Parshas Tzav
This week’s Sedra opens with the topic of the Hekter-ChalavimV’Aivarim (the burning of the fats and limbs of the fire offerings), and the Trumas-Hadeshen (the removing of the ashes left over from the burning of fats and limbs). The Torah ends this topic by telling us that we should light a constant fire on the Altar and that we shouldn’t commit any act that would cause it to be extinguished. Most elements of the Karbanos are somewhat peculiar and not easily understood and the Medrash Tanchuma points out a particular oddity present in this passage. The passage starts off by saying “Command Aharon and his sons saying these are the instructions of the Fire Offering etc.” While as a contained statement there seems to be no problem, the issue is that in last week’s Sedra the Torah referred to all of Klal-Yisroel in the command for the Fire-Offering, for even though the actual service is performed by a Kohen, the Karban itself is brought by the entire Klal-Yisroel. Following through with the Torah’s own reasoning the Midrash Tanchuma asks why does the Torah change and specify Aharon and the Kohanim instead of the entire Klal-Yisroel?
Yet another question is as follows: the Zohar Hakadosh tells us that Reb Meir explained that this idea of the constant fire and not extinguishing the fire represent in a symbolic way Talmud-Torah. Now, while one can draw all sorts of nice analogies between Torah and a constant fire, be it one’s obligations to Torah study, or be it an intrinsic quality of Torah, it still remains difficult to say that Torah study should be represented in the act of bringing a sacrifice. Firstly, Talmud Torah (Torah learning) is Torah and Karbanos is Avoda (Service), both of which are essential to the world’s existence. These, however, are two separate entities important in their own rights. Secondly, Torah is intrinsicly a Mitzvah Temidis (a permanent commandment), because if someone truly wants to do what God wants that person must always be searching for Hashem's instructions. That searching by itself possibly constitutes Torah study (see Gr”a) and definitely has to result in Torah study. Karbanos on the other hand, are acts of doing something for Hashem. Since they are acts, they by definition aren’t constant, and the only thing that makes them constant is that we do them constantly. Moreover, this fire’s constancy isn’t due to an act done constantly, but rather to its not being extinguished. Hence, how can Torah learning be represented by a Karban since it is such a different sort of Mitzva?
The Tanchuma continues with what seems to be a disconnected idea: “whoever exalt himself will eventually be consumed by fire”. The Tanchuma proceeds to prove the statement and to list all sorts of people and nations who exalted themselves and then perished. The Tanchuma ends by saying that once Eisav finally reaches the summit of his exaltedness he too will perish, and only Klal-Yisroel and Hashem will remain.
The Tanchuma seems to leave the whole issue open ended.
The Midrash (see Medrash Rabba and Zohar) explains the issue of the continuous fire on a more esoteric level by saying that this continuous fire is here to atone for Avairos (sins) that are committed solely in the mind. The Midrash goes on to explain that since we know that generally speaking Hashem doesn’t punish for bad thoughts, but rather only when evil thoughts result in evil acts, it is thus clear that these sins that are committed in the mind can only be Avoda Zarah (Idol Worship) because idolatry is indeed punishable from the mere thinking of it. Thus the Midrash concludes that Aharon Hakohen is mentioned here in conjunction to this passage in order to make clear that he didn’t sin for a second in the Chet HaEgel (sin of the Golden Calf) for he himself is Hashem’s emissary to atone for even the mere thought of idolatry. Hence although it would seem that Aharon was in a sense responsible for the creation and serving of the Golden Calf the Torah is coming to clear him of all sin by making it clear that his intent was for Hashem’s sake.
Perhaps now we can approach the Tanchuma in a similar way. The Tanchuma is telling us that anybody who is looking only to make himself seem greater and more powerful in the eyes of others will eventually be consumed by fire and perish. While this is true in the negative sense, it stands to reason that the converse is also true: anyone who thinks only for the sake of Hashem and his Omnipotence will be raised and exalted. Perhaps the Tanchuma is telling us that this was the case with Aharon, and in the same vein, it will also eventually be true of Am-Yisroel. It can be well understood why it is this Avoda (sacrificial ceremony) that atones for thoughts of Avoda Zarah, because this Avoda entails taking the most important parts that remain from the animal and burning entirely, not even extinguishing their ashes. It captures the idea that every last bit – good and bad – must be only and purely for Hashem’s sake.
Now we can truly understand why it is that Torah is able to be represented by this particular Korban. Although Torah learning is a Mitzva that can be accomplished at almost any given time, there are still some periods when a person can’t fulfill Talmud Torah for all sorts of reasons. If a person is doing these other actions for his own selfish purposes then he is doing nothing that has any connection with Torah. However, if that person is doing completely Leshem Shamaim – for Hashem’s sake – he is indeed fulfilling the Torah and not taking himself out of Talmud Torah even in the most minor of ways.
*************************
Towards the beginning of this week’s Sedra the Torah directs that the Kohen bringing the Korban Tamid should change his clothing prior to taking out the holy ashes (Hotzaas Hadeshen) of the Karban. Rashi explains (based on the Gemorah in Yoma 23b) that this isn’t an obligation, but rather a suggestion of proper conduct. Rashi explains that it would be inappropriate for the Kohen to serve Hashem in clothing that was soiled from the holy ashes. Rashi explains that this is similar to the idea that one wouldn’t serve their master a dish in the same clothing as that worn while preparing it. Similarly, a Kohen shouldn’t perform the Avodos in the same clothing as that in which he took out the ashes.
There are many issues with this Rashi: firstly, why should is the Kohen’s clothing being soiled from the ashes any different than its being dirtied by anything else the Kohen comes into contact with throughout the day’s other services? Secondly, why is it only a suggestion? There are other questions that can be asked, but we will focus on these two.
What is interesting is that Rashi compares the removal of the Ashes to preparation of food. And all the other Avodos to the serving of a dish. This is peculiar, as preparations are usually the first step in the process of serving while Hotzaas Hadeshen would seem to be the last step in the process. It would have seemed more befitting for Rashi to have explained the removal of the ashes in comparison to cleaning up after the master’s meal. Rashi’s explanation would have stayed very much the same only much more lucid.
Perhaps this is exactly the idea that Rashi is trying to convey. Rashi is telling us that there is no real comparison between ‘Flesh and Blood’ and Hashem. Yet, although there is no true comparison we must still try to understand our relationship with Hashem by using the ideas and phenomenon that we do understand. Therefore, although it would seem that it should be an obligation for the Kohen to change his clothing it is really only a suggestion. That is because there can be no precise comparison equating the situation to what we can understand; there can merely be a human attempt at showing the proper respect to Hashem and his services. Since we cannot really make an exact comparison between the Hotzaas Hadeshen and a servant preparing food for his master, we can also not deduce from this analogy any Halachik ramifications. We can, and should, still attempt to learn an approach from it.
Throughout life we grapple with trying to understand our relationship with Hashem; the only viable way we have to resolve this struggle is by taking the initiative to draw parallels and to incorporate them into our interactions with Hashem. This isn’t Halacha but it is the essence of our relationship between Hashem.
*******************************
At the end of this week’s Sedra Hashem instructs Aharon and his sons regarding the Seven inaugural days of the Tabernacle. Hashem tells Aharon and his son’s that they must stay inside the Mishkan and not leave its threshold for the entire seven inaugural days. The Torah then informs us that Aharon and his sons did exactly as they had been commanded by Hashem through Moshe.
This last point seems a bit curious. The Chumash is filled with Hashem’s commands and instructions to Klal-Yisroel, or various individual members of Am-Yisroel. Rarely is the command followed by a confirmation that those commanded did exactly as they were told. Why is it that here the Torah felt it necessary to tell us that Aharon and his sons executed to the letter that particular command.
Rashi explains that the Torah wished to praise Aharon and his sons for not veering right or left from what they had been ordered. Rashi’s comment, however, only seems to complicate things further. Is this the only place that a commandment of Hashem was fulfilled without deviating slightly from the command?
If we examine closely the words of Rashi we notice that Rashi doesn’t simply say that they didn’t deviate - שלא שינו, but rather that they didn’t veer to the right or to the left שלא הטו ימין ושמאל. The way Rashi phrases their not deviating by using the words of right and left implies something space oriented: it suggests that physically they didn’t move. Looking back at the commandment Hashem tells them not to move from the Mishkan, not even to cross the threshold of the Mishkan for seven days. While the Mishkan was a beautiful place it was still confining. They were only minutes from their families’ tents and yet they couldn’t exit the Mishkan even for a moment. Furthermore the Mishkan and the Karbonos were all new to Aharon and his sons. These are all areas with very intricate Halachos. Living in the Mishkan was living in the depths of new halachic Sugyos day in and day out.
Rashi seems to be bringing out this point: the Torah is praising Aharon and his sons for their ability to force themselves to living within the parameters of Retzon Hashem in the most exacting ways.
*********************************
This week's Sedra discusses at length various details of the Karbanos. The Parsha starts off by telling Aharon and his sons “this is the Toras Haolah” –“this is the Torah of the fire offering”. Throughout this week's Sedra the Torah reiterates this idea of Toras Hakorbanos. What is the definition of ‘Toras Hakorbanos’? Is it not sufficient that they are part of the Torah Hakdosha? Why do we need mini Torahs?
Rebbe Yitzchak (Nedarim) explains that the Torah is implying that when we are not able physically (or Halachically) to offer the Korbanos, but nevertheless learn and read their laws, it is as if we indeed offered them. He explains that the Torah is emphasizing the importance of the "Toras Hakorbanos" because these laws are themselves of significance.
The question remains: Why does the Torah need to transmit this idea of "Amiras Hakorbanos", or even of learning the Korbanos, via calling attention to their laws – by using the word "Toras"?
When one offers a Korban one is essentially offering a present (‘so to speak’) to Hashem. The individual in question is, through the Korban, in effect showing his affection for Hashem. It would be totally unreasonable to suggest that merely mumbling the Parshios of the Korbanos would act in any way as a replacement for the act of offering Korbanos.
The word ‘Torah’ doesn't only imply a law as the words Chok and Mishpat do, but rather suggests a detailed ‘set of laws’. It refers to a complex set of laws that require attention and study.
A present is always more representative of the thought behind it than of its actual substance. When someone offers someone else something of value in the form of a bribe, it is worth only its precise value to the taker. When, on the other hand, one is expressing a genuine desire to give, then even the most modest of gifts can carry an immeasurable amount of affection and appreciation.
While in our day in age we cannot offer an actual Korban we can relay our love, appreciation, and affection to Hashem by showing that we yearn to offer Him a Korban precisely the way Hashem wants it. It is for this end purpose that we study every detail of every Korban that Hashem wants. Rebbe Yitzchak is essentially telling us that Hashem wants us to show Him that we care to give Him what He wants, how He wants it. This is why the Torah relays the message through the concept of "Toras Hakorbanos".