---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment