Shtei HaLechem

This afternoon, I spoke before mincha at the shul of my future father-in-law. The following is a brief summary of my remarks.

Shavu'os is the chag which is least obviously associated with any particular mitzvah. Looking at the pesukim, though, two of the three parshiyos on the chag discuss the shtei halechem, the "minchah chadashah" that was the first korban offered from the new wheat crop in the Beis HaMikdash. There are several interesting aspects to this korban. Firstly, it's one of the only instances (the korban todah being the other) in which chametz is incorporated into the avodah of the mikdash. Besides the mussafim of Shavu'os that are offered on the same day as the shtei halachem, the loaves also carry with them their own set of associated animal offerings, including 2 lambs that are offered as public sh'lamim, zivchei shalmei tzibbur, a category that has no other examples. I'd like to explore several different derachim to understand the significance of this mitzvah to Shavu'os.

The Ramban, picking up on the commonality of the usage of chametz, suggests that the shtei halachem is merely a special, communal, form of the korban todah, offered as thanksgiving for a successful agricultural season, the focal point of which is the wheat harvest that occurs around this season. He notes further that, although the avodas ha-mikdash usually eschews the extreme forms of gevurah and chesed represented by chametz and dvash, akin to ma'aseh bereishis that was accomplished through a fusion of gevurah and chesed, the korban todah (and, I suppose the bikkurim) is an exception to this rule, and it is for this reason that Chazal say that all korbanos will be beteilim during yemos ha-mashiach besides the korban todah. V'ha-maskil yavin, which is why I don't.

The Netziv, in Ha'amek Davar starts with a similar idea, but goes in the opposite direction. From Amos 4:5-8, he learns out the existence of an ancient custom to offer korbanos todah on Sukkos as a zechus for sufficient rain. So, too, he suggests that the shtei halechem serve as a communal todah to serve as a zechus against bad winds and bad dews. The Netziv's opinion can be supported by the fact that the shnei kevasim of the shtei halechem were the single korban that was hunaf both when they were alive and when they were shechted, and, in several places in Shas, the idea is expressed that the purpose of tenufah is precisely to prevent bad winds and bad dews.

The Kli Yakar finds in the minchah chadashah of the shtei halechem an allusion to matan torah, which must be viewed as a continually self-renewing event, rather than a delimited episode of our history (indeed, for this reason, the commemoration of matan torah is never openly limited to a single day within the torah). This being the case, the inclusion of chametz in the shtei halechem is representative of the yetzer hara, which bears a close relationship to kabalas hatorah in two senses. Firstly, the Torah serves as an antidote against the yetzer hara, so that by including chametz in this korban, we are indicating our security in the face of this threat. Additionally, the yetzer hara serves as the raison d'etre of matan torah, as per Moshe's argument against the mal'achei ha-shareis when he went up to Har Sinai, as, without a yetzer hara, one has no need for the mitzvos of the Torah.

R' Zalman Sorotzkin in Oznayim LaTorah, also sees an allusion to Matan Torah in the shift from the barley korban of the minchas omer to the wheat korban of the shtei halachem, in addition to the inclusion of shalmei tzibbur in the korban. The consumption of wheat is a distinction between humans and animals, while the consumption of meat is representative of an additional spiritual level, as per the proscription against an am ha-aretz eating meat. For this reason, the shtei halechem represents the humanizing process that we underwent through matan torah.

To summarize:

Ramban: Korban todah for past, safe extremism
Netziv: Korban todah for future, prevention of bad winds and dews
Kli Yakar: Matan Torah and the yetzer hara
R' Sorotzkin: Matan Torah and humanization

Emor 1 - R' Zechariah ben Avkulos defended

In the story of Kamtza and Bar-Kamtza (Gittin 55b-56a), the question of what to do with a korban sent by the Roman emperor that had a minor blemish was brought before the Sanhedrin HaGadol. The first proposal was to offer the korban, despite the prohibition of such stated in this week's parsha, due to the real political concerns that the Romans would take their refusal to be an act of rebellion. However, R' Zechariah ben Avkulos rejected the possibility, as people might not realize that the reason why the blemished sacrifice was offered was due to the extenuating circumstances that existed. After the gemara sets forth another proposal that R' Zechariah ben Avkulos shot down, Rabbi Yochanan sums up the incident by stating, "The humility of R' Zechariah ben Avkulos destroyed our Temple, burnt our sanctuary, and caused us to be exiled from our land"; because R' Zechariah was unwilling to take the bold step of suspending a halacha for reasons of national survival, disaster ensued.

What was R' Zechariah ben Avkulos thinking? He must have realized the danger that a rejection of the Roman sacrifice would cause!

R' Zalman Sorotzkin, in Oznayim LaTorah finds an answer to this question alluded to in this week's parsha. In explaining why one is not allowed to accept a blemished korban, the passuk states (22:25):
"ומיד בן נכר לא תַקריבו את לחם אלקיכם מכל אלה כי משחתם בהם מום בם לא ירצו לכם" -
"And from the non-Jew, you shall not offer the bread of your God from any of these (species of blemished animals) for their corruption is in them - a blemish is in them - they shall not be accepted for you". R' Sorotzkin suggests that the corruption and blemish referred to in this passuk is not the disfigurement of the animal, but rather the spiritual disfigurement caused by the sins of avodah zarah and murder (see Devarim 4:16 and Bereishis 6:11), and that the subject of the last clause of the verse is not the sacrifices being accepted by HaShem, but rather the attitude of the nation in question being positively inclined towards the Jew.

Hence, the verse can be read as a warning that one should not accept korbanos for political reasons from nations like Rome, as, even if the Jews were to weather one crisis by accepting a blemished sacrifice, it would still only be a matter of time until the Romans laid the land waste anyway, and this small respite would not provide sufficient reason to violate halacha.

Shlomit's son and Shmuel's father

Ariella at KallahMagazine asks why the son of Shlomis bas Divri, whose conception was alluded to in last week's parsha, was assumed to not be the son of the husband of Shlomis (as described at the end of P' Emor), given the k'lal of “rov beilos achar haba’al", that a woman's pregnancy is assumed to be from her husband.

In a comment there, I mentioned a medrash (source forgotten, but a similar idea is mentioned in the Tzei uL'mad section of the Hagaddah under Vayar es Onyeinu) that that mentions that the men and women were separated, with the men forced to sleep outside of the city, in order to prevent marital relations. This being the case, perhaps it was known with surety that Sh’lomis and her husband had not been in contact during the night for the requisite window – in which case it would not necessarily be known by the court whom the father was, but the guy would still be a sh’tuki.

I also noted a similar idea regarding Mar Shmuel's conception, which I found in a footnote in M'yasdei HaTalmud, by R' Yoel Schwartz (Kest-Leibowitz ed., pg.78, translation mine):

"In Seder HaDoros, it is brought down in the name of the Ba'al Halachos Gedolos that it happened that a non-Jewish woman from Media who was an expert in the language of birds foresaw that Shmuel's father would bear a son who would become a great sage, and this woman wanted that the son would be from her. She promised him in exchange for this privilege a great sum of money. Abba bar Abba fled from her, went to his house, and at that time his wife became impregnated from him with her son, Shmuel. Abba bar Abba returned only for a short time, and then went on his way. Since the return of Abba was not known, and his wife conceived, they suspected her, and brought her to beis din to give her lashes for this. Her son Shmuel, who was then in her womb, had already been bestowed with great spiritual abilities, and when they flogged her, he would bend himself towards the lashes in order to absorb the beatings with his head. For this reason, they called Abba "Avuha DiShmuel" in order to emphasize that he was the father of Shmuel, and not like they had originally incorrectly suspected his wife."

(Although an adulteress usually gets chenek, being that there were no eidim here but rather only a strong suspicion, beis din could not administer the Torah-mandated punishment, so apparently used their superlegal powers to administer a punishment of their own choice).