eating of the korban is delayed, the korban will become imperfect both in its taste and appearance. And since the korban needs to be perfect, we must finish eating it that night.  

Another reason is that of the Sefer haHinukh, who says that we can’t keep the leftovers for past that night to show trust in Hashem, to show that we are not worried that we won’t have food to eat the next day. He feels this must be the explanation for why else would Hashem force us to destroy completely good food.

Nehama points out that she sees this idea also when we had the manna, which was a miracle deserving of a thanksgiving offering. So, similarly the manna had to be eaten the day of the receveiving to show that we have trust in Hashem that we will get food the next day.

She then quotes the Abarbenel, who analyzes this rule of the korban from a different view. Socially, this law is designed in the way that no one family can consume it all in one day, which is commanded. So, it is expected of the one who brings the sacrifice to invite friends and to spread his tale of thanks as to almost make a kidush hashem, sanctifying Hashem’s name by telling everyone about the good He has done to you.

She then quotes the Ha’amek Hadavr, who agrees with the abarbenel in the way that he believes that the main importance of the sacrifice is to indeed invite friends and family to make a kidush Hashem and share the way Hashem has saved the person from adversity. However, he adds that from the pasuk referring to this sacrifice that the leavened bread portion of this sacrifice is the essence of this sacrifice. Nehama then comments that this opinion is consistent with the fact that the verse states that bread should be added to the    peace offering. She then says that this opinion helps explain a certain Psalm.

The psalm’s main point is that sharing the meal of thanksgiving  with other people will serve as the public acknowledgment of Hashem.

So, to conclude, Nehama states that it is very appropriate that  this offering is part of the peace offering, for it is peace inducing for it forces people to share in merriment the miracles Hashem has performed.    

All in all, we believe that there is a great deal to learn from these meforshim in this dvar torah of nehama, especially the concept of trying to cause peace.  We see that it is quite important to involve your fellow in your avodah for Hashem and in your Judaism. On the other hand, we also believe that there is no real continuity in this dvar torah, for it starts with the question comparing the two types of korbanot and then ending with the importance of the peace offering, though we are sure this is our fault. 

Dvar torah for tzav

-----Original Message-----
From: yonjk200@aol.com
To: tabc@posterous.com
Sent: Sun, Mar 27, 2011 6:25 pm
Subject: Dvar torah for tzav

Tzav Dvar Torah

                In Parshah Tzav the pasukim speak about a person who brings a peace offering and one who brings a general  korban. Nehama quotes the Keli Yakar who comments on the difference between the way the peace offering was worded and the way all the other offerings were worded. He notes that in reference to the peace offering, it says that the peace offering was an offering that wasn’t given after one has done a sin, rather it is just self-prompted. Also, he says that this is a gift from “our own hands”, so when we give it to Hashem, we are personally delivering it. However, for other korbanot, a person only delivers it via a messenger for we are trying to subdue Hashem’s anger after a sin has been done.

This answer is very meaningful one, for it highlights a very important aspect to giving a certain korban over another.

Nehama then continues that even within peace offering, there are subdivisions.  The two groups are the todah, the thanksgiving offering, and the neder, the vowed peace offering.

The pasuk says that for the korban todah, person eats it the night of its sacrifice, and should be finished that night according to the sages. Nehama asks what the reason for this may be.  She quotes a few people for an answer.

First was the Ralbag, who says that the reason the sages limit the eating time to strictly the night is due to the fact that the meat is at its tastiest that night, and gets worse after that.

The Rambam says that the korbanim have to be perfect. So, he figures that the reason the korban has certain time limits is due to the fact that if the eating of the korban is delayed, the korban will become imperfect both in its taste and appearance. And since the korban needs to be perfect, we must finish eating it that night.  

Another reason is that of the Sefer haHinukh, who says that we can’t keep the leftovers for past that night to show trust in Hashem, to show that we are not worried that we won’t have food to eat the next day. He feels this must be the explanation for why else would Hashem force us to destroy completely good food.

Nehama points out that she sees this idea also when we had the manna, which was a miracle deserving of a thanksgiving offering. So, similarly the manna had to be eaten the day of the receveiving to show that we have trust in Hashem that we will get food the next day.

She then quotes the Abarbenel, who analyzes this rule of the korban from a different view. Socially, this law is designed in the way that no one family can consume it all in one day, which is commanded. So, it is expected of the one who brings the sacrifice to invite friends and to spread his tale of thanks as to almost make a kidush hashem, sanctifying Hashem’s name by telling everyone about the good He has done to you.

She then quotes the Ha’amek Hadavr, who agrees with the abarbenel in the way that he believes that the main importance of the sacrifice is to indeed invite friends and family to make a kidush Hashem and share the way Hashem has saved the person from adversity. However, he adds that from the pasuk referring to this sacrifice that the leavened bread portion of this sacrifice is the essence of this sacrifice. Nehama then comments that this opinion is consistent with the fact that the verse states that bread should be added to the    peace offering. She then says that this opinion helps explain a certain Psalm.

The psalm’s main point is that sharing the meal of thanksgiving  with other people will serve as the public acknowledgment of Hashem.

So, to conclude, Nehama states that it is very appropriate that  this offering is part of the peace offering, for it is peace inducing for it forces people to share in merriment the miracles Hashem has performed.    

All in all, we believe that there is a great deal to learn from these meforshim in this dvar torah of nehama, especially the concept of trying to cause peace.  We see that it is quite important to involve your fellow in your avodah for Hashem and in your Judaism. On the other hand, we also believe that there is no real continuity in this dvar torah, for it starts with the question comparing the two types of korbanot and then ending with the importance of the peace offering, though we are sure this is our fault. 

Moshe Kollmar and Yakir Forman's Review of Rabbi Riskin on Parashat Shemini

The Message of Silence:Nadav and Avihu as Sacred Martyrs (by Rabbi Riskin, page 81)

וַתֵּצֵא אֵשׁ מִלִּפְנֵי יְהוָה, וַתֹּאכַל אוֹתָם; וַיָּמֻתוּ, לִפְנֵי יְהוָה (VaYikra 10:2)
Ironically, on the day when Aharon is appointed High Priest, progenitor of future priests, his two oldest sons are burnt alive by a heavenly fire. Rashi, commenting on “Hu Asher Diber Hashem Leimor BiKrovai Ekadeish” (VaYikra 10:3), explains that it is sometimes necessary for holy people today to bring further Kedushah. According to Rabbi Riskin, this is reminiscent of the Berit Bein haBetarim:
ז וַיֹּאמֶר, אֵלָיו:  אֲנִי יְהוָה, אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִיךָ מֵאוּר כַּשְׂדִּים--לָתֶת לְךָ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת, לְרִשְׁתָּהּ ...
יז וַיְהִי הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ בָּאָה, וַעֲלָטָה הָיָה; וְהִנֵּה תַנּוּר עָשָׁן, וְלַפִּיד אֵשׁ, אֲשֶׁר עָבַר, בֵּין הַגְּזָרִים הָאֵלֶּה
יח בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא, כָּרַת יְהוָה אֶת-אַבְרָם--בְּרִית לֵאמֹר:  לְזַרְעֲךָ, נָתַתִּי אֶת-הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת, מִנְּהַר מִצְרַיִם, עַד-הַנָּהָר הַגָּדֹל נְהַר-פְּרָת. (BeReishit Perek 15)
In the Berit Bein HaBetarim, Hashem notes that exile is a necessary prelude to redemption. Rabbi Riskin points to some relevant practices on Pesach that highlight this point: the sandwiching of Matzah (symbolizing redemption) and Maror (symbolizing exile), and the combination of wine (symbolizing redemption) and sacrifice (symbolizing exile). Rabbi Riskin notes very insightfully that this is the reason for the present-day juxtaposition of Yom HaZikaron and Yom HaAtzmaut: to remember that Israel was bought with the sacrifice of the soldiers who fought for it. Rabbi Riskin also notes that terrorism victims in Israel make a similar sacrifice, which is very useful for the families of these victims, as it gives them an appropriate way to respond: in Rabbi Riskin’s words, “a heavy, poignant and accepting silence,” just like Aharon’s (10:3).

Rabbi Riskin also gives a story to illustrate this point.  Once, he attended a Chassidic Bris Milah, where, while reciting the words ”BDamayich Chayi”, the Rabbi, a Holocaust survivor,  became all choked up in emotion.  These words have a double meaning: 1)By your blood, you shall live, which is Pshat, and 2)By your silence, you shall live. Thus, we see a connection between blood - the sacrifice that holy individuals make - and silence - the response to that sacrifice. Rabbi Riskin notes that while silence is an appropriate response for mere humans, we pray, in the words of Sefer Tehillim (83:2-3), that Hashem will eventually have some response other than silence:

אֱלֹהִים אַל-דֳּמִי-לָךְ;    אַל-תֶּחֱרַשׁ וְאַל-תִּשְׁקֹט אֵל

כִּי-הִנֵּה אוֹיְבֶיךָ, יֶהֱמָיוּן;    וּמְשַׂנְאֶיךָ, נָשְׂאוּ רֹאשׁ

This was a very nice article.  Most of Y13 would have gone crazy with the parts that were slightly Chassidic in nature, but we are some of the more open-minded seniors in the class. We though his comparisonsto the Berit Bein HaBetarim and the Pesach exmaples were clever. We especially found it poignant that Rabbi Riskin’s message was so practical in dealing with the response to tragedies that occur so often in our time (including twice in Israel in the past two weeks). His message is extraordinarily important.

Vayikra Dvar Torah by Navid Ahdoot and Yonatan Kaplan based on Nehama Leibowitz's dvar torah.

Vayikra Dvar Torah

                In parshat Vayikra, different korbanot are discussed. Such korbanot include the burnt offering, which is made from meat, and the Mincha, which is made of vegetables. Nehama notes the fact that only five types of the mincha were mentioned here, while we know of other types that are mentioned throughout the Torah. So, why are some mentioned here, while others are not?

(this first question of Nehama is a very obvious, peshat one.)

She quotes Naphtali Weisel in answering this question. He says that the ones mentioned here were only ones made with the following specifications: oil, frankincense, the handful of flour and oil and the remainder.  He says that the other mincha don’t follow these exact ingredients.

Nehama then quotes Rabbi Hoffman about the symbolism of bringing the Mincha. He compares the Mincha to the olah offering.  The olah is brought to show Hashem that a person is giving over his possessions and trying to please Hashem. However, he says that the meal offering, the cheaper offering, was usually given by the poor man, and this fact makes it even more meaningful. For the poor person, this meal offering is everything he has so it’s as if he is giving himself over to hashem, while a person bringing an Olah is only bringing possessions.

Even more so, the Chachamim even mention that since it is the poor man who typically brings the mincha, and it is that reason that Hashem believes it is particularly important.  

To prove this idea from the pasukim, Nehama quotes the Midrash haGadol. The midrash notes the fact that in the pasukim, when mention the olah, the person giving the korban is refered to as “any man” who brings that korban, for anyone can give from their possessions.  On the other hand, the poor person who gives a mincha is refered to as a “soul that will offer” for they are truly giving over their soul when they give the sacrifice.

Furthermore, we can see a huge importance in this offering from the quantity of it. A person brings the amount of flour that is equal to the amount of food the manna was, which was necessary for a person to live. So, it seems that this connotes the idea of a person giving over what is almost as if it’s God given.

The idea of the mincha was even added into the end of shmone esrei by the compilers. She quotes Rabbi Kook explains the mincha according to its context in the amida. The context is that the “mincha of Yehuda and Yerushalyim be pleasant to the Lord, as in the days of old and as in former years.” So,  he says right now  the animals have no knowledge, so it’s good that we sacrifice them, for it  gives them purpose. However, he says that this pasuk teaches us that in yemot hamashiach, they will have knowledge of God, and a purpose, so we won’t be sacrificing them. In those times, he says that the mincha will be the most important sacrifice and will always be meaningful.

We enjoyed reading about the development of the symbolism of the mincha, and it truly gave us a new light on something very important. An idea here  that seems very relevant is that of everybody can give what they can and more doesn’t necessarily mean better. In fact, if a person gives his all and sacrifices what is very important, he will get more credit than a person who can give everything but gives something relatively small. Ultimately, it teaches us that we must take what we have been given and use it to our best ability even if that gift seems insignificant. 

shmuli gold and jason klein on rabbi fran

Parsha: Tzav

Shiur Reviewed: Rabbi Fran

Reviewed by: Shmuli Gold and Jason Klein

צַו אֶת-אַהֲרֹן וְאֶת-בָּנָיו לֵאמֹר, זֹאת תּוֹרַת הָעֹלָה:  הִוא הָעֹלָה עַל מוֹקְדָה עַל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ כָּל-הַלַּיְלָה, עַד-הַבֹּקֶר, וְאֵשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, תּוּקַד בּוֹ. 

We lean from the gemara in Kidushin that the verb “Tzav”, which means to command shows that Moshe was supposed to urge the people to listen to him. The gemara goes further and says, this urging is necessary on situations that would place a burden on “Klal Yisroel” financially. Certain Korbanot are partially eating by the people bringing them and the Kohanim. But this weeks parsha begins with the idea of a “korban olah” which is a korban that is fully consumed by the fire on the misbayach, and none is eaten by any person. As we know to buy an animal was not cheap, and to see all that money “in flames” is seemingly depressing.

The question we are addressing is, why does the Torah stress the financial strain of bringing the “korban olah”, and not that of other mitzvot performed throughout the year. For example, “Lulav” and “etrog”, “tefilon”, and yeshiva tuition. We see that there is a difference between other mitzvot we spend money on and a “korban olah.” Yes! Pesach costs money but you get a satisfaction of eating the food and performing different actions. But in the case of the “Olah L’HASHEM” you are not taking an active role in doing anything, rather just spending the money. People are quicker to put their money towards something they know will last or bring them pleasure and joy. But it is much harder for someone to donate money towards something that may seem more mundane because it will not bring them physical pleasure.

Therefore, this is the reason HASHEM told Moshe to use the word “Tzav” in writing this parsha. Because had he not, the sight of the “korban olah” going up in smoke, may prevent even very righteous people from bringing future “korbanot olot.” Therefore by making it a mitzva we persuade more people to be willing to spend money on such a strictly spiritual act.

From what we heard in the dvar Torah, we realize how fortunate we are to be Jewish and although it is expensive, we appreciate the ability to do these kinds of mitzvot. We felt a stronger appreciation and connection towards expensive mitzvot like etrog and pesach, and now better understand why they are expensive to begin with. It also points out the important role that even the most expensive mitvot play in our life today. We would tell others to give over this dvar torah and we would too because it is very important in explaining monetary costs for mitzvot today.

Parashat VaYikra - Eli Lehman

Parashat VaYikra

Rabbi Shlomo Riskin

 

Eli Lehman

 

            While Bnei Yisrael was in the Midbar, Hashem told Moshe to tell Bnei Yisrael that they could do Teshuva for committing a sin. The Rambam says the most important part of Teshuva is acknowledging the act that you did wrong. It is because it is so difficult to do that makes it basically the definition of Teshuva. The Torah mentions that the first person who will sin is the Kohen Gadol, and then the Sanhedrin, and then the Nasi will sin. Rabbi Riskin asks, why is it that the most important person and highest of power will sin first?

            This is a very good and interesting question because one might think that the highest would be the least to sin since he is on a higher level and is more responsible than everyone else.

            Rabbi Riskin answers by saying that the reason he will sin first is because he has to rely on others and he might fall into what the people want (not what they need) so he can keep their support. The Torah even says he is the most vulnerable. So the main part of Teshuva, the hardest and most difficult one, is being able to sacrifice your ego which, for a lot of people, is very difficult to do.

            This Divar Torah by Rabbi Riskin gives us a big message. He is telling us how the danger of sinning rises by how important and how powerful you are. And we need to be careful not to just do things based on what others want and need to make sure it’s what supposed to be done. And if we do sin, we have to be willing to sacrifice our self-image to do Teshuva which is extremely difficult, but something that must be done.

            This was a very good shiur because Rabbi Riskin gave us a very interesting question that made us want to read further and then he gave us a very interesting message that can relate to everyone.

Untitled

parsha class.docx Download this file

Parshat Vayikra

OU Torah

Parshat Vayikra: The Taryag Mitzvot

Rabbi Bernie Fox

 

The torah contains 613 commandments. The torah does not actually contain all the mitzvoth, rather it contains the categories that these mitzvoth can be placed under. Rambam wrote a book dedicated to this issue, Sefer Mitzvoth. In this book, Rambam presents his list of the mitzvoth with a short explanation for each one. Rambam also gives a comprehensive explanation for how he came to the list. Probably more popular than Rambam’s work is the work of the man who identifies himself only as Aharon Haleyve of Barcelona. Other than this name, he provides no information about himself. His work is called the Sefer Hachinuch, which lists the mitzvoth just like Rambam, only providing a different opinion in a few cases. The Sefer Hachinuch’s explanation of each mitzvah consists of four parts:

1)      A brief discussion of the basic laws of the commandment

2)      A reason for the commandment

3)      Areas of discussion related to the mitzvah and the places in the gemara where these discussions take place.

4)      To whom the mitzvah applies, when it applies, and the consequences for violating it.

There are two questions raised here: why does the author include a reason for each mitzvah, and why does he make up reasons when there is no clear reason in the torah?

We must take into account the target audience of the Sefer Hachinuch. In the introduction to the book, the author details that one of his objectives in writing this book is to teach the youth. He hopes that young students will read the book and learn the miztvot and basic laws of each commandment. Why is it necessary for a budding young Talmud chacham to have a reason for the commandments? Because, as the Sefer HaChinuch writes, not providing a reason could be potentially harmful to the young man’s development. It could drive him off the derech if he is commanded with no reason. Modern day Rabbis disagree with the Sefer Hachinuch’s position of always providing a reason. They claim that that providing young people with a reason for everything takes away from the experience of just obeying the torah because that is what Hashem said, and for no other reason.

I feel, as a young budding torah scholar, that the Sefer Hachinuch has the right idea. I feel that having a reason for everything may in fact detract a little from the pure obedience factor, but if I didn’t have reasons, the chances for not obeying at all would be somewhat higher.

 Yaakov Linder

Elliot Eisenberg

 

Terumah

Elliot Eisenberg and Yaakov Linder                                                               Parsha Trumah

Did the Chet Ha’Egel happen before the mishkan was built, or after? There are four sections in this part of the torah: 1) ma’amad har Sinai 2) G-ds commandment to build the mishkan 3) Chet Ha’Egel 4) the wrap up. Rashi’s position is clear. He says that the third section happened before the second. This means that the chet ha’egel happened before the mishkan. Ramban says that the torah recorded it accurately. The order should be the way that it is right now.

Now we need to understand Ramban’s position in order to fully appreciate Rashi’s. We can ask: what was the purpose of the first forty days? We know that the reason was to get the luchot torah, and the mitzvoth. According to Ramban this makes sense. We have the luchot at ma’amad har Sinai, and then the very next section is for the mitzvoth and the torah. These mitzvoth must be referring to the mishkan.

While this approach is sound, notice how none of the commentators say it. This is because it would not take forty days to give Moshe the laws of the mishkan, and many commentators imply that there were other mitzvoth given on har Sinai, other than the laws concerning the mishkan.

Rashi says that the mitzvoth to build the mishkan were given  after the chet ha’egel. In fact, he says that the reason that we got those laws were because of the chet ha’egel. He also says that moshe got all of the mitzvoth on har Sinai, and then he got the mitzvoth of the mishkan afterwards.

Rashi follows the approach of “ein mukdam umeuchar batorah. He usually follows this principle. He believes that the torah is based on conception of the stories and not on the chronological order of them.

Rashi believes that the reason that we got the mishkan mitzvoth because of the fact that we did the chet haegel. This was our atonement for the sin.

Now that we know the approaches of both rashi and ramban, we can ask whether it would have been preferred for bnei yisrael to have the mikdash even if the chet haegel had never occurred. Obviously, according to his logic before, ramban says that it would have been imperative for bnei yisrael anyways. Surprisingly, rashi concurs with ramban and says that a mikdash was always going to be built, even if the chet haegel had not occurred.

In order to explain rashi, we have to examine the terminology of the torah. There are two separate words: mishkan and mikdash. The mikdash was to be permanent, while the mishkan was to be temporary. Due to all of the references in the torah, rashi must agree that a mikdash had already been decided on. Rashi does say, however, that the jews would not have needed a mishkan had they not sinned. His reasoning is that they were originally going to conquer the land supernaturally and swiftly. If that would have happened, there would have been no reason for a temporary mishkan. Since bnei yisrael blundered and they sinned, there became a need for a mishkan.

Rashi seems to make a ton of sense. Now we ask why, if this is the case, then why doesn’t ramban agree with him??!?!? Ramban doesn’t agree because he doesn’t feel that the similarities between the egel and the mishkan warrant a change in the chronological order of the torah.

In conclusion, they both agree that there would have needed to be a mikdash. The only thing they disagree on is whether there would have been a need for the MISHKAN.

Elliot and Yaakov

1: We believe that this is a very strong question. This is important because it shows us how much of a difference chet haegel actually had. This is interesting because we see from here how much of a consequence our actions have. But it also shows us something else. It shows us that even when we sin, G-d gives us a second opportunity to do the mitzvoth. At least according to rashi, we received an extra mitzvah because we sinned. Although it would have been better had we not sinned, it shows G-ds mercy.

2: There are good arguments for both sides. Both rashi and ramban bring valids points. The evidence that was brought to the table was solid all-around as well. They do answer the question based on the evidence. There is no evidence we would bring to the table, but there is one thing we would say to rashi. if Moshe had received all the mitzvoth on har Sinai, it would be safe to assume that G-d told him how many mitzvoth he would receive in total. According to that logic, G-d would not add a mitzvah to negate the sin.

3: The shiur doesn’t really bring any messages to our lives. It was based entirely around the torah itself. They weren’t using the way that the torah was written to tell us anything.

4: We would say that this was a very good shiur. At first it was difficult to understand, but once we got started with it, we figured it out pretty quickly. It was quite interesting to see the reasons that ramban and rashi had for their approaches. Elliot would not share this at his Shabbos table because this involved a person to have a visual with them. Yaakov says that he would give this as a shiur because he feels that he would be able to convey the entire dvar torah without the visual aid.

 

Navid Ahdoot and Yonatan kaplan's discussion based on the Shem Mishmuel

The Shem Mishmuel is a very interesting writer and speaks about many different ideas throughout his divrei Torah. However, there seems to be one recurring attribute to all of his analyses, and that is of his attention to detail. But not only his attention to detail, but also his ability to form a whole concept based a simple wording of the text, which we know is very important when analyzing Torah. This ability shows readers of his works how out of the box the Shem Mishmuel thinks when it comes to Torah, and in turn teaches the readers to do the same. 

Yonatan Kaplan and NAvid Ahdoot Parhat Pekudei

Yonatan Kaplan and Navid Ahdoot

Parshah Pekudei

            In this week’s Parshah, Nehama Leibowitz speaks about the mediums of the different items used in the Mishkan, including gold, silver, and bronze. She specifically speaks of the items being made from bronze, quoting a pasuk that says “And with it he made… the bronze altar, and its bronze grating.” Yet we learn in a Pasuk afterwards “the bronze altar and its grating of bronze…the basin and the stand.” She quotes the Abravanel who asks the question of why we do not include the basin and its stand, which we know are also made out of bronze, in the original listing of all the things made from bronze.

            We believe that the Abravanel has a very keen look on the Torah for asking a question on something that is very easily overlooked.

              He answers his question by saying that the original pasuk only refers to the bronze materials that were donated by Bnei Yisrael, while the basin and its stand were not donated in that same way and were not even made of the same materials. He says that it was made of mirrors that were donated by the women. 

            We are having a hard time understanding exactly what this answer is saying; though we are sure it’s our fault, not the Abravanel’s.

Now, she continues to talk about these mirrors that we spoke about in terms of the basin and its stand. The Ramban takes a peshat view on the pasuk of “And he made the basin of bronze…the women who crowded at the door of the tent of meeting” and says that there were women who gathered outside of the Tent of Meeting  and gave bronze mirrors as a gift to the mishkan, which eventually became part of the basin.

Nehama then asks another question on the text; she asks why Moshe used the mirrors of the women for the basin that will eventually be the thing that sanctifies the Kohanim, letting them “sanctify their deeds?”

She quotes Hirsch first in answering this. Hirsch answers this by saying that it is very appropriate that we use mirrors to sanctify humans body parts, for mirrors make human very aware of their bodies.

She then quotes the Ibn Ezra, who says that these mirrors were from women who were so holy that they didn’t even need their mirrors anymore, for they are not superficial and don’t need to make themselves beautiful, like every other woman does. This dedication of the mirrors showed the women’s devotion to the mishkan for they gave up their desire of their mirrors. So, it makes sense that they would use these mirrors as mediums to sanctify the kohanim for that is purely spiritual.

Nehama then asks another question on the text; she asks why Moshe used the mirrors of the women for the basin that will eventually be the thing that sanctifies the Kohanim, letting them “sanctify their deeds?"

She quotes Hirsch first in answering this. Hirsch answers this by saying that it is very appropriate that we use mirrors to sanctify humans body parts, for mirrors make human very aware of their bodies.

She then quotes the Ibn Ezra, who says that these mirrors were from women who were so holy that they didn’t even need their mirrors anymore, for they are not superficial and don’t need to make themselves beautiful, like every other woman does. This dedication of the mirrors showed the women’s devotion to the mishkan for they gave up their desire of their mirrors. So, it makes sense that they would use these mirrors as mediums to sanctify the kohanim for that is purely spiritual.

  Rashi teaches us that these mirrors were used for the husbands during their times of hard labor in Egypt. The wives would take the mirrors to them while they were working, and say “I am more comely than you” whereas the husband would repeat the same thing, leading to them having relations. Because of this, they were able to bring up a huge generation of people in Egypt, and so Hashem says that these mirrors are worthy of being used in the mishkan. 

This Rashi is similar to a midrash, which explains that the mirrors were representative of something superficial and seemingly bad. So, originally we may think that they shouldn’t be used for a holy purpose, but that is exactly the point. Mirrors were used for bad, but in Egypt women used them to save the nation and to enable the nation to reproduce. So these items should be used in the mishkan for they are even better since they could have been used for bad, but were used for good.

We believe that this is a very moving idea, which can be applied to everyone. The idea that everything can be used for good, it just depends on how we perceive that thing and how we take it. And it teaches us that even if we may have some bad aspects, if we use them for good then we can become even greater than before.

leigtag vayikra korbanot

Parshat Vayikra
Rav Leibtag Tanach study center “Parshat Vayikra”
Jonathan Karp

    Rav Leibtag asks whether Hashem needs our korbanot or that we need to bring them, but Hashem doesn’t need them. He answers this question by looking at the specific description and organization of korbanot in the parsha.
    He first notes that the parsha discusses two groups of korbanot- “korbanot nedava” and “korbanot chova.” A nedava is a korban brought by someone voluntarily. The one who brings the korban chooses either an ola, minchah, or shlamim, and chooses what type of animal to use or how it is prepared. A korban chova, on the other hand, is a mandatory offering, and it is either a chatat or an asham. The type of korban is based on what sin he commits and the animal used is based on his economic status. the section of nedava is arranged by animal and the section on chatat is arranged based on what sin the person committed.
    Rav Leintag asks why the laws for the korban nedava precede the laws for the korban chova. One would think that the mandatory korban would precede the optional korban. He explains that the two korbanot can be connected to the two reasons for building the mishkan, to continue the experience of Har Sinai and to atone for the cheit haegel.
    At Har Sinai, Bnei Yisrael brought both olot and shlamim. This is the first mention of a korban shlamim in the Torah. This shlamim can be connected with the shlamim brought as a korban nedava. the Ola is also connected to har Sinai, as when the Torah describes the Olat Tamid in Bamidbar, it says “Olat tamid ha'asu'ya b'Har Sinai, l'ray'ach ni'choach ishe l'Hashem.” The connection between the nedava and Har Sinai explains why teh nedava is mentioned first. After Bnei Yuisrael built the mishkan and atoned for the Cheit HaEgel, Hashem’s first message in VaYikra is that Bnei Yisrael can still bring olot and shlamim like they did at Har Sinai.
    The korban chova can be connected to the Cheit HaEgel. Even though Aharon had good intentions in building the calf, he still sinned. Moshe uses the language “Atem chatatem chata'ah g'dolah... u'lai achaprah b'ad chatatchem”, which paralles the language of the korban “chatat.” Additionally, teh person who brings the chatat sinned b’shogeg, which paralles Aharon’s actions. Thus, we see that the korban chova underlines the mishkan’s role to atone for the Cheit HaEgel.
    Rav Leibtag, from all of this evidence, answers the original question that korbanot are really for us and not for Hashem. The nedava, like Har Sinai, is supposed to improve the person who brings the korban’s relationship with Hashem. The chova, on the other hand, is supposed to repair that person’s relationship with Hashem, like after the Cheit HaEgel.
    Rav Leigtag concludes by saying that although this shiur discusses korbanot, it applies to us. Davening, as a substitute for korbanot, also can either improve one’s relationship with Hashem, or amend one’s tainted relationship with Hashem.  
    Rav Leibtag certainly brings conclusive evidence for his point, drawing on both thematic and linguistic parallels between Shemot and VaYikra. this is a good Shiur because it shows us the imprtance of learning sefer Vayikra. It shows that VaYikra is not just a boring sefer about outdated mitzvot. We can easily apply all the lessons about korbanot to the tefilah that we do today.

Moshe Kollmar and Yakir Forman's Review of Chizkuni's Comments on Parashat VaYikra

ויקרא פרק ה

כ וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר.  כא נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא, וּמָעֲלָה מַעַל בַּיהוָה; וְכִחֵשׁ בַּעֲמִיתוֹ בְּפִקָּדוֹן, אוֹ-בִתְשׂוּמֶת יָד אוֹ

בְגָזֵל, אוֹ, עָשַׁק אֶת-עֲמִיתוֹ.  כב אוֹ-מָצָא אֲבֵדָה וְכִחֶשׁ בָּהּ, וְנִשְׁבַּע עַל-שָׁקֶר; עַל-אַחַת, מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר-יַעֲשֶׂה הָאָדָם--לַחֲטֹא בָהֵנָּה.  כג וְהָיָה, כִּי-יֶחֱטָא וְאָשֵׁם--וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת-הַגְּזֵלָה אֲשֶׁר גָּזָל אוֹ אֶת-הָעֹשֶׁק אֲשֶׁר עָשָׁק, אוֹ אֶת-הַפִּקָּדוֹן אֲשֶׁר הָפְקַד אִתּוֹ; אוֹ אֶת-הָאֲבֵדָה, אֲשֶׁר מָצָא.  כד אוֹ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר-יִשָּׁבַע עָלָיו, לַשֶּׁקֶר--וְשִׁלַּם אֹתוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ, וַחֲמִשִׁתָיו יֹסֵף עָלָיו: לַאֲשֶׁר הוּא לוֹ יִתְּנֶנּוּ, בְּיוֹם אַשְׁמָתוֹ.  כה וְאֶת-אֲשָׁמוֹ יָבִיא, לַיהוָה, אַיִל תָּמִים מִן-הַצֹּאן בְּעֶרְכְּךָ לְאָשָׁם, אֶל-הַכֹּהֵן.  כו וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן לִפְנֵי יְהוָה, וְנִסְלַח לוֹ, עַל-אַחַת מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר-יַעֲשֶׂה, לְאַשְׁמָה בָהּ

    Chizkuni begins his comments to this section by noting that Korbanot and fines serve as punishment for swearing falsely, but no Azharah appears in this section.  He answers that the Azharah appears in the Pasuk, “Lo Teshakeru” in Parashat Kedoshim.  This seems like a very reasonable assumption.
    Chizkuni interprets the phrase, “VeShilam Oto BeRosho” (v. 24) to exclude payment of additional fines such as Tashlumei Cheifel and Tashlumei Arbaah VaChamishah.  He also interpets the plural “Chamishitav” to refer to paying multiple Chomeshim: one Chomesh and then one Chomesh of the Chomesh if he swears falsely about the Chomesh, etc.  He says that this applies if he is discovered to have lied Al Pi Eidim.  If he admits himself that he lied, then he pays only one Chomesh.  This appears to be a novel assumption with little root in the Pesukim, and in fact, the footnote in the Torat Chayim notes that it contradicts the Gemara (Bava Kama 108b).  We’re not sure if one use of a plural word warrants contradicting the Gemara (after all, it could just refer to multiple cases of Chomesh).
    Chizkuni then explains the use of the word “BeYom” in the phrase “BeYom Ashmato.” He says that one should pay the money back on the very day he will bring his Asham because it will aid his Korban in its acceptance process.  We are not sure whether this means that it is preferable to pay back on that specific day or by the day he brings his Korban.  Either way, this idea very nicely notes the link between Teshuvah Bein Adam LaChaveiro (repaying) and Teshuvah Bein Adam LaMakom (bringing a Korban) that the Pesukim express in this section.
    Chizkuni then spends some time discussing why specific Aveirot require specific Korbanot.  He notes that Aveirot that give no benefit (such as entering the Mikdash while Tamei, eating Korbanot BeTumah, or breaking a Shevuah) require a relatively easy Korban to bring, the Korban Oleh VeYoreid, since Hashem has mercy due to the lack of benefit received from the Aveirah. (We aren’t sure why eating Korbanot BeTumah is counted as having no Hanaah.)

On the other hand, Aveirot with Hanaah (such as eating Cheilev, drinking Dam, eating on Yom HaKippurim, or doing Melachah on Shabbat) require a Chatat, a more severe Korban because of its fixed value. Avodah Zarah, even though it gives no benefit, is inherently a severe sin because it involves rebellion against Hashem, so it too requires a Chatat.

Me’ilah has two strikes against it - it is a rebellion against Hashem and also gives Hanaah - so it requires an Asham, which is even stricter than a Chatat. Denying that you were given a Pikadon to watch also has two strikes against it - swearing falsely and giving Hanaah - so it requires an Asham. Finally, the Torah requires an Asham in a case in which it is a Safeik whether Cheit was committed or not, even though this Asham is stricter than the Chatat that would be required if it were known that the Cheit was committed, because it will teach people to stop being so careless that they get themselves into a situation of Safeik.

In this section, Chizkuni notes Pshat ideas (one of which is reasonable, and the other is very novel) as well as thematic concepts that greatly enhanced our understanding of the laws of Korbanot. Although we didn’t understand where Chizkuni was coming from a few times in this section, we enjoyed his analysis and thought his comments made sense overall.

Vaykira Dvar Torah Week 2 by R Sabato - Chaim and Gavi Dov,

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vayikra, Take Deux! - 

Rav Mordechai Sabato, http://www.vbm-torah.org/parsha.59/24vayikr.htm

The Parasha lists three types of voluntary Korbanot that can be offered to H-shem - the Ola, the Mincha and the Shelamim. While the Sefer does give specific instructions as to how to give each Korban, it doesn’t detail the cirumstances that a person would want to give one over the other. Therefore, R’ Sabato’s question is to determine the purposes and underlying reasons for giving each Korban. 

He points out that there is a textual difference between the presentation of the two animal offerings and the mincha, the meal offering. The two animal offerings are presented in an “V’Im....Korbano” fashion, whilst the Mincha is “V’Nefesh Ki Takriv”. Fruthermore, the meal offering in not included in the general introduction of the Sefer, where the animal sacrifices are. 

R’ Sabato’s next question is to distinguish betwixt these two catagories.

Regarding the two animal sacrifices, R’ Sabato comments that this represents H-shem’s power over all living creatures, whereas the Mincha meal offering is H-shem’s power over food and the ground, and the harvest. 

He then points out that the unique use of Nefesh by the Mincha, since Nefesh refers to the desires of man, which usually involves food. Therefore, he notes it appropriate that the offering showing H-shem’s control over food is presented with the word Nefesh. Another parallel is to the m’an in that the amount, of a 1/10 of an Eipah is used for btoh, in recognition to the fact that like the m’an, a daily form of sustenance, so too we rely on H-shem on a daily basis. 

Moving on to the animal sacrifices. Before we can understand why the Mincha is seemingly oddly placed between these two Korbnaot, we need to understand the differences between them. Looking at the words of each offering, they already begin to relay some meaning as to their intent. The ola, from the Hebrew root “to ascend” implies the Ola’s nature of being totally sent to H-shem through burning. The Zevach Shelamim, by the word Zevach, implies throughout Tanach a sacred feast of sorts (an example that we noted is the expression “Zevach Pesach”).

Furthermore, the Zevach Shelamim has a personal aspect - a person must be Zovieach it - it’s name has a verb in it to do. The Ola is more passive, with the individual having less of a role in it, but the Zevach Shemamim by it’s name implies that the “feast” of Zoveiach must take place. 

Also, he cites the expression used by Ola, but not by the Shelamim, of the Ola being capable of Kaparah for a person, “V’Nirtza Lo L’Chapeir Alav”. The Ola represents a person’s relationship of fear and awe with H-shem - one of respect, but also one more distant. The Shelamim is usually associated with joy and Simcha, as seen in Deverim where mention of rejoicing and eating the Shelamim is used. The Ola represents fear of H-shem, and Shelamim love of H-shem. 

These two ideas, of Ahava and Ira’ah are the two essential aspects of Yahdut. Both are needed. He notes that it is fitting that the Olah comes first, as one must be able to fear H-shem with a more distant relationship, before one reaches the closer level of Ahavat H-shem. 

Why insert the Mincha in between? The Micha, as a show of gratitude for the Brachot of H-shem and a acknoledgement of the power of H-shem over the entire world, is also associated with fear of H-shem, hence the inclusion before the Shelamim. Similar to the Ola, which is “consumed” totally by H-shem, the Mincha is partially burned and the remanider eaten by H-shem’s representative’s, the kohanim. 

Finally, he asks why we would involved the Kohanim in this process. He answers that there is a distinction between recognizing H-shem as the creator of life, and the sustainer of life. The idea of creation is a supreme power limited to H-shem alone. However, for sustaining His people, H-shem allows the Kohamin to be involved, seen in blessing Am yisrael and serving as a spirtual link between them and H-shem. The Mincha, is recognizing H-shem’s support for us on a daily basis through food that He provides is the perfect means of acknowledging this. 

Therefore, teh Ola comes first, a total testament to our fear of G-d, then the Mincha, while also an awe/fear catagory, but one that involves man as well, and then finally the Shelamim, which is the idea of Ahavat H-shem. 

Obviously, these essentially messages of Ahavat and Yiryat H-shem as still as relevant if not more relevant today, despite (or perhaps, because of) our lack of Korbanot. One as a Jew today must still learn to balence these two means of standing before H-shem - both the idea of Simcha, as we see in Yom Tov and Shabbos, as well as the idea of Yira’a - of still serving H-shem, following his Mitzvoat and refraining from transgression, seen more in the ideals of Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashana. (The holiday references due to the idea that Tefilah is our own substitute for Korbanot). One can in particular find meaning in R’ Sabato’s words of balancing Yirah and Ahava/Simcha in the month of Adar, where we tend to overly focus on Simcha. We perhaps can take his message to heart and consider that we must always balence our Ahavat H-shem with Yira’ah, acting as Bnei Torah even in the revelery of Adar. 

R’ Sabato does an excellent job, particular with textual proofs, to support his ideas throughout the Dvar Torah. However, much like R’ Grossman’s shiur, the length and complexity of his arguments make it somewhat unfriendly towards a Shabbos table presentation, as well as the more esoteric topic of the Korbanot, which do not totally apply in an immediete way towards our own lives. However, one can take away, as seen above, a final point from the shiur, which in a more watered down form would probably work nicely as a Shabbos meal Dvar Torah.