Parshas Tzav 5778 / Shabbos haGadol

Removing the Ashes

The Torah writes (Leviticus 6:2-4)

Command Aaron and his sons thus: This is the ritual of the burnt offering: The burnt offering itself shall remain where it is burned upon the altar all night until morning, while the fire on the altar is kept going on it. The priest shall dress in linen raiment, with linen breeches next to his body; and he shall take up the ashes to which the fire has reduced the burnt offering on the altar and place them beside the altar. He shall then take off his vestments and put on other vestments, and carry the ashes outside the camp to a clean place.

The Talmud (Pesachim 26a) explains that the ashes were forbidden:

The Sages derive from the phrase: “And he shall put them” that he may not scatter these ashes; rather, they should be placed gently. “And he shall put them” also indicates that one may not derive benefit from these ashes.

Chizkuni explains who can do it:

The absence of the word “the priest,” here is an indication that even a priest who is disqualified from performing other procedures in the Temple due to physical blemishes, may perform this procedure.

(see also Jerusalem Talmud 8:4 where a non-priest, if he removes the ashes, is not killed) 
 
and where they are taken to:

a ritually pure location” seeing that these ashes had originated in sacred precincts. This is distinct from the stones of a house whose stones were afflicted with tzoraat, which have to be removed to a ritually unclean location, a location which people carrying objects that require ritual purity may not be brought to.

Mizrachi explains it wasn't done everyday:

There is a difference between the commandment of removing the ashes and one of carrying the ashes away, for removing the ashes [from the Altar] was done everyday but carrying out was only when the amount got large

Bechor Shor explains it was done at night:

like our Rabbis explained, this is a service of the night

The Talmud (Yoma 23b) cites an opinion that only two garments of the priest are enough instead of four:

Do you have any Temple service that may be performed with only two garments rather than the full set of four vestments worn by the priests? In the Torah’s description of the garments worn to remove the ashes it says: “And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen trousers shall he put on his flesh”

Tur HaAruch adds about the clothing:

Even when engaged in just הרמת הדשן, the removal of the ash, or incompletely consumed incense, from the golden altar in the Sanctuary itself, an activity that is rated as part of the Temple service, priestly garments must be worn, though they may be of an inferior quality. There is an opinion according to which the word אחרים that we understood as “alternate, others,” but sacred garments, does not refer to inferior priestly garments, but to ordinary garments such as the ones worn by non-priests. The carrying of the ashes outside the Temple precincts was simply not considered as part of the Temple service.

The Talmud (Shabbos 114a) explains changing the clothing is honorable:

From where is it derived that changing clothes is a display of honor? As it is stated: “And he will remove his garments and will don other garments, and he will bring the ashes outside of the camp to a pure location” (Leviticus 6:4). The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The Torah taught you etiquette. The clothes in which one prepared food for his master, one does not wear to pour his master wine. Since cooking makes one’s clothes dirty, he should wear fresh clothes when serving his master.

(It is interesting to note that other times that they cleaned the Temple such as washing the floors by flooding, whitewashing the Altar, cleaning the vessels, were not considered a priestly service. We also find that the Menorah can be cleaned by a non-priest)

Parshas Vayikra 5778

The reason for Korbanos

The Torah writes (Leviticus 1:2):
Speak to the Israelite people, and say to them: When any of you presents an offering of cattle to the LORD, he shall choose his offering from the herd or from the flock.

The Rambam explains (Guide 3:32):

Many precepts in our Law are the result of a similar course adopted by the same Supreme Being. It is, namely, impossible to go suddenly from one extreme to the other: it is therefore according to the nature of man impossible for him suddenly to discontinue everything to which he has been accustomed ... But the custom which was in those days general among all men, and the general mode of worship in which the Israelites were brought up, consisted in sacrificing animals in those temples which contained certain images, to bow down to those images, and to burn incense before them; religious and ascetic persons were in those days the persons that were devoted to the service in the temples erected to the stars, as has been explained by us. It was in accordance with the wisdom and plan of God, as displayed in the whole Creation, that He did not command us to give up and to discontinue all these manners of service; for to obey such a commandment it would have been contrary to the nature of man, who generally cleaves to that to which he is used; it would in those days have made the same impression as a prophet would make at present if he called us to the service of God and told us in His name, that we should not pray to Him, not fast, not seek His help in time of trouble; that we should serve Him in thought, and not by any action. For this reason God allowed these kinds of service to continue; He transferred to His service that which had formerly served as a worship of created beings, and of things imaginary and unreal, and commanded us to serve Him in the same manner

The Ramban argues (Leviticus 1:9):

Since the deeds of people are determined by thought, speech and action, God, may He be blessed, commanded that when he sins, he brings a sacrifice and place his hands upon him corresponding to the deed, and confess with his mouth corresponding to the speech, and burn the innards and the kidneys, as they are the instruments of thought and desire. And the limbs [of the sacrifice] correspond to the hands and feet of a person that does all of his work. And he sprinkles the blood on the altar corresponding to the blood of his soul, so that a person think in doing all of this that he sinned to God with his body and his soul, and it is fit for him that his blood be spilled and his body burnt; were it not for the kindness of the Creator, who took an exchange and ransom from him [in] the sacrifice - that its blood be instead of his blood and its soul be instead of his soul. 

Sforno explains (ibid 1:2):

... G’d is not interested in the fools who offer sacrificial animals if they have not first humbled themselves...By means of this symbolic act, the humility with which the owner of the sin offering is to approach G’d prior to gaining a chance of acceptance and forgiveness, has been demonstrated.

Sefer HaIkarim (3:25) explains:

Or if we say that the purpose of the sacrifices is to bring together and unite the upper powers with the lower,

Shadal (ibid 1:2) explains that these were like food and gifts given to a king

Vayakhel-Pekudei 5778

On Nepotism

The Torah writes (Exodus 35:30):

And Moses said to the children of Israel: See, the L-rd has called by name Betzalel the son of Uri the son of Chur of the tribe of Judah

Rashi (ibid) adds:

HUR was the son the Miriam (Sotah 11b; cf. Rashi on Exodus 24:14)

The Talmud (Sotah 11b) adds that Chur was a son of Miriam and Caleb:

... And the one who says that it is referring to houses of royalty is referring to David, who also comes from Miriam, as it is written: “And Azubah,” the wife of Caleb, “died, and Caleb took to him Ephrath, who bore him Hur” (I Chronicles 2:19) and, as will be explained further, Ephrath is Miriam ..

(see also the Mizrachi who discussed difficulties with ages of the people involved)

Daas Zeikinim (ibid) explains why this is problematic:

“see! He has called upon, etc.” What does the word: ראו mean here? When Moses had told the people that Betzalel would be the chief architect/craftsman, and that he would be constructing the Tabernacle, there was murmuring among the Israelites who charged Moses with nepotism and assigning every position of importance to members of his family. He therefore repeated here that these men had not been chosen by him but by G–d, personally. In fact, Moses, personally, had originally thought that he himself had been charged with the whole task, seeing that G–d had said to him: ועשית , “you will make,” etc., chapter 25,17, and subsequently. The plural impersonal mode had been reserved for the construction of the Holy Ark (Exodus 25,10). G–d explained to him then already that on the contrary, not as he had thought, he would not build the Tabernacle but a descendant of Chur, who had given his life trying to stop the Jewish people from making a golden calf would be charged with that task. By doing so he would help atone for the murder of his grandfather and for the sin of the golden calf. This is why the Torah traces Betzalel’s ancestry to Chur, i.e. Betzalel son of Uri, son of Chur.

The Talmud (Berachos 55a) writes that Moses asked the people for permission:

... The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: Nevertheless, go and tell Israel and ask their opinion. Moses went and said to Israel: Is Bezalel suitable in your eyes? They said to him: If he is suitable in the eyes of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and in your eyes, all the more so he is suitable in our eyes. ...