163 —הסמליות של חמץ ומצה בקרבנות שבועות

Shalom u'Vrachah! In Shelah, at the beginning of tractate Shavuot, quoting Sefer Tolaat Yaakov: On this day (Shavuot), the offering comes as both chametz and matzah—chametz representing the body, matzah representing the soul. Both are offered together on the altar, just as both body and soul will delight together in the pleasure of the World to Come (after resurrection), which is the radiance of the Shechinah, as we find with Moshe and Eliyahu. This is based on what is written in Zohar (II 123b) that on Shavuot... chametz is offered to be burned on the altar along with two other breads together, and chametz is burned among them by fire from the altar and cannot harm or damage Israel, etc. This is surprising since the two loaves of Shavuot are eaten by Kohanim and not burned on the altar; as stated in Mishnah Menachot (74b). Moreover, one who puts them on the altar transgresses a prohibition (Menachot 57b). This needs explanation.

Rabbi Yeshaya HaLevi Horowitz, Winnipeg, Canada.

* * *

Answer. According to this version of Zohar, another question arises: The Zohar's wording implies that besides chametz, two loaves are also offered, with chametz burned with them—yet these two loaves themselves are chametz; no other chametz is offered then. Earlier authorities have already addressed this Zohar passage. See Shaar HaGilgulim at its end (cited in glosses printed on Zohar), Mikdash Melech, Or HaChamah, Matpechet Sefarim, Chida's glosses on Zohar, etc. Mikdash Melech explains that when Zohar says 'chametz is burned on the altar,' it refers to the evil inclination called chametz; through waving of two loaves it is burned. But Chida did not accept this answer and wrote "in Mikdash Melech he sat and expounded hints." (Apparently according to Mikdash Melech there is difficulty with 'other' since earlier chametz isn't bread but rather yetzer hara.) Shaar HaGilgulim brings another version of Zohar without 'other' or 'among them,' removing this second question. The first question he tries to answer by saying it refers to two loaves brought alone when lambs are lost; then they are burned as described by Rambam Hilchot Temidin uMusafin ch. 8—but he rejects this because it's forced to interpret Zohar about lost lambs when it speaks about Scripture itself—and leaves it unresolved. (And even without this it's difficult to say Zohar refers to two loaves being burned since their burning is in Beit HaSereifah while Zohar says they're burned on altar. Perhaps Shaar HaGilgulim gives a better answer.)

* * *

In my opinion one can explain that when Zohar says 'burned on altar,' it's like what Menachot (57b) says: Two loaves have something for fire—so much so that anything from which something goes to fire has a prohibition against offering all of it. Even though two loaves themselves aren't offered on altar—as above—the fats of Shavuot lambs brought with them are considered like their body as Rashi explains there. Therefore also laws about leftovers apply to two loaves. Thus Shavuot differs from rest of year: all year meal offerings come as matzah and even leftovers may not be leavened (Menachot ch. 5 mishnah 1-2); but on Shavuot specifically two loaves must be leavened and fats of lambs—which are like body of two leavened breads—are offered on altar. Don't ask: if so what's new about Shavuot? After all there are also thanksgiving breads which come leavened? That's not a question because thanksgiving breads have no meal offering with them unlike two loaves (Menachot 60b & Tosafot "Kol" 52b). Furthermore—and mainly—the lambs brought with two loaves are considered like their body; we also say lambs only come because of bread (Horayot 13a). Rashi there: "lambs because of two loaves." Note Menachot (15a) that even if one word differs—especially according to Rabbi Akiva (Menachot 45b)—and so rules Rambam (Hilchot Temidin uMusafin ch.8 halacha 15)—the bread prevents bringing lambs (see Minchat Chinuch mitzvah 367 for details). Therefore when fats of lambs are burned it's as if part of two loaves themselves were burned on altar—as above regarding something going for fire—which isn't true for thanksgiving offering. Also note Menachot (15a): thanksgiving etc.—they do not require each other for waving but lambs do require each other with bread; Tosafot "Lo" (Menachot 78b): waving for two loaves resembles their offering but here (thanksgiving & its bread) slaughtering only sanctifies bread.

* * *

This distinction between two loaves and thanksgiving breads also clarifies Ramban's commentary on Torah (Vayikra 7:14): "I wonder why Scripture didn't say regarding thanksgiving bread what it said about first fruits—bring them as an offering—but didn't say so for thanksgiving? It's not a question because Scripture said 'on altar they shall not go up for pleasing aroma'—and none of thanksgiving bread goes up at all... Even though regarding showbread one transgresses if it becomes leavened because frankincense upon it is an offering—but none of thanksgiving bread goes up at all." This seems exactly like what was said above from Zohar. Tur raises a difficulty against Ramban—that even for two loaves nothing goes up; both have accompanying sacrifices—what's different? In Sefer Itur Sefarim quoting Matpechet Sefarim he says Zohar & Ramban hold that two loaves go up—which seems odd—but according to what was explained above Tur's question against Ramban falls away.

* * *

To complete matters we must clarify another question: Although above we've answered language in Zohar & Tolaat Yaakov about burning two loaves—that they refer only to lambs considered like their body—still it's not fully resolved: Since according to Tolaat Yaakov's explanation (and similarly can be said for intent in Zohar), bringing chametz on Shavuot hints that in resurrection era even body will delight in radiance of Shechinah just like soul does—shouldn't law require actual part of two loaves themselves be offered upon altar just as matzah meal-offering brought then—which hints at soul—is itself actually offered? To answer: We must explain somewhat about relationship between soul & body.

The purpose of man's creation—the purpose of all creation—is to serve G‑d, as our sages said at end Mishnah Kiddushin: "I was created only to serve my Creator," i.e., through fulfilling Torah & mitzvot; as our sages expound Avodah Zara 3a: "If not for My covenant day & night [Torah], I would not have set laws of heaven & earth." This cannot be done by soul alone above but only when it descends into a body—which is why Torah wasn't given to angels but humans (Shabbat 88b). Yet there's a difference between how soul or body participates in fulfilling Torah & mitzvot: Soul being spiritual desires & yearns for Torah & mitzvot; body being physical conceals spiritual matters & follows materiality—but through its inner soul also wants mitzvot. Body has an advantage over soul—it can fulfill mitzvot only via bodily faculties & limbs.

This is hinted regarding sinning against Torah & mitzvot—in Sanhedrin 91a-b where sages compare soul to a lame person who can't walk and body to a blind person who can't see where to go; only together do they form a complete entity. See also Chullin 7b: Israel are holy—some want [to do], some have [the means]. Since Torah & mitzvot can only be fulfilled by union of soul & body—the reward too in resurrection era will be specifically souls within bodies—as our sages say Berachot 17a: The World-to-Come has no eating or drinking... rather righteous enjoy radiance of Shechinah—even bodies will be nourished from this radiance just like Moshe & Eliyahu—as Tolaat Yaakov writes above; Ramban elaborates at length in Sha'ar HaGmul disagreeing with Rambam's interpretation—that then bodies will be refined enough... see there—that they can be nourished by radiance of Shechinah.

Chassidus explains further—in Torah Or Parshat Toldos s.v. Mayim Rabim—that even regarding vitality itself there will be change then: such an exalted revelation will vitalize even physical bodies—not like now where soul vitalizes body. Yet even then union between soul & body remains necessary for vitality—for such sublime light must pass through soul before reaching body so that its life-force becomes internalized specifically via measurement by soul—as explained thoroughly in maamar Lechol Tiklah from year 5659 [1899]. Thus even then—as hinted by Shavuot per Tolaat Yaakov—there remains distinction between vitality received by soul versus that received by body; body's vitality comes only via mediation through soul—not directly from source itself.

Therefore also offerings symbolizing each differ: Matzah symbolizing soul is actually offered directly upon altar without intermediary; whereas chametz symbolizing body isn't itself actually offered upon altar.

Summary

The Rebbe analyzes classic sources discussing why chametz isn't directly offered on Shavuot's altar despite its symbolism for bodily delight after resurrection, explaining how offerings reflect nuanced differences between soul and body's roles both now and after techiyat ha-meitim.