Torah Sparks

March 20, 2010 – 5 Nisan 5770

Annual (Lev. 1:1-5:26): Etz Hayim p. 585; Hertz p. 410
Triennial (Lev. 4:27-5:26): Etz Hayim p. 599; Hertz p. 419
Haftarah (Isaiah 43:21-44:23): Etz Hayim p. 607; Hertz p. 424

Rabbi Joyce Newmark
Teaneck, New Jersey

Torah Portion Summary

The book of Vayikra is known as Torat Kohanim, the Teaching of the Priests,
for much of it concerns things that fall within their area of responsibility – the
korbanot (sacrifices), ritual impurity and the ways in which it is removed, and
the Yom Kippur purification ritual. This week’s parasha, the first in the book,
describes the different types of sacrifices that were to be brought by individual
people.

All of the olah, or burnt offering, except its hide was completely consumed on
the altar. An olah could be brought from cattle, sheep, goats, birds, or even
grain, depending on the donor’s means. On part of the minchah, or grain
offering, was burned on the altar. The remainder was given to the priests to
eat. There were two types of minchah, the communal grain offering made on
Shabbat and festivals and the individual offering brought by those too poor to
afford an animal for an olah. The zevach sh’lamim, the offering of well-being,
was only partially burned. After the designated portions were removed and
placed on the altar, the rest became a sacred meal shared by the donors and
the priests. A person who committed a sin accidentally or unknowingly was
to bring a chattat, a sin or purification offering. The community’s elders also
were to offer a chattat when the entire community committed an inadvertent
sin. Finally, the asham, the guilt offering, was to be brought when a person
was unsure if he had sinned or when he wanted to make amends for a sin
previously committed against another person. In the latter case, the asham
was in addition to making restitution and paying a fine to the person who had
been wronged.

1. A Sliding Scale
 
And he shall bring as his penalty to the Lord, for the sin of which he is guilty,
a female from the flock, sheep or goat, as a purification offering; and the
priest shall make expiation on his behalf for his sin. But if his means do not
suffice for a sheep, he shall bring to the Lord, as his penalty for that of which
he is guilty, two turtledoves or two pigeons. . . . And if his means do not
suffice for two turtledoves or two pigeons, he shall bring as his offering for
that of which he is guilty a tenth of an ephah of choice flour. Leviticus 5:6-7, 11

A. “His means” implies that which he [currently] has and he is not obligated
to borrow, even if he finds someone from whom to borrow. They do not tell
him to borrow or to work at his trade until he has the means to bring the
offering of a rich man, for a mitzvah is best at its proper time. If he has a
sheep but does not have everything needed for it (for example, if he is far from
Jerusalem and has enough money to buy a sheep but not enough to feed it for
several days on the journey), he should bring a poor man’s offering. Sifra
 
B. The Torah ensured that even the poorest person will be able to find
forgiveness for his sin. Even if he cannot afford two doves, he can bring a
meal offering. On the other hand, our sages tell us that if a rich person brings
a poor man’s meal offering he has not fulfilled his obligation. Nowadays,
because we have no Temple, we have to give tzedakah in place of the
sacrifices. That being the case, a rich man cannot fulfill his obligation by
giving that which a poor man would give. He is required to give according to
his means and ability, and if he does not do so, he has not fulfilled his
obligation of giving. Hafetz Hayim (Rabbi Israel Meir HaKohen), 1835-1933,
Poland

Sparks for Discussion

The Torah provides a sliding scale so that the chattat (the purification offering
that was part of the process of atoning for certain transgressions) would be
within everyone’s means. Why do you think this was done? It is easy to
understand why a rich person cannot fulfill his obligation by bringing a poor
person’s offering, but why do you think the Sifra makes the point that a less
wealthy person should not spend more than he can afford easily? What do you
imagine a person felt as he or she brought a purification offering to the
Temple?

The Hafetz Hayim draws an analogy between these offerings and tzedakah –
the rich person (and the poor one as well) “is required to give according to his
means and ability.” How do you understand this? Should each person give the
same percentage of income? Should the wealthy give a higher percentage?
During difficult economic times, should those who are comfortable forgo
luxuries – vacations, remodeling projects – to increase charitable giving when
the need is great? What is fair? What constitutes righteousness in giving?

2. A Trespass Against the Lord

When a person sins and commits a trespass against the Lord by dealing
deceitfully with his fellow in the matter of a deposit or a pledge, or through
robbery, or by defrauding his fellow, or by finding something lost and lying
about it; if he swears falsely regarding any one of the various things that one
may do and sin thereby – Leviticus 5:21-22

A. Said Rabbi Akiva: What does the Torah mean by saying: “Commit a
trespass against the Lord?” When the creditor and debtor or two parties to
any transaction conduct their business through contracts and witnesses, a
repudiation of obligation constitutes a repudiation of the witnesses and the
contract. But he who deposits something with his neighbor does not want a
soul to know about it other than the Third Party between them. When he
repudiates his obligation, he repudiates the Third Party (i.e., God) between
them. Sifra

B. These verses treat the offering to be brought by a man who has denied on
oath a justified claim for reparation and later admits that his oath was false…
Every transgression committed by a man against his neighbor is tantamount to
rebellion and trespass against the Almighty… He, as it were, is the Third
Party, the unseen witness to all human transactions and the guarantor that they
will be conducted in an honest fashion. Since here the defrauder called on the
name of the guarantor during his denial – that is, he swore falsely by the name
of God – this is not just false dealing. The Jew attests to the honesty of his
conduct by his priestly role of nearness to his God. Since his calling on the
name of God was purely an empty and vain deception, the term fitting it best is
trespass against God. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, 1808-1888, Germany

C. We have sinned against You by wronging others…We have sinned against
You by deriding parents and teachers, and we have sinned against You by
using violence… We have sinned against You by dishonesty in business, and
we have sinned against You by taking usurious interest. Mahzor for Rosh
Hashanah and Yom Kippur, The Rabbical Assembly, p. 46

Sparks for Discussion

As Rabbi Hirsch points out, the pshat –the contextual meaning of “trespass
against the Lord” in these verses – refers to a person who owes money or
property to someone else and then swears a false oath, in the name of God,
denying that obligation. But Rabbi Hirsch also implies that any sin committed
by one person against another, even when no oath is involved, is also a sin
against God. Do you agree?

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Rapaport House, 820 Second Ave., New York, NY 10017
Tel: 212-533-7800 Fax: 212-353-9439
E-mail: info@uscj.org Website: www.uscj.org