לְֽךָ־אֶ֭זְבַּח זֶ֣בַח תּוֹדָ֑ה וּבְשֵׁ֖ם יְהוָ֣ה אֶקְרָֽא׃
Kepada-Mu aku akan mempersembahkan kurban syukur, dan berseru dengan nama Yang Mahakekal.
Or HaChaim
Our sages (Vayikra Rabbah 7,1) remark that the two sons of Aaron died on account of the sin of the golden calf, based on Deut. 9,20: "G'd was also very angry at Aaron to have destroyed him;" if it had not been for Moses' prayer all four sons of Aaron would have died prematurely. The original cause of the death of Nadav and Avihu was the involvement of their father in the sin of the golden calf, and their deaths served as atonement, much as a sacrifice on the altar serves as atonement for the owner of his sin-offering. Do not argue that we have quoted different sages as attributing the deaths of these sons to either their unauthorised offering of incense, or their entering the Holy of Holies without authorisation or the Torah's speaking of their unauthorised use of man-made fire. The answer to all these arguments is that had it not been for the involvement of their father in the sin of the golden calf, G'd would have found a way to guard the feet of His pious so that they would not become guilty of such an inadvertent sin as bringing incense, etc. The statement in Zevachim 115 that these sons died as martyrs for the glory of the name of the Lord is also not at variance with what the Midrash said in Vayikra Rabbah 7,1. Had it not been for the sin of their father, G'd would have had to glorify His name by means of the death of another one of His beloved people. We have it on good authority (Psalms 116,17) that "the death of His pious ones is a very precious event for the Lord;" the reasons for this may be difficult for anyone other than G'd Himself to fathom. Nonetheless, it is our tradition that sometimes G'd desires the deaths of such pious people. In such instances, the pious person in question whose departure from earth G'd desires, must have committed at least some minor infraction so that his death can be justified legally. I have elaborated elsewhere on this theme. It is worth looking at Avot de Rabbi Natan chapter 38 in which the martyrs who died at the hands of the Emperor Hadrian were unhappy that their violent deaths could be interpreted as due to their having violated basic laws of the Torah. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel found a justification for his violent death when his colleague suggested he could have been guilty of the minor infraction of having had a poor man wait too long before he gave him food to eat, or that he was guilty of enjoying the honour of discoursing on Torah before an audience of 600,000 people. It is difficult to accept that a person should be guilty of a violent death for such a minor indulgence. If this were the norm G'd applies to His Torah scholars there would hardly be anyone left alive! You must understand these happenings in light of the fact that G'd already waited for an excuse to gather in the souls of these people to the Celestial Regions. Simltaneously, the very death of such martyrs insures that G'd can delay the retribution which the other people of the martyrs' generation had become guilty of. When we keep this consideration in mind we will better understand that the death of the sons of Aaron was a blessing for the survivors. As far as the public was concerned the sin of the golden calf had been forgiven as demonstrated by the establishment of the Tabernacle and the presence of the שכינה in the Holy of Holies. Aaron's sin-offering on the eighth day of the consecration rites had been the final public step in that rehabilitation. The decree according to which Aaron's sons had to die had therefore been cancelled already. However, the impression this sin had made in the celestial regions had not been erased. It was the residue of that impression which resulted in G'd not guarding the feet of these sons from inadvertently committing a deadly sin as described by the Torah and the various sages.
Rabbeinu Bahya
ויקרא בשם ה, The plain meaning of these words is that Avraham preached his brand of religion. We find the word קרא used in this sense in Proverbs 20,6 רב אדם יקרא איש חסדו, “he proclaims most people as his true friend.” Another verse in which the root קרא appears as meaning “to proclaim publicly, to preach,” is in Psalms 116,17 ובשם ה' אקרא. “I will publicly proclaim the name of the Lord.”
When we are told of Joseph’s triumphal ride through Egypt after he had been appointed viceroy (Genesis 41,43), the Torah writes ויקראו לפניו אברך, “they called out before him אברך.” The generally accept translation of this word is: “on your knee!” However, I believe we may understand it as a proclamation of Joseph’s faith in the G’d of the heaven which he made public at this time.
The word ויקרא also has a connotation of תפלה, prayer, as we know beyond doubt from Psalms 30,9 אליך ה' אקרא ואל א-דני אתחנן “I call to You, O Lord; to my Lord I made appeal.” Prayer, תפלה, is addressed to the attribute of Mercy, whereas תחנה, pleading is addressed to the attribute of Justice. Onkelos also translates this word in the same spirit when he wrote וצלי בשמא דה’, “he prayed in the name of the merciful G’d.”
When we are told of Joseph’s triumphal ride through Egypt after he had been appointed viceroy (Genesis 41,43), the Torah writes ויקראו לפניו אברך, “they called out before him אברך.” The generally accept translation of this word is: “on your knee!” However, I believe we may understand it as a proclamation of Joseph’s faith in the G’d of the heaven which he made public at this time.
The word ויקרא also has a connotation of תפלה, prayer, as we know beyond doubt from Psalms 30,9 אליך ה' אקרא ואל א-דני אתחנן “I call to You, O Lord; to my Lord I made appeal.” Prayer, תפלה, is addressed to the attribute of Mercy, whereas תחנה, pleading is addressed to the attribute of Justice. Onkelos also translates this word in the same spirit when he wrote וצלי בשמא דה’, “he prayed in the name of the merciful G’d.”
Ramban
ANY OF THE HERD OR FLOCK THAT HATH A LIMB TOO LARGE OR TOO SMALL, THAT MAYEST THOU MAKE FOR ‘NEDAVAH’ (A FREEWILL-OFFERING) — “for keeping the Temple in repair.”131Rashi thus understood the word nedavah here not as a freewill-offering for the altar [as we have understood the word till now], but as a freewill gift for the Temple repair. Ramban will further on afford a satisfactory explanation for this interpretation. ‘UL’NEDER’ (BUT FOR A VOW-OFFERING) IT SHALL NOT BE ACCEPTED — “for the altar. What hallowed thing is it that effects propitiation? I must say that it is something dedicated to the altar.” This is Rashi’s language. But according to this explanation, we must interpret the verse, that mayest thou make for ‘nedavah’ (a freewill-offering), ‘ul’neder’ (but for a vow-offering) it shall not be accepted as stating: that [a blemished animal] may be given as a freewill gift or as a vow [to be sold so that its money is used] for the Temple repair, but not for acceptance [to be offered up itself] on the altar; for there is no difference between a neder (vow-offering) and nedevah (freewill-offering) in this respect at all, both being permissible for the Temple repair132I.e., they can be sold for common food and the money used for the repair of the Temple. and prohibited for the altar [on account of the blemish in them], and Scripture has already mentioned this in the case of the burnt-offering, whether it be any of their vow-offerings, or any of their freewill-offerings,133Above Verse 18. and in the case of the peace-offering, in fulfillment of a vow-offering clearly uttered, or for a freewill-offering.121Verse 21. And such is the interpretation of our Rabbis in the Torath Kohanim.134Torath Kohanim, Emor 7:6.
It is possible that we can improve the explanation as to the language of Scripture [i.e., why it uses here the term nedavah for a freewill gift for Temple repair]. For since most freewill gifts are given for Temple repair, as it is said with reference to the Tabernacle, all that were ‘n’div leiv’ (willing-hearted) …135Exodus 35:22. brought the Eternal’s offering,136Ibid., Verse 24. and similarly with reference to the Sanctuary it is said, As for me, in the uprightness of my heart ‘hithnadavti’ (I have willingly offered) all these things,137I Chronicles 29:17. and so also in connection with the Second Temple it is said, beside ‘ha’nedavah’ (the freewill-offering) for the House of G-d,138Ezra 1:4. and it is likewise written about the Temple repair, all the money that cometh into any man’s heart to bring into the House of the Eternal,139II Kings 12:5. therefore it is [called] the freewill gift [without qualification, and Scripture here uses the term nedavah as referring not to a type of offering, but to the freewill gift for Temple repair]. And the reason for [this expression] is that there is nothing in connection with gifts for Temple repair which is obligatory, for [they are all brought only as a consequence of] willingness of the soul, and the custom of those who give a donation for Temple repair is that they bring it with [the language used in offering a] freewill-offering, “‘This is’ for the building.” Therefore wherever Scripture mentions nedavah without any qualification, it is for Temple repair, unless [the donor] expressly says that it is for a burnt-offering,133Above Verse 18. or an offering of peace-offerings,121Verse 21. as mentioned above. But the term neder (vow) without any qualification is said with reference to the holy things of the altar: I will offer to Thee the offering of thanksgiving … I will pay ‘nedarai’ (my vows) unto the Eternal, yea in the presence of all His people, in the courts of the Eternal’s House;140Psalms 116:17-19. I will come into Thy House with burnt-offerings, I will perform unto Thee ‘nedarai’ (my vows);141Ibid., 66:13. ‘Nedarecha’ (Thy vows) are upon me, O G-d; I will render thanks-offerings unto Thee.142Ibid., 56:13. And those who give for the altar bring [their animals] with [the language used in offering a vow-offering], saying, “If G-d will prosper me, I will come before Him with a burnt-offering.” It is for this reason that Scripture says here, Any of the herd or flock that hath a limb too large or too small, that mayest thou make ‘nedavah’ (a freewill gift) [for Temple repair], for whatever his heart offers freewillingly, but for a ‘neder’ (a vow) for G-d [i.e., for His altar] it shall not be accepted, just as He said, that ye shall not bring, for it shall not be acceptable for you.143Above, Verse 20. For Scripture did not say here, “nedavah ‘takriv’ otho (thou mayest ‘offer’ it as a freewill-offering),” which would have been similar to the expression [of thakrivu — “they shall offer” on the altar] used in this whole section,144See Verses 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, where the expressions yakriv, yakrivu, thakrivu, are used. Now these words signify the bringing of an offering. But not so ta’aseh (thou shalt “make”), as Ramban continues to explain. Hence since it states here: “a freewill-offering ta’aseh otho,” the reference is not to making it an offering, but that we may make a gift of a blemished animal to the Temple treasury for necessary repairs. Rashi’s interpretation [“that mayest thou make for a freewill-offering — for keeping the Temple in repair”], is thus well-founded in the language of the verse. but instead it says ‘ta’aseh otho’ (thou mayest ‘make’ it) — meaning to say, you may make of it whatever thy hand attaineth to do by thy strength145Ecclesiastes 9:10. — but for a vow-offering it shall not be accepted. Now [the reason] the Sages were forced to say this [interpretation, i.e., that nedavah ta’aseh otho here means that you may give the blemished animal as a gift to the Temple treasury, but may not bring it as an offering] is because it is in no way whatsoever possible to say that [an animal suffering from] any blemishes [mentioned in the preceding verses], namely, scabbed and scurvy,146Verse 22. or even one whose testicles are bruised or crushed,147Verse 24. be forbidden for any kind of offering, whether as a vow-offering or a freewill-offering, and then an animal which has any limb too long or too short [as mentioned in the verse before us] be forbidden for use only for some offerings, [i.e., vow-offerings] and permissible for others [i.e., freewill-offerings]! Such a distinction [between the kinds of offering] is not found in the Torah with reference to blemishes or impurity in those who perform the rites of the offerings [i.e., the priests]!
It is possible that He said that any of the herd or flock that hath a limb too large or too small, one may make into a freewill-offering [for the Temple repairs] by saying, “This shall be [nedavah — a gift];” but if he had vowed [for the Temple repairs by saying] “I pledge myself [to donate] of the herd or flock,” then if he brings a blemished animal it will not be acceptable for him, and he is not freed of his vow. We may thus say in accordance with the way [of interpretation] of our Rabbis that both [nedavah and neder mentioned in the verse before us] refer to gifts for the Temple repairs, since the expression ‘ta’aseh otho’ (thou mayest ‘make’ it) is unlike takriv otho [“thou mayest ‘offer’ it” on the altar]. This is without doubt the truth.
Now Scripture mentioned the permissibility of making a gift for the Temple repairs in the case of an animal that has a limb too long or too short, which are congenital blemishes in the formation of the animal, and it follows all the more so that an animal having small blemishes by [later] occurrence, such as avereth146Verse 22. which is blindness [caused] by the dimming of the eye, or a broken animal,146Verse 22. and needless to say [an animal that is] scabbed or [suffering from] scurvy,146Verse 22. [may be given as gifts for the Temple repairs]. It is possible that the verse [before us] is connected [with the preceding verse, thus]: “Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wart, or scabbed, or scurvy … and all herd or flock that hath any thing too long or too short, thou mayest make a freewill gift of any of these, but for a vow-offering [for the altar] none of these will be acceptable”147Verse 24. for him, meaning that even if they had been taken up to the altar, they must be brought down.148See Ramban above, 6:2. And in the Torath Kohanim [it is written]:149Torath Kohanim, Emor 7:5. “Whence do we know to include all disqualifications in the herd or flock?150Such as an animal that is too young for an offering (so explained by Malbim ibid.). From the verse, any of the herd or flock151Why is this expression [any of the herd or flock] mentioned here at all, when it would have sufficed to state “and one that has a limb too large etc.”? The Torath Kohanim answers that it forms a sort of “similar expression” with Verse 28 further on, stating: And whether it be one of the herd or flock, ye shall not slaughter it and its young both in one day, this being a case of “lacking time,” and the verse before us thus establishes the principle that anything disqualified for offering in the herd or flock, must not be brought as an offering. that hath a limb too large or too small, which includes all disqualifications of the herd or flock.” Our Rabbis have further included [a principle] within the expression that mayest thou make for a freewill gift, meaning that he may make [a blemished animal] as a gift for whatever [purpose in the Temple that] he pleases, but not unblemished animals, so that one who dedicates unblemished animals [which are fit for the altar] for Temple repairs, transgresses a positive commandment.152“For since it states, that mayest thou make for a freewill gift [for Temple repairs], it teaches that only a blemished animal we may so dedicate, but not an unblemished animal, and a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment carries the force of the positive commandment” (Temurah 7b).
It is possible that we can improve the explanation as to the language of Scripture [i.e., why it uses here the term nedavah for a freewill gift for Temple repair]. For since most freewill gifts are given for Temple repair, as it is said with reference to the Tabernacle, all that were ‘n’div leiv’ (willing-hearted) …135Exodus 35:22. brought the Eternal’s offering,136Ibid., Verse 24. and similarly with reference to the Sanctuary it is said, As for me, in the uprightness of my heart ‘hithnadavti’ (I have willingly offered) all these things,137I Chronicles 29:17. and so also in connection with the Second Temple it is said, beside ‘ha’nedavah’ (the freewill-offering) for the House of G-d,138Ezra 1:4. and it is likewise written about the Temple repair, all the money that cometh into any man’s heart to bring into the House of the Eternal,139II Kings 12:5. therefore it is [called] the freewill gift [without qualification, and Scripture here uses the term nedavah as referring not to a type of offering, but to the freewill gift for Temple repair]. And the reason for [this expression] is that there is nothing in connection with gifts for Temple repair which is obligatory, for [they are all brought only as a consequence of] willingness of the soul, and the custom of those who give a donation for Temple repair is that they bring it with [the language used in offering a] freewill-offering, “‘This is’ for the building.” Therefore wherever Scripture mentions nedavah without any qualification, it is for Temple repair, unless [the donor] expressly says that it is for a burnt-offering,133Above Verse 18. or an offering of peace-offerings,121Verse 21. as mentioned above. But the term neder (vow) without any qualification is said with reference to the holy things of the altar: I will offer to Thee the offering of thanksgiving … I will pay ‘nedarai’ (my vows) unto the Eternal, yea in the presence of all His people, in the courts of the Eternal’s House;140Psalms 116:17-19. I will come into Thy House with burnt-offerings, I will perform unto Thee ‘nedarai’ (my vows);141Ibid., 66:13. ‘Nedarecha’ (Thy vows) are upon me, O G-d; I will render thanks-offerings unto Thee.142Ibid., 56:13. And those who give for the altar bring [their animals] with [the language used in offering a vow-offering], saying, “If G-d will prosper me, I will come before Him with a burnt-offering.” It is for this reason that Scripture says here, Any of the herd or flock that hath a limb too large or too small, that mayest thou make ‘nedavah’ (a freewill gift) [for Temple repair], for whatever his heart offers freewillingly, but for a ‘neder’ (a vow) for G-d [i.e., for His altar] it shall not be accepted, just as He said, that ye shall not bring, for it shall not be acceptable for you.143Above, Verse 20. For Scripture did not say here, “nedavah ‘takriv’ otho (thou mayest ‘offer’ it as a freewill-offering),” which would have been similar to the expression [of thakrivu — “they shall offer” on the altar] used in this whole section,144See Verses 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, where the expressions yakriv, yakrivu, thakrivu, are used. Now these words signify the bringing of an offering. But not so ta’aseh (thou shalt “make”), as Ramban continues to explain. Hence since it states here: “a freewill-offering ta’aseh otho,” the reference is not to making it an offering, but that we may make a gift of a blemished animal to the Temple treasury for necessary repairs. Rashi’s interpretation [“that mayest thou make for a freewill-offering — for keeping the Temple in repair”], is thus well-founded in the language of the verse. but instead it says ‘ta’aseh otho’ (thou mayest ‘make’ it) — meaning to say, you may make of it whatever thy hand attaineth to do by thy strength145Ecclesiastes 9:10. — but for a vow-offering it shall not be accepted. Now [the reason] the Sages were forced to say this [interpretation, i.e., that nedavah ta’aseh otho here means that you may give the blemished animal as a gift to the Temple treasury, but may not bring it as an offering] is because it is in no way whatsoever possible to say that [an animal suffering from] any blemishes [mentioned in the preceding verses], namely, scabbed and scurvy,146Verse 22. or even one whose testicles are bruised or crushed,147Verse 24. be forbidden for any kind of offering, whether as a vow-offering or a freewill-offering, and then an animal which has any limb too long or too short [as mentioned in the verse before us] be forbidden for use only for some offerings, [i.e., vow-offerings] and permissible for others [i.e., freewill-offerings]! Such a distinction [between the kinds of offering] is not found in the Torah with reference to blemishes or impurity in those who perform the rites of the offerings [i.e., the priests]!
It is possible that He said that any of the herd or flock that hath a limb too large or too small, one may make into a freewill-offering [for the Temple repairs] by saying, “This shall be [nedavah — a gift];” but if he had vowed [for the Temple repairs by saying] “I pledge myself [to donate] of the herd or flock,” then if he brings a blemished animal it will not be acceptable for him, and he is not freed of his vow. We may thus say in accordance with the way [of interpretation] of our Rabbis that both [nedavah and neder mentioned in the verse before us] refer to gifts for the Temple repairs, since the expression ‘ta’aseh otho’ (thou mayest ‘make’ it) is unlike takriv otho [“thou mayest ‘offer’ it” on the altar]. This is without doubt the truth.
Now Scripture mentioned the permissibility of making a gift for the Temple repairs in the case of an animal that has a limb too long or too short, which are congenital blemishes in the formation of the animal, and it follows all the more so that an animal having small blemishes by [later] occurrence, such as avereth146Verse 22. which is blindness [caused] by the dimming of the eye, or a broken animal,146Verse 22. and needless to say [an animal that is] scabbed or [suffering from] scurvy,146Verse 22. [may be given as gifts for the Temple repairs]. It is possible that the verse [before us] is connected [with the preceding verse, thus]: “Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wart, or scabbed, or scurvy … and all herd or flock that hath any thing too long or too short, thou mayest make a freewill gift of any of these, but for a vow-offering [for the altar] none of these will be acceptable”147Verse 24. for him, meaning that even if they had been taken up to the altar, they must be brought down.148See Ramban above, 6:2. And in the Torath Kohanim [it is written]:149Torath Kohanim, Emor 7:5. “Whence do we know to include all disqualifications in the herd or flock?150Such as an animal that is too young for an offering (so explained by Malbim ibid.). From the verse, any of the herd or flock151Why is this expression [any of the herd or flock] mentioned here at all, when it would have sufficed to state “and one that has a limb too large etc.”? The Torath Kohanim answers that it forms a sort of “similar expression” with Verse 28 further on, stating: And whether it be one of the herd or flock, ye shall not slaughter it and its young both in one day, this being a case of “lacking time,” and the verse before us thus establishes the principle that anything disqualified for offering in the herd or flock, must not be brought as an offering. that hath a limb too large or too small, which includes all disqualifications of the herd or flock.” Our Rabbis have further included [a principle] within the expression that mayest thou make for a freewill gift, meaning that he may make [a blemished animal] as a gift for whatever [purpose in the Temple that] he pleases, but not unblemished animals, so that one who dedicates unblemished animals [which are fit for the altar] for Temple repairs, transgresses a positive commandment.152“For since it states, that mayest thou make for a freewill gift [for Temple repairs], it teaches that only a blemished animal we may so dedicate, but not an unblemished animal, and a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment carries the force of the positive commandment” (Temurah 7b).