Why did Hashem make pauses when speaking to Moshe?

(1,1) And He called to Moshe, and Hashem spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying.

Rashi explained that every time Hashem communicated with Moshe, He preceded the communication by calling him. One might think that also after every break, at the beginning of a new section, Hashem again called him. But we learn from our posuk otherwise, that only when Hashem began to speak to Moshe did He call him, but not after every break. If so, what was the purpose of these breaks? To give Moshe time to think, so that he could contemplate between one section and the next, between one subject and another. And if this pause for contemplation was necessary for Moshe Rabbeinu when he was taught by Hashem, all the more so is it necessary for an ordinary person who is learning from another ordinary person.

It is not clear how the question of the purpose of the breaks is relevant here. Also, Rashi’s concluding words - all the more so are these breaks necessary for an ordinary person - seem to be extraneous to the explanation of the posuk, and it is not Rashi’s way to write things which are not needed to explain the posuk.

But it seems to me that without Rashi's explanation I might have thought that the breaks were a sign of endearment, to demonstrate endearment to Moshe by calling him every time anew. As it says in the Midrash on the next posuk: “Speak to the children of Yisrael” - R. Shimon bar Yochai brings a parable about a king who had an only son, and everyday he would command his household: Did my son eat? Did he drink? Did he go to school? Did he return from school? So too Hashem commanded Moshe and said to him: Speak to Yisrael. Command Yisrael. From this we see that repeatedly mentioning their name is a sign of endearment. Here too it was possible that the breaks were made in order to show a new sign of endearment to Moshe every time.

But now that Rashi has said that from our posuk it is evident that only when Hashem started speaking with Moshe did He call him, and not after each break, and so the breaks were not made for the sake of showing endearment, the question arises: For what purpose were the breaks? Therefore, Rashi explained that they were in order to give Moshe time to think.

But Rashi had a difficulty with this. Because it would have been understandable if the Torah was revealing to us that Hashem was showing endearment to Moshe, since we would learn from this Hashem’s ways, and about His abundant goodness to Yisrael. But to teach us that the breaks were given in order to give Moshe time for contemplation seems to be merely an historical fact. What practical difference does it make to us? Therefore Rashi explained that the Torah’s intention is to teach us the correct way how one should learn from another, especially when an ordinary person is being taught by another ordinary person, that he should contemplate very well what he is learning.

Why does the Torah need to tell us that the laws of the korbonos were commanded in the tent of meeting?

(1,1) And He called to Moshe, and Hashem spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying.

Rashi explained the word “saying” means that Hashem said to Moshe: Go and tell them my words, and report back to me whether they accept them or not, as it says (19,8), “and Moshe reported the words of the people to Hashem”. But why did Hashem make here a specific request to be informed whether Yisrael accepted the mitzvos of the offerings, but not elsewhere in the Torah?

There are two ways we can explain this. The first is according to the teaching of Chazal that the posuk “and they stood at the foot of the mountain” teaches that Hashem held the mountain over Yisrael and thus forced them to accept the Torah, and Rava commented that this gave Yisrael the opportunity to claim later that they had not really wanted to accept the Torah, but that they had been forced to do so. This does not create a problem with all the other mitzvos, because nothing forbidden would result if they would keep them out of coercion, and so Hashem had not made a point of being told whether Yisrael accepted His words or not. But concerning the offerings the Torah writes in posuk 3 that “he shall bring it willingly”, and if a person would not bring it completely willingly, it would be considered as if he is bringing a non-sanctified animal to the temple courtyard, which is strictly forbidden. And if it was a bird offering, which is killed by melikah (using the thumbnail on the back of the neck), the Kohanim eating it would be eating a treifah.

Therefore, since they must bring them completely willingly, Hashem commanded Moshe to check whether they completely accepted His words. And with offerings in particular agreement in one’s heart to bring it willingly is insufficient. One has to say verbally “I am willing”, as Chazal learned from the posuk “he shall bring it willingly”, that a person who does not want to bring an obligatory sacrifice is forced by Beis Din ‘until he says: I am willing’. Therefore, everywhere else in the Torah, since they kept quiet when Hashem forced them to accept the Torah and did not protest, this was a sufficient demonstration that they accepted the mitzvos. But since with the offerings verbal acceptance is a prerequisite, Hashem was particular that that they should declare verbally that they accept, and therefore He commanded Moshe to report this back to Him.

Another reason why Hashem wanted to know if Yisrael accepted is because Chazal taught that the ministering angels were asked how a person who sins can attain atonement, and they answered that he should die. So we see that from the point of view of strict justice, offerings should not help. But the Torah had pity on the sinner, and responded that he should bring an offering and thereby receive atonement.

Now, Chazal taught on the posuk in Tehillim (50,3) “and around Him it storms furiously”, that Hashem is very exacting with the righteous, like the breadth of a hair, and since before the sin of the golden calf all of them were righteous, they were judged by Hashem with the strict measure of justice, which means that if they sinned they would die. Thus, at the time when Hashem forced them to accept the Torah there were no mitvos of offerings in the Torah, since they would serve no purpose.

But after they made the golden calf and became spiritually lower, Hashem saw that they could not survive if He judged them with strict justice, and that it was now necessary to combine with it the attribute of mercy, and so now offerings could be effective. (This is similar to how it was when Hashem created the world, that the primary intention was to create it according to the attribute of justice, but He saw that the world would not survive and so He combined with it the attribute of mercy). Thus, only now did the concept of offerings become renewed, and since they were not included when they originally accepted the Torah, a new acceptance was required. Therefore, He requested from Moshe to inform Him whether they accepted or not.

Now we can understand why the posuk emphasises that the laws of the offerings was said to Moshe from the tent of meeting - why did the Torah need to specify from which place this prophecy came? Also, in the beginning of parshas Behar, we learn that all the general rules and details of the Torah were said at Mount Sinai, but why was this piece of information imparted specifically in that parsha?

But according to what we explained above, the section concerning the offerings was not stated at Mount Sinai, but in the tent of meeting. And so we might have thought that also the rest of the Torah was said in the tent of meeting and not at Mount Sinai. Therefore, when the Torah concluded teaching about the offerings at the end of parshas Emor, it taught at the beginning of parshas Behar that specifically these, the laws of offerings, were said in the tent of meeting, but all the rest of the Torah was taught at Mount Sinai when Yisrael first accepted it.

What is an essential difference between a thanksgiving offering and a sin offering?

(1,2) Speak to the children of Yisrael, and say to them: A person when he brings from you an offering for Hashem, from animals, from the cattle or from the flock you shall bring your sacrifice.

None of the offerings which are brought because of a sin are beloved to Hashem. Only the thanksgiving offering, which is a voluntary offering brought because of the goodness which Hashem has bestowed on a person, is beloved by Him, as is brought in the Midrash on parshas Tzav on the posuk (7,12) “if as a thanksgiving offering he is bringing it”.

Now, the difference between an offering which comes to atone and a thanksgiving offering, is that in the former case, the principle offering is the person’s soul, because according to strict justice he is liable to be killed for the sin, as we learned earlier, but the Torah had pity on the sinner. As the Alshich explained our posuk, “a person, when he brings from you an offering” - it is fitting that from you, literally, should be the offering, but the Torah had pity and said that “from cattle or from the flock shall be your offering”. Thus, the main benefit of the offering is when the sinner has in mind that everything that is being done to the sacrifice should really be done to him. Then it will be as if he is sacrificing himself, because a good thought is considered like a deed. As it is brought in the Midrash on the posuk (2,1) “A soul, if he brings a meal offering to Hashem”- said Hashem: I will accredit him as if he had offered himself. The sacrifice is just a hint and the main sacrifice is the body of the sinner himself. But with a thanksgiving offering, where he is not obligated to bring an offering at all, and he did not sin at all, Hashem only desires the sacrifice of an animal to demonstrate the person's thanks to Him.

In addition, when a person sins, he sins with his physical body and his spiritual soul, and so it is fitting that the atonement be similarly both physical and spiritual. And since the animal is only physical, it must be that it is only a reminder that he should intend as if he had offered himself, and so he is the essential component of the sacrifice. But when a person brings a thanksgiving offering to thank Hashem for the goodness which He has bestowed upon him, since all the goodness of this world is only physical, for the good of the body and for its success, and not for the success of the soul, for this is sufficient the physical body of the animal, and he does not need to intend as if he had offered himself.

This is what the posuk is saying: “when one of you brings an offering for Hashem” - if he wants to bring an offering which will be acceptable and pleasing to Hashem, then “from the cattle and from the flock you shall bring your offering”, that the main sacrifice should be just the animal from your cattle or your flock, and that is a thanksgiving offering. But an offering which is for atonement, the main component of the offering is the sinner's soul, and this is not pleasing to Hashem.

Why did Avrohom Avinu not offer up the horns of the ram?

(1,9) And its innards and its legs he shall wash with water; and the Kohen shall make all of it smoke on the altar…

Chazal learned from here, from the words “all of it”, that he even offers up the horns and hooves of the animal. The sefer Ohr Hachaim asked why Avrohom Avinu did not offer up the horns of the ram at the incident of the binding of Yitzchok.

But it seems to me that there is no difficulty. Because the Torah obligated offering also the horns only when this animal was the original sacrifice, where he donated this particular animal, or he obligated himself to bring this particular animal for a sin. Therefore, since the Torah commanded to offer this animal, and it writes that “the Kohein shall make all of it smoke on the altar”, certainly it included the horns. But if the offering was a substitute, that he first sanctified an animal which did not have horns, and afterwards substituted an animal which did have horns, then he would not be obligated to offer also the horns, since his original obligation was an animal without horns.

Here too by Avrohom, he was not obligated initially to bring the ram, but rather it was a substitute for his son, as it says “and he offered it as a burnt offering, in place of his son”. And since his son of course did not have horns, even though Hashem said to him afterwards “do not harm the lad” and he offered the ram instead, nevertheless he was not obligated to offer its horns, since he was only obligated to offer that which was pertinent to his son, and no more.

And the reason why Avrohom substituted the ram for his son, even though it is forbidden to substitute sacrifices, is because this is only when the original sacrifice is fitting to be offered. But if it is not fitting to be offered, then it is permissible to exchange it. Therefore, since his son was pushed off from being an offering by Hashem’s command, it was permissible to exchange the ram for his son.

How does Hashem show that the offering of a poor person is more beloved to Him then that of a rich person?

(2,8) And you shall bring the meal offering, which he shall make from these, to Hashem. And he shall bring it to the Kohen, and he shall bring it close to the altar.

Behold, the words “which he shall make from these” are superfluous, and Rashi’s explanation that it means “which he shall make from one of these types” does not seem to solve the problem.

But we can understand these words according to the Midrash, which in answer to the question of why the meal offering is distinguished in that five kinds of oil dishes are mentioned in connection with it, brings a parable about a king for whom his friend had prepared a feast. Knowing that his friend was poor he said to him: Prepare for me from the food five types of fried dishes so that I will derive pleasure from you. I explained in my writings that the Midrash means that because Hashem loves the offering of a poor person, he intentionally divided it into several types, in order to increase his speaking about it.

This is what the posuk is saying here, that for the rich person, Hashem only considers the offering that he brings according to what it is, and no more. But when a poor person brings an offering, even though he only brings one type, it is considered to Hashem as if he had brought all five types. Therefore it says, “and you shall bring the meal offering, which he shall make from these” - from all these five types, “to Hashem”. Even though he only brings one meal offering, Hashem considers it as if he brought from all five types, because the offering of a poor person is so much beloved to Hashem.

Why are there different types of sin offerings?

(4,2) Speak to the children of Yisrael, saying: A person, if he sins unintentionally, and does one of the commandments of Hashem which you should not do, and does one of them.

It is well known what the Rambam wrote in his ‘Eight Chapters’, that there are two types of mitzvos - those which our intellect would not have compelled us to do, and those that even if Hashem had not commanded us in them, our intellect would have obligated us. Consequently, it is completely forbidden to desire those things which our intellect would have forbidden us, but with those things which our intellect would not have forbidden it is forbidden to despise them. Instead, one should desire them but refrain from them only because the Creator commanded so. As Chazal taught, a person should not say that I do not want pig meat, but rather he should say: I want it, but Hashem commanded me not to eat it.

Now, the Torah obligated the bringing of a sin offering for an unintentional sin only for those commandments which our intellect would have obligated us not to do, for example forbidden sexual relations. Or Shabbos, which our intellect would have taught us to observe because it is testimony to the fact that the world was created. Also, our intellect would have concluded not to eat forbidden fats, because they were chosen to be burned on the altar for Hashem, and therefore they are not fitting for us. Therefore, those that our intellect teaches us not to do them, if one does them they are a greater sin, and they require the bringing of a sin offering. But those commandments which are statutes, and which we would not have considered to be forbidden had we not been commanded in them, do not obligate the bringing of a sin offering if one does them unintentionally.

This is what the Torah is saying: “if a person sins unintentionally in any of the commandments of Hashem”, but they are of the type that in any case “you shall not do”, that your intellect would have compelled you not to do them, and even so, “he does one of them”, therefore his sin is greater, and he is required to bring a sin offering.

With this it is clear the sequence of the posukim, which begin, “A person, if he sins”, which implies an ordinary person. The next posuk continues, “If the anointed Kohen sins”, then he has to bring a young bull as a sin offering. Afterwards it says, “When a leader sins…he shall bring his offering an unblemished male goat”. And it concludes, “If a person, one of the common people, sins, doing one of the commandments of Hashem which you should not do, incurring guilt…he shall bring his offering, an unblemished female goat”. Why did the Torah not tell us the first time it mentioned the ordinary person, that he brings a female goat, and then it would not have been necessary later to repeat itself. Also, why is there a difference in their offerings - the anointed Kohen brings a young bull for his sin offering, the leader brings a male goat, and the common person brings a female goat.

We can answer these questions with the Chazal which comments on the posuk in Isaiah (58,1) “Tell my people their transgression” - these are the Torah sages, whose unintentional sins become for them like intentional sins, “and to the House of Yaakov, their sins” - these are the unlearned people, whose intentional sins become for them like unintentional sins. It follows, that if for an unlearned person his intentional sins become like intentional ones, all the more so if they would actually commit a sin unintentionally would their punishment be very light.

Now, the Kohen Godol certainly was a Torah sage, as Chazal commented on the posuk in Devarim (24,8) “according to everything that the Kohanim teach you”, that the Torah was given over to them. And the leader, although he was not as great a Torah sage as the Kohen Godol, nevertheless he was more of a Torah sage than an ordinary person. Consequently, the punishment for the Kohen Godol for his unintentional sins which were treated like intentional sins was the greatest, and so he brought a bull for his sin offering. And the leader who was a lesser Torah sage brought a goat, but a male goat, to teach that the accuser that was born from his sin was strong like a male. But the general population, whose unintentional sins were light, brought a female goat, to hint that the sin was weak like a female.

With this we can understand better the sequence of the posukim. The Torah is coming to show that Hashem has pity on an ordinary person who sins, more than a great person. In the beginning, a person does not transgress a big sin, but rather he will initially do a light sin, which then leads to a more severe sin, until he transgresses a sin for which he is liable a sin offering. Therefore, the Torah writes, “if a person sins unintentionally, and does one of the commandments of Hashem, which you shall not do”, that initially he transgresses mitzvos which he should not do, until he continues from this “and does one of them”, that is, one of those that “if the anointed Kohen sins” in it he would bring a bull, and “if the leader sins” in it he would bring a male goat, nevertheless, “if an individual sins” like that, then it is sufficient for him to bring a female, since his sin is light, being that he is from the general, lesser population, and so even his intentional sins are considered like unintentional ones, all the more so are his unintentional sins considered to be light. Therefore, he brings only a female goat, to hint that his sin is weak like a female. And with this we can also explain the posuk “If the anointed Kohen sins, for the guilt of the people”. Since for a Torah sage, his unintentional sins become like intentional ones, and there is no greater Torah sage than the Kohen Godol, therefore it says that if the anointed Kohen sins, his sin is like the guilt of the people - like their intentional sins, and therefore requires a great atonement, and thus he brings a bull.

Another question which requires attention, is that in all these offerings it says “and he shall atone”, that the Kohen will atone for the sinner, but it does not say this in regard to the anointed Kohen. It seems to me that this is in accordance with the statement of Chazal, that an imprisoned person cannot free himself from prison. Therefore, with all the other sinners, where the Kohen is another person who has no part of the sin, therefore the Kohen can atone for him, and so it says “and the Kohen shall atone for him”. But here, where the anointed Kohen himself is the sinner, and he himself is the one who offers the sacrifice, as it says “and the anointed Kohen shall take from the blood of the bull”, if so, he cannot atone for himself, because a captive cannot free himself.

However, the reason why it says by Yom Kippur, “and he atones for himself”, is because the day of Yom Kippur is fixed as an atonement for all Yisrael, that the day itself atones, and so he can atone for himself. But the rest of the year he cannot atone for himself, but rather he brings the offering, and Hashem will atone for him.