Shabbat Parashat Kedoshim - 5782

Shabbat Parashat Kedoshim - 5782

Rabbi Hal Miller

But if it will be eaten on the third day, it is rejected, it shall not be

considered pleasing. [Vayikra 19:7]

Our verse seems a virtual repetition of Vayikra [7:18]. Both verses indicate

that the purpose of the offering is not achieved as of this third day. Yet in

most cases, we consider, say, atonement achieved upon the throwing of

the blood on the altar. If that is the effective timing, how can we end up

retroactively un-achieving that purpose three days later?

In reviewing chapters 6 and 7, we find that the earlier prohibition does not

mention actual eating. It only prohibits a sacrifice where there was an intent

to eat it after the prescribed time. In our chapter, our verse prohibits the

sacrifice if it is actually eaten outside the prescribed time. Thus one could be

in violation of either one or both verses by separate acts, intending and doing.

What does it mean that a sacrifice is rejected? Rashi says it means repulsive.

Rav Soloveitchik calls it abominable. How do these definitions help us answer

our question? They indicate that the original purpose of the sacrifice was never

achieved at all, so there is no un-achieving of that purpose.

Not all sacrifices are eaten at all, and not all by the owner, nor all by the Kohen.

Each type has its own set of instructions and prohibitions. The sacrifices referred

to in both our verse and 7:18 are shelamim, the voluntary peace offerings. Unlike

a sin offering or similar, where the purpose is to achieve atonement, the purpose

of this offering "is to appease for you" [19:5].

Rav Soloveitchik compares this offering to a song to express joy and thanks to

God. Unlike the other sacrifices where the purpose is to obtain something from

God, here we are merely giving something to God. It is strictly voluntary, there is

no requirement that we offer this. Therefore, there is nothing to be un-done. None

of the required offerings have this type of late rejection where something would be

effectively taken back.