Questions — Parshah Vayikra
Chapter 1
“He shall offer his offering from the herd or from the flock.” From where else?
The only difference between the way that Vayikra opens and a Masekhet of Mishnah or Talmud open is that the speaker is identified as God. Is Vayikra the model for all of Mishnah and Talmud in organization? Is the associational logic of those books chosen in imitation of the style of the explication of the law that is presented as God’s own teaching style?
How does one “put fire on the altar”?
Ha-Pader = Suet. What is being referred to here?
The entrails are washed, but they are not discarded and are burned which is not the case with some other sacrifices. Why is even this icky part of the sacrificed animal included in what is burnt up? And why also the legs?
Is “pleasing odor” really a better translation than “sweet savor”? Is this just an effort to be less anthropomorphic? Maimonides was strongly opposed to Biblical anthropomorphism. Do was really need to be his cossacks?
Does the offering become a “burnt offering” only if the priest does the burning?
Why do these offerings have to be male animals, rather than female or male or female at the choice of the one who brings the sacrifice?
At verse 8 the discussion switches to the case of a person who has brought a bird. Is this a continuation of the first case begun in verse 2 or a separate case?
Why is the crop discarded when the entrails of the mammals were not? Why does the body need to be torn apart and why torn rather than cut. Tearing seems like trefah. What is going on here? What is there about birds that is so much less familiar to us?
Chapter 2
Choice flour is white flour. Is it “choice” because it has been refined? Choice by God’s definition or by human definition? Why isn’t grain that is as it was harvested preferred just as the animals that are sacrificed need to be without blemish?
Why is the meal offering not burned up in its entirety?
Why do we need to know that bread has been baked in an oven? The word “tanur” is used. Does this mean that if it was not baked in the type of oven that is referred to as a “tanur” it would be another case?
In verse one the phrase is “korban minchah La-adonia solet” rather than the usual “solet minchah.” What is the difference?
In verse 2:5 we are told that the meal offering cannot be made with leaven or honey. Rashi notes that what is meant here by honey are fruits that can be used as a sweetener such as first fruits of figs or dates. Why would this “honey” be excluded?
Why is seasoning with salt required?
Why are we required to parch the ears of the first fruits of grain?
Why are the sacrifices described in Cja[ter One amd Two being brought?
Chapter 3: Sacrifices of Well Being
What constitutes “Well Being” - Shlamim?
What is different about how the Shlamim sacrifice is sacrificed? Which parts of the animal are consumed in the offering and which are withheld?
What is different about what is withheld from the sacrifice of the Bull and of the Sheep?
Chapter 4: Guilt Offerings
What type of guilt does the Guilt Offering resolve?
Why are we told first about the case of the Priest who had incurred a debt of guilt?
Where is most of the Bull burnt up? Why?
In the case of community guilt, where does this scenario recur?
What is communal guilt?
In the case of the chieftain we have two scenarios presented: 1) the chieftain realizes his guilt, or 2) the chieftain is told of his guilt. What would happen if the chieftain refused to acknowledge his guilt?
Why is blood collected and then poured out?
Why may only the individual bring a she animal and why does only the individual have a choice about which animal they bring?
What is done with the part of the individual’s sacrifice that is not burned up?
Chapter 5: Types of Guilt, Specific Cases
“Ve-Sham’ah Kol Eleh,” This is kind of vague, along the lines of “If you hear something, say something. OJPS translated as “voice of adjuration” and NJPS translates as “public imprecation.” It seems like this may refer to slander or an ill intended accusation or just gossip. What do you think is meant and why is this the first among all cases of guilt mentioned?
With regards to the touching of an unclean thing it is a little dumb-founding why this would be guilt especially if one has done it so inadvertently that one lacks knowledge of it and only becomes aware of it afterwards.Rashi points out that this is guilt because it is actually a more specialized case than it initially appears. It refers to a person who would later go and touch things with the Mishkan. Should we view this case only within this narrow purview or not? How would this apply in contemporary life, if at all?
Why is the issue of an oath separated from the issue of “Ve-Sham’ah Kol Eleh” by the case of impurity? These issues seem to be almost a mirror to each other, one being the external experience and the other the internal experience.
The remedy for all three of these cases is the same. This seems to equate them, at least in seriousness of offense. Does this seem like it should be correct? Is this something that we can understand or not?
Why does the remedy include both a sin offering and a burnt offering?
Verse 5:9 describes what should be done with the blood of the bird offering. Why is different from what is done with the blood from the mammals? Is it anything more than a product of the physical difference between the animals?
Why is it presented as almost obvious that nothing, not even oil would be mixed into the grain flour offering?
Why does the priest get to retain part of the flour offering?
The case in verse 5:15 seems to have some potential overlap with the second case in the chapter. How can we draw a hard line between the two cases? “Ki-Timol Ma’al” implied a certainty and thoroughness in the action (due to the intensification derived from the verbal repetition}. Rashi views this as use of a temple object perhaps for idolatry. Any misuse implies that the use places the value of their use above their devotion to God. How could we become guilty of such a violation today? What general lessons about our behavior should we draw from this?
Is this only a case where the action is done unintentionally?
Why is the offering a ram which is usually only a Yom Kippur offering? Why is this case specified as transferable into money. Is the ram sacrificed or does it just become Temple property? The addition of a fifth in value seems to imply that this case follows the laws of damages. Is this mixed?
The case of general inadvertent guilt follows the case of guilt within the Temples precincts and with regard to its objects. This also is a ram that can be exchanged for money (silver). Why is no additional fifth added? In the last case which refers to business dealings and other case referring to transfer of objects of value in business or in the case of lost objects the fifth is added. Here the ram is clearly sacrificed. Why the variations in clarity on this issue?
