LEV12 You have no right to harm others in your efforts to fulfill a mitzvah. Rashi cites the Midrash which explains that the term adam is used in this verse to denote man rather than the term ish in order to teach us a principle. Just as the first man (Adam) did not bring an offering from anything that was stolen, since everything was his, so too, should you not bring an offering from that which is stolen. (Yayikra Rabbah 2:6). While staying at a certain inn during his travels, Rabbi Yisroel Salanter used only a minimal amount of water to wash his hands before eating. "You can use as much water as you want," the innkeeper told Rabbi Salanter. "We have a maid who brings it from the well." "To bring water from the well, your maid has to carry heavy pails over steep hill," replied Rav Yisroel. "It's not proper for me to cause her excessive work even if the water will be used for a mitzvah." (Chayai Hamussar, vol. 1, p. 50).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV13 An outstanding contemporary Rabbi has captured how men should be regarded as different from an animal in analyzing one [this] Torah verse. The verse uses three different words for the types of animals to be sacrificed: "Behema," an animal, "Bakar," cattle, and "Tzon" flock. Each of these represents an aspect of life common to both man and animal. "Behema," as noted above, represents the animal born with instincts to live and survive. Man, too, has instincts. But if man uses all of his efforts merely to survive, like an animal, this person has not distinguished himself as a human being. "Bakar," cattle, is a word that reminds us of "Boker," the dawn, when light breaks through the night. Bakar has the ability to break through barriers by stampeding without recognizing boundaries. The human being who acts like Bakar and does not respect boundaries--boundaries between pure and impure, between holy and profane-- has not risen above the animal. Finally, the Tzon, the flock, has a "flock mentality," acting a certain way because every other animal is doing so, without any individuality. The human who constantly gives into peer pressure and does not think for himself or herself has not risen above the animal either (Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, former Chief Rabbi of England, Covenant and Conversation, Vayikra 5771).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV15 See [[LEV969]] Leviticus 25:14 wrong BLOCH 170-1

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV14 Currently, , when we have no sacrifices (due to our sins and the sins of our ancestors), if one sins with musings of the heart or violates a positive commandment, he should recite the sections [of the Torah] that discuss the laws of the burnt-offering, found at the beginning of the [Torah] portions of Vayikra and Tzav es Aharon (I.e., Vayikra 1:1-9 and 6:1-6) -- for reading the parts of the Torah that discuss the offering will take the place of [actually] bringing the offering. [This is so] whether he reads [the pesukim] from the Torah or [studies their laws] from the Oral Law (I.e., from the Talmud (Zeh Hasha'ar). The literal translation is: "whether he reads from a written text or recite them by heart."), as our Sages, z"l, said (Menachos 110a), "Whoever is engaged in the study of the section of the burnt-offering – – it is as if he has [actually] sacrificed a burnt-offering; in the study of the section of the sin-offering – – as if he has sacrificed a sin-offering; in the study of the section of the guilt-offering – – as if he has sacrificed a guilt–offering."

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV16 The offerings at the Mishkan in the Wilderness and at the shrines in Shiloh and Jerusalem are mostly grain, fruit, and meat, the foods that spring from the soil of the land of Israel. Even pancakes--"fine flour mixed with oil and spices, then turned to smoke upon the Altar"--are a path to God. This practice taught that the relationship adam and adamah was the expression of relationship with God. So it is not surprising that biblically, and then in rabbinic tradition, elaboration of proper and improper foods, what was and what was not kosher to eat, took on immense importance in defining a sacred life. Animals described by their relationship to earth, sea, and air embodied into intimate human relationship those three primal aspects of God's process of creation. Separating mammalian foods of life ( milk) and death (meat) became a marker of sacred imitation of God Who gave life or decreed death. Although rabbinic Judaism focused on the sacred uses of the mouth to chant words of prayer and passages of Torah and midrash much more than eating as a way of connecting with God, choosing what to you eat never lost its sacred power in rabbinic practice. Not until modernity became a central theme of much of Jewish life did "secular" Jews and "Reform" Jews put aside eating as a sacred connection with the Earth and God. (By Arthur Waskow, "Jewish Environmental Ethics: Intertwining Adam with Adamah")

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV17 The laws of sacrifices that dominate the early chapters of the book of Leviticus are among the hardest in the Torah to relate to in the present. It has been almost two thousand years since the Temple was destroyed and the sacrificial system came to an end. But Jewish thinkers, especially the more mystical among them, strove to understand the inner significance of the sacrifices and the statement they made about the relationship between humanity and God. They were thus able to rescue their spirit even if their physical enactment was no longer possible. Among the simplest yet most profound was the comment made by Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Laidi, the first Rebbi of Lubavitch. He noticed a grammatical oddity about the second line of this parasha: "Speak to the Children of Israel and say to them: "When one of you offers a sacrifice to the Lord, the sacrifice must be taken from the cattle, sheep, or goats." [this verse]. Or so the verse would read if it were constructed according to the normal rules of grammar. However, in Hebrew, the word order of the sentence is strange and unexpected. We would expect to read: adam mikem ki yakriv, "when one of you offers a sacrifice." Instead, what it says is adam ki yakriv mikem, "when one offers a sacrifice of you." The essence of sacrifice, said Rabbi Shneur Zalman, is that we offer ourselves. We bring to God our faculties, our energies, our thoughts and emotions. The physical form of sacrifice--an animal offered on the altar--is only an external manifestation of an inner act. The real sacrifice is mikem, "of you." We give God something of ourselves. ... [Lengthy discussion omitted] ... We can redirect our animal instincts. We can rise above mere survival. ... By bringing that which is animal within us close to God, we allow the material to be suffused with the spiritual and we become something else: no longer slaves of nature but servants of the living God.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV18 Bring the [completely] burnt offering according to its law. See [[EXOD940]] Exodus 25:8 sanctuary CHINUCH 62-5

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV19 One who renders a halachic decision in his Torah teacher's presence is punishable with misah [bidei Shamayim] ["death at the hands of Heaven" -- AJL]. Our Sages, z"l, said (Eruvin 63a) that the reason Nadav and Avihu died when offering up an unauthorized fire (See Vayikra 10:1-2) was not for the sin of the offering, since their intent was to perform a mitzvah; for they said, "The Torah states (Vayikra 1:7), 'The sons of Aharon the Kohen shall place fire on the mizbe'ach' -- although the fire descends from heaven, it is a mitzvah for man to bring it." (I.e., in this they interpreted the verse incorrectly, but their intentions were pure and this would not have normally been punished. This concurs with the opinion of Ra'avad, brought by Rashba and others, that Nadav and Avihu offered incense on the inner, golden mizbe'ach in an incorrect way. Their punishment, however, resulted from their rendering a halachic decision in the presence of Moshe Rabbeinu.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV20 The historical value of certain precepts, such as the sacrifices, served a useful educational purpose at a time when the people were not ready for more spiritual forms of worship. (Nahmanides commentary on this verse).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV21 A person cannot use his poverty as a justification for stealing. Regarding the burnt offering of cattle, which eat only from the feeding bin of their owner, it is stated, "But the inwards and the legs he shall wash with water…and he shall burn it on the altar" (verse 13). In the case of fowl, however, which eats stolen food (birds fly onto fields of strangers and eat what they can find) it is not stated that the priest shall burn the entrails on the altar, but that he shall cast them away, for they have eaten stolen food. (Yayikra Rabbah 3, cited by Rashi). The Alshich notes that this lesson -- that stolen goods have no place in the Sanctuary -- is taught by the offering of a fowl, an offering usually brought by the poor. This is significant because it emphasizes that even if someone is very poor, he has no right to steal. He should ask others for charity if he is not able to earn a living. But his poverty does not give him license to take something from others without their permission.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT