SEDRAH SELECTIONS PARSHAS VAYIKRA 5764 BS"D

1) Otherwise the verse should have said "Vayikra, Moshe," Moshe being the noun of direct address. Although it seems that we should have derived this the first time we find EL, Rashi waited until the verse said "vayikra," a terminology of affection, to point out that the voice was only heard by Moshe. (Sifsei Chachomim)

2) The verse should have otherwise said "l'Moshe." Again the same question arises, why didn't Rashi point this out by the first instance of EL. However, since we have a second exclusion in our verse, the word "eilov," it is only conclusive here. (Rabbi Eliyohu Mizrochi who expands upon the second exclusion)

3) This is only derived in tandem with the exclusion of the word "eilov." (Raava"d and B'eir Yitzchok) This seems to be quite a difficult explanation of Rashi, as Rashi clearly says that from "eilov" we derive that Aharon was also excluded. See Droshos hoRan after the 12th "droshoh," where he explains the difference between the exclusion derived from "lo" and that derived from "eilov."

Ch. 1, v. 1: "Eilov" - To him - Rashi writes that from this word we derive that the voice of Hashem was not even heard by Aharon. Why do we have another exclusion for Aharon's hearing Hashem's voice in Bmidbar 7:89 according to Rashi d.h. "va'y'da'beir"? This is part of the collection of 13 exclusions specifically aimed at teaching us that in spite of there seemingly be 13 places where Hashem spoke to Moshe and Aharon, or Aharon alone, the words were actually said to only Moshe. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Please note that there is a minimum of three places where Hashem spoke directly to Aharon.

Ch. 1, v. 3: "Im oloh korbono min habokor zochor" - If his offering is an "oloh" from the bovine a male - Why is an "oloh" offering limited to being only a male? Since an "oloh" is totally consumed on the altar and no person has a portion of its flesh, it is an exceptionally choice sacrifice. In keeping with this theme, it likewise can only be a male, the stronger gender. (Ibn Ezra)

Ch. 1, v. 3: "Tomim" - Complete - Rashi says that we derive from this word that the sacrifice may not have a disqualifying blemish. This seems to be repeated in Vayikra 22:20, "kol asher bo moom lo sakrivu."

1) We derive from "tomim" that even an elderly animal is not accepted. This is not intrinsically a blemish. (Minchoh V'luloh)

2) We derive from the juxtaposition of "tomim" to the words that teach us that "rova, nirva, ne'evad," and "muktzoh" are disqualified, not just not preferable. (Lekach Tov)

3) Bringing a "tomim" is a positive mitzvoh. Not bringing a "baal moom" is a negative precept. (Rambam in the beginning of hilchos issurei mizbei'ach)

4) If only expressed in the negative manner, "asher bo moom lo sakrivu," we only know that it is a prohibition to sacrifice a definitely blemished animal, but one that we are in doubt about, we may sacrifice. Once the verse clearly states "tomim," we need to definitely know that it is complete, without a blemish. (Malbim)

Why doesn't the Torah only mention "tomim" according to the Malbim?

Ch. 1, v. 4: "V'somach yodo al rosh ho'oloh" - And he shall lean his hand upon the head of the "oloh" offering - The Rambam in hilchos maa'sei hakorbonos 3:8 writes that all people do the act of "smichoh" save a deaf person, an imbecile, and a minor. Why does the Rambam list this exemption? One only does "s'michoh" on his own sacrifice. These three people listed are incapable of sanctifying an animal. If the Rambam means to exclude them from doing "s'michoh" on another's sacrifice, then not only they, but everyone save the owner is excluded. The Mahari"t Algazi answers that the Rambam's intention is to exclude them from doing "s'michoh" on a sacrifice that belonged to their father that they inherited.

Ch. 2, v. 2: "V'komatz mishom m'lo kumtzo" - And he should take a complete handful from there - The gemara Yoma 47b says that the service of taking a complete handful from the meal offering is one of the most difficult services in the Mikdosh to execute. On a purely physical level, this is because some of the meal offerings were flour that was mixed with oil that was bakes into small breads that were folded and refolded and then ripped into smaller pieces. The taking of a fistful, "k'mitzoh," required that the Kohein take a fistful of this offering and then brush off whatever protruded from his index finger and ring finger. When the offering was flour that was not baked, this was simple enough. However, when the meal offering was in the form of pieces of bread, "pitim," then this was a daunting task. If after rubbing his thumb and pinky there would still be a part of a chunk of bread protruding, then the offering was not acceptable because it was MORE than a "m'lo kumtzo," the amount that he could hold within his clenched three middle fingers. If he knocked out a piece of bread that was partially inside his three-finger grip, then what was left would be LESS than the prescribed amount. Practically speaking, a proper "k'mitzoh" would entail rubbing the excess off with his two outer fingers in a manner that would bring the result of a sharp knife cutting off exactly the excess. We now not only understand why this is a most daunting and difficult service, but we begin to wonder how this falls short of a miracle.

In a homiletic manner the words of the gemara can be explained as follows: The gemara Brochos 13b says that one did not see Rabbi Yehudoh haNosi accept upon himself the yoke of Heaven. However, when he put his hand over his eyes (when reciting the Shma) was when he accepted upon himself the yoke of Heaven. Commentators in a manner of deeper allusion, "remez," explain these words of the gemara to mean that one did not see Rabbi Yehudoh haNosi accept upon himself the YOKE of Heaven because he was so totally attuned to designate all that he did for the sake of Heaven that there was no YOKE, all came naturally and eagerly. The gemara says that when he put his hands over his eyes, an allusion for limiting his vision, when he ecited the verse of "Shma" and his soul soared into the upper realms, with greater and greater spiritual secrets becoming revealed to him to the point of coming close to "k'lose nefesh," expiring through cleaving with Hashem, he limited his vision, and this was his acceptance of the YOKE of Heaven, as this was a burden for him.

Says Rabbi Avrohom Steiner, Rav of Grossverdein, that this is the intent of "k'mitzoh" being a most difficult service "b'Mikdosh." "K'mitzoh" means a limited amount. When it comes to physicality, for the holy person it is a simple act to restrain. When it comes to Mikdosh, pursuit of the holy, to restrain, to do "k'mitzoh," is a most challenging service.

Ch. 2, v. 10: "Kodesh kodoshim" - Holy of holies - Every "minchoh" offering has the exalted status of "kodshei kodoshim," and a non-Kohein has no part in its consumption. The reason it is given this status is because it is the offering of a poor man, and Hashem loves those who are of a modest spirit. (Rabbi Yoseif B'chor Shor)

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 and Chasidic Insights