On erev Pesach every third year of the terumos/maasros cycle there is a mitzvah of biyur maasros, to distribute whatever terumah/maaser is left in one's possession. One then makes a declaration known as viduy maser, saying that one has given away the required tithes to support the kohen, the levi, the poor.
This time of year we are all focused on the mitzvah of teshuvah and we are all familiar with the concept of viduy as a confession of sin. Why should the declaration that one gave teru"m properly be called viduy?
The Seforno answers that Hashem's original plan was for the bechorim to do the avodah in the Mikdash and be the recipients of our teru"m. Because of the cheit ha'eigel Hashem took that honor away from the bechorim and gave it to the leviim and kohanim. The declaration is called viduy because even though one fulfills the mitzvah of teru"m by giving to the kohen, the levi, etc., one must still acknowledge that it is a departure from the ideal.
With this idea the Seforno is able to answer a question raised by Rashi. We say to Hashem as part of the viduy, "Hashkifa m'm'on kodshecha...," look down from Heaven and give us blessings. Usually the word "hashkifa" has a negative connotation. Here, it is used in a positive way to make a request for bracha after the fulfillment of the mitzvah. Rashi explains that the Torah is teaching that giving to the poor changes the midas ha'din into rachamim. Seforno, however, gives a much simpler explanation of the negative connotation here: true, the parsha is speaking about the fulfillment of the mitzvah of giving teru"m, but the mitzvah itself is tainted by the change in process caused by the cheit ha'eigel. Hashem therefore cannot look completely favorably on the way we carry it out.
We see a number of chiddushim in this Seforno:
1) Teshuvah is not just for aveiros -- it's for mitzvos as well. The person in this case didn't do any aveira -- he is doing the mitzvah of giving teru"m. Nonetheless, since the mitzvah is not being done in the ideal way the farmer must say viduy.
2) Teshuvah applies even when a person is a victim of long past circumstance. Imagine a farmer at the time of Shlomo haMelech fulfilling biyur maasros. The cheit ha'eigel that caused the transition from avodah by bechorim to avodah by kohanim would have occurred around 400 years in the past. Nonetheless, the farmer has to say viduy for his inability to do the mitzvah in its ideal sense because of that long past circumstance.
3) My wife added another observation: the mitzvah teaches us that there is value to the less-than-ideal. We operate with a full set of mitzvos built around the less than ideal circumstance of avodah done by kohanim instead of bechorim. Hashem did not discard the entire system because of the failure of cheit ha'eigel. The alternative to not being able to do 100% is not doing nothing -- sometimes even the less than ideal has value.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
had the bechorim not forfeited divine service by the cheit ha'eigel, who among them would have become priests [comprised the subclass known as kohanim]? what was the "ideal", in that regard?
ReplyDeleteideally, why weren't the firstborn among the levi'im chosen to be kohanim, rather than Aharon and Avihu, Elazar and Itamar? spared the deaths of firstborns in Egypt, and the reishis ono* of their fathers (D. 21:17)...
*if the firstborn throughout the klal had received original appointment in the Mikdash, forfeiting their physical inheritance [for their portion would have been Hashem], who'd have received the double portion instead, if anyone? {maybe the firstborn levi'im, had they been excluded[??] from service for being conceived with less strength while in Egypt (were not conceived over against slavery ((though were conceived, perhaps, with more kedushah/kavanah than the other firstborns)))?!}
"2) Teshuvah applies even when a person is a victim of long past circumstance."
ReplyDeletea victim? chatanu >eem<-avoseinu (Teh. 106:6) {ya'asu-eigel..., 106:19; in the current context, 106:20 refers to the bechorim, midah k'negged midah: their glorious (future) service in the Temple is exchanged for working an ox in the field (perhaps on a double-portion of land, really rubbing their nose in it)}.
but was our confessor really party to the cheit long past? just as at the eigel, there was grand participation in a shavua shav (these brought you up from Mitzrayim, 32:4-- 'amein!!'), so now the Judge demands five denials* of guilt (five 'lo' in 26:13-14) amid further, positive claims, for all this is said lifnei Hashem, which means affirming the Obvious [v'ein nistar mi'negged ei'necha], which means, a shavua shav! ...aval anachnu va'avoseinu chatanu! both the 'commission' and 'confession' of the crime [a shavua shav, as at the eigel], in one breath...
*from one who seems to be presumed guilty (or at least considered suspect [a 'person of interest']) until he claims innocence