פרשת אמור תש"ד - דינים שונים

אשר יקריב קרבנו, after the Torah had addressed the priests, who offer the sacrifices on the altar as well as their status of sanctity, it now discusses rules applying to the offerings themselves., saying that the following applies to לכל נדריהם ולכל נדבותם, even these offerings were voluntary offerings as opposed to mandatory offerings, and I might have thought that any such offering, even of a blemished animal, would be gratefully accepted by G’d, seeing the individual in question was under no obligation to offer any sacrifice at this time, the Torah states flatly that this is not so. The author, quoting Maleachi 1,5 as proof that one would not dare offer a gift to a human ruler that was less than perfect, how much less would one dare to do this “for” G’d, concludes that there must have been people in his time guilty of mistaking what is expected of them and offering inferior animals as sacrifices.

לרצונכם , as a sacrifice that will confer G’d’s goodwill upon you, and not for the Temple treasury.

תמים זכר, it must be male and unblemished seeing the Creator is described as having produced work which is perfect, unblemished, when He created the universe. (Compare Deuteronomy 32,4)

After the Torah has warned that the burnt offering, עולה, is of such a high rank of such sacred items, קדשי קדשיםthat only unblemished male animals may be used for such offerings, and that this requirement pertains only to cattle and sheep or goats, i.e. conditions which are not applicable to bird offerings, (compare Kidushin 16) it continues with ואיש כי יקריב 'זבח שלמים לה, to inform us that although this kind of meat offering is of a lower ranking sanctity, קדשים קלים and the Torah does not insist that such an animal must be male, in order to confer G’d’s goodwill on the donor, it must still be a perfect, unblemished animal of its species. We know from Leviticus 3,1 that such offerings are acceptable also if a female animal is offered. Verse 22 explains that it is simply not acceptable to offer a blemished animal to G’d as a sacrifice. An additional rule why blemished animals are not acceptable are the words ואשה לא תתנו מהם על המזבח לה'. The Torah informs us with these words that even if the blemish in the animal designated as the sacrifice originated only after it had been sanctified, the parts which are normally burnt on the altar, i.e. certain fat parts and membranes over the kidneys, because it simply is not acceptable that even if the parts designated for the altar are unblemished, anything which before getting to this stage had had a disqualifying blemish disqualifies the whole as it is looked upon with dismay by G’d.

נדבה תעשה אותו, even though numerous blemishes may be apparent you may donate them for the Temple treasury although the donor thought that on account of these blemishes they would be rejected by the Temple treasurer. The Torah differentiates between gifts for the Temple treasury and animals destined for the altar. Whereas even minor blemishes disqualify an animal from being offered on the altar, no such restrictions apply to gifts known as נדבה. This is possible because the bodies of such animals do not possess any sanctity, such sanctity only applies to their value, i.e. to the money realised from the sale of such animals. This enables the body which was donated to be treated as if it had never been sanctified in any way.

ומעוך וכתות, after the Torah spoke about the kind of physical blemishes which are of ritual consequence only in connection with sacrificial animals, and which must under no circumstances be caused to such an animal once it has been sanctified, the Torah turns to the kind of internal blemishes which one must not cause even to animals which have never been sanctified, are totally secular in their use.

Even though gifts for the Temple treasury are accepted from pagans, no blemished animals are to be accepted from them as such. Even if the animal became blemished through a deliberate surgical procedure, such as castrating it, something which generally improves the value of the animal so castrated, it disqualifies it from use by the Temple treasury, not to mention as a sacrifice on the altar. Seeing that the gentiles consider such animals as superior, we could not apply to such gifts the criticism voiced by Maleach 1,8 which we referred to twice already. We might therefore have thought that seeing that in the donor’s eyes he presents a superior gift to G’d this would be acceptable; the Torah takes a dim view of castrating animals which were created to proliferate. The Torah describes such castrated animals as

שור או כשב, after the Torah had mentioned the various defective animals that are disqualified from being offered on the altar, it now mentions a number of situations in which even a perfectly healthy specimen of the ritually qualified animals may also not yet (or no longer) be fit as a sacrifice on the altar. Just as we learned that the monetary value of the animal is not the only criterion regarding its acceptability for the altar, so we shall hear now that there are still other considerations which can disqualify an animal frrom its being welcome to G’d as an offering.
If an animal has not yet reached the eighth day of its life, it cannot be used as a sacrifice. If the owner of said animal, or the priest offering it on his behalf, intends to consume it or part of it outside the holy precincts allocated for such eating by the Torah, or said owner plans to eat it past the deadline set by the Torah for consumption of such sacrificial meat, the sacrifice not only becomes disqualified but the penalty is extremely harsh. The technical terms for such disqualify cations are מחוסר זמן, too young, or אותו ואת בנו, if the mother animal had been sacrifice already on the same day, or פיגול, if the donor or priest had planned to deviate from the halachah governing where and for how many days such an animal could be eaten after it had been slaughtered. The intention known as חוץ לזמנו, eating part of it beyond the deadline set by the Torah even carries the karet penalty. The time limits are spelled out in our verses here.

ולא תחללו את שם קדשי, seeing that you the priests of all people are more aware than anyone of the perfection of My works, if you do not take care not to deviate from My commandments, this would be the greatest desecration of My holy name. The verse is reminiscent of Ezekiel 36,20 where the prophet laments that the exiles who come to host countries behave in such a way that the leaders of the host countries exclaim in dismay that surely these cannot the people of whom they have heard that they emulate the ways of their G’d!

ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל, to continue to perform miracles for them as I had vowed to do when I said in Exodus 34,10 “I shall display miracles in the presence of your whole nation as proof that אני ה' מקדשכם, I, the Lord sanctify you.”

נדריהם THEIR VOWS — [An animal is termed נדר when an obligation is entered into by the words:] Behold, I take it upon myself [to bring a burnt-offering].

נדבותם THEIR FREE-WILL OFFERINGS — [it is a נדבה when one states:] Behold, this animal [shall be a burnt-offering] (Megillah 8a).

For any of their vows or for any of their free-willofferings. Our Rabbis said: Which is a vow? — One who says, “I am obligated to bring a burnt offering.” A free-will offering? — One who says, “Behold, this [I will bring].” What is the difference between a vow and a free-will offering? Concerning a vow, if the animal dies or is stolen, the person who made the vow is responsible to replace it. [With a free-will offering he is only obligated to offer the animal he designated, and need not replace it if the original is lost]. The reason for the difference between them is because someone usually vows when he is in pain, and he says, “If Hashem will help me with this I am obligated to bring a burnt offering or peace offering.” This is not a regular free-will offering; a free-will offering is when he separates it and gives it immediately, for at the time of giving he has a generous spirit. This verse is telling us that whether one offers a burnt-offering or a peace-offering because he vowed at a time of trouble, or he offers them in a generous spirit, the sacrifice must be unblemished. Perhaps we might have thought that the offering brought to fulfill a vow must be unblemished, more so than a free-will offering. This is the reason behind this verse.

that ye may be accepted, ye shall offer a male without blemish, of the beeves, of the sheep, or of the goats.

לרצנכם תזבחו‎ ‎ [AND WHEN YE WILL SLAUGHTER A SACRIFICE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT UNTO THE LORD], SLAUGHTER IT SO THAT IT MAY EFFECT PROPITIATION FOR YOU — i. e. take care from the very outset of your slaughtering that it should effect acceptance for you; and wherein consists the assurance of its acceptance?

לרצנכם — The meaning is: bring such a thing (animal) as is fitted to cause רצון, propitiation for you before Me. The word לרצנכם means: so that it may be to you for propitiation; apaisement in old French And which animal is it that is fitting to effect propitiation?

לרצנכם תזבחהו YE SHALL SACRIFICE IT TO BE ACCEPTABLE FOR YOU — This means, from the very beginning the slaughtering shall be done with the intention to give Me satisfaction (i. e. to sacrifice it in a manner that is satisfactory to Me) so that it shall effect favour for you (לרצנכם). For if you have in connection with it (with the slaughtering) any intention which will invalidate it (the sacrifice) it shall effect no favour for you before Me.

ורצון שכני סנה — the last two words are the equivalent of שוכן סנה (the י being the suffix that that sometimes appears in participles, for the most part in poetry). The-meaning is: And may his land further be blessed through the favour (רצון) and satisfaction of the Holy One, blessed be He, who first revealed himself to me in the thorn-bush (סנה‎).

When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth, then it shall be seven days under the dam; but from the eighth day and thenceforth it may be accepted for an offering made by fire unto the LORD.

And whether it be cow or ewe, ye shall not kill it and its young both in one day.

And whether it be cow or ewe, ye shall not kill it and its young both in one day.

If the nest of a bird chances to be in front of you: Also this commandment is explained by "it and its son do not slaughter on one day" (Leviticus 22:28); since the reason in both of them is that we should not have a cruel heart and [then] not have mercy, or that the verse should not permit us to be destructive to destroy the species, even though it allowed slaughter within that species. And behold, one who kills the mother and the children on one day or takes them when they are 'free to fly' is as if he cuts off that species. And the teacher (Rambam) in the Guide for the Perplexed 3:48 wrote that the reason of sending [the mother away from] the nest and the reason of "it and its son do not slaughter on one day" is to prohibit killing the child in the eyes of the mother, as animals have great concern about this. And there is no difference between the concern of a person and the concern of animals for their children, since the love of a mother and 'the appeal of the children of its belly' does not stem from the intellect and the [faculty of] speech, but rather it is from the effects of the faculty of thought that is found in animals just as it is found in man. And if [it is as Rambam claims], the main prohibition of 'it and its son' is only [in the sequence] of its son and it, but [in other circumstances] it is all a distancing [from that main prohibition]. And more correct is [that the reason for the commandment is] so that we will not become cruel. And the teacher said: And don't answer me from the statement of the sages [that comes to explain] (Berakhot 33b), "We silence the one who says, 'Your mercy reaches the nest of the bird.' [is because this commandment is a decree that has nothing to do with mercy]," as this is one of two explanations - the explanation of the one to whom it appears that there is no reason for the commandments except for the will of the Creator - but we hold of the second explanation, [according to which] there should be an explanation for all of the commandments. And a further challenge to him is that which he found in Bereshit Rabbah 44:1, "And so what does the Holy One, blessed be He, care whether he slaughters from [the front of] the neck or slaughters from the back - behold, the commandments were only given to purify the creations through them, as it is stated (Proverbs 30:5), 'Every word of the Lord is purified.'" And this matter that the teacher asserted is very lucid regarding commandments that have a reason, as there is in each one a reason and a purpose and a refinement for the person, besides their reward from their Commander, may He be blessed. And the rabbis, may their memory be blessed, have already said (Sanhedrin 21b), "For what were the reasons of the Torah not revealed, etc." and they expounded (Pesachim 119a), "'Ancient covering' (Isaiah 23:18) - this is the one who reveals things that were covered by the One of ancient days; and what are they? The reasons of the Torah." And they already expounded about the red heifer (Bemidbar Rabbah 19:3-4), that Shlomo said, "I have mastered it all, but about the topic of the red heifer, I have investigated, I have asked, I have searched - 'I said I will become wise, but it is far from me' (Ecclesiastes 7:23)." And Rabbi Yose beRebbe Chanina said, "The Holy One, blessed be He said to Moshe, 'To you do I reveal the reason of the red heifer, but to others it is a statute (without explanation),' as it is written (Zechariah 14:6), 'And it shall be on that day there will be no light, but heaviness and solidity' - it is written 'will solidify' (even though it is read 'and solidity,' such that the verse expresses a secondary meaning which is now elucidated): That which is covered from you in this world, will be visible in the world to come, like that blind man that [finally] sees, as it is written (Isaiah 42:16), 'And I will guide the blind ones in the path they did not know.' And it is written (there), 'I have done these things and not forsaken them' - as I have already done them for Rabbi Akiva." Behold, they elucidated that the impediment to the reasons for the commandments is not from Him abut rather [from] the blindness of our intellects and that the reason of the most difficult one was already reveled to the sages of Israel. And there are many [statements] like this and many things in Torah and Scripture that indicate [it]. [And] those homiletical statements that were challenging to [Rambam], are about a different matter, according to my opinion. As they wanted to say that there is no gain in the commandment for the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself, may He be elevated; but [rather] the gain is for man himself - to prevent him from damage or a bad belief or a disgusting character trait, or to remember the miracles and wonders of the Creator, may He be blessed, and to know God. And this is [the meaning of] "to purify them" - that they should be like purified silver; as the action of a smelter is not without a reason, but [rather] to extract all the dross from it. And so [too] are the commandments to extract from our hearts every bad belief and to inform us of the truth and to always remind us of it. And this [idea] is mentioned by the homiletical statement itself in [Midrash] 'Yilamdenu' (Midrash Tanchuma, Shmini 8 on Parshat Shmini) on the section, 'This is the animal,' "And so what does it matter to the Holy One, blessed be He, whether one slaughters an animal and eats or stabs [it] and eats - do you benefit Him at all or damage Him at all; or what does He care whether one eats pure things or eats impure things. 'If you have become wise, you have become wise for yourself' (Proverbs 9:12) - behold, the commandments were only given to purify the creations through them, as it is stated (Psalms 12:7), 'The words of the Lord are pure words' and it is stated (Proverbs 30:5), 'Every word of the Lord is purified.' Why? So that it protect you" Behold, it is explicit in here that they only came to say that the gain is not for Him, may He be elevated; that He should require the light - as might be thought - from the menorah (the candelabra in the Temple) or that he should require the sacrifices for food and the smell of the incense as it would appear from the simple meaning of [the verses]; and even the memory of His wonders that He did, that He commanded to do [things] in commemoration of the exodus from Egypt and the story of Creation, there is no gain for Him - just that we know the truth and merit through it, until we become fit that He should protect us. As our speech and memory of His wonders are considered nothing and void for Him. And he brought a proof from one that slaughters from the [front] of the neck and [its] back, to say that they are all for us and not for the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is not likely to say about slaughter that there should be gain and honor to the Creator, may He be blessed, from the neck more than from the back or [from] stabbing; but rather they are for us to guide us in the paths of mercy, even at the time of slaughtering. And they brought another proof, "Or what does He care whether one eats pure things" - and these are the permitted foods - "or eats impure things" - and these are forbidden foods, that the Torah stated about them (Leviticus 11:28), "they are impure for you." And through this, he hinted that it is so that we be of clean souls, wise ones, that contemplate the truth. And their saying, "If you have become wise, you have become wise for yourself," they mentioned, because the active commandments - for example, slaughtering of the neck - are to teach us good character traits; and the commandments that are decrees that differentiate species are to purify our souls, as the Torah stated (Leviticus 20:25), "and you shall not make your souls disgusting with the animal and with the bird and with all that crawls on the ground, which I have separated for you as impure." If so, all of them are for our benefit alone. And this is like Elihu said (Job 35:6), "If you sin, how will you effect Him; and your transgressions are numerous, what will you do to Him?" and said (verse 7), "or what will He take from your hand?" And this is something that is unanimous in all of the words of our teachers. And they asked in the Yerushalmi Nedarim 9:1, whether we can open [an avenue of regret] for [vows] that are between him and the Omnipresent, with the [damage done to the] honor of the Omnipresent; and they responded to this question, "which is [the damage done] to the honor of the Omnipresent - for example, the sukkah that I am not doing, the lulav that I am not holding, the tefillin that I am not laying?" And it is implied that it is [only the person] that [a commandment] helps, like the [verses], "If you are righteous, what do you give to Him, or what will He take from your hand?" [and] "If you sin, how will you effect Him; and your transgressions are numerous, what will you do to Him?" Behold, they elucidated that even the lulav and the sukkah and the tefillin - that He commanded that they be 'a sign upon your arm and a memory device between your eyes, that the Lord took you out of Egypt with a strong hand' - are not for the honor of the Lord, may He be blessed, but [rather] to have mercy on our souls. And they already set this into the prayer of Yom Kippur, "You have separated man from the start and recognized him to stand in front of You, as who will say to You what to do, and if he is righteous, what will he give to You?" And so [too], it stated in the Torah (Deuteronomy 10:13), "for your good," as I have explained (Ramban on Deuteronomy 10:13); and so [too] (Deuteronomy 6:24), "And He commanded us to do all of these statutes to fear the Lord, our God, for our good all of the days." And the intention in all of them is that it be good for us and not for Him, may He blessed and elevated; but all that we are commanded is [so that] His creatures be purified and cleansed without the dross of evil thoughts and disgusting character traits. And so that which they said (Berakhot 33a), "[It is because] he makes the traits of the Holy One, blessed be He into mercy and they are only decrees," is to say that God did not worry about the nest of the bird and His 'mercy did not reach' it and its child; as His mercy does not extend to creatures with an animal soul, to prevent us from doing what we need to them. As were it so, slaughtering would be forbidden. But [rather], the reason for the proscription is to teach us the trait of mercy and that we not become cruel. Since cruelty spreads in the soul of a man, as it is known with butchers that slaughter large oxen and donkeys, that they are 'people of blood,' 'slaughterers of men' [and] very cruel. And because of this they said (Kiddushin 82a), "The best of butchers are the partners of Amalek." And behold, these commandments with animals and birds are not mercy upon them, but [rather] decrees upon us, to guide us and to teach us the good character traits. And so [too] all of the commandments - positive and negative - are called decrees; as they said (Mekhilta, Bechodesh 6) about a parable of a king that entered into a country: "His servants said to him, 'Make decrees upon them.' He said [back] to them, 'When they accept My kingship, I will make decrees upon them.' So did the Holy One, blessed be He, say; 'You accepted My Kingship - "I am the Lord, your God" (Exodus 20:2) - [now,] accept My decrees - "there shall be for you no, etc."' (Exodus 20:3)." But in the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunia ben HaKaneh, there is a midrash [that explains] that there is a secret in the commandment: "Rabbi Rechumai said, 'Why is it written, "Surely send away the mother" and it did not say, "the father?" But rather, "Surely send the mother" is in honor of that Discernment (Binah), the Mother of the world, as it is written (Proverbs 2:3), "But you will call discernment, Mother."' What is 'and the children take for yourself?' Rabbi Rechumai said, 'Those children that she grew.' And what are they? The seven days of the sukkah and the laws of the seven days of the week, etc." And behold, this commandment hints to a great matter, and therefore its reward is very large - "so that it will be good for you and you will lengthen your days."

And ye shall not profane My holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am the LORD who hallow you,

ולא תחללו את שם קדשי, seeing that you the priests of all people are more aware than anyone of the perfection of My works, if you do not take care not to deviate from My commandments, this would be the greatest desecration of My holy name. The verse is reminiscent of Ezekiel 36,20 where the prophet laments that the exiles who come to host countries behave in such a way that the leaders of the host countries exclaim in dismay that surely these cannot the people of whom they have heard that they emulate the ways of their G’d!

ולא תחללו YE SHALL NOT PROFANE [MY HOLY NAME], by transgressing My commands willfully. Having regard to what is implied in the statement: You shall not profane [My holy name] (viz., that it must be hallowed), what is the meaning of ונקדשתי? But, this implies a positive act of sanctification: Abandon yourself to martyrdom and hallow My name! I might think that this command applies even to the Israelite when he is alone (i. e., when no other Israelites are present when the heathen bids him transgress a Divine command)! Scripture, however, states: בתוך בני ישראל [AND I SHALL BE SANCTIFIED] AMIDST THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. — And when offering oneself to martyrdom, one should offer himself with the firm determination (lit., under the condition) to die if necessary, for he who abandons himself on condition (i. e. cherishing the hope) that God will not exact the sacrifice and that a miracle will happen to save him will have no miracle wrought for him; for thus we find in the case of Chananyah, Mishael and Azariah that they did not offer themselves for martyrdom expecting a miracle, as it is said (Daniel 3:17, 18) “[And God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace and He will deliver us out of thy hand, O king]. But if not, be it known unto thee that we will not serve thy gods etc. — Whether He saves us or whether he does not save, “be it known unto thee etc.” (Sifra, Emor, Chapter 9 5)

You shall not profane My holy Name … Our Rabbis said it is a positive commandment that we should sanctify His Name with the commandments, even to be killed and not transgress them. “Who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your Hashem, I am Adonoy,” is an all-inclusive reason for all the commandments, for it is proper to sanctify His Name by refusing to transgress them, since we are His servants that He redeemed from Egypt.