~
Thoughts on the Parsha ~
Parshas Vayikra
Proper Prayer
By: Daniel Listhaus
דַּבֵּר
אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם אָדָם כִּי יַקְרִיב מִכֶּם קָרְבָּן
לַה' מִן הַבְּהֵמָה מִן הַבָּקָר וּמִן הַצֹּאן תַּקְרִיבוּ אֶת קָרְבַּנְכֶם
“Speak to the B'nei
Yisroel and say to them: When a person from among you will bring an
offering to Hashem: from the animals – from the cattle and from the flocks you
shall bring your offering.”
-Vayikra 1:2
After
getting used to the continuing story of the Torah starting from the beginning
of time and going through the generations of Avraham, Yitzchak, Yaakov, and the
shevatim in Sefer Beraishis, followed by the relaying of
the Jews as slaves in Mitzrayim, their miraculous redemption, the
receiving of the Torah, and the beginnings of their story of their travels
through the midbar (desert) in Sefer Shemos, we leave the
realm of being used to the weekly “story” portion and enter Sefer Vayikra
into a world of obscure laws and difficult concepts. With this mentality, there
is no doubt that we are reminded that the Torah is more than a history book and
more than a book of laws, rather an instruction manual which gives us insight
into the mind of Hashem, thereby teaching us how to live most productively in
the world He created.
The parsha
begins discussing some of the halachos (laws) regarding various karbanos
(sacrifices). The passuk[1] states,
“When a person from among you will bring an offering to Hashem...”. Rashi[2] is
bothered why as to why the Torah writes “Adam” (a person) as opposed to
the more conventional terminology of “ish” (a man). Rashi answers
that the Torah is teaching us that just as Adam, the first man, did not bring a
karbon from that which was stolen, since everything was his, so too
'you' must not bring an offering from that which was stolen.
Although
this Rashi seems quite simple and logical, it is difficult to understand
why it is necessary. After all, even without this Rashi, we certainly
know that it is forbidden to steal and logic would dictate that if Hashem does
not want us to steal, He most probably would not want us to use stolen goods to
serve Him. Even if this would not be convincing enough, for perhaps one would
argue that everything belongs to Hashem anyway so maybe He would be willing to
accept a stolen karbon,[3] the Gemara
tells us otherwise. The Mishna[4] states that
one who brings a stolen lulav on Succos does not fulfill his
obligation. The Gemara[5] asks that
from the fact that the Mishna does not specify which days of Succos it
is referring to, it must be that it is a blanket rule for all the days of Succos.
The problem with that is that the passuk (verse)[6] states,
“And you should take for yourself on the first day...” From this passuk
we learn that the Torah would forbid someone from using a stolen or
borrowed lulav on the first day of Succos. After all, the Torah
commands that the first day it must be yours: not one that you borrowed, and
not one that you have stolen. We therefore learn that a stolen lulav is
only problematic on the first day of Succos. However, the Mishna
does not differentiate between the first and remaining days of Succos and
yet still rules that a stolen lulav is passul (no good to use for
the mitzva). What is the reason behind it being passul? Rebbe
Shimon ben Yochai answers by introducing a concept called mitzva
ha'ba'ah b'aveirah (a mitzva coming about through doing an aveirah).
In other words, Hashem is never interested in the mitzvos which we achieve by doing aveiros (sins). The Gemara
proceeds to bring the source for this concept from a passuk,[7] which
says, “...And you brought a stolen one [karbon] and a lame one, and a
sick one as an offering – will I accept it from your hand?...” The Gemara learns
from here that we see Hashem equates a stolen animal with a lame animal. Just
as a lame animal is lame for life, so too a stolen animal cannot be 'fixed' –
even if the original owner completely gives up hope on it, the thief still
cannot offer it as a karbon. The Gemara then continues to say
that we could understand why before the original owner completely relinquished
his ownership from it that it cannot be used, because the passuk in our parsha
says, “When a person from among you will bring an offering...”,
where we learn that it has to be an animal that belongs to you (i.e –
the person who is bringing it). However, as the Gemara asks, what reason
is there that a person not be allowed to bring a stolen animal even after the
original owner relinquishes all rights to it? The Gemara answers that
the reason must be because of mitzva ha'ba'ah b'aveirah.
We
see from this Gemara that even without Rashi's understanding of
the passuk that the reason it used the word “Adam” is to teach
that the karbon cannot be a stolen animal just as Adam never brought
anything stolen because everything was his, it is still pretty clear in the passuk
that one cannot offer a stolen karbon.[8] So
why is this Rashi necessary?
There
is another halacha (law) which Rashi stresses a couple of times
when it comes to karbanos, and specifically the karbon chatas
(sin-offering), and that is the fact that the karbon must be brought for
its own sake – with the the right intentions in mind.[9] Why is it
that the Torah hints to this numerous times and that Rashi keeps
pointing them out?
If
we zoom out and think about the general idea of karbanos, it is
certainly a concept that is difficult to understand. After all, why are we
offering physical animals to Hashem Who has no body or form and Who certainly
has no need to eat? The answer is that like all the mitzvos, they are
not for Hashem but rather for us to connect to Him. The way we, as humans, were
created – part physical with a body, but also part spiritual with a neshama (soul)
requires a physical world with means of connecting in a spiritual way. Karbanos
serve as a direct telephone line to Hashem as a means of communicating to
him whether it be to express thanks, guilt, or any of the other purposes the karbanos
represent. When we utilize this communication system, there could be
absolutely no flaws on our end or the call will be ignored. Don't steal a
cookie and make a beracha (blessing) on it, don't steal an animal and
offer it as a karbon. It is worthless, it is not wanted, and it is a
slap in the face, so to speak.
However,
what exactly constitutes a “stolen” item? We oftentimes rationalize so many
things that the definition of stealing gets a bit blurry. “I only borrowed
without permission, but I would never steal”, “I know he lets me take”, and “I
know he won't care as long as I pay him back” are only some of the ways we
rationalize to help ourselves to things which do not belong to us. Perhaps this
is precisely what Rashi is coming to teach us. There is a simple formula
to test if something belongs to you and that is to see if there are any doubts.
If there are excuses that need to be made, rationalizations to be thought up,
or doubts that need to be explained, it is not yours. Just like by Adam ha'rishon,
there were no doubts or rationalizations or excuses, because there was no one
else in the picture, also when it comes to the honesty of our own things and
what we help ourselves to, it must be with the same approach. We should only be
calling ours and using that which no one else is in the picture of. This is the
lesson Rashi is teaching here. If the Torah would have just written,
“take from that which is yours” it would be insufficient because people tend to
think that they have more rights to things than they really do. This is why the
Torah adds in “Adam”, to teach us that the only things we should consider
ours are those things which there is no doubt about.
Similarly
if one tries to bring a karbon with the wrong intention, it is like
dialing a number with the wrong area code, and will never arrive at the right
destination. Attempting to bring a karbon which is even slightly not our
own, or offering a karbon with the wrong intentions will definitely get
the operator telling us, “I'm sorry but your call cannot be completed as
dialed, please hang up and dial again”.
Perhaps
we could suggest that this is a lesson which not only applies to karbanos and
to everyday items, but even extends to tefillah (prayer). Nowadays,
while we are in galus (exile) we do not merit to have access to the mizbe'ach
(alter) or bring karbanos, but in their place we do have tefillah.
When we daven, we have the same ability to ask Hashem for things, thank
him, and apologize for what we may have done. However, when we daven we
must keep in mind that the same two essential elements that are necessary by karbanos,
are vital to davening as well. A tefillah is not allowed to be
“stolen” or have the wrong intentions. We must pay careful attention to the way
we daven. Are we davening that Hashem should help us succeed, or are we
davening that our friends fail? Are we davening that Hashem help raise us up,
or that he should push everyone else down so we appear higher? A stolen tefillah
is when one tries to use this powerful tool as a means of communicating
messages which are bad in the eyes of Hashem. We must make sure that when we
are davening we are doing so as an “Adam” – that we are only asking for things
which cannot bring any harm to others.
Additionally,
when we daven we must be honest with ourselves as to what our intentions
are. Why are we asking for such and such? Is it really for the reasons we say
or are there underlying reasons and motivations driving it? Also, are we really
davening for Hashem to step in and help us, or are we really saying to Him to
stay out of the way?
Theses
are the two important factors we could learn from these Rashis by karbanos
to apply to our everyday lives and to our tefillos as well.
May Hashem help us fix
our motivations and intentions in order that the communication lines be fully
open for Him to accept and answer our proper prayers.
[1] Vayikra 1:2
[2] Ibid.
[3] See Rashi Gemara Succah 30a
[4] Mishnayos Succah 3:1 ; Gemara Succah 29b
[5] Succah 29b-30a
[6] Vayikra 23:40
[7] Malachi 1:13
[8] See Tosfos 30a where based on his
question it is clear that indeed the limud of the Gemara that the
karbon cannot be stolen is in fact from the word “me'kem” and not
from “adam”.
[9] See for example Rashi Vayikra 4:24
and 5:9
No comments:
Post a Comment