cyanic-selkie/wikianc huggingface dataset:
Vayikra (parsyah)
Leviticus chapter 1–7
And while indicates that one bringing an animal sacrifice needed also to bring a drink-offering (, nesech), before then, in  Jacob poured out a drink-offering (, nesech) at Bethel.
More generally, the Hebrew Bible addressed "sacrifices" (, zevachim) generically in connection with Jacob and Moses. After Jacob and Laban reconciled, reports that Jacob offered a sacrifice (, zevach) on the mountain and shared a meal with his kinsmen. And after Jacob learned that Joseph was still alive in Egypt, reports that Jacob journeyed to Beersheba and offered sacrifices (, zevachim) to the God of his father Isaac. And Moses and Aaron argued repeatedly with Pharaoh over their request to go three days' journey into the wilderness and sacrifice (, venizbechah) to God.
The Hebrew Bible also includes several ambiguous reports in which Abraham or Isaac built or returned to an altar and "called upon the name of the Lord." In these cases, the text implies but does not explicitly state that the Patriarch offered a sacrifice. And at God's request, Abraham conducted an unusual sacrifice at the Covenant between the Pieces in
Leviticus chapter 5
The Rabbis read together with  as related passages. deals with those who sin and commit a trespass against God by dealing falsely with their neighbors in the matter of a deposit, pledge, robbery, other oppression of their neighbors, or the finding of lost property, and swear to a lie. provides that the offender must immediately restore in full to the victim the property at issue and shall add an additional fifth part. And requires the offender to bring to the priest an unblemished ram for a guilt-offering, and the priest shall make atonement for the offender before God, and the offender shall be forgiven. directs that when people commit any sin against God, then they shall confess and make restitution in full to the victim and add a fifth part. And provides that if the victim has no heir to whom restitution may be made, the offender must make restitution to the priest, in addition to the ram of atonement.
In classical rabbinic interpretation
The parashah is discussed in these rabbinic sources from the era of the Mishnah and the Talmud:
Leviticus chapter 1
Rav Assi said that young children began their Torah studies with Leviticus and not with Genesis because young children are pure, and the sacrifices explained in Leviticus are pure, so the pure studied the pure.
A Midrash noted that the section recounting the setting up of the Tabernacle in in which, beginning with  nearly every paragraph concludes, "Even as the Lord commanded Moses," is followed by  "And the Lord called to Moses." The Midrash compared this to the case of a king who commanded his servant to build him a palace. On everything the servant built, he wrote the name of the king. The servant wrote the name of the king on the walls, the pillars, and the roof beams. After some time the king entered the palace, and on everything he saw he found his name. The king thought that the servant had done him all this honor, and yet the servant remained outside. So the king had called that the servant might come right in. So, too, when God directed Moses to make God a Tabernacle, Moses wrote on everything he made "Even as the Lord commanded Moses." God thought that Moses had done God all this honor, and yet Moses remained outside. So God call Moses so that he might enter the innermost part of the Tabernacle. Therefore, reports, "And the Lord called to Moses." Rabbi Samuel bar Nahman said in the name of Rabbi Nathan that "as the Lord commanded" is written 18 times in the section recounting the setting up of the Tabernacle in Parashah Pekudei, corresponding to the 18 vertebrae of the spinal column. Likewise, the Sages instituted 18 benedictions of the Amidah prayer, corresponding to the 18 mentions of the Divine Name in the reading of the Shema, and also in Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba taught that the 18 times "command" are counted only from  "And with him was Oholiab, the son of Ahisamach of the tribe of Dan," until the end of the Book of Exodus.
Tractate Zevachim in the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Babylonian Talmud interpreted the law of animal sacrifices in The Mishnah taught that a sacrifice was slaughtered for the sake of six things: (1) for the sake of the sacrifice for which it was consecrated, (2) for the sake of the offerer, (3) for the sake of the Divine Name, (4) for the sake of the altar fires, (5) for the sake of an aroma, and (6) for the sake of pleasing God, and a sin-offering and a guilt-offering for the sake of sin. Rabbi Jose taught that even if the offerer did not have any of these purposes at heart, the offering was valid, because it was a regulation of the court, since the intention was determined only by the priest who performed the service.
Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai taught that, generally speaking, the Torah required a burnt offering only as expiation for sinful meditation of the heart.
A Midrash taught that if people repent, it is accounted as if they had gone up to Jerusalem, built the Temple and the altars, and offered all the sacrifices ordained in the Torah. Rabbi Aha said in the name of Rabbi Hanina ben Pappa that God accounts studying the sacrifices as equivalent to offering them. Rav Huna taught that God said that engaging in the study of Mishnah is as if one were offering up sacrifices. Samuel taught that God said that engaging in the study of the law is as if one were building the Temple. And the Avot of Rabbi Natan taught that God loves Torah study more than sacrifice.
Rabbi Ammi taught that Abraham asked God if Israel would come to sin, would God punish them as God punished the generation of the Flood and the generation of the Tower of Babel. God answered that God would not. Abraham then asked God in “How shall I know?” God replied in  “Take Me a heifer of three years old. . .” (indicating that Israel would obtain forgiveness through sacrifices). Abraham then asked God what Israel would do when the Temple would no longer exist. God replied that whenever Jews read the Biblical text dealing with sacrifices, God would reckon it as if they were bringing an offering, and forgive all their iniquities.
The Gemara taught that when Rav Sheshet fasted, on concluding his prayer, he added a prayer that God knew that when the Temple still stood, if people sinned, they used to bring sacrifices (pursuant to and ), and though they offered only the animal's fat and blood, atonement was granted. Rav Sheshet continued that he had fasted and his fat and blood had diminished, so he asked that it be God's will to account Rav Sheshet fat and blood that had been diminished as if he had offered them on the Altar.
Rabbi Isaac declared that prayer takes precedence over sacrifice.
The Avot of Rabbi Natan taught that as Rabban Johanan ben Zakai and Rabbi Joshua were leaving Jerusalem, Rabbi Joshua expressed sorrow that the place where the Israelites had atoned for their iniquities had been destroyed. But Rabban Johanan ben Zakai told him not to grieve, for we have in acts of loving-kindness another atonement as effective as sacrifice at the Temple, as says, “For I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.”
Rabbi Leazar ben Menahem taught that the opening words of "And the Lord called," indicated God's proximity to Moses. Rabbi Leazar taught that the words of "The Lord is far from the wicked," refer to the prophets of other nations. But the continuation of "He hears the prayer of the righteous," refers to the prophets of Israel. God appears to nations other that Israel only as one who comes from a distance, as says, "They came from a far country to me." But in connection with the prophets of Israel, says, "And the Lord appeared," and  says, "And the Lord called," implying from the immediate vicinity. Rabbi Haninah compared the difference between the prophets of Israel and the prophets of other nations to a king who was with his friend in a chamber (separated by a curtain). Whenever the king desired to speak to his friend, he folded up the curtain and spoke to him. (But God speaks to the prophets of other nations without folding back the curtain.) The Rabbis compared it to a king who has a wife and a concubine; to his wife he goes openly, but to his concubine he repairs with stealth. Similarly, God appears to non-Jews only at night, as says, "And God came to Balaam at night," and  says, "And God came to Laban the Aramean in a dream of the night."
The Sifra cited along with  for the proposition that whenever God spoke to Moses, God first called out to him. And the Sifra deduced from God's calling "to him" in that God meant to speak to Moses alone, to the exclusion of even Aaron. Rabbi Judah ben Betera noted that God spoke to Moses and Aaron together in 13 passages, and to Moses alone in 13 passages, teaching that in these latter passages, Moses was then to inform Aaron. And Rabbi Jose the Galilean deduced from the use of "at the tent of meeting" in that every time that God spoke to Moses at the tent of meeting, God spoke to Moses alone, to the exclusion of Aaron. Rabbi Tanchum ben Chanilai found in God's calling to Moses alone in proof that a burden that is too heavy for 600,000 – hearing the voice of God (see ) – can nonetheless be light for one. And the Sifra also deduced from that God's voice, perhaps because it was subdued, resonated only within the tent itself.
Heteropogon aureus
Heteropogon aureus adalah spesies lalat yang tergolong famili Asilidae. Lalat ini juga merupakan bagian dari genus Heteropogon, ordo Diptera, kelas Insecta, filum Arthropoda, dan kingdom Animalia.
Vayikra (parsyah)
Leviticus chapter 1
Rabbi Tanhuma said in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Korchah that demonstrated that out of the 10 different names that Scripture applied to Moses, God always addressed Moses by his given name.
Heteropogon aureus
Lalat ini mempunyai insting predator yang agresif dan makanannya utamanya adalah serangga lain.
Vayikra (parsyah)
Leviticus chapter 1
The Sifra taught that the term "any man" (, adam) in encompassed converts. But the term "of you" excluded apostates.
Rabbi Judah read “Speak to the children (, benei) of Israel,” to mean that the “sons” (, benei) of Israel could lay hands (, smichah) on a sacrifice before it was offered, but not the “daughters” (, benot) of Israel. Rabbi Jose and Rabbi Simeon, however, disagreed, teaching that women also could lay hands on sacrifices. Abaye taught that a Baraita followed Rabbi Jose and Rabbi Simeon when it taught that both women and children can blow the shofar on Rosh Hashanah.
The Mishnah deduced from that the offerer only effected atonement if the offerer brought the offering voluntarily, but if the offerer pledged to bring a burnt offering, the Mishnah taught that they compelled the offerer to state that the offering was voluntary. The Rabbis in a Baraita read the words "he shall offer it" in to teach that the congregation needed to compel the offerer to fulfill the offerer's obligation. And the Mishnah taught that the intention of the priest conducting the sacrifice determined whether the offering would prove valid.
The Gemara interpreted the requirement of that the priest "dash the blood round about against the altar" to teach that the priest threw the blood against two opposing corners of the altar, thus hitting all four sides of the altar and satisfying the requirement to dash the altar "round about."
Rabbi Eliezer (or some say Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob) taught that Nadab and Abihu died in only because they gave a legal decision interpreting  in the presence of their Master Moses. Even though reports that "fire came forth from before the Lord and consumed the burnt-offering and the fat on the altar," Nadab and Abihu deduced from the command of  that "the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar" that the priests still had a religious duty to bring some ordinary fire to the altar, as well.
The Mishnah noted that  and  each use the same words, "an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor to the Lord," whether to describe the burnt offering of a beast, a bird offering, or even a meal offering. (And   and  provided that people of lesser means could bring less-expensive offerings.) The Mishnah deduced from this that one who sacrificed much and one who sacrificed little attained equal merit, so long as the donors directed their hearts to Heaven. Rabbi Zera taught that provided a Scriptural proof for this when it says, "Sweet is the sleep of a serving man, whether he eat little or much." Rav Adda bar Ahavah taught that provided a Scriptural proof for this when it says, "When goods increase, they are increased who eat them; and what advantage is there to the owner thereof." Rabbi Simeon ben Azzai taught that Scripture says of a large ox, "An offering made by fire of a sweet savor"; of a small bird, "An offering made by fire of a sweet savor"; and of a meal-offering, "An offering made by fire of a sweet savor." Rabbi Simeon ben Azzai thus taught that Scripture uses the same expression each time to teach that it is the same whether people offered much or little, so long as they directed their hearts to Heaven. And Rabbi Isaac asked why the meal-offering was distinguished in that uses the word "soul" (, nefesh) to refer to the donor of a meal-offering, instead of the usual "man" (, adam, in  or, ish, in ) used in connection with other sacrifices. Rabbi Isaac taught that uses the word "soul" (, nefesh) because God noted that the one who usually brought a meal-offering was a poor man, and God accounted it as if the poor man had offered his own soul.
The Mishnah taught that the priest's obligation in to offer the fats and other sacrificial pieces persisted until dawn.
The Sifra deduced from that God occasionally began freestanding statements to Moses so as to allow Moses a pause to collect his thoughts. The Sifra generalized from this example that it was all the more appropriate for ordinary people to speak deliberately in conversation with other people.
Tractate Kinnim in the Mishnah interpreted the laws of pairs of sacrificial pigeons and doves in    and  and
Leviticus chapter 2
Tractate Menachot in the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Talmud interpreted the law of meal offerings in
Leviticus chapter 3
The Gemara deduced from the words "And if his offering be a sacrifice of peace-offerings" in that for an offering to be effective, one needed to slaughter the sacrifice for the sake of its being a peace-offering.
Rabbi Judah taught that whoever brought a peace-offering brought peace to the world. Rabbi Simeon taught that they are called "peace-offerings" because all are at peace, each sharing in them. The blood and the limbs were for the altar, the breast and the thigh for the priests, and the hide and the meat for the owner.
Rabbi Simeon interpreted the term "peace-offering" (, shelamim) in and after to indicate that a person could bring the offering only when "whole" (, shalem), and thus not when one was in the first stage of mourning after the death of a close relative.
Interpreting the words "And he shall . . . kill it at the door of the tent of meeting" in Rav Judah deduced in the name of Samuel that the priest had to kill the sacrifice when the gate was open, not when the gate was closed, and thus that peace-offerings slain before the doors of the Temple were opened were invalid.
The Mishnah taught that because the peace-offering was a sacrifice of lesser sanctity, it could be slain in any part of the Temple court. The Rabbis taught in a Baraita that the Mishnah's rule could be derived from the words "And he shall . . . kill it at the door of the tent of meeting" in "And he shall . . . kill it before the tent of meeting" in  and "And he shall . . . kill it before the tent of meeting" in  The three verses taken together taught that all sides of the Temple court were fit for performing sacrifices of lesser sanctity.
The Gemara deduced from the words "And the priest shall make it smoke" in that the priest must not mix portions of one sacrifice with those of another. And the Gemara cited a Baraita to interpret the words "And the priest shall make them smoke" to teach that the priest had to burn all the sacrificed parts of an offering at the same time.
A Midrash interpreted "The Lord lets loose the prisoners," to read, "The Lord permits the forbidden," and thus to teach that what God forbade in one case, God permitted in another. Thus, God forbade the abdominal fat of cattle in but permitted it in the case of beasts. God forbade consuming the sciatic nerve in animals (in ) but permitted it in fowl. God forbade eating meat without ritual slaughter (in ) but permitted it for fish. Similarly, Rabbi Abba and Rabbi Jonathan in the name of Rabbi Levi taught that God permitted more things than God forbade. For example, God counterbalanced the prohibition of pork (in and ) by permitting mullet (which some say tastes like pork).
The Sages taught that one may trust butchers to remove the fat that and  forbids.
Leviticus chapter 4
Reading the Mishnah noted that the person who burned the bull (as well as the person who led away the scapegoat pursuant to  and 26, the person who burned the bull burned pursuant to  and the person who burned the red cow pursuant to ) rendered unclean the clothes worn while so doing. But the bull (as well as the scapegoat, the other bull, and the red cow) did not itself render unclean clothes with which it came in contact. The Mishnah imagined the clothing saying to the person: "Those that render you unclean do not render me unclean, but you render me unclean."
Tractate Horayot in the Mishnah, Tosefta, Jerusalem Talmud, and Babylonian Talmud interpreted the laws of the High Priest's bull in the bull for a communal error in  the ruler's goat in  and the sin offerings in  and
The Rabbis interpreted the words, "If any one shall sin through error," in to apply to inadvertent transgressions.
The Mishnah taught that 36 transgressions warranted excision ("the soul shall be cut off,", nichretah ha-nefesh) if committed intentionally, and warranted bringing of a sin offering (, chatat), as in if committed inadvertently: when a man has intercourse with (1) his mother, (2) his father's wife, (3) his daughter-in-law, (4) another man, or (5) an animal; (6) when a woman has intercourse with an animal; when a man has intercourse with (7) a woman and her daughter, (8) a married woman, (9) his sister, (10) his father's sister, (11) his mother's sister, (12) his wife's sister, (13) his brother's wife, (14) the wife of his father's brother, or (15) a menstruating woman; when one (16) blasphemes, (17) serves idols, (18) dedicates children to Molech, (19) has a familiar spirit, (20) desecrates the Sabbath, (21) eats of sacrificial food while unclean, (22) enters the precincts of the Temple in an unclean state, eats (23) forbidden fat, (24) blood, (25) remnant, or (26) refuse, (27) slaughters or (28) offers up a consecrated animal outside the Temple precincts, (29) eats anything leavened on Passover, (30) eats or (31) works on Yom Kippur, compounds sacred (32) anointing oil or (33) incense, (34) uses sacred anointing oil improperly, or transgresses the laws of (35) the Passover offering or (36) circumcision.
Leviticus chapter 5
Tractates Nedarim and Shevuot in the Mishnah, Tosefta, Jerusalem Talmud, and Babylonian Talmud interpreted the laws of vows and oaths in  and   and
The Mishnah supposed that a witness, after having been cautioned about the grave responsibility of being a witness, would think that the witness should just avoid the trouble of testifying. The Mishnah taught that this is why says, "And he witnessed or saw or knew, if didn't say anything, he bears the sin." (And thus the witness must testify.)
The Mishnah (following ) taught that a sin-offering of a bird preceded a burnt-offering of a bird; and the priest also dedicated them in that order. Rabbi Eliezer taught that wherever an offerer (because of poverty) substituted for an animal sin-offering the offering of two birds (one of which was for a sin-offering and the other for a burnt-offering), the priest sacrificed the bird sin-offering before the bird burnt-offering (as instructs). But in the case of a woman after childbirth discussed in (where a poor new mother could substitute for an animal burnt-offering two birds, one for a sin-offering and the other for a burnt-offering), the bird burnt-offering took precedence over the bird sin-offering. Wherever the offering came on account of sin, the sin-offering took precedence. But here (in the case of a woman after childbirth, where the sin-offering was not on account of sin) the burnt-offering took precedence. And wherever both birds came instead of one animal sin-offering, the sin-offering took precedence. But here (in the case of a woman after childbirth) they did not both come on account of a sin-offering (for in poverty she substituted a bird burnt-offering for an animal burnt-offering, as required her to bring a bird sin-offering in any case), the burnt-offering took precedence. (The Gemara asked whether this contradicted the Mishnah, which taught that a bird sin-offering took precedence over an animal burnt-offering, whereas here she brought the animal burnt-offering before the bird sin-offering.) Rava taught that merely accorded the bird burnt-offering precedence in the mentioning. (Thus, some read Rava to teach that lets the reader read first about the burnt-offering, but in fact the priest sacrificed the sin-offering first. Others read Rava to teach that one first dedicated the animal or bird for the burnt-offering and then dedicated the bird for the sin-offering, but in fact the priest sacrificed the sin-offering first.)
A Midrash deduced from the instructions in for the poor person to bring meal offerings that God valued the poor person's offering.
Chapter 9 of Tractate Bava Kamma in the Mishnah and Babylonian Talmud and chapters 9 and 10 in the Tosefta interpreted the laws of restitution in together with
The Mishnah taught that if one stole from another something worth a perutah (the minimum amount of significant value) and the thief nonetheless swore that the thief did not do so, the thief was obliged to take restitution to the victim even if the thief needed to go as far as Media (in what is now Iran). The thief could not give restitution to the victim's son or agent, but the thief could give it to an agent of the court. If the victim died, the thief had to restore it to the victim's heirs.
The Mishnah taught that if the thief paid back the principal to the victim but did not pay the additional fifth required by or if the victim excused the thief the principal but not the fifth; or the victim excused the thief both the principal and the fifth, except for something less than the value of a perutah remaining of the principal, then the thief would not have to go after the victim to repay the victim. (The Mishnah did not consider the payment of the fifth as an essential condition of atonement.) If, however, the thief paid the victim the fifth but not the principal; or the victim excused the thief the fifth but not the principal; or even where the victim excused the thief for both, except for something more than the value of a perutah remaining of the principal, then the thief would have to convey it personally to the victim (even as far as Media).
The Mishnah taught that if the thief paid the principal back to the victim and took an oath falsely that the thief had paid the fifth required by the thief would have to pay the victim an additional fifth of the fifth and so on until the principal of the last fifth about which the thief swore was reduced to less than the value of a perutah.
The Mishnah taught that the rules of restitution also applied to the case of a deposit, as says: “In that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or has deceived his neighbor, or has found that which was lost and lies concerning it and swears falsely.” The custodian had to pay the principal and the fifth required by  and bring a trespass offering as required by  If the depositor asked where the thing deposited was, and an unpaid custodian replied that it was lost, and the depositor then imposed an oath on the custodian, and the custodian swore that the deposit was lost, if witnesses then testified that the custodian consumed the thing deposited, then the custodian had to repay the principal. If the custodian confessed, the custodian had to pay the principal together with a fifth and bring a trespass offering, as required by If, however, the depositor asked where the thing deposited was, and the custodian replied that it was stolen, and the depositor then imposed an oath on the custodian, and the custodian swore that the someone else took the thing deposited, if witnesses testified that the custodian stole it, then the custodian had to repay double as required by  But if the custodian confessed on the custodian's own accord, then the custodian had to repay the principal together with a fifth and bring a trespass offering, as required by
The Mishnah taught that if one stole from one's father and, when charged by the father, denied it on oath, and the father then died before the child confessed to the father's heirs, then the child would have to repay the principal and a fifth to the father's other children or to the father's brothers (the child's uncles) if the child had no siblings. But if the child was unwilling to forfeit the child's share in the payment that child had to make, or if the child had no resources, then the child was to borrow the amount from others and perform the duty of restoration to the heirs, and the creditors could subsequently come and demand to be paid the portion that would by law have belonged to the child as heir.
In medieval Jewish interpretation
The parashah is discussed in these medieval Jewish sources:
Leviticus chapters 1–7
Maimonides and Nachmanides differed about the reason for the sacrificial system. Maimonides wrote that the reason for the offerings was because when the Israelites lived in Egypt and Chaldea, the Egyptians worshipped sheep and the Chaldeans worshipped demons in the form of goats. And people in India never slaughter cattle. Thus God commanded the Israelites to slaughter cattle, sheep, and goats to God, so that worshipers of the other lands would know that God required the very act that they considered to be the utmost sin, and through that act God would forgive Israel's sins. God thus intended to cure the people of the other nations of false beliefs, which Maimonides characterized as diseases of the soul, for diseases are healed by medicines that are antithetical to the diseases.
Maimonides taught that God instituted the practice of sacrifices as a transitional step to wean the Israelites off of the worship of the times and move them toward prayer as the primary means of worship. Maimonides noted that in nature, God created animals that develop gradually. For example, when a mammal is born, it is extremely tender, and cannot eat dry food, so God provided breasts that yield milk to feed the young animal, until it can eat dry food. Similarly, Maimonides taught, God instituted many laws as temporary measures, as it would have been impossible for the Israelites to suddenly discontinue everything to which they had become accustomed. So God sent Moses to make the Israelites (in the words of ) "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." But the general custom of worship in those days was sacrificing animals in temples that contained idols. So God did not command the Israelites to give up those manners of service, but allowed them to continue. God transferred to God's service what had formerly served as a worship of idols, and commanded the Israelites to serve God in the same manner – namely, to build to a Sanctuary, to erect the altar to God's name , to offer sacrifices to God , to bow down to God, and to burn incense before God. God forbad doing any of these things to any other being and selected priests for the service in the Temple in By this Divine plan, God blotted out the traces of idolatry, and established the great principle of the Existence and Unity of God. But the sacrificial service, Maimonides taught, was not the primary object of God's commandments about sacrifice; rather, supplications, prayers, and similar kinds of worship are nearer to the primary object. Thus God limited sacrifice to only one Temple (see ) and the priesthood to only the members of a particular family. These restrictions, Maimonides taught, served to limit sacrificial worship, and kept it within such bounds that God did not feel it necessary to abolish sacrificial service altogether. But in the Divine plan, prayer and supplication can be offered everywhere and by every person, as can be the wearing of tzitzit and tefillin ( 16) and similar kinds of service.
Nachmanides, on the other hand, noted that mentioned a reason for the offerings – that they are "a fire-offering, of a pleasing odor to the Eternal." Nachmanides rejected the argument that the offerings were meant to eliminate the foreigners' foolish ideas, for the sacrifices would not have that effect, as the foreigners' intention was to worship the constellations of the sheep and the ox, and if Jews slaughtered sheep and oxen to God, it would show respect and honor to those constellations. Nachmanides further noted that when Noah came out of the ark, there were as yet no Chaldeans or Egyptians in the world, yet Noah brought an offering that pleased God so much that reports that on its account God said, "I will not again curse the ground anymore for man's sake." Similarly, Abel brought of the first-born of his flock and reports that "the Eternal had regard to Abel and to his offering," but there had not yet been a trace of idol worship in the world. In Balaam said, "I have prepared the seven altars, and I have offered up a bullock and a ram on every altar," but his intent was not to eradicate evil beliefs from Balak's mind, but rather to approach God so that God's communication would reach Balaam. Nachmanides argued that the reason for the offerings was more likely that since people's deeds are accomplished through thought, speech, and action, therefore God commanded that when people sin and bring an offering, they should lay their hands on it in contrast to the evil deed that they committed. Offerers would confess their sin verbally to contrast with their evil speech. They would burn parts of the animal in fire that were seen as the instruments of thought and desire in human beings. The offerers would burn the legs of the animal because they corresponded to the limbs with which the offerer acted. The offerer sprinkled blood on the altar, which is analogous to the blood in the offerer's body. Nachmanides argued that offerers performed these acts so that the offerers should realize that the offerers had sinned against God with their bodies. And the offerer's soul and blood should have been spilled and the offerer's body burned, were it not for God's loving-kindness in taking a substitute and a ransom – the offering – so that the offering's blood should be in place of the offerer's blood, its life in place of the offerer's life, and that the limbs of the offering in place of the parts of the offerer's body.
In modern interpretation
The parashah is discussed in these modern sources:
Leviticus chapters 1–7
Professor James Kugel of Bar Ilan University reported that ancient texts offered several explanations for why peoples of the ancient Near East sacrificed animals: to provide the deity food (see ); to offer the life of the slaughtered animal as a substitute for the offerer's; to give a costly possession as a sign of fealty or in the hope of receiving still more generous compensation from the deity. Kugel reported that more recent explanations saw the sacrifice as establishing a tangible connection between the sacrificer and the deity, while others stress the connection of the sacred with violence or see the function of religion as defusing violence that would otherwise be directed at people. Kugel argued that the Israelites conceived of animal sacrifices as the principal channel of communication between the people and God. Professor William Hallo, formerly of Yale University, described sacrifice as a sacred-making of the human consumption of animal meat that followed.
Professor Jacob Milgrom, formerly of the University of California, Berkeley, read the sacrificial system in the parashah to describe the forces of life and death pitted against each other in a cosmic struggle, set loose by people through their obedience to or defiance of God's commandments. Milgrom taught that Leviticus treats impurity as the opposite of holiness, identifying impurity with death and holiness with life. Milgrom interpreted Leviticus to teach that people could drive God out of the sanctuary by polluting it with their moral and ritual sins. But the priests could periodically purge the sanctuary of its impurities and influence the people to atone. The blood of the purification offerings symbolically purged the sanctuary by symbolically absorbing its impurities, in a victory for life over death.
Similarly, Gordon Wenham of Trinity College, Bristol, noted that the sacrificial system regularly associates sacrifices with cleansing and sanctification. Wenham read Leviticus to teach that sacrificial blood was necessary to cleanse and sanctify. Sacrifice could undo the effects of sin and human infirmity. Sin and disease profaned the holy and polluted the clean, whereas sacrifice could reverse this process. Wenham illustrated with the chart at right. Wenham concluded that contact between the holy and the unclean resulted in death. Sacrifice, by cleansing the unclean, made such contact possible. Sacrifice thus allowed the holy God to meet with sinful man.
The 20th century British anthropologist Mary Douglas wrote that to find the underlying logic of the first chapters of Leviticus about how to make a sacrifice and how to lay out the animal sections on the altar, one needs to look carefully at what Leviticus says about bodies and parts of bodies, what is inner and outer, and what is on top and underneath. Douglas suggested this alignment of the three levels of Mount Sinai, the animal sacrifice, and the Tabernacle:
Douglas argued that the tabernacle ran horizontally toward the most sacred area, Mount Sinai went up vertically to the summit, and the sacrificial pile started with the head underneath and went up to the entrails, and one can interpret each by reference to the others. Douglas noted that in mystical thought, “upper” and “inner” can be equivalent. The pattern is always there throughout creation, with God in the depths or on the heights of everything. Likening the tabernacle to a body, the innards corresponded to the Holy of Holies, for the Bible locates the emotions and thought in the innermost parts of the body; the loins are wrung with remorse or grief; God scrutinizes the innermost part; compassion resides in the bowels. The Tabernacle was associated with creation, and creation with fertility, implying that the innermost part of the Tabernacle was a Divine nuptial chamber, depicting the union between God and Israel. Douglas concluded that the summit of the mountain was the abode of God, below was the cloudy region that only Moses could enter, and the lower slopes were where the priests and congregation waited, and analogously, the order of placing the parts of the animal on the altar marked out three zones on the carcass, the suet set around and below the diaphragm corresponding to the cloud girdling the middle of the mountain.
Professor James Watts of Syracuse University argued that the rhetorical purpose of was to assert the Torah's authority over both religious professionals and laity. No Israelite could claim to be exempt from its provisions. Like royal and oracular texts that their framework evokes, intended to persuade the Israelites and the priests to perform the offerings correctly, as specified in the text. But also aimed to reinforce the authority of the Torah over religious performance in the Temple. By publicly stipulating the forms of the Israelite's offerings, positioned priests and laity to monitor each other's performance, with the text as the arbiter of correct practice. Thus shifted cultic authority from the priesthood to the book.
The 20th century Reform Rabbi Bernard Bamberger noted that while the Rabbis introduced into the synagogue a number of practices formerly associated with the Temple, they made no provision for "interim” sacrifices, even though they could have found precedents for sacrifice outside Jerusalem. When the Roman Empire destroyed the Jerusalem Temple, the Rabbis did not choose to follow those precedents for sacrifice elsewhere, but instead set up a substitute, declaring the study of the sacrificial laws as acceptable to God as sacrifices. Bamberger suggested that some scholars may have felt that the day of sacrifice had passed.
Leviticus chapter 1
Milgrom noted that like most of Leviticus, is addressed to all the Israelite people, while only a few laws, in   and  are reserved for the Priests alone.
Pengepungan Esztergom (1241)
Pengepungan Esztergom berlangsung pada musim dingin tahun 1241. Setelah Mongol berhasil memenangkan Pertempuran Mohi, Batu Khan menjarah wilayah Kerajaan Hungaria dan mengincar desa-desa dan kota-kota. Esztergom merupakan ibu kota dan kota terbesar dan kota terkaya di Kerajaan Hungaria pada masa itu dan Batu Khan memutuskan untuk menjarahnya. Ia menghujani kota Esztergom dengan batu dan pasukannya menjarah kota tersebut. Namun, banyak warga yang melarikan diri ke benteng Esztergom dan benteng tersebut berhasil bertahan sembari memicu korban jiwa yang besar di pihak Mongol. Walaupun pada akhirnya pasukan Mongol berhasil diusir, sebagian besar kota ini dihancurkan oleh Batu Khan. Ia lalu akhirnya menarik semua pasukan Mongol dari Eropa ke Rusia.
Vayikra (parsyah)
Leviticus chapter 2
Milgrom believed that the cereal offering, whose description follows in was probably intended for the same purposes as the burnt offering, on behalf of the poor who could not afford entire animal offerings. Milgrom saw in the sacrificial texts a recurring theme of concern for the poor: Everyone, regardless of means, was able to bring an acceptable offering to God. Thus added birds to the roster of burnt offerings, and  on the cereal offering appears immediately after  on the burnt offering, implying that if a person could not afford birds, then the person could bring a cereal offering instead.
Medan Ra'jat
Medan Ra'jat merupakan sebuah majalah yang berbahasa Indonesia yang terbit di Padang, Sumatra Barat. Majalah ini pertama kali terbit pada 1931.
Pengepungan Esztergom (1241)
Sebagian besar informasi mengenai pengepungan ini didapat dari kronik karya Roger dari Torre Maggiore yang merupakan uskup agung Split.
Vayikra (parsyah)
Leviticus chapter 3
Milgrom taught that in the original Priestly source ("P"), an offerer brought the well-being offering in solely out of joyous motivations like thanksgiving, vow fulfillment, or spontaneous free will. The offerer shared the meat of the offering with family and friends. Milgrom reasoned that the advent of the Holiness Code ("H") brought another dimension to the sacrifice of the well-being connected with the prohibition of consuming blood. H's ban on nonsacrificial slaughter meant that all meat eaten as food had initially to be sanctified on the altar as a well-being offering.
Leviticus chapter 4
Milgrom taught that the rationale for the sin or purification offering in was related to the impurity generated by violations of prohibitive commandments, which, if severe enough, polluted the sanctuary from afar. Milgrom called this pollution the Priestly Picture of Dorian Gray: While sin might not scar the face of the sinner, it did scar the face of the sanctuary. This image illustrated a Priestly version of the doctrine of collective responsibility: When evildoers sinned, they brought the more righteous down with them. Those who perished with the wicked were not entirely blameless, but inadvertent sinners who, by having allowed the wicked to flourish, also contributed to pollution of the sanctuary. The High Priest and the leaders of the people, in particular, brought special sacrifices in and 23, for their errors caused harm to their people, as reflected in  and  Thus, in the Priestly scheme, brazen sins (the leaders' rapacity) and inadvertent sins (the silent majority's acquiescence) polluted the sanctuary (and corrupted society), driving God out of the sanctuary and leading to national destruction. In the theology of the purification offering, the sanctuary needed constant purification lest God abandon it because of the people's rebellious and inadvertent sins.
Aksara Hispania Kuno
Aksara Hispania Kuno adalah sistem penulisan yang dibuat di semenanjung Iberia sebelum abjad Latin menjadi aksara dominan. Kebanyakan dari aksara ini tidak biasa karena keduanya bersifat semisilabis dan bukan abjad murni, tetapi konon dikembangkan, sebagiannya dari abjad Fenisia.
Medan Ra'jat
Majalah ini juga menyediakan ruang iklan dengan tarif f15 untuk satu halaman penuh, f8 untuk setengah halaman, f4,50 untuk seperempat halaman, dan f1,50 untuk seperdelapan halaman.
(138524) 2000 OJ8
(138524) 2000 OJ8 adalah sebuah asteroid. Asteroid ini merupakan bagian dari asteroid Amor, yang terletak dekat dengan bumi. Eksentrisitas orbit asteroid ini tercatat sebesar 0.565, sementara magnitudo mutlaknya adalah 16.7.
Aksara Hispania Kuno
Aksara Hispania Kuno sudah dikenal, dan berasal dari abad ke-5 SM —menurut beberapa peneliti, diperkirakan dari abad ke-7— hingga akhir abad ke-1 Masehi atau awal abad pertama Masehi, yang merupakan aksara utama yang digunakan menulis bahasa Hispania Kuno. Beberapa peneliti menyimpulkan bahwa aksara ini kemungkinan berasal dari abjad Fenisia, sementara yang lainnya percaya bahwa abjad Yunani mungkin memiliki pengaruh.
Medan Ra'jat
Majalah ini diterbitkan oleh Persatuan Muslim Indonesia yang didirikan oleh Muchtar Lutfi, Djalauddin Thalib, Mohammad Sjafei, dan Iljas Jacoeb. Majalah ini memiliki dua kantor di Padang. Pertama beralamat di Kampung Mas untuk urusan administrasi dan di Pasar Melintang untuk urusan redaksi.
(138524) 2000 OJ8
Pembentukan
Seperti asteroid secara keseluruhan, asteroid ini terbentuk dari nebula matahari primordial sebagai pecahan planetisimal, sesuatu di nebula matahari muda yang tidak cukup besar untuk berubah menjadi planet.
Hyojin
Hyojin atau Kim Hyo-jin adalah seorang penyanyi Korea Selatan kelahiran Seoul yang tergabung dalam grup vokal laki-laki ONF. Ia merupakan anggota dan ketua dalam sub unit 'ON' atau ON TEAM. Ia juga merupakan vokalis utama yang sudah melalui masa magang selama 5 tahun. Pada acara survival MIXNINE, ia terpilih menjadi center dan mendapat posisi kedua. Namun sayangnya, ia tidak jadi debut bersama grupnya. Hyojin merupakan teman baik dari J-US dan mereka sudah berteman selama sepuluh tahun.
Vayikra (parsyah)
Leviticus chapter 5
Milgrom taught that the guilt or reparation offering in might seem at first glance to be restricted to offenses against God's sanctum or name, but reflected wider theological implications. The Hebrew noun, asham, "reparation, reparation offering," is related to the Hebrew verb , asheim, "feel guilt," which predominates in this offering in 23, and 26, and in the purification offering, as well, in  22, and 27; and  Milgrom inferred from this relationship that expiation by sacrifice depended on both the worshiper's remorse and the reparation that the worshiper brought to both God and people to rectify the wrong. Milgrom noted that if a person falsely denied under oath having defrauded another, subsequently felt guilt, and restored the embezzled property and paid a 20 percent fine, the person was then eligible to request of God that a reparation offering expiate the false oath, as reflected in Milgrom saw here Priestly lawmakers in action, bending the sacrificial rules to foster the growth of individual conscience, permitting sacrificial expiation for a deliberate crime against God (knowingly taking a false oath) provided that the person repented before being apprehended. Thus ordains that repentance converted an intentional sin into an unintentional one, making it eligible for sacrificial expiation.
Commandments
According to Sefer ha-Chinuch, there are 11 positive and 5 negative commandments in the parashah:
In the liturgy
The list of animals from which the Israelites could bring sacrifices in provides an application of the fourth of the Thirteen Rules for interpreting the Torah in the Baraita of Rabbi Ishmael that many Jews read as part of the readings before the Pesukei d'Zimrah prayer service. The rule provides that when the general precedes the specific, the law applies only to the specific. says, "you shall bring your offering from the domestic animals, even from the herd or from the flock." Applying the fourth rule teaches that Israelites could bring sacrifices from no domestic animals other than cattle from the herd or sheep or goats from the flock.
During the Torah reading, the gabbai calls for the Kohen to "approach" (, k'rav) to perform the first aliah, or blessing on the Torah reading, recalling the use of the word "approach" (, k'rav) in to describe the priest's duty to perform the sacrificial service.
Many Jews read excerpts from and allusions to the instructions in the parashah as part of the readings on the offerings after the Sabbath morning blessings. Specifically, Jews read the instructions for the priest's sacrifices in the prohibition on leavening or honey in the incense in  a discussion of the bulls that are completely burned, in reference to the instructions in  and a discussion of the guilt offerings referred to in
The Weekly Maqam
In the Weekly Maqam, Sephardi Jews each week base the songs of the services on the content of that week's parashah. For parashah Vayikra, Sephardi Jews apply Maqam Rast, the maqam that shows a beginning or an initiation of something, as with this parashah, Jews begin the book of Leviticus.
Generally
The haftarah for the parashah is