From: Netvort@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 1:33 AM
To: JoshHoff@aol.com
Subject: Netvort : parshas Tazav, 5765




                                            
                                               Hidden Expenses
           
                    By Rabbi Joshua (frugally known as The Hoffer) Hoffman


In memory of the four Seidenfeld children of Teaneck, New Jersey, who tragically died in a fire at their home this week. May their family experience no more sorrow.  


This week's parsha begins with God telling Moshe to command Aharon and his sons regarding the laws of sacrifices that they are obligated to carry out. God tells Moshe, "Command (tzav) Aharon and his sons, saying, 'This is the law of the olah offering...' (Vayikra 6:1). Rashi, quoting the midrash, comments that the word 'tzav' is an expression of urging on, for the immediate moment, and for future generations. The midrash, as cited by Rashi, continues, and mentions Rabbi Shimon, who says that it is especially necessary to use this kind of expression in regard to a mitzvoh that involves loss of money. Many commentaries are bothered by the obvious question, exactly what loss of money is involved here? As Ramban points out, the sacrifice referred to in this verse is the daily olah sacrifice, which was paid for from communal funds, not from the pocket of the kohanim specifically. Some commentators on Rashi, including Rabbi Dovid Ha-Levi Segel in his Divrei Dovid, explain that since the flesh of this sacrifice is completely burned on the altar, and the kohanim derive no benefit from it other than its skin, it is considered as the equivalent of a loss situation. This explanation is problematic, because the kohanim are not actually losing something in this situation, but merely not gaining much from their labors - perhaps a kind of cost efficiency question, when one considers the amount of work they must put into bringing the olah sacrifice. Ramban himself writes that the midrash is referring here, not to the olah sacrifice, but to the twice daily meal offering, the minchas chavitin, that the kohein godol was obligated to bring from his own funds. Rabbi Avrohom Binyomin Sofer, known as the Ksav Sofer, writes in his commentary that this explanation is plausible because Aharon is singled out in this verse for the first time, whereas until now, in the book of Vayikra, the Torah spoke of "the kohanim, the sons of Aharon." Therefore, he says it  is reasonable to assume that a mitzvoh specifically incumbent upon Aharon to perform is being alluded to in the verse. Still, this explanation involves a difficulty, because there is a gap between the first verse, in which the expression 'tzav' is used, and the verses referring to Aharon's daily mincha offering.


Rav Shlomo Goren, in his Toras HaMikra, writes that the term' tzav' does, indeed refer to the command to bring the daily olah. Although the cost of that olah was not really very great, he writes, still, situations would arise in Jewish history in which there was great expense and self-sacrifice involved in bringing it, and that is what the midrash is alluding to when it speaks of ' loss of money' involved in this process. The expense was not that of the kohanim per se, but that of the nation as a whole, which had to provide for the sacrifices. Rabbi Yitzchok Horowitz, however, in his commentary to Rashi, Be'er Yitzchok, points out, in his own explanation of Rabbi Shimon's statement, that the Torah was concerned for the money of Yisroel (see Yoma 39a, and Netvort to parshas Vayakheil, 5765, available at Torah heights.com). We can add that the kohanim, too, as representatives of the people, were sensitive to the financial burden placed on them on various occasions. Rabbi Goren refers to three specific cases mentioned in the Talmud in which the Jews were besieged by their enemies - in two cases internal enemies, and in the last case, external enemies - and had to pay a great deal of money to clandestinely bring the animals necessary for the daily sacrifice. This explanation is, on its face, also problematic, because it seems unlikely that the Torah would use the expression of tzav in this verse simply to allude to events that would occur so many years in the future, and which does not seem to be related to the immediate obligation to bring these offerings. However, I believe that we can accept Rabbi Goren's explanation, with a slight twist, and show how it is relevant to the immediately mentioned Torah obligation to bring the daily olah.


Making a commitment to do a certain practice on a regular basis, and especially on a twice-daily basis, is not an easy thing to do. Although, under usual circumstances, a person may feel that no difficulty is involved in fulfilling his commitment, it is the element of constancy that complicates matters. A person can never know what kind of burdens he will be faced with in the future, and whether he will always have the luxury of time and means that he now has that allow him to fulfill his commitment when he initially undertakes it. To commit to follow up on a regular basis opens him up to situations in which fulfilling the commitment will be quite difficult, and, still, because of his commitment, he must not shirk his duty, but must, rather, continue to carry out his commitment, to maintain his good reputation and good name. It is this factor, I believe that the midrash is referring to when it says that the korban olah requires a special degree of commitment necessary for success. It is in this context that we can understand Rav Goren's explanation, which sees the verse as an allusion to those times in Jewish history when the olah did, in fact, constitute a great expense. The idea is, not that the verse actually directly refers to these three instances, but, rather, indirectly, it is telling us that by making a daily commitment to bring that sacrifice, the kohanim were leaving themselves open to the eventuality that they would, in fact, have to undergo great expense in bringing that offering.

The idea of making a regular commitment to carry out an obligation also plays a central role in the entire drama of Purim. The rabbis tell us that, at Mt. Sinai, even though the Jews did say, " we will do and we will listen," there was an element of duress involved in their acceptance, and it wasn't until Purim that they finally took it upon themselves, willingly, to perform all of the mitzvos of the Torah as we read in the Megillah (9:27), " The Jews confirmed and took upon themselves"," meaning, that they re-affirmed their commitment to the Torah. However we understand this, the fact is that the Jews, at that time, made a commitment to God and His Torah. Perhaps because this commitment came at a time when the future of the Jewish people was in danger, it had added meaning, because it was a commitment that was made in the face of difficulties, and reflected an understanding that commitment can involve sacrifice, but is meaningless without the willingness to make those sacrifices. A tragic case, unfolding before our eyes, brings the nature of true commitment, and the chilling results of a lack of it, into stark relief. A woman in Florida is literally being starved to death through the efforts of her husband, who has failed to take seriously  the commitment he made when he married her, to care for her in sickness and in health. It was this kind of  commitment, a dedication to bring the olah sacrifice twice a day, no matter what the difficulties involved, that was demanded of the Kohanim, and which required an expression of command and of urging on, to extend to all future generations, that parshas Tzav begins with.  


A joyous Purim to all from the Netvort staff.



Please address all correspondence to the author (Rabbi Hoffman) with the following address - JoshHoff @ AOL.com.

To subscribe to Netvort, send a message with subject line subscribe, to Netvort@aol.com. To unsubscribe, send message with subject line unsubscribe, to the same address.