Parashat Tzav

Vi’Im Hei’achol Yei’acheil MiBissar Zevach Shlamav BaYom HaShilishi Lo Yeiratzeh HaMakriv Oso Lo Yeichasheiv Lo Pigul Yihiyeh VaHanefesh HaOcheles Mimenu Avonah Tisa. VaYikra 7:18

Among many things, this pasuk details the violation of eating pigul, a sacrifice that has been left over past its allotted window of time to be eaten. The pasuk appears within the context of the Neder-based Shlamim, which has an allotted window of two days and one night to be eaten; therefore, after the second day, one violates this commandment by eating the leftover meat. The pasuk also seems to detail the effects of this violation. If the owner were to eat from the meat after the second day, then Lo Yeiratzeh, it would no longer count as a proper atonement (retroactively, like by a Zav or Zavah). Additionally, HaMakriv Oso Lo Yeichasheiv, the act of bringing the Korban will not be considered to have accomplished anything.

Rashi, however, has a different take on the meaning of this pasuk.

“Vi’Im Hei’achol Yei’acheil…” The pasuk refers to [a Kohein] who thinks at the time of Shchita to eat [the Korban] on the third day. One may think that the pasuk teaches us that the violation retroactively nullifies [the owner’s] atomement; therefore, the pasuk states “HaMakriv Oso Lo Yeichasheiv,” the [pasuk refers to a] Korban [that] is invalidated at the time of offering, not on the third day. So did [Chazal] explain [this pasuk], ‘don’t think such a thought [during the offering of the Korban,] and if one does think such, the Korban is indeed invalidated.’

Not only does Rashi reinterpret the pasuk based on the teachings of Chazal, he even rejects the pasuk’s simple understanding! And on what grounds?! HaMakriv Oso Lo Yeichasheiv is clearly able to be interpreted in multiple ways, so why should Chazal come along, interpret it one way, and say that their understanding comes to exclude anyone else’s?! Even Rashi’s grandson, the Rashbam, was very bothered by his grandfather’s approach to this pasuk:

“HaMakriv Oso Lo Yeichasheiv” The Sages uproot the simple meaning of this pasuk and reinterpret it as such: [the pasuk refers to a Kohein] who thinks – during any one of the four actions of sacrifice: Shchita, Kabalah, Hiluch, and Zerikah – to eat the Korban on the third day.

It seems that both Rashi and the Rashbam have their backs up against a wall. On one hand, the pasuk makes clear mention of eating and only perhaps makes mention of thinking at the very end, depending on how you interpret the word Yeichasheiv. Yet on the other hand, if the lashon of Yeichasheiv did not refer to Machshava but rather to Chashivus, the pasuk’s retroactive invalidation would be redundant. More to the point, the Rashbam faces heat for arguing with the Chazal. Yet the Drasha as explained by Rashi does nothing to explain the first half of the pasuk; at the very least, in no way does it justify the choppy nature of the pasuk for Rashi to consider this the pasuk’s simple understnading (note how instead of opening with the words “Kach Pershu Rabboseinu, Rashi first explains pshat, and then continues that Chazal were Doreish the pasuk similarly).

There is one difficulty, however, that neither understanding of this pasuk can seem to resolve. The pasuk opens Vi’Im Hei’achol Yei’acheil MiBissar Zevach Shlamav, and if some of the meat from his Shlamim is eaten. Who’s Shlamim? The Korban belongs to the owner, so one would expect the pasuk to be referring to the owner. But why would the pasuk limit its law to the scenario where the owner eats from it? Anybody is allowed to eat from the Korban (provided he is Tahor). In fact, in pasukim 20 and 21, the Korban is referred to as Zevach HaShlamim. In pasuk 15, by the owner’s personal obligation to eat from his Korban, the pasuk writes Zevach Shlamav. So why refer to this as “his Korban” by the general law of Pigul?

Perhaps the pasuk is written similarly to pasuk 13, which also uses the lashon of Shlamav when looking from the perspective of the Kohein towards the owner. In fact, perhaps we can totally reinterpret the perspective of the first half of this pasuk; instead of it refering to a general rule, lets analyze its meaning as if it narrates the thoughts of the Kohein. And as we’ll soon see, all our difficulties with the pasuk’s syntax and redundancy and overall ambiguity melt away:

“[the thought] ‘and what if some of the meat from his Shlamim offereing were to be eaten on the third day…’ results in the future inability for the Korban to bring atonement; therefore, don’t think such thoughts; it will turn his Korban into Pigul, and then anyone who eats from it at any time, [even before the third day,] will carry this sin.”

What a wonderful understanding of the pasuk! It’s a wonder the Rashbam had such problem’s with Rashi’s and Chazal’s interpretation. But perhaps even the Rashbam understood this pasuk this way; perhaps something else about his grandfather’s peirush inspired his startling comments. And indeed there is a very simple problem with Rashi’s take on the pasuk, for if the simple understanding of the pasuk is as Rashi explains, then why does the gemara need to be Doreish from the word “HaMakriv” that the present tense of the word Makriv comes to exclude one’s ability to retroactively invalidate Korbanos?

The Rashbam therefore explains that this difficulty with Rashi is no problem at all, that Chazal do in fact uproot the pasuk from its simple meaning. We have no logical reason to think that the pasuk would exclude the retroactive ineffectiveness of the Korban if the owner were to eat from it after it proper time; as aforementioned, Korbanos can be effected retroactively, so why shouldn’t this one? Therefore, Rabbi Eliezer insists in his drasha (Meseches Zevachim 29a) “Kaf Oznechah Lishmo’ah. This pasuk is phrased very strangely since it should have just written “Lo Yeichasheiv” at the beginning. Therefore, it is possible for one to consider that the pasuk refers to retroactive invalidation though the violation of Pigul. Talmud Lomar, Hamakriv Oso Lo Yeiratzeh, it is only invalidated at the time of Hakravah and not on the third day.” And so Chazal exclude the scenario of “Nefesh HaOcheles” from the effects of “Lo Yeiratzeh.” Ultimately we see that neither Rashi nor the Rashbam, nor Chazal, argue over anything at all regarding this pasuk’s understanding. We instead should just read the pasuk exactly as we would expect Sefer VaYikra to read, as Hashem’s direct instructions to the Kohanim regarding their Avoda.