THE OLAH AND THE SHELAMIM - TZAV

In Parshas Tzav, the Torah introduces us to two of the most important kinds of offerings: The Olah (elevation) offering and the Shelamim (peace) offering . The Olah is entirely burnt on the altar, all of it going up to Shamayim, whereas the Shelamim is only partially burnt, the rest being shared by the animal’s owner, his family and the Kohen. Rav Uziel Milevsky zt”l discusses the symbolism of these two offerings. He begins by quoting the Meshech Chochma who brings a dispute between the two great Rabbinic leaders, Hillel and Shammai with regard to the Olah and Shelamim offerings. When a person comes to the Temple on the Three Foot Festivals he must bring a Chagigah offering, which is from the Shelamim category, and the Re’iyah offering, which is in the Olah category. These particular sacrifices had no upper limit to their value, however they did have a minimum value. According to Shammai, the Olah, which was completely offered to G-d, had to be worth at least two silver coins, whilst the Shelamim only had to be one silver coin. Hillel held the opposite – the Shelamim’s minimum was two silver coins, whilst that of the Olah was one. For some reason Shammai ascribed greater value to the Olah whilst Hillel saw the Shelamim as being of greater worth.

The Meshech Chochma says that this dispute is indicative of a fundamental difference in outlook between these two schools of thought. The source of this difference is another disagreement between Shammai and Hillel with regard to the creation of the world. The Yalkut Shimoni notes a contradiction between two verses which suggest the order in which the heavens and earth were created: The opening verse of Bereishis states that first, G-d created the heavens and then the earth. However, the second chapter implies that the earth was created before the heavens. Shammai argued that the heavens were created first, whilst Hillel held that the earth came first. Rav Milevsky, based on the Meshech Chochma, explains that they are arguing as to which is most central in G-d’s creation; heaven or earth. Shammai held that the world remains ‘heaven-centric’, this means that the cardinal principles guiding it are values that belong in the higher spheres, namely, Torah and Emes (truth).

Hillel, in contrast believed that the world is ‘earth-centric’. This means that its cardinal principles are based on human beings and the imperfections of this world. In order to understand the practical applications of Hillel and Shammai’s ideologies and how they manifest in our lives it is instructive to analyze a number of maamarei Chazal (Rabbinic sources) that illustrate other disagreements between Shammai and Hillel in both areas of law and hashkafa outlook. We can then explain why Shammai ascribed greater value to the Olah, whilst Hillel gave more value to the Shelamim.
The Gemara in Sanhedrin discusses a significant difference between Moshe Rabbeinu and his brother Aaron Kohen Gadol, with regard to justice. When a legal dispute was brought to court, Aaron’s view was that the judge should aim for compromise and try to engender a relationship of peace and harmony between the litigants, even if one party may, on occasion be less deserving than the other. Nonetheless, maintaining peace was a higher priority to Aaron than exacting pure justice. Moshe, in contrast, believed that the judge should aim for the complete truth, handing down his verdict in accordance with that truth, regardless of the feelings of the litigants. The Meshech Chochma observes that Hillel relates to Aaron, as is demonstrated in Pirkei Avos, where Hillel directs us to be among the disciples of Aaron in terms of bringing peace between our fellow man. The implication is that Hillel is telling us to be more like Aaron than Moshe. This is not because there is anything lacking in Moshe’s approach rather that his level is so high that it is of pure truth. On such a level there is no room for compromising because of people’s feelings – the truth is the highest value. Shammai’s approach is more in line with Moshe’s approach: He maintains that whilst we cannot attain Moshe’s exalted level, nonetheless, we must strive to attain whatever truth we can. In this way, Shammai focuses on Heaven more than earth – in heaven, where there is no room for compromise of truth, the truth is unadulterated.

This difference in approach manifests itself in a disagreement with regard to emes and sheker (falsehood). The Gemara in Kesubos discusses the case of a just married couple; and the bride is not particularly worthy of praise – Hillel and Shammai argue about what one should say to the groom. Shammai says that you must say the truth as it is, regardless of hurting the feelings of the groom. Hillel argues that this will cause discomfort, therefore one should praise her in a vague fashion. Shammai argues that Hillel’s approach would constitute a transgression of the prohibition to lie, whilst Hillel holds that in such cases, maintaining peace and harmony between a bride and groom overrides the prohibition not to lie, therefore in such a case the prohibition doesn’t apply at all. Hillel’s approach is that it is not truthful to cause pain and dissension amongst people. This dispute provides an illuminating example of the ramifications of Hillel and Shammai’s divergent world views. Shammai adheres to a strict adherence to truth, whereas Hillel compromises the value of truth with that of peace.

With this understanding of the approaches of Shammai and Hillel we can now understand the underlying reason for their dispute as to which koraban should be of greater minimum value – the Olah or the Shelamim. The Olah, burnt on the altar entirely for G-d, is a ‘heaven-offering’ – for Shammai, the main focus is man’s service of G-d and adherence to pure truth. For Hillel, however, the main focus is peace,therefore he attributed greater value to the Shelamim, which was shared by the animal’s owner, his family, and the Kohen, thus enhancing peace and harmony amongst people.
We have analyzed the fundamental differences between Hillel and Shammai and how they reflect their conflicting rulings with regard to the Olah and Shelamim. We have seen that Hillel’s view emphasizes compromise in addition to truth, whilst Shammai’s focuses on pure adherence to truth. The Gemara in Eruvin states that after three years of debate between the two schools a voice announced, “The words are both words of the Living G-d, but the law is like Beis Hillel”. This means that both views are correct, but they have different approaches. In this world the most fitting approach is that of like Beis Hillel because in this world the value of peace can sometimes appear to conflict with that of truth, and for the level of most people, the outlook of Beis Hillel is the most appropriate. One application of this discussion is that a person may mistakenly feel that it is a quality to always strictly adhere to the truth, even when it causes pain to others or can lead to discord. We learn from the fact that we follow Beis Hillel in this world, that there are times when it is impossible to maintain pure truth without causing pain to others. It is highly recommended for each person to learn the laws relating to when one may and may not alter the truth for the sake of peace.

BRIS MILA - THE INDIVIDUAL'S COVENANT WITH HASHEM - LECH LECHA

The Parsha ends with the command for Avraham to perform bris mila. The Sefer Hachinuch notes a unique aspect of this mitzvo. There are a significant number of negative mitzvos for which transgression incurs the onesh (punishment) of kares. However, there are only two positive mitzvos for which the punishment is kares for one who fails to observe them; bris Mila and Korban Pesach (known as the Pascal lamb), the offering that is given in Temple times on the festival of Pesach. What is the significance of these two mitzvos that makes them unique in this aspect?

In order to answer this question, it is first necessary to explain why negative mitzvos are more associated with kares than positive mitzvos. In a relationship between two people such as marriage, there are certain actions that can damage the relationship but not cause it to be completely destroyed. However, there are things that are so serious that they could indeed end the relationship. Similarly, committing a sin causes a breach in the relationship between a person and HaShem. The significance of the breach is determined by the seriousness of the sin. There are some sins which damage the relationship to such a degree that they cause irrevocable harm. These often incur the onesh of kares.

In contrast, neglecting to perform a positive mitzvo can damage a relationship in that it prevents possible ways of increasing one's closeness to HaShem. However, it is very difficult to envisage how a lack of positive actions can irrevocably damage one's relationship with HaShem. This explains why failure to carry out most positive mitzvos does not incur kares. What makes bris mila and korban Pesach different? In order to begin a marriage a person must undertake a commitment to join in unity with his wife. Without such a commitment there is no genuine relationship - one can do all kinds of nice deeds but, in the Torah's eyes, they are not married until they perform the wedding ceremony prescribed by the Torah. In a similar way, a person needs to make a commitment to HaShem to undertake his relationship with HaShem. Without such a commitment he cannot begin to have a true relationship. Bris mila and korban Pesach are both types of covenants with HaShem, whereby a Jew commits to keeping the Torah.

This connection is demonstrated by a verse in Yechezkel. The Prophet reminds the Jewish people of the time that they were helpless slaves in Egypt, and how HaShem brought them out. He does this through an analogy of a stranded baby being saved. The verse states "And I passed over you and I saw you covered in blood, and I said to you, "by your blood you shall live, by your blood you shall live." The Rabbis explain that these two mentions of blood, refer to the blood of bris mila and korban Pesach. Through the merit of these two mitzvos, the Jews were redeemed from slavery and brought to Sinai to receive the Torah. It seems that it is no coincidence that it was these two mitzvos that HaShem commanded the people to perform. They represented the people's willingness to commit to becoming the Am HaShem .

Another connection between these two mitzvos is that there are two occasions when Eliyahu HaNavi visits the Jewish people; at a bris mila and on Seder night, the night when we remember the korban Pesach. This is because Eliyahu, exasperated at the Jewish people's continued sinning, declared that there was no hope for them. In response, HaShem ordered him to visit every bris mila which would show that, no matter how much the people may sin they still keep the covenant between them and HaShem. Similarly, Eliyahu comes at Seder night, to see the Jewish people celebrate their birth as a nation.

The question remains, why is it necessary for there to be two mitzvos that involve the basic commitment to doing HaShem's will, why wouldn't it be sufficient for one mitzvo to fulfill this role? The answer is that the two mitzvos represent different aspects of a commitment. Bris mila was first commanded to a single individual, Avraham Avinu, to form his the covenant with HaShem. Thus, bris mila represents a person's commitment to his individual relationship with HaShem and all that entails. The korban Pesach represents our commitment to HaShem as part of the Jewish people. The laws of the korban Pesach emphasize the importance of fulfilling the mitzvo in groups, stressing the national aspect of the mitzvo. Accordingly, it is necessary to have two forms of covenants; one between the individual and HaShem, and one between a person as a member of the Jewish people, and HaShem.

This understanding can help us explain an unusual law pertaining to the korban Pesach. It is forbidden for an uncircumcised Jew to participate in the korban Pesach. Why is this the case - the fact that a person does not keep one mitzvo, in no way exempts him from keeping the other mitzvos! The answer is that a person cannot genuinely commit to HaShem as part of a nation when has had made no such commitment on an individual basis.

This teaches us an essential lesson. Many people identify strongly as Jews, and as part of the Jewish people. They commit to the state of Israel, and would willingly give up time and effort, and perhaps even risk their lives, for the Jewish people. They stand up to defend Israel when it comes under verbal attack from the numerous anti-Semitic forces in the world. However, on an individual basis, there is far less commitment. One may identify as being part of the Jewish nation, but he must also strive to commit to his individual relationship with HaShem. The exact way in which to apply this lesson varies according to each person, however, in a general sense, it seems that everyone should see in what way he can increase his personal commitment to his relationship with HaShem. It could involve speaking to HaShem , learning more of His Torah, striving to keep more aspects of Shabbos or kosher food, and so on. The main point is to try something. It is vital to remember that HaShem wants a relationship with each and every individual, in his own right. May we all merit to strengthen our covenant with Hashem.

THE OLAH AND THE SHELAMIM - TZAV

In Parshas Tzav, the Torah introduces us to two of the most important kinds of offerings: The Olah (elevation) offering and the Shelamim (peace) offering . The Olah is entirely burnt on the altar, all of it going up to Shamayim, whereas the Shelamim is only partially burnt, the rest being shared by the animal’s owner, his family and the Kohen. Rav Uziel Milevsky zt”l discusses the symbolism of these two offerings. He begins by quoting the Meshech Chochma who brings a dispute between the two great Rabbinic leaders, Hillel and Shammai with regard to the Olah and Shelamim offerings. When a person comes to the Temple on the Three Foot Festivals he must bring a Chagigah offering, which is from the Shelamim category, and the Re’iyah offering, which is in the Olah category. These particular sacrifices had no upper limit to their value, however they did have a minimum value. According to Shammai, the Olah, which was completely offered to G-d, had to be worth at least two silver coins, whilst the Shelamim only had to be one silver coin. Hillel held the opposite – the Shelamim’s minimum was two silver coins, whilst that of the Olah was one. For some reason Shammai ascribed greater value to the Olah whilst Hillel saw the Shelamim as being of greater worth.

The Meshech Chochma says that this dispute is indicative of a fundamental difference in outlook between these two schools of thought. The source of this difference is another disagreement between Shammai and Hillel with regard to the creation of the world. The Yalkut Shimoni notes a contradiction between two verses which suggest the order in which the heavens and earth were created: The opening verse of Bereishis states that first, G-d created the heavens and then the earth. However, the second chapter implies that the earth was created before the heavens. Shammai argued that the heavens were created first, whilst Hillel held that the earth came first. Rav Milevsky, based on the Meshech Chochma, explains that they are arguing as to which is most central in G-d’s creation; heaven or earth. Shammai held that the world remains ‘heaven-centric’, this means that the cardinal principles guiding it are values that belong in the higher spheres, namely, Torah and Emes (truth). Hillel, in contrast believed that the world is ‘earth-centric’. This means that its cardinal principles are based on human beings and the imperfections of this world. In order to understand the practical applications of Hillel and Shammai’s ideologies and how they manifest in our lives it is instructive to analyze a number of maamarei Chazal (Rabbinic sources) that illustrate other disagreements between Shammai and Hillel in both areas of law and hashkafa outlook. We can then explain why Shammai ascribed greater value to the Olah, whilst Hillel gave more value to the Shelamim.
The Gemara in Sanhedrin discusses a significant difference between Moshe Rabbeinu and his brother Aaron Kohen Gadol, with regard to justice. When a legal dispute was brought to court, Aaron’s view was that the judge should aim for compromise and try to engender a relationship of peace and harmony between the litigants, even if one party may, on occasion be less deserving than the other. Nonetheless, maintaining peace was a higher priority to Aaron than exacting pure justice. Moshe, in contrast, believed that the judge should aim for the complete truth, handing down his verdict in accordance with that truth, regardless of the feelings of the litigants. The Meshech Chochma observes that Hillel relates to Aaron, as is demonstrated in Pirkei Avos, where Hillel directs us to be among the disciples of Aaron in terms of bringing peace between our fellow man. The implication is that Hillel is telling us to be more like Aaron than Moshe. This is not because there is anything lacking in Moshe’s approach rather that his level is so high that it is of pure truth. On such a level there is no room for compromising because of people’s feelings – the truth is the highest value. Shammai’s approach is more in line with Moshe’s approach: He maintains that whilst we cannot attain Moshe’s exalted level, nonetheless, we must strive to attain whatever truth we can. In this way, Shammai focuses on Heaven more than earth – in heaven, where there is no room for compromise of truth, the truth is unadulterated.

This difference in approach manifests itself in a disagreement with regard to emes and sheker (falsehood). The Gemara in Kesubos discusses the case of a just married couple; and the bride is not particularly worthy of praise – Hillel and Shammai argue about what one should say to the groom. Shammai says that you must say the truth as it is, regardless of hurting the feelings of the groom. Hillel argues that this will cause discomfort, therefore one should praise her in a vague fashion. Shammai argues that Hillel’s approach would constitute a transgression of the prohibition to lie, whilst Hillel holds that in such cases, maintaining peace and harmony between a bride and groom overrides the prohibition not to lie, therefore in such a case the prohibition doesn’t apply at all. Hillel’s approach is that it is not truthful to cause pain and dissension amongst people. This dispute provides an illuminating example of the ramifications of Hillel and Shammai’s divergent world views. Shammai adheres to a strict adherence to truth, whereas Hillel compromises the value of truth with that of peace.

With this understanding of the approaches of Shammai and Hillel we can now understand the underlying reason for their dispute as to which koraban should be of greater minimum value – the Olah or the Shelamim. The Olah, burnt on the altar entirely for G-d, is a ‘heaven-offering’ – for Shammai, the main focus is man’s service of G-d and adherence to pure truth. For Hillel, however, the main focus is peace,therefore he attributed greater value to the Shelamim, which was shared by the animal’s owner, his family, and the Kohen, thus enhancing peace and harmony amongst people.

We have analyzed the fundamental differences between Hillel and Shammai and how they reflect their conflicting rulings with regard to the Olah and Shelamim. We have seen that Hillel’s view emphasizes compromise in addition to truth, whilst Shammai’s focuses on pure adherence to truth. The Gemara in Eruvin states that after three years of debate between the two schools a voice announced, “The words are both words of the Living G-d, but the law is like Beis Hillel”. This means that both views are correct, but they have different approaches. In this world the most fitting approach is that of like Beis Hillel because in this world the value of peace can sometimes appear to conflict with that of truth, and for the level of most people, the outlook of Beis Hillel is the most appropriate. One application of this discussion is that a person may mistakenly feel that it is a quality to always strictly adhere to the truth, even when it causes pain to others or can lead to discord. We learn from the fact that we follow Beis Hillel in this world, that there are times when it is impossible to maintain pure truth without causing pain to others. It is highly recommended for each person to learn the laws relating to when one may and may not alter the truth for the sake of peace.