SEDRAH SELECTIONS PARSHAS TZAV 5767 BS"D

(Technically, this is not accurate. It is obvious that if one offers an "oloh" to atone for his not having fulfilled a mitzvoh, it fully atones and he is protected from any punishment for this in the future.)

Ch. 6, v. 5: "Lo sichbeh" - It should not be extinguished - The gemara Yerushalmi Yoma chapter #4 says that this prohibition against extinguishing the fire on the altar applies even during the travels from station to station in the desert. Homiletically, the fire is the person's drive to overcome the challenges posed by his evil inclination. It is noticeably easier to combat the evil inclination and to come out on top when at home. A person is among his acquaintances, etc. and it is most embarrassing to be caught sinning. However, when traveling, and away from home, the "yeitzer hora" takes on the guise of a very powerful combatant. This is the intention of "af b'maso'os," also during the travels, of the gemara Yerushalmi.

This might well be the intention of the verse in T'hilim 119:1, "Ashrei t'mi'mei do'rech haholchim b'derech Hashem." Fortunate are those who are complete in Torah observance on the road, who travel and remain on the straight and narrow path of Hashem. (Hadrash V'ho'iyun)

Ch. 6, v. 10: "Lo sei'o'feh chometz" - It should not be baked as leavened bread - Chometz is equated with the "yeitzer hora," the evil inclination. This is why a meal offering may have no leavening. The one exception is the two breads of Shovuos. This is well understood, based on the gemara Shabbos, that when the angels did not want the Torah to enter the lower physical spheres of our world, Moshe countered with, "Do you then have an evil inclination?" (Kli Yokor)

Ch. 6, v. 14: "Minchas pitim takriv rei'ach nicho'ach laShem" - A meal offering of bread sections shall you offer it a pleasant fragrance to Hashem - This verse discusses the burning of the "minchas chinuch," initiation meal offering of a Kohein, and the daily "minchas chavitin" of the Kohein Godol. The Torah does not add the word "isheh" here, even though the complete offering is burned on the altar. In 2:2, when discussing the meal offering of a non-Kohein, the verse says "ishei rei'ach nicho'ach," and by the "omer" meal offering (2:16), the verse says "isheh," but not "rei'ach nicho'ach." Why all these differences?

While on the subject of "ishei rei'ach nicho'ach," the mishnoh M'nochos 110a notes that this term is used by a robust animal offering, a bird offering, and even by a meal offering. This teaches us that "echod hamarbeh v'echod hamamit uvilvad she'y'cha'vein odom es libo lashomayim," - whether one gives more or less, the Torah uses the same expression of it being a pleasant fragrance for Hashem, but this is as long as the person has in mind the sake of Hashem.

The insightful words of the Holy Admor of Kotzk are well-known to those who now them well: The "chidush" is tha "marbeh," not the "mamit." The one who offers a paltry bird or flour, surely is not haughty, and has his heart in the right place. The mishnoh is warning the wealthy person who offers a "zaftig" bull to also have the sake of Heaven in mind, and then it is acceptable to Hashem.

A new insight: With each of these three types of offering the Kohein receives a different amount for himself. If an animal "oloh" is offered, it is all burned, and the Kohein receives only the hide (7:8). By a bird "oloh" offering he receives absolutely nothing. By a meal offering he receives the vast majority of it, as only a three-finger grip of it is removed and offered on the altar. The Kohein's consumption of his portion of the sacrifices is supposed to be a holy task. The mishnoh tells the Kohein, "Whether there is more, as with the meal offering, or less, as with the animal offering, where nothing is eaten but he receives the hide (which may be used for his personal needs), or the bird offering where he receives absolutely nothing, his service is accepted by Hashem when he has the right intention. The order of "chidush" is from bird to animal to meal offering. (Nirreh li)

Ch. 6, v. 19: "B'mokome kodosh tei'o'cheil bachatzar ohel mo'eid" - In a holy location it shall be consumed in the courtyard of the tent of meeting - A shlomim and a todoh are eaten anywhere within the precincts of Yerusholayim, while a chatos and an oshom may only be consumed in the courtyard of the Mikdosh. This is because these two types of sacrifices bring atonement. The gemara Brochos 34b says that where penitents stand righteous people do not. This can be understood as a safeguard. Once the barrier of sin has been trespassed, there is the fear that even a true penitent might again be drawn to sin. He therefore stands in a safeguarded place, distanced from the evil inclination. This is why specifically these offerings are consumed in a limited more holy location. (Nachalas Binyomin)

It remains to be explained why certain meal offerings that are not sin atonements must be eaten only in the courtyard of the Mikdosh according to this explanation.

Ch. 7, v. 1: "V'zose toras ho'oshom kodesh kodoshim hu" - And this is the law of the guilt-offering it is holy of holies - And this is the instruction that brought a person to guilt, that he feels that he is the holy of holies. (Atzei L'vonon)

Ch. 7, v. 11: "Zevach hashlomim asher yakriv" - Slaughtering of a shlomim that he will offer - This is the most positive expression of offering, "asher yakriv," seemingly "that he SHOULD offer," while by other types of offerings we just have "toras ha……, v'heivi," or the like. This is because when sacrifices are offered for atonement it is preferable that the person would not have sinned in the first place, and not required an atonement. (Sifsei Kohein)

Ch. 7, v. 37: "Zose hatorah l'oloh l'minchoh ulchatos" - This is the law for an oloh for a minchoh and for a chatos - The Medrash Plioh, a wondrous puzzling collection of statements, says that this is the fulfillment of the verse, "Bidvar Hashem shomayim naasu" (T'hilim 33:6). Rabbi Yonoson Eibeschitz in Yaaros Dvash explains this based on the gemara M'nochos 110a, which derives from our verse that studying the laws of an "oloh" accredit a person with having actually offered one, and likewise the other types of offerings. It is readily understood that an "oloh" can be replaced through studying its laws, as the "oloh" brings atonement for sins in the realm of thought or speech, but how does the study of the laws of a "chatos" atone for a physical sin actually having been done? The medrash answers that we find that the heavens were created through the "dvar Hashem." We thus see that words can create a physical reality. Hashem has put this concept into being in the manner he created the heavens, and in turn, reading the words of the laws of a "chatos" can bring in its wake atonement even for a physical sin.

A GUTTEN SHABBOS KODESH. FEEL FREE TO DISTRIBUTE BY COPY OR ELECTRONICALLY.

FEEDBACK IS APPRECIATED. TO SUBSCRIBE, KINDLY SEND REQUEST TO: SHOLOM613@AOL.COM

See also Oroh V'Simchoh - Meshech Chochmoh on the Weekly Parsha, Chasidic Insights and Chamisha Mi Yodei'a