Vol 32.08 - Shemini 1 Spanish French Audio Video
Rashi (9:12): "Presented"- The innovation of the word "וַיַּמְצִאוּ (presented)" over the word "וַיַּקְרִבוּ (and he offered)" (ibid 9:9)
“Yamtzi’u (וַיַּמְצִאוּ): This term denotes “presentation” and “preparation.”
1. On the verse (Lev. 9:12):
“And he slaughtered the burnt offering. And Aaron's sons presented (וַיַּמְצִיאוּ) the blood to him, and he dashed it on the altar, around”.
Rashi cites the word: “Yamtzi’u" (וַיַּמְצִיאוּ) and states:
“An expression of ‘presentation’ and ‘preparation’”. וימצאו: לשון הושטה והזמנה
Rashi’s intent, plainly, is to explain the word “presented” (וַיַּמְצִיאוּ). Namely, that one should not say that its aspect is from the word “a find” (מציאה),
(Similar to what the Ibn Ezra states here that it is “from the root ‘find’ (מגזרת מצא), that they found it at a time of need”. In other words, that Aaron’s sons caused that the blood should be found (מצוי) near Aharon)
rather it is “an expression of ‘presentation’ and ‘preparation’”.
However, one must explain the double words of Rashi – “an expression of ‘presentation’ and ‘preparation’”. For seemingly it would have been sufficient to just state: “an expression denoting ‘presentation’”.
“Presentation/הושטה” and “Preparation/הזמנה“ are two difference aspects:
Therefore, what is the necessity to explain that “Yamtzi’u” (וַיַּמְצִיאוּ) includes both aspects – “an expression of ‘presentation’ and ‘preparation’”?
Plainly, Rashi’s intent with this is to explain that this “presentation” was in a manner of “Yamtzi’u” (וַיַּמְצִיאוּ). In other words that through the “presentation” to his friend, the thing was made fitting and prepared and found by him (מוכן ומזומן ומצוי).
(Similar to the explanation of the Ibn Ezra, as aforementioned)
However, this, seemingly, is not a sufficient explanation.
For if so, Rashi did not need to emphasize that this was specifically a deed of “preparation”. He should have just said,
“An expression of ‘presentation’ that it will be available”, and so forth (like the wording of the Ibn Ezra)
This means that the actual availability of the thing (without consideration of what manner it is found near him, whether it is prepared or not).
Therefore, what is the reason for Rashi’s emphasis that “Yamtzi’u” (וַיַּמְצִיאוּ) is “an expression of ‘presentation’ and ‘preparation’”?
2. One could say that Rashi’s intent is (not just to explain the word “Yamtzi’u” (וַיַּמְצִיאוּ), but mainly) to answer a change in the wording of the verse here:
Previously, regarding the offering of the “Sin-offering calf” of Aharon it states:
“So Aaron approached the altar and slaughtered . . And Aaron's sons brought forward (ויקריבו) the blood to him, and he dipped his finger into the blood, placing (some) on the horns of the altar, etc.”
Whereas, here regarding the Olah (burnt offering) the verse precisely states,
“(And he slaughtered the burnt offering). And Aaron's sons presented (וימציאו) the blood to him, and he dashed it etc.”
(And even in the following verse, Scripture precisely states:
“And they presented (המציאו) the burnt offering to him in its (prescribed) pieces etc.”.
Also regarding “the people's peace-offering” that is stated later (verse. 18) it states:
“and Aaron's sons presented (וימציאו) the blood to him”
Therefore, the question is what is the reason for the differences?
One can say simply that this was the actual case (שכן היתה המציאות):
After receiving the blood of the Sin-Offering, Aharon’s sons were not standing near Aharon’s place. Therefore, they needed to bring (and transport) (להקריב (ולהוליך)) the blood to him.
Whereas, the receiving of the blood of the Olah (and also of the Shelamim) was in proximity of Aharon, and they were able to “present” the blood of the Olah (and also its limbs) to him.
Although this explanation resolves the difference of wording of the verses here – it is still not understood in the essence of the matter:
Previously at the beginning of Parsha Vayikra, regarding the laws of the Olah, it states:
“And he shall slaughter the young bull before the Lord. And Aaron's descendants, the kohanim, shall bring the blood, and dash the blood upon the altar etc.”
Rashi cites the word “and (…the kohanim) shall bring (the blood)” and explains:
“(Although וְהִקְרִיבוּ literally means “bringing,” here,) it means “receiving” (the blood in a vessel), which is the first (procedure immediately following the slaughtering). And its meaning is (synonymous) with "carrying (it to the altar/הולכה)." We (therefore) have learned that both (receiving and carrying) are the duties of Aaron’s descendants (i.e., the kohanim).”
In other words, the word “Hikrivu/ וְהִקְרִיבוּ“ includes both services of receiving the blood and bringing the blood (for both of them must specifically be with Aharon’s sons, the kohanim).
According to this, it is puzzling:
Since Scripture here comes to describe the joining of Aaron’s sons in the Avodah of the Eighth day of Inauguration (יום השמיני למילואים), why, regarding the Olah (and the Shelamim) does the verse omit these two procedures (receiving and the bringing) and just state “Yamtzi’u/presented the blood to him”, (וימציאו. . את הדם) which is the “placing” of the blood (הושטת הדם) into Aharon’s hand?
Regarding carrying (הולכה), one could say that, according to the simple meaning of the verse, even the placing of the blood (from hand to hand) is included in the scope of “carrying (הולכה)”, for with this, one brings close (מקרב) the blood to the altar.
(Regarding the Halacha, there is room to debate whether this “presentation/הושטה”, is in the category of (is called) “carrying (הולכה)”. For we rule that “carrying (הולכה)” (to the altar) without walking (שלא ברגל) is not called “carrying (הולכה)”. Moreover, according to Rambam, even when one is standing on the side of the altar, there must be “carrying (הולכה)” with walking.
(Note: In other words, the blood must be “walked” to the altar and not thrown on the altar from the place that he received it.)
(The Tzafnat Paneach on Torah, writes that when the Aaron’s sons just presented/המציאו the blood that indeed “is was not according to the law (Din)”
However, according to Pshat, we do not find that “carrying (הולכה)” must specifically be with walking.
And since the entire aspect of “carrying (הולכה)” is derived from the word “Hikrivu/ וְהִקְרִיבוּ“, it is logical that even the placing is in this category, since through this one bringing the blood to the altar, as aforementioned).
However, it is still not resolved with regarding to the receiving of the blood. Plainly, this is not included in the word “presented” (וַיַּמְצִיאוּ)
For just with regarding to the wording Hikrivu/ וְהִקְרִיבוּ, do we say that “it means “receiving” which is the first (procedure immediately following the slaughtering)”.
Especially since one could say that the receiving the blood is also included in the import of the word of Hikrivu/ וְהִקְרִיבוּ.
If so, it is puzzling. Why does Scripture use the expression “presented” (וַיַּמְצִיאוּ) (and omits regarding the receiving the blood) and does not state (like it does previously) “Hikrivu/ וְהִקְרִיבוּ“ which includes both the receiving and the “carrying (הולכה)”?
(It would have been fine if the deeds between the slaughtering and the sprinkling, was not written in the Torah, at all - for then there would be no question. For we also find in other places, that not all of the procedures that are performed with an offering, are delineated – just a part of them. However, since Scripture deemed to delineate that Aaron’s sons “presented” (וַיַּמְצִיאוּ) the blood to Aharon – it is difficult, as aforementioned - why is the receiving the blood omitted?)
To answer this question Rashi adds, “An expression of ‘presentation’ and ‘preparation’”. With this, he emphasizes the innovation of “presented” (וַיַּמְצִיאוּ) with regard to, “brought forward (ויקריבו) “. Namely, that specifically with this is there the aspect of “preparation”, as will be explained:
3. In the verses here, it is explained that there is a difference between the sprinkling of the blood of the Sin-Offering and the sprinkling of the blood of the Olah and the Shelamim.
In other words, the sprinkling of the blood of the Sin-Offering is with the finger. Therefore, the Kohen needs to first dip his finger in the blood and then sprinkle it. Whereas the sprinkling of the blood of the Olah and Shelamim is with a vessel, and there is no need to dip a finger in the blood.
We therefore find that there is a critical difference between the deed of Aaron’s sons with the blood of the Sin-Offering and their deed with the blood of the Olah and Shelamim.
According to this, it is understood why it specifically states, “presented” (וַיַּמְצִיאוּ) (and not “brought forward (ויקריבו)“):
The reason that the Torah tells us regarding the deed of Aaron’s sons in these Korbanot is (simply) in order to emphasize their joining in Aharon’s Avodah of this day.
Therefore, Scripture emphasizes that regarding the Olah and Shelamim, their part in joining with the Avodah of Aharon is great (גדלה מדת השתתפותם). For not only did they “bring/ וְהִקְרִיבוּ” the blood, but they also “presented” (וַיַּמְצִיאוּ). The innovation of this is not just in the manner of the deed (“an expression denoting ‘Presentation/הושטה’”) but mainly with regard to the resulting effect on the blood (להנפעל בהדם). For with the blood of the Olah, Aaron’s sons did an additional thing, that the blood was completely fitting and prepared to be sprinkled.
This is also the emphasis of the verse regarding the limbs of the Olah, as it states:
“And they presented the burnt offering to him in its (prescribed) pieces”.
In other words, Aaron’s sons cut the Olah into pieces, in a manner that immediately when they reached Aharon’s hand, they were prepared to “go up in smoke on the altar”.
MSichas Shabbat Parshat Shemini 5742
|Date Modified:||Date Reviewed:|