Zevachim, Daf 9
Our Gemara describes the offerings that the nesi’im brought when the Mishkan was inaugurated as “Chattas Nachshon.” Even though all the nesi’im brought this sacrifice, it was named after Nachshon, the nasi of Shevet Yehuda, because Yehuda was the leader and the first one to bring it.
A typical Chattas is brought to achieve atonement for a sin committed out of ignorance or forgetfulness that would incur the kares punishment if done intentionally. According to Ibn Ezra (Shemos 29:14), the word chattas implies removal or purging, and so too the Chattas offering generally cleanses one from sin.
Yet there are a number of situations where a person is obligated to bring a Chattas and there is no clear sin, such as the Chattas of the nazir, metzorah, and yoledes. There are various Midrashic explanations to identify what sins were committed in each of these cases.
The yoledes (one who recently gave birth) needs atonement because during the anguish of labor, she heretically swears to reject married life in order that she will not go through labor again (Niddah 31b). The metzorah (one who was afflicted with tzara’as) needs atonement because there is a presumption that his disease and quarantine were due to antisocial sins such as pride, lashon hora, and miserliness (Arachin 16a). The nazir (Nazirite) is said to have sinned due to his extreme and excessive rejection of the normal pleasures of life. That is, though his motivations might have been to strengthen his piety and thus possibly appropriate (Taanis 11a), in the end this extreme behavior requires its own penance to forestall arrogance or other disproportionate reactions that come from rejecting normal life. Ramban (Bamidbar 6:14) adds an original explanation for the Nazir’s Chattas: Once he committed to life on a higher level, he now needs atonement for desiring to return to physical pleasures and indulgences.
Most fascinatingly, G-d too brings a Chattas on Rosh Chodesh for having shrunk the Moon (Chullin 60b).
However, what can we say about the Chattas Nachshon of the nesi’im? Since they are the leaders, we can presume it is for some collective sin, but even so, ordinarily there are other sacrifices typically brought for the community, such as those on Yom Kippur and Rosh Chodesh (see Mishna Zevachim 5:3). I read a brilliant idea from Rav Boruch Weintraub on the Har Etzion website: The human foible and need to have G-d in some concrete place and in a concrete way is both necessary on a practical level but also a shortcoming, and therefore a “sin.” As Shlomo HaMelech declares, and maybe even apologizes for, in Melachim I (8:27): “Behold, the heavens and the heavens above cannot contain You [G-d], and surely not this abode I have built [for You].”
Similarly, Sefas Emes (Pikudei 5635) says that when the Jewish people declared “We will do and we will listen,” they elevated their observance beyond action. Their willingness to do even before listening brought them to a state of awareness of godliness and spirituality to an extent that they wouldn’t actually need to occupy the world of action. However, when they sinned with the Golden Calf, they lost this ability. The Mishkan became a compensation for this, allowing for more concrete religious actions and observance. (It is actually a dispute between Rashi (Shemos 31:18) and Ramban (Vayikra 8:1) whether the commandment to build the Mishkan was prior or subsequent to the sin of the Golden Calf.)
Within all of us is this tension. A part of us might find the rituals confining, excessive, and boring. Why must we drudge through organized prayers and rituals? Why can’t we just connect to G-d and be a Jew at heart? The feeling is most legitimate. However, as a matter of practicality, without the structure, observance would deteriorate for most people. We are weak and need the concrete places to see G-d instead of seeing him everywhere. At the same time, we acknowledge this shortcoming with the Chattas Nachshon.
One final thought to bring it all together. What does it really mean that G-d brings a Chattas to atone for shrinking the Moon? Perhaps the Midrashic story (Chullin ibid.) of the Moon lobbying before G-d that one cannot have two kings wearing the same crown – meaning that both the sun and the moon cannot be dominant – is metaphorically alluding to the same idea. In an ideal sense, everything should be daylight – that is, utterly illuminated with G-d’s light – and no darkness. Yet the world cannot really operate in this ideal zone and there must be gaps in the light and darkness too in order for physicality to exist. G-d has to acknowledge this practical truth to let the world exist, even though it also brings loss and suffering. He too brings a Chattas to acknowledge this. Yet Yeshayahu prophesied (Yesh. 30:26) that in the messianic future, the light of the moon will be restored, which may allude to the idea that the practical world will transcend to an ideal existence.
Oily Or Late
Daf 11
Our Gemara on amud beis describes the requirement that the Menorah in the Temple have a measure of oil so that it will burn from evening until morning.
Everyone is familiar with the famous question of the Beis Yosef (O.C. 670) regarding the miracle of Chanukah: Why do we light for eight days to commemorate a miracle that lasted eight days when there was enough oil for only one day, such that the miracle would actually have been for seven days? One of the answers that the Beis Yosef gives is that they took the eight days’ worth of oil and divided it by eight. There was a miracle, even for the first night, as the smaller portion they poured into the Menorah lasted the entire night.
Toldos Yaakov Yosef (Miketz) asks a “bomb kashe” on this answer based on our Gemara: How could they have put in only one-eighth of the amount on the first night when that would have violated the requirement to put in enough oil to burn the entire night? (Indeed, in the practical halacha, if one is in a situation where he has only enough oil for one lamp, it is better to light one lamp instead of all the lights for that particular night – divided in smaller amounts that do not reach the proper measure of oil. (See Magen Avraham 671.1.)).
I would like to suggest that, according to this answer given by the Beis Yosef, the requirement of putting in oil to last the entire night is a separate distinct requirement from the general mitzvah of lighting the Menorah. Therefore, when faced with a potential shortage of oil, the Chashmonaim opted to put in only one-eighth of the amount in order to ration the oil and fulfill the mitzvah of lighting partially every day until they were able to replenish the supply of oil. In other words, they believed that they were still fulfilling the mitzvah of lighting the Menorah, though not fulfilling a secondary requirement of having the correct amount to last the entire night.
If I am correct, this speaks to another halachic quandary: When faced with the possibility of doing one mitzvah in its totality and completeness – but sacrificing many future other mitzvos – what do you choose to do? For example, in the case I described above, do you use up all the oil on the first night and fulfill the mitzvah in its entirety, but then sacrifice the remaining seven days, or do you fulfill the mitzvah in an incomplete manner but thus be able to do many more?
Conceptually, one part of the question pivots on whether it is better to grab the mitzvah in front of you and fulfill it in an incomplete or lesser manner, or to make calculations and ration your performance in such a way that you may be able to perform more mitzvos later. If we look at the dilemma as dependent upon that conceptualization, there are a number of famous questions that operate similarly:
- If a person is in jail and given a furlough for one day in an entire year, should he choose to go to minyan on the first day available, or should he wait until Yom Kippur? (See Shu”t Radbaz IV:1087).
- If one is unwell physically, but the doctors say that he can only fulfill one fast day, should he fast on Tzom Gedaliah, necessitating eating on Yom Kippur? Or should he be strategic and eat on Tzom Gedaliah so that he is strong enough to fast on Yom Kippur, which is a holier and more important fast day? This might be dependent on which is more important – the mitzvah that is in front of you right now (even if the requirement in front of you is Rabbinic as opposed to Biblical) or doing the superior mitzvah later? (See Sedei Chemed, Yom Kippur 1:10).
- Since it is a hiddur to bless the New Moon on Motzaei Shabbos, if one sees a New Moon on Thursday, should he pass up the opportunity for the blessing then in order to fulfill it in a more elevated manner later? Or should he not pass over and delay the opportunity to fulfill the mitzvah now? (See Bach C. 426, and Maaseh Rav Gr”a 159).
While each of these cases have unique distinctions, there is a conceptual similarity in one aspect: Do we give priority to the mitzvah in front of us no matter what the other long-term strategic considerations are, or do we evaluate and consider other variables such as the relative importance of the mitzvah?
Since the Bais Yosef offered a number of answers, it is not clear how he held halachically, but at the very least, he held that it was possible that the Chashmonaim calculated in such a manner. When they had a shortage of oil, they thought it was better to fulfill an aspect of the mitzvah for eight nights instead of putting all the oil in on the first night.
In everyday life, there are decisions that we must make that also require us to evaluate whether to choose the immediate action or to hold back and wait for a later, perhaps superior opportunity. We must be aware when making these calculations and decisions, and try to minimize our bias. If one tends toward procrastination, he should be careful that he is not overthinking and delaying. If one tends toward insecurity and impulsiveness, he should wonder if he is acting too soon out of some fear. This requires constant self-analysis and honesty.