Divrei Yoel - Parshas Tzav (Karbon Olah Today)

Question(1):
This parsha begins with Hasham’s instruction to Moshe to teach the Kohanim about the olah sacrifice (Karbon olah). The initial directive is,


“Hashem spoke to Moshe saying (lay-mor): Command (tzav) Aharon and his sons, saying (lay-mor): This is the law of the olah sacrifice etc.”


There appears to be a redundancy in these pasukim regarding the multiple uses of the word “saying” (lay-mor). One usage of the word “saying” (lay-mor) should have sufficed. Why did it need to be included twice? It seems that the pasukim could be rewritten as:


“Hashem spoke to Moshe saying (lay-mor): Command (tzav) Aharon and his sons: This is the law of the olah sacrifice etc.”



Question(2):
Rashi references the Toras Kohanim and Tractate Kidushin 29a, that the word “Command” (tzav) is necessary to be used in this context to indicate an urgency for now and the future generations. Rashi says:


“’Command’ (tzav) , can only indicate a expression of urgency, for now and for future generations. [The Tanna] Rabbi Shimon says, ‘the Torah must especially urge (ze'ruz) in situations where there exists a monetary loss (chi-sa-ron kis=lit: empty pocket)’ ”.


Why exactly is urgency (ze'ruz) necessary when a monetary loss exists?

[On a pshat level the loss may be for both the owner of the animal and for the Kohain. It is a physically a loose-loose situation since the entire animal’s flesh is consumed. Hence, there is no meat for either the owner of the animal to eat or for the officiating Kohain to take part in. However, the Divrei Yoel will provide a fascinating drash answer.]


Background:
The Medrish Tanchuma (14) as well as the Medrish Rabba (7:3) list a number of quotes from our sages which emphasize the importance of learning the laws of the Olah offering even nowadays after the destruction of the Bais Hamikdash. The quote from Rabbi Asya concludes:


“Therefore, The Holy one blessed be He says to the Jews: ‘My children, even though the Bais Hamikdash has been destroyed and the sacrifices have ceased, and the Olah offering is no longer practiced…If you are involved in and read the sections of the torah concerning the Olah offering, and learn the sections of the torah concerning the sacrifices, then I will consider it as if you in fact brought the Olah sacrifice to Me.’ ”


At first glance one might think that it is only if one involves himself in the learning and clarification of the laws and regulations of the Olah offering and the other sacrifices that it is considered as if the Olah offering was in fact offered on the Mizbayach (alter). However, someone who does not have the mental capacity or lacks the focus to delve into the understanding of the intricate laws of the Olah offering and the sacrifices, they merely read the verses with minimal comprehension, then they will not be regarded as if they brought the Olah offering.

Furthermore, Rabbi Levi says,(Shir HaShirim Rabbah 2:16):
"In the past when money (lit: a prutah) was available, people would yearn to hear words of mishna, halacha or Talmud. Nowadays, when money is not available and moreover people are ill from the pressure of our oppression [in exile], people yearn only to hear words of blessings and Agada (or consolation)."


If we apply the teaching of Rabbi Levi, who emphasizes the differentiation between a higher and lower level of learning, to our medrish above, then we may speculate that in order to be considered as “if you in fact brought the Olah sacrifice to Me”, one must truly learn the appropriate Torah sections. A mere superficial reading of the pasukim without any comprehension will not suffice.

Answer to the original questions:
Based upon the above ideas we can now answer the original questions.

1) Why is the word “saying” (lay-mor) used twice? It is used twice in order to emphasize the importance of learning or even just “saying” the pasukim containing the instructions of the sacrifices even if one lacks complete comprehension. Nonetheless, even without comprehension it will be “as if you in fact brought the Olah sacrifice to Me”.

2) Why exactly is urgency (ze'ruz) necessary when a monetary loss exists? Chi-sa-ron kis is the idiom used for “monetary loss”. This idiom literally means “lacking contents in ones pocket”, in other words, lacking money. Rabbi Levi teaches that when money is not available then the quality on one’s learning is inferior and it lacks comprehension. Rashi therefore, teaches us that Hashem wants us to know that even when ones learning lacks comprehension, nonetheless one must still read the pasukim concerning the sacrifices and indeed it will be “as if you in fact brought the Olah sacrifice to Me”.

Our Conclusion:
The Divrie Yoel teaches a fascinating chidush, regarding sacrifices. In contrast to most other mitzvos where we say “mitzvos tzrichas kavonoh” (one is required to have the proper intent when doing a mitzvah – and of course one has to know what one is doing), regarding sacrifices the Torah emphasizes the importance of reading and learning about them even if one doesn’t fully comprehend what one is saying. Even with the minimal effort exerted by our reading it will be “as if you in fact brought the Olah sacrifice to Me”. Off course we should strive to maximize our comprehension of what we read and learn.

These thoughts have been based on pages 112 and 113 of the Divrie Yoel parshas Tzav.