subscribe.gif (2332 bytes)

by Zvi Akiva Fleisher

Back to This Week's Parsha | Previous Issues

For sponsorships and advertising opportunities, send e-mail to:SHOLOM613@AOL.COM


Ch. 6, v. 2: "Zose torah ho'oloh hee ho'oloh" - This is the law of the oloh it is the oloh - "Hee ho'oloh" seems superfluous. There is a contradiction between "zose toras ho'oloh," indicating that we have the teaching of, but not the actual sacrifice of an "oloh," while "hee ho'oloh" indicates that we actually have an "oloh" offering. The answer is that when the Beis Hamikdosh is existent one should bring the actual sacrifice, and when the Beis Hamikdosh is not standing one should study the laws of the "oloh" in lieu of actually offering it, as per the gemara M'nochos 110a, which derives from "zose haTorah lo'oloh" (Vayikroh 7:37) that whoever learns the laws of the "oloh" offering it is considered as if he has brought it.

Rabbi Sender Zev of Stavishin offers that this is alluded to in the words, "Vaachashvoh lodaas ZOSE omol HU v'einoy, Ad ovo el mik'd'shei Keil ovinoh l'acharisom" (T'hilim 73:16,17). I have thought into understanding the need for the word ZOSE and the toil in my eyes of the word HU ("hee" of our verse is spelled with a Vov) as well. Until I came to the Sanctuaries of Hashem, i.e. when they are standing we apply HU/HEE, and I understood their end, i.e. that they would eventually unfortunately be destroyed, and then we are left with "ZOSE toras" when we are only able to study the laws of but not actually sacrifice, the offerings.

Ch. 6, v. 2: "Hee ho'oloh al mokdoh" - She is the oloh offering on her pyre - In parshas Breishis 5759 we have discussed the phenomenon of the word "hee" spelled with a Vov rather than with a Yud. The vast majority of commentators make no mention of this and translate "hee" as "she." Rabbi Ovadioh of Bartenura on Breishis 25:21 says that although "hee" means "she," nevertheless, when it is spelled with a Vov, and thus without the vowel "nikud" can also be read "hU," there is also a male connotation to the word. The most novel explanation of "hee" with a Vov is that of Rabbi Shlomo Kluger in his responsa "Shnos Chaim" #252, where he says that with a Vov the word means only "he," male form, with no female connotation at all.

In consonance with Rabbi Ovadioh of Bartenura we could simply say that "hee" of our verse has a male meaning in that the "oloh" (female word) offering is a male animal. However, a much more insightful explanation is offered by the Beis Avrohom of Grossvardein. Rabbi Yehudoh Asad explains the words in T'hilim 51:18, "Ki lo sachapotz zevach v'e'teinoh oloh lo sirtzeh" as follows: Some believe that the main purpose of offering sacrifices is so that the meat may be eaten by the Kohanim, thus supplying them with a large amount of their sustenance and freeing them up to be the teachers of the bnei Yisroel. This verse tells us otherwise. "You do not desire a slaughtered offering so that I should give it (to a Kohein), because if so, an "oloh" whose meat is totally consumed on the altar You should not want, as only the hide is left for the Kohein.

We are left with the explanation of the Ramban on Vayikroh 1:9, that the person who offers the sacrifice should conjure in his mind that all that is being done to the offering should have been done to him, and only through Hashem's great mercy has he been allowed to have an animal in his place. The Beis Avrohom adds that we thus learn from the "oloh" offering that a person should consider himself as the sacrifice. This is the intention of "hU ho'oloh," that a person should consider himself the "oloh" offering when it is offered on the fire of the altar.

In a similar vein he explains verses 29 and 30 in chapter 7. "Hamakriv es zevach shlomov laShem yovi es korbono laShem mi'zevach shlomov, Yodov t'vi'enoh .." - He who offers a sacrifice of the "shlomim" type shall bring his offering to Hashem from his "shlomim" sacrifices. His hands shall bring .. - The redundancy in verse 29 is obvious and that his "hands shall bring" of the following verse is enigmatic, as it is obvious that he brings the offering with the use of his hands.

According to the above all is clear. The "shlomim" offering comes totally as a donation with no overtones of atonement at all. While other sacrifices require a person to involve imagery of himself being the offering, thus having him bring his whole body as a sacrifice, as is alluded to in "V'shochat OSO tzofonoh" (Vayikroh 1:11) - he should slaughter HIMSELF in his conscience ("tzofonoh" = "matzpun"), a "shlomim" is totally a donation for Hashem, "yovi es korbono laShem." It is only an offering of his "shlomim" and not of himself, "mi'zevach shlomov." Thus the "shlomim" offering only requires that his hands bring it, "yodov t'vi'enoh," and his whole body is not to be brought.

Ch. 6, v. 18: "Bimkome asher tishocheit ho'oloh tishocheit hachatos" - In the place where the oloh will be slaughtered shall the chatos be slaughtered - Where is the "oloh" offering slaughtered? Vayikroh 1:11 tells us, "V'shochat oso al yerech hamizbei'ach tzofonoh," that it should be slaughtered on the north side of the Mishkon courtyard. The Avnei Nezer explains that since an "oloh" offering brings atonement for sins in the realm of thought, it is appropriate to have it slaughtered in the north, "tzofone," as this word also means hidden, i.e. to atone for the hidden thoughts.

His son, Rabbi Shmuel asked him, "If so, why does the Torah require one to slaughter the "chatos" offering in the same location, since a "chatos" is brought for an act, albeit unintentional?" The Avnei Nezer answered him that an unintentional sin had at its root an emotional drive to commit the sin. Without this a person would be incapable of transgressing even unintentionally. The "chatos" offering not only affords atonement for the act, but also for this reprehensible forethought. Since here too we have atonement for a thought as well as an action, "tzofone" is required. (Shem miShmuel)

Ch. 7, v. 29,30: "Hamakriv es zevach shlomov laShem yovi es korbono laShem mi'zevach shlomov, Yodov t'vi'enoh" - He who offers a sacrifice of the shlomim type shall bring his offering to Hashem from his shlomim sacrifices, His hands shall bring" - What is the intention of "yodov t'vi'enoh"? If one has angered the king and attempts to appease him by bringing a present, protocol requires that the present be sent through an intermediary, as until the king hopefully responds positively, friction still exists. This is why the Torah does not say "yodov t'vi'enoh" when a "chatos" or "oloh" is to be sacrificed. Those offerings are sent through the Kohanim.

Our verses discuss the bringing of a "shlomim," which is devoid of any atonement connotations. It is totally a donation. One brings the "shlomim" with "his own hands" to the Mikdosh. (Kli Yokor)

Ch. 7, v. 37: "Zose haTorah lo'oloh laminchoh v'lachatos v'lo'oshom v'lamilu'im ulzevach hashlomim" - This is the law of the elevated, meal, atonement, guilt, initiation, and peace offerings - The gemara M'nochos 110a derives from these words that whoever learns the laws of the "oloh," etc. offering, it is considered as if he has brought it.

Rabbi Mayer Arik asked the Imrei Emes the following question: The gemara Yoma 71a says that if one yearns to pour a wine libation upon the altar he should fill the throat of a Torah scholar with wine. Why doesn't the gemara give a simple solution, to study the laws of libation offerings? The Imrei Emes answered on the spot, "Because it is not clearly stated." Rabbi Mayer Arik told his escorts that he had asked this question to numerous people and had received many answers, some entailing lengthy erudite calculations, but nothing topped this terse answer of the Imrei Emes.

If you pay attention to the verse and in turn to the resulting extrapolation of the gemara you will note that libations are not included in the verse and likewise not in the gemara. Thus we are left with offering wine to a Torah scholar as the only replacement for a libation offering. He adds that this seems to be indicated by the terminology, "One who yearns to .." Why doesn't the gemara say the same as in M'nochos, "He who pours .. it is as if etc."? We see from this that the person wants to learn the laws of libation and equate this to actually offering a libation, but it isn't acceptable. He is left with the only acceptable alternative of wining a Torah scholar.

Perhaps an insight can be given into the "learning in place of" concept not applying to libations. All other offerings have a portion burned on the altar and they increase the fire. However a libation that is poured onto the altar is drizzled onto the fire to not totally extinguish it, a Torah prohibition (Vayikroh 6:6). If we equate Torah study with fire, we can thus say that libations are not equated to increasing the fire, i.e. direct Torah study, as they diminish the fire. Rather, in the majority of cases they come to accompany and enhance the sacrificial offering. Their replacement must likewise serve as an accompaniment to the Torah study of a scholar, i.e. offering him drink so that he may better study. Alternatively, just as libations decrease the fire, but enhance the offering, so too, the replacement is offering of one's goods to the Torah scholar. Although one has to take off time from his own Torah study to earn money to pay for wine for the Torah scholar, nevertheless, by honouring and nourishing him the stature of Torah is elevated. This is conceptually the same as libations. They decrease the fire, as stated earlier, but enhance the offering they accompany.

Ch. 8, v. 36: "Va'yaas Aharon uvonov eis kol hadvorim asher tzivoh Hashem" - Aharon and his sons did all things that Hashem commanded - Rashi comments that the verse praises Aharon and his sons for not turning right nor left. Perhaps Rashi's intention is that when a person is the centre of attraction, just as took place here by the dedication of the Mikdosh, he looks around to see the large crowds looking on. This adds to his feeling of importance. Our verse says that Aharon and his sons did otherwise. They did all their actions just as Hashem commanded. They were totally focused on their holy service and did not turn to the right nor to the left to see all the onlookers. (Nirreh li)



See also Oroh V'Simchoh - Meshech Chochmoh on the Weekly Parsha and Chasidic Insights

Back to This Week's Parsha | Previous Issues

This article is provided as part of Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Permission is granted to redistribute electronically or on paper,
provided that this notice is included intact.

For information on subscriptions, archives, and
other Shema Yisrael Classes,
send mail to
Jerusalem, Israel