Parasha: Vayikra · Aliyah: Second (Gevurah)

ואם מן העוף, and if it is from the category of birds, etc. The letter ו in the word ואם means that the rules mentioned previously as applicable to burnt-offerings of four-legged animals apply also to burnt-offerings consisting of birds unless they are specifically negated by what is written in this paragraph. Amongst the differences are: 1) a bird cannot serve as any offering other than a burnt-offering. We derive this from the word העוף עולה as distinct from the descriptions used for burnt-offerings of four-legged animals in the previous two paragraphs. Alternatively, the very word עולה is superfluous and comes to tell us that it is the only kind of offering that can be offered using birds. 2) We also use the word קרבנו restrictively, i.e. that only an individual can offer a burnt-offering consisting of a bird, not a community. 3) the rule that instead of slaughtering the bird it must have its head pinched off is applicable only to a priest, whereas the parallel act of slaughtering the four-legged animal designated as a burnt-offering may be performed also by a non-priest, an Israelite. In instances where in the previous two paragraphs some details have been repeated needlessly, this means that they applied only to the burnt-offering consisting of four-legged animals. The other details, each of which appears in only one of the previous two paragraphs, apply equally to burnt-offerings consisting of birds. Examples of exclusions which are derived from the respective paragaphs are: animals which have been mated with other species, animals set aside to serve as sacrifice for an idol; animals which had been used for idolatrous purposes, animals which are טרפה, have a terminal defect; diseased animals, over-age animals; stolen animals. All of the aforesaid are unfit to serve as burnt-offerings, or as any other offering. All of these examples are listed in the fourth chapter of Maimonides' treatise Issurey Hamizbeach.

קרבנו לשם, his offering to G'd. The reason the Torah adds these words here whereas they did not appear in the previous two paragraphs is that the Torah included birds which have certain physical defects as fit to serve as a sacrifice, something which is not the case with offerings consisting of four-legged animals. The source of this halachah is Kidushin 24: אין זכרות ותמות בעוף; "the requirement that sacrificial burnt-offerings be male and free from physical blemish does not apply to burnt-offerings consisting of birds." In view of this relaxation of certain rules when an offering consists of a bird, logic would have told us that any bird-offering is of an inferior nature, why else would the Torah permit a blemished bird to serve as an offering? The Torah therefore had to tell us that as far as G'd is concerned, קרבנו לשם the bird-offering is equally esteemed in the eyes of the Lord.

We find support for our view from Isaiah 57,15 where the prophet describes G'd as especially close to the "contrite and lowly in spirit," and our sages in Sotah 5 interpret this as either: אני את דכא, "I descend from Heaven in order to be close to the contrite," or as אתי דכא, "I elevate the contrite to My domain." It is due to such considerations that the name of G'd is written next to the bird-offering and not next to the offerings consisting of four-legged animals. Anyone who offers a burnt-offering consisting of a bird is presumed to be in low spirits seeing he cannot afford to offer something of greater value to G'd. We find the same approach in Menachot 104 where the Talmud explains the reason for the wording נפש כי תקריב מנחה לשם, (2,1) as a hint that a poor person who cannot afford to offer more than a meal-offering is considered as offering his whole personality, נפש, to G'd by means of such a low cost offering.

אשה ריח ניחוח לשם, a fire-offering whose fragrance is pleasing to G'd. Our sages in Menachot 110 comment that the fact that the Torah used this expression when describing the burnt-offering consisting of a four-legged animal, as well as when a bird-offering is being offered, as proof that G'd does not judge a person's offering by its monetary value but by the attitude it reflects. As long as the donor's motivation is G'd-oriented, both kinds of offerings are equally welcome in His eyes. The problem the sages wanted to overcome was that if the Torah had written the term אשה ריח ניחוח לשם only in connection with the bird-offering which is worth a few coins, it is obvious that a burnt-offering consisting of a four-legged animal should qualify for that description no less. Hence why did the Torah have to write the expression in connection with the offering of a four-legged animal? This is why they were careful to write: אחד המרבה ואחד הממעיט, that there is no difference between the person who offers a valuable animal as a sacrifice and the one who offers something less valuable. We should not imagine that the fact that the Torah mentioned ריח ניחוח in connection with the bird-offering was just an act of graciousness on the part of G'd towards the poor, whereas the four-legged animal offered by the wealthy is dearer to Him. The Torah made the point that the bird-offering is not considered inferior for any reason at all by writing the otherwise unnecessary words ריח ניחוח לשם also in connection with the burnt-offering consisting of four-legged animals. This is why the Rabbi in the Talmud did not simply write הממעיט כמרבה, as this would not have conveyed his true meaning. It is a rule that when one says: "this is as good as that," that the "this" is inferior to the "that" seeing it is a derivative of it. The "this" to "that" relationship is akin to the student-teacher relationship. Even if the student has absorbed all of the teacher's knowledge, the teacher remains superior by dint of having taught the student what he knows. When the Rabbi phrased his comment: "one who does a lot is as one who does a little," he made sure the reader would not consider either of the two as superior or inferior to the second one. This consideration prompted the Torah to write the same wording once more in connection with the meal-offering in 2,2.

ונפש כי תקריב קרבן מנחה, And a person who offers a meal-offering, etc. Torat Kohanim views the word ונפש as both inclusive and restrictive, the singular נפש being considered restrictively in that a voluntary meal-offering is not acceptable from a community; on the other hand, the letter ו which introduced this verse is interpreted inclusively, to teach that whereas the כהן משיח, the High Priest who offers mandatory meal-offerings daily and who is not permitted to offer such a meal-offering as atonement in the event he had defiled himself before entering the Temple or while inside, -something that an ordinary Israelite is permitted to do,- is nonetheless allowed to bring a voluntary meal-offering in normal cirmcumstances.

Why did the Torah write a single word which is restrictive and inclusive at one and the same time? Perhaps the reason is that seeing that the meal-offering by a group of people could be excluded only by reference to the High Priest's inclusion, the Torah felt that both of these halachot should be alluded to in the same word, even though these two הלכות themselves appear contradictory. Had it not been for the fact that the letter ו enabled us to include the High Priest in the category of individuals from whom ordinary (not intended for atonement) meal-offerings are acceptable, there would have been no need to write a word which would indicate that a group of people is denied such a privilege. Why would I even have imagined that groups would be allowed to offer such meal-offerings [the cheapest offering there is. Ed.] that I should have had to exclude them?

וכי תקריב, and if you will offer, etc. The letter ו at the beginning of the word כי is again an indication that the laws mentioned in this paragraph are to be viewed in conjunction with those of the previous paragraph. This means that the various details governing meal-offerings also apply to the High Priest's meal-offerings. As to the exclusion of communal meal-offerings, such rules apply also to the details of offering frankincense and the like.