5783/2023
In Parashat VaYikra, the Torah begins to introduce the laws for
Korbanot, meaning offerings. In fact, another name for VaYikra
is Torat Kohanim because it is so focused on the rules of
Kohanim and their service. However, laws of Korbanot are not
so easy to become enthusiastic over, hence Hashem takes
measures to engage Bnei Yisrael because after all, קרבן comes
from the word קרב, to bring close, and the point of these
offerings is to build a relationship between Bnei Yisrael and
Himself.
Firstly, we will look at the most asked question on Sefer
VaYikra: why is the Alef in VaYikra smaller than the regular
font? Rashi explains that Moshe wanted to write ויקר instead of
ויקרא because the former is the language used when Hashem
talked to Bilaam, and because Moshe was humble, he didn’t
want to look any better even though his prophetic level was
obviously on a higher level. However, the language Rashi uses
in regard ot Bilaam’s conversation with Hashem is “וטמאה עראי,“
“temporary and unholy” (Rashi to Vayikra 1:1). Why would
Moshe want to be compared to this?
Another question is why the Torah changes Its language in
regards to two distinct times when blood is sprinkled on the
Parochet. The first case, if a Kohen Gadol was mistaken and led
the nation to do an Aveirah, the atonement process is described
the towards” “, ֶאת־ ְּפנֵי ָּפרֶֹכת ַהּקֶֹדׁש” times seven sprinkling as
Parochet HaKodesh” (VaYikra 4:6). Strangely, eleven Pesukim
later the Torah describes what to do if the Sanhedrin
accidentally leads Bnei Yisrael to sin, blood is sprinkled seven
(4:17 .Ibid” (Parochet the towards” “, ֵאת ְּפנֵי ַה ָּפרֶֹכת” times
noticeably missing the word “HaKodesh.” Why is “HaKodesh”
removed the second time around?
Now, let’s answer the first question. Rav Moshe Taragin
explains that at the beginning of our Parashah, when Hashem
commands Moshe Rabbeinu to speak to Bnei Yisrael it is meant
to be a continued discussion between all the mentioned
parties. Although Bnei Yisrael must listen to whatever Hashem
commands, they are still part of the conversation and affirming
that they want to serve Hashem. When Moshe Rabbeinu claims
that Hashem speaks to him in passing by using ויקר, the
temporary nature encourages Bnei Yisrael: if they commit to
having real relationship with Hashem, they will get it; if
Bilaam’s discussion with Hashem is described as Tamei and
temporary, a Torah based devotion towards Hashem will spur
great connections.
For the second question, Rashi explains that the defining factor
between whether the Parochet retains its Kedusha is how
many people sinned. By the Kohen Gadol, there is one sinner.
However, by the Sanhedrin, all seventy one of them have
sinned. Again, Rav Moshe Taragin explains that this is a greater
failure because in those times the Sanhedrin were the center
for Torah and if they made a mistake, they will lose the respect
of the nation and consequently the Torah will lose respect;
hence, the Parochet loses some Kedushah. However, if the
Sanhedrin had exercised a little more care and unconditionally
sought the truth through lengthened discussion and derivation
of the Torah, the travesty would have been averted.
In both of these cases, the Torah highlights the value of
meaningful discussion in the lead up to laws that are difficult to
understand. However, by turning to one another and
disseminating Torah ideas, the truth will ultimately be
unearthed. Discussion is no coincidence after all.