1) Ch. 6, v. 10: "Lo sei'o'feh chometz" – It should not be baked as leavened bread – Chometz is equated with the “yeitzer hora,” the evil inclination. This is why a meal offering may have no leavening. The one exception is the two breads of Shovuos. Why is this offering different?
2) Ch. 7, v. 11: "Zevach hashlomim asher yakriv" – Slaughtering of a shlomim that he will offer – This is the most positive expression of offering, "asher yakriv," seemingly "that he SHOULD offer," while by other types of offerings we just have "toras ha……, v'heivi," or the like. Why is the bringing expressed differently here?
3) Ch. 7, v. 17: "V'hanosar mi'menoh" – And that which is left over from it – The Torah expresses this in a fait accompli manner, as if it will likely happen, in contra distinction with Shmos 29:34, "V'im yivo'seir," IF there will be left over. Why the difference?
4) Ch. 7, v. 37: "Zose hatorah l'oloh l'minchoh ulchatos" – This is the law for an oloh for a minchoh and for a chatos – The Medrash Plioh, a wondrous puzzling collection of statements, says that this is the fulfillment of the verse, "Bidvar Hashem shomayim naasu" (T'hilim 33:6). What is the medrash telling us?
5) Ch. 8, v. 14: "Va'yismoch Aharon uvonov es y'dei'hem" – And Aharon leaned his hands and his sons their hands – Compare this with verse 18 and 22, where the verses say, "Va'yis'm'chu Aharon uvonov es y'dei'hem." Why is Aharon's "smichoh" mentioned singly in our verse and together with his sons in verses 18 and 22? For the answers, click here
Important Numbers
