Torah Study Tzav -5785

Vayikra/Leviticus 6:1-8:36, Mal’akhi/Malachi 3:4-24, Mattiyahu/Matthew 17:9-13

Torah Portion Vayikra/Leviticus 6:1-8:36

Leviticus 6:1–2 “Adonai said to Moshe, “Give this order to Aharon and his sons: ‘This is the law for the burnt offering [Hebrew: ‘olah]: it is what goes up [Hebrew: ‘olah] on its firewood upon the altar all night long, until morning; in this way the fire of the altar will be kept burning.”

1.Vayikra begins with HaShem calling to Moshe and telling him to speak to the people. This is repeated in chapter 4, Yet here we read “Give this order to Aharon and his sons...”. Why is the previous topics directed toward the people but this topic is specifically directed toward Aharon and his sons?# 1

a.The previous topics where expected of each person, this topic is is only expected or allowed of Aharon and his sons.

b.It is expected for each individual to bring an offering it is only expected of Aharon and his sons to perform the ritual sacrifice upon the altar.

RASHI Command Aaron and his sons. “Command” is used to give an instruction that must be followed with alacrity, both immediately and in succeeding generations. R. Simeon says, “The text must especially command us to act with alacrity in a matter that involves taking money out of one’s pocket.” This is the ritual of the burnt offering. Every time the Hebrew word torah is used (here, “ritual” in NJPS and “law” in OJPS), its purpose is to indicate that the rules are worded in such a way as to give us additional information that is not specifically recorded. In this case, we learn that the fats and other parts of a sacrifice may be burned on the altar at any time during the night, and also which invalid offerings must be taken down from the altar and which must remain and be offered anyway. The burnt offering itself. This apparently redundant expression tells us that animals that have been involved in bestiality and the like may not be used as a burnt offering even if they are accidentally put up on the altar, since their disqualification took place before they were brought into the courtyard and not in the holy place itself. RASHBAM This is the ritual of the burnt offering. All of the offerings in the weekly portion of Vayikra are repeated here, and the rules concerning them are completed. The burnt offering itself. The burnt offering must be brought during the day: “on the day that he offers his sacrifice” (7:16); “on the day you sacrifice it” (19:6). All night. It may be turned into smoke at any time throughout the night. The fire on the altar is kept going on it. By night just as it is by day. IBN EZRA The burnt offering itself. Rather, as OJPS translates, the burnt offering “is that which goeth up” entirely on the altar. That is why it is called by the Hebrew word olah, which has this meaning. Correctly read, the verse implies that the burnt offering may not be put on the altar during the night but that it remains on the fire during the night. Where it is burned. OJPS “on its firewood.” It is not clear whether this word mokdah (found only here in the Bible) is a variant of the word mokéd (literally “hearth”) or a different noun from the same root. While the fire on the altar is kept going on it. This fire is kept going on the altar but may not be transferred elsewhere. NAHMANIDES Command Aaron and his sons. The book of Leviticus begins with “Speak to the Israelite people” (1:2) because that section describes the bringing of the offerings, and the offerings are brought by all of the Israelites. Now, however, Moses is told to “command Aaron,” because this section describes how the offerings are to be made, which is the job of the priests. The comment of R. Simeon mentioned by Rashi is therefore not pertinent, since the priests who are commanded here make no expenditure themselves; in fact, they profit by making the offerings. R. Simeon is actually arguing with the first comment provided by Rashi, which says that “command” refers specifically to commandments that go into effect immediately and also pertain to future generations, while other commandments are introduced simply by saying “Speak to the Israelite people” or “Say to them.” R. Simeon’s point is that “command” actually is sometimes used with commandments of limited applicability: when they involve expenditure—e.g., for oil for the lampstand (Exod. 27:20) or for towns for the Levites to settle in (Num. 35:2). It might be that R. Simeon’s comment is understood to apply here, since v. 13 does speak of an offering to be brought by “Aaron and his sons.” But in the Sifra, where both comments originate, R. Simeon is (as I said) arguing with the first comment, not supplementing it as Rashi makes him seem to do. This is the ritual of the burnt offering. The rule specified by Rashi does not apply to all “offerings” (as he says) but to all burnt offerings—not to libations and not to offerings of blood. With regard to the nighttime aspect, this expression teaches us that we are not to bring a burnt offering at night. But if it is slaughtered and its blood is dashed on the altar while it is still day, then the sacrificial pieces may be burnt at any time during the night. The same is true of the sacrificial fats from a sacrifice of well-being. The burnt offering itself. This is the phrase that expresses the limitation we have mentioned: that the offering itself may not be taken down from the altar if it is found to be invalid, while its accompanying libations or blood offerings are removed. But this verse has nothing to do with burnt offerings that are not put up on the altar until nighttime. That situation is covered by Exod. 23:18. While the fire on the altar is kept going on it. That is, it is a commandment to the priests to add enough wood during the day so that it is not used up at night, letting the fire go out. In my opinion, v. 6 is a separate commandment: that the fire should not be permitted to go out at all. (In fact, the Sages decreed a second, separate fire on the altar to be kept continuously burning in fulfillment of this commandment.) V. 5, which says something similar, would appear to be superfluous, permitting the Sages to interpret it as extending this commandment beyond the priests to everyone, such that not even a coal from the fire may be taken off the altar and extinguished. But I don’t think one who does so violates two commandments, as Rashi says in his comment to v. 6. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS This is the ritual of the burnt offering. The burnt offering is mentioned first, as it was in ch. 1, because it is the most preferred, as if God had said, “If only all your offerings were burnt offerings and none of them sin or guilt offerings” (Abarbanel). Not “the ritual” but “the Torah,” that is, the teaching. Having described all the different offerings, the text now returns to allude to the theoretical aspects of each (Sforno). The burnt offering itself. “The ritual of the burnt offering” in general is described in the weekly portion of Vayikra, but now the specific rules pertaining to the regular evening offering are given (Abarbanel). Where it is burned. The מ of the Hebrew word מוקדה is to be written noticeably smaller than the other letters (Masorah). The offering that must remain where it is burned all night is obviously the regular daily twilight offering; the reason it must remain is so that, to honor God, the altar is never empty day or night (Bekhor Shor). It should rather be translated “on its hearth” (compare OJPS). There should be a fire that is specifically dedicated to it alone (Gersonides). All night. There was no need to add that the morning offering could be burned at any time during the day, since this is obvious. But we also learn that the evening prayer may be recited at any time during the night, for there is an allegorical interpretation of this whole section relating it to the three daily prayers of evening, morning, and afternoon. As we learn from Song 8:6, the love of God that impels one to pray bums like a flame (Abarbanel). While the fire on the altar is kept going on it. Rather, “the fire of the [inner] altar is to be lit from it,” that is, from the fire on the outer altar (Hizkuni). Michael Carasik, ed., Leviticus: Introduction and Commentary, trans. Michael Carasik, First edition, The Commentators’ Bible (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 2009), 34.

Leviticus 6:5–6 “In this way, the fire on the altar will be kept burning and not be allowed to go out. Each morning, the cohen is to kindle wood on it, arrange the burnt offering and make the fat of the peace offerings go up in smoke. Fire is to be kept burning on the altar continually; it is not to go out.”

2. We read in Verse 2, 5, and 6, That the fire on the altar is to not go out and is to burn continually. What is could be a purpose in this?# 2

a.To remind us that HaShem is always with us.

b.To remind us to always be tending to HaShem.

RASHI The fire on the altar shall be kept burning. The repetition of this instruction in vv. 2, 5, and 6 is discussed in Tractate Yoma, where our Sages differ on how many different fires were kept burning atop the altar. Lay out the burnt offering on it. That is, the regular daily offering is laid out first. The fat parts of the offerings of well-being. That is, if any offerings of well-being are brought. Since this is not necessarily so, the Sages understand that our verse says “the” offerings of well-being to permit ha-shelamim to be read as hashlemam, “Complete them.” Thus all other offerings must be completed “on top of” the morning offering, leaving the regular afternoon offering as the last one of the day. IBN EZRA The fire on the altar shall be kept burning. This repeats exactly the expression at the end of v. 2 (as OJPS does in English), in order to indicate that it is not to go out at any time during the day. Every morning the priest shall feed wood to it, lay out the burnt offering on it, and turn into smoke the fat parts of the offerings of well-being. We learn that the regular daily offering precedes whatever offerings of well-being may be brought that day. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS The fire on the altar shall be kept burning. Rather, “the fire shall burn on the altar”—that is, it must be kindled there and not kindled below and brought up to the altar (Gersonides). Michael Carasik, ed., Leviticus: Introduction and Commentary, trans. Michael Carasik, First edition, The Commentators’ Bible (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 2009), 36.

Leviticus 6:11 “Every male descendant of Aharon may eat from it; it is his share of the offerings for Adonai made by fire forever through all your generations. Whatever touches those offerings will become holy.’ ””

3.How are we to understand the meaning of “...What ever touches those offerings will become holy.”?# 3

a. It is to say that anyone who is to touch these must be in a holy state.

b.1 Samuel 21:4–6 “Now, what do you have on hand? If you can spare five loaves of bread, give them to me, or whatever there is.” The cohen answered David, “I don’t have any regular bread; however, there is consecrated bread—but only if the guards have abstained from women. David answered the cohen, “Of course women have been kept away from us, as on previous campaigns. Whenever I go out on campaign, the men’s gear is clean, even if it’s an ordinary trip. How much more, then, today, when they will be putting something consecrated in their packs!””

Only the males among Aaron’s descendants Sacrificial foods could be eaten only by the priests themselves, although other foodstuffs collected for their support and other forms of priestly revenue could be used to feed their families. These are summarized in Numbers 18:8–20. as their due for all time Hebrew ḥok (fem. ḥukkab), “due,” derives from the verb ḥ-k-k, “to inscribe, engrave,” and signifies that which is ordained by written statute. By extension, it connotes one’s lawful share or amount, a rightful due, which is the meaning of ḥok here. Anything that touches these shall become holy Rather, “Anyone who is to touch these must be in a holy state.” Similar statements pertaining to the sanctity of the altar occur in Exodus 29:37 and 30:29 and in verse 20 below. The problem of interpretation concerns the verb yikdash. Does it mean “will become holy—as a result of contact with sanctified substances and objects—or “must be in a holy state”—before being allowed to come into contact with sacred substances and objects? Several scholars, most notably M. Haran, have argued for the former interpretation. Haran has formulated a theory of “contagious” holiness, according to which the sanctity of holy objects and substances is communicated, or conducted, to all that comes into contact with them. Although the verb k-d-sh itself often connotes resultant holiness, it is more likely that here it refers to what must occur prior to contact with the sacred. Our verse simply means that only consecrated persons may have contact with sacrificial materials, a notion that reinforces the opening of the verse: Only Aaronide priests may partake of the sacrifices. Similarly, in Exodus 29:37 and 30:29 the sense is that only consecrated persons may have contact with the altar. In fact, there are indications that holiness was not regarded as “contagious” at all, unlike impurity, which was thought to be highly communicable. This contrast is brought out clearly in Haggai 2:11–13, where we read the actual text of an inquiry on questions of purity, addressed to the priesthood of Jerusalem in the early postexilic period. The priests were asked, hypothetically, whether foodstuffs carried by a man would be rendered holy through physical contact with sacrificial flesh borne by the same man in the folds of his garment. They answered in the negative. But, when the priests were asked whether the same foodstuffs would be defiled if touched by a man impure through contact with a corpse, they replied in the affirmative. The point is that whereas impurity is transferred through physical contact alone, substances do not become holy merely through contact with sacred materials. An act of consecration is required. Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 37–38.

Leviticus 7:23–24 ““Say to the people of Isra’el, ‘You are not to eat the fat of bulls, sheep or goats. The fat of animals that die of themselves or are killed by wild animals may be used for any other purpose, but under no circumstances are you to eat it.”

4.Which bulls, sheep and goats, may a Jew not consume the fat off?

a.Sacrificial animals, animals that die of “natural causes”, or killed by wild animals.

b.Who is permitted to eat of the animal that died naturally? Gentiles Deuteronomy 14:21 ““You are not to eat any animal that dies naturally; although you may let a stranger staying with you eat it, or sell it to a foreigner; because you are a holy people for Adonai your God. “You are not to boil a young animal in its mother’s milk.”

5. What does it mean the animals may be used for any other purpose? # 4

a. Just as is stated. Animal parts can be used for more than food.

RASHI May be put to any use. Come and learn from this that fat which is forbidden to eat does not acquire the same impurity as does the (theoretically) edible flesh of an animal carcass. But you must not eat it. The Torah declares here that the prohibition of eating from the carcass of an animal does apply to this fat, and one who does so violates two separate prohibitions. Do not think that the principle “The same action cannot be prohibited in two different ways” applies to this. IBN EZRA Fat from animals that died or were torn by beasts may be put to any use, but you must not eat it. The meat of the animal is obviously forbidden (and it goes without saying that the blood is forbidden as well). But since the fat of such an animal is not offered on the altar, one might think that it is permissible to consume it. So the verse specifically forbids this. Michael Carasik, ed., Leviticus: Introduction and Commentary, trans. Michael Carasik, First edition, The Commentators’ Bible (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 2009), 46.

Leviticus 7:35–36 “On the day when Aharon and his sons were presented to serve Adonai in the office of cohen, this portion was set aside for him and his descendants from the offerings for Adonai made by fire. On the day they were anointed, Adonai ordered that this be given to them by the people of Isra’el. It is their share forever through all their generations.”

6.How significant and what is a possible reason for only the Cohenim, Aharon and his sons and their descendants, receiving this benefit of partaking in the sacrifices to HaShem for all eternity?# 5

a. very significant, who else always eats at HaShems table?

b. They serve HaShem directly in his “home” and is mediator between him and the people.

RASHBAM Perquisites. NJPS has understood this word—elsewhere translated as “anointing”—correctly. What the priests receive from the sacrifices constitutes their pay: “the skin of the burnt offering” (v. 8), the meat of the sin offering (6:19) and the guilt offering (v. 7), one each of the breads from the thanksgiving offering (v. 14), the breast and thigh of the sacrifice of well-being (vv. 31–34), and “what is left” of the meal offering (6:9). IBN EZRA The perquisites. Literally, “the anointing”; but NJPS has the sense. These are the rewards given to Aaron and his sons, for anointing confers princely status.Once they had been anointed. Again NJPS has the sense; contrast the more literal “in the day that they were anointed” (OJPS). These are their perquisites from that day on. The same is true of “what is left over of the flesh and the bread” (8:32), where even OJPS agrees that the Hebrew preposition must mean “of” or “from.” NAHMANIDES To be given them, once they had been anointed. NJPS is not quite precise here; OJPS, “which the Lord commanded to be given them of the children of Israel, in the day that they were anointed,” is more literal. The sense of the text is that, at the time the priests were anointed, the Lord commanded that these things be given to them ever afterward. The same applies to “once they have been inducted” of v. 35. The NJPS translation follows the explanation of Ibn Ezra, that the Hebrew preposition which OJPS translates here as “in” can indeed mean “from”; see 8:32, “what is left over of [not in] the flesh and the bread.” Michael Carasik, ed., Leviticus: Introduction and Commentary, trans. Michael Carasik, First edition, The Commentators’ Bible (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 2009), 48.

Leviticus 8:23 “After it had been slaughtered, Moshe took some of its blood and put it on the tip of Aharon’s right ear, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot.”

7. In what way are the animals Sacrificed? Where is this commanded? # 6

a. Bird Leviticus 1:15 & Leviticus 5:8

b. Herd animal single stroke to the neck

c.Shechita is a halakhic practice of slaughtering certain mammals and birds for food according to kashrut. It involves severing the trachea and esophagus of the animal with a sharp knife, and requires a trained shochet and an inspection of the carcass.

d. Oral Torah

Shechita is the Jewish religious and humane method of slaughtering permitted animals and poultry for food. It is the only method of producing kosher meat and poultry allowed by Jewish law. It is a most humane method as explained below.

There is no ritual involved in shechita. It is a cardinal tenet of the Jewish faith that the laws of shechita were divinely given to Moses at Mount Sinai (Deuteronomy 12:21); the rules governing shechita are codified and defined and are as binding and valued today as ever and they ensure a swift and painless dispatch of the animal. Infringing the laws of shechita renders the meat unconditionally forbidden as food to Jews. The time hallowed practice of shechita, marked as it is by compassion and consideration for the welfare of the animal, has been a central pillar in the sustaining of Jewish life for millennia.

Shechita is performed by a highly trained shochet. The procedure consists of a rapid and expert transverse incision with an instrument of surgical sharpness (a chalaf), which severs the major structures and vessels at the neck. This causes an instant drop in blood pressure in the brain and immediately results in the irreversible cessation of consciousness. Thus, shechita renders the animal insensible to pain, dispatches and exsanguinates in a swift action, and fulfils all the requirements of humaneness and compassion.

It is noteworthy that since 1928, shechita has been protected by various enactments of primary and secondary legislation. Article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, now incorporated into British law, protects freedom of religious belief and practice. In the United States and Canada, the humaneness of shechita is acknowledged in the Humane Methods of Animal Slaughter Legislation.

Haftorah Portion Mal’akhi/Malachi 3:4-24

Shabbat ha-Gadol, “The Great Sabbath,” is the Sabbath that falls immediately prior to the beginning of Passover (see “Connections” for a discussion of the origin of the name). The somewhat puzzling choice of this haftarah seems to be connected to the tradition that the redemption of the Jews from present-day exile will occur on Passover, just as the original Exodus did. The haftarah, therefore, heralds the upcoming holiday (a calendrical connection) as well as the ultimate great day (a thematic connection). The focus on tithing provides another link between Passover and this passage (both agriculturally and spiritually); the giving of gifts acquires a divine dimension. The reference to Elijah, which concludes the haftarah, joins the passage to the Haggadah and Elijah’s cup, where the advent of the Messianic Age is likewise annually anticipated. Laura Suzanne Lieber, Study Guide to the JPS Bible Commentary: Haftarot, ed. Janet L. Liss and David E. S. Stein, First edition, JPS Tanakh Commentary (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2002), 88.

Malachi 3:6 ““But because I, Adonai, do not change, you sons of Ya‘akov will not be destroyed.”

8. How do you understand that Adonai does not change and Son’s of Ya’akov, Bnei’ Yisrael, will not be destroyed?

Malachi 3:7 “Since the days of your forefathers you have turned from my laws and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you,” says Adonai-Tzva’ot. “But you ask, ‘In respect to what are we supposed to return?’”

9. What is meant by “… Return to me and I will return to you...”? # 7

a. it mean to do what he says and he will be with us!

Turn back to Me, and I will turn back to you This statement is a quid pro quo and is explicated by God’s promise that if the people “bring the full tithe” He will “pour down blessings” upon them (v. 10). Thus, although the prophet began his divine rebuke with the general statement that “you have turned away from My laws” (v. 7), the answer to the people’s query “How shall we turn back?” (v. 7) is given in terms of priestly dues. With this emphasis, there is a return to the cultic theme of chapter 1 (along with the phrase “and you ask”; cf. 3:7–8 and 1:6–7, 13). The issue of benefits for divine service is continued in the promise given to the God-fearers (see vv. 14, 17–18). Malachi’s exhortation presumes the people’s ability to respond to God’s initiative. Compare the humble desire of the prayer in Lam. 5:21: “Take us back, O Lord, to Yourself, and let us come back.” In this case, the sinful heart requests God’s help. Michael A. Fishbane, Haftarot, The JPS Bible Commentary (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2002), 362–363.

Malachi 3:22 ““Remember the Torah of Moshe my servant, which I enjoined on him at Horev, laws and rulings for all Isra’el.”

10.What is meant by this verse?

a. To obey the Torah.

Malachi 3:23–24 “Look, I will send to you Eliyahu the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible Day of Adonai. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to their fathers; otherwise I will come and strike the land with complete destruction.””

11. Does is meant that Eliyahu will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to their fathers before the coming of the great and terrible Day of Adonai?# 8

a. generation reconciliation

b. all generations will be reconciled to HaShem

He shall reconcile parents with children The language is difficult and ambiguous. The act of reconciliation is literally “restore the heart” (heshiv lev), but the preposition ʿal leaves open whether the prophet envisions the reconciliation of parents “with” their children or “along with” them. In the first case, the divine wrath will be forestalled by intergenerational reconciliation; in the other, all members of that time (both generations) will be restored to God. The double action in verse 24a seems to suggest that Elijah will work to bring harmony between the generations, reciprocally; but this formulation may simply be a rhetorical flourish. On either reading, events on a family level bring to a climax the figure of divine-human (father-child) relations found elsewhere in the book (Mal. 1:6; 3:17). Healing between parents and children is thus part of the nation’s reconciliation with their God, and the textual ambiguity imbeds a profound and double-edged point. The earthly interventions of Elijah after his ascension to heaven (2 Kings 2:11) show a new turn in prophecy. Another work of the Persian period mentions a “letter” of reproof sent by Elijah in God’s name to king Jehoram (2 Chron. 21:12–15). In rabbinic literature, many new roles were imagined for Elijah upon his earthly advent (see below). Anticipating these, Ben Sira (180 b.c.e.) says that the prophet will not only “reconcile” parents and children (and so “assuage” God’s wrath); he will also restore the exilic tribes to their homeland (Ecclus. 48:10–11). In this he has given a midrashic twist to the verb heshiv and understood it to refer to an act of national “return” (cf. Deut. 30:3 and Targum Jonathan to v. 4). Michael A. Fishbane, Haftarot, The JPS Bible Commentary (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2002), 365.

Basorah Portion Mattiyahu/Matthew 17:9-13

Matthew 17:10 “The talmidim asked him, “Then why do the Torah-teachers say that Eliyahu must come first?””

12. Where do we read that Eliyahu must come first?# 9

a. Malachi 3

The Torah-teachers say Eliyahu must come first. This teaching is based on Malachi 3:1 and 3:23–24(4:5–6), and it is kept alive in Judaism every Passover, at the Seder meal, when an extra place is set for Eliyahu HaNavi (“Elijah the prophet”), and the door is opened to welcome him, should he be there. Three points: (1) Yochanan the Immerser, “if you are willing to accept it,” was Eliyahu (11:10–14&N), (2) Eliyahu himself had in fact “come first” by appearing there on the mountain (v. 3), and (3) Eliyahu may yet appear before Yeshua’s second coming (see Rv 11:3–6&N). David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary : A Companion Volume to the Jewish New Testament, electronic ed. (Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1996), Mt 17:10.

Matthew 17:13 “Then the talmidim understood that he was talking to them about Yochanan the Immerser.”

13. If Yochanan the Immerser is in some fashion Eliyahu, then did he do as was prophesied in Malachi 3:23-24? “Look, I will send to you Eliyahu the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible Day of Adonai. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to their fathers; otherwise I will come and strike the land with complete destruction.””