The Location of a Mitzvah in the Torah
וְשָׁחַט אֹתוֹ עַל יֶרֶךְ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ צָפֹנָה
He shall slaughter it at the northern side of the Mizbeach. (Vayikra 1:11)
Our parsha is devoted to the subject of korbanot. The first korban discussed is the korban olah, which consists of three types:
1. Olat Bakar — An olah brought from cattle [i.e. a bull].
2. Olat Tzon — An olah brought from the flock [i.e. a ram, sheep or goat].
3. Olat Ha’of — An olah brought from birds [i.e. a dove or turtle-dove].
The Torah Chose to “Wait” Before Stating a Halachah
Since the olah belongs to the category of kodashei kodashim, the Torah requires that the shechitah be performed in the area of the Courtyard that is north of the Mizbeach, as mentioned in our pasuk. The problem is, the pasuk states this requirement with reference to olat tzon, which is the second type of olah discussed in the parsha, and not with reference to olat bakar — the first type discussed. Practically, the requirement of shechitah at the north side for olat bakar is derived from olat tzon through midrash halachah.
This is certainly something which demands an explanation: Why did Torah SheBichtav choose not to write this halachah in the first case where it is relevant (olat bakar), rather, writing it only in the second case (olat tzon) and then leaving us to derive the halachah for the first case from the second through a drashah?
This question is dealt with by the Meshech Chochmah, who explains:
The Torah wrote (the requirement of) tzafon regarding olat tzon, not olat bakar, even though every olah is slaughtered north of the Mizbeach, as indeed the north side is referred to in a later pasuk (4:24) as “בִּמְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר תִּשָּׁחֵט הָעֹלָה — in the place where the olah is slaughtered.” Nonetheless, the Torah took care to mention “tzafon” specifically regarding olat tzon … for “tzafon” is associated with Akeidat Yitzchak, whose ashes are kept (tzafun) before Hashem[1] … Therefore, it is written only in connection with olat tzon, in remembrance of the ram that was offered instead of Yitzchak at the time of the Akeidah.[2]
And it is also for this reason it was (specifically) not mentioned in connection with olat bakar, for Chazal (Berachot 32b) explain the pasuk (Yeshayahu 49:14) “גַּם אֵלֶּה תִשְׁכַּחְנָה — These, too, will be forgotten,” as referring to the Egel,[3] which they made as a “שׁוֹר אֹכֵל עֵשֶׂב — an ox that grazes in the pasture,”[4] which is therefore something that is not “kept” before Hashem.
In this instance, we see pshuto shel mikra identifying a special element within a mitzvah, not in contrast to other mitzvot of taryag, but as distinct from other categories within the same mitzvah!
· On the one hand we see that the halachah of tzafon is especially connected to the korban olah, to the extent that when the Torah requires the chatat to be slaughtered at the north side it refers to it as “the place of the olah.” This tells us that although the halachah of tzafon applies to a chatat as well as to an olah, nonetheless it belongs to korban olah, i.e., it has a greater association with that category of korban.
· Additionally, within the “family” of korban olah itself, the halachah of tzafon is connected more to olat tzon than to olat bakar, so that the Torah “waited” until its presentation of olat tzon before writing this halachah.
Olat Ha’of North of the Mizbeach? Understanding the Discussion
Having seen how pshuto shel mikra indicates the special relationship that exists between the halachah of tzafon and Akeidat Yitzchak, Meshech Chochmah proceeds to explain a discussion in the Gemara (Zevachim 48b) as to whether the melikah[5] of an olat ha’of also needs to take place to the north of the Mizbeach. The Gemara states that it does not, i.e. this type of olah is not learned from olat tzon, the reason being “מה לעולה שכן שחיטתה טעונה כלי — Olah (of an animal) is different (from olat ha’of) as its slaughter requires a utensil.”
What is the meaning of this argument? Why should the question as to whether the shechitah requires a utensil — i.e. a knife — affect the question of whether the shechitah needs to be performed at the north side, so that in the absence of one, the other will also not apply?
Meshech Chochmah explains: The requirement of a utensil for the shechitah of korbanot is itself derived in the Gemara (Zevachim 97b) from the pasuk[6] which states that Avraham took a knife in order to be used during the Akeidah. Therefore, since olat ha’of does not require a utensil for the shechitah, this indicates that it does not share the connection with the Akeidah that exists with other types of olah. If this is so, then it should not require the other halachah which connects korban olah to the Akeidah, i.e. shechitah at the north side of the Mizbeach! And indeed, the halachah is that the melikah does not take place at the north side of the Mizbeach, but rather on the Mizbeach itself.[7]
The Korbanot of Nachshon ben Aminadav
Taking the discussion further, Meshech Chochmah uses this idea to explain yet another parsha in the Torah. In Parshat Naso the Torah describes the korbanot brought by the Nesi’im during the first twelve days of the inauguration of the Mishkan. The Nasi who offered korbanot on the first day was Nachshon ben Aminadav, the Nasi of Yehudah. The Gemara (Menachot 55b) states that the kodashei kodashim which were offered by Nachshon on that day were exceptions to the rule and did not need to be slaughtered to the north of the Mizbeach.
Based on his approach to this halachah, Meshech Chochmah explains the background to this exception: Slaughtering a korban at the north side has the effect of invoking the zechut of the mesirut nefesh displayed by Yitzchak at the time of the Akeidah. As we know, Nachshon displayed his own mesirut nefesh by jumping into the Yam Suf even before it split and continuing into the water until it almost covered him entirely, at which point it split.[8] This is why Nachshon’s korbanot did not need to be slaughtered at the tzafon. Nachshon did not need to slaughter his korban in a place which represented the mesirut nefesh of others, when he had the zechut of his own personal mesirut nefesh!
In Summary
We note that our discussion so far reflects three important principles with regards to learning Torah:
1. There is no happenstance when it comes to the writing of the Torah. This means we need to pay attention not only to what is said, but where it is said.
2. A halachah which applies to a number of cases will be written in the Torah in the case to which it is most closely associated, even if that is not the first instance where that halachah applies.
3. Mitzvot are composite entities, with the specific make-up of the various elements varying between different categories within that mitzvah. In our case, the halachah of shechitah on the north side is especially prominent in olat tzon,[9] somewhat less so in olat bakar,[10] and not at all in olat ha’of.[11]
Further Examples: Distancing the Metzora
A similar expression of this phenomenon of the Torah “waiting” before presenting a halachah may be observed in the Torah’s presentation of the halachot of tzoraat. The Parsha of Tazria enumerates the various types of tzoraat that can affect a person, beginning with tzoraat of the (skin of) the body[12] and proceeding from there to tzoraat of the head.[13] Within that parsha, there is a halachah which applies to all of the above types of tzoraat, but which is mentioned in the later section dealing with tzoraat of the head, namely, the requirement that the metzora must be sent out of the Camp.[14] Here, too, we ask: Why did the Torah wait until it describes a later type of tzoraat before telling us a halachah which applies to all types?
This question is dealt with by the Netziv in the Haamek Davar (Vayikra 13: 44, s.v. b’rosho). He prefaces his comments by noting that the different types of tzoraat reflect different deficiencies within the person:
It is known that tzoraat comes as a result of sin, however, the type of sin which would cause tzoraat of the body is not the same as that which would cause tzoraat of the head. For tzoraat of the body comes about through sins of physical desire which cause the body to sin, whereas tzoraat of the head is brought about through corrupt ideas. Therefore, the Torah states that even though the physical signs of tzoraat of the head are similar to that of the body, nonetheless, if they appear in the head it is an indication that there are corrupt ideas in that person’s head. The practical message is that one needs to take greater care to distance oneself from this type of metzora; for one who has corrupt ideas is more likely to cause others to sin than one who is involved in physical desires.
Thus we see that although the halachot of distancing the metzora from the Camp are identical with regards to all types of tzoraat, nonetheless, the Torah chose to defer writing these halachot until it discusses the type of metzora where this distancing is of the utmost significance. As the Netziv (pasuk 45, s.v. vehatzarua) concludes:
Even though (all the above types of tzoraat) are identical in terms of the halachot mentioned in this pasuk,[15] nonetheless, in the place where the mitzvah is more explicit[16] it is of greater stringency than a place where it is derived from a drashah.[17]
Thus we have seen through the words of two Lithuanian Gedolim how pshuto shel mikra indicates both the prominence of a certain element within a mitzvah, as well as the severity of that element in the location where it is written.
[1] See Vayikra Rabbah 2:10: “שבשעה שישראל מקריבין תמיד על גבי המזבח וקורין את המקרא 'צפונה לפני ה'' זוכר הקב"ה עקידת יצחק — For when Yisrael offer the daily (olah) offering on the Mizbeach and recite the pasuk ‘At the north side before Hashem.’ Hashem remembers the Akeidah of Yitzchak.” [The word “tzafon” (north) is expounded by the Meshech Chochmah as relating to the word “tzafun” (hidden).].
[2] [See Bereishit 22:13].
[3] The Gemara there explains that the word “אלה” alludes to the Egel, which was presented to B’nei Yisrael with the words (Shemot 32:4) “אלה אלהיך ישראל — This is your God, O Yisrael.”
[4] [Referring to the way the Egel is described in Tehillim 106:20.].
[5] [Melikah is the slaughter of a bird brought as a korban, which is performed, not with a knife, but with the fingernail of the Kohen.].
[6] [See Bereishit 22:6.].
[7] It is worthwhile noting the explanation of the Chizkuni (Vayikra 1:15, s.v. u’malak) as to why the slaughter of a bird does not involve a utensil; namely, since it takes place on the actual Mizbeach, a knife cannot be used, in the same way the Torah forbids using a metal implement to form the stones from which the Mizbeach is made (see Shemot 20:22). In other words, whereas the Gemara explains that the location of the bird’s slaughter is derived from the fact that it doesn’t require a utensil, the Chizkuni rather explains that non-requirement of a utensil is a function of location of the shechitah, i.e. on the Mizbeach.
[8] [See Sotah 36b.]
[9] [Where the Torah wrote it.].
[10] [Where it nonetheless applies, as derived from Olat tzon.].
[11] [Where it does not apply at all.]
[12] [Vayikra 13:11–28].
[13] [Ibid. 13:29–44].
[14] [Ibid. pasuk 46].
[15] [E.g. sending the metzora out of the Machaneh etc.].
[16] [In our case, tzora’at of the head].
[17] [Tzoraat of the body.] See further regarding the stringency of something mentioned explicitly in the pasuk in Parshat Emor, Chapter 69. See also Haamek Davar to Vayikra 1:11 for an alternative explanation with regards to our opening question, namely, why the Torah “waited” and wrote the halachah of shechitah at the north side specifically regarding Olat tzon.