בחוקותי

End of Vayikra - על הגאולה ועל התמורה

The conclusion of Sefer Vayikra comprises the following sections:

- 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 attempts to explain 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 HaKodashim, 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. This creates 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 Tokhachah, 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 Vayikra 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 ה׳ אֱלֹקיכֶם׃ (ויקרא כה':נה)

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

These parallels communicate that the spiritual premise of the covenant - God’s ownership of the land and his selection of the Jewish people - is responsible for the effects of Yovel.[3]

Yovel and the Tokhachah - 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 permanently 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 replaced. The final passage thus underscores the comforting verses which conclude the Tokhachah (Lev. 26:44-45), affirming that even in the darkest exile God will not completely abandon them and the covenant will not be severed. This is an expansion of law appearing immediately before the Tokhachah that an individual cannot be permanently sold into slavery:

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

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.

[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. 

תזריע-מצורע

The Guilt of the Metzora

Natural disease or divine retribution?

Is the affliction of Tzara'at contingent on a transgression? The answer to this question is not as simple as one might expect. The Torah devotes 116 consecutive verses to detailing the symptoms and the purification process of a Metzora, yet it does not link the cause to any particular transgression. The verses appear to describe various naturally occurring skin diseases (though apparently not leprosy), followed by apparent cases of fungi and mold outbreaks affecting fabrics and buildings.[1]

The laws of Tzara'at appear within a wider unit comprising other causes of impurity, including childbirth, menstrual and other bodily flows. As these conditions are natural and not reflective of any sin, there is no reason to assume the various forms of Tzara'at are of a different order.[2]

The regulations for dealing with the Tzara'at also seems to be medically informed. The need for quarantine is consistent with infectious disease control, whilst destruction of fabrics or building infrastructure is a well-attested approach for containing extreme cases of fungus/mold contamination.[3]

It should be noted that the fact that a Chatat is brought by the Metzora does not necessarily imply a transgression. Suffice to point to the other cases of ritual contamination which require a Chatat offering as part of the purification despite the fact that no sin has been committed. Similarly, a Nazir brings a Chatat upon the successful fulfilment of his Nazarite vow, even though this is apparently a positive achievement.[4] The fact that public Chatat offerings are brought on the festivals and at the inauguration of the Mishkan also seem unrelated to specific sins.[5]

Whilst often translated as a sin offering, it is more accurate to refer to the Chatat as a 'purification' offering after the act of purification (the chituy) which the Kohen performs on the Mizbe'ach by smearing the blood on the four corners (see Ex 29:36 and Lev 8:15). The principle is that the Mizbe'ach itself requires purification when impurity has been introduced, even outside the immediate vicinity of the Mishkan.[6] The deliberate smearing of the blood upon the horns of the altar constitutes the essence of the purification.[7]

The common understanding of the Chatat must therefore be flipped on its head. The primary purpose of Chatat is in fact related to ritual purification. The novelty the Torah introduces is that sin defiles the Mishkan, and particularly the Mizbe'ach, in a parallel manner to ritual impurity. As for ritual impurity, the Chatat has the capacity to purify this form of spiritual contamination as well. The association of these two forms of impurity (ritual and spiritual) imbues sin with a metaphysical quality which upgrades its severity in the human conscience. We will shortly return to this point.

If the Chatat of the Metzora is not an indicator of sin, what evidence is there that a Metzora's condition constitutes divine retribution more so than any other natural disease? To be clear, the fact that Tzara'at is a natural phenomenon and some of the regulations include sanitary or prophylactic measures, does not in of itself preclude a sin-punishment cause and effect. The question I am focusing on is if there is internal evidence that such a relationship exists.

To address this point, we need to briefly survey the cases in Tanakh where Tzara'at appears.

1) The most prominent case of Tzara'at is that of Miriam who is afflicted with Tzara'at after speaking negatively about Moshe (Num. 12:1). The Torah directs us to recall this episode immediately following the instruction to 'take heed of the Tzara'at affliction and diligently observe what the Kohanim instruct you' (24:8-9). Whilst the verse itself appears to refer to the diagnosis and purification process supervised by the Kohen, the juxtaposition with the verse about Miriam suggests there is an underlying spiritual cause to be aware of.

2) King Uzziah is suddenly stricken with Tzara'at when he offers Ketoret though not a Kohen himself (2 Chr. 26:16-21). The affliction apparently remains with him for the rest of his life.

3) Geichazi, the assistant of Elisha, is stricken as a punishment for his attempt to deceitfully enrich himself when Elisha heals Naaman of his Tzara'at (2 Kings 5:20-27).

On the other hand, there are other references where it is not obvious that the disease is linked to a particular sin. As one of the three signs at the burning bush, Moshe's hand presents with Tzara'at symptoms and is subsequently cured (Ex. 4:6). Although this is assumed by some commentators as linked to his alleged lashon ha-ra about the faith of the people (see Rashi), this does not necessarily stem from the p'shat and appears to be somewhat of an imposition.

Regarding the story of Naaman whose Tzara'at is healed by Elisha, at no point is there any suggestion within the narrative that Naaman had committed a particular sin.[8] There are other cases where the Tzara'at reference is neutral so far as sin is concerned, but the absence is stark in this case as the account revolves entirely around Naaman's Tzara'at and its cure.

With respect to Chazal's view, the position is far from clear or unanimous. Whilst people are familiar with the link drawn to the specific sin of lashon ha-ra (informed primarily by the Miriam episode), another Talmudic passage lists out various unrelated sins as potential causes (TB Archin 16a). Elsewhere the Talmud suggests there are at least some cases where Tzara'at is contracted as 'afflictions of love' (TB Berachot 5b). Clearly it was not perceived as a one-to-one relationship with any particular sin, and it was understood that the underlying cause could not always be identified.

What emerges from all the above is a very relatable conclusion. The frightening nature of the disease was perceived as potential divine retribution which was cause for intense introspection. Many of the related laws around isolation, even if the primary purpose was to contain the disease, help to advance that spiritual objective.[9]

The above is a brief summary of a very complex topic. There is much more to be said, but I would like to highlight a specific angle which can shed light on the topic and I have personally not seen discussed much.

The Korban Asham of the Metzorah

We mentioned that a Chatat requirement is not necessarily due to a failing, however that is not true of the Asham. Unlike a Chatat, there is no precedent for an Asham to be brought other than in a negative context and this is implied in its name which loosely translates as 'guilt'.[10] As it relates to a personal failing it is the only type of Korban which is never brought as a Korban Tzibbur (public offering).

Whilst the other cases of ritual impurity referred to earlier all have in common the requirement to bring an Olah and Chatat as part of the purification process, only the Metzora brings an Asham. The very requirement of the Asham therefore points to an element of personal responsibility on the part of the one who was afflicted. But it is specifically the nature of the Asham which encapsulates the nuance of the position.

To understand this better we must consider more broadly the circumstances in which an Asham is brought. The first three cases are mentioned in the primary passage of the Korban Asham at the end of Parashat Vayikra.

• Asham Me'ilah – unintentional misappropriation of sanctuary property (hekdesh) for personal use. In addition to the Korban, the offender must make full restitution plus pay a penalty of an additional fifth.
• Asham Taluy – where one is unsure whether one has transgressed.
• Asham Gezeilah – where one defrauded his/her fellow and lied under oath to establish possession. As with the Asham Meilah, full restitution is required plus an additional penalty of a fifth.[11]

There are three further scattered cases where an Asham is mandated:

• Asham Metzora – on the eighth day of purification a Metzora is required to bring an Asham alongside the Olah and Chatat.
• Asham Shifcha Charufa – the circumstances are not entirely clear from the verse but appear to relate to a maidservant who has been acquired by a master and designated for future marriage though they are not formally betrothed. According to Chazal it refers to a case of one who had relations with a partially free Canaanite slave woman who was betrothed to a Jewish slave.
• Asham Nazir – a Nazir who unwittingly breaks his Nazirite vow (the text uses the specific example of coming into contact with a dead body) must restart the period of their vow.[12]

Various suggestions have been made to establish a common denominator between the different cases.[13] To me it seems that the most prominent feature common to all these cases is the lack of a clear and identifiable sin, either because the sin itself lacks definition, or because the negative effects have already been reversed.  

Asham Me'ilah / Asham Gezeilah

In the case of Asham Meilah and Asham Gezeilah, there was a bona fide transgression to begin with, but the critical point is that restitution has already been made or imposed. What remains is the personal guilt of the offender for the initial breach of trust but not so much the objective (metaphysical) impact which typically requires purification of the Mizbe'ach (via the blood of a Chatat).

To deal with this residual feeling of guilt and to restore the sense of relationship with God, the Asham is mandated. It may even be argued that the purpose is to reinforce the guilt resulting from the transgression but simultaneously provide closure to enable the offender to move on.

Asham Shifcha Charufa

Shifcha Charufa case is another example where the full taint of a sin is lacking and therefore the purification process involving the Chatat is not warranted. Whatever the specific circumstance, the couple cannot be put to death as the maidservant was only semi-formally engaged. The man is nevertheless guilty of a breach of trust which must be acknowledged notwithstanding that the threshold for adultery was not met. Accordingly, an Asham is appropriate.

Asham Nazir

The case of the Asham Nazir is similar to that of the Asham Meilah and Asham Gezeilah as restitution is also made here as the Nazir must restart the period of his vow so that the days prior to the breach are completed anew.[14] The effects have therefore been dealt with and what remains is to alleviate the subjective guilt of failure.

Asham Taluy

The case of the Asham Taluy is the easiest but I have left it towards the end as it resonates most with the Asham Metzora. In the case of the Asham Taluy the entire experience is rooted in a lack of knowledge as to whether any sin has in fact been committed. Such a person carries a feeling of guilt for a potential unidentified sin.

There is an interesting debate whether the Asham Taluy necessitates an uncertainty to have arisen with respect to a specific action or extends to a general sense of guilt for having possibly sinned:

רבי אליעזר אומר, מתנדב אדם אשם תלוי בכל יום ובכל שעה שירצה, והיא נקראת אשם חסידים. אמרו עליו על בבא בן בוטי, שהיה מתנדב אשם תלוי בכל יום, חוץ מאחר יום הכפורים ז יום אחד. אמר, המעון הזה, אלו היו מניחים לי, הייתי מביא, אלא אומרים לי המתן עד שתכנס לספק. וחכמים אומרים, אין מביאים אשם תלוי אלא על דבר שזדונו כרת ושגגתו חטאת. (משנה כריתות ב:א)

The view of the Sages is far more technical and focused on a specific act, whereas the view of R' Eliezer and Bava Ben Buta is much broader and encompasses a guilty state of being.

The fact that the Asham Taluy is based on such a guilt factor rather than an objective need, may shed light on certain laws. Although many of the laws relating to a Chatat are transposed to the Asham, there are several notable differences.[15] There is a special rule that Yom Kippur atones for an Asham Talui requirement yet it does not atone for a Chatat (TB Keritut 25a). Furthermore, according to some opinions, one Asham can cover many different potential sins, whereas a separate Chatat is required for each unintentional sin (TB Keritut 18a). These laws are better understood if the Asham focuses on the state of mind of the person rather than the metaphysical contamination of the sin.

Asham Metzorah

The conscious experience of one bringing an Asham Taluy is mirrored in the Metzora. Whilst the person who is liable to bring an Asham Taluy faces uncertainty of his liability due to the nature of his actions, the victim of the Tzara'at encounters a similar sense of uncertainty as a result of the affliction which is at best indicative, but in no way confirmatory, of a transgression.

For reasons mentioned before, a person stricken with Tzara'at senses divine retribution which rightly demands introspection. On the one hand, this feeling is reinforced by the ritual impurity which follows in its wake. On the other hand, the Torah does not provide any definitive cause or even say explicitly that there is one. The role of the Kohen is simply to diagnose the symptoms, but he makes no determination with regards to possible sin. Conclusions maybe only be drawn from the person's own introspection. Once he is declared pure and the symptoms have gone, he is ready re-enter the camp. It is the Asham which enables him to come to terms with the uncertainty and alleviate his guilt.[16]

Postscript - The Asham as the Imposter Korban

Perhaps this can explain an additional point regarding the presentation of the Asham in the Torah. Both Parashat Vayikra and Tzav deal with the various types of Korbanot with the key difference being that Parashat Vayikra deals with the journey from the owner to the Mizbe'ach including the slaughter and blood service, whereas Parashat Tzav deals with the consumption by either the Mizbe'ach or the Kohanim. For some reason, the Asham passage in Parashat Vayikra does not state at all what happens with the ram once it is brought to the Kohen. There is no mention of the Mizbe'ach, the slaughter procedure, what to do with the blood, which parts are offered etc. Since these elements are not mentioned in Parashat Vayikra, it should come as no surprise that Parashat Tzav compensates by including them within the Asham passage there.

The explanation for this anomaly may relate to the enigmatic status of the Asham. If there is no identifiable sin and the Mizbe'ach requires no purification, then the Korban serves no objective purpose. The unique component of the Chatat offering is the spreading of the blood over the horns of the Mizbe'ach which shares no parallel with other Korbanot. This represents the stage of cleansing or purifying the Mizbe'ach of the ritual or spiritual contamination. The idea of a contingent Korban but lacking the purification capacity of the Chatat (the blood of the Asham is not spread on the horns of the Mizbe'ach) seems to lack purpose.

Moreover, conceptually it seems problematic as if indeed there was no sin then the Korban may be regarded, in theoretical halakhic terms at least, as chullin be-azarah. Obviously once the Korban has been prescribed this is not truly a problem, but it highlights the novelty of the entire framework. In other words, the Asham is unique as within the world of Korbanot it really has no right to be offered up. Yet to ensure that an offender can relieve himself of his guilt whilst at the same time ensuring he is now more mindful of his actions, the Torah prescribes a Korban. Nevertheless, to retain the sense that the Korban addresses a particular psychological state rather than an objective 'need' of the Mizbe'ach, the Torah focuses the passage of the Asham on the delivery of the Korban to the Kohen but stops short of discussing any contact with the Mizbe'ach and detailing the sacrificial rite itself. In literary terms, the Torah distances the Asham from the Mizbe'ach. 

This being the case, Parashat Vayikra opens up with the Olah which is consumed in its entirety on the Mizbe'ach and ends with the Asham which (again in literary terms) doesn't reach the Mizbe'ach at all.[17]

 

  

---

[1] Leprosy, also known as Hansen's disease, presents with different symptoms and was apparently unknown in the region until the 4^th century BCE.

[2] R' Shimon Bar Yochai (TB Niddah 31b) is recorded as saying that the Torah requires a Korban for a new mother as she is assumed to have made an oath owing to the pain of childbirth not to have further intercourse with her husband. There are many apparent problems in the statement and I assume it was intended as a psychological insight rather than literal (as seems to be the case for many of the surrounding statements in the passage). R' S.R. Hirsch creatively interprets the statement as suggestive of a broader need for spiritual recovery following the intense physical experience of childbirth (which is linked to Hirsch's broader theory on the moral philosophy behind ritual impurity). See also TB Keritut 26a which appears to remove the literalism by acknowledging that this is not the real reason the Yoledet brings a Chatat.

[3] See however commentary of R' Hirsch (appendix to Tazria) who forcefully argues that the essence of the disease and its diagnosis is not related to any natural phenomenon.

[4] The view of the Ramban (Num 6:12) notwithstanding. Whilst R Elazar HaKapar (TB Nazir 19a) also regards the Nazir as a 'sinner' he is not specifically addressing the Chatat requirement. From the Talmud (TB Keritut 26a) it is clear that even if a sin is involved in the cases of Yoledet, Metzora, and Nazir, the purpose of the Chatat is to finalise the purification process to enable the consumption of sacrificial foods.

[5] Though the Mishna (Shavuot 1:3-4) understands that the Chatat brought on the various festivals atones for sins related to ritual impurity, particularly contamination of the Mikdash, this too highlights the special capacity of the Chatat to engage in ritual purification.  

[6] In light of this it is surprising that Beit Hillel do not regard its absence as cause for invalidating the Korban (see TB Zevachim 36b). The only Korban which does not have the term Isheh La-Hashem is the Korban Chatat. Yonatan Grossman (Torat HaKorbanot, pp.54-59) suggests that this is because, unlike other Korbanot, the primary purpose of the Korban Chatat is the purification (chituy) of the Mizbe'ach achieved through the blood and from whence it derives its name, and not the consumption of the meat by the fire of the Mizbe'ach.

[7] Discussed in detail in previous post.

[8] See however Bamidbar Rabbah 7:5 which has Naaman being afflicted for being haughty (c.f. TB Archin 16a which links Tzara'at to haughtiness but does not derive this from the Naaman episode). In any event this is not clear from the text.

[9] The Rambam's view, at least on the surface, appears to relate Tzara'at to a miraculous phenomenon (see Hilkhot Tum'at Tzara'at 16:10). This is very uncharacteristic of him and has sparked significant debate. It should be noted, however, that he only states this with regard to Tzara'at on garments and houses, probably as it was unheard of in his day and age. Ironically, it is now commonly accepted that the ancients may have had diseases which have since disappeared or evolved as much as we have diseases now which did not exist then (COVID-19 for example).

[10] In some contexts Asham can refer to the punishment itself (see Gen. 26:10), or a form of compensation payment (see Num. 5:8).

[11] The requirement that restitution is made before bringing the Asham is only explicit by the Asham Gezeilah. Possibly the issue is more sensitive here as the beneficiary of the restitution and the Asham are different, which is not the case for the Asham Meilah.

[12] In the case of the Nazir the Asham comprises a young lamb (keves) one year of age rather than an adult ram (ayil). In the case of Metzora it does not say explicitly that the keves needs to be one year of age, though this is the way it is understood in Halakhah (see Rambam Hilkhot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:24).

[13] In terms of medieval commentators, see in particular Ramban (Lev. 5:15)

[14] I once heard a suggestion from R' Itamar Eldar that, as far as concerns the p'shat, the Asham is only brought after the lost days have been recounted. This is debatable but in any event, it is true that the Asham requirement appears separately to the Olah and Chatat only after it has been clarified that his Nazirite period must restart. Interestingly, in the case of the Metzora, in contrast to the Nazir, the Asham precedes the Chatat and the Olah.

[15] Due to the equating of the Chatat and the Asham in the verse - ka-chatat ka-asham - Chazal derived that certain laws of the Chatat can be transferred to the Asham. For example, R' Eliezer derives that the lishma requirement is essential to the Asham as it is for the Chatat and Korban (which is not the case for other Korbanot). The sages derive from this same comparison that semikhah is required for an Asham even though it is not written explicitly (TB Zevachim 10b-11a). Incidentally, the anomaly of semikhah not being mentioned in relation to the Asham may be connected to the fact that the details of the Korban Asham ritual are deferred to Parashat Tzav (as discussed further below). Since Parashat Tzav focuses on the Kohanim it is not appropriate to mention the semikhah which relates exclusively to the owner (unlike the shechitah which can be done by either – but see commentary of the Netziv on 7:2).  

[16] The ram used for an Asham is the only category of animal which cannot be brought as a Chatat (which is either a bull, male goat, female goat, or female sheep). I have wondered whether the reason for a ram in the case of the Asham is linked to its surprise appearance at the end of the Akeidah. After Avraham was told not to offer Yitzchak he offers a ram as a replacement to fill the void. The ram of the Asham is also brought to fill the void of the Chatat which cannot be offered.

[17] It is noteworthy that the blood of the Asham Metzora is placed on the person himself putting him at the centre of the ritual instead of the Mizbe'ach. This too seems consistent with the suggestion that the Mizbe'ach is altogether secondary in the case of the Asham (though Chazal derived that the blood is also placed on the Mizbe'ach, see TB Zevachim 47b-48a). A precedent for this ritual exists with the ram of the Milu'im where the blood was placed on the Kohanim. There are many unique features of the special Milu'im Korban which require separate study (including its lack of classification as a specific type of Korban). Unlike in the case of the Metzora, however, in the case of the Milu'im the verse states explicitly that the blood also went on the Mizbe'ach. 

אמר

The Duality of the Lechem HaPanim

The instructions for the Lechem HaPanim marks the close of the long unit of laws taught to Moshe from the Ohel Mo’ed. The only major break from the beginning of Vayikra thus far has been the events of the eighth day including the story of the death of Nadav and Avihu. After the Lechem HaPanim passage, there is the digressive episode of the blasphemer following which the Torah returns the frame of reference to Mt Sinai (first verse of parashat Behar) for the conclusion of the covenant.[1] 

What is unique about the Lechem HaPanim that its description is deferred to this critical juncture?[2]

Lechem Hapanim as covenantal symbol

The words used to describe the Lechem HaPanim which signifies its underlying importance is ‘Berit Olam’ – eternal covenant:

בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת יַעַרְכֶנּוּ לִפְנֵי ה’ תָּמִיד מֵאֵת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּרִית עוֹלָם׃ (ויקרא כד:ח)

The symbolism of bread is particularly important in the covenantal context as bread typically comprises the communal feast over which a covenant is sealed. This is well attested to in the Torah and beyond continues to this day. For example, when Yaakov enters into the covenant with Lavan they participate in a joint meal consisting of bread:

וַיִּזְבַּח יַעֲקֹב זֶבַח בָּהָר וַיִּקְרָא לְאֶחָיו לֶאֱכָל־לָחֶם וַיֹּאכְלוּ לֶחֶם וַיָּלִינוּ בָּהָר (בראשית לא:נד)

In the case of the Lechem HaPanim, the two parties to the covenant are God and the Israelite nation. The bread is a tribute from the entire community of Israel, and the Kohanim consume the bread in their capacity as God’s representatives, similar to their function in relation to other offerings.

On the other hand, the bread itself does not touch the Mizbe'ach and – in contrast to the Korbanot – remains wholly within the human domain (only the frankincense - levonah - was burnt on the Mizbe’ach). From this perspective, the Kohanim eat the bread as guests at God’s table as representatives of the nation. This aspect is reinforced by the obvious symbolism of the Kodesh HaKodashim as the inner chamber of God and the Kodesh – the outer sanctum - as the living room which hosts and feeds visitors (hence the combination of lampstand, table and bread).

The covenantal dimension of the Lechem HaPanim is further reinforced by the fact that it was brought on Shabbat which is also described as a Berit Olam:

וְשָׁמְרוּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת־הַשַּׁבָּת לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת־הַשַּׁבָּת לְדֹרֹתָם בְּרִית עוֹלָם׃ (שמות לא:טז)

As we are discussing Shabbat, the inverse correlation with the Manna is also worth noting. On Friday man receives a double portion of Manna from God, whilst on Shabbat man brings a double portion of his own bread to God. (Each of the twelve loaves were two tenths of an Ephah which is equal to a double portion of the Manna as fell each Friday.) This exchange enhances the sense of mutuality expressed by the Lechem HaPanim. 

Vayikra – Hitbatlut to Berit[3]

Given the covenantal function of the Lechem HaPanim, we can answer our question if we consider the overarching theme of Sefer Vayikra. 

Sefer Shemot concludes with the unbridgeable gap between human and the divine. In the raw presence of God, man has no space to exist. When the cloud descends on the Mishkan, Moshe is unable to enter and, on this somber note, Sefer Shemot draws to a close. The Mishkan in Sefer Shemot is primarily a place of revelation reflecting the experience of Mt. Sinai.

Vayikra introduces a new perspective where the Mishkan is a place where man can express himself in God’s presence through the Korbanot.[4] It is not just a conduit for divine revelation, but a place where man reaches out to God. In the opening verse Moshe needs to be called by God to enter the Mishkan. The significance of starting the book with this word cannot be overstated.[5] On the basic level, it highlights the hesitancy and trepidation of Moshe to enter the divine realm, but on a deeper level it is a philosophical statement that man can only approach and engage in the service of God because God invites him (and creates the space for him) to do so.

From this initial inhibition, the intimacy progressively intensifies. The first instruction Moshe receives relates to the Korban Olah. The Korban is entirely burnt on the Mizbe’ach and there is no further human participation. Man seeks to express himself through a Korban but it is through a sense of total submission and self-negation in the presence of God.

Next are the Menachot comprising various forms of flour offerings. These are brought in their entirety to the Mizbe’ach in a process known as hagashah, but part of the Minchah (referred to the 'leftover') then transfers from the Mizbe’ach to the Kohanim and is consumed in parallel to the Mizbe’ach.[6] Now is not the place to expand on this point, but many of the laws and much of the language relating to the Menachot stress this point that the partaking of the Kohanim - of the Menachot specifically - is a continuation of the Mizbe’ach’s own consumption. It is for this reason that even the leftover must be eaten as Matzah, just like the Mizbe'ach. That the Minchah is fully consumed by the Mizbe'ach - directly or indirectly via the Kohanim - connects the Minchah to the world of the Olah preceding it.

Even with the Menachot the list splits into two. The first option is raw flour mixed with oil. The second group of options are processed in some way or another: oven-baked, fried or deep-fried. The first option corresponds more closely to the Olah which was burnt in its raw form, whereas the second option includes increased level of human participation, closer in spirit to the Shelamim which follows thereafter.[7]

The final offering from the voluntary list is the Shelamim where the human element is even more pronounced. The owner partakes in the consumption of the Korban and only the innards (fats, kidney and possibly part of the liver) are burnt on the Mizbe’ach. In contrast to the Menachot, the part of the Korban earmarked for human consumption does not contact the Mizbe’ach at all.

If the Olah is the point of departure of Torat Kohanim, then the Lechem HaPanim can be seen as the final destination. As mentioned above, the Lechem HaPanim does not contact the Mizbe’ach at all and only the levonah is offered as a ‘token’ for the bread. The Kohanim break bread at God’s table in what is symbolic of a covenantal feast between God and the nation. This is clearly a state of consciousness far removed from the submissive experience of the Korban Olah.

As noted above, bread is specifically associated with covenant. With respect to the Korbanot listed in parashat Vayikra, the only Korban described there in terms of ‘Lechem’ is the Shelamim (see Lev. 3:11 and 3:16). In contrast to the restricted use early on, in our parashah the word appears no fewer than 14 times in varying contexts. Multiples of 7 are often used to point to a draw attention to a keyword and serves here to imbue the parashah with covenantal overtones. It may or may not be coincidental – but too tempting not to mention – that 7 of these instances relate the Lechem to God (Lechem Elokim), and 7 relate to Lechem belonging to man.[8]

Was the Lechem Hapanim Chametz or Matzah?

The above discussion brings us to an intriguing question. Was the Lechem HaPanim Chametz or Matzah?

The answer is surprisingly unclear as the passage is silent as to which one it is. With every other bread/meal offering or service the Torah makes it clear whether it refers to leavened or unleavened bread. The distinction is generally as follows. In cases where the bread is in contact with the Mizbe’ach (even if subsequently removed like the general case of the Menachot), it must take the form of unleavened bread. When the bread does not engage the Mizbe’ach - as in the case of the Shtei HaLechem - it must be Chametz. 

Many salient explanations have been offered as to why Chametz cannot be offered on the Mizbe’ach. Most are connected directly or indirectly to the fact that the production of leavened bread is a product of human intervention and ingenuity. Believed to have originated in ancient Egypt, the leavening of bread is considered a key milestone in the emergence of civilisation. The Mizbe’ach, as already alluded to, involves man submitting himself to God. Human creativity represented in bread production must therefore be restrained when it is brought to the Mizbe'ach.  

This being the case, some have argued that the Lechem HaPanim was Chametz for the simple reason that it did not reach the Mizbe’ach (not even nominally through the process of kemitzah or hagashah) so there was no reason for it to be Matzah. [9] Chazal on the other hand, derived that the Lechem HaPanim was Matzah.[10] The position of Chazal can be conceptually understood in one of two ways. Either the Matzah requirement is derived directly from the kodesh kodashim status of the bread, possibly derived from the contact with the Shulchan instead of the Mizbe'ach. Indeed, whenever the Matzah requirement crops up in relation to the Menachot, both the Mizbe’ach connection and the kodesh kodashim status are refenced making it difficult to discern which one drives the Matzah requirement (see Lev. 2:11, 6:9-10)

Alternatively (and more likely I believe), they considered that offering the levonah on the Mizbe’ach as a token for the bread provides a sufficient nexus with the Mizbe’ach which transfers the Matzah requirement across to the Lechem HaPanim.[11] The verses themselves deem the Lechem HaPanim to come from the ‘Isheh Hashem’ which is the term used in relation to the Korbanot in reference to the fire of the Mizbe’ach:

וְהָיְתָה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו וַאֲכָלֻהוּ בְּמָקוֹם קָדֹשׁ כִּי קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא לוֹ מֵאִשֵּׁי ה’ חָק־עוֹלָם׃ (ויקרא כז:ט)

It seems that the ambiguity whether the Lechem HaPanim is bread of the Mizbe’ach (i.e. Matzah) or human bread (i.e. Chametz) is not coincidental. As mentioned, the Kohanim partake of the Lechem HaPanim as representatives of both sides of the covenant. The bread is represented on the Mizbe’ach through the levonah, yet the bread itself does not touch the Mizbe’ach. Herein lies the tension. If it is consumed in conjunction with the Mizbe'ach like other Menachot then it should be Matzah, if it is consumed on the human side (albeit as guests at the divine table) it should be Chametz. From a literary perspective, it therefore does not define itself as Chametz or Matzah; it is both or neither.[12] From the halachic perspective, of course, it must be one or the other. Excuse the science parallel, but the halachic role here is comparable to the observer in quantum physics. Just as the observer causes the wave function to collapse into a definite position, so too halacha negates the duality of the text by crystallising a defined status. In this case, the halachic consensus may determine it to be Matzah, but the literary function of the Chametz-Matzah duality nonetheless conveys the covenantal mutuality.  

Lechem and Luchot 

In the previous post on the Lechem HaPanim, it was suggested that the Lechem HaPanim displayed on the Shulchan under the light of the Menorah, engages in hidden dialogue with the Luchot which were tucked away in the Aron and protected by the Keruvim on top. As discussed there, the structure of the Aron (and the textual description) parallels the Shulchan, whilst the Keruvim parallel the Menorah. The Lechem and the Luchot also mirror each other in certain respects. Both contain covenantal symbolism, both contain a 2x6 structure, and there is even a linguistic connection. 

Yet with all the similarity there is an important difference. The Lechem is displayed by the Shulchan-Menorah combination whilst the Luchot are covered and hidden by the Aron-Keruvim. This reflects the contrasting atmosphere prevailing in each chamber. The Luchot residing in the Kodesh HaKodashim are the ineffable word of God. They are described as formed and inscribed by God (Ex. 32:16), and are a continual symbol of God's revelation to man. In this chamber man is fully subdued. There is no service directly involving the Aron or the Keruvim as man can only stand in awe in the (clouded) presence of the divine. In the Kodesh, however, man dares to be an active. He lights the Menorah and displays the bread he himself has prepared.[13]    

In light of this connection between the Luchot and the Lechem HaPanim, one may further appreciate how the passage of the Lechem HaPanim - as well as closing out the sequence of laws of the Ohel Mo’ed - provides the segue back to Mt Sinai and the conclusion of the covenant.

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] The dispute between Ibn Ezra and Ramban as to whether the passages are in chronological order has no material bearing on our discussion.

[2] The instruction for the lighting of the Menorah appears immediately prior to the Lechem HaPanim. Unlike the Lechem HaPanim, however, the lighting of the Menorah was previously described in Sefer Shemot (27:20-21). As discussed elsewhere, there is a close association between the Menorah and the Shulchan and its repetition here should be seen as ancillary to the Lechem HaPanim which is the main focus.

[3] Insights on the placement/structure of the Menachot are based on Torat HaKorbanot, Yonatan Grossman (Maggid, 2021)

[4] In the words of Grossman (ibid, p.9):

הקורבן לא בא לספק את צרכיו של האל, אלא הוא בא לאפשר לאדם להביע את עצמו מול קונו לגשת איליו ולהגיש, ולומר לו דבר מה

[5] The significance of the opening word ‘Vayikra’ and the interaction with the end of Shemot was already noted in the Midrash:

וַיִּקְרָא אֶל מֹשֶׁה. לָמָּה אָמַר וַיִּקְרָא. אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁאָמַר לְמַעְלָה, וְלֹא יָכֹל מֹשֶׁה לָבוֹא אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, כְּשֶׁשָּׁרְתָה הַשְּׁכִינָה בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, וְלֹא יָכֹל לָבוֹא, לְפִי שֶׁשָּׁכַן עָלָיו הֶעָנָן, וּלְפִיכָךְ קְרָאוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מֵאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד. לֵאמֹר. מַהוּ לֵאמֹר, לֵאמֹר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָדָם כִּי יַקְרִיב מִכֶּם קָרְבָּן. (תנחומא ח:א)

[6] Hagasha is not explicitly mentioned in the context of the plain flour offering. Chazal transferred the hagasha requirement across to all the primary Menachot based on the reference in parashat Tzav. 

[7] Such is the similarity between the plain flour Minchah and the Olah that some considered it to be the poor man’s option of an Olah and belonging to the previous unit (see Abarbanel, Lev. 2:1). Aside from the textual problems, however, it has been shown that the cost of the oil and frankincense would have made the meal offering more costly than the bird option of the Olah.

[8] This assumes the single reference to Lechem in the passage of the Lechem HaPanim also counts as Lechem Elokim.

[9] Grossman (ibid, p. 185). The Lechem HaPanim and Shtei HaLechem are excluded from the hagashah requirement since neither are directly offered on the Mizbe'ach (see TB Menachot 60b). On the other hand they are included within the prohibition of offering outside the Beit HaMikdash (ba'al taktiru) on the basis of kol she'mi'menu le'ishim I.e. at least some part (i.e. the levonah) is required to be represented on the Mizbe'ach (TB Menachot 57b). In other words, the fact that the levonah is offered on the Mizbe'ach is sufficient to engage the prohibition. It is precisely this hybridity which leads us to question whether the Lechem HaPanim should conceptually have been Chametz or Matzah.   

[10] TB. Menachot 57a. This is the view originally attributed to R' Akiva (and opposed) by R' Yossi Haglili though the positions are later switched. The halacha accords with this view (See Hilchot Maaseh HaKorbanot 12:19) which is also the general view expressed in the Mishnayot (see Menachot 5:1, Sukka 5:7). The view that it is Matzah derives it from the words lo taktiru which is strange since the Lechem HaPanim did not contact the Mizbe'ach directly in any form. This would seem to favour the approach that the Levonah represents the bread on the Mizbe'ach which generates the Chametz prohibition. The Rambam (ad loc), in apparent opposition to the Talmudic exegesis, derives the Chametz prohibition from the words kol ha-minchah instead (see Kesef Mishna ad loc, see also Tosfot Menachot 57a). Either way, it was very airy Matzah since according to TB Pesachim 87a the Lechem HaPanim was a tefach high (cf Rambam Hilchot Temidin uMusafim 5:9). According to the Kesef Mishna's calculation the volume of the base ingredients was far smaller.       

[11] The offering of the levonah of the Lechem HaPanim is treated for halachic purposes (piggul, notar, and me'ilah) equivalent to the process of kemitzah of regular Menachot which corresponds to the blood sprinkling of the Korbanot (see Tosfot, TB Me'ilah 7a). The words used in conjunction with the offering of the levonah of the Lechem HaPanim - azkarah - is in fact the same word used to describe the part of the Minchah (i.e. the kemitzah) typically offered on the Mizbe'ach.      

[12] It is unsurprising that the Shelamim which also has a connotation of a covenantal feast consists of both Matzah and Chametz loaves where applicable (e.g. Todah and perhaps other instances according to the peshat).       

[13] Truth is even in the case of Luchot there is a hint of a partnership (but with God as the dominant party). Moshe is instructed to carve out the tablets himself, the writing is engraved by God:

 וַיֹּאמֶר ה’ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה פְּסָל־לְךָ שְׁנֵי־לֻחֹת אֲבָנִים כָּרִאשֹׁנִים וְכָתַבְתִּי עַל־הַלֻּחֹת אֶת־הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ עַל־הַלֻּחֹת הָרִאשֹׁנִים אֲשֶׁר שִׁבַּרְתָּ׃ (שמות לד:א)