פינחס

The Mo'ed of the Tamid

The list of Korbanot mentioned in Parashat Pinchas raises a difficult challenge. Seemingly these should be located in Sefer Vayikra which describes the various categories of Korbanot, as well as the details of the various festivals during which the Musafim are typically brought.[1] The Musafim are alluded to, but for some reason the details are deferred to Sefer Bamidar.

The appearance of the Korban Tamid at the start of the list raises particular questions. The details of the Korban Tamid were previously set out in almost identical terms in Parashat Tetzaveh (Ex. 29:38-41) and referenced again in Parashat Tzav (Lev. 6:2). Why are the details of the Korban Tamid repeated here alongside the Musafim?

Ramban addresses the first question by suggesting that the Musafim were not in fact offered in the wilderness.[2] The instructions relating to the Musafim were therefore only given as the final preparations were made to enter the land. It seems that the Ramban's general position that the Torah follows chronological order informs his approach here.

The problem is that there are many Mitzvot which explicitly apply only upon entry into the land, and nevertheless the instructions were given at an earlier point. This includes the Korban Omer and Shtei HaLechem which are discussed within the very passage in Vayikra which omits the details of the Musafim.[3]

Second, if this reasoning were correct, one would have expected the Torah to introduce the Musafim with a caveat that the foregoing applies when they enter the land (e.g. ki tavo'u el ha'aretz…) as it indeed does in other places where such limitation applies. Other than the question of location, there seems to be no compelling textual or other reason to assume that the Musafim were only offered once in the land. The Ramban's view also seems to contradict the Mishna (Menachot 4:4) which assumes that the Korbanot mentioned in Sefer Bamidbar were in fact offered in the wilderness.

Due to these reasons, I would like to consider an alternative approach which relates the location of the passage to the overarching theme of Sefer Bamidbar.

Vayikra to Bamidbar – from Tamid to Musaf

As discussed in a previous post, Sefer Vayikra deals with the fundamental framework and structure of the Mishkan. It also deals with the various categories and definitions of purity and holiness, and their immediate legal ramifications and associated obligations. These systems and laws are fixed and rigid.

Sefer Bamidbar, in contrast, speaks – through the medium of law and narrative - of a dynamic interaction between God and the people. This is borne out primarily by the fact that Sefer Bamidbar is a narrative with legal portions woven in. Narratives are fluid; new circumstances arise which challenge prior stability. The heart of Sefer Bamidbar is a story of failure and revival. One generation sins and dies out and a new one emerges from the ashes.[4] Vayikra, on the other hand, comprises a well-structured body of law with a couple of isolated narratives. In short, Sefer Vayikra is static whereas Sefer Bamidbar is kinetic. Sefer Bamidbar therefore focuses – even within the legal context (as we will shortly see) - on the unscripted and the extraordinary.

A common conception is that Sefer Bamidbar focuses on the Israelite interaction with the Mishkan whilst Vayikra focuses on the Kohanim. But this doesn't quite follow through. The lighting of the Menorah is in Bamidbar, yet it is performed by Aharon. As presently discussed, Sefer Bamidbar also contains the passage of the Musafim which is more related to the world of the Kohanim. Within Sefer Vayikra there are also challenges. Parashat Vayikra itself does not actually deal with the Kohanim (they are hardly mentioned) but focuses on the person bringing the Korban. Furthermore, the second half of Vayikra focuses on the holiness outside the Mishkan and contains many laws which are not related specifically to the Kohanim.

Nevertheless, it is fair to say that whilst the Kohanim are the main characters of Sefer Vayikra, Sefer Bamidar places greater emphasis on the wider Israelite camp. The critical point, however, is that this derives from the fact that the Kohanim are the symbols of law and structure which is what truly defines Sefer Vayikra. In the words of R' Sacks:

"The priestly mind sees the universe in terms of distinctions, boundaries and domains, in which each object or act has its proper place and they must not be mixed. The Kohen's task is to maintain boundaries and respect limits. For the Kohen, goodness equals order." (R' Sacks, introduction to the Yom Kippur Machzor)[5].

In the previous post, I noted many examples throughout Sefer Bamidbar which illustrate the point. In the interests of space, I will note below only the main ones relevant to our Parashah and the next.

• Parashat Pinchas commences with the vindication of Pinchas for his extra-judicial killing of Zimri and Kosbi. The courageous act of Pinchas was firmly outside any normative framework.
• After the division of the land, the daughters of Tzelofchad boldly challenge Moshe about the inequity of their position which results in a change to the existing inheritance laws.
• Immediately prior to the passage of the Korbanot, Moshe demands that God appoints a new leader to replace him. The opening phrase - va-yedaber Moshe el ha-shem lei'mor - is unique and notably inverts the standard formula where God commands Moshe.
• The beginning of Matot sets out the laws relating the exceptional ability of a father or husband to annul certain vows.
• Following the battle with Midyan, the officers decide entirely of their own volition to dedicate some of the booty as gratitude to God.
• The tribes of Reuven and Gad initiate a request to settle the east bank of the Jordan. Moshe rebukes them but then accepts the proposal once they offer to fight alongside (and even lead) their fellow tribes in battle.
• The conquests of the sons of Menashe are undertaken through their own initiative.

We may leverage this same model to explain the position of the Musafim. The unique aspects of each festival (whether agricultural or historical) which are integral to their identity as Mikra'ei Kodesh, are set out in Sefer Vayikra. The discussion there pertains to the essence of the day's holiness and therefore belongs squarely in Sefer Vayikra.

In Parashat Pinchas the Musafim are not intrinsic to the identity of the festivals, but additional Korbanot offered at these opportune and festive occasions. They are a response to the holiness of the day but not part of its core definition. By adding to the regular Tamid, they enhance and harness the spiritual atmosphere of the holy day. They are not human-led initiatives but nevertheless lie outside the normal structure. This may explain why over and over the Torah emphasises that these Korbanot are to be offered in addition to (milvad), and not instead of, the regular Tamid.

This point alone might explain why the Tamid features at the start of the list. It is the baseline requirement which the Musafim build off. The contrast with the norm highlights the special nature of these Korbanot and their compatibility with the dynamic nature of Sefer Bamidbar.

Every day as a Mo'ed

We might stop here but I would like to tentatively suggest there is something more going on with the repetition of the Tamid. The concluding verse of our passage states that these are the laws of the Korbanot to be offered on the various Mo'adim:

וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אִשֶּׁה לַה' עֹלָה אוֹ־זֶבַח לְפַלֵּא־נֶדֶר אוֹ בִנְדָבָה אוֹ בְּמֹעֲדֵיכֶם לַעֲשׂוֹת רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַה' מִן־הַבָּקָר אוֹ מִן־הַצֹּאן׃ (במדבר ט"ו:ג)

Typically the Mo'adim are considered to refer to the various festivals/holidays. What is interesting here is that the term Mo'ed seems to encompass the Tamid as well. This is even clearer from the introductory verse which immediately precedes the Korban Tamid.

צַו אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם אֶת־קָרְבָּנִי לַחְמִי לְאִשַּׁי רֵיחַ נִיחֹחִי תִּשְׁמְרוּ לְהַקְרִיב לִי בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ׃ (במדבר כ"ח:ב)

Every day demands a new Korban Tamid and therefore every day is a Mo'ed. In the words of Rashi:[6]

בְּכָל יוֹם הוּא מוֹעֵד הַתְּמִידִים

The use of the term Mo'ed with reference to the daily Tamid suggests that every day is unique and deserves to be marked independently with its own Korban. Each day is infused with new meaning and enables a new encounter with God.

The ability of the Tamid to mark each day afresh is related to the capacity of the Tamid to inaugurate. The Tamid is the only Korban mentioned in Sefer Shemot other than those which were part of the Mishkan's inauguration. In fact, it is appended to the instructions for the inauguration ceremony as though it is an organic part of it.[7]

This inaugurating function of the Tamid is acknowledged in the Halakhic sources as well. The Mishna states that a new Mizbe'ach had to be inaugurated through the morning Tamid:

...שֶׁאֵין מְחַנְּכִין אֶת מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב אֶלָּא בִקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים, וְלֹא מִזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה אֶלָּא בְתָמִיד שֶׁל שַׁחַר, וְלֹא אֶת הַשֻּׁלְחָן אֶלָּא בְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים בְּשַׁבָּת, וְלֹא אֶת הַמְּנוֹרָה אֶלָּא בְשִׁבְעָה נֵרוֹתֶיהָ בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם (משנה מנחות ד:ד)[8]

This all stands in stark contrast with the way the Tamid is described in Sefer Vayikra. In Sefer Vayikra, the Korban Tamid is presented as the paradigm of continuity. Its purpose – in the specific context of Vayikra - seems to be to ensure that the Mizbe'ach is not left vacant.

צַו אֶת־אַהֲרֹן וְאֶת־בָּנָיו לֵאמֹר זֹאת תּוֹרַת הָעֹלָה הִוא הָעֹלָה עַל מוֹקְדָה עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ כָּל־הַלַּיְלָה עַד־הַבֹּקֶר וְאֵשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ תּוּקַד בּוֹ׃ (ויקרא ו':ב)

The passage raises many difficulties due to the way it digresses from the general law of the Olah, to the Tamid, to the continual fire, to the clearing of the ashes. The important point for our purposes is that the role of the evening Tamid seems to be to engage the Mizbe'ach throughout the night. Note that unlike the passages for the other Korbanot in Parashat Tzav, there is no reference in the verse to the actual offering or preparation of the Tamid – when it is first mentioned it is already burning on the Mizbe'ach (היא העלה).

This suggests that the main objective is the presence on the Mizbe'ach more so than the offering itself. Hence it is mentioned in the same verse as the fire which needs to be continually burning upon the Mizbe'ach. The fire of the Mizbe'ach is always ready to consume and the Tamid ensures it is continually serviced.

In practice, it is possible that the Tamid may have been fully consumed before the morning. The Netziv, however, based on our verse, understood that there is a literal requirement for the Kohanim to ensure the Tamid is burnt gradually so that the process is extended throughout the night until morning:

המצוה על הכהנים שיראו שיהיו אברי העולה מונחים ונעכלים מעט מעט עד הבוקר ולא יהיו נעכלים מיד ויהא המזבח פנוי מעולה ומש״ה היה המצוה לעשות קיץ למזבח. היינו כדי שלא ישאר המזבח בלי אברי עולה: (העמק דבר, ויקרא ו':ב)

The Netziv sees this verse as the source for a special category of Korban referred to in the Mishna as 'Kayitz LaMizbe'ach'.[9] These were communal burnt offerings brought during 'downtimes' to ensure the Mizbe'ach was never left vacant.

Tamid – continuous or regular?

The term 'Tamid' attaches itself to various services in the Mishkan and can mean either something continuous or regular/consistent. The Tamid requirement of the Lechem HaPanim, for example, is a continuous requirement, to the extent that the majority view of Chazal held that the table could not be vacant of bread even for a brief moment.[10] On the other hand, the Menorah had to be kindled daily (or twice daily according to some) and this regularity seems to fulfil the basic Tamid requirement in that context. According to many sources, however, the Menorah (or at least one lamp) was kept burning continuously as well.[11]

Indeed, it is worth reflecting on whether a regular act is simply a means to an end to ensure continuity or whether each repetition holds independent value. Was the Menorah lit daily to simply ensure continuity or was there an objective importance to the daily act of lighting? Theoretically, if the lamps of the Menorah would keep burning for days at a time (Chanukah?) would it be necessary to relight it every day?[12] From a practical standpoint the answer is clear. The amount of oil was calibrated to ensure that it had to be relit at least once daily which was clearly the Torah's intention.[13] Hence we may conclude that both elements are crucial.

Returning to the Korban Tamid, it is possible that it encompasses both these dimensions as well. The emphasis on continuity is highlighted in Sefer Vayikra which deals with God's constant presence amongst the nation, whilst the aspect of the Tamid which represents renewal and establishes each day as an independent Mo'ed, is highlighted in Sefer Bamidbar. Sefer Bamidbar, as already mentioned, is one long story of rebirth and renewal whereby the new generation replaces the old one and surpasses it. The new generation faces similar challenges to the old one, but the responses and solutions are different. There is continuity on the one hand; but a new encounter and a new relationship, on the other.

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Only Rosh Chodesh is missing from the Vayikra list. Since there is no prohibition of labour, it is not regarded as one of the Mikra'ei Kodesh.

[2] Ramban (Num. 28:2, Lev. 23:2)

[3] Ramban touches on this point in his commentary to Lev. 23:2.  

[4] This is particularly relevant to understanding the location of the Parah Adumah but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.

[5] Worth noting that this model is utilised by bible critics who claim that formalistic and ritualistic elements are evidence of an independent Priestly source (known fondly as "P"). The underlying argument here accepts the striking contrast but considers it to be 'intelligent design'.  

[6] Ibn Ezra also understood that 'Mo'ado' refers specifically to the Korban Tamid. On the other hand, Ibn Ezra assumes that the term Mo'ed must entail some form of exclusivity and therefore proposes that it refers to the set time within the day (morning and evening) when the Tamid must be brought. This is not consistent with the use of the word Mo'ed in the concluding verse. In any event, the use of the term Mo'ed is striking.

[7] Rashi even suggests that the reason the Tamid is repeated in Parashat Pinchas is because the passage in Parashat Tetzaveh deals only with the Milluim period whereas our passage contains the directive for eternity. This is problematic (as the Ramban points out) since Parashat Tetzaveh already mentions that it applies le-doroteikhem.

[8] Rashi (TB Menachot 50a) explains the source for this law is the verse concerning the Korban Tamid in Parashat Tezaveh (Ex. 29:39) which is written in the context of inauguration. The consequence of this law is that although normally the evening Tamid could be brought even in the absence of the morning Tamid, this is not the case with a new Mizbe'ach which has not yet been inaugurated (see TB Menachot ad loc.).

[9] See Mishna Shekalim 4:4

[10] See TB Menachot 99b

[11] According to some, the ner ma'aravi burnt continuously by way of miracle. The Rambam himself does not reference anything miraculous about the ner maaravi (the centre lamp in his view). According to some interpreters of the Rambam, however, all the lights were meant to burn continuously and relit whenever they went out. Other Rishonim argue altogether that the command is only to light the Menorah at night.

[12] According to R' Chaim Soloveitchik (and various other Acharonim) the Rambam understood there was no Mitzvah to actively light the Menorah, only to ensure it was lit (therefore a non-Kohen could light it, see Hilkhot Bi'at HaMikdash, 9:7). For those that say the lights needed to be extinguished and relit, this poses a problem for the conventional understanding of the Chanukah miracle that the lamps of the Menorah burnt continuously for seven days. However, various sources suggest that the oil was split into eight daily portions and then lit daily (see Beit Yosef, Orach Chaim, 670:1).

[13] See Rambam (Temidin uMusafim 3:11)