Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 19:35:09 +0300 Reply-To: tsc@isdn.net.il Sender: owner-tsc-par-new@vjlists.com From: tsc@isdn.net.il To: tsc-parsha@vjlists.com, tsc-all@vjlists.com, tsc-par-new@vjlists.com Subject: PARSHAT BECHUKOTEI - shiur *************************************************************** THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.virtual.co.il/torah/tanach] In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag *************************************************************** PARSHAT BECHUKOTEI THE CONCLUSION OF SEFER VAYIKRA Reward & Punishment, i.e. the consequences for obeying (or not obeying) a set of laws - would certainly form a most appropriate conclusion for Sefer Vayikra. And that's exactly what the TOCHACHA (chapter 26) appears to be! So why doesn't Sefer Vayikra conclude with this TOCHACHA? Why is chapter 27 'added on'? In this week's shiur we attempt to explain why. INTRODUCTION Parshat Bechukotei, the last Parsha in Sefer Vayikra, contains two distinct sections: (1) the TOCHACHA (perek 26) - Bnei Yisrael's reward and/or punishment should they obey God's commandments; (2) The Laws of "ERCHIN" (perek 27) - A set of specific laws pertaining to the monetary evaluation of people or property dedicated to God. Considering that Sefer Vayikra is a book that contains primarily "mitzvot", the TOCHACHA would form an appropriate conclusion for it outlines the reward (or punishment) for keeping those mitzvot. Furthermore, from a thematic perspective as well, the TOCHACHA forms an excellent conclusion to the Sefer. Recall our explanation of how Sefer Vayikra divides into two distinct sections: A) KEDUSHAT MISHKAN - chapters 1 -> 17. focusing on laws pertaining to the Mishkan, such as korbanot, tumah & tahara, etc. B) KEDUSHAT ha'AM v'ha'ARETZ - chapters 18 -> 25. focusing on a wide range of laws which reflect how Bnei Yisrael become an AM KADOSH - a holy nation. Note how both sides of the TOCHACHA reflects this very same division, for in it we find that: * Should Bnei Yisrael OBEY the mitzvot, then: "and the LAND shall give its produce..." (26:4); "and I will put My MISHKAN in your midst..." (26:11); * However, should they DISOBEY them, then: "the LAND will NOT give its produce..." (26:20,34-35); "I will make your MIKDASH desolate..." (26:31). This shows how the TOCHACHA forms an appropriate conclusion for BOTH halves of Sefer Vayikra! In Part One of the following shiur, we bring additional 'textual' support to show how the TOCHACHA should indeed be considered as a conclusion. In Part Two we will suggest several reasons for the 'addition' of Parshat Erchin. THE FINAL PASUK Even the final pasuk of the TOCHACHA is quite easy to translate, its interpretation presents us with quite a dilemma. First, we'll quote that pasuk, then we will explain its difficulty: "These are the CHUKIM & MISHPATIM, and the TOROT which God had given between Him and Bnei Yisrael on Har Sinai to Moshe." (26:46) Note how this finale pasuk mentions both the CHUKIM & MISHPATIM and the TOROT. This implies that whatever unit this pasuk summarizes - that unit must include both "chukim & mishpatim" AND "torot" that were given to Moshe on Har Sinai. Yet, it is not clear at all exactly what 'unit' this pasuk is summarizing: * It cannot be simply the TOCHACHA, for the TOCHACHA itself does not contain "chukim & mishpatim", nor "torot". [See Avrabanel who does raise this possibility.] * Rashbam suggests that it summarizes both Parshiot Behar & Bechukotei, i.e. chapters 25 & 26 (which are included in one "dibur" which begins in 25:1, all given on Har Sinai). This is quite logical for the laws of shmita and yovel could be considered "chukim & mishpatim". However, Rashbam does not explain which laws in this unit fit under the category of "torot", and it doesn't appear that any of them do! [Recall our explanation in Parshat Tzav that a "torah" implies a procedural type of law, e.g. "torat ha'chatat" - how the chatat offering it to be offered etc.] * Ibn Ezra claims that this pasuk summarizes not only Parshat Behar, but also Parshat Mishpatim in SEFER SHMOT! [Recall also that Ibn Ezra understands that the "sefer ha'brit" mentioned in Shmot 24:7 refers to Parshat Bechukotei (see Ibn Ezra on 25:1 as well).] However, it seems rather strange to find a summary pasuk for Parshat Mishpatim at the end of Sefer Vayikra! [Note that Ramban (towards the end of his lengthy pirush to 25:1) also understands this pasuk as a summary of mitzvot from Sefer Shmot, but he claims that this parsha was actually given together with the SECOND luchot as detailed in Parshat Kitisa (Shmot chapter 24). This happens to be an amazing Ramban, but its discussion is beyond the scope of this week's shiur.] * Rashi goes even further, claiming that this pasuk summarizes not only the entire 'written law', but the entire 'oral law' as well! It is interesting to note that from among all of the commentators, only Rashi seems to deal with the problem of determining the precise meaning of "torot". Rashi solves the problem by quoting the Midrash that it refers to "torah sh'bktav u'b'aal peh". However, this interpretation is quite difficult for (according to simple pshat) the word "ayleh" [these] summarizes what has been written, and not what has not been written. * Seforno claims that this pasuk summarizes all of the mitzvot that were listed BEFORE Parshat Bechukotei, but it is not clear if Seforno is referring only to the mitzvot in Parshat Behar or to all of the mitzvot of Sefer Vayikra. In our shiur, we will follow Seforno's 'lead' and show how this final pasuk may indeed summarize the entire Sefer. Our approach will be based on identifying more specifically what the phrases "chukim & mishpatim" and "torot" refer to. A FITTING FINALE Recall once again how Sefer Vayikra divides into two sections (see above), and how the second half of the Sefer begins in chapter 18 with a set of five psukim that form an introduction. [See 18:1-5 and our shiur on Parshat Acharei Mot.] As you review those psukim, note how these psukim actually introduce an entire set of "chukim u'mishpatim. For example: "Observe My MISHPATIM and keep My CHUKIM to follow them, I am the Lord your God. Keep My CHUKIM & MISHPATIM..." (18:4-5) [See also 18:26-30] Therefore, the phrase "chukim v'mishpatim" in our 'finale pasuk' (26:46) can be understood as the summary of the SECOND half of Sefer Vayikra (chapters 18->25), as it refers to the numerous "chukim u'mishpatim" that are recorded in that section. In a similar manner, the word "torot" could be considered a summary of the laws found in the FIRST half of the Sefer. Recall how the word "torah" was used numerous times to describe the various procedures regarding korbanot. The most obvious example would be Parshat Tzav where the phrase "ZOT TORAT..." introduced each category of korbanot (see 6:2, 6:7, 6:18, 7:1, 7:11) and also formed its summary (see 7:37!). This phrase was also found numerous times Parshat Tazria/Metzora as well (see 12:7; 13:59; 14:2,32,45; and 15:32). Furthermore, even though this phrase is not mentioned by the other mitzvot in this section, most of its laws are of a procedural nature and could easily fall under this category of "torot". Hence, the word "torot" in 26:46 can be understood as a summary of the FIRST half of Sefer Vayikra. Thus, the final pasuk of the Tochacha (26:46) becomes an almost 'perfect ending' for the entire sefer: "chukim & mishpatim" summarizes Part II, while "torot" summarizes Part I! THE TOCHACHA & SEFER SHMOT Even though we have shown how this finale pasuk (26:46) forms a beautiful conclusion for Sefer Vayikra, it contains an additional phrase that suggests that it could be considered a conclusion to SEFER SHMOT as well. [If so, this would help us appreciate Ibn Ezra & Ramban's pirush as well.] Let's take a closer look at this finale pasuk, noting a special phrase: "These are the 'chukim u'mishpatim', and the 'torot' which God had given - BEINO u'BEIN BNEI YISRAEL - between Himself and Bnei Yisrael, on HAR SINAI through Moshe." (26:46) Note that the phrase "beino u'bein Bnei Yisrael" highlights the covenantal nature of the mitzvot of Sefer Vayikra (see a similar usage in shmot 31:16-17!). In fact, this very concept of "brit" is emphasized several times by the TOCHACHA itself: "... v'hakimoti et BRITI it'chem" (26:9) "... l'haf'rchem et BRITI" (26:15) "v'zacharti et BRITI yaakov v'af et briti yitzhak..." (26:42) "v'zacharti l'hem BRIT rishonim asher hotzeiti..." (26:45) Once again, we see the thematic connection between Sefer Vayikra and BRIT HAR SINAI, and hence the function of the mitzvot of Sefer Vayikra as the fulfillment of goal of BRIT SINAI - "v'atem t'hiyu li mamlechet kohanim v'goy kadosh". (See Shmot 19:4-6.) [This thematic connection also relates to the chiastic structure which connects between Sifrei Shmot & Vayikra as explained in our shiur on Parshat Behar.] Therefore, when Sefer Vayikra summarizes its mitzvot, its emphasizes their nature as the fulfillment of the covenant between God and Bnei Yisrael at Har Sinai, where Am Yisrael took upon themselves to become God's special nation. THE TOCHACHA & SEFER BREISHIT Not only does the TOCHACHA conclude Sefer Vayikra and relate back to Har Sinai and Sefer Shmot, it also thematically returns us to Sefer Breishit. Recall our explanation of how Gan Eden represented an ideal environment in which man was capable of developing a close relationship with God. In that environment, man's reward for obeying Hashem was continued prosperous life in Gan Eden; while his punishment for disobeying God's commandment was death - i.e. his banishment from Gan Eden. The TOCHACHA creates a similar environment for Am Yisrael in Eretz Yisrael. By keeping God's laws ("im bchukotei taylachu..."), Am Yisrael enjoy a prosperous and secure existence in their land. For example, compare: "v'achaltem l'sova b'artzechem" (25:3-6) in contrast with "b'zeyat apechah to'chal lechem" (Breishit 3:17-19). Note also how God was "mithaleych" in Gan Eden (see Br.3:8). Similarly, He will now "mithayleych" in Eretz Yisrael together with His Nation: "v'hithalachti b'tochachem, v'hayiti lachem l'Elokim, v'atem t'hiyu li l'am" (see Vayikra 25:12). Should Bnei Yisrael not follow His laws ("v'im lo tishmu.."), they will be faced with a troubled existence, culminating with their expulsion from the land (26:33), parallel to man's banishment from Gan Eden. (This parallel between Gan Eden and Eretz Yisrael was already introduced at the beginning of the second half of Sefer Vayikra- see 18:24-30). [The Midrashim which identify Gan Eden as Eretz Yisrael relate to more than its geographical location; rather they underscore a major biblical theme.] PARSHAT "ERCHIN" - WHY HERE? We return now to our original question. If the final pasuk of the TOCHACHA forms such an appropriate ending for Sefer Vayikra, why does the Torah place "parshat erchin" immediately afterward instead of beforehand? After all, the laws of "erchin", especially those relating to YOVEL (27:16-25), would have fit nicely in Parshat Behar together with the other laws relating to YOVEL. [See Ramban 27:1] Furthermore, the laws relating to the dedication of objects to the Temple treasury could have been included much earlier in Sefer Vayikra, possibly in Parshat Vayikra together with other laws concerning voluntary offerings. The simplest explanation is that the Torah did not want to conclude the Sefer on a 'sour note', i.e. with the TOCHACHA, preferring instead to conclude with something more positive. [Sort of like a 'happy ending'.] The Ibn Ezra offers an explanation based on "sod", relating to the deeper meaning of 'bchor' and 'maaser' (see last Ibn Ezra in Vayikra). However, if we return to the structure of Sefer Vayikra, we can suggest an alternative approach. Recall that Parshat Vayikra itself, the FIRST parsha of the Sefer, is also not located where it should be (i.e. it is not recorded according to its chronological order). [Recall that the mitzvot of Parshat Vayikra were given to Moshe from the Ohel Moed (see 1:1), and hence only AFTER the SHCHINA had returned to the Mishkan on the YOM haSHMINI. Therefore, it should have been recorded on after the story of the seven day miluim & yom ha'shmini (chapters 8->10). Furthermore, the Torah states explicitly laws in Parshat Tzav were given on HAR SINAI (see 7:37-38), and hence they also should have been recorded before Parshat Vayikra.] SPECIAL 'BOOKENDS' Thus, we find even though both the opening and concluding parshiot of Sefer Vayikra belong within the sefer, the Torah records them as a 'header' and 'footer' instead. Why are specifically these two parshiot chosen to serve as the 'book- ends' of Sefer Vayikra? Parshat Vayikra and parshat "erchin" share a common theme. They both deal with an individual dedicating an object to 'hekdesh'. Both begin with cases where a person offers a voluntary gift (n'dava), and close with obligatory offerings: Parshat Vayikra begins with OLAH & SHLAMIM (voluntary) followed by CHATAT & ASHAM (obligatory). Parshat "erchin" begins with the voluntary offering of the value of a person, animal, or field, followed by the obligatory mitzvot of 'bchor' and 'maaser'. [Vayikra deals with korbanot actually offered on the mizbayach (kodshei mizbayach) while ERCHIN deals with the value of objects which cannot be offered, their value is given instead to the 'general fund' of the Temple - "kodshei bedek ha'bayit".] One could suggest that the Torah intentionally chose parshiot dealing with the offerings of an individual, primarily the voluntary offerings, to form the 'book-ends' of Sefer Vayikra for the following reason. As we have seen, Sefer Vayikra focuses on the kedusha of the MISHKAN and of the NATION. These lofty goals of the SHCHINA dwelling upon an entire nation can easily lead the individual to underestimate his own importance. Furthermore, the rigid detail of the mitzvot of Vayikra may lead one to believe that there is little room for self-initiated expression in his own relationship with God, as our covenantal obligations could be viewed as dry and technical. To counter these possible misconceptions, the Torah may have placed these two parshiot at the opening and conclusion of Sefer Vayikra in order to stress two important tenets of "avodat Hashem". Despite the centrality of the community, the individual can not lose sight of the value and importance of his role as an integral part of the communal whole. Secondly, the rigidity of "halacha" should not stifle personal expression. Rather, it should form the solid base from which the individual can develop an aspiring, dynamic, and personal relationship with God. shabbat shalom menachem =================== FOR FURTHER IYUN A. WHEN WERE THE MITZVOT OF SEFER VAYIKRA GIVEN? In our shiur, we explained that the "torot" mentioned in Parshat Tzav were given on Har Sinai. How about the 'torot" in Tazria Metzora, or basically, how about the rest of the mitzvot of Sefer Vayikra - were they given from the Ohel Moed or earlier when Moshe was on Har Sinai? The psukim do not tell us. Based on the above shiur, we can suggest that most ALL of the mitzvot in Vayikra were actually given on Har Sinai, but are recorded in Sefer Vayikra for simply thematic reasons (i.e. "torat kohanim"). Surely, Parshat Tzav states explicitly that its 'torot' were given to Moshe on Har Sinai (7:37-8). Therefore one can also assume that all of the 'torot' mentioned in the Sefer were given on Har Sinai. In fact, this can explain Shmot 24:12 which states that Moshe went up to Har Sinai to receive the TORAH & MITZVAH - one could suggest that the MITZVAH refers to the laws of the MISHKAN which Moshe is about to receive that are recorded in the remainder of Sefer Shmot (see Shmot 25:1-4!). If so, then TORAH may refer to the TOROT (that relate to the MISHKAN). However, most of these TOROT are recorded in Sefer Vayikra and not in Sefer Shmot. [ha'TORAH may also refer to the mitzvot of Sefer Devarim, but that is a topic for a different shiur, [note Devarim 1:5 and the word TORAH throughout that Sefer]. In a similar manner one could understand that the "chukim u'mishpatim" recorded in Sefer Vayikra may also have been given to Moshe on Har Sinai. To support this, see Devarim 5:28 and its context, as well as Shmot 24:1-4. Therefore the mention of Har Sinai in this final pasuk does not limit its interpretation to referring only to Behar/Bechukotei, rather strengthens its interpretation as a summary of the entire Sefer. It is also likely that certain other mitzvot that were given in reaction to events that occurred after 'hakamat hamishkan', i.e. after nadav and avihu died etc.) may have been given from the OHEL MOED, but there is no reason why we cannot understand that all the other mitzvot recorded in the sefer were first given to Moshe during his 40 days on Har Sinai. Except of course those mitzvot that were given directly to Aharon, which indicate that they were given from the Ohel Moed, and the mitzvot that were given in response to a question that Moshe did not have the answer for. B. Relate the theme of chapters 25 & 26 to Vayikra chapter 18, and to the theme of the second half of Vayikra (as discussed in the shiur on Parshat Acharei Mot). [Be sure to relate to 18:25-28.] C. In the above shiur, we have noted a connection between the opening and closing parshiot of Sefer Vayikra. This suggests a possibility of a chiastic structure within Sefer Vayikra itself. See if you can find this structure, noting how chapters 18 and 20 'surround' chapter 19, the connection between chapter 21 and chapter 16 in relation to the Kohen Gadol, chapters 22 and 11-15 in relation to TUMAH & TAHARA, chapters 9-10 to chapter 23 in relation to cycles of 7 & 8, chapter 24 and chapter 8 in relation to the keilim of the Mishkan, and chapters 6-7 and chapters 25-26 in relations to mitzvot given at HAR SINAI (see finale psukim of both sections), "v'akmal"!