Vayikra 23:9-22 (Emor) – On the morrow: When is the korban omer brought?

Vayikra 23:9-14 records the law to bring the omer sacrifice on the morrow of the Shabbat. Afterwards, 23:15-22 records that the fiftieth day from the bringing of the omer was a mikrei kodesh (the holiday of Shavuot) and other special sacrifices, two loaves, were to be brought. One question that concerns both sections in when is the omer sacrifice offered? When is "the morrow of the Shabbat?" Which Shabbat?

There are at least six different approaches to understanding the term "morrow of the Shabbat." One, the traditional view is that it means the day after the first day of chag ha-matzot, the 16th of Nisan. (In the Diaspora, this is the second day of Yom Tov, and in Israel the first day of chol ha-moed of Pesach.)

Two, the view of the Karaites, and possibly of the Boethusians, a sect in the time of the second Bet ha-Mikdash, that it means, the Sunday after the Saturday within chag ha-matzot. (If Pesach started on Saturday, then the Karaites, held the day was the second day of Pesach just like the traditional view.) 

Three, Shmuel Sprecher (1993) has suggested that the Boethusians held that the omer was brought on the second day of chag ha-matzot like the traditional view, but the count started on the Sunday after the Saturday within chag ha-matzot. 

Four, the omer was brought on the day after the last day of chag ha-matzot. (Apparently, this was the practice of Ethiopian Jews. David Hoffmann, 1953, vol.2, pp. 124-127, quotes several scholars who hold this view and claims that this is the view of the Targum Peshitta. However, Yeshayahu Maori (1995, pp. 176-178) claims the Peshitta follows the traditional view.) 

Five, the book of Jubilees, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and possibly the view of the Boethusians, the omer was to be brought on the first Sunday after chag ha-matzot. 

Six, the omer was brought on the first Sunday after the first reaping with no connection with chag ha-matzot.

The Talmud (Menahot 65a-66a) quotes many arguments for the traditional approach, but perhaps the most convincing proof is not mentioned in the Talmud. Yehoshua 5:11 records that when the Jewish people first came into the land of Israel even before the battle of Jericho, they ate bread and wheat on the day after the pesach sacrifice (see Rambam, Laws of regular and extra sacrifices, 7:8-10, and Hoffmann, pp. 134-136). The proof is that Vayikra 23:14 only allows one to eat the new grains after the omer sacrifice was brought, and in Yehoshua 5:11 it appears that the people ate the new wheat on the day after the pesach sacrifice, which means the omer was brought on the day after the pesach sacrifice.

This proof has several problems and it is telling that the Talmud did not mention it. One, according to Yehoshua 5:10, the pesach sacrifice was brought on the 14th of Nisan, which means the day after the sacrifice was the 15th of Nisan, and this does not match up with the traditional view, which is that the omer is to be brought on the 16th of Nisan. Two, Yehoshua 5:11,12 does not state that the people ate new grains, rather that they ate grains from the land of Israel and not the mahn. Three, the book of Yehoshua makes no mention that the people celebrated chag ha-matzot that year, and hence maybe that year was a special circumstance since there was only the pesach sacrifice. (On the other hand, if one claims that pesach also means chag ha-matzot, as is the common language today, then the day after pesach could be the day after chag ha-matzot, which is the fourth view.) Four, the case is unique for another reason. Usually people have old grain stored up, but presumably when the people just came to the land of Israel, they had no supplies of grain, and hence maybe once the mahn stopped, they had to be allowed to eat even new grain immediately.

The order of the festivals in chapter 23 strongly implies that the omer offering was to be brought after chag ha-matzot.  In the chapter, the Torah first records the festival of chag ha-matzot and then the bringing of the omer sacrifice.

In addition, in chapter 23, each festival is separated in the chapter by the verse, "G-d spoke to Moshe." Yet, with regard to the holiday of Shavuot there appears to be anomaly since this phrase does not appear by 23:15, which apparently begins the discussion of the laws of the day of Shavuot. N. Leibowitz (1980, pp. 218-223) quotes the Talmud and the Hinukh that there is no separating verse for Shavuot since Shavuot is a continuation of the holiday of Matzot since the goal of the exodus from Egypt was to receive the Torah at Mount Sinai. Yet, chapter 23 never alludes to the fact that the Torah was given on Shavuot. Furthermore, the phrase “G-d spoke to Moshe” appears between the laws of Pesach and the laws of Shavuot as it occurs prior to the verses that record the law of bringing the omer, 23:9.

The phrase "G-d spoke to Moshe" in 23:9 signals the beginning of the holiday of Shavuot. The holiday is a fifty day holiday, and only the last day is a mikra kodesh that one is forbidden to work, 23:21. The holiday starts with the bringing of the omer and after seven full weeks, it ended with the bringing of the two loaves. Shemot 23:16 refers to the holiday as one of reaping, and this reaping is referred to in Vayikra 23:10 by the bringing of the omer, which is the beginning of the festival. This idea accords with the name Shavuot a feast of weeks, as the holiday was for seven weeks. Similarly, Bemidbar 28:26 and Devarim 16:9-12 when discussing the festival of Shavuot refers to weeks prior to the day of Shavuot, again because the holiday is for fifty days. This understanding nullifies the first three explanations of the term "on the morrow" since it cannot be that the fifty day holiday of Shavuot started in the middle of the holiday of matzot.

This same idea that the fifty days of Shavuot begins after chag ha-matzot is evident in Devarim 16. Devarim 16:1-8 records laws of the holiday of Pesach and of the chag ha-matzot, and it refers to the second mikrei kodesh of chag ha-matzot.  Afterwards, Devarim 16:9 records that one is to start counting the seven weeks. The implication is that the counting is only to begin after the chag ha-matzot ended.

I think the fourth view is correct that the phrase "on the morrow" refers to the day after chag ha-matzot. In the end of 23:15, the word shabbat means week, seven weeks. This suggests that the word shabbat in the beginning of 23:15 also means week, the morrow after the week. What week is being referred to? The week of chag ha-matzot. 23:11 then means that the omer is to be brought on the day after the end of the week of chag ha-matzot. Finally, the word shabbat in 23:16 also means week, "Until the morrow after the seventh week, you shall count fifty days."

Why did the Torah not then clearly state that that the omer is to be brought on the day after chag ha-matzot? One possibility is that really the word shabbat means a period of time when one is to rest, and while usually this is Saturday, really it can be a longer period of time, like a week. With this idea, the word shabbat does not necessarily refer to Saturday, and can just as equally refer to a festival. A second possibility is that the Torah did not want to connect Shavuot with chag ha-matzot. Chag ha-matzot is a historical holiday, while Shavuot is an agricultural holiday. If the bringing of the omer was recorded in reference to chag ha-matzot, this might have caused one to think that chag ha-matzot was an agricultural holiday, but really the holiday is only to recognize that G-d took the Jewish people out of Egypt. A third possibility is that the use of the word shabbat in conjunction with mimaharet is to re-enforce the sabbatical theme of the shabbatot of the weeks. 

My guess is that the traditional approach to understanding the term "on the morrow" as being the 16th of Nisan is because Chazal deliberately moved up the counting of the omer six days in order to make the holiday of Shavuot closer to the day of the Decalogue. In the Torah there is no connection at all between Shavuot and the Decalogue, but Chazal wanted to make this connection. (This connection occurs in the book of Jubilees.) If the counting of the omer starts after chag ha-matzot, the 22nd of Nisan, then Shavuot would be celebrated on the 12th of Sivan, but if the counting of the omer starts on the 16th of Nisan, then Shavuot is on the sixth day of Sivan.

It is not obvious in the Torah on which day the Decalogue occurred. Shemot 19:1 records that the Jewish people came to Mount Sinai on the third month (Sivan) and the verse seems to be referring to the first day of the month. Afterwards, there are several conversations between G-d and Moshe and it is not clear when they took place, on one day or spread out over several days. Shemot 19:10 records the next explicit reference to time that the Decalogue would take place three days later, which at a minimum was the third day of Sivan. However, in the Talmud (Shabbat 86b) the Rabbis maintained that each conversation between G-d and Moshe occurred on a separate day, and then the Decalogue was either on the sixth or seventh of Sivan.

The Tosefta, Erechin 1:4, and Talmud Rosh Hashanah 6b, note that in the time when the calendar was determined by sight, the holiday of Shavuot was celebrated on either the fifth, sixth or seventh of Sivan depending on the length of the months of Nisan and Iyar, see Henshke, 1992, pp. 441-444. This means that even if the omer was offered on the 16th of Nisan, still Shavuot was sometimes celebrated near the date of the Decalogue but not always on the day of the Decalogue,

My guess is that Chazal moved up the omer offering to have Shavuot be close to the day when they thought that the Decalogue occurred. They could not get it exact since the lengths of the months were not exact, but they could make the two events close. When the calendar and the months were fixed, then they could get them to be exact, but this also took to interpreting Shemot 19 to mean that the Decalogue was on the sixth of Sivan. The jump of moving the counting of the omer a week earlier was not so ground-breaking since according the fourth view, the day of the morrow was the day after the last day of chag ha-matzot, while now it would be the day after the first day of chag ha–matzot. Finally, according to the Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah 2:10) and the Talmud (Pesachim 117b and Berakhot 49a), Chazal have the power to decide when a holiday is celebrated, and hence they can decide to celebrate Shavuot a week earlier on the sixth of Sivan instead of the twelfth of Sivan.

Bibliography:

Henshke, David, 1992, The history of the counting of the omer, in Rabbi Mordechai Breuer Festchrift, edited by Moshe Bar-Asher, Jerusalem: Academon Press, pp. 417-448.

Hoffmann, David (1843-1921), 1953, Leviticus, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1980, Studies in Vayikra, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Maori, Yeshayahu, 1995, The Peshitta version of the Pentateuch and early Jewish exegesis, Jerusalem: Magnes Press.

Sprecher, Shmuel, 1993, "The offering of the omer and counting of the omer: The view of the Boethusians," Sidra, 9, pp. 105-116.

Vayikra 22:27 – An animal that is sacrificed must be at least eight days old

ויקרא כז:כב - שור או כשב או עז כי יולד והיה שבעת ימים תחת אמו ומיום השמיני והלאה ירצה לקרבן אשה לה'.

Vayikra 22:27 records that an animal must be at least eight days old to be acceptable as a sacrifice, as for the first week it should be with its mother. Similarly, Shemot 22:29 records that the firstborn animal can only be offered as a sacrifice when it is eight days old. Why does an animal have to be at least eight days old to be a sacrifice?

Milgrom (2000, p. 1883) writes that the most popular rationale is that the law is based on humanitarian concerns not to be cruel to the animal. However, he rejects this since the animal can be offered as a sacrifice on the eight day. Why is killing the animal on the eighth day more humane than on the seventh day?

I prefer R. Shimon ben Gamliel’s approach (Shabbat 135b, quoted by the Bekhor Shor on 22:27) that if the animal lives eight days then it is not considered an aborted fetus. Why should it matter whether the animal is considered an aborted fetus or not? The Hinukh (positive mitzvah 267, also quoted by N. Leibowitz, 1980, pp. 206,207) writes that prior to eight days the animal has no value. The Abravanel (2005, p. 239) writes that prior to the eighth day, the animal is considered as blemished.

I would slightly vary this idea. During the animal's first week there is a higher probability that that it will not live, as opposed to after the first week. Even if the animal appears to be healthy from the outside, maybe there are some internal problems that will cause it to die. Accordingly, if a person is not sure whether the animal is viable maybe he is offering it as a sacrifice since he thinks it will die anyway. This is an unacceptable sacrifice, just like when a person offers a blemished animal as a sacrifice since then possibly the animal is being offered to remove a “defective animal.” However, once the animal has lived a full week, then the animal is considered viable, and the person is not trying to offer a “free” sacrifice.

Vayikra 22:28 (Emor) – One cannot sacrifice a mother and her young on the same day

Vayikra 22:28 records that an animal and its mother (also father? see Rambam, Laws of Slaughter 12:11) cannot be sacrificed on the same day. This law continues the previous law, 22:27, as after one waited eight days to offer the newborn animal, one cannot offer the mother as a sacrifice on the same day. This law is not just by sacrifices, as even by “regular” meat, one cannot kill an animal and its mother on the same day, see Rambam, Laws of Slaughter 12:1,2. 

What is the rationale for this prohibition? A popular answer is that the law is for humanitarian reasons just the question is whose feelings are being taken into consideration. According to the Rambam (Moreh 3:48) the concern is for the feelings of the animals, while the Ramban (on Devarim 22:6) and Luzzatto (on 22:28) suggest it is the feelings of the person killing the animal since the goal is to “cultivate human pity,” see N. Leibowitz, pp.208-210. However, Milgrom (2000, p. 1884) rejects this approach since is it any less cruel to kill the animals on two consecutive days?

My guess is that the requirement to kill the animals on different days is because this law forces one to separate the animal from its mother (and father?). The need to separate is one of the principles of numerous laws, such as kashrut, and this is one more example of the application of the principle of separation. (Is this also the principle in sending away the mother bird in Devarim 22:6,7?)

Shemini Atzeret: A separate holiday from Sukkot?

The holiday of Shemini Atzeret is mentioned twice in the Torah, in Vayikra 23:36,39, and in Bemidbar 29:35-39, and on both occasions, it is referred to as the eighth day of the Sukkot holiday. This numeric reference implies that Shemini Atzeret is not a separate holiday but is part of the holiday of Sukkot, as it is the eighth day starting from the first day of Sukkot. If the holiday is independent of Sukkot, then the Torah should have stated that the holiday was on the 22nd of the month. Furthermore, there is no name for this holiday in the Torah, which again suggests that the day is subsumed under the holiday of Sukkot. The only description of the holiday is that it is an atzeret, Bemidbar 29:35, but this is not a name since atzeret is also used in reference to the seventh day of the holiday of Matzot, Devarim 16:8.

On the other hand, there are some indications in the Torah that Shemini Atzeret is distinct from Sukkot. First, even though Bemidbar 29:35 uses the words “the eighth day” this differs from the reference to the previous six days of Sukkot, Bemidbar 29:17-32, which are referred to as “and the X day.” The word “and” connects the days together, but the word “and” is not mentioned by the eighth day. Second, Bemidbar 29 lists all the sacrifices of the holiday of Sukkot and for seven days there is a specific pattern. However, the sacrifices of the eighth day, Shemini Azeret, are numerically different, and they do not fit into the pattern of the previous seven days. The different number of sacrifices might indicate that the eighth day is independent of the seven days of Sukkot. Finally, both Bemidbar 29:12 and Vayikra 23:34,39,41 record that one is to celebrate the holiday of Sukkot for seven days, which removes the eighth day from these celebrations. Thus, one is required to sit in the sukkah for seven days and not eight days, Vayikra 23:42.

Accordingly, from the Torah, it appears that in some ways Shemini Atzeret is part of the holiday of the Sukkot and in some ways, it is an independent holiday. This duality can also be found in Chazal. The Mishnah (Sukkah 4:8 and Ta'anit 1:1) refers to Shemini Atzeret as the last day of the holiday of Sukkah, and another Mishnah (Megillah 3:5) subsumes Shemini Atzeret within all the days of Sukkot except the first day with regard to the reading of the Torah. However, the Talmud (Sukkah 47a-48a) states that Shemini Atzeret is a separate holiday for six different issues.

Why should there exist this dualism with regard to Shemini Atzeret? I believe the answer is based on the pattern of the length of the three festivals in the Torah, Pesach/ Matzot, Shavuot and Sukkot.

Both the holidays of Sukkot and Matzot begin with a day where work is prohibited, have several days where is permitted (chol ha-moed) and then afterwards there is a day when work is forbidden again. What is the basis for this pattern?

It appears that every holiday needs to have a closure, meaning that a holiday needs to come to an end, which occurs when work is forbidden at the end of the holiday. When work is forbidden on a particular day, this marks the day for the people. If work would only have been forbidden on the first day of a holiday, then the remaining days of the holiday could lose their significance. This closure is only based on work being prohibited on the last day of the festival since it could be that the first day is celebrated in some form, as for example offering sacrifices, without work being forbidden, and the celebration initiates the festival without work being forbidden.

Once work is forbidden on the last day of the festival, then all days of the holiday become one unit. This understanding accords with the viewpoint that the word atzeret means conclusion or stopping and not a gathering (see comments of David Hoffmann, on Vayikra 23:36), as the word is used both by Shemini Atzeret and by the seventh day of the holiday of Matzot, Devarim 16:11.

This idea also occurs by Shavuot since it is really a fifty-day holiday, which begins with bringing the omer sacrifice, counting 49 days, and then on the 50th day work is forbidden. This need for closure explains why the seventh day of the holiday of Matzot (or in modern terms Pesach) is a special day without assuming that the miracle of the splitting of Yam Suf occurred on the seventh day of the holiday of Matzot, something which is not mentioned in the Torah. This idea could even apply to Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur as they also form a unit, which we now call the ten days of repentance.

If this idea of closure is correct, then this suggests that Shemini Atzeret is part of Sukkot, but then why are the celebrations of the holiday of Sukkot absent on Shemini Atzeret? My guess is that seven days, a full week, is considered an appropriate unit of time for rituals and celebrations, but eight days are not. Thus, the celebration of the holiday of Sukkot is seven days, as is the eating of matzot, and then there would be no celebrations of the holiday of Sukkot on the eighth day, Shemini Atzeret. Once the celebrations of Sukkot are only for seven days, then the sacrifices for the eighth day would also be distinct from the seven previous days.

Yet, even if the two ideas are correct: The need for closure on the festival and seven days are the appropriate time for celebration of the holiday, why is Shemini Atzeret not on the seventh day of Sukkot? The answer is that the closure in the Torah occurs on the eighth day, which marks a full week counting both the first and eighth days, as by the eight days for the brit milah, Vayikra 12:3. With regard to Shavuot, there are seven weeks, and the 50th day is the conclusion to the seventh week, see our discussion on Vayikra 23:15,16, “Counting seven weeks and fifty days by sefirat ha-omer.” With regard to the holiday of Matzot, the seventh day of the holiday is the eighth day from the holiday of Pesach, which begins on the 14th of the month while the holiday of Matzot starts from the 15th of the month (see Vayikra 23:5,6).

Accordingly, the three different elements: The need for closure that there is a prohibition of work at the end of the holiday, that the closure is on the eighth day and that celebrations for a holiday last for seven days, created the dual nature of Shemini Atzeret. The element of closure means that Shemini Atzeret is part of the holiday of Sukkot, but as the closure is on the eighth day and celebrations are for seven days, Shemini Atzeret is also distinct from the holiday of Sukkot in that the celebrations of the holiday of Sukkot are not applicable to the day.

Sukkot: The name of the holiday

On the 15th day of the month of Tishrei, Jews begin to celebrate the seven day holiday called Sukkot. In the Torah, this name is first mentioned in Vayikra 23:34. Previously, Shemot 23:16, 34:22 refers to this same holiday as the holiday of the gathering of the crops. In Shemot the holiday could not have been referred to as Sukkot because the law of being in a sukkah was not yet recorded. However, in 23:34, the Torah uses the word Sukkot since it is about to mention the laws of sukkot, 23:42,43. Once the holiday is designated as Sukkot, then this name is used in the remainder of the Torah, Devarim 16:13,16 and 31:10. Note, the holiday could not have been named after the other law of the holiday, the taking of the four species, arba minim, since in the Torah that was only done for one day, Vayikra 23:40.

Sukkot: The reason for the holiday: Be happy?

Shemot 23:16, 34:22, Vayikra 23:34-36, 39-43, Bemidbar 29:12-38 and Devarim 16:13,14 record that the Jewish people are to celebrate the holiday of Sukkot, but it is not obvious what is the reason for the holiday.

Vayikra 23:43 appears to provide a rationale for the holiday. The verse explains that the commandment to live in the sukkah is to remember that the Jewish people dwelled in booths when G-d took them out of Egypt. This commandment would seem to establish a historical basis for the holiday of Sukkot, but this connection raises several questions. 

One, once the holiday of Matzot is to remember the Exodus, why is there a need for a second holiday to remember the Exodus? 

Two, why is the holiday celebrated in the fall and not in the spring when the Exodus occurred? (See Ibn Ezra on Vayikra 23:43 for one answer.)

Three, the Torah never ever referred to living in a sukkah with regard to the Exodus. Devarim 1:27, 5:27, and Bemidbar 11:10, 16:27 imply that the people lived in tents (ohel) and not booths (sukkot), though one could argue that in principle there is no difference between tents and booths, see Rashbam on Shemot 23:16. 

Four, what is so significant of the people's dwellings in the desert that warrants a holiday to remember them? Possibly to answer this question, one view (R. Eliezer in Sukkah 11b, though in the Sifra, Emor 17:11 it is Rabbi Akiva’s view, quoted by Rashi on Vayikra 23:43) explains that the reference to sukkot in 23:43 is to the clouds of glory that accompanied the people in the desert, which was certainly a miracle that is worthy of being remembered. However, this view is not the simple understanding of Vayikra 23:43, see Rashbam on Vayikra 23:43. Also, the Torah should have explicitly referred to the clouds of glory if that was the intent of the verse. Instead, maybe one could say that Vayikra 23:43 refers to the actual booths or tents that the people lived in the desert and they symbolize not the Exodus per se, but that the people survived in the desert through G-d’s help. 

Five, this understanding leaves unexplained the other commandment of the holiday of Sukkot, the taking of the four species, Vayikra 23:40. Possibly to answer this question it has been suggested (Sadducees?) that the sukkah is to be built by using the four species, but these items do not seem to be good building materials and the Torah only records that one is to take the four species but not that a person is to build with them.

A different approach to understanding the holiday of Sukkot is that it is an agricultural holiday to thank G-d for the crops that are harvested in the fall. Proof for this viewpoint is that the holiday is referred to as the holiday of the gathering of the crops in Shemot 23:16 and 34:22 (also see Devarim 16:13). Also, the four species taken on the holiday, the lulav, etrog, hadasim and aravot are agricultural items and even the roof of the sukkah, which is the most important part of the sukkah, has to be something that grows from the ground, Shulchan Arukh 629:1. Tigay (1996, p. 469) notes that modern scholars explain that the sukkot also relate to the agricultural theme since booths were used by workers when they harvested the field. Yet, the four species do not represent the main agricultural products of the land, grains, oil and grapes, and most of them are not even edible. Also, the Torah does not relate the sukkah to agriculture but to the exodus from Egypt.

Can the sukkah be connected with an agricultural theme? Hoffmann (1953, p. 207) explains that the people should remember that there was a time when they did not work but were provided for by G-d. The idea is that this reminder of the past should stop people from becoming conceited by their bountiful crops and forget G-d (see also Rashbam on Vayikra 23:43). The booths are connected with the exodus not due to their miraculous nature, but as a reminder of G-d’s goodness to the people during the desert, which should lead the people to thank G-d for their crops. With this approach, the primary reason for celebrating the holiday of Sukkot is to thank G-d for the harvest, and the connection with the exodus is to help one remember to thank G-d. With this rationale the holiday of Sukkot is another example of the law of the bikkurim.

We see that there are two aspects to the holiday of Sukkot, one historical, the exodus from Egypt, and two agricultural, the time of the harvest. Yet, there is a third possibility that both themes are expressions of a third distinct idea, which is the reason for celebrating the holiday.

The third possible reason for the observance of the holiday of Sukkot is the requirement to celebrate and be happy. There are three sources for this idea. One, Bemidbar 28,29 records the sacrifices of each holiday, and within the discussion of each holiday, there is a brief mention of the law that is the theme of the holiday. With regard to Sukkot, Bemidbar 29:12 just refers to celebrating a holiday. Two, within the discussion of the rituals of Sukkot, Vayikra 23:40,41 record that one is to be happy and celebrate for seven days on the festival of Sukkot. Three, Devarim 16:13-15 discusses the holiday of Sukkot, and twice mentions that one is to be happy on the holiday. This is unique as in Devarim 16 in reference to the holiday of Matzot (today called Passover), there is no mention to be happy and by the holiday of Shavuot, the Torah refers only once to being happy on the festival, Devarim 16:11. These three references (Vayikra 23, Bemidbar 29, and Devarim 16) suggest that the main idea of Sukkot is happiness and celebration. Furthermore, the theme of happiness is associated with the agricultural motif since usually the harvest time is a time of happiness.

In addition, maybe the historical motif from Vayikra 23:43 also contributes to the theme of happiness if the verse is understood as referring literally to the exodus from Egypt because most likely the time of the exodus was the happiest moment for the Jewish people in all of their stay in the desert. Interestingly, the very first place the people traveled to when they left Egypt was called Sukkot (Shemot 12:37), which strengthens the connection between the holiday of Sukkot and the happiness at the time of the exodus. This idea can explain why Vayikra 23:43 refers to booths and not tents. If the focus is on the moment of the exodus and not the 40 years in the desert, then it is possible that at that time the people only used booths, and only later when the people came to Mount Sinai, did they make tents.

We see from the prayers that Chazal thought that happiness was the main motif of Sukkot. In the Shemoneh Esrei for each festival, a brief reference is made to the theme of the day; by Pesach it is freedom, by Shavuot it is the giving of the Torah and by Sukkot (and Shemini Atseret) it is happiness, “the time of our happiness.”

The theme of happiness might also explain why on Sukkot there are different sacrifices for each day as opposed to the holiday of Matzot, where the same sacrifices are brought each day, Bemidbar 28:24, 29:12-34. The different number of sacrifices each day mark each day as being unique, which means that each day is another occasion to celebrate, for more on these sacrifices see our discussion on Bemidbar 29:13-32, “The seventy bulls of Sukkot.” Thus, we also say a full Hallel on each day of Sukkot. This idea of happiness is also found in Chazal. The Mishnah (Sukkah 5:1) discusses the joyful happenings that occurred on Sukkot, the simchat bet ha-sho`evah, and records “whoever do not see the celebration of the simchat bet ha-sho`evah, never saw happiness in his lifetime.”

Why should there be a holiday for the purpose of making people happy? Were people’s lives so depressing that they needed a stimulant? My guess is that the theme of happiness relates to the idea of thanking G-d and celebrating the covenantal relationship between G-d and the Jewish people, see our discussions on the book of Vayikra, Vayikra 23:24, 26, 34 “Two sets of mikrei kodesh” and our discussion on Vayikra 23:39-44, “The four species and the sukkah.”

Bibliography:

Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1953, Leviticus, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook

Tigay, Jeffrey H. 1996, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society

23:40-44 - The four species, the sukkah, pesach and matzot

Vayikra 23:40 records that on the first day of Sukkot, a person is to take four species, arba minin, which traditionally are the lulav, etrog, hadasim and aravot. The Torah does not record why a person should take these four species. For various answers see Rambam (Moreh, 3:43, 1963, pp. 572,573), Ramban (on Vayikra 23:40), Kli Yakar (on 23:40), and Abraham Chill (1979, pp. 226, 227).

An interesting geographic reason has recently been suggested by Prof. Ari Schaffer of the Volcani Institute for Agricultural Research in Beit Dagan, (quoted by Greenspan and Greenspan, 2005). Schaffer notes that the lulav, palm branches, are from the desert (Jordan Valley), the aravah, the willow, is from the river beds, the, hadas, the myrtle, from the mountains, and the etrog is grown on the plains. Yehuda Feliks (2002, on Vayikra 23:40, p. 173) suggests a similar reason based on the Talmud, Pesachim 53a.

Abravanel (2005, p. 274) writes that the taking of the four species is to thank G-d for the gathering in of the crops. This rationale connects the law with idea that the holiday is due to the harvest, see Shemot 23:16, 34:22, Vayikra 23:39 and Devarim 15:13. Yet, do the four species relate to the harvest? They are not the main products of the land, grains, olives and grapes, and they are not part of the seven species of the land (Devarim 8:8). Also, except for the etrog(?) they are not even produce. The lulav is from the date palm, but if the idea is to thank G-d for gathering the crops we should have taken dates themselves and not lulavim. Also, why are the four species not offered to G-d as a sacrifice opposed to being just taken?

23:42 then records that on the holiday of Sukkot, a person is to live in sukkot, tents, for seven days. 23:43 then records that the reason for living in sukkot is that the future generations will know that the people lived in tents when they left Egypt. This rationale is unclear since the Torah never ever referred to the people living in a sukkah with regard to the Exodus, thought the first place the people went to after leaving Egypt was called Sukkot, Shemot 12:37 and 13:20.

The Talmud (Sukkah 11b) quotes R. Eliezer that sukkah in 23:43 refers to the cloud(s) of glory that were on top of the people in the desert, while R. Akiva believes that they refer to actual sukkot that the people lived in when they were in the desert. The Sifra Emor 17:11 reverses the opinions, and my guess is that this is the correct attributions. It is possible that the basis for this argument is that the opinion that believes the reference is to clouds of glory is because there does not seem to be anything special about people living in tents, while the other opinion believes that the cloud(s) of glory is not considered as being a tentlike.

Is there a connection between the commandment to live in a sukkah and the taking of the four species? Mordechai Breuer (1993, pp. 570-581) argues that the commandment of living in the sukkah also relates to the agricultural theme of gathering the crops and the four species. His argument is based on the Rashbam’s explanation of 23:43 that by living in the sukkah the person is to remember that the crops comes from G-d. Devarim 8:17 records this fear that due to financial success people will forget G-d, but it is not connected there to the commandment of living in the sukkah. Breuer (p. 579) then argues that the sukkah of the people during the holiday of Sukkot in the land of Israel is a continuation of the sukkot that the people lived in in the desert, and living in the desert taught the people to realize that everything comes from G-d and this lesson was applicable to the people after they harvested their crop sin the land of Israel.

This idea is nice since it takes a natural agricultural holiday and imbues it with a religious theme. However, as mentioned above, I doubt that the four species are to show thanks for agricultural success, and I doubt that living in the sukkah will make a person realize that all of his/ her financial success is coming from G-d.

It could very well be that the main reason for celebrating the holiday of Sukkot is to thank G-d for the crops since this reason is the most oft-mentioned in the Torah, Furthermore, the law most mentioned in reference to Sukkot is to be happy on the holiday (Vayikra 23:40, and Devarim 16:14,15) which relates to the gathering of the crops, However, my guess is that the law of the four species and the sukkah are not directly related to gathering in the crops.

The taking of the four species (23:40) resembles the taking of the korban pesach in Egypt. First, the word take is used repeatedly by the korban pesach, see Shemot 12:3,4,5,21,22. In Egypt, the people could have been told to sacrifice the korban pesach on the 14th of the 1st month (Nisan), and there was no need to mention taking an animal, as of course an animal had to be taken to be sacrificed. Instead, the people were told to take an animal on the tenth of the first month and to hold the animal for four days. Two, the korban pesach was taken and held for four days, (the 10-14th, Shemot 12:3,6) while by the four species, four items are taken together once. Three, the taking of the four species is for one day, like the korban pesach that is offered on one day. Four, by the korban pesach, the people had to take some plants (azov, hyssop?) and dip them in blood, Shemot 12:22. By the four species, these plants have been transformed into agricultural motif. The lulav, aravot (willows) and hadasim (myrtles) are parallel to the bunch of hyssops by the korban pesach, while the pri etz hadar (today etrog), which is most likely some type of fruit that could be made into a liquid, could be an agricultural parallel to the blood which the hyssops were dipped into. (Ibn Ezra, on 23:40, in his polemic with the Karaites, notes that they also made a connection between the taking of the four species, and the taking of the animal for the korban pesach.)

Chazal also make this connection between the four species and the korban pesach. The Talmud (Sukkah 11b) quotes R. Yehuda who learns a law by the lulav that it needs to be joined together with the hadasim and aravot, egged, from the taking of the blood by the korban pesach, Shemot 12:22. Also, Vayikra Rabbah (30:1) quotes R. Abba b. Kahana who also makes this connection between the taking of the four species with the taking of the blood of the korban pesach to teach a different lesson.

Also, just like the korban pesach preceded the holiday of Matzot, so too, first the Torah refers to the law of the four species, 23:40, and then law of the sukkah, 23:42,43. The law of the sukkah parallels the holiday of Matzot which requires one to eat matzot for seven days, and people are to live in the sukkah for seven days, see Shemot 12:15, 13:6, 23:15, 34:18, Vayikra 23:6 and Bemidbar 28:17. Furthermore, both the holidays of Sukkot and Matzot are on the 15th of their respective months, the first and seventh months, six months apart, and both are to remember the exodus.

We now have a double parallel between the two ritual laws of Sukkot and the holidays of Pesach and Matzot. The law of the four species parallels the holiday of Pesach, and the law of being in the sukkah for seven days is parallel to the law of eating matzot which is also for seven days. Chazal (see Shulchan Arukh, Orah Chayyim, 639:3) also learn that one has to eat an olive size amount of food in the sukkah on the night on the first night of Sukkot, just like one has to eat an olive size of matzah on the first night of what we today call Pesach.

What are to learn from this parallelism? Maybe it is just part of the goal of transforming the natural agricultural holiday to a holiday of thanking G-d. Yet, the korban pesach was part of the process of exodus from Egypt, how does the taking of the four species prepare or lead to the sitting in the sukkah?

The holidays of Pesach and Matzot are part of the historical process that led to the first covenant at Mount Sinai, and then maybe the holiday of Sukkot is celebrated to remember the second covenant the people made on the plains of Moav, Devarim, 28:69. By this covenant, Moshe told the people that they only acquired the intellectual ability to join this covenant after living forty years in the desert, Devarim 29:4. The living in the sukkah is to recall the people living in the desert, and this living was let led up to the people being able to join this second covenant. Also, the holidays of Pesach and Matzot are celebrated in the beginning of the year, which correspond to the first covenant which was established in the beginning of the people’s stay in the desert, while the holiday of Sukkot is celebrated towards the end of the year (Shemot 23:16) not just since it is the time of harvesting, but also this timing corresponds to the covenant that the people made at the end of the forty years in the desert.

How can this recollection of being in the desert from the commandment to live in the sukkah relate to the four species? The answer is that when the people were living in the desert, for most of the time they were not travelling and they had a static existence, just gathering the mahn. This was similar to the existence of Adam and Havva in the Garden of Eden, where they had some minor work and they were to live without any knowledge. Devarim 1:39 records that Moshe said that the people referred to their children, who would grow up in the desert during the forty years, as not knowing tov and ra, just like the Adam and Havva were before they ate of the tree of knowledge, Bereshit 2:9,17.

The four species can also be related to the Garden of Eden. The most obvious is the pri etz hadar, which recalls, the fruit of the tree of knowledge which was a delight to the eyes, Bereshit 3:6. The lulav, hadasim and aravot can also evoke the idea of a garden in that all are green and plants. Or one could claim that these three items are to re-call the azov that was used for sprinkling of the blood by the korban pesach in Egypt, and only the etrog is to recall the fruit of the Garden of Eden. Either way, now we can understand the significance of the taking of the four species, as by the fruit of the tree of knowledge, while Havva said that it was forbidden to be touched, Bereshit 3:3, really it was only forbidden to be eaten. The taking of the four species, but not eating them (the etrog), shows that people are now following G-d’s command. Accordingly, both the sukkah and the four species relate to the Garden of Eden, and by just taking the four species, we show that we are following G-d’s command which is the lesson that the people learned in the desert, which enabled them to establish the second covenant with G-d.

Maybe this idea can explain why the laws of the holiday of Sukkot are recorded after the concluding sentence of 23:37,38. For two other suggestions see our discussion above on 23:1-42, “The structure of chapter 23” and our discussion in the Introduction to the book of Vayikra, “The structure of the book of Vayikra.”

Our suggestion here is that the laws recorded in the section after the concluding sentence are to make the holiday of Sukkot a holiday of the second covenant that the people did on the plains of Moav, but this second covenant had not yet occurred when chapter 23 was told to the people. By the Torah separating these laws of the holiday of Sukkot from the other laws of the festivals, this was showing that these laws had a different basis than the other laws of the festivals, the second covenant and not the first covenant that was established at Mount Sinai. Note that prior to the concluding sentences of 23:37,38, there are the laws of the sacrifices on Sukkot and these could relate to the celebration of the first covenant (see our discussion above on 23:24, 26, 34 “Two sets of mikrei kodesh”), but the laws of Sukkot that related to the second covenant had to be separated in order to indicate their different rationale. Also, it was also intended that there was to be a second covenant, but initially it was supposed to be in the land of Israel. However, once Moshe was unable to enter the land of Israel, it was done on the plains of Moav by the border with the land of Israel.


Bibliography:

Breuer, Mordechai (1921-2007), 1993, Pirkei Moadot, (Hebrew), Jerusalem: Horev.

Chill, Abraham, 1979, The Minhagim, New York: Sepher-Hermon Press.

Feliks, Yehuda, 2002, The four species, in Vayikra: The World of the Bible, edited by Baruch Levine, Tel Aviv: Yediot Achronot, Sifire Hemed, pp. 173,174.

Greenspan, Ari and Ari Z. Zivotofsky, 2005, “The extraordinary history of the etrog,” The Jerusalem Post, 16 October.

Shavuot: To thank G-d

We celebrate Shavuot on the sixth of Sivan, which is the 50th day of the counting of the omer starting from the second day of Pesach (Passover). The common understanding of the holiday is that it is to celebrate the giving of the Torah, which I think most people understand to mean that Shavuot was the day when the Decalogue was told to the people at Mount Sinai. Thus, the Torah reading for the holiday is the Decalogue, Shemot chapters 19 and 20. Yet, this connection is not mentioned in the Torah. Was the sixth of Sivan the day when the Torah was given to the Jewish people? Was the Decalogue told to the people on that day?

Shemot 19:1 records that the Jewish people come to Mount Sinai in the third month, hodesh, (Sivan) without explicitly specifying which day in the month. However, Rashi (on 19:1) explains that 19:1 means that the people came to Mount Sinai on the 1st day of the month. Similarly, Cassuto (1967, p. 224) explains that the word hodesh, in ancient Hebrew means new moon, which is the 1st day of the month. After the Torah provides this date, no other date is given for when the revelation on Mount Sinai occurred, but we can try to calculate the day from the events recorded in Shemot chapter 19.

Shemot 19:3 records that Moshe went up the mountain to speak to G-d, and Rashi (on 19:3) writes that this happened on the second day of the month. The end of 19:8 records that Moshe went back to speak to G-d, and Rashi (on 19:8) explains that this was on the third day of the month. The end of 19:9 records that Moshe told G-d the response of the people, and Rashi (on 19:9) says this was on the fourth day of the month. As part of that conversation, 19:10 records that G-d told Moshe that the people were to prepare themselves today and the next day for on the third day there would be the revelation on Mount Sinai. Rashi (on 19:10,11) explains that this preparation was to be on the fourth and fifth days of the month and the revelation would be on the sixth day of the month. According to this chronology, the Torah was given to the people on the sixth of Sivan. This chronology makes sense, but still it is based on the assumptions that Moshe had one conversation a day with G-d and these conversations occurred on successive days. We cannot know for sure on what day was the Decalogue.

The Talmud (Shabbat 86b) quotes an opinion that the Torah was given on the seventh day of Sivan. The Rabbis maintain that the Decalogue was told to the people on the sixth day (the basis for Rashi’s opinion), but R. Jose says it occurred on the seventh day of Sivan. Why does R. Jose believe that it was given on the seventh day of the month? He believes that the people needed three full days to prepare for the Decalogue, yet the Talmud asks that Shemot 19:10,11 records that they were only supposed to have two days, so R. Jose answers that Moshe added a day on his own. (Note this opinion of R. Jose is not really rejected, as we follow this opinion by the laws of niddah, see Magen Avraham, Orah Chayyim, 494.) Thus, from the Talmud we cannot be sure on what day the Torah was given.

A different way to understand Shavuot is that it is an agricultural holiday as Shemot 23:16, 34:22, and Bemidbar 28:26, all refer to the holiday as the time of the first harvest of the crops of the year. In conjunction with this theme, when the Bet ha-Mikdash existed, on Shavuot there was a special offering of two loaves, Vayikra 23:17.

Why do we bring the two loaves? The loaves are made from the first crops that are harvested. What is the significance of bringing the first crops as a sacrifice? The answer can be seen by the declaration that each person made when he/ she brought his/ her personal first fruits to the Bet ha-Mikdash. Devarim 26:5-10 records that the person recites a brief review of the exodus and mentions that G-d gave the Jewish people the land of Israel. The person then bows before G-d. This short prayer and bowing indicates that the giving the first fruits shows one’s acceptance of G-d, and being thankful to G-d for the exodus and for the land of Israel. Correspondingly by the sacrifice of the two loaves on Shavuot, this demonstrates a communal acceptance and thankfulness of G-d, and this could be the rationale of the holiday of Shavuot independent of the historical day when the Decalogue was said.

Bibliography:

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1967, A commentary on the book of Exodus, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.

Vayikra 23:1-4 (Emor) - Shabbat, a moed and a mikra kodesh?

Vayikra Chapter 23 records the days in the year which are a mikrei kodesh, literally those days that are proclaimed as kodesh. The term mikra kodesh means a day that is proclaimed or designated as a separate day, and one way that it is separated is that no work is done on that day (see Benno Jacob, 1992, p. 322). Accordingly, chapter 23 does not mention the new moon since work is not forbidden on the day and hence it is not a mikra kodesh.

The chapter begins with an introductory verse, 23:2, then a verse which refers to the Shabbat, 23:3, and then apparently another introductory verse, 23:4, which is very similar to the 23:2. Why is there a need for two introductory verses?

The answer is that this is an example of a repetitive resumption or a bookend, that after there is a digression, the Torah refers to its previous topic by restating the verse prior to the digression. The digression is the reference to the Shabbat in 23:3, but why should the reference to Shabbat be considered a digression?

Ramban (on 23:2) first writes that Shabbat is a moed, a set time, but afterwards he argues that Shabbat is different than the other days mentioned in the chapter since Shabbat is not considered a moed while the other days are considered a moed. Ramban quotes two proofs for why Shabbat is not considered a moed. One, by all the festival days in chapter 23 there are references to sacrifices brought on the particular day, but there is no mention of sacrifices with regard to Shabbat. Thus we see a difference between Shabbat and the other festive days. Secondly, towards the end of the chapter, 23:37 records the phrase "these are the moadim, set times, of G-d," and then 23:38 records the phrase "apart from Shabbat." Ramban claims that the word "apart" in 23:38 means to separate Shabbat from the other days which are moadim, set times. Similarly, Levine (1989, p. 154) writes that Shabbat is not a moed since a festival must have its date "fixed," while Shabbat does not have to have its date fixed since the seventh day is not a "calendrical phenomenon."

On the other hand, the fact that 23:2 ends with phrase "these are My moed," and then 23:3 refers to the Shabbat implies that Shabbat is a moed. Ramban argues that the phrase "these are My moed," in 23:2 refers to the festivals which are recorded in 23:5. While Hoffmann (1953) brings a proof for this idea from Shemot 35, it seems that since Shabbat is mentioned immediately after the phrase "these are My moed," Shabbat is a moed.

The answer is that Shabbat is a moed, a set time, and a mikra' kodesh, but it is different than the festivals since there is no need to proclaim Shabbat as a moed and a mikra' kodesh through sacrifices, only through the abstinence of work. (Later usage only refers to the festivals as moadim, but in the Torah, Shabbat is also a moed.)

The festivals are proclaimed as a moed and a mikra' kodesh by the sacrifices that are mentioned in chapter 23 that are to be brought on the particular festival, by some ritual action and the fact that work is forbidden on the day. Verse 23:38 uses the word "apart" since the previous verse, 23:37, stated that "these are the moadim that are proclaimed a mikra' kodesh to bring sacrifices." Shabbat is not included in 23:37 since there was no need to offer sacrifices to proclaim the day as a moed and a mikra kodesh. Yet, Shabbat had to be mentioned in chapter 23 since it is a moed and a mikra' kodesh, but this does not happen due to sacrifices. Thus, 23:2,4 are a bookend that separates Shabbat from the festivals.

Bibliography:

Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1953, Leviticus, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Jacob, Benno, 1992, Commentary on Shemot, New York: Ktav Press.

Levine, Baruch A., 1989, Leviticus: The JPS Torah Commentary, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Vayikra 23:23-26 (Emor) - Rosh Hashanah

Vayikra (Leviticus) 23:23-26 record that the first day of the seventh month, which today we call Rosh Hashanah, is a mikra kodesh, a festival. Why is the first day of the seventh month a mikra kodesh, a festival? The most popular answer is that the day marks the beginning of the year, but this idea is absent from the Torah.

The only clue the Torah gives us to understand the nature of Rosh Hashanah is that on this day there should be a commemoration with loud blasts, zikhron teru'ah. What is the point of these blasts? Levine (1989, p. 160) argues that the blasts were to announce the forthcoming pilgrimage festival, the festival of Sukkot. The people would hear the blasts and they would be reminded of the upcoming festival and its pilgrimage requirements. However, as Yom Kippur, which is on the tenth of the month, precedes Sukkot, the fifteenth of the month, it more likely that the announcement should be for Yom Kippur.

There are three indications in the Torah that Rosh Hashanah is to prepare the people for Yom Kippur. One, the text connects Rosh Hashanah with Yom Kippur by using the word, 'akh, in 23:27, which connects the two sections. (Also in 23:39, the word connects the two sets of laws of Sukkot. Similarly, in Shemot 31:13, the word connects the Shabbat to the building of the tabernacle, and in Shemot 12:15, it connects the destruction of the leaven with the eating of the unleavened bread.) Two, as noted by Hoffmann (1953), every festival in chapter 23 begins with the phrase, "the Lord spoke to Moshe, speak to the Israelites", but by Yom Kippur, only the phrase "the Lord spoke to Moshe" appears. The omission of the second half of the phrase limits the break between the section on Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah. Three, it is logical that Yom Kippur requires an announcement, since 23:29-30 record that the penalty for violating the laws of Yom Kippur is very severe and this holiday occurs on the tenth of the month which cannot be simply calculated by looking at the moon.

This idea that Rosh Hashanah is to prepare for Yom Kippur also corresponds to the later idea that the days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, are the ten days of repentance.

Bibliography:

Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1953, Leviticus, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Levine, Baruch A., 1989, Leviticus: The JPS Torah Commentary, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Vayikra 23:4-37 - Two sets of mikrei kodesh

Vayikra 23:4-37 records the laws of five festivals, mikrei kodesh: The festivals of Matzot, Shavuot, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur and Sukkot. This list does not include the holiday of Pesach since this is not a mikra kodesh because in the Torah there is no prohibition of work on the day when the korban pesach is offered. This list also excludes Shemini Atzeret, which is subsumed under the festival of Sukkot, the “eighth day of Sukkot,” see our discussion “Shemini Atzeret: A separate holiday?” 

Three of the five mikrei kodesh, are in the seventh month (starting from Nisan), Rosh Hashanah (23:24), Yom Kippur (23:26) and Sukkot (23:34). Sukkot is in the seventh month since it is at the time of the harvest, which is in the fall. Why are Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur also in the seventh month, as presumably they could have been celebrated any time during the year?

One possible answer is that the date of Yom Kippur was chosen to correspond to the day when Moshe came down from Mount Sinai with the second set of luchot. Yet, the Torah never makes this connection, and this fact cannot be known from a simple reading of the Torah.

Hoffmann (1953, p. 175) suggests that Yom Kippur is on the tenth of the month to prepare for Sukkot. The idea is that due to Yom Kippur everybody will be pure, which enables them to fully celebrate the happiness of Sukkot. Hoffmann notes that this approach does not negate the independent importance of Yom Kippur, but rather it is appropriate that Yom Kippur is before Sukkot. Yet, according to this rationale, Yom Kippur could also have been before Pesach, when all Jews have to bring the passover sacrifice, the korban pesach.

My thought is that the five festivals encompass two sets of mikrei kodesh, and Sukkot is the culmination of both sets. One set includes the festivals, Matzot, Shavuot and Sukkot, while the second set comprises Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur and Sukkot. The first set is based on the timing of the rationale of the holiday: The festival of Matzot has to be in the first month since that was when the people left Egypt, the festival of Shavuot is the time of the first reaping, and the holiday of Sukkot is the time when the harvesting is completed. On the other hand, the mikrei kodesh of the second set are connected through the seventh month, and then Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur had to be in the same month as Sukkot. Sukkot fulfils both criteria, and is part of both sets.

Why are there two sets of mikrei kodesh? My guess is that there are different themes to the two separate sets of mikrei kodesh.

The first set of mikrei kodesh begins with the holiday of Matzot, where G-d showed his acceptance of the people by taking them out of Egypt. One can even include the holiday of Pesach, which while not a mikra kodesh, is referred to in chapter 23, 23:5, as the introduction to the holiday of Matzot since this holiday re-calls the people showing their acceptance of G-d when they offered the korban pesach in Egypt. Shavuot, the second holiday in the first set of mikrei kodesh, signals the people thanking G-d, the bringing of new crops as sacrifices, which is in response to G-d taking the people out of Egypt by the holiday of Matzot, see our discussion on Shavuot. “To thank G-d” in the file a commentary on Jewish holidays and custom. The main motif of the third holiday in the first set of mikrei kodesh, the holiday of Sukkot, is to be happy, see our discussion on Sukkot in the file a commentary on Jewish holidays and custom, “Be happy.” This happiness signifies that the person is truly thankful to G-d.

The second set of mikrei kodesh, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur and Sukkot, relate to renewing the covenantal relationship with G-d. Rosh Hashanah with the blowing of the shofar is to remind one to prepare for Yom Kippur, see our discussion above on 23:23-25, “Rosh Hashanah.” The following mikra kodesh, Yom Kippur, is the day man is closest to G-d. The high priest enters the Holy of Holies, Vayikra 16:12, and Vayikra 16:30 records that on that Yom Kippur man is considered before G-d. The service by the high priest on Yom Kippur purifies the ohel moed/ Bet ha-Mikdash and the people, which enables the people to start again their covenantal relationship with G-d. Sukkot, the festival of happiness and celebration, signifies not just the joy of people for their harvest, but also the happiness of the people with the renewal of their relationship with G-d after Yom Kippur.

Maybe the sacrifices brought on Sukkot indicate the duality of holiday. With regard to the number of lambs and rams offered on the various special days, all the days have exactly the same number of sacrifices, seven lambs and one ram. However, on Sukkot, there are double the number of lambs and rams, fourteen lambs and two rams, which are brought as sacrifices. Maybe this doubling of sacrifices demonstrates that Sukkot functions as a double holiday since it concludes both sets of mikrei kodesh.

Bibliography:

Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1953, Leviticus, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

  

Vayikra 23:39-43 (Emor) - The structure of Vayikra chapter 23: Sukkot and mikrei kodesh

One oddity of Vayikra chapter 23 is that from 23:1-23:36 there are laws about the festivals, including Sukkot, then there are two ostensibly concluding verses, 23:37,38, but then 23:39-43 record new laws (about the four species and the sukkah) concerning Sukkot. Why were the laws of 23:39-43 not recorded before the concluding verses of 23:37,38? (For a different answer than below, see our discussion above, “The structure of the book of Vayikra.”)

A possible answer to this question is from the concluding verse in 23:37, which records that these are the festivals that are to be declared or designated as mikrei kodesh, separated days. This declaration also appears in the beginning of the chapter, 23:2, and throughout the chapter, 23:3,4,7,8,21,24,27,35,36, while the phrase does not appear in the verses after the concluding sentences, 23;37,38. This suggests that all the information about the festivals that was recorded in the chapter until 23:37,38 are part of the process of declaring a day a mikrei kadosh, while the laws of the festivals in the end of the chapter 23:39-43 do not relate to declaring or designating a day as a mikra kadosh. 

All of the verses recorded between 23:1-36 relate to this theme of proclaiming a day a mikra kodesh. 23:3 explain that Shabbat is proclaimed as a mikra kodesh since work is forbidden on the day. 

23:5 records the obligation to bring the korban pesach on the fourteenth of the first month (Nisan) not because this day is a mikra kodesh, but because the bringing of the sacrifice is part of the process of declaring the holiday of Matzot, and especially the first day of the holiday as a mikrei kodesh.

23:6-8 refer to the prohibition of work on the first and seventh days of the holiday of Matzot, the 15th and 22nd days of the first month (Nisan). During this seven-day period, sacrifices are brought and one is to eat matzot, and these acts proclaim the 15th and the 22nd as mikrei kodesh. 

23:9-22 refer to the sacrifices that proclaim Shavuot as a mikra kodesh, the omer and the two loaves. This section also records the obligation to count forty-nine days since the counting connects these sacrifices, and hence the counting is also part of the process of declaring the 50th day of the omer, a special day. Afterwards, 23:22, records laws concerning harvesting crops. These laws are not related to designating any day as a mikra kodesh, but they are recorded as a reminder about how one is to harvest since Shavuot signals the beginning of the harvest season. 

The following verses are 23:23-25, which records the sacrifices, a ritual act and the prohibition of work that make Rosh Hashanah a mikra kodesh. 

The next verses, 23:26-32 records the sacrifices, the prohibition of work and obligation to afflict one’s self that make Yom Kippur a mikra kodesh. 

Finally, 23:33-36 record the prohibition of work on the 15th (the holiday of Sukkot) and on the 23rd of the seventh month, the fact that holiday of Sukkot lasts seven days and the sacrifices that proclaim the 15th and the 23rd day as a mikra kodesh. 

The next verses are the concluding verses 23:37,38 which end the section of laws that designate a day as a mikra kodesh, a special day, while the following laws of Sukkot, 23:39-43, do not relate to designating the festival of Sukkat as a mikra kodesh.