[Par-reg] Parshat Vayikra - shiur
par-reg at www.atlchai.org
par-reg at www.atlchai.org
Thu Mar 17 12:09:55 EST 2005
*************************************************************
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************
PARSHAT VAYIKRA
Does God need our "korbanot"?
Or, would it be more correct to say that we 'need' to bring
them, even though He doesn't need them?
In an attempt to answer this 'philosophical' question,
this week's shiur undertakes an analysis of Parshat Vayikra to
show how its specific topic of "korbanot" [sacrificial
offerings] relates to one of the primary themes of the Bible.
INTRODUCTION
The Mishkan certainly emerges as a primary topic in both
the books of Shmot and Vayikra, and hence, it would only be
logical to assume that its underlying purpose must be
thematically important. To appreciate that purpose, we must
first note a very simple distinction that explains which
details are found in each book.
In Sefer Shmot, the Torah explains how to build the mishkan,
and hence Shmot concludes (in Parshat Pekudei) with the story
of its assembly. In contrast, Sefer Vayikra explains how to
use the mishkan, and hence Parshat Vayikra begins with the
laws of the korbanot - i.e. instructions regarding the
sacrifices that will be offered there.
Even though this distinction explains why Sefer Vayikra
discusses korbanot in general, it does not explain why the
Sefer begins specifically with the laws of korban ola [the
burnt offering]; nor does it explain the logic of the
progression from one type of korban to the next. In our
shiur, we begin with a technical analysis of its internal
progression - but those conclusions will help us arrive at a
deeper understanding of the purpose of korbanot in general.
AN OUTLINE for PARSHAT VAYIKRA
In our study questions, we suggested that you prepare an
outline of chapters one thru five, by identifying the primary
topic of each individual 'parshia'. The following table
summarizes our conclusions. Before you continue, study it
carefully (with a Chumash at hand), noting how the section
titles provide an explanation of the progression of its
topics.
[Note how each 'parshia' corresponds to one line in our
chart. Note also that each asterisk ('*') in the outline
marks the beginning of a new 'dibra', i.e. a short
introduction for a new instruction from God to Moshe [e.g.
"va-yedaber Hashem el Moshe..."]. Note as well how the
outline suggests a short one-line summary for each parshia,
as well as a title for each section. See if you agree with
those titles.]
PARSHAT VAYIKRA - THE KORBAN YACHID
===================================
I. KORBAN NEDAVA - Voluntary offerings (chaps. 1-3)
A. Ola (the entire korban is burnt on the mizbeiach)
1. 'bakar' - from cattle
2. 'tzon' - from sheep
3. 'of' - from fowl
B. Mincha (a flour offering)
1. 'solet' - plain flour mixed with oil and 'levona'
2. 'ma'afeh tanur' - baked in the oven
3. 'al machvat' - on a griddle
4. 'marcheshet' - on a pan (+ misc. general laws)
5. 'bikkurim' - from wheat of the early harvest
C. Shlamim (a peace offering, part is eaten by the owners)
1. bakar - from cattle
2. tzon - from sheep
3. 'ez' - from goats
[Note the key phrase repeated many times in this unit:
"isheh reiach nichoach l-Hashem."]
II. KORBAN CHOVA - MANDATORY OFFERINGS
A. * CHATAT (4:1-5:13)
1. for a general transgression
[laws organized according to violator]
a. 'par kohen mashiach' (High Priest) - a bull
b. 'par he'elem davar' (bet din) - a bull
c. 'se'ir nassi' (a king) - a male goat
d. 'nefesh' (layman) a female goat or female lamb
2. for specific transgressions ('oleh ve-yored')
a. a rich person - a female goat or lamb
b. a poor person - two birds
c. a very poor person - a plain flour offering
B. * ASHAM (5:14-5:26) - animal is always an 'ayil' (ram)
1. 'asham me'ilot' - taking from Temple property
2. 'asham talui' - unsure if he sinned
[Note the new dibbur at this point /see Further iyun.]
3. * 'asham gezeilot' - stealing from another
[Note the key phrase repeated numerous times in this unit:
"ve-chiper alav... ve-nislach lo."]
========================
Let's explain why we have chosen these titles.
TWO GROUPS: NEDAVA & CHOVA
First and foremost, note how our outline divides Parshat
Vayikra into two distinct sections: 'korbanot nedava' =
voluntary offerings and 'korbanot chova' - mandatory
offerings.
The first section is titled "nedava", for if an
individual wishes to voluntarily offer a korban to God, he has
three categories to choose from:
1) An OLA - a burnt offering [chapter one];
2) A MINCHA - a flour offering [chapter two]; or
3) A SHLAMIM - a peace offering [chapter three]
Note how these three groups are all included in the first
"dibbur" - and comprise the "nedava" [voluntary] section.
In contrast, there are instances when a person may
transgress, thus obligating him to offer a sin offering - be
it a "chatat" or an "asham" (depending upon what he did
wrong).
The two categories (chapters 4 and 5) comprise the second
section, which we titled "chova" [obligatory].
The Chumash itself stresses a distinction between these
two sections not only the start of a new dibbur in 4:1, but
also the repetition of two key phrases that appear in just
about every closing verse in the parshiot of both sections,
stressing the primary purpose of each respective section:
In the nedava section: "isheh reiach nichoach l-Hashem"
["an offering of fire, a pleasing odor to the Lord"
See 1:9,13,17; 2:2; 3:5,11,16];
In the chova section: "ve-chiper a'lav ha-kohen... "
[the kohen shall make expiation on his behalf..." -
See 4:26,31,35; 5:6,10,13,16,19,26]
With this background in mind, we will now discuss the
logic behind the internal structure of each section, to show
how (and why) the nedava section is arranged by category of
offering and the type of animal, while the chova section is
arranged by type of transgression committed, and who
transgressed.
NEDAVA - take your pick
If an individual wishes to offer a korban nedava, he must
first choose the category that reflects his personal
preference. First of all, should he prefer to offer the
entire animal to God, he can choose the ola category; but
should he prefer (for either financial or ideological reasons)
to offer flour instead, then he can choose the mincha
category. Finally, should he prefer not only the animal
option, but would also like to later partake in eating from
this korban - then he can choose the shlamim category.
Once the individual has made this general choice of
either an ola, mincha, or shlamim - next, he can pick the sub-
category of his choice.
For example, should one choose to offer an ola - which is
totally consumed on the mizbeiach - then he must choose
between cattle, sheep, or fowl.
The Torah explains these three options (in the first three
parshiot of chapter 1), including precise instructions
concerning how to offer each of these animals.
Should the individual choose a mincha - a flour offering
- instead, then he must select from one of the five different
options for how to bake the flour, corresponding to the five
short parshiot in chapter two. In other words, he can present
his offering as either flour (mixed with oil), or baked in an
oven ("ma'afe tanur), or fried on a skillet ("al machvat"), or
deep fried ("marcheshet"). Should the flour offering be from
the wheat of the early harvest ("minchat bikkurim"), it must
first be roasted and ground in a special manner (see Ibn Ezra
2:14).
Finally, should he choose the shlamim option- a peace
offering - then he must select between: cattle ("bakar");
sheep ("kvasim"); or goats ("izim") - corresponding to the
three individual parshiot in chapter three.
It should be noted as well that the laws included in this
korban nedava section also discuss certain procedural
instructions. For example, before offering an ola or shlamim,
the owner must perform the act of 'smicha' (see 1:4,
3:2,8,13). By doing "smicha" - i.e. resting all his weight on
the animal - the owner symbolically transfers his identity to
the animal. That is to say, he offers the animal instead of
himself (see Ramban).
One could suggest that the act of smicha reflects an
understanding that the korban serves as a 'replacement' for
the owner. This idea may be reflective of the korban ola that
Avraham Avinu offered at the akeida - when he offered a ram in
place of his son - "ola tachat bno" (see Breishit 22:13).
CHOVA - if you've done something wrong
As we explained earlier, the second category of Parshat
Vayikra discusses the "korban chova" (chapters 4 & 5) - an
obligatory offering that must be brought by a person should he
transgress against one of God's laws. Therefore, this section
is organized by event, for the type of sin committed will
determine which offering is required.
The first 'event' is an unintentional transgression of
'any of God's mitzvot' (see 4:2 and the header of each
consecutive parshia in chapter 4). Chazal explain that this
refers to the unintentional violation ('shogeg') of any
prohibition of the Torah - that had the person transgressed
intentionally ("meizid"), his punishment would have been
'karet' (cut off from the Jewish nation).
[This offering is usually referred to as a 'chatat kavu'a'
(the fixed chatat).]
Should this transgression occur ("b'shogeg"), then the
actual animal that must be brought depends upon who the sinner
is. If the kohen gadol (high priest) sins, he must brings a
bull ("par"). If it is the political leader ("nasi"), he must
bring a male goat ("se'ir"). If it was simply a commoner, he
must bring either a she-goat or lamb ("se'ira" or "kisba").
[There is also a special case of a mistaken halachic ruling
by the 'elders' [i.e. the 'sanhedrin' - the supreme halachic
court], which results in the entire nation inadvertently
sinning. In this case, the members of the sanhedrin must
bring a special chatat offering - known as the "par he'elem
davar shel tzibur". See 4:13-21.]
In chapter five we find several instances of specific
transgressions that require either a "chatat" or an "asham".
The first category begins with a list of three specific
types of transgressions, including - the case when a person
refuses to provide witness (see 5:1), or should one
accidentally enter the Temple (or Mishkan) while spiritually
unclean ('tamei' / see 5:2), or should one not keep a promise
(to do/ or not to do something) made with an oath ('shvu'at
bitui' / see 5:4).
Should one transgress in regard to any one of these three
cases (detailed in 5:1-4), the specific offering that he must
bring depends on his income. If he is:
a) rich - he brings a female lamb or she-goat;
b) 'middle class' - he can bring two birds instead;
c) poor - he can bring a simple flour offering.
Interestingly, this korban is categorized as a "chatat" (see
5:6,10,13), even though the Torah uses the word "asham"
[guilt] in reference to these acts (see 5:5). It makes sense
to consider it a "chatat", because in the standard case (i.e.
if the transgressor be rich) - the offering is exactly the
same animal as the regular chatat - i.e. a female goat or
sheep.
Furthermore, note that these psukim (i.e. 5:1-13) are
included in the same "dibbur" that began in 4:1 that discussed
the classic korban "chatat", while the new "dibbur" that
discusses the korban "asham" only begins in 5:14!
The rabbis refer to this korban as an "oleh ve-yored"
[lit. up and down] as this name relates to its graduated scale
- which depends entirely upon the individual's financial
status.
One could suggest that the Torah offers this graduated
scale because these specific transgressions are very common,
and hence it would become rather costly for the average person
to offer an animal for each such transgression.
The final cases (from 5:14 till the end of the chapter)
include several other categories of transgressions - that
require what the Torah refers to as a korban asham - a guilt
offering. In each of these cases, the transgressor must offer
an ayil [a ram], including:
. when one takes something belonging to hekdesh ('asham
me'ilot'/ 5:14-16)
. when one is unsure if he must bring a chatat ('asham
talui'), i.e. he is not sure if he sinned.
. when one falsely denies having illegally held possession
of someone else's property ('asham gezeilot' / 5:20-26), like
not returning a 'lost item' to its owner.
THE GENERAL TITLE - KORBAN YACHID
We titled the entire outline as korban yachid - the
offering of an individual - for this entire unit details the
various types of korbanot that an individual (='yachid') can
(or must) bring. Our choice of this title reflects the
opening sentence of the Parsha: "adam ki yakriv..".- any
person should he bring an offering to God..." (see 1:2).
The korban yachid stands in contrast to the korbanot
tzibbur - the public offerings - which are offered by the
entire congregation of Israel (purchased with the funds
collected from the machatzit ha-shekel). The laws relating to
korbanot tzibbur we first found in Parshat Tezaveh in regard
to the daily "olat tamid" offering. They continue with the
special offering that the nation brings (collectively) on the
holidays, as detailed primarily in Parshiot Emor (Vayikra
chapter 23) and in Parshat Pinchas (Bamidbar chapters 28-29).
WHICH SHOULD COME FIRST?
Now that we have explained the logic of the internal
order of each section, we must explain why the laws of korban
nedava precede those of korban chova. Intuitively, one would
have perhaps introduced the compulsory korban before the
optional one.
One could suggest that Parshat Vayikra begins
specifically with the korban nedava since these korbanot in
particular reflect the individual's aspiration to improve his
relationship with God. Only afterward does the Torah detail
the korban chova, which amends that relationship (when tainted
by sin). Additionally, perhaps, the korban nedava reflects a
more ideal situation, while the obligatory sin-offering seeks
to rectify a problematic situation.
We may, however, suggest an even more fundamental reason
based on the 'double theme' which we discussed in our study of
the second half of Sefer Shmot.
Recall from our previous shiurim that the mishkan served
a dual purpose:
A) to perpetuate the experience of Har Sinai
(emphasized by Ramban); and
B) to atone for chet ha-egel (emphasized by Rashi).
(A) REENACTING HAR SINAI
Recall how the covenantal ceremony that took place at Har
Sinai (when Bnei Yisrael accepted the Torah) included the
public offering of "olot" & "shlamim" (when the declared
"na'aseh ve-nishma"/ see Shmot 24:4-7). In fact, in that
ceremony we find the very first mention in Chumash of a korban
shlamim, suggesting a conceptual relationship between the
korban shlamim and Har Sinai.
[Note also that Chumash later refers to the korban shlamim
as a 'zevach' (see 3:1 & 7:11). The word zevach itself is
also used to describe a feast, generally in the context of
an agreement between two parties. For example, Lavan and
Yaakov conduct a zevach after they enter into a covenant
('brit') agreeing not to harm each other (see Br. 31:44-54).
Today, as well, agreements between two parties are often
followed or accompanied by a lavish feast of sorts (e.g.
state dinners, weddings, business mergers, etc.).
Therefore, one could suggest that by offering a zevach
shlamim, an individual demonstrates shows his loyalty as a
joint partner in a covenantal relationship with God.]
The korban ola also relates to Ma'amad Har Sinai, based
not only on the above parallel, but also based on a key phrase
- "isheh reiach nichoach l-Hashem" - that the Torah uses
consistently in its description of the korban ola. [See
1:9,13,17.]
This exact same phrase is also found in the Torah's
description of the "olat tamid", the daily congregational
offering, as inherently connected to Bnei Yisrael's offerings
at Har Sinai:
"Olat tamid ha-asuya BE-HAR SINAI, le-reiach nichoach isheh
l-Hashem" (see Bamidbar 28:6).
Similarly, in Parshat Tetzaveh, when the Torah first
introduces the olat tamid and summarizes its discussion of the
mishkan - we find the exact same phrase:
"... le-reIach nichoach isheh l-Hashem... olat tamid le-
doroteichem petach ohel mo'ed..." (Shmot 29:41-42)
Hence, by offering either an ola or a shlamim - the
efficacious reminders of Ma'amad Har Sinai - the individual
reaffirms the covenant at Har Sinai of "na'aseh v'nishma" -
the very basis of our relationship with God at Ma'amad Har
Sinai.
[One could also suggest that these two types of korbanot
reflect two different aspects of our relationship with God.
The ola reflects "yirah" (fear of God), while the shlamim
may represent "ahava" (love of God).]
Recall also that the last time Bnei Yisrael had offered
olot & shlamim (i.e. before chet ha-egel) was at Har Sinai.
But due to the sin of the Golden Calf, God's shechina had left
Bnei Yisrael, thus precluding the very possibility of offering
korbanot. Now that the mishkan is finally built and the
Shchina has returned (as described at the conclusion of Sefer
Shmot), God's first message to Bnei Yisrael in Sefer Vayikra
is that they can once again offer olot & shlamim, just as they
did at Har Sinai - at not only as a nation, but also as
individuals.
This observation alone can help us appreciate why the
very first topic in Sefer Vayikra is that of the voluntary
offerings - of the korban ola & shlamim, and hence it makes
sense that they would precede the obligatory offering of
chatat & asham.
(B) KORBAN CHOVA - BACK TO CHET HA-EGEL
In contrast to the 'refrain' of 'isheh reiach nichoach'
concluding each korban nedava, we noted that each korban chova
concludes with the phrase "ve-chiper alav ha-kohen... ve-
nislach lo". Once again, we find a parallel to the events at
Har Sinai.
Recall our explanation that Aharon acted as he did at
"chet ha-egel" with the best of intentions; only the results
were disastrous. With the Shchina present, any transgression,
even should it be unintentional, can invoke immediate
punishment (see Shmot 20:2-4 & 23:20-22). Nevertheless, God's
attributes of mercy, that He declares when He gives Moshe
Rabeinu the second "luchot", now allow Bnei Yisrael 'second
chance' should they sin - i.e. the opportunity to prove to
God their sincerity and resolve to exercise greater caution in
the future.
We also find a textual parallel in Moshe Rabeinu's
statement before he ascended Har Sinai to seek repentance for
chet ha-egel: Recall how Moshe Rabbenu told the people:
"Atem chatatem chata'a gedola. ulai achapra be'ad
chatatchem" (Shmot 32:30; read also 32:31-33).
Later, when Moshe actually receives the thirteen /midot
ha-rachamim' on Har Sinai along with the second luchot (34:-
9), he requests atonement for chet ha-egel:
"... ve-salachta le-avoneinu u-lechatoteinu..." (34:9).
This key phrase of the korban chova - "ve-chiper alav...
ve-nislach lo" - may also relate to this precedent of God's
capacity and willingness to forgive. The korban chova serves
as a vehicle by which one can ask forgiveness for sins
committed "b'shogeg" and beseech God to activate His "midot ha-
rachamim" [attributes of mercy] to save them for any
punishment that they may deserve.
Therefore, we may conclude that the korban nedava
highlights the mishkan's function as the perpetuation of
Ma'amad Har Sinai, while the korban chova underscores the
mishkan's role as means of atonement for chet ha-egel.
WHO NEEDS THE 'KORBAN'?
With this background, one could suggest that the popular
translation of korban as a sacrifice may be slightly
misleading. Sacrifice implies giving up something for nothing
in return. In truth, however, the 'shoresh' (root) of the
word korban is k.r.v., 'karov' - to come close. Not only is
the animal brought 'closer' to the mizbeiach, but the korban
ultimately serves to bring the individual closer to God. The
animal itself comprises merely the vehicle through which this
process is facilitated.
Therefore, korbanot involve more than dry, technical
rituals; they promote the primary purpose of the mishkan - the
enhancement of man's relationship with God.
In this sense, it becomes rather clear that it is the
individual who needs to offer the "korban" - as an expression
of his commitment and loyalty to his Creator. Certainly it is
not God who needs to consume them!
For the sake of analogy, one could compare the voluntary
offerings [the korban nedava] to a gift that a guest brings to
his host.. For example, it is only natural that someone who
goes to another family for a shabbat - cannot come 'empty
handed'. Instead, the custom is to bring a small gift, be it
flowers, or wine, or something sweet. Certainly, his hosts
don't need the gift, but the guest needs to bring something.
But the reason why they are spending quality time together is
for the sake of their relationship. The gift is only a token
of appreciation - nonetheless a very important act.
TEFILLA KENEGED KORBANOT
In closing, we can extend our study to help us better
appreciate our understanding of "tefilla" [prayer before God].
In the absence of the Bet ha'Mikdash [the Temple], Chazal
consider 'tefilla' as a 'substitute' for korbanot. Like
korbanot, tefilla also serves as a vehicle through which man
can develop and strengthen his relationship with God. It is
the individual who needs to pray, more so that God needs to
hear those prayers
As such, what we have learned about korbanot has meaning
even today - as individual tefilla should embody both aspects
of the korban yachid: nedava and chova.
Tefilla should primarily reflect one's aspiration to come
closer to God - an expression of the recognition of his
existence as a servant of God. And secondly, if one has
sinned, tefilla becomes an avenue through which he can amend
the tainted relationship.
Finally, tefilla, just like the korbanot of the mishkan,
involves more than just the fulfillment of personal
obligation. Our ability to approach God, and request that He
evoke His "midot ha-rachamim" - even should we not be worthy
of them - should be considered a unique privilege granted to
God's special nation who accepted the Torah at Har Sinai,
provides an avenue to perfect our relationship. As such,
tefilla should not be treated as a burden, but rather as a
special privilege.
shabbat shalom,
menachem
=================
FOR FURTHER IYUN -
A. In regard to the nature of the laws in Parshat Vayikra;
even though they primarily focus on the details of what the
owner must do with his korban, this section also details
certain procedures that can be performed only by the kohen.
Even though we may have expected to find those details in
Parshat Tzav (that discusses the korbanot from the kohen's
perspective), one could explain that these details are
included here for the kohen's functions as 'shaliach'
(emissary) of the owner. Ideally, the owner should bring the
korban himself. However, in light of the events at chet ha-
egel, God decided to limit this work to the kohanim, who were
chosen to work in the mikdash on behalf of the rest of the
nation (see Devarim 10:8).
B. Although korban mincha is not mentioned at Har Sinai, it
may be considered a subset of the general ola category.
Namely, the mincha may be the korban ola for the poor person
who cannot afford to bring an animal. Note that the 'olat ha-
of' is connected to korban mincha by a parsha stuma. The olat
ha-of, too, is a special provision for one who cannot afford
a sheep.
C. The two basic levels of kedushat korban explain why the
ola precedes the shlamim in the discussion in our parsha. The
greater the portion offered on the altar, the higher the level
of kedusha:
1) Kodshei Kodashim - the highest level of kedusha:
ola: cattle, sheep, and fowl.
The entire korban ola is burnt on the mizbeiach.
mincha: the five various ways to present the fine flour.
The 'kmitza' (a handful) is burnt on the mizbeiach;
The 'noteret' (what is left over) is eaten by the
kohen.
2) Kodashim Kalim - a lower level of kedusha
shlamim: cattle, sheep, and goats.
The fat surrounding the inner organs go onto the
mizbeiach.
The 'chazeh ve-shok' (breast and thigh) go to the kohen,
while the meat that remains may be eaten by the owner.
D. Leaving aside the difficulty in pinpointing the precise
difference between sins requiring a chatat and those requiring
an asham, it seems clear that a korban asham comes to
encourage a person to become more aware of his surroundings
and actions. For example, if one is unsure whether or not he
sinned, his korban (asham talui) is more expensive than the
korban chatat required should he have sinned for certain. The
Torah demands that one be constantly and acutely aware of his
actions at all times, so as to avoid even accidental
wrongdoing.
E. Note that the phrase 'reiach nichoach' does appear once in
the second (korban chova) section (4:31), in the context of a
chatat brought by a layman ('me-am ha-aretz').
The reason may lie in the fact that the layman may choose
which animal to bring for his chatat - either a female goat
('se'irat izim') or a female lamb. Therefore, if he chooses
the more expensive option - the goat - his offering bears some
nedava quality, thus warranting the description 'reiach
nichoach'.
Another difference between a lamb and a goat: is that a
lamb has a fat tail, which prevents one from identifying the
animal' gender from afar. Therefore, one looking upon this
korban from a distance might mistake it for an ola (which is
always male, as opposed to the layman's chatat which must be
female). A goat, by contrast, has a thin tail, thus allowing
one to easily determine the animal's gender and hence its
status as a chatat. Therefore, by bringing a goat rather than
a lamb, the sinner in a sense broadcasts his sin and
repentance. This perhaps renders the chatat a nedava of
sorts, in that the sinner sacrifices his honor in order to
demonstrate the principle of repentance ("lelamed derech
tshuva la-rabim").
===
F. ASHAM GEZEILOT (a mini-shiur)
The last korban dealt with in the parsha, korban asham,
atones for three general categories of sins:
5:14-16 Accidental use of 'hekdesh' - known as asham
me'ilot;
5:17-19 When one is unsure if he sinned at all - known as an
asham talui;
5:20-26 Several cases for which one brings an asham vadai.
Although all three categories require the transgressor to
offer an asham, the final parsha (5:20-26) begins with a new
dibbur! This suggests a unique quality latent in this final
group. Indeed, the sins in this category all involve
intentional transgressions (be-meizid) against someone else.
The previous cases of asham, by contrast, are inadvertent sins
(be-shogeg) against God.
It would be hypocritical for one who sins intentionally
against God to bring a korban. The korban chova is intended
for a person who strives for closeness with God but has
inadvertently sinned. The obligation to bring a korban
teaches him to be more careful. Why should the Torah allow
one who sins intentionally against God the opportunity to
cover his guilt? The mishkan is an environment where man
develops spiritual perfection, not self-deception.
Why, then, would the Torah provide for a korban asham in
cases of intentional sin?
This group, known as an 'asham gezeilot', deals with a
thief who falsely avows his innocence under oath. The Torah
grants the thief-perjurer atonement through an asham, but only
after he first repays his victim with an added one-fifth
penalty.
Why should a korban be necessary at all? The victim was
repaid and even received a bonus. Why should God be involved?
The standard explanation is that the thief sinned against
God by lying under oath. Although this is undoubtedly the
primary reason for the necessity of a sacrifice, one question
remains: why does he bring specifically an asham? All other
instances of perjury require a chatat oleh ve-yored (see 5:4)!
A textual parallel between this parsha and a previous one
may provide the answer. The parsha of "asham gezeilot" opens
as follows:
"nefesh ki techeta, ve-ma'ala ma'al b-Hashem ve-kichesh be-
amito..." (5:21).
This pasuk defines the transgression against one's
neighbor as 'me'ila b-Hashem' [taking away something that
belongs to God]! This very same phrase describes the first
case - 'asham me'ilot', unintentional embezzlement of
'hekdesh' (Temple property / see 5:14-16):
"Nefesh ki timol ma'al b-Hashem - ve-chata bishgaga..."
This textual parallel points to an equation between these
two types of asham: unintentional theft of hekdesh and
intentional theft of another person's property. [Note that
both require the return of the principal and an added penalty
of 'chomesh'.]
The Torah views stealing from a fellow man with the same
severity as stealing from God! From this parallel, the Torah
teaches us that unethical behavior towards one's neighbor
taints one's relationship with God, as well.
[See also Tosefta Shavuot 3:5!]
More information about the Par-reg
mailing list