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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment