Rabbi Isaac Levy
It opens with the laws of the Sacrifice of Olah offering, the first offering that is totally burned on the altar. The normal offering was a bull or male sheep; however, the less fortunate could bring a bird.
(Lev. 1:2) "When an Adam – ADAM, a man -- from among you brings an offering to the Lord"
From the beginning of time and long before there was division of people and the birth of nations while in the Garden there was a demonstration for temporary forgiveness for sin through blood sacrifice. (For life is in the Blood)
All men (Bnei Adam) from ADAM, Cain and Abel ALL understood that the only remission for sin and the show of their remorse was through sacrifice, while individuals practiced their remorse there arose a need for a mediator between men and God, so God created a system by which men could approach His mercy seat, He has assigned a tribe of priests (Levites) who are willing to do that ministry in order to mediate between Men and God.
In this age It is difficult to understand the cruelty of Shedding innocent blood in the pretence of remorse, no one with feelings for living creatures could accept the cruelty of taking life, it is perplexing and many questions arise by Jews and non Jews on the idea that one can appease the Hebrew God with blood, only when one conceders the alternative, sacrificing your life or sacrificing an animal it becomes clearer for the option offered.
Since Sin began with ADAM, “Vayikra”, (and He called) takes us back to where it all began, (In the Garden) while the laws are given to a nation, the sins are individual, and concern ADAM who is part of the nation yet stands alone in the mater of His individual sin.
(Lev. 1:16-17) "He shall split it -- with its feathers -- he need not sever it; the Kohen shall cause it to go up in smoke on the Altar, on the wood that is on the fire -- it is an OLAH elevation-offering, a fire-offering, a satisfying aroma to Adonai ”
The wings remain; burning feathers emit terrible foul smell.
In fact of all the sacrifices nothing smells worse than burning bird-feathers. So why do we end the chapter with "satisfying aroma to Adonai"?
The offering is a volunteered offering with options, depending on one's financial status. The wealthier individual could bring cattle, the less wealthy person, sheep; an even poorer individual could bring a turtledove.
It is embarrassing enough to bring a small bird compare to the larger sacrifices to Adonai, it will be humiliating even more to have the feathers taken out and shrink the size of the offering, the mere fact that the person gave all he had, from his heart, was accepted as a sweat aroma to Adonai.
When a person invites a homeless person who has lost all his earthly possessions he may not have the ability to shower often or do his hygiene on daily basis, he will stink, he would not be concedered a welcome guest in many peoples homes, yet a righteous person who did make the homeless welcome and cleaned him up and set him at the table with all the other honored guests and allowed him to partake of the their food it became a sweet aroma in the nostril of Adonai and it was counted to him for righteousness.
For the most destitute individual who would like to offer something but has no money for even a turtledove, the Torah commands: (Levi 2:1) "When a Nefesh, a soul, offers a meal-offering to Adonai, his offering shall be of fine flour; he shall pour oil upon it and place frankincense upon it".
"Nowhere is the word nefesh used in connection with free-will offerings except in connection with the meal-offering. For who is it that usually brings a meal offering? The poor man! Adonai says, as it were, I will regard it for him as though he brought his very soul as an offering"
Since the price of fine flour is more expensive than that of a turtledove! Why is the fine flour offering the option for the poorest person, and why isn't the one who brings the turtledove considered as if he gave his soul?
The poorest man who cannot even afford a lowly bird – is protected by Torah’s provision of welfare. The option is called Leket, and Peah – (Deut. 24:19) "When you reap the harvest of your field and you forget a sheaf in the field, do not return to take it but let it be for the proselyte, the orphan and the widow.") Thus the poorest and most destitute are protected and entitled to the grain left behind in the field. And from that grain, which was free of charge, NO COST the man can make fine flour. When that individual decides to stoop down in the presence of his wealthier brothers and gather the grain, take it to his home and threshed it and beat it to a fine flower and take it to the priest and offer it to the Almighty, he is considered as giving his soul. True, a bird may cost less, but to the poorest man, even the bird costs more than the grain, and there is no effort on the part of the offered, he did not humble himself and exert himself (Avodah) However, when he takes the FINE flower and gives it from his Heart and put forth effort of his labor, he is offering his very soul!
The Torah discusses a variety of individuals who unfortunately sin. They must bring Chatat or Asham, a sin- or guilt offering.
In describing the unfortunate reality of sin, the Torah does not use the specific word to describe the sin that caused a need for penitence. Instead it talks about the circumstance in terms of hopeful uncertainty: (Lev. 4:27); "If a person from among the people of the land shall sin unintentionally"
(Lev. 4:3) "If the anointed Kohen will sin, bringing guilt upon the people"
(Lev. 4:13) "If the entire assembly of Israel shall err, and a matter became obscured from the eyes of the congregation"
When referring to the average sinner the Torah teaches In the Hebrew word "Im, If " (Lev.4:27) or "ki. When" (Lev. 5:21). "If a man shall sin" or "when a man shall sin." However when it comes to "a prince amongst the tribes" or a KING who sins, the Torah uses a different expression. It does not use the standard words for if and when, rather it uses a totally different expression ¬ "Asher."
(Lev. 4:22) If a prince sins, and commits one from among all the commandments of Adonai that may not be done -- unintentionally -- and becomes guilty"
The word Asher is quite similar in fact to the word "Ashrei," It means praiseworthy. "If a prince hath sinned: The word "Asher" is connected in meaning with "Ashrei" ¬ which means praiseworthy.
The verse implies the following connotation: Praiseworthy or fortunate is the generation whose prince (king) brings an atonement sacrifice even for his inadvertent misdeeds.
Sometimes the praise of our leaders is not the fact that they bring a sin offering, but rather in the entire sin and absolution process. It is important for us to understand, not only that they ask forgiveness, but what they did wrong and how they rectified their misdeed. We are praiseworthy when we have leaders that understand what is considered wrong, and openly teach us through their actions how to respond. When the process is comprehensive, then the combination of the mistake and the absolution can be considered praiseworthy, not that we praise the sin but the act of repentance that followed is to be praised, for these are acts we can all learn from.
If an individual stole property, or deceitfully held an item entrusted to him, there is a Command to return the goods and make restitution of 20%
(Lev. 5:23) "And he shall return the stolen object that he stole, the fraudulent gains that he defrauded, the pledge that was secured with him"
Why the repetition? Of course he stole the item surely the pledge was secured with you. And the fraudulent gains are those that you swindled. Why does the Torah repeat the action words, "that he stole, that he defrauded, that was secured with him”?
I find the repetitious wording to be compounded in the power of three, steeling of any kind reflects on all of the Ten Commandments, whether one lies, kills commits adultery, or false witness they all fall in the category of stilling, it is evident in the parashah when it repeats itself three times.
Though the Torah is vague about the various thefts and ultimately it is left in the hands of the Judges to make the ruling, one thing is certain the thief is urged to return the property ASAP and pay a penalty of 20%
The question that arises from this portion is if a person stole lumber and built a boat is he commanded to return the lumber or does he return the boat plus the 20% penalty?
On the same level of thinking if a person stole a bicycle because he had the urge to have one, seven years later he had desired to drive a car at which point the urge for the bicycle has diminished and he decides to return the bicycle after the seven years of use with making restitution of the 20% penalty, is the return the same as if he has returned the bicycle the next day or the next week, compare to the seven years?
There are two reasons to return a stolen item. First, you are in possession of an item that is not yours. Simple. But there is another reason. Every one of our actions helps mold us. By returning an item that we once desired enough to have stolen, we train ourselves to break the covetous constitution of our nature. We learn that even though we want something, we may not take it.
While we have uncertainty on the time frame for returning the stolen goods, we do have some guidelines, we are encouraged to return the property ASAP and pay the 20% restitution and make a sacrifice as a means of repentance.
No comments:
Post a Comment