From: "Yeshivat Har Etzion's Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash" To: yhe-holiday@vbm-torah.org Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 14:25:39 +0200 Subject: SPECIAL HOLIDAY PACKAGE PART 3 Reply-To: "Yeshivat Har Etzion's Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash" Priority: normal X-MIME-Autoconverted: from Quoted-printable to 8bit by acis.mc.yu.edu id HAA17126 YESHIVAT HAR ETZION ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM) ********************************************************* YHE-HOLIDAY: SPECIAL HOLIDAY PACKAGES PESACH 5759 Part 3 ********************************************************* In memory of Pinhas ben Shalom (Paul) Cymbalista z"l. Niftar 20 Nissan 5752. Dedicated by his family. ********************************************************* 1. The Symbolism of Chametz, by Rav Alex Israel 2. Korban Pesach ö The Minui Process, by Rav Moshe Taragin ********************************************************* THE SYMBOLISM OF CHAMETZ by Rav Alex Israel CHAMETZ AND THE ALTAR OF GOD In Parashat Vayikra, the Torah describes the meal- offering (mincha), a sacrifice of flour mixed with oil. The flour could be brought in its regular state, or it could be offered baked as matzot, or even a pancake (for details, see Lev. chapter 2). Within the context of this flour offering, the Torah issues an instruction: "No meal offering that you offer to the Lord shall be with leaven (chametz), for you shall burn no leaven (se'or) or honey in any fire offering to the Lord." (2:11) It appears again in Tzav: "... its remainder (of the meal offering) shall be eaten by Aaron and his sons; it shall be eaten as unleavened cake (matzot) in the sacred precinct ... It shall not be baked with leaven ..." (6:9-10) We can see that the prohibition of chametz is not simply limited to the festival of Pesach. It has a wider application than that, and its application to the Temple - no leaven may be offered on the Temple altar - begs the question; what is it that disqualifies leaven? Why is it under ban? IDOLATRY Maimonides, in his famous work The Guide to the Perplexed (3:46), suggests that the Torah forbids the offering of chametz on the Temple altar because it is too similar to the pagan idolatrous practices of the time. "Due to the fact that the idolaters would sacrifice only leavened bread, and they would offer up all manner of sweet food and would smear their animal sacrifices with honey, ... therefore God warned us not to offer to Him any of these things, leaven or honey." According to this, the sole objection to chametz lies in the fact that chametz is associated with the pagan, and God wishes to distance these practices and ideas from His service. [This equation of chametz with idolatry becomes even more fascinating when we apply it to the prohibition of chametz on Pesach. We know that matza symbolizes the haste of the exodus (Ex. 12:39), but why should all leaven be outlawed on Pesach? The Zohar (2:182) equates chametz and idolatry: "Whoever eats chametz on Pesach is as if he prayed to an idol." Many commentators have suggested that the ceremony of the Paschal Lamb in Egypt was a public rejection of the Egyptian worship of sheep. Rashi (Exodus 12:20) sees the command to take the lamb as a rejection of pagan worship. Maybe the corollary for future generations is the prohibition of chametz. See Haggada Shelema by R. Menachem Kasher - Appendix #7 - where he draws a series of halakhic parallels between the laws of idolatry and the laws of chametz: 1. The prohibition of even seeing it. 2. The requirement to burn it, to eradicate its existence. 3. The prohibition not only of eating but of any manner of benefit from it. 4. The prohibition of even the most minuscule particle. This is true for idolatry and chametz, but is not true for any other prohibitions in Jewish law.] THE EVIL INCLINATION Chametz has been given a wider theological application by preachers throughout the ages by drawing a comparison between leaven and the "yetzer ha-ra," the evil inclination, the driving force to sin. "Rabbi Alexandri would end his daily prayers with the following supplication: 'Master of the Universe, You know full well that it is our desire to act according to Your will; but what prevents us from doing so? - the yeast in the dough...'" (Berakhot 17a) In the Torah, two terms are used to designate leaven: "se'or" and "chametz." What is the difference between them? Se'or is a leavening agent. It is a piece of old dough which has been allowed to reach a high level of fermentation. This is sometimes known as sourdough (or yeast). This substance is quite inedible, but when a piece of sourdough (se'or) is kneaded together with a mixture of flour and water, it accelerates the rising process and creates "chametz." Rabbi Alexandri sees "se'or" as a metaphor for the powerful drives and inflammatory passions that lurk within us all. Our mind has the ability to distort the reality of our vision, inflate our desires and draw us in directions that we would never take if we were to follow only our cold rational side. The impulse to evil ferments and corrupts. It makes flour and water appear as soft warm enticing bread. Chametz is the evil inclination! It is the "yeast in the dough" which allows us to lose full control, which makes us irrational and leads us to impropriety. This powerful metaphor explains well the impropriety of chametz on God's altar - for we stand before God in truth and sobriety - but it doesn't exactly explain the prohibition of chametz on Pesach. Maybe we should ban chametz during the Ten Days of Penitence when we focus on repentance and self-betterment! ARTIFICIAL SWEETNESS The Netziv - Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Berlin (Russia: Volozhin 1817-1893) - in his commentary HA'AMEK DAVAR takes the theology of chametz in almost a completely reverse direction. He suggests that significance of chametz lies in the exercise of human control rather than the loss of it. He also explains why this law applies specifically to the sacrificial altar and to the holiday of Passover. "Scripture calls all substances which have a sweetening effect 'honey' because honey is the classic sweetener. As for leaven, se'or is a human manipulation of the natural state of God's universe. It is an exercise of human machination. God warns us not to use these in the Temple, as the nearer one finds oneself to God, the less room there is for human ingenuity." He refers us to his commentary to Exodus 13:3 where he states: "LEAVEN MAY NOT BE EATEN (on Passover) ... matza takes no advantage of the human technological ingenuity and creativity which allows man to raise the dough more than simple flour and water which are created by God. Chametz is the epitome of human involvement in nature. Thus, non-leaven is the symbol of the survival and ongoing existence of the Jewish People as they survive solely through the spirit of God." The Netziv sees the raising agent (se'or) and its product chametz as an expression of human interference in nature. Conversely, matza is an expression of the world controlled exclusively by God. Man's discovery that sourdough could cause bread to rise was a technological breakthrough in food technology, a classic human manipulation of the elements of nature. Most of the time, the advancement of civilization in this manner is welcomed by the Torah. This creativity and ingenuity is depicted as the "divine" in man, his "image of God." Not only God, but man too, can create! However, in a place where God's presence manifests itself most intensely - in the Temple - there is no place for man's creative spirit. In the Temple, man is dwarfed by God. The altar of God is no place for human food technology. On the altar, we dedicate all the elements of God's world - the animal, vegetable and mineral - recognizing and demonstrating that God is the source of them all. Chametz - the product of human manufacture - has no place on the altar of God. It would be presumptuous. Similarly, on the festival of the miraculous birth of our nation, when an entire nation walked to their freedom away from a tyrannical regime, without lifting a finger of their own, we commemorate the power of God. God performed the Ten Plagues and we had no hand in them. At the Red Sea, the people stood huddled together, frightened, terrified in the face of the imposing Egyptian army. Moses instructed them: "Stand by and witness the deliverance which the Lord will work for you this day; for the Egthat you see today you will never see again. The Lord will battle for you; you hold your peace." (Ex. 14:13-14) We stood still and God saved the day. Man had no part in the miracles of the Exodus. We therefore commemorate this momentous event by refraining from contact with chametz. We refrain from human manipulation of our most basic commodity - bread. We proclaim that the very essence of our being comes directly and completely from God. THE BEGINNING OF THE ROAD One final approach comes from a contemporary scholar - Rav Yoel Bin Nun. He notes that there are occasions when we DO bring leaven to the Temple (although it is not offered up on the altar itself). On Shavuot - Pentecost - we bring two loaves of bread to the Temple (23:17). In the thanksgiving offering (a variation of the peace offering - shelamim), three types of loaves are brought to the Temple: unleavened wafers - like our matzot; unleavened loaves - like pita; and leavened loaves - like our bread. What is the symbolism that leaven and unleaven represent in the Temple? Leaven represents fulfillment, a process which has gone its due course. The ultimate and supreme form of flour and water is a leavened loaf. Unleaven, on the other hand, is "not yet" what it aspires to be; it figuratively represents the beginning of a yet- unfulfilled process. It is presently immature and unripe. It is in the early stages of a journey. The altar of God is not a place for leaven. Before God, we are all rough around the edges. We all have a way to go in reaching our own personal destiny. We have faults, room for improvement. We cannot express ourselves before God represented by the symbol of leaven, for we are at the beginning of a journey. We are the unleavened, still traveling on the tortuous road that is human and religious betterment. So when do we bring leaven to the Temple? Shavuot is the Festival of Weeks. It is also the festival designated as the time to bring first fruits from the new crop in the Land of Israel to the Temple. Shavuot is linked to Pesach by the Omer. We count seven cycles of seven days from Pesach and then we celebrate Shavuot. Pesach is the start of a process; Shavuot is the end. On Pesach, we remove all leaven and eat only unleavened bread. On Shavuot, we bring loaves of leaven. It is a question of a process. On Pesach we had our freedom. One might revel in the euphoria of freedom and imagine that this is it. We have reached our goal, we have achieved independence. In response, God tells us to eat only matza - unleavened, unfulfilled bread - for seven days. Pesach begins a process. It is a cause for celebration, but it is only the start. The goal comes seven weeks later in a festival which celebrates two things. First, it celebrates our spiritual challenge. It is the festival of the giving of the Torah. The Torah embodies our challenge, our goal and our destiny. Second, it is the festival of the Land of Israel. On Shavuot, we bring the first fruits and stress the idea that the goal is creating "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" - a people in the land of God living the moral law of God. On Pesach we mark the beginning, the unleavened. Shavuot expresses everything that embodies our national goal. It is therefore marked by the bringing of fully leavened, fulfilled bread. Likewise, in the thanksgiving sacrifice where I express my release from a life-threatening situation, when saved from a serious illness or the like, we bring three loaves. The totally flat matza wafer, the unleavened pita loaf, and the fully risen loaf of bread. The offering describes the journey from the depths of desperation to the heights of health and life. The symbolism of this offering tells of the role that God played in breathing life into a seemingly hopeless, flat situation, granting hope and salvation. That is the role of leaven and unleaven in the thanksgiving offering. Unleaven is the beginning of the process and it leads to fulfillment in the form of the leaven. I wish you all a happy unleavened Pesach, and ultimately a leavened Shavuot. ********************************************************* ***** KORBAN PESACH ö THE MINUI PROCESS by Rav Moshe Taragin One of the unique laws governing the korban Pesach (paschal sacrifice) is known as minui. A person must reserve the share of the korban Pesach that he intends to eat. According to many positions, he is forbidden from eating the korban unless he reserves his share in advance. Even those positions which permit eating without prior reservation demand that the korban Pesach be sacrificed on behalf of the 'minuyim' (delegated parties) and not on behalf of people without these advance reservations. The source for this halakha is a pasuk in Shemot (12:4): "If the household does not contain sufficient people to 'cover' the eating of a sheep, then he should include his neighbor 'be-mikhsat nefashot' (in the number of souls)." How are we to understand this unique halakha? Korban Pesach deviates from the standard form of korbanot by the fact that an individual can "participate" in the korban (eat the meat and fulfill his mitzva) even without being involved in the act of dedication. Generally, korbanot exhibit a higher degree of rigidity. The owner (or owners) who dedicates the animal is defined as the ba'al of the korban; it is he - and only he - who fulfills his obligation by this korban's sacrifice. If the animal is sacrificed on behalf of others, no obligation has been fulfilled. No one is permitted to "jump on board" after the initial hafrasha (dedication) ceremony. Korban Pesach obviously departs from this norm. Individuals who were in no way part of the original dedication ceremony can assign themselves to this animal - provided they make their assignments prior to the actual sacrifice of the animal. In fact, it appears that with regard to korban Pesach the dedication might play little or even no role. The Rambam (Hilkhot Korban Pesach 4:9) maintains that a Gentile who dedicates a korban Pesach and subsequently converts may offer the very animal he selected and designated as a Gentile. This halakha would confirm the meaningless role played by the hafrasha of a korban Pesach. (For an expanded discussion regarding this issue, see the Mikdash Dovid at the beginning of Hilkhot Korban Pesach.) Given this discrepancy in the manner by which people can access the korban (i.e. there is no need for hafrasha), one question emerges: by assigning themselves to the korban, do these minuyim achieve a status approximate to the ba'al of a korban (albeit through completely different and unexpected procedures)? Or do the minuyim of a korban Pesach in no way possess the status of ba'al ha-korban? According to the second option, in order to become ba'alim they would have to participate in the actual hafrasha. Instead, they are afforded a completely new status - people who reserved their right to EAT this korban Pesach and thereby to fulfill their mitzva, without being considered owners of the korban. We will attempt to probe this question regarding the nature of minuyim. Possibly the most telling issue which might reflect our question is the underlying logic behind this capacity to sign on after hafrasha. The Yerushalmi (Pesachim 8:4) cites two opinions regarding this process. According to Rav Huna, we assume that the original dedicators stipulated their dedication to include any subsequent minuyim. Therefore, if the original dedicators specifically exclude future sign-ons, no minuyim are allowed. Conversely, Ze'iri provides a more formal textual source to justify the concept of successive minuyim - the pasuk stated above. Clearly, Rav Huna's logic allows us to consider the ultimate minuyim as participants in the actual hafrasha. The original dedicators included in their designation of this animal any future participants - to be determined between the time of hafrasha and the time of shechita. Halakha considers these eventual minuyim to be partners in the korban. In fact, as the Yerushalmi continues, we consider this korban to be "hekdesh shutfin" - a korban of many part a title which has significant ramifications for the laws of temura. By contrast, Ze'iri is not compelled to discover an inherent condition which includes the minuyim in the hafrasha process. Rather, the Torah permits subsequent sign-ons as a unique dynamic of korban Pesach based on the aforementioned pasuk. According to Ze'iri, the Yerushalmi reasons that this korban would be considered "hekdesh yachid" - a private korban with different consequences for temura. Tosafot in Pesachim (89b s.v. Ve-zeh) appear to adopt Rav Huna's justification for minui. HOW can someone make a late reservation for korban Pesach? What exactly is the legal procedure? Though the gemara is somewhat unclear on this point, we might infer the need for an actual acquisition from the gemara (Pesachim 89b) which speaks of the new sign-on paying money to the original dedicator(s). Does this money serve the role of a ma'aseh kinyan, in which the new person halakhically purchases his share from his predecessor? This question might be influenced by the ensuing discussion in the gemara, which poses two options for understanding why the recipient of the money can use it for general purposes (according to Rebbi) and not exclusively for hekdesh. After all, if the manui (singular for minuyim) is BUYING his share in an article of hekdesh, then his money should acquire hekdesh status and be forbidden for private use. How might we explain Rebbi's position allowing the recipient of this money to use it for general purposes? The gemara offers two opinions: 1) Rebbi views a korban Pesach as limited in its status of hekdesh; hence, there is no initial status of hekdesh within the animal to be transferred onto the money. 2) Indeed, the animal is hekdesh, but the manui prevents the money he offers on behalf of his share of the animal from becoming hekdesh. According to Rashi's understanding, the manui stipulates that he is not buying a corresponding share in the animal but rather giving a gift to the dedicator while the dedicator reciprocates with his own gift - a share in the korban. Clearly, according to the first option the manui is purchasing his share, suggesting some acquisition of ownership status and a possible active role for the money in establishing this state. According to the second option of explaining Rebbi, it is difficult to determine the exact halakhic role which the money plays in possibly establishing a legal right for the manui. A third interesting nafka mina revolves around the mishna's listing of the pesul known as "she-lo le- minuyav." In general, inappropriate thoughts during the sacrificial ceremony disqualify a korban. Examples of such inappropriate intentions are: to eat the animal in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and (in some cases) to sacrifice the animal for the wrong person (shinui ba'alim). The mishna in Pesachim (61a) lists a unique pesul for korban Pesach - sacrificing on behalf of non- minuyim. Tosafot (61a s.v. Ve-itkash and s.v. Shachatu) debate whether sacrificing for non-minuyim is the equivalent of sacrificing for non-owners. The ramifications of this analogy are very important. Intentions for non-owners can be problematic at any stage of the sacrifice ceremony. Would the same hold true for intentions regarding non-minuyim, or would we claim that even minuyim are not considered true owners but still are "sacrificed for" because they have aligned themselves with this animal through the process of minui? According to the latter option, sacrificing for a non-manui is a SEPARATE problem unique to korban Pesach and the pesul would be limited to improper thoughts during the time of shechita (based on the aforementioned pasuk demanding shechita for the minuyim). This question is debated by the two Tosafots mentioned above. The gemara (Pesachim 89b) poses an interesting question: If one manui has a larger appetite, can the others "limit" his eating so that he is only given an equal share? Or can he join the others and eat to his heart's content, possibly "out-eating" his co-minuyim? The gemara ultimately rules that indeed his peers can demand that he take no more than his proportionate share. Why, though, did the gemara even consider allowing him to out-eat his co-minuyim? After all, they are all equal "partners" in this animal, and in general, shutafim receive equal shares! Could it be that that indeed the concept of shutafut is inapplicable to korban Pesach, since no one actually enjoys any legal status as owner of this korban? Perhaps they are all defined as potential "eaters" of the korban. In this light, we would have no mandate to equalize their shares as long as they are all eating. The absence of owner status might have allowed the gemara to consider granting him heftier eater privileges to eat beyond his ration. Of course, the gemara concludes that the others can still insist upon equalizing the eating shares; even if they are all defined as eaters of the korban, they must all eat equally. SUMMARY: -------- We have introduced a fundamental question regarding the korban Pesach. Does the minui process mimic the ownership status which hafrasha normally confers? Or do minuyim have a unique status - people who don't OWN the korban but have eating rights? The following areas were examined in light of this question: the rationale behind minui, the manner of "signing up," the nature of improper intentions for non-minuyim, and the question of how we might divide the meat between minuyim of different eating capacities. ********************************************************* For direct questions or comments regarding this shiur, please write to HOLIDAY@ETZION.ORG.IL ********************************************************* TO UNSUBSCRIBE, SEND EMAIL TO LISTS@VBM-TORAH.ORG Unsubscribe yhe-holiday ********************************************************** Yeshivat Har Etzion's Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash is on the web at http://www.vbm-torah.org *********************************************************** Shiurim may be dedicated to various occasions - yahrzeits, semachot, birthdays, etc. Please e-mail yhe@vbm-torah.org for an application. *********************************************************** Internet & e-mail list hosting for the VBM provided courtesy of: The Yerushalayim Network (http://www.yerushalayim.net) a Centennial Project of the Orthodox Union (http://www.ou.org) *********************************************************** YESHIVAT HAR ETZION ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH ALON SHEVUT, GUSH ETZION 90433 E-MAIL: YHE@VBM-TORAH.ORG or OFFICE@ETZION.ORG.IL Copyright (c) 1998 Yeshivat Har Etzion. All rights reserved.