(ב) דַּבֵּ֞ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ וְאָמַרְתָּ֣ אֲלֵהֶ֔ם אָדָ֗ם כִּֽי־יַקְרִ֥יב מִכֶּ֛ם קׇרְבָּ֖ן לַֽיהֹוָ֑ה מִן־הַבְּהֵמָ֗ה מִן־הַבָּקָר֙ וּמִן־הַצֹּ֔אן תַּקְרִ֖יבוּ אֶת־קׇרְבַּנְכֶֽם׃ (ג) אִם־עֹלָ֤ה קׇרְבָּנוֹ֙ מִן־הַבָּקָ֔ר זָכָ֥ר תָּמִ֖ים יַקְרִיבֶ֑נּוּ אֶל־פֶּ֜תַח אֹ֤הֶל מוֹעֵד֙ יַקְרִ֣יב אֹת֔וֹ לִרְצֹנ֖וֹ לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָֽה׃
(2) Speak to the Israelite people, and say to them: When any of you presents an offering of cattle to יהוה: You shall choose your offering from the herd or from the flock. (3) If your offering is a burnt offering from the herd, you shall make your offering a male without blemish. You shall bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, for acceptance in your behalf before יהוה.
Comment by NJPS on the word your: Lit. “his,” pointing to the same non-specific referent as the socially generic noun ’adam (lit. “human being” yet grammatically masculine; NJPS “any”) in 1.2. Both men and women brought sacrificial offerings. (So also in vv. 10, 14.)
AND WHEN ANY ONE BRINGS. The word nefesh (anyone) means a person. Scripture mentions nefesh because the meal offering is a free will offering and nefesh is called “willing.” Compare, And let a willing spirit uphold me (Ps. 51:14).
creating it in the image of God—
creating them male and female.
The Gemara raises an objection to this from a baraita: “Speak to the children of [benei] Israel” (Leviticus 1:2). The word benei literally means: Sons of. And it states nearby: “And he shall place his hand on the head of the burnt-offering” (Leviticus 1:4), from which we learn that the sons of Israel place their hands, but the daughters of Israel do not place them. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yishmael say: It is optional for the daughters of Israel to place their hands. They may place their hands if they so choose, although they are not obligated to do so.
A bigger conversation about what it means to place hands on an animal and how much strength is required. Apparently laying hands requires using all of one's strength and therefore doesn't include women.
Nor does Rabbi Yehuda hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as it was taught in the Sifra, the halakhic midrash on Leviticus. The verse states: “Speak to the sons of Israel…and he shall place his hands on the head of the burnt-offering” (Leviticus 1:2–4). By inference, the sons of Israel place their hands, but the daughters of Israel do not place their hands. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: It is optional for women to place their hands on the head of a sacrificial animal before it is slaughtered.
This is part of a bigger conversation of what women are permitted (or not forbidden from doing), i.e. positive non-time bound commandments.
GEMARA: From where is it derived that placing of hands on the head of an offering applies only to men? As it is written: “Speak to the sons of Israel…and he shall place his hand” (Leviticus 1:2–4), which indicates that the sons of Israel place hands on offerings, but the daughters of Israel do not place hands.
In a bigger conversation about what the sons of Aaron can do and not the daughters of Aaron. So this follows the rest of the line of reasoning.
The rabbis are playing with this idea of nachat ruach, a pleasing experience for women, and use this comment to make a general halakhic principle (which we'll see below)
לעשות נחת רוח לנשים. וכגון שהיתה בהמה שלהן ... ובפ' בתרא דר"ה (דף לג.) פירש ר"י דנשים דידן אם באות לעשות מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא ולברך עליהן אין ממחין בידם אע"ג דפטורות ולא מיקרי ברכה לבטלה וכן משמע מהכא ועוד פירשתי התם [בר"ה] והארכתי: [וע"ע תוס' עירובין צו. ד"ה דילמא כו']
To gratify the women -- As an example, the animal might have been theirs. ... And in the final chapter of Rosh Hashana, Rabbi Yossi(?) explained that if a women wanted to perform a postive, time-bounded commandment and to make a blessing for it, we do not protest this, even though they are not obligated to perform the commandment and it is not considered a redundant blessing. This is also implicit from here, and I explained further there [in Rosh Hashana] comprehensively.
אין מעכבין את התינוקות מלתקוע: הא נשים מעכבין והתניא אין מעכבין לא את הנשים ולא את התינוקות מלתקוע ביום טוב אמר אביי ל"ק הא רבי יהודה הא רבי יוסי ורבי שמעון דתניא (ויקרא א, ב) דבר אל בני ישראל בני ישראל סומכין ואין בנות ישראל סומכות דברי רבי יהודה רבי יוסי ורבי שמעון אומרים נשים סומכות רשות:
We do not prevent a child from blowing [the shofar]: This implies that we do prevent women! However, it was taught [in a braaita]: We do not prevent women or children from blowing the Shofar on the festival! Abaye said, this is not a difficulty. This is R' Yehuda [who requires that we prevent women from blowing the shofar on the festival], while this is R' Yosi and R' Shimon [who permit women to blow the shofar on the festival] As it is taught [in a braaita]: "Speak to the sons of Israel" -- [this teaches,] the sons of Israel perform the laying of the hands, while the daughters of Israel may not perform the laying of the hands. These are the words of R' Yehuda. R' Yosi and R' Shimon say: For women, the laying of the hands is optional.
מיכל בת כושי היתה מנחת תפילין ולא מיחו בה חכמים ואשתו של יונה היתה עולה לרגל ולא מיחו בה חכמים מדלא מיחו בה חכמים אלמא קסברי מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא היא ודילמא סבר לה כרבי יוסי דאמר נשים סומכות רשות דאי לא תימא הכי אשתו של יונה היתה עולה לרגל ולא מיחו בה מי איכא למ"ד רגל לאו מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא הוא אלא קסבר רשות הכא נמי רשות
Michal the daughter of Kushi would lay tefillin and the rabbis never protested, and the wife of Yonah would ascend [to Jerusalem] for the festivals and the rabbis never protested. From the prospect that the rabbis never protested, let us infer that they are of the opinion that [the laying of tefillin] is a positive non time-bound commandment! And perhaps she shared an opinion with like R' Yosi who said: Women may optionally perform the laying of the hands, because if you do not say this, how could the wife of Yona ascend [to Jerusalem] for the festival without the Rabbis protesting? Is there an opinion who claims that [ascending to Jerusalem for the] festival is not a positive and time-bounded commandment?! Rather, He is of the opinion that it is optional, so too here it is optional.
מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאִשָּׁה אַחַת שֶׁהֵבִיאָה קֹמֶץ שֶׁל סֹלֶת, וְהָיָה כֹּהֵן מְבַזֶּה עָלֶיהָ, וְאָמַר, רְאוּ מָה הֵן מַקְרִיבוֹת, מַה בָּזֶה לֶאֱכֹל, מַה בָּזֶה לְהַקְרִיב, נִרְאָה לַכֹּהֵן בַּחֲלוֹם אַל תְּבַזֶּה עָלֶיהָ, כְּאִלּוּ נַפְשָׁהּ הִקְרִיבָה. וַהֲרֵי דְבָרִים קַל וָחֹמֶר, וּמַה אִם מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַקְרִיב נֶפֶשׁ כְּתִיב בּוֹ נֶפֶשׁ, מִי שֶׁהוּא מַקְרִיב נֶפֶשׁ, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה כְּאִלּוּ נַפְשׁוֹ הִקְרִיב.
A woman once brought a handful of flour to the temple as an offering and the priest ridiculed her, saying 'look what the women bring, there's barely anything to eat from this.' God admonished the priest in a dream: 'do not mock her, for it is as if she sacrificed her life.' The Torah says 'when a nefesh (soul) brings a meal (mincha offering (Lev. 2:1),' that is, equating a mincha with a life; a fortiori when the sacrifice itself is a living creature.
On the completion of her period of purification [after having a child], for either son or daughter, she shall bring to the priest, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, a lamb in its first year for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering.
What do we learn about what the Torah, the Talmud and the rabbis have to say about women offering sacrifices?
Does anything sway you to believe in one direction over the other?
Why might women be allowed (or not) to participate in Jewish life because of some of the texts we've looked at?
The chapter plays with seeing as a metaphor for knowing. The Israelites, knowing only slavery in a pagan society with visible idols, only had faith in what they could “see.” Not seeing Moses after 40 days made them so anxious that they questioned their belief in his leadership. How much more must they have struggled with faith in an unseen God to deliver them to some unseen Promised Land? So, they demanded that Aaron make them a god they could see. Aaron, afraid of a rebellion, complied by modeling a golden calf to give them a visible representation that was “real.”
What a breach of faith so soon after agreeing to obey God wholeheartedly. Moses intercedes with God to pardon the people, and they are chastened. However, they still cannot maintain a sense of God’s presence beyond what they see. So they anxiously watch Moses until he returns to his tent; when he disappears inside, a pillar of cloud appears, as a visible reassurance.
Moses is on a higher spiritual level. Yet he, too, asks to “see” God’s presence before he can continue to lead. Unlike his people, Moses never doubts God’s existence. Rather, he wishes to see the Divine nature—the full essence of God’s presence and forgiveness no matter our predicament. Only when he has “seen” that presence can he find the strength for his mission.
Although God “speaks to Moses face to face,” even Moses cannot see God and live. Instead, God tells him to hide in the cleft of the rock. Moses will not see God’s face, but he will know the Divine presence by “seeing God’s back,” the after effects.
God’s response to Moses expresses a deep existential truth: that limited human understanding can never fully “see God’s face,” or fully comprehend God’s nature when circumstances appear to contradict His very existence. The coexistence of God and human suffering is a mystery. Yet we can see God’s after effects in our lives, and come to have an enduring faith.
God’s response focuses on forgiveness. This is more than forgiveness for the people’s sin of idolatry. It may be that we are most receptive to God’s presence when we realize our wrong and seek to return to our spiritual nature. Thus, this passage is a core part of the Day of Atonement prayers. It is read when we most intensely seek to renew our faith, not by seeing with the eye but by removing our spiritual blinders.