Tanach · Acharonim on Tanach · Or HaChaim · Torah
Or HaChaim on Leviticus 1:10/אור החיים על ויקרא א׳:י׳
אוְאִם מִן הַצֹּאן. אָמְרוּ בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים: הֲרֵי זֶה מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן, עַד כָּאן. הַכַּוָּנָה בָּזֶה לִתֵּן כָּל הָאָמוּר בְּמִין הַבָּקָר וְלֹא הוּזְכַּר בַּצֹּאן, כְּגוֹן סְמִיכָה וְדִינֶיהָ וּשְׁאָר הַלִּמּוּדִים. גַּם לִדְרֹשׁ אִם נִכְפַּל דָּבָר מֵהַמּוּזְכָּר כְּבָר בְּבֶן הַבָּקָר, וְלָזֶה תִּמְצָא שֶׁדָּרְשׁוּ כָּל הַפְּרָטִים שֶׁנִּכְפְּלוּ, גַּם לִתֵּן אֶת הָאָמוּר בְּפָרָשָׁה זוֹ בְּשֶׁלְּפָנֶיהָ, כְּגוֹן שְׁחִיטַת צָפוֹן וְכוּ׳ וּשְׁאָר הַדְּרָשׁוֹת הַנִּלְמָדִים מֵעוֹלַת צֹאן.
1 ואם מן הצאן קרבנו, If his offering consists of the category of sheep or goats, etc. Torat Kohanim remarks cryptically that the word ואם, in this verse [actually I think it would be better to say "the letter ו in the word ואם," Ed.] informs us of something additional to what we have learned about the עולה. What the author of Torat Kohanim means is that all the details mentioned in connection with a burnt-offering consisting of cattle and not repeated in this paragraph are nonetheless also applicable when the burnt-offering consists of צאן. Examples are the need to perform סמיכה, etc. This word ואם is also used to deduce that rules which are mentioned here for the first time, such as that the sheep used as burnt-offering is to be slaughtered on the northern side of the altar, apply equally to burnt-offerings consisting of cattle. The basic exegetical approach of Torat Kohanim is to use all those words which appear to be repeated unnecessarily for a halachic דרוש.
בוּבְתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים מְסַיֵּם בָּהּ: וְלָמָּה הִפְסִיק? כְּדֵי לִיתֵּן רֶוַח לְמֹשֶׁה. הִקְשָׁה הָרַב רַבִּי אֵלִיָּהוּ מִזְרָחִי דְּמִכָּאן מַשְׁמַע שֶׁלֹּא הוּקְשָׁה לֵיהּ לָמָּה הִפְסִיק אֶלָּא לְצַד דִּכְתִיב ״וְאִם״ שֶׁמּוֹסִיף, וְשָׁם בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים (פרשה א׳) בַּבָּרַיְתָא שֶׁדָּנָה שֶׁהָיְתָה קְרִיאָה קוֹדֶמֶת לְדִבּוּר קָתָנֵי: יָכוֹל אַף לְהַפְסָקוֹת וְכוּ׳ וּמָה הָיוּ הַהַפְסָקוֹת מְשַׁמְּשׁוֹת וְכוּ׳, עַד כָּאן, מַשְׁמַע אֲפִלּוּ בְּלֹא וָא״ו הָיוּ הַהַפְסָקוֹת מְשַׁמְּשׁוֹת וְכוּ׳ עַד כָּאן, וְתֵרֵץ וְכוּ׳, וְאֵין דְּבָרָיו נִרְאִים.
2Torat Kohanim concludes: "why did the Torah then interrupt the previous paragrah and write a new paragraph altogether [if we treat the letter ו as making a single paragraph out of the two for exegetical purposes. Ed]? Answer: "in order to give Moses a breather during which time he could assimilate all the information he had just been given." Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi questions that apparently Torat Kohanim would not have queried the fact that verses 10-13 are a new paragraph if the Torah had not introduced it with the letter ו in the word ואם. How is this possible, he asks, seeing that the same Torat Kohanim on verse 1 (3,1) which deals with the meaning of the word ויקרא wrote as follows: "I might have thought that a "call" preceded every communication to Moses even including the separate paragraphs, הפסקות? Therefore the Torah wrote וידבר, to teach us that "calls" preceded דבור but not every paragraph which was a brief interruption of the same communication. What were the reasons for these הפסקות, brief interruptions? To give Moses a chance to assimilate the information he had been taught in the previous paragraph. Thus far the Torat Kohanim." This proves that such הפסקות, short intervals between different parts of the same communication, served to give Moses a breather even when the Torah did not introduce them by an otherwise superfluous letter ו. Rabbi Mizrachi proceeds to answer the question he posed. His words do not appeal to me. [The author refers to the question of Rabbi Mizrachi; he does not even relate to his answer to a question he does not perceive to have any merit in the first place. Ed.]
גוְהַנָּכוֹן בְּעֵינַי הוּא, כִּי כֹּחַ וְטַעַם הַמְּתָרֵץ שָׁם הוּא מִכָּאן, שֶׁזּוּלַת יִתּוּר וָא״ו הָאָמוּר כָּאן הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר טַעַם הַהַפְסָקוֹת לֹא לִיתֵּן רֶוַח לְמֹשֶׁה לְהִתְבּוֹנֵן, אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּשְׂכִּיל מֹשֶׁה שֶׁלֹּא יִלְמַד דִּין מִזֶּה לָזֶה. וּמִמַּה שֶׁמָּצִינוּ שֶׁרָשַׁם ה׳ כָּאן וְאָמַר ״וְאִם מִן הַצֹּאן״ בְּתוֹסֶפֶת וָא״ו, הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁדִּין כֻּלָּן שָׁוֶה וְלִתֵּן הָאָמוּר שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה הָיוּ הַהַפְסָקוֹת? בְּהֶכְרֵחַ לוֹמַר שֶׁהוּא לִתֵּן רֶוַח לְמֹשֶׁה. וּמִכָּאן לְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הַהַפְסָקוֹת הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ הַטַּעַם, וְהוּא מַאֲמַר הַתַּנָּא בְּדֶרֶךְ כְּלָל, וּמַה הָיוּ הַהַפְסָקוֹת מְשַׁמְּשׁוֹת.
3I believe that when Torat Kohanim on verse 1 stated that unless the Torah had linked the paragraphs by an otherwise superfluous letter ו in our paragraph, I would have concluded that the reason for the הפסקה was not to enable Moses to assimilate the information G'd had given him but to warn Moses not to arrive at הלכות by a merely exegetical approach. The fact that the Torah introduced our paragraph with the word ואם, teaches that identical rules apply to a burnt-offering consisting of cattle and one consisting of sheep. What was mentioned in paragraph one applies to paragraph two, and what was recorded for the first time in paragraph two applies to what has not been recorded in paragraph one. Seeing that this is so, it is clear that the purpose of the pause must have been to give Moses a chance to assimilate all this information. [After Moses heard the second paragraph he had to apply the new information contained in that paragraph as additional to what G'd had revealed to him in the first paragraph. This obviously took some time. Ed.] The author of Torat Kohanim spoke about not just this particular paragraph commencing in verse ten, but about paragraphs and their purposes altogether.