בחוקותי

End of Vayikra - על הגאולה ועל התמורה

The conclusion to Sefer Vayikra consists basically of the following structure:

- Shemittah – cessation of agricultural activity during the seventh year
- Yovel - return of land 
- Emancipation of slaves and various ancillary laws
- Blessings and curses (Tokhachah)
- Laws pertaining to consecrated items, their monetary value and redemption

This discussion relates to the positioning of these sections in relation to each other, and in relation to Vayikra as a whole.     

Shemittah and Yovel as conclusion to 'Torat Kohanim'

The first half of Vayikra is generally focused, in one way or another, on the holiness of the Mishkan, the world of Korbanot, and the specific role of the Kohanim. This section culminates with the Yom Kippur service (Ch. 16) describing the exclusive entry of the Kohen Gadol into the Kodesh HaKodashimm, representing an intense concentration of the three dimensions of holiness (space-time-individual). As we enter the second half of Vayikra we are presented with a system of holiness which spreads beyond the confines of the Mishkan and encapsulates every individual in their everyday life:[1]

דַּבֵּר אֶל־כָּל־עֲדַת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם קְדֹשִׁים תִּהְיוּ כִּי קָדוֹשׁ אֲנִי ה' אֱלֹקיכֶם׃ (ויקרא יט':ב)

Against this backdrop it is possible to understand the role of Shemittah and Yovel as widening the circles of holiness to encompass the entire land of Israel, the entire nation, over the course of an entire year (in contrast to the holidays mentioned in the previous Parashah).[2] 

The extension of holiness underlies the significance of the day designated to declare the emancipation of Jewish slaves. If the description of Yom Kippur in Ch. 16 is an exclusive affair of the Kohen Gadol, then Ch. 25 expresses the other side of the coin in which Yom Kippur (being the day on which the shofar of Yovel is blown) heralds the return of every Jew to his position as an exclusive servant of God. Thus, we are presented with a correspondence between the holiness of the Mishkan and the Kohanim on the one hand, and the holiness of the nation and the land on the other.

The nation-priest paradigm is reinforced by the fact that the verse introducing the unit of speech comprising Shemittah/Yovel together with the Tokhacha, contains a geographical reference to Mt. Sinai. 

וַיְדַבֵּר ה' אֶל־מֹשֶׁה בְּהַר סִינַי לֵאמֹר׃ (ויקרא כה':א)

As the commentators note the phraseology in this verse is unique. For our purposes, the pivot from the Ohel Mo'ed (the setting of Vayikrah until this point) back to Mt Sinai is significant as it was specifically at Mt. Sinai, just prior to the Ten Commandments, that the nation-priest paradigm was originally set out:

וְעַתָּה אִם־שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ בְּקֹלִי וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת־בְּרִיתִי וִהְיִיתֶם לִי סְגֻלָּה מִכָּל־הָעַמִּים כִּי־לִי כָּל־הָאָרֶץ ׃וְאַתֶּם תִּהְיוּ־לִי מַמְלֶכֶת כֹּהֲנִים וְגוֹי קָדוֹשׁ אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר תְּדַבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃ (שמות יט:ה-ו)

This dramatic verse is alluded to within the laws of the Yovel and the surrounding passages:

וְהָאָרֶץ לֹא תִמָּכֵר לִצְמִתֻת כִּי־לִי הָאָרֶץ כִּי־גֵרִים וְתוֹשָׁבִים אַתֶּם עִמָּדִי (ויקרא כה':כג)

כִּי־לִי בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל עֲבָדִים עֲבָדַי הֵם אֲשֶׁר־הוֹצֵאתִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם׃ (ויקרא כה':נה)

וְהָיִיתִי לָכֶם לֵאלֹקים וְאַתֶּם תִּהְיוּ־לִי לְעָם (ויקרא כו':יב)

These parallels demonstrate that the spiritual premise of the covenant - God’s ownership of the land and the chosen nation - creates the tangible consequences expressed in the laws of Yovel, as well as the ensuing blessings.[3]

Yovel and the Tokhacha - גאולה or געילה?

As mentioned, during Yovel, slaves are freed and the land returns to the original owners. The centrality of the theme of redemption is highlighted by the fact that the root גאל appears no fewer than 18 times. Above we explained why Yovel and the surrounding passages form a fitting conclusion to the main body of the book of Vayikra. However, the significance of the themes of redemption and return also relate to the proximity to the subsequent section – the blessing and curses - which threaten the loss of land and freedom.

Whilst reading these frightening passages, the echoes of redemption reverberating from the previous section may provide hope that all is not lost. This emerges from the fundamental proposition of the Yovel that God's land may not be sold into perpetuity, and God's people may not be permanent enslaved as expressed in the above verses. These laws are thus testament to the promise that the nation will not remain eternally exiled or subjugated.

I think this point also comes across through a certain wordplay. On just five occasions the Torah makes use of the root ג-ע-ל - all of which appear in the chapter of the Tokhacha. The words געל and גאל are phonetically linked as both ayin and aleph are guttural letters with similar sounds. Moreover, they have closely related yet inverse meanings. גאל means to redeem and restore a prior relationship, whereas געל means to abandon and sever an existing relationship. We can see a similar effect of the ayin and aleph interchange in other word pairs.[4] For example, the intense wordplay between אפר and עפר in relation to the parah adumah where the difference between 'earth' and 'ash' is quite literally the difference between life and death. In our context, the wordplay alludes to the fact that the nation is eternally chosen and therefore will eventually be redeemed (גאל) and not abandoned (געל).

The קדושת הגוף of the nation

This brings us to the final section. At first glance, the location of this final set of laws is difficult to understand. The topics all relate – one way or another – to consecrated property and their monetary redemption or exchange.[5]

The general principle is that if a consecrated item is not eligible to be offered as a Korban (for example a non-kosher or blemished animal) then its consecrated status is transferable, a status referred to by Chazal as קדושת דמים. Such an item is considered the financial possession of the sanctuary but may be redeemed by the original owner provided a fifth is added to the principal. However, where the consecrated animal is fitting to be offered as a Korban, then the animal obtains a status of קדושת הגוף and cannot be redeemed.[6] This state of holiness is intrinsic and non-transferable. In such a case, if one attempts to exchange the consecrated animal for another animal, the law is that the original animal remains consecrated and the substitute animal (the Temurah) also becomes consecrated. This concept is applied twice in the final section of Vayikra - once at the beginning and once at the end (according to the Masoretic division):

וְאִם־בְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ מִמֶּנָּה קָרְבָּן לַה' כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן מִמֶּנּוּ לַה' יִהְיֶה־קֹּדֶשׁ׃ לֹא יַחֲלִיפֶנּוּ וְלֹא־יָמִיר אֹתוֹ טוֹב בְּרָע אוֹ־רַע בְּטוֹב וְאִם־הָמֵר יָמִיר בְּהֵמָה בִּבְהֵמָה וְהָיָה־הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ יִהְיֶה־קֹּדֶשׁ׃ (ויקרא כז:ט-י)

וְכָל־מַעְשַׂר בָּקָר וָצֹאן כֹּל אֲשֶׁר־יַעֲבֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט הָעֲשִׂירִי יִהְיֶה־קֹּדֶשׁ לַיהוָה׃ לֹא יְבַקֵּר בֵּין־טוֹב לָרַע וְלֹא יְמִירֶנּוּ וְאִם־הָמֵר יְמִירֶנּוּ וְהָיָה־הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ יִהְיֶה־קֹדֶשׁ לֹא יִגָּאֵל׃ (ויקרא כז:לב-לג)

Another noteworthy observation is that the root גאל appears again throughout this last section. More importantly, it features as the final word - prior to the concluding verse - within an apparently extraneous clause (compare to verse 10 where this clause – לא יגאל - is absent). Note also that this section is the only place in the Torah where redemption of consecrated property is referred to in terms of גאולה as opposed to the more common term פדיון (see Ex. 13:13; 34:20; Num. 18:15-17). This creates a link back to the previous sections where this word or its derivative was so prominent, but for what purpose?

One might suggest that the law of Temurah represents a metaphor for the eternal holiness of the nation. As mentioned above, an item which has קדושת הגוף obtains an inalienable state of holiness which cannot be removed or transferred. The final passage thus underscores the comforting verses which conclude the Tokhacha (Lev. 26:44-45), affirming that even in the darkest exile God will not completely abandon them and the covenant will not be severed.   

The idea of the nation as a גוי קדוש was conceived just prior to the giving of the Torah and may support the קדושת הגוף metaphor.[7] But to extend the analogy we may point to two separate occasions where a state of קדושת הגוף may be said to have vested in the nation in the model of a Korban. 

The first was at the time of Akeidah when Yitzchak was designated as a Korban. True, Yitzchak was never actually sacrificed, and Avraham offered a ram 'in his son's place'. However, as we have just seen, the law in such a case is clear and the originally designated Korban retains its state of holiness - וְהָיָה־הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ יִהְיֶה־קֹּדֶשׁ.

The symbolic significance is that Yitzchak's consecrated state remains forever attached to the nation. This newly obtained status of Yitzchak explains why immediately subsequent to the Akeidah the contingent promises previously made are restated in almost identical terms, but now as a unilateral commitment from God in the form of an oath (notably the term שבועה is used for the first time and no act is demanded of Avraham).[8] The implication is that even if the people violate the covenant on their end, God's commitment remains.

The second occasion was on the eve of the exodus. As discussed at length here, the symbolic purpose of the Pesach ritual was to transform the Israelite home into a representative altar via which those on the inside became eternally consecrated to God.

These cases allow us to view the holiness of the people through the prism of a Korban, and to apply the principle of קדושת הגוף as underwriting God's commitment not to reject or replace His chosen nation. 

 

 

---

[1] This is true in broad strokes but is an oversimplification. A comprehensive discussion of the structure of the book of Vayikra would need to account for the fact that Parashat Emor returns to the subject of the Kohanim and the furnishings of the Mishkan. For an interesting hypothesis of the structure of the entire book by R' Menachem Leibtag see here.

[2] The time dependent holiness and the cycle of seven creates a link between the Shemittah laws and the list of festivals in the prior chapters.

[3] The use of the word Yovel (Ex. 19:13) in the run-up to the Mt. Sinai covenant also creates a link to the Yovel unit at the end of Vayikra, of which the Tokhacha is an integral part. The significance of this requires separate discussion.

[4] Consider the following examples where the interchange of the aleph to the ayin inverses the perspective:

פאר – פער
אור – עור / עוור
אושר - עושר

[5] Some but not all of these laws interact with the Yovel which may explain their deferral to after the main Yovel laws. It may also be the case that the very principle of consecration - the human ability to transform mundane to holy - provides a suitable finale to Sefer Vayikra. 

[6] Determination of the parameters of קדושת הגוף and קדושת דמים is a complex area as far as Halakhah is concerned and has numerous implications, yet the fundamental distinction emerges directly from the text.   

[7] One might challenge this analogy by the fact that קדושת הגוף may be transferred according to Chazal (though its use remains restricted) if an animal acquires a blemish after it has been consecrated. This law is in fact derived from the very next verse:

וְאִם כָּל־בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יַקְרִיבוּ מִמֶּנָּה קָרְבָּן לַה' וְהֶעֱמִיד אֶת־הַבְּהֵמָה לִפְנֵי הַכֹּהֵן׃

Commenting on this verse, Rashi references the Sifra:

ואם כל בהמה טמאה. בְּבַעֲלַת מוּם הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה לְהַקְרָבָה, וְלִמֶּדְךָ הַכָּתוּב שֶׁאֵין קָדָשִׁים תְּמִימִים יוֹצְאִין לְחֻלִּין בְּפִדְיוֹן אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הֻמְּמוּ

The simple meaning, however, is that it refers to an impure animal of the variety which cannot be offered up at all. What forces Rashi (and most other classic commentators) to interpret the verse as referring to a blemished animal is the apparent repetition in verse 27. Nevertheless, the tension with the plain meaning of the verse is evident and noted, among others, by the Ramban (who offers a suggestion to deal with the repetition in verse 27). Either way, it is instructive that the plain reading does not give the impression that there is any redemption option. 

[8] Many commentators ask what was the added value of the blessing that Avraham received after the Akeidah given its similarity to previous blessings. According to the above, the difference is more in the form of the commitment than the specific content.