TORAH SPARKS ניצוצות תורה
פרשת ויקרא
PARASHAT VAYIKRA
March 12, 2011 – 6 Adar II 5771 – ו’ אדר ב’ תשע"א
Annual: Leviticus 1:1 – 5:26 (Etz Hayim p. 585; Hertz p. 410)
Triennial: Leviticus 1:1 – 2:16 (Etz Hayim p. 585; Hertz p. 410)
Haftarah: Isaiah 43:21-44:23 (Etz Hayim p. 607; Hertz p. 424)
Prepared by Rabbi Joseph Prouser
Baldwin, New York
Parashat Vayikra begins the biblical book of the same name. Leviticus – Vayikra – is the shortest book of the Torah. It is also the third of five and therefore the middle book of the Torah, thus reflecting the central role of priestly cult and of ritual law in the worldview of both the Torah and biblical Israel. The Book of Leviticus is indispensable reading for people who would trace their religious experience and link their spiritual enterprises to scriptural origins. It is thus essential to avoid the temptation (an apt phrase for students of parashat Vayikra) to dismiss the book’s detailed description of the sacrificial cult as of importance only to a bygone age. This tendency is lyrically described by political journalist David Plotz in his bestselling reaction to the Bible, Good Book:
“Some of my friends doubted that my Bible reading would last past Exodus.
Oh, it’s all thrills and giggles when you’re dealing with the ten plagues and the
Tower of Babel – but wait till you get to Leviticus! They mentioned Leviticus in the same hushed, terrified way that mariners mutter, ‘Bermuda Triangle,’ or Hollywood executives whisper, ‘Ishtar.’ Leviticus, I was warned, makes even learned pastors weep with boredom, and turns promising young Talmudic scholars into babbling US Weekly subscribers. What would it do to an amateur like me?”
In stark contrast, Jewish tradition prescribes that Leviticus is the very first text to which young students of scripture should be exposed: “Children are pure. Therefore, let those who are pure come and study matters of purity!” (Vayikra Rabbah 7:3). In that spirit…
Parashat Vayikra outlines the principal types of sacrificial offerings and accompanying ritual procedures: the burnt offering (olah), grain or meal offering (minchah), and well-being or peace offering (zevach shelamim – described as “sacred gifts of greeting” by Professor Baruch Levine). These voluntary offerings constituted the regular religious expression of everyday Israelites, their leaders, and their collective community. Obligatory, expiatory sacrifices (chatat and asham) were of a more limited scope and intended to effect reconciliation between the
sinner or the community, and God, in the wake of a religious offense or specific transgression.
Theme #1: “Altar Course”
“…and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall offer the blood, dashing the blood against all the sides of the altar…” Leviticus 1:5
Derash: Study
“What became of the altar in Jewish consciousness after the destruction of the Second Temple? The rabbis transposed it metaphorically into another
sacred key: the Jewish home. The altar became the table at which the family
gathered to eat its common meals. It is the consumption of food which connects the two institutions. Thus Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish in third century Palestine conceived it to be a locus of reconciliation: ‘In the days of the Temple, the altar served to atone for us; now it is our table that atones for us.’ Rashi, in his comment on their assertion, suggests that the atonement is effected by inviting guests to our table, that is, in repairing our relations with people outside the family. But I suspect that there are enough strains and rifts within the family fabric to warrant repairing. Atonement begins at home.” Rabbi Ismar Schorsch
“The building of an altar for the purpose of worship was a sacred duty incumbent upon Israel … and Israel remained conscious of the imperativeness of this duty throughout its long and checkered history. Wheresoever the Jew, the eternal wanderer, found rest, though not always an inheritance, there an altar was erected, dedicated to the worship of the Lord, the God of Israel… Israel in America has particularly distinguished itself in this holy work of altar-building … but bricks and mortar, marble pillar and gilded domes do not make an altar. What constitutes an altar are the words of the Torah, which are engraved on the very stones, which influence the lives of the worshipers, and convert their homes into places of worship.” Rabbi Solomon Schechter
“You are to gather up the joys and sorrows, the struggles, the beauty, love, dreams and hopes of every hour that they may be consecrated at the altar of daily life.” Macrina Wiederkehr
“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” (Thomas Jefferson)
Questions for Discussion
Where are the “altars” where we draw closest to God? At home with our family? In
our relationships with friends, neighbors, and strangers? In the relationships we’ve developed within our congregations and Jewish educational institutions? In our own personal pursuit of Jewish (or other) knowledge? In our individual pattern of ethical conduct and religious observance? In the pursuit of justice and freedom, as Jefferson suggests?
Are all of these necessary? Is any one of them dispensable? How do we prioritize our various sacred duties and priestly responsibilities?
What does Solomon Schechter’s statement say to 21st century congregational leaders
and members?
Macrina Wiederkehr is a Roman Catholic monastic of the Benedictine order; does her observation about the “altar of daily life” provide a suitable model for Jewish piety?
How do the laws of kashrut reflect the spirit of the sacrificial cult? Are they sufficient to render our family tables into altars? Can those tables come to resemble
altars in the absence of this area of religious observance?
Many writers and thinkers have pondered the contemporary Jewish parallel to the altar so central to the book of Leviticus. Has the concept of sacrifice similarly captured the imagination of spiritual seekers in today’s Jewish community? Why or why not? What are our sacrifices?
Theme #2: “Sacerdotal Sacrifice, Sanctimony, and Sacrilege”
“If it is the anointed priest who has incurred guilt, so that blame falls upon
the people, he shall offer for the sin of which he is guilty a bull of the herd without blemish as a sin offering to the Lord.” Leviticus 4:3
Derash: Study
“When a high priest sins, ‘blame falls upon the people’ insofar as the one upon whom they rely to atone for them and to pray for them has come to
ruin.” Rashi
“‘Blame falls upon the people’ whom the priest has taught improperly, so that they all become unwitting sinners. Or perhaps ‘upon the people’ signifies that the consequences of the priest’s sin devolve upon all humanity.” Ramban
“The errors and possible offenses of the chief cultic official, the individual in charge of the sanctuary and the priesthood, had an effect on the entire community.” Baruch Levine, JPS Commentary
“One who has been acknowledged as a leader must be even more careful
than ordinary people not to fall into the trap of sin or even of error. For the masses are only too eager to point to him as their example when they sin, so that any sin of his – even one which he commits in error – may lead them to do so on purpose.” Rabbi Yaakov ben Yaakov Moshe of Lissa
“An error by a priest is considered an intentional sin by the people, and the Name of Heaven is thereby desecrated, for people will say he sinned intentionally, and did not merely act in error. It is the nature of the masses to magnify the faults and shortcomings of God’s holy ones.” Meshech Chochmah
Questions for Discussion
How does the sinful conduct of a religious leader have a deleterious impact beyond his own religious community – on society as a whole, on all humanity (kol b’nei
adam) – as Ramban teaches? Could a leader’s piety and strength of character have an expansive benefit?
How can we avoid or provide a corrective counterbalance to the seemingly natural inclination to revel in our leaders’ foibles and shortcomings? What does more
damage – the scandalous conduct of leaders or the scandal-mongering of observers, those who would “magnify the faults and shortcomings of God’s holy ones”?
To what extent is it fair and desirable to hold leaders (especially religious leaders) to a higher standard? Is strictly religious conduct to be judged separately from probity in personal relationships? What about honesty in business?
Our verse makes it clear that there is a mechanism for a religious leader who has fallen into sin (like any mere mortal) to atone, to reconcile with God. To what extent is the possibility of divine forgiveness our responsibility? Must sins forgiven by God be forgiven by human beings and the society they form? Must we give penitent sinners a second chance, an opportunity to prove they have changed?
It is a truism that biblical heroes and heroines generally are flawed characters with all the shortcomings of ordinary human beings. Are there cases of biblical characters being held to a higher standard because of their leadership positions?
Are leaders (or the rest of us for that matter) ultimately defined by the preponderance of good and service and kindness accrued over the course of a
lifetime, or by a single grievous sin or crime or misdeed? What balance or
perspective does justice demand in our approach to this question?
Historic Note
Parashat Vayikra, dealing extensively with the priestly role in the sacrificial cult,
and specifically with expiatory sacrifices offered by the high priest should he sin, is read on March 12, 2011. On March 12, 1939, Pope Pius XII, who headed the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church, and whose role during the Holocaust is still a matter of heated debate, was crowned in ceremonies in Vatican City. On March
12, 1950, he published an encyclical called “On Combating Atheistic Propaganda.”
Halachah L’Maaseh
Leviticus 2:13 states emphatically: You shall season your every offering of meal with salt; you shall not omit from your meal offering the salt of your covenant with
God; with all your offerings you must offer salt. When we eat, it is a mitzvah to have salt on the table, which is compared to the Temple altar. It is customary to dip
bread in salt when saying hamotzi (some customarily dip three times, perhaps based on the threefold reference to salt in this verse). Since the salt also is intended to give
flavor to the bread and thereby to lend importance to the blessing, some authorities rule that that if you do not have salt you may dip your bread in sugar. Some rule
further that in the absence of both salt and sugar, some other source of flavoring should be used: fish, sauce, or, according to one contemporary writer, even peanut
butter! (See Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 167:5; Rema; Mishnah Berurah 167:33; Halachot Ketanot 218, etc.)