Podcasts about parashat vayikra

Spring has arrived in Southern California, signaling a time to embrace warmer weather and prepare for Passover. Rabbi Hannah Elkin expands beyond the story of the Exodus from Egypt and shares the other Jewish traditions, including the reading of Song of Songs, symbolizing new beginnings.This seasonal transition is mirrored in the Torah portion, Parashat Vayikra, which calls for spiritual and emotional purification. Despite the challenges of the recent winter, including fires and floods, there is hope that the beauty of the earth and our spirits will blossom anew. As we approach Passover, may this time of renewal bring love, beauty, and fresh starts for all.Each week, a member of the clergy offers their personal perspective on a topic of their choice, such as the week's Torah portion, a Jewish holiday, ritual, custom, or history. Facebook: Wilshire Boulevard TempleWebsite: wbtla.orgYoutube: Wilshire Boulevard TempleInstagram: wilshireboulevardtemple

Question 1: Would you give someone a birthday cake that you took a huge piece out of?  Probably not.  Rather, you'd give them a cake that was “tamim.” Question 2: What did Noah, Abraham, and Job all have in common? They were all described by the Hebrew word, “Tamim” meaning whole-hearted, complete, or blameless.  Question 3: How can we be more “tamim”? To find out, check out this week's sermon podcast here:

The pasuk in this week's parsha states: " ויקרא אל משה וידבר ה' אליו מאהל מועד לאמר " - Hashem called to Moshe, and then Moshe entered to speak with Him. At the end of Parashat Pekudei, it says that Moshe was unable to enter the Ohel Mo'ed because the cloud of Hashem had descended upon it. However, in Parashat Mishpatim, it states that Moshe entered the cloud of Hashem at Har Sinai, which seems to indicate that he was able to enter. The Ohr HaChaim explains that in that instance, it first says " ויקרא אל משה " , meaning Hashem called Moshe in first. A person cannot simply enter a place where the Shechina resides. However, if Hashem calls the person in, then it becomes possible. That is why Parashat Vayikra begins with Hashem calling Moshe to enter the Ohel Mo'ed. What did Moshe do to merit this calling? The Shevet Mussar explains that Moshe did not contribute any donations toward the Mishkan, even though he was in charge of its construction. Specifically because he did not contribute, Moshe was chosen for this role—so that no one could ever claim personal credit for building Hashem's house. The Midrash states that the phrase " כאשר צוה ה' את משה " appears 18 times regarding the Mishkan. It gives a parable of a king who commanded his servant to build him a palace. On each part that the servant built, he wrote the name of the king—on the walls, on the pillars, on every detail of the palace. When the king entered and saw his name everywhere, he said: "My servant has honored me so much, and yet I am inside while he remains outside." Immediately, the king called his servant to enter the palace. Similarly, when Hashem instructed Moshe to construct the Mishkan, Moshe "wrote" on everything " כאשר צוה ה' את משה " . Hashem saw that Moshe had given Him all the honor, while he himself remained outside. In response, Hashem called Moshe inside. The phrase " כאשר צוה ה' את משה " reflects Moshe's complete self-nullification. He did not take any credit for his role; rather, he attributed everything to Hashem. Even though Moshe did not physically build the Mishkan, he stood by the workers, reminding them that their strength and talent came from Hashem. He even reminded Betzalel, despite his wisdom, not to lose focus and to recognize that all his abilities were granted by Hashem. The one who did not physically labor was the one invited in—because he gave Hashem the most honor. Humility, in which a person attributes everything to Hashem, brings Hashem honor. In turn, Hashem honors that person. The letter Aleph in Vayikra is small. The Gemara explains that in Moshe's humility, he wanted it to appear as Vayikar (without the Aleph ), implying that Hashem " ויקר -happened" to appear to him, rather than explicitly calling him. He wrote the Aleph small so it would not seem as though he was exceptionally deserving. In the end, Hashem used the extra ink from the small Aleph to make Moshe's face shine. Moshe's name is absent from the Haggadah because Yetziat Mitzrayim was meant to teach for all generations that Hashem alone controls the world. One of the reasons Moshe was chosen as the leader was because he was willing to remove himself from the story and give all credit to Hashem. His humility allowed him to gain immeasurably. Each day, we have the opportunity to serve Hashem in this way. The more we attribute everything we have and do to HaKadosh Baruch Hu , the more He rests His presence upon us. If we internalize that all success comes solely from Him, we truly honor Hashem—and in that merit, may He call us closer to Him. We all desire closeness with Hashem. The path to achieving it is through humility—by recognizing that everything we have and everything we accomplish is entirely from Him. Shabbat Shalom.

La alef pequeña

Parashat Vayikra 5785 - Message du Rav avant Shabbat by Rav David Touitou

R'Piha

La alef pequeña

Click here to listen to this lecture

This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Motivational God, Converts, Black Jews, Shidduch Crisis Reality Check: Stump The Rabbi (158) https://youtu.be/erzYR1vIGF8 Sefer & Parashat Vayikra begins the teachings of the korbanot (sacrificial offerings). Since God doesn't eat nor does He need us, why does He command us to do them? This and much more in this shiur BeEzrat HaShem.

Motivational God, Converts, Black Jews, Shidduch Crisis Reality Check: Stump The Rabbi (158) https://youtu.be/erzYR1vIGF8 Sefer & Parashat Vayikra begins the teachings of the korbanot (sacrificial offerings). Since God doesn't eat nor does He need us, why does He command us to do them? This and much more in this shiur BeEzrat HaShem.

In this week's podcast, we analyze the phrase haddam hu hannafesh -- the blood is the life force. We expand into a discussion of reductionism and emergence, dualism and monism.

The pasuk in the beginning of this week's Parasha, Vayikra, begins with the words ויקרא אל משה – And He called to Moshe. The pasuk doesn't say who was calling to Moshe. The Slonimer Rebbe said, it is to teach us it does not matter who is calling, because every call that a person ever gets is ultimately coming from Hashem. People are all just messengers. Only what Hashem wants to happen will happen and nobody else can ever say otherwise. Those who are in tune with this reality live their lives on a higher level. Even when interacting with people, they only see Hashem. Their hishtadlut is done focusing only on Him, although they may be dealing with His messengers down here. Yosef Hatzadik was on such a high level of bitachon , he wasn't even shy to tell the person he was speaking to that he would just be acting out the plan of Hashem. This is how Rav Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld explained the pesukim at the end of parashat Vayeshev . When Yosef interpreted the dream of Sar Hamashkim , he added at the end, כי אם זכרתני איתך – that he should remember to mention his name to Pharoah to get him out of jail. The conventional understanding in that pasuk is that Yosef was asking the Sar Hamashkim for a favor and, on his level, it was considered too much hishtadlut , and that's why he got two extra years in prison. Rabbi Zonnenfeld, however, explained differently, because the midrash at the beginning of parashat Miketz praises Yosef for his steadfast bitachon here. He explained, those words כי אם זכרתני were not a request of Yosef, rather they were a condition of the fulfillment of the interpretation of the dream. Yosef told the Sar Hamashkim he would be taken out of jail and once again return to be the butler of the king, but it was all for one purpose- כי אם זכרתני – to mention his name to Pharaoh . Yosef saw that entire episode of this man getting thrown into jail and then having his disturbing dream with Yosef being able to interpret it, all as a means of Hashem providing him with the help he needed to get out of jail himself. And so Yosef told the Sar Hamashkim , “You see, this entire process of you being thrown into jail and you coming to me for the interpretation, was just כי אם זכרתני – for you to mention my name to Pharaoh .” However, the Sar Hamashkim was not a ma'amin in hashgacha pratit and surely did not want to feel that the circumstances of his life were just happening to help someone else and so he refused to mention Yosef's name to Pharaoh at that time. Yosef was such a bote'ach b'Hashem , he wasn't even embarrassed to tell the Sar Hamashkim the truth – that he was just a messenger. According to this explanation, when Chazal say because Yosef said the words כי אם זכרתני the Sar Hamashkim did not mention his name to Pharaoh , it wasn't a punishment, it was a reality. The Sar Hamashkim was going to do everything in his power not to mention Yosef's name, just so he wouldn't feel like a messenger. This is the way it had to be anyway. Yosef needed to be separated from Yaakov, his father, for 22 years and if he would have gotten out at that time, it would have been two years too little. Yosef was absolutely right; the Sar Hamashkim was put into that jail just to eventually mention his name to Pharaoh , it just wasn't' the time yet. When the time did arrive, two years later, Hashem made sure that Sar Hamashkim would mention Yosef, even though he himself didn't want to. Every circumstance that a person finds himself in is just a manifestation of Hashem's will for him. Our best reaction in all circumstances is to say, “This is m'et Hashem.” Our best hishtadlut when asking others for help is to recognize that they will only be messengers for what Hashem wants to happen. אין עוד מלבדו – there is nothing in this world other than Hashem. Shabbat Shalom

پاراشای وییکرا آلف א کوچک פרשת ויקרא אלף זעירא

ספר ויקרא. פירוש על ואישי ישראל ותפילתם پاراشای وییکرا Parashat Vayikra by Rabbi Benjamin Lavian

Featuring:Rabbi Moshe Tuvia Lieff Agudath Israel Bais BinyominBrooklyn, NYRabbi Moshe Tuvia Lieff shares some really powerful thoughts on this weeks Parashat Vayikra.Thank you Rabbi Lieff for taking the time to carry us through the week! Shabbat Shalom!

R'Piha

Parashat Vayikra addresses the situation of somebody who falsely denied on oath owing money to another person. The Torah (5:21) gives several examples, such as a situation where a person entrusted his fellow with his object, or lent him money, and the recipient later denied receiving the object or money. Another example mentioned by the Torah is "Ashak Et Amito" – where somebody hired a person to work for him, and then denied owing him wages. If the person falsely swore that he did not owe the object or money, and then confessed his wrongdoing, he must bring a special atonement sacrifice in addition to paying what he owes as well as a fine. The Or Ha'haim Ha'kadosh (Rav Haim Ben-Attar, 1696-1743) notes that the Torah uses three different expressions in reference to this offense. First, it says, "Nefesh Ki Teheta" – "If a soul committed a sin." Thereafter, the Torah says, "U'ma'ala Ma'al B'Hashem" – "and transgressed against G-d." Finally, the Torah describes "Ve'kihesh Ba'amito" – that the person "denies his fellow." The Or Ha'haim explains that these three phrases refer to the three different aspects of this sin, falsely denying a debt that one owes to his fellow. Firstly, and most obviously, "Ki Teheta" – such a person commits the sin of theft, keeping for himself that which belongs to his fellow. Such conduct constitutes theft, plain and simple, no different from forcibly seizing someone else's possession. Secondly, "U'ma'ala Ma'al B'Hashem" – this denial amounts to a direct offense against G-d Himself. If a person rightfully owns something, then we must believe that G-d, in His impeccable justness, determined that this person should own that money or that piece of property. If a person keeps for himself that which belongs to his fellow, then he in essence casts aspersions on G-d's justice, challenging G-d's decision to give the object or money in question to the other individual. The Or Ha'haim suggests that the Torah uses a double expression – "U'ma'ala Ma'al" – to allude to the two injustices that the liar is attributing to G-d: he challenges G-d's decision that his fellow should have this property, and he also challenges G-d's decision that he himself should not have it. This challenge against G-d's justice is the second aspect of this offense. Finally, the Torah speaks of this person as "Kihesh Ba'amito" – literally, "denying his fellow." He does not just deny owing his fellow the object or money that he owes; he denies his fellow's uprightness. He essentially accuses the rightful owner of what he himself is guilty of – dishonesty, charging that he is trying to steal by falsely claiming that he is owed money or an object. The person thus not only casts aspersions on G-d – he casts aspersions on his fellow, turning him into the criminal. Seeking to profit through dishonesty is thus a triple crime – theft, a challenge against G-d's justice, and falsely accusing one's fellow of wrongdoing. Each one in its own right suffices for us to avoid such misconduct; the combination of all three makes dishonesty especially egregious, and requires us to exercise extreme care to conduct all our financial affairs with strict honesty.

Parashat Vayikra overview.Thanks for listening! Please subscribe to the podcast and the YouTube channel for more content:https://www.youtube.com/@adamstorah

Rabbi Feiner shiurim

We continue to discuss the topic of Savlanut , which we translated literally as to carry, to tolerate and to be patient with situation s that not to our liking. The Gemara in Masechet Shabbat brings the following braita: Those that are disgraced and don't disgrace back, that hear their disgrace and don't respond, that serve God out of love and are happy with yisurim/suffering. So these are three areas of tolerance; being tolerant of insults, or disgrace or tolerating suffering. And on them, it says the pasuk in Shoftim - And those that love God, it will big will be like the sun in its full shining. We mentioned in the past that the sun is the fullest expression of energy, yet here the person is seemingly not doing anything, he's being quiet, but that quiet has the greatest of energy. Rabbenu Bachye in Parashat Vayikra (perek א pasuk ב ) explains as follows: He says that, as we know, the sun and moon were originally equal. Then the moon complained and said we can't have two equal kings. So what did God do? God made the moon smaller and the sun bigger. Rabbenu Bachye says that we see from this that the sun didn't respond, and because the sun was quiet while the moon was disgracing, it, the sun was rewarded and the sun shined. Therefore we say of the people that keep quiet, God will reward them with shining. The Chida says something very interesting ( Vayikra 10,13). He quotes from the Mesorah, which is an early Midrash that lists certain times that words show up on a rare occasion, always a theme. The word under discussion is Vayidom , which means to be quiet . The word Vayidom only shows up twice in Tanach - once in Vayidom Aharon, and another in Vayidom HaShemesh. Vayidom Aharon is when, lo alenu, Aharon loses his two sons on the opening day of the Bet HaMikdash, and he's quiet. He doesn't say anything. He just, so to say, tolerates that difficult situation. And Vayidom HaShemesh/ the sun was silent when Yehoshua stopped the sun. Why does it say the sun was silent? Because the sun, just by following its regular orbit, sings praise to God, is praising God. When it stops, the praise stops. So the sun is silent from its praise, so to say. That's the simple explanation. But the Chida has a deeper explanation, and says that the commonality between the two is that just like the sun was silent way back when, in creation, the moon asked how there could be two equal kings (the moon wanted to be in charge, but the sun was quiet), and because of that, the sun ended up shining, so too for Aharon. When he had this great challenge in life, in the words of the Chida, “ Due to his great piousness and humility, he didn't have anything to say. He was just quiet. ” And therefore, Aharon HaKohen ended up shining like the sun. Aharon HaKohen was shining because of the fact that he, like the sun, was Sovel/ tolerant, patient and held onto his difficult feelings. He was tolerant, patient, and held on. We add one more piece, from the Kurazi, written by Rav Yehuda Halevi as a conversation between the king of the Kuzars and a rabbi. In it, the rabbi says that Hashem says, “ I'm proud of the Jewish people.” And the king says, “ How could that be? How could God be proud of people? That doesn't sound right.” And the rabbi explains, “ If someone said, ‘God is proud of the sun,' would that bother you?” And he says, “ No, that makes sense. Look what the sun does. Look how powerful the sun is. The whole world is living from the sun, the plants…everything needs the sun. Of course God should be proud of the sun.” So the rabbi says that the human beings that are spreading the word of God, the human beings that are acting in greatness, they're greater than the sun. And if God can be proud, so to say, of the sun, he should surely be proud of people. After the Rambam quotes this Gemara in the laws of De'ot, perek ה , he says that a person should be from the people that are insulted and and not respond, etc. And he says on them, the pasuk says, “ You are the Jewish people that I'm proud of. ” So God is proud of the Jews. When is he proud of us? He's proud of us when we're quiet and we tolerate. Have a wonderful day.

For so many Christians, we are obsessed with God's call. This desire, while admirable, is often misplaced. Oddly, we spend our entire lives seeking God's call, while never reading the book of Scripture titled, “He called”. In this week's parsha, Vayikra, we are challenged by the first two words…”He called”. The post IBR Ep 95- Parashat Vayikra- The Call appeared first on Out of Ashes Ministries.

For so many Christians, we are obsessed with God's call. This desire, while admirable, is often misplaced. Oddly, we spend our entire lives seeking God's call, while never reading the book of Scripture titled, "He called". In this week's parsha, Vayikra, we are challenged by the first two words..."He called".

Walking Through Torah Parashat Vayikra - Steve Van Bruaene

Walking Through Torah Parashat Vayikra - Steve Van Bruaene

Rabbi David Wolpe's weekly sermon from 3/12 for Parashat Vayikra.

Support the show (https://radioisrael.nl/geven/)

The pasuk says in this week's parasha Vayikra ,'ונפש כי תקריב קרבן מנחה לה – when a soul offers a korban mincha to Hashem... Chazal tell us, out of all the donated korbanot , this is the only one which says נפש , which means soul. And the reason is because it is the way of poor people to bring this flour offering, and Hashem says to the poor, when you bring a flour offering, I consider it as if you brought your own soul. When a wealthy man offers a sacrificial bull, it costs him a lot of money, but he has much more left over in his house. However, when the poor man brings his flour offering, although it's not so expensive, it's usually all he can afford and therefore it becomes even more valuable to Hashem than the bull of the wealthy. It is not the amount that matters as much as the efforts, and the same applies in all areas of avodat Hashem. If someone is struggling to understand his Torah learning, he tries to pay attention but the words don't penetrate. He tries to review, but he can't remember anything. Yet, he still comes to class and still puts in all the efforts that he could. His Torah will be considered more valuable than the genius who understands everything and remembers everything. If the genius works hard and pushes himself to the limit, then his Torah becomes more valuable as well. It all goes by effort. A man once came to the Steipler Rebbe lamenting the fact that he was only able to learn for one hour a night. And when he did learn, he didn't understand so well. He explained it was all because his parnasa was so difficult. He wished he had an easier time in parnasa so he could learn more. The Steipler told him, “You don't realize how valuable your Torah is in Shamayim. There, it is measured by the efforts, not the results. And you are putting in all of the effort that you can.” Someone who is having trouble earning parnasa should never give up on his Torah learning. It is precisely then that his Torah learning becomes even more valuable. And just the opposite, the Torah learning will be the catalyst, b'ezrat Hashem, for him to earn more money. Rav Nachman from Breslev writes in the Sefer HaMiddot, Erech Mamon , that if somebody is lacking parnasa , he should learn Torah and then pray right afterwards, because then his prayers are more valuable. The Great Rebbe of Lelov said, if someone has a kavua seder – a fixed time of learning every day – then Hashem will give him more of a kavua parnasa . Our parnasa is in the hands of Hashem and therefore, our best efforts in that area would be to do His will better. A man told me he was having problems with his business and during Covid he got into selling PPE. With the recent developments in the world, people turned their attention away from Covid and he stopped making any sales. He himself did not even have merchandise.He was trying to broker other people's deals. One morning during tefila last week, he cried out to Hashem to give him parnasa to support his family. Just two hours later, he received a phone call from an acquaintance that he knows from a class he attends once a week. This acquaintance said he runs nursing homes and he received 2100 Covid tests from the government which he has no use for. He remembered this man once speaking about the fact that he deals in medical supplies so he asked him if he had any use for them. The man immediately was able to sell them at a cheap price and made $10,000 on the sale. He told me, “I didn't even have merchandise and Hashem sent me the yeshua in the simplest way.” A young rabbi told me his shul is growing and they need to expand, but they don't have the funds to do it. Someone suggested that he put a sign in the hallway of his existing shul with the plans and dedication amounts and hope someone would respond. One day, a man walked into their shul for the first time. After prayers, he asked the rabbi about the expansion plans. He then asked the Rabbi what the cost would be to dedicate the name of the building. The Rabbi said that was the most expensive item on their list. The man said, “Okay, what's the price?” When the Rabbi told him the number, he said, “Great, I'll take it.” That one donation is going to pay for most of the project. The rabbi told me it came from such an unexpected source. “Hashem saw that we needed to expand and He sent us the right shaliach right to our doorstep.” Parnasa comes from Hashem. The greatest hishtadlut we can make in that area is to get closer to Him.

Parashat Vayikra: We are Always Rising

Support the show (https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=DB9GZ7TJG8T36&source=url)

How the first three words of Parashat Vayikra help us overcome any type of sin or malady.(adapted from Shevilei Pinchas) Ely's Fine Foods Serving the Toronto Jewish community for over 25 years. Experience the difference!Dorplex Entry Systems With over 30 years experience, we build entry doors that are built to last and protect your family.Support the show (https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=DB9GZ7TJG8T36&source=url)

In this week's class on Parashat Vayikra, we take a deeper look at the word “Vayikra” and why it's written with a small aleph.  Looking at likutei Halachot and Torah 282 of Likutei Moharan (better known as Azamra) we see how one is able to elevate one's sins into mitzvot and bring the world to the side of merit! --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/breslove/message

For more inspiration visit: kingdavidkabbalah.comTeachings by Rabbi Yakov ShepherdBackground music producer: Pablo @pablovamil

The first verse in Vayikra seems mundane and predictable; God speaks to Moshe in the mishkan (tabernacle), as God does throughout much of the Torah. Yet, the call of Vayikra is an unexpected gesture of intimacy. Through this lens, the whole book of Vayikra represents an invitation into relationship across apparent obstacles and boundaries. Vayikra asks of us: what are the ways in which we feel distant from God or others? What does it mean to hear a call beckoning us close in those very moments of distance?

The first verse in Vayikra seems mundane and predictable; God speaks to Moshe in the mishkan (tabernacle), as God does throughout much of the Torah. Yet, the call of Vayikra is an unexpected gesture of intimacy. Through this lens, the whole book of Vayikra represents an invitation into relationship across apparent obstacles and boundaries. Vayikra asks of us: what are the ways in which we feel distant from God or others? What does it mean to hear a call beckoning us close in those very moments of distance?

What was it like to live all the new laws in this week's parsha? Rabbi Deena takes us inside the mind of an ancient Israelite to find out.Produced by Mishkan Chicago.  Music composed, produced, and performed by Kalman Strauss. See our upcoming Shabbat services and programs here, and follow us on Instagram and like us on Facebook for more updates. Check out Shabbat Replay on Contact Chai for more from Rabbi Deena.Transcript

Parashat Vayikra 5782: Calling. Listening. Giving. Description: This week, Rabbi Alex Israel discusses some of Rashi’s opening remarks to Vayikra highlighting some critical spiritual messages for our fast-paced world. Please let us know your comments and thoughts about the podcast, … Read the rest The post Parashat Vayikra 5782: Calling. Listening. Giving. first appeared on Elmad Online Learning. Continue reading Parashat Vayikra 5782: Calling. Listening. Giving. at Elmad Online Learning.

The Torah in Parashat Sav (beginning of chapter 7) introduces the guidelines for the offering of the Korban Asham (“guilt sacrifices”) which was required to atone for certain misdeeds. The Sefer Ha'hinuch lists the obligation upon the Kohanim to comply with these guidelines as the 140 th Biblical command. The Ramban, commenting to Parashat Vayikra (5:15), discusses the difference between the two different kinds of sin offerings – Hatat and Asham. The Torah makes it clear that these are two separate categories of sacrifices, despite the fact that both are brought to atone for wrongdoing. The Ramban explains that the word “Het” (“sin”) literally means “miss,” as in missing the target when shooting arrows. One is said to commit a “Het” when he makes a mistake, when he “misses” the goal that he was expected to accomplish. And thus the Hatat offering is brought primarily for unintentional sins, for instances where one simply “missed the mark” and did not act as he was supposed to act. The word “Asham,” however, is derived from the word “Shemama,” which refers to desolation and destruction. An Asham is required for situations of more severe wrongs, for which one is deserving of “destruction,” but he is granted the opportunity to atone for his wrongdoing by offering a sacrifice. Indeed, on some occasions, an Asham is offered even for an intentional violation of a Torah command. A Kohen who fails to follow the procedures outlined by the Torah for offering the Asham sacrifice has transgressed this affirmative command.

The Torah commands in Parashat Vayikra (5:23) that a thief who stole an object must return it to the victim (“Ve'heshib Et Ha'gezela Asher Gazal”). This obligation applies only when the item still exists in its original form; if it has undergone a permanent change (“Shinui She'eno Hozer Li'briyato”), which cannot be reversed, then the thief pays the victim the value of the stolen item, instead. One example given by the Gemara is a thief who stole wood which he used as firewood. Since, quite obviously, the ashes cannot be turned back into wood, the thief pays the victim the value of the wood he stole. Another example is a thief who stole wool which he proceeded to dye a different color, or make into a sweater. In such cases, too, the thief pays the victim money, since he cannot return the stolen object. The Sefer Ha'hinuch writes that if a person stole something which is valued at less than a “Shaveh Peruta” (the value of the smallest unit of currency), then although he has transgressed the prohibition against theft, he is not required to return the object. The reason, the Sefer Ha'hinuch explains, is because Am Yisrael “are the children of Abraham, Yishak and Yaakob, generous people, children of generous people,” and even an indigent member of our nation will forgive the theft of something so insignificant. Since it can be assumed that the victim foregoes on this small item, the thief is not obligated to return it, even though he has committed a forbidden act of theft. The obligation to return a stolen item applies as long as it is in the possession of the thief or his inheritors. It applies even if the victim had already despaired of ever receiving the item back; if it remains in the thief's possession, he must return it to the victim. The Gemara says that this obligation requires the thief to travel even across the world to find the victim so he can return what he stole. Even if he stole a very inexpensive item, worth just a “Peruta,” he must go through whatever trouble is necessary to return it to the victim. However, the Sages enacted that if the victim lives far away, the thief can bring the object to Bet Din and leave it with them. This provision was enacted out of concern that thieves would not bother repenting for their crimes if this required going through the trouble and incurring the expense of traveling great distances to return what they stole. In the interest of encouraging thieves to repent, the Sages allowed them to leave the stolen goods with Bet Din rather than have to travel to the victim. If the stolen item's market value rose in the interim, while it was in the thief's possession, the thief must nevertheless return the item, and cannot demand the appreciation value. If, however, the item intrinsically appreciated, such as if one stole an animal and it grew wool or gave birth to more animals, then the thief can keep the value which the animal appreciated. This provision, too, was enacted by the Sages in the interest of encouraging thieves to repent. The Gemara states that if a person owned an empty apartment, and a squatter came and lived there without permission, the owner cannot demand payment from the squatter unless the apartment is normally leased. Assuming the squatter did not cause any damage to the property, he owes nothing to the owner, because this situation falls under the category of “Zeh Neheneh Ve'zeh Lo Haser” – literally, “this one benefits, and this one does not lose.” Since the owner did not lose anything as a result of the squatter's presence in the apartment, he cannot demand payment. To the contrary, the Gemara says, in a certain sense, having somebody living in a residence is beneficial for the property, as it protects it from being overrun by Mazikin (harmful spirits) which occupy empty homes. It is only if the owner normally leases the apartment, and was prevented from doing so because of the squatter, that he may then demand payment, since the squatter caused him a financial loss. (Nowadays, of course, the squatter would in any event be required to pay for utilities such as water and electricity, as well as the “wear and tear” of appliances and furniture.) This Misva applies in all places and in all times, and to both males and females. The Sefer Ha'hinuch writes that if a thief does not return the stolen goods to the victim, then he will be punished not only for the sin of theft, but also for failing to seize the opportunity he was given to rectify his mistake. If the Torah offers a person the opportunity to repair the damage he inflicted, and he chose not to, then this itself is a very grievous sin. The Sefer Ha'hinuch here teaches us a lesson which is directly relevant not only to theft, but to all forms of wrongdoing. The Torah offers us the opportunity to correct all our mistakes through the process of Teshuba. This is an opportunity which we can ill afford to squander. We may learn from this Misva that whenever we fail, we must do what we can to rectify the failure through repentance, as soon as we can.

There are five circumstances in which one must bring what is called an “Asham Vadai” – a guilt-offering to atone for a certain violation. (This is in contrast to an “Asham Talui,” a guilt-offering brought when one might have possibly transgressed a severe violation, but does not know with certainty that he transgressed.) The situations requiring an Asham Vadai are as follows: 1) Asham Gezelot. As the Torah describes in Parashat Vayikra (5), one who falsely denies on oath having money which belongs to somebody else, and then confesses his wrongdoing, must bring an Asham sacrifice to atone for his sin. In addition to paying what he owes to the other party, he must also bring this sacrifice. This includes situations of outright theft, and when one receives collateral or an object to guard, and he then denies having received it. The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains that one might have thought to justify these forms of theft by figuring that eventually he will return the object or money in question, and this is sufficient. The Torah therefore demands that the individual also bring a sacrifice, to teach that stealing or denying having in one's possession somebody else's property is inherently sinful, even if he later returns the item in question. One brings an Asham Gezelot whether he committed the crime unintentionally or intentionally. 2) Asham Me'ilot. One who mistakenly derived personal benefit from sacred property – “Me'ila” – must not only pay the Temple treasury the value of the benefit he received, and a penalty, but also offer an Asham sacrifice. 3) Asham Nazir: One who takes the Nazirite vow is bound by a number of prohibitions, including a prohibition against coming in contact with a human corpse. If a Nazir does come in contact with a corpse, whether intentionally or accidentally, he must bring a special Asham sacrifice. 4) Asham Mesora. A Mesora – somebody who was declared to have the Sara'at skin disorder – must undergo a special process of purification once he has been cured of his condition. This process includes the offering of an Asham sacrifice. 5) Asham Shifha Harufa. As the Sefer Ha'hinuch explains, this sacrifice is required in the complicated case of a Shifha Kena'anit (non-Jewish maidservant) who is half freed, and half servant. For example, her master decided, for whatever reason, to release only half of his hold on the woman. The half that was released is a full-fledged Jew, but the other half remains a maidservant, who cannot marry a Jewish man. If a Jewish man then betroths this woman, she is considered “quasi married,” as the betrothal is effective with respect to the half which was released from servitude, but not vis-à-vis the other half, which is still in servitude. If another man then has relations with this woman, he must bring an Asham sacrifice. Since this woman is not fully married, this does not constitute outright adultery, which would be considered a capital offense. The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains that since this woman is not regarded by people as an Eshet Ish (married woman), people would not consider it adultery to have a relationship with her. Hence, this violator did not intend to commit a grievous sin, and so the Torah treats this offense more leniently, and allows him to earn atonement through the offering of an Asham. Of course, this Misva applies only in the times of the Bet Ha'mikdash, and it is binding upon both men and women. One who is required to offer an Asham sacrifice but fails to do has neglected a Misvat Aseh. Interestingly, however, the Sefer Ha'hinuch writes that in the case of Asham Gezelot, although the thief will be punished for failing to offer this sacrifice, his punishment will not be excessively harsh, since he did, after all, return what he stole.

The Torah in Parashat Vayikra (5:17-18) addresses the case of a person who performed an act which may have transgressed a command, but he is unsure. In such a case, the individual must offer a sacrifice called “Asham Talui” to atone for possibly having committed a transgression. This applies specifically if the transgression which may have been committed is one for which one would be liable to Karet (eternal excision from the Jewish People) if he transgresses intentionally, and a Hatat (sin-offering) if he transgresses unintentionally. The classic case of Asham Talui is where one had in front of him two pieces of meat – one which was Heleb (forbidden fat), and the other which was entirely permissible for consumption. The person then ate one of the two pieces, but he does not know which one he ate, and the remaining piece was lost and thus could not be identified. As eating Heleb is punishable by Karet, the individual in this case would be required to offer an Asham Talui, because he may have violated the prohibition of Heleb. The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains that the Torah requires the individual to offer an atonement sacrifice in such a case in order to encourage people to be attentive and careful to avoid wrongdoing. If a person is unsure whether or not he committed a violation, this means he was not paying close enough attention to what he was doing – and it is for this inattentiveness that he requires atonement. Indeed, if a person learns after offering an Asham Talui that he did, in fact, commit the sin in question, then he must bring a sin-offering to atone for the wrongful act. This proves that an Asham Talui atones not for the sin which may have been committed, but rather for what the Sefer Ha'hinuch calls “Asluto” – his “laziness,” or carelessness, which allowed him to possibly commit a severe transgression. An Asham Talui is required only if one knows for certain that the situation involved a potential prohibition. For example, in the case described earlier, there was certainly a forbidden piece of Heleb, and the question is only whether this is the piece which the person ate. If, however, one ate a single piece of meat, and he then realized that it might have been Heleb, then he does not require an Asham Talui, because it is not certain that something forbidden was present. Another example of a situation requiring an Asham Talui is where one had an intimate relationship with a woman who had been married, but it is uncertain whether she had received a valid divorce prior to the relationship. In this instance, too, it is certain that the woman in question had been married, such that relations with her were forbidden, but it is uncertain whether she was still married at the time of the intimate encounter. In such a case, an Asham Talui would be required. This is in contrast to a case of a relationship with an unmarried woman who had received a Halachically questionable Kiddushin (betrothal). In this situation, it is not clear to begin with that the woman was an Eshet Ish (married woman) with whom relations are forbidden, as every woman is presumed unmarried and hence permissible until we have reason to believe otherwise. This case, then, is akin to the case of one who ate a piece of meat which may have been Heleb, and thus an Asham Talui is not required. This command applies only in the times of the Bet Ha'mikdash, and it is binding upon both men and women. One who is required to offer an Asham Talui but fails to do so has neglected a Misvat Aseh (affirmative command). The Rambam, in Hilchot Tum'at Met (9:12), takes a controversial position regarding the famous principle of “Safek De'Orayta Le'Humra” – that we must be stringent in situations of Halachic uncertainty when Torah law is at stake. (This is in contrast to laws enacted by the Rabbis, regarding which we may act leniently in situations of uncertainty.) According to the Rambam, this rule was enacted by the Sages; on the level of Torah law, we may be lenient in situations of Halachic uncertainty, even if this means potentially violating a Torah law, but the Sages required acting stringently. Many later writers questioned the Rambam's theory in light of the obligation of Asham Talui. In cases where one is in doubt as to whether he transgressed a prohibition, the Torah mandates that he must bring a sacrifice. Does this not imply that the Torah itself requires avoiding situations of uncertainty, and acting stringently when in doubt regarding the violation of Torah law? The Kessef Misheh (commentary to the Rambam's Mishneh Torah by Maran, Rav Yosef Karo, 1488-1575) writes that he discovered a manuscript written by the Rambam himself, addressing this question. In this manuscript, the Rambam writes that a distinction exists between Torah prohibitions punishable by Karet, and other Torah laws. When it comes to prohibitions punishable by Karet, then indeed, the Torah itself requires one to assume the stringent possibility, as evidenced by the law of Asham Talui. With regard, however, to other laws, then the Torah does not require acting stringently in situations of uncertainty, and this requirement was enacted later by the Sages. Although the obligation of Asham Talui does not apply nowadays in the absence of the Bet Ha'mikdash, its underlying message – the importance of attentiveness and caution to avoid wrongdoing – is as relevant now as ever. Rav Yehuda Ades, Rosh Yeshiva of Kol Yaakob (contemporary), was once asked the question of which is worse – forgetting to add Ya'aleh Ve'yavo in the Amida prayer on Rosh Hodesh, or not remembering whether one recited Ya'aleh Ve'yabo. He replied that not remembering whether one added Ya'aleh Ve'yabo is worse, because one who cannot remember must have been inattentive while praying. If one paid attention to his prayer but forgot it was Rosh Hodesh, this is a mistake which all people are prone to making on occasion. It is far worse to pray mindlessly, without paying attention. The law of Asham Talui teaches of the need to live attentively, to be mindful of our conduct and try to ensure that we are always doing the right thing.

If one mistakenly uses sacred property (“Hekdesh”) for personal benefit, he has committed “Me'ila,” an act which imposes upon him a number of obligations. One obligation is to pay a “Homesh” – a penalty of one-fifth the value of the benefit he derived. He must pay the treasury of the Bet Ha'mikdash not only the actual value of the benefit he received, but also an additional one-fifth. The Torah introduces this command in Parashat Vayikra (5:16): “Va'hamishito Yosef Alav” (“…and he must add onto it one-fifth”). The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains that the Torah imposed this penalty as a deterrent, in order that people will exercise caution and ensure to avoid accidental desecration of sacred property. Once a person mistakenly uses a sacred item for personal benefit, the item is divested of its status of sanctity. Therefore, Halacha establishes that “En Mo'el Ahar Mo'el” – if somebody else then derives benefit from the item, he has no obligation to pay anything, since the item was no longer sacred at the time he benefited from it. If, however, somebody intentionally benefited from a sacred item, and then somebody benefited from that item accidentally, the second fellow is indeed obligated to pay, since the item had been sacred and it was he who caused it to lose its status of sanctity. Certain items possess what is known as “Kedushat Ha'guf” – intrinsic sanctity, and do not lose their status even after Me'ila has been committed. Specifically, animals which have been consecrated to be offered as a sacrifice, and the sacred utensils of the Bet Ha'mikdash, retain their status of sanctity, and therefore even after one has mistakenly made personal use of these items, others who do so are likewise required to pay. In order to be considered an act of Me'ila, the benefit which one received must be worth at least one Peruta (the smallest unity of currency). The laws of Me'ila do not apply in a case where a non-Kohen ate sacrificial meat which is allowed only for Kohanim, if he ate it after the meat became permissible for Kohanim. Once the blood of a Hatat (sin offering) or Asham (guilt offering) has been sprinkled, the meat is then allowed to be eaten by the Kohanim. If a non-Kohen unlawfully partakes of such meat at this point, this does not constitute Me'ila, because he ate the meat at a time when it was already permissible for human consumption. Although he acted wrongly by eating the meat, this does not fall under the law of Me'ila, and he is not required to pay. This Halacha applies even if he ate the meat after it had, for whatever reason, become disqualified for consumption. Since it had become permissible for consumption, this meat is no longer subject to Me'ila, even after it subsequently becomes invalid for consumption. It should be noted that whenever the Torah requires paying a “Homesh” (“one-fifth”), it does not mean 20 percent. A “Homesh” of $100, for example, is calculated by dividing 100 into four – yielding a quotient of 25 – and then adding that value to the principal. Thus, when one is required to pay the principal plus a “Homesh,” and the principal is $100, he must pay $125 (a 25 percent penalty). This law, of course, applies only in the times of the Bet Ha'mikdash, and it applies to both men and women. As mentioned earlier, this applies only to one who derived benefit from sacred property accidentally. Separate laws apply to one who intentionally derived personal benefit from sacred property. The Sefer Ha'hinuch writes that if somebody is uncertain whether he derived benefit from sacred property, then he is exempt from both the sacrifice which would normally be required, and from payment. He does not bring the sacrifice because if he had not, in fact, derived benefit from the item in question, then his atonement sacrifice is not a real sacrifice, and he will thus be in violation of sacrificing an ordinary animal in the Bet Ha'mikdash. As for the monetary payment, there is a famous rule that “Ha'mosi Me'habero Alav Ha're'aya” – one who wishes to extract money from his fellow bears the burden of proof. Since it is uncertain whether this payment is required, it is the Temple treasury which must prove that Me'ila has occurred in order for the person to be required to pay. As long as the payment requirement is uncertain, the individual cannot be obligated to pay the Temple treasury.