The word "tsav" is found only concerning the Korban Tamid. Why?
Rav Baruch Halevi Epstein notes that our Parasha opens with the command to Moshe Rabbeinu (6:1-2): in the unusual term:צו, unlike the previous commandments in Parashat Vayikra, and other parshiot in this Parasha - which also relate to korbanot.
Rashi brings the Torat Kohanim, on the word: צו: ‘צו always denotes urging, as to the mitzvah in question, for the present and also for future generations.
Rabb Shimon taught: this is especially so where the mitzvah involves חסרון כיס: a depletion of money.
Rav Epstein expounds:’The previous Parasha concerned voluntary offerings or sin offerings, neither of which required urging, as it may be that there were no voluntary offerings or sin offerings to be brought.
‘Our Parasha, on the other hand, concerns the tamid burnt offerings - which had to be brought daily.
‘Rabbi Shimon saw the need for urging, as they involved חסרון כיס, depletion of funds.
‘This, because these offerings were totally burnt on the altar, and the Kohanim did not receive any of their meat - as they did with other types of korbanot.
‘It was therefore possible that the Kohanim might be lax and tardy in regard to these korbanot - thus the specific need for urging in their case.’
The Levush Ha’ora, on this Rashi, adds:’In the previous Parasha, which were concerned with voluntary korbanot, there was no need for urging; but, in our Parasha which concerns the burnt offering, which is totally consumed by the fire of the altar, whilst the Kohen does receive the skins, the offeror receives no part of it - unlike other korbanot, where he also partakes of the meat.
‘The Torah therefore saw a need to urge the Kohanim to offer the korban as soon as it is brought, and not cause the offeror to have to wait for it to be offered, lest the delay causes the offeror to regret the trouble he took, to bring the offering, since he receives no benefit from it - having brought it solely leshem shamayim.
‘If he is made to tarry there, by the tardiness of the Kohanim, he might come to regret bringing the korban, from which he only has a חסרון כיס, and such a regret may invalidate the korban, rendering it unfit to be offered on the altar.
‘To obviate this, the Torah, in regard to this korban, urges the Kohanim not to delay.’
The Tzeda LeDerech - another commentator on Rashi - brings a Yerushalmi, to explain why Rabbi Shimon felt the need for urging the Kohanim, specifically in our case, by reason of it requiring חסרון כיס.
He expounds:’There is more need for urging, where חסרון כיס is involved, as we learn from that which is related in the Yerushalmi, concerning the sage, Rabbi Yochanan, who lost his purse, and, when asked a halakhic question was unable to answer it.
‘Asked the questioner: ‘Because you lost your purse, you also lost ‘your mind’? ‘Yes’, he answered:’My mind is dependent on my heart, and my heart is dependent on my purse’.
‘We learn from this, that where there is a חסרון כיס: a loss of money, there is also a loss of mind.
‘Thus, in the case of the burnt offering, where the Kohen receives no part of the meat of the korban, whilst he is engaged in offering it, he is precluded from other, profitable work, and suffers a חסרון כיס: a loss of money; and as we learned from the case of Rabbi Yochanan, we have to be concerned that he is not performing this service in an acceptable manner.
‘The Kohen therefore needs special urging on each occasion that he is required to perform this service.’
The Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh alludes to the expositions other commentators have proffered, as to what the חסרון כיס the Torah may be concerned with, but concludes that they are all unsatisfactory.
He expounds:’Perhaps the חסרון כיס the Torah had in mind here, may be the wood that was needed, to ensure that the fire on the altar constantly burnt, even when there were no korbanot being offered on the altar, as the fire had to burn throughout the night, and wood was required, and this was costly.’
Rav Elimelech from Lissa brings a new insight, to our enquiry.
He first notes, that almost every mitzvah requires a חסרון כיס: an expenditure, yet we don’t find that the Torah, in regard to them, used the word צו, to require urging.
Why, then, did the Torah choose to do so in our case, and: what is the חסרון כיס that is involved?
Answers the Rav: Our Sages say: ( Menachot 110. ):’ What does the Torah come to teach, in regard to each type of korban, when it says: זאת תורת: ‘This is the Torah of..’each type of korban? That ‘one who is engaged in learning the Torah of that korban, is deemed as if he has offered it on the altar’.
The Rambam expounds that the purpose of the korbanot is to uproot idolatry - that, instead of the peoples making offerings to idols, they be made only to Hashem.
We can now understand, that one benefit that we derive from engaging in the study of the Torah of korbanot, is to uproot idolatry, and instill in the offeror emunah in Hashem.
After the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash, there is an additional benefit: the offeror can obtain atonement for the transgression that his offering would have achieved.
This, says the Rav, is what the Torah alluded to, in saying that צו alludes to ‘for the present’, as by studying the Torah of the korbanot, he thereby uproots idolatry and strengthens his emunah; and, also ‘for the generations), that when we don’t merit to have a Beit Hamikdash, we can still obtain atonement for transgressions, as we would by being able to bring korbanot.
As is well known, the Kohanim are the teachers of Torah, in Israel; therefore, there is a need to urge them in performance of this holy role, as they thereby truly suffer חסרון כיס.
If the people, through studying the Torah of korbanot, uproot idolatry from their hearts, there will be no place for korbanot - for if there is no sin, what need is there for korbanot.
Yet the whole sustenance of the Kohanim comes from the meat of the korbanot, and their skins, and they may therefore be reluctant to teach the people that learning of the Torah of korbanot is as if the korban is actually brought.
This is why Rabbi Shimon saw the need to teach, that, especially because of the חסרון כיס, the Kohanim had to be urged to perform their holy vocation.
Rav Shimon Kluger also expounds the teaching of Rabbi Shimon, along the same lines, commenting:‘ Perhaps because of this חסרון כיס, Aaron and the Kohanim will be reluctant to publicize this to the people, as it will deprive them of the priestly gifts, from the korbanot.
‘Out of this concern, the Torah here ‘adds’ a word, in its command:’Hashem spoke to Moshe, saying: Command Aaron and his sons, SAYING: This is the law of the burnt offering.’
‘Meaning: the second ‘saying’ is linked to:This is the Torah of the burnt offering’: by saying: teaching the people, ‘the Torah of the burnt offering’ - learning this Torah, being deemed as if the burnt offering was brought on the altar.’
The Kli Yakar adds:’The Torah here is a command to the Kohanim ‘to say to the generations’, imposed an obligation on the Kohanim to teach the people that being engaged in learning the Torah of the korbanot is deemed as if they actually brought a korban.
‘This had to be without payment - as our Sages expound:(Ned’ 37.) Hashem says: ‘Just as I do teach you without charge, so too shall you do.’
‘Further, the Kohanim were likely not wealthy, as they had no share in the Land, and their daily sustenance came from the offerings, there was therefore a concern that their חסרון כיס might lead them to ‘lose their minds’, as happened to Rabbi Yochanan, this being dependent on their pockets, and not perform their duties properly.
‘Therefore, the Torah, by choosing the word צו, came to teach that the Kohanim needed urging, in performing this holy task of teaching the people.’
Here we ask: If the learning of the Torah of the korbanot is deemed as if the korban was actually offered, why should the people go to the cost and travail, of offering a korban, and not, simply, learn the Torah of the korban they are required to bring?
The Yismach Moshe answers:’When a person actually performs a mitzvah, it has the special virtue of finding Divine favor Above, even if not performed in the most complete manner.
‘On the other hand, if it is not actually performed, but the person relies on an ‘as if’ device, though he may be deemed to have fulfilled his obligation, this requires that he performs the ‘as if’ in purity and perfectly, to be accepted Above.
‘Therefore, in our case, when one actually offers a korban, it can be offered ‘all night till the morning’; but if one does not actually offer a korban, but utilizes the ‘as if’ substitute, there is a condition:’the fire of the altar must burn in it all night’ - he must learn the Torah of the korban with such intensity, as if the fire of the altar burns in him - only then, will it truly be accepted Above, as if he actually offered a korban.’
A beautiful parting gem from the Olelot Ephraim - authored by the Kli Yakar:’One who puts his trust in Hashem, never has a חסרון כיס, as he is always happy in whatever Hashem has blessed him with, be it a little or a lot.
‘However, one who leaves the shade of trust in Hashem, and puts his trust in material objects, will always feel a lack - a חסרון כיס -as he will never be satisfied with what he has, in his never ending pursuit of more.
‘Those who put their trust in Hashem are the truly wealthy, as they never have a חסרון כיס.’
Source: 7
No comments:
Post a Comment