English translation — ויקרא א

1.

In many of the offerings whose laws are explained in our portion it is said that they are "a satisfying aroma to the Lord",

and the first time — in the law of the burnt-offering of cattle

(the first offering in our portion<sup>1</sup>)

— Rashi explains "satisfying,

a pleasing before Me that I said and My will was done"<sup>2</sup>.

And similarly above in Parshat Tetzaveh regarding the offerings of the seven days of inauguration,

where it is said there<sup>3</sup>

(regarding the offering of the rams<sup>4</sup>)

"a satisfying aroma"<sup>5</sup>,

Rashi explains "a satisfying aroma,

a pleasing before Me that I said and My will was done".

And commentators wrote<sup>6</sup>,

that Rashi's intention is to negate an error,

that the Holy One, blessed be He, "would receive rest from the aroma of the offering",

which is not possible regarding Heaven<sup>7</sup>,

and therefore he explained that "a satisfying aroma" means "a pleasing",

which comes from that "I said and My will was done".

But their explanation requires further study,

for it could be said that Rashi's intention is to negate this error

(that the Holy One, blessed be He, "will receive rest from the scent of the offering")

— it would have been appropriate to explain this the first time we find in the verse the expression "a pleasing scent" regarding an offering,

in the offerings of Noah,

as is related in the verse⁸

that after the flood Noah built an altar and offered burnt offerings upon it,

"And the Lord smelled the pleasing scent"⁹

— and there Rashi did not explain anything¹⁰.

And on the contrary: since there it is explicit "And the Lord smelled the pleasing scent",

behold the need to negate this error

(that the Holy One, blessed be He, "will receive rest from the scent of the offering")

is greater¹¹.

At first glance, one must distinguish between the expression "the pleasing scent" in the portion of Noah and this expression in our portion

(and the portion of Tetzaveh),

for what is said there "

(scent)

the pleasing" there is room to explain that it refers to Noah

(for it is not stated there "a pleasing scent to the Lord"),

and the explanation

of "pleasing

(sweet)

" is that by Noach there was the fragrance of his offerings^*11

"pleasing fragrance"¹²

; but not so in Parshat Tetzaveh and in our parshah it says "a pleasing fragrance to the Lord",

Rashi needed to explain that "a pleasing fragrance to the Lord" means "a satisfaction before Me that I spoke and My will was done".

But it is understood that this explanation is not sufficient:

a)

If the main precision of Rashi here is from what it says "pleasant fragrance to the Lord"

(for it is not possible that the Holy One, blessed be He, "would receive rest from the fragrance of the sacrifice"),

he should have copied these words in the heading,

and Rashi copies only the word "pleasant",

and not the words "fragrance to the Lord"¹³

!

b)

On the contrary,

there it is explicit

(as above)

"And the Lord smelled the pleasant fragrance",

that the simple meaning of the language is^*13,

that

(also)

towards heaven it was a "pleasant fragrance".

3)

In general it is difficult to explain that "pleasant aroma" refers to the physical smell of the offering,

and as the commentators wrote here¹⁴,

that the smell of the offerings "is a bad smell when one burns the meat with the bones",

and not only is there no "pleasant aroma" in this,

but on the contrary,

"a person's soul is disgusted by it"¹⁵,

and if so there is no place to say that this "aroma" was "pleasant" to Noah.

And according to this — why did Rashi not explain in the portion of Noah that "pleasant aroma" means "satisfaction of spirit".

2.

And therefore it seems to explain the intention of Rashi,

that it is understood that “pleasant aroma” does not refer to the enjoyment from the physical smell of the offering,

but rather the intention is to the enjoyment

(“nachas”)

and delight that come through the offering of the sacrifice,

And therefore Rashi does not need to explain in the portion of Noach what is the “satisfaction” of Noach’s offerings,

because it is understood simply,

that when Noach came out of the ark after the flood

(when the Lord had destroyed all flesh)

he had “satisfaction”,

and this was the content of the offering of his sacrifices after the flood,

to express his feeling of gratitude and “satisfaction”,

and “as water reflects a face” so the expression of gratitude and recognition of good of Noach caused, as it were, “satisfaction” above,

that “the Lord smelled the pleasant aroma”,

“pleasant” heavenward,

that Noach’s offerings effected, as it were, above “satisfaction”

(“and the Lord smelled the pleasant aroma”),

and to the extent that as is explicit in the verse,

through that “the Lord smelled the pleasant aroma” the Lord said “I will no longer curse the earth etc.”

(and He doubled the matter into an oath,

as Rashi explains there)

— the opposite of the burning anger of the Omnipresent that was before this,

at the time of the flood.

But here in the portion of korbanos,

in which are explained the commandments of several korbanos,

and the verse emphasizes that these korbanos cause "nachas ruach" above — it is not understood: what is different about korbanos from all commandments of the Torah¹⁶,

that only by them is it explained that

they cause nachas ruach to the Holy One, blessed be He^*16?

For it is understood that the nachas ruach in korbanos is only from this that in this the man serves his Creator¹⁷,

and the service of the Almighty is through all the commandments, all of them,

and why was it not explained in the rest of the commandments that their fulfillment causes "

(a pleasing)

satisfaction to the Lord"

(or similar)?

And this difficulty Rashi comes to resolve in his commentary on "pleasant aroma,"

"satisfaction before Me that I spoke and My will was done" — that the "pleasant aroma"

("satisfaction before Me")

that is unique in the offerings is that here there is a special manner in the fulfillment of the commandments,

"that I spoke and My will was done"

(that this matter we do not find in the rest of the commandments),

as follows.

3.

And this will be understood with an introduction of a general question regarding the matter of the offerings,

that many commentators

(including the plain-sense interpreters<sup>18</sup>)

explain what is the reason and the benefit in the matter of the offerings,

that a person brings an animal and offers it

(part of it or all of it)

upon the altar,

but in Rashi's commentary we do not find, seemingly, an explanation of the essence of this commandment.

And even though Rashi in his commentary on the Torah, his way is not

(in the usual manner)

to explain the reasons for the commandments

(for Rashi's commentary is not a book of reasons for the commandments,

rather it comes only to settle the plain meaning of the verses)

— behold, in addition to this that offerings are not one particular commandment or a few, but rather include many commandments,

and also in quality,

offerings are a most general matter,

that this is the service in the Mishkan and Temple

(place of the indwelling of the Divine Presence)

— behold, yet another thing regarding offerings,

that the question is not only "what is the reason" for this commandment,

but rather it is seemingly a matter opposite to reason

(and against intellect),

that they burn an animal

(or part of it)

without benefit — for man has nothing from this burning,

and certainly it is not applicable to say that the Holy One, blessed be He, derives pleasure from the burning of the offerings,

and it is astonishing to destroy the money of Israel without benefit<sup>19</sup>.

And it can be said that this is the intention of Rashi in what he wrote "a pleasing satisfaction before Me that I spoke and My will was done",

that indeed this is the entire intention in the matter of offerings

(in which no benefit is seen),

that a person should offer the offering only because this is His will, may He be blessed,

and nothing more.

That is: the explanation is not that there is benefit in this but that the person does not know what it is,

and when he offers an offering he believes that there is benefit in this,

but rather all the benefit in the offering of the offering is only this that he does His will, may He be blessed.

And this is also the special aspect of the sacrifices,

that only regarding them is it said "a pleasing fragrance to the Lord",

and not regarding the other commandments,

because only regarding sacrifices is there a "satisfaction" and a special "pleasure" beyond that the fulfillment of the commandments is solely because of this that "I have said".

D.

But still this is not a sufficient explanation,

because superficially this advantage,

the doing of a commandment only in order to fulfill His will, may He be blessed,

exists also regarding the other commandments that are called "statutes",

as Rashi²⁰

that statutes are "matters that are nothing but a decree of the King without any reason"²¹.

At first glance one could say,

According to what the Ramban wrote<sup>22</sup>

Regarding the statutes,

That "the intention in them is not that there should be a decree of the King of kings of kings in any place without reason..

Only the statutes are decrees of the king which he enacts in his kingdom without revealing their benefit..

And they accept them for the fear of the kingdom..

But all of them are with proper reason and complete benefit",

And based on this one could say that this is the difference between statutes and sacrifices,

That regarding statutes,

Even though their fulfillment by the children of Israel is only "for the fear of the kingdom",

That they fulfill the decree of the Holy One blessed be He without knowing the reason and the benefit in this,

Nevertheless, from the side of the Holy One blessed be He there is benefit in every statute,

But not so regarding sacrifices, that their entire matter is only "that I said and My will was done",

Meaning that their entire content is "that I said and My will was done" and nothing more,

As above.

But — one cannot explain thus in Rashi,

Because from the simple language of Rashi above regarding statutes "without any reason"

(And in another place<sup>23</sup>

He wrote about statutes "that there is no reason in the matter")

— And not "that their reason is not known"<sup>*23</sup>

And the like — it implies,

That according to his view there is no reason at all for statutes

(And not only that we do not know the reason in them),

And if so, again it is difficult,

How are sacrifices different from all the laws of the Torah,

That only regarding them is it said "a pleasing aroma to the Lord"?

5.

And one can say regarding this,

according to the precision of Rashi's language "

(nachas ruach before Me)

that I said and My will was done",

which seemingly:

a)

Nachas ruach of the Holy One, blessed be He, is seemingly from this that the person fulfilled and did His will, may He be blessed,

and it should have said "that I said and you did My will"

(and the like)

— and not "and was done",

which is language that indicates the "passive" and not the "active"?

b)

Since the main emphasis is "and My will was done",

why did Rashi state at the beginning of his wording "that I said",

and not a language of command or decree — "that I commanded",

"that I decreed" and the like?

[And one cannot answer that this is because here it is discussing

(in our parshah)

voluntary offerings²⁴

(as Rashi explains on the verse²⁵

"when one offers" — "the matter speaks of voluntary offerings"),

for above in parshas Tetzaveh, where it discusses obligatory offerings

(that Moshe was commanded to offer during the seven days of inauguration)

nevertheless Rashi wrote there "that I said".

And likewise later in parshas Pinchas²⁶,

regarding "a satisfying aroma" that is said about the daily offering,

Rashi writes "that I said and My will was done"²⁷].

And it seems to me,

that precisely this language is Rashi's intent to explain the novelty in sacrifices regarding all the commandments,

even the statutes:

The intent in statutes that have no reason is,

to instill in the children of Israel "fear of the kingship",

that they fulfill these commandments only because they are a decree of the King.

And if so, there is in this a "benefit" for a person,

that there should be in him acceptance of the yoke of His kingship.

But not so in sacrifices it is emphasized that they are, as it were, a need on High,

"a fire offering, a pleasing aroma to the Lord"

(and even that they are called in the verse²⁸

"bread" of the Holy One, blessed be He),

therefore Rashi explained that the intent in sacrifices must be only "that I said and My will was done",

namely, not that a person accepts upon himself the yoke of His kingship and His commandments and fulfills the decree of the King,

but only that the will of the Holy One, blessed be He, be fulfilled,

"My will was done" of itself,

as if there is no man performing the commandment, but the sacrifice is done of itself and by itself,

and this emphasizes that the sacrifice is a need on High

("My will was done")

and not for the sake of man²⁹.

And this is also the "satisfaction" unique in sacrifices,

which is not in the other commandments of the Torah,

"that I said and My will was done".

And for this very reason Rashi says "I said",

and not "I decreed" and the like,

because the language "I decreed" indicates a command to man,

and emphasizes that there is here a virtue in that man fulfills a decree from above even though he does not know its reason; but here the precision is that man does the thing

(not because he needs to fulfill His will, may He be blessed,

but)

so that His will, may He be blessed, be fulfilled,

and it does not matter to him whether this is in the category of "decree" or "statement" etc.,

and the content is only that since this is His will,

therefore man wants that His will be done.

6.

Based on this, there is to add explanation in that in our parshah the language "a pleasing aroma" is not said except regarding burnt-offerings³⁰

meal-offering³¹

and peace-offerings³²,

but not regarding sin-offerings

(except for the sin-offering of an individual³³)

and guilt-offerings.

Simply, one can say the reason,

that since the sin-offerings and guilt-offerings come to atone for sin,

one cannot say that this is connected with "satisfaction before Me".

And although even the burnt-offering atones for a positive commandment and a negative commandment that is convertible to a positive commandment³⁴,

and furthermore,

that "a pleasing aroma" is also said regarding the sin-offering of an individual³³

— it is understood simply,

that one must distinguish between the offerings that come to atone for minor matters,

regarding which one can say that this, that a person wants to bring an offering to G-d to be atoned, causes "satisfaction before Me",

but not so regarding more severe sins³⁵,

that then even when atonement is effected through an offering,

one cannot say that this is a matter that causes "a pleasing aroma to the L-rd"

("satisfaction before Me")

because of the severity of the matter for which the iniquity atones.

But still, explanation is needed

(a bit),

for later in Parshat Tzav we again find such a distinction.

That only regarding the meal-offering³⁶

is said "a pleasing

"pleasing aroma",

but not in chatas and asham — but there also in the thanksgiving offering<sup>37</sup>,

which does not come for a sin but to give thanks for a miracle that was done for him<sup>38</sup>,

it is not said "pleasing aroma".

And it requires a reason<sup>39</sup>.

And based on the above, one may say an additional reason why "pleasing aroma" is not said in chatas and asham,

because in these offerings that come to atone for a person, the main bringing of them is not a need of the Most High,

"that I said and My will was done",

but for the person himself<sup>40</sup>,

that his iniquity be atoned for him<sup>41</sup>.

And therefore it is not said "pleasant aroma" regarding the thanksgiving offering,

because it is thanksgiving for a miracle that needed a miracle and was done for him,

thus this offering pertains to his benefit,

since because the Holy One, blessed be He, did a miracle for him,

it is understood,

that the person must give thanks for this,

and thus in this offering it is not emphasized that it comes to effect "a pleasant aroma to the Lord",

"a satisfaction before Me that I spoke and My will was done".

And the main emphasis of the concept of "pleasant aroma",

"a satisfaction before Me that I spoke and My will was done" is⁴⁰

in voluntary offerings⁴²,

about which is discussed at the beginning of our portion⁴³,

that through them the person shows that he wants to donate from his own to the Holy One, blessed be He,

and that is that he does not think about his own benefit,

but only about the Holy One, blessed be He.

And therefore these offerings cause "a satisfaction before Me that I spoke and My will was done".

(From sichos of Shabbos Parshas Vayikra and Shabbos Parshas Tzav 5742; Shabbos Parshas Shlach 5728)