Vakiyra and The Pesach

Rashi says that Hashem appears to Moshe with the term vayikra, a term of affection as opposed to Bilam who Hashem appears to him ויקר a term of coincidence and impurity.   The difference between Moshe and Bilam is a gulf the size of the Grand Canyon why is one letter used to sum up the difference?  

The difference between vayikra and vakayar is indicative of the difference of how Moshe and Bilam relate to Hashem.  Vakiyra means that there is a connection between Hashem and the person.  Vaykar means that G-d merely needs to relate a message.  Moshe's desire is to connect to Hashem and therefore Hashem talks to him, vakiyra.  Bilam has abilities but he does not use them to connect to Hashem, he merely receives messages.   

This message is give at the beginning of the book of korbanot since the essence of korbanot is to enhance  one's relationship to Hashem.  One brings a korban for an inadvertent sin because that indicates one was not connected to Hashem at the time of the sin otherwise one would not have stumbled into a sin.

Why is it of all korbanot we have a zecher for the Pesach and there is a long recitation of the korban Pesach which we don't due generally for other holiday offerings?  Because the essence of our relationship with Hashem begins at Pesach.  Korbn pesach is the korban that most clearly demonstrates vayikra, that close bond between Hashem and Klal Yisrael. (based upon sicha of Rav Shimshon Pinkus on Pesach.)   

The Calling

Rashi says לכל דברות ולכל אמירות ולכל צוויים קדמה קריאה.  The Sifsay Chachamim says this alludes to three times it says ויקרא, one here which is דיבור, the אמירה is by the burning bush, ויקרא אליו אלקים and the ציווי is at Matan Torah, ויקרא ה למשה ראש ההר.  What is the lesson of the ויקרא?  And why in these three places is ויקרא used?  The Tanchuma connects this vayikra to the first vayikra in Chumash, ויקרא אלהים לאור יום.  What is the meaning of this equation?  

The Shem MiShmuel (5671) says מאמר כ"ק אבי אדומו"ר זצללה"ה שפירש ההפרש שבין ויקר שנאמר בבלעם לויקרא שנאמר במשה, כי לשון ויקר היינו שהדיבור בא אליו למקומו ולא נתעלה ע"י הדיבור ונשאר בלעם הרשע כמו שהי' עומד מבחוץ, אבל לשון ויקרא הוא שקרא אותו שיקרב הלום, ונתעלה לקראת הדיבור עכת"ד.  Vayikra means to call someone to come closer, when Hashem calls to someone, he is bringing them closer, raising them up.   

These three instances of callings to Moshe are Hashem's way of raising up Klal Yisrael through the leader, Moshe Rabbenu.  The three callings are pivotal moments in the advancement of Klal Yisrael.  The first time is when Moshe is being selected as the leader to take the Jews out of Egypt.  The second time is Matan Torah, the monumental moment when the heavens and earth meet via the giving of the Torah.  In order to elevate Klal Yisrael to be able to be ready for this moment there needed to be a vayikra.  Korbanot as well is the the way a person can elevate the physical domain to become closer to Hashem and that also requires an elevation to make it happen. The comparison to the vaykira of light is the message of all the vayikra's that Moshe experienced.  When one is in a state of darkness, in a state where they need a boost, Hashem creates the light for the person to be elevate himself. 

Salty Enemies

In the last post we mentioned that salt has positive effects in preserving and enhancing food and it also contains negative elements which can erode and destroy other properties.  The Netziv understands this idea reflects hashgacha pratis.  Had everything just been black and white, pure good or evil, there would be no room for the average person that has elements of both. Now that Hashem created things of dycotimy it leaves room for the middle of the road folk.  "משא״כ עתה מגיע השתלשלות הענינים משעה רעה לתכלית הטוב מצומצם לפי המעשים בהשגחתו יתברך כמה יאריכון ימי הרעה ואיך תהי הרבה או מעט עד שבא לידי תכלית הטוב הבא באחרית הימים של חשך. מש״ה ברא הקב״ה הליכות הטבע בזה האופן. "  He says that is why we are instructed to offer salt with the korbanot, " כדי להתבונן על הברית של ההשגחה."  

At the end of Beshalach right before the attack of Amalak it says (17:7) וַיִּקְרָא֙ שֵׁ֣ם הַמָּק֔וֹם מַסָּ֖ה וּמְרִיבָ֑ה עַל־רִ֣יב׀ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל וְעַ֨ל נַסֹּתָ֤ם אֶת־י״י֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר הֲיֵ֧שׁ י״י֛ בְּקִרְבֵּ֖נוּ אִם־אָֽיִן׃.  The Netziv asks הדבר פלא, איך נסתפקו אחרי רואם עמוד אש וענן ועוד הרבה ניסים, דכולי עלמא ידעי דלא עביד אלא קוב״ה. וגם כבר כתיב ״ויאמינו בה׳ ובמשה עבדו״, how could they be in doubt if Hashem is with them after all the miracles they witnessed?  He answers that they understood Hashem does miracles to direct the course of history to work out but is Hashem with me in my private problems?  In the run of the mill דרך הטבע trials and tribulations will Hashem get me through them?  He continues that was why Amalek followed.  Amalek denies the hashgacha in the daily running of the world.  Once Klal Yisroel had a doubt about that, it left the door open for Amalek.  And that is why the battle had to be one through natural means to demonstrate this hashgacha.  Klal Yisroel had to be reminded of the salt, of the hashgacha that exists not just in an overt fashion but it guiding the natural events.  This is the story of the Megillah.  There is no mention of the name of Hashem, there is no obvious open miracle.  It is a case of where Hashem guides the events through nature to garuntee a successfull outrcome. 

Salty

Why must salt be brought with korbanot?  The Bechai says that salt is a fusion of middat hadin and middat harachamim.  It is a combo of water (chesed) and fire (din) that brings out the salt from within the water.  There is a constant tug of war present in salt.  That is why the word for salt, מלח has the same letters as the word for ward, מלחמה from the root of לחם.  Salt represents the clash between opposing forces. That is why salt has opposite effects.  On the one hand, it allows for things to stay fresh and extends the shelf life of products.  On the other hand, salt stunts the growth of produce from land.  It is an outgrowth of the opposite forces in salt.  When it stands on its own, salt is bitter and destructive.  The middat hadin stops it from having a positive effect.  When mixed into something else, then the clash helps bring to the forefront the strength of the product and it is preserved and its taste is enhanced.  It is the clash that brings out the full potential from within.  Everyone has inside of them a nefesh habehamit and nefesh eloki that struggle with each other.  This is a parallel to the slat.  When one offers a korban, it is not to throw away the nefesh habehamit but to challenge its challenge into a way of coming closer to Hashem.  That is why salt is brought together with the korban; to remind one's self that the struggle becomes part of the solution.

Double Call

וַיִּקְרָ֖א אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֑ה וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר י״י֙ אֵלָ֔יו מֵאֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵ֖ד לֵאמֹֽר.  Why the double terminology of ויקרא and וידבר and why repeat that Hashem spoke to Moshe twice and why does it not say the first time Hashem is calling Moshe?  The early Hassidic works (Toldot, Degel) bring on this possuk the teaching of the Baal Shem Tov and each one explains it in their own way. I will cite the English translation of the Toldot "The explanation of that which my teacher asked about that which the Sages, may their memory be blessed, said (Avot 6:2), "Each and every day a heavenly echo goes out from Mount Horeb, and announces, etc.": Either way, it is difficult. If it is impossible for anyone to hear this announcement – if so, why does the echo go out at all? And if it is possible to hear, what is the reason that it is not heard? For if a person were to say that he heard it, he would be condemned as a false prophet! And he explained that 'there is no speech and no words' above; it is only in the realm of thought. If so, the thoughts of repentance that come to a man are from the announcement, etc. And (with relation to this teaching,) the words of the mouth of a sage are a charm."  Based upon this we can understand the possuk.  The first ויקרא it does not say who is calling.  It is not a voice one hears from the outside but rather his own thoughts.  It is the thoughts of teshuva that enter a persons' mind, heart and soul.  After a person starts to heed to the thoughts that have entered his head, then וידבר ה אליו, will a person merit to have Hashem connect to the individual.  מאהל מועד, Rashi says that no one else heard what Moshe heard.  Each indivduial connects to Hashem according to their own level and no one else can hear, no one else is on the same radio station. 

Adam's Korban

The possuk says אדם כי יקריב מכם.  The mefarshim ask why does it use the term אדם?  The Or Hachaim brings from the Tanchuma ובמדרש תנחומא אמרו למה אמר אדם ולא אמר איש, ירצה לומר כי יחטא האדם כאדם הראשון שהתחיל לחטוא יביא קרבן עד כאן.  He expounds that the midrash means that Adam brought a korban but that did not atone his sin but we are given the ability to bring a korban like Adam but we obtain atonement through it.  Why did Adam not obtain atonement?  The Or Hachaim explains because Adam had no evil around him leading him to sin but we living post sin, have to deal with a poisoned environment.  "ואומרו שהתחיל לחטוא, נתן הטעם למה לא נהג ה׳ כמו כן עם אדם הראשון, כי אדם התחיל לחטוא ולא קדם לו בחינת הרע להכריחו לחטוא, מה שאין כן הבאים אחריו כבר קדם להם בחינת החטא בנפשם, וזה לך אות הברית אשר ערל בשרו וצוה ה׳ למול מה שלא היה כן לאדם הראשון."  

Rav Pinkus suggests another interpretation.  The Yerushalmi (7a) says שאלו לחכמה חוטא מהו עונשו אמרו להם חטאים תרדף רעה שאלו לנבואה חוטא מהו עונשו אמרה להן הנפש החוטאת היא תמות שאלו לקודשא בריך הוא חוטא מהו עונשו אמר להן יעשו תשובה ויתכפר לו. היינו דכתיב על כן יורה חטאים בדרך יורה לחטאים דרך לעשות תשובה.  Before the Torah was given there was no ability to bring a korban, that is a chiddush of the Torah.  What is the difference post Torah?  In truth chachma is correct.  There is no room for repair for a rebellion against G-d.  The sin can not be repaired.  The other levels of nevuah, Torah and Hashem Himself do not disagree with this but give other ways to be able be become reborn and divorced from the sin.  Nevuah gives the option of being actually reborn.  Torah gives the option of bringing a korban and sacrificing one's self before Hashem like the Ramban describes and Hashem gives a person the ability to become reborn through teshuva alone.  It is not that the bar is lowered but that there are new forms given to be able to divorce one's self from sin.

Semicha And Vidduy

 The Sifra Dibbura d'nedavah (5:4) says אין לי אלא של אנשים; של נשים מנין? אין לי אלא של ישראל; של עבדים מנין? עד שאתה מרבה להביא את של עובד אלילים מנין? תלמוד לומר "העולה" – כל שהוא עולה טעונה הפשטה. מה ראית להביאן להפשט ונתוח ולהוציאם מן הסמיכה? אחר שריבה הכתוב מיעט! מפני מה אני מביאם להפשט ונתוח? שהפשט ונתוח כשרים בכל אדם, ומוציא אני הסמיכה שאין הסמיכה אלא בבעלים.  What does the Sifra mean that since smicha has to be done by the owner gentiles are excluded as opposed to flaying an olah?  I think the simple peshat is that smicha is a more narrow din than flaying an olah and therefore does not include gentiles.  The Rabbenu Hillel learns it means since the owner must do semicha he must enter the azarah and a gentile can't enter.  The Rash m'shantz learns that when one does semicha they do vidduy and a gentile does not get atonement from a korban and hence does not do semicha.  [I do not understand how his reason fits in the words of the Sifra.]  The Rash says that in all korbanot including a shelamin there is an element of atonement.  The Ralbag also understands that the semicha is attached to the atonement in his commentary in this week's parsha Ch. 1.  The Keren Orah in Menachot (92a) says that is the reason that  a bechor, maaser and pesach do not require semicha because there is no atonement from them.  The Ralbag already says this idea in Ch. 3.  However, the Rambam Maaseh Korbanot (3:6) says the reason they don't have semicha is מפי השמועה.  The Rambam would seem to disagree with the above yesod.  The Rambam would be forced to disagree l'shitaso in Maaseh Korbanot (3:15) that there is no vidduy recited on a shelamim, yet there is still semicha.  He holds the semicha is independent of the vidduy.  The question on the Ralbag, Rash and Keren Orah is how do they understand why there is semicha on a korban metzorah, nazir etc. that merely serve as a mattir ot eat kodshim? 

Poor Man's Korban

In the mitzvah(#123) of korban עולה ויורד, the Chinuch says ואם הוא עני והביא כשבה או שעירה לא יצא ידי חובתו. והטעם לפי שאחר שרחם האל ברוך הוא עליו ופטרו בכך אינו בדין שידחק עצמו להביא ביותר ממה שתשיג ידו. ובזה יקנה כל מבין עצה לבלתי עשות הוצאות ביותר מן הראוי לו לפי ממונו, יען כי בו סבה לגזל את הבריות כשמבקש למודו ואינו מוצא.  The Minchas Chinuch (#11) asks this contradicts a mishna in Negaim (14:12) that a poor person can fulfill their obligation by offering the korban of the rich person?  The Sfas Emes Yoma (41) defends the Chinuch by differentiating between the korban of a metzorah vs. that of the olah v'yorad.  When it comes to metzorah, as the Torah describes in the beginning of the parsha, the poor man's offering replaces the chattas and olah animals with birds.  There, the mishna says the poor man can fulfill his obligation with the rich man's offering for they korbanos are the same.  However, regarding the olah v'yorad, as the Torah describes in Vakikra 5, the rich man brings a chattas but the poor man brings both a chattas and an olah.  Since, the poor man is obligated in those two korbanot he can't fulfill his obligation by merely bringing a chattas like the rich man. 
The Minchas Chinuch (#17) says its unclear from the Rambam and Chinuch what is the definition of a poor man vis-a -vis the עולה ויורד; do we say its like tzedakah it depends if s/he had 200 זוז or maybe if you can afford the rich korban that already makes you obligated?  The Achronim point out that it is clear that the measuring stick of wealth in this situation is if the person can afford the animals as is מדיוק in the Chinuch who says  ועשיר נקרא לענין זה כל זמן שיש לו, that is if he can afford the korban he is called a rich person.  This is also clear from Rambam and Toras Kohanim (see Avi Ezri Shiggugos (10-:13.)  [If so, how can there be a case of the poor man bringing the rich man's korban if he can't afford it?  See Chazon Eish Negaim 13:13 that gives a scenario.]
The Panim Yafos (14:22) suggests that a metzorah who can afford one animal is obligated to bring that one animal as the chattas and the olah will be a bird offering. We see he also assumes rich/poor in this context is if the individual can afford the korban.  However, his words are a big chiddush one would naturally assume that the birds and animals are distinct sets (see also Briskor Rav Maaseh Korbanot 14:2) and can't be mixed and matched (Michas Avrohom Yoma.)

North And Hidden

The possuk in Vaykra about the korban olah says (1:11) וְשָׁחַ֨ט אֹת֜וֹ עַ֣ל יֶ֧רֶךְ הַמִּזְבֵּ֛חַ צָפֹ֖נָה לִפְנֵ֣י י״י֑.  In our parsha, Tzav, in in Ch. 6 it says that one should slaughter the חטאת where the olah is slaughtered.  Again in Ch. 7 it says that the אשם should be slaughtered in the place of the olah. Why is it only regarding the olah that the Torah spells out explicitly that it should be slaughtered in the north side?  Furthermore, the first parsha of the korban olah is the cattle offering and there it doesn't mention that it should be slaughtered on the north side, only in the second parsha, that of the sheep or goat family, why?

The midrash (2:11) says וְשָׁחַט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר וגו' וּבָאַיִל הוּא אוֹמֵר (ויקרא א, יא): צָפֹנָה לִפְנֵי ה', אָמְרוּ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעָקַד אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ אֶת יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ הִתְקִין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שְׁנֵי כְבָשִׂים, אֶחָד שֶׁל שַׁחֲרִית וְאֶחָד שֶׁל עַרְבִית, וְכָל כָּךְ לָמָּה, שֶׁבְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מַקְרִיבִין תָּמִיד עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְקוֹרִין אֶת הַמִּקְרָא הַזֶּה צָפֹנָה לִפְנֵי ה', זוֹכֵר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עֲקֵדַת יִצְחָק, מְעִידַנִי עָלַי אֶת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת הָאָרֶץ, בֵּין גּוֹי בֵּין יִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּין אִישׁ בֵּין אִשָּׁה בֵּין עֶבֶד בֵּין אָמָה, קוֹרִין אֶת הַמִּקְרָא הַזֶּה, צָפֹנָה לִפְנֵי ה', זוֹכֵר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עֲקֵדַת יִצְחָק, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: צָפֹנָה לִפְנֵי ה'. The slaughtering on the northern side is a reminder to the akedah.  Hence, the din is spelled out explicitly in the context of the olah which parallels the akedah.  That is why it is mentioned in the sheep family offering for it was an איל offered in place of Yitzchak (Meshech Chachma.)

What is the connection between the akedah and the shechita בצפון?  The Rokeach connects it to the terminology Chazal use when referencing the merit of the akedah, אפרו של יצחק צפון שם.  That is he related the word צפון, north to the word צפון, hidden.  This play on words can be found in the above midrash in the part that follows, דָּבָר אַחֵר, צָפֹנָה לִפְנֵי ה', כְּנֶגֶד מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב שֶׁהֵם צְפוּנִים לְפָנָיו.  The Rokeach continues that this merit of Yitzchak counterbalances the מצפון תפתח הרעה that Yeshiayah prophesied about.  It is a nice play on words, but how does the merit of the akedah counteract the evil and how is this connected to the korbanot in the north?

The Bechai Vayikra (1:11) explains that the north side represents the middah of gevurah.  מצפון תפתח הרעה because that is where gevurot emanate from.  As we know, Yitzchak perfected the middah of gevurot for holiness.  Hence, the antidote, to counteract the gevurot expressed in a harsh manner of תפתח הרעה, is the akedah of Yitchak, which is the ultimate use of gevurah, to overcome one's innate desire to live because of the command of Hashem.  It isn't coincidence that there are two meanings to the word צפון. It is the middah of gevurah to be able to bring out the hidden powers of an individual.  To bring out the potential from within; not to hand out a free gift of external help is an expression of gevurah.  [That is why the Torah stresses that Yizchak dug wells, as discussed here.]  This is the meaning of why korbanot must be shechted בצפון.  When one brings a korban it isn't just a process of slaughtering an animal, it obligated introspection and for a person to dig into the depths of his soul.  The direction is reflective of the psychological, spiritual process that the person is experiencing. 

The aforementioned midrash says that when we recite the possuk of slaughtering the olah in the north, Hashem remembers the merit of the akedah.  Based upon this we add this possuk to the parsha of the tammid in korbanot (see Beis Yosef siman 1.)  Tefillot are in place of korbanot, just as the korban awaked such feelings of introspection, so too our prayers should put our focus on what is צפון בלב.

Well, I figure I might as well be seasonal here.  One of the simmanim of the Seder is צפון.  It is of course the time to hide the matzah but it time to open up the soul.  The matzah is hidden and then taken out at the end of the Seder.  As the Baal Shem Tov said (recorded in Yom Yom 17 Eyar) סיפר הצמח צדק תורת הבעל שם טוב: כתוב "כי תהיו אתם ארץ חפץ אמר ה' צבאות". כמו שהחכמים הגדולים ביותר אף פעם לא ישיגו את גודל אוצרות הטבע, שטבע השם יתברך בארץ, ש"הכל היה מן העפר", כך לא יכול אף אחד להשיג את האוצרות הגדולים הנמצאים אצל יהודים, שהם חפצו של הקדוש ברוך הוא.  Every one has a treasure chest in their soul that just has to be dug up.  The Seder is a time when one can access that treasure chest.

Poignant Points Pnei Menachem

I wish to share a couple of thoughts which are in the Pnei Menachem on this weeks parsha.
1.The Gemorah in Chullin (139b) says משה מן התורה מנין (בראשית ו, ג) בשגם הוא בשר.  everyone asks Moshe' name is mentioned countless times in the Torah, why do we need to find a slight hint to his name?  The Maharsha explains that Moshe had many names as the midrash says, therefore, the Gemorah is asking how do we know that the main name of Moshe is moshe?  The Gemorah proves that we find that even before Moshe is born he is hinted to with the name Moshe, hence that must be his "true" name, the name that reflects his essence.  Why is Moshe's essence hinted to in this verse?  Explains the P.M. because Moshe's essence is to uplift others (as mentioned a few weeks ago here.)  That is the hint in the possuk.  בשגם הוא בשר, even if a person has sunk so low that they are a mere piece of meat, still Moshe will lift that individual up.

2. Our current lives have been including spiritually with our houses of worship, prayer and study closed down.  No doubt this has caused a spiritual decline in people's service of God and many wonder why this would be.  Of course I have no clue and am quite perturbed however the P.M. points out a lesson in history where sometimes less = more.  During the Purim story Mordechay did the unthinkable and had everyone cancel their Pesach plans for the Persian Plaza and declared the first days of Pesach to be days of fasting and mourning.  Even though there was plenty of time left untill the decree of Haman and why not enjoy Pesach and use the merits of eating the holy matzah and drinking the wine as additional merits to be saved?  We see some times all that's wanted is our prayers and everything else can fall by the wayside.

Lo With A Vav

The possuk (5:1) says אִם־ל֥וֹא יַגִּ֖יד וְנָשָׂ֥א עֲוֺנֽוֹ, the word לא  is written here with an additional ו. Why?  The midrash (6:5) sees this possuk not as a specific din regarding a witness that doesn't come forth to testify but as a general description of any averah.   In the words of the midrash: רַבִּי פִּנְחָס פָּתַר קְרָיָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לִפְנֵי הַר סִינַי, וְנֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא (דברים ט, טז): וָאֵרֶא וְהִנֵּה חֲטָאתֶם. וְשָׁמְעָה קוֹל אָלָה (דברים ה, כא): וְאֶת קוֹלוֹ שָׁמַעְנוּ מִתּוֹךְ הָאֵשׁ.  
Chassidus explains that when we have a קרי וכתיב the קרי reflects how things appear externally but the the כתיב is a reflection of what is happening in a deeper, hidden manner.  In the lingo the קרי is עלמא דאתכסיא and the כתיב is עלמא דאתגליא.
The idea of the קרי וכתיב in the context of  לא\לו is developed in the thought of the Sfas Emes in a few contexts.  Each time has its specific style and message but the gist can be summed up that by a feeling of לא, of nullification to Hashem, we are able to feel לו ,connected to Hashem.  A few examples are as follows.  In mizmor l'todah (100:3) it says וְל֣וֹ (כתיב וְלֹ֣א) אֲנַ֑חְנוּ עַ֜מּ֗וֹ וְצֹ֣אן מַרְעִיתֽוֹ.  The Sfas Emes Elul (5632) says ופי' הדבר הכל א' שכפי מה שלא אנחנו כן לו אנחנו.  Based upon one's feeling of לא, of self negation will equal how much a person is לו, connected to Hashem.  Again we find this expression in the Navi Yeshayeh (63:9) בְּכָל-צָרָתָם לא (לוֹ) צָר.  Says the Sfas Emes Vayigash, through the experience of לו צר, since we are helped by Hashem in the golus, therefore, לא צר we are able to not feel the pains of the golus.  In our parsha as well, says the Sfas Emes, ל֥וֹא יַגִּ֖יד is a person has the capability to drag his body (מגיד לשון המשכה) after his soul in order to bring out the greatness of Hashem in this world.  That is the additional ו, the ויו החיבור that one must be attach his body to the will of his soul.  The possuk isn't just a negative message but the words אִם־ל֥וֹא יַגִּ֖יד clue us in to the tikkun, if one is able to read it as לו יגיד to attach to Hashem then ונשא עונו will be in the sense of Hashem is נושא עון ועובר על פשע.

Not His Fault

The possuk (4:3) says about the כהן המשיח that his sin is אשמת העם.  What does this mean, what does his sin have to do with everyone else?  There are different explanations in the meforshim.  Rashi brings both a halachik perspective that he is only obligated on a  בהעלם דבר עם שגגת מעשה and an aggadah that his sin is the fault of the people, for they are dependent on him to atone for them and pray for them and he has become impaired. The Rashbam says that if a leader sins then people will follow his lead and they will sin as well.  The Sforno has the opposite take of the Rashbam.  He explains that sometimes the leader's faults are really just a reflection of the sins of the people.  He adds that's why the possuk never says regarding the משיח the word ואשם for he doesn't require teshuva for its not his fault that he sinned; it was because of the people.  Not sure what does the Sforno mean, how could the people cause the leader to sin?  And why does the leader bear no responsibility to the extent that he says there is no need for teshuva?  However, we do see from the Sforno that if a leader errs it may not be because of faulty leadership but rather the leader is merely a reflection of the mistakes of those that he's leading. (Even his own private sin as this parsha is dealing with, not only a leadership error.) 

Repetitive Rashi

I haven't posted a question on Rashi in quite a while but here is another one.  Rashi this week's parsha, (29:18) explains the word ריח ניחוח regarding the עולה brought to sanctify Aharon ריח ניחח – נחת רוח לפני, שאמרתי, ונעשה רצוני.  Again in possuk 25 regarding the שלמים Rashi says לריח ניחח – לנחת רוח, שאמר, ונעשה רצונו.   Again in Vayikra (1:9) Rashi says ניחח – נחת רוח, לפי שאמרתי, ונעשה רצוני. Why does Rashi feel the need to repeat this comment multiple times and specifically in these places?

Mesasek BiShabbos

The Gemorah in Keritot (19b) brings that Rebbe Eliezer has a derash of אשר חטא בה פרט למתעסק.  Rebbe Yehoshua understands that derash tells us that one must know what sin they are bringing the korban for.  On the next page, the Gemorah brings a statement from Rav Nachman in the name of Shmuel that מתעסק בשבת פטור מאי טעמא מלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה.  Rashi explains that this reasoning of מלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה is only needed for the opinion of Rebbe Yehoshua but according to Rebbe Eliezer, the exemption is the general din of אשר חטא בה.
Tosfos in Sanhedrin (62b) understands that both dinim are necessary.  One approach in Tosfos is that we need the din of מלאכת מחשבת to tell us even when the person gets benefit from the מסעסק action, which doesn't fit under the exemption of אשר חטא בה as the first half of Shmuel's statement says המתעסק בחלבים ועריות חייב שכן נהנה.  [There are two ways to understand this answer of Tosfos.  Either he means I need מלאכת מחשבת for a case where this is physical pleasure, or all מלאכת שבת is considered שכן נהנה for there is a positive, constructive act. (See Maharam and Achiezer volume 3 #27.)
The second answer of Tosfos is that there are two cases of מתעסק.  One scenario is where for ex. one inteded to cut cut grain that he thought was detached from the ground ,but it actually is attached.  the person's intent to cut this grain was fulfilled and the exemption from חטאת is only from אשר חטא בה.  The case of the exemption of מלאכת מחשבת is where one intended to cut one grain and ended up cutting another one. (Seemingly that case should also have the exemption of אשר חטא בה, but its also exempt because of a lack of מלאכת מחשבת.) [There are various variant texts in Keritut (19b) and according to some Rishonim this is explicit in the Gemorah.]
The Gemorah in Keritot says that says according to Rebbe Shimon that holds מקלקל בחבורה is obligated, מתעסק by חבורה is obligated as well.  Tosfos in Shabbos (75a) explains the comparison is both have the same exemption; מלאכת מחשבת and we say from מקלקל that there is no such exemption regarding חבורה.  Ask the Achronim, according to Tosfos there should be another exemption of בה as well?
Some Achronim understand that the Rambam holds that אשר חטא בה functions as a גילוי מילתא that מתעסק is not considered a מלאכת מחשבת and is exempt from a חטאת.  In other words, its only an exemption regarding Shabbot, but everywhere else מתעסק is obligated.  (See Perush Hamishna in Keritut, Ch. 2 law 7 and Ch. 7 law 11 of Sheggagot.)  According to this, שכן נהנה is לאו דוקא but in reality מתעסק is always exempt except for regarding Shabbos. [The Meiri in Shabbos and Pesachim sounds like this as well.]

Bird Missing Limb

רש"י (א:יד) מביא את הדרשא של מן העוף ולא כל העוף שיש פסול מחוסר אבר בעוף.  הגרי"ז הסתפק ביסוד פסול זה אם הוא כמו פסול בעל מום בבהמה רק נתחדש בעוף שרק מחוסר אבר חשיב בע"מ ולא פחות מזה או שהוי פסול אחרת.  ונ"מ בין ב' הצדדים הוא אם יש בו איסור של הטלת מום בקדשים או לאו והאם יש איסור של הקרבת בע"מ בהקרבתו או לאו. 

המנ"ח מצוה רפו:ד ורפז:ג העלה דהוי פסול בפנ"ע ואינו מדין בע"מ.

רש"י זבחים פה: ביאר פסול מחוסר אסר בעופות משום הקריבהו נא לפחתך.  ותוס' לה: בזבחים וכן בקידושין כד: תמה שיש דרשא לפסול מחוסר אבר ואינו מדין הקריבהו?  וי"ל שרש"י בא לבאר שהפסול מחוסר אבר בעופות הוי מדין מום רק חלוק מבהמה שבבהמה גם חסרון כל שהוא חשיב מום אבל בעוף רק שיפסל מלהקריב לפני פחתך מוגדר כמום.  (ולפ"ז לאו דוקא מחוסר אבר אלא כל מום גדול וכו מבואר בלשון רש"י חולין כג. ד"ה בבהמה עיי"ש.)  ונ"מ לענין נסמית עינו של העוף שלתוס' סח: ד"ה ושניסמית פסול רק אם נחטטה העין אבל בניסמית לחוד כשרה אבל ללרש"י יהיה פסול וכן משמעות הרמב"ם איסו"מ ג:א (אך צ"ע מקידושין כד: עיין מנח"א על תו"כ ח"ב עמ' א משכ' ליישב.) [ועיי"ש בזבחים בטהרת הקודש.]  [עיין בהר אפרים קונטרס בית הבחירה סי' ח.] 

בהמה שנפל בה מום יש לו פדיון אך בעוף אין דין פדיון.  למה אין דין פדיון בעוף?  מסוגיא במנחות ק: יוצא שהטעם הוא משום שלא נאמר דין פדיון בעוף.  ויש להוסיף שאין ללמוד במה מצימו שיהיו לעופות דין פדיון משום שהתו"כ בבחוקותי ממעט עופות מפדיון.  ולכ' אי מחוסר אבר לא חשיב מום בעוף לא צריך לכל הסוגיא משום שאין ציור שיהיה עוף בע"מ שיהיה יכול לפדותו?  ולכ' יש מזה ראיה שמחו"א בעוף חשיב בע"מ.  אבל במעילה יב:  מבואר של"ש פדיון בעוף משום שאין בו פסול בע"מ ומזה משמע דאין מח"א פסול של מום אלא פסול אחרת.  אבל א"כ נמצא שיש סתירה להסוגיא במנחות?  ותוס' במעילה העיר מזה ומסיק העיקר כסוגיא במנחות עיי"ש ויוצא לדבריו שפסול מחו"א הוא מחמת דין מום.   

למה חלוק עופות מבהמות לענין פסול בע"מ?  המשך חכמה בפרשת אמור כה:יט ביאר שרק בקרבנות בהמה נתחדש דיני הקרבה של ישראל חלוק מבני נח אבל לענין קרבנות עוף נשארו בדין בן נח משום שהאבות ובסיני הקריבו רק בהמות ולא עופות.  ולכן מובן למה עופות נפסלו רק בחסרון אבר ולא בחסרון כל שהוא משום שכן הוא הדין אצל בן נח.  ולפ"ז מובן למה חלוק עוף מבהמה גם לענין הכשרות עוף אנדרוגינוס לקרבן ולמה עוף אי"צ סמיכה.    

Animal's Semicha

The Torah tells us וסמך ידו על ראש העולה (1:4.)  The Toras Kohanim excludes gentiles from this obligation from the words Bnei Yisroel (1:1.)  The Gemorah in Minachos 93b excludes gentiles from the word korbano (1:4.)  Tosfos (Zevachim 61b) explains that you need both exclusions.  One is to say the korban doesn’t require smicha and the second one to say that someone else doesn’t do smicha for the gentile.  It appears from Tosfos that there are two obligations for smicha.  1. The korban itself requires smicha  2. The owner must do smicha.  Therefore, one exclusion is to exempt the gentile from doing smicha (פטור גברא) and the other exclusion is necessary to exempt the korban from having smicha done to it (פטור חפצא.)  The Rambam also seems to have understood this way.  In the laws of מעשה קרבנות he writes in chapter 3 in laws 5 and 8 those that gentiles are exempted from smicha.  Why does he need to say it twice?  The first time he is explaining there is no obligation from the side of the korban and the second time he excludes the obligation of the owner (see the Rambam inside, it clearly seems that way.)  [There is a greater discussion of this topic in the Amek Bracha, Kuntrosa Shiurim Kiddushin, Briskor Rav Arechin 2a etc.]

The Gemorah Zevachim 6a says that semicha is shiyara mitzvah, yet the Torah considers it part of the kaparah as it says ונרצה לו לכפר עליו.  See Rashi Menachos 93b and Tosfos Yeshanim in Yoma 5a and Ritva there that state that there is something lacking from the kaparah without the semicha.  The Achronim use this idea to explain why bechor, pesach and maaser don’t need smicha (Menachos 92a,) because they don’t have an element of kaparah (see Chazon Yechezkal Temurah 1:8.)  That may also be why the owner can’t fulfill smicha via a shliach (see Rav Hirsch.)  [See also Pneni Kehilas Yaakov volume 2 pg. 189-197 if this plays a role in deciding if the מקדיש or the מתכפר is the one to do semicha, see also Kodshai Yehoshua volume 4 #327.]

Sacrifice Or Coming Closer

בראשונים יש כמה דרכים לבאר ענין וטעם קרבנות.  אנחנו ננסה לבאר נקודה אחת מב' דרכים.  דרך הרמב"ן הוא שע"י הקרבת הבהמה יראה המקריב כאילו הקריב חלבו ודמו לפני רבון העולמים.  ופירוש זה מתאים אם תרגום האנגלי של המלה קרבן ל .sacrifice ועיין בדברי אדמו"ר הזקן בלקו"ת בפרשנתו שביאר בדרך הרמב"ן את הפסוק אדם כי יקריב מכם דלכ' הול"ל אדם מכם כי יקריב?  ועוד צ"ב משהפסוק מתחיל בלשון יחיד ומסיים בלשון רבים תקריבו את קרבנכם?  וביאר כונת הפסוק הוא שאדם כי יקריב מכם, היינו מעצמכם, כשאדם מקריב את עצמו, את הנפש הבהמית שלו לפני ה' אזי יכולים כל אחד מישראל לקיים תקריבו את קרבנכם – להקריב קרבנות פיזי.  ובדרך זו הולך הספורנו שפ' אדם כי יקריב מכם כי יקריב מעצמכם "בוידוי דברים והכנעה" ומוסיף תבלין להדרשא מכם להוציא את המומר, זה לא סתם מיעוט, אלא שבאמת המומר חסר בהבאת עצמו, ה'מכם' בהקרבתו.  וכל דברים אלו הם לפי המהלך של הרמב"ן שהאדם יראה כאילו הוא מקריב את עצמו לפני ה'. 

אבל יש מהלך אחר במהר"ל (תפא"י פ"ע ועוד מקומות עיי"ש במהדורת ר' הרטמן שאסף כעמיר גרונה את המקומות,) וכן בר' הירש שביאר שקרבן מלשון קרב- לגשת אל ה'.  אין המבט על כפרת חטא האדם, על הלכלוך שבו, אלא על היכולת האדם לקרב אצל ה'.  ע"י הקרבן האדם שיסודו מעפר מחבר את עצמו אם הע"ס.  לכ' נראה שזה מבט יותר חיובי ויש לפנינו ב' דרכים, אחד רואה את החסרון שבאדם ואחד רואה את היכולת לקרב אל הקב"ה.  אבל י"ל שבאמת שני הדרכים כרוכין ביחד ואחד מגלה על חבירו.  שרק אם האדם מוכן ומזומן להקריב מעצמו, לשבר תואות הגופניות שלו, אז יוכל לקרב לה' יתברך.  מה שהרמב"ן פ' זה רק הקדמה לפ' של המהר"ל ור' הירש.  מתחילה צריך להקריב את עצמו, ורק אחר שאדם סותר כל הישות שלו אז הוא מוכן להיות קרוב אצל ה' יתב'.  

   

 אדמו"ר הזקן כותב בכמה מקומות לבאר לשון כורת ברית שלכ' הם מלים סותרים, ברית הוא חיבור וקישור אבל כריתות זה פירוד והפרדה?  וביאר, הדרך שאדם עושה קישור בין ב' הצדדים הוא ע"י שאחד נותן משהו מעצמו לחבירו וכן השני לחבירו.  לכן נמצא שהם צמודים תמיד משום שיש לכל אחד חלק מחבירו ממש.  הברית נעשה ע"י שכל אחד נותן מעצמו לחבירו, כל אחד מוכן למסור עצמו עבור חבירו.  כ"כ בקרבנות, מה שגורם ההתקרבות הוא שאדם מקריב עצמו לה'.  הוא משליך איזה חלק מהחיים שלו על האש לריח ניחוח אשה לה'.    

ובזה יש להבין למה פתח התורה מצות הקרבנות בעולת נדבה לכ' מתאים יותר להתחיל בקרבנות חובה?  אבל הן הן הדברים, שבקרבן נדבה אנחנו רואין יסוד הקרבנות כולן, שעל האדם לעשות יותר מחיובו לקרב אצמו אצל הקב"ה.  מוטל על האדם ליתן ממונו וגופו לה' ועי"ז נעשה קרוב אליו.  וכן מרמז רש"י בלשונו הקדוש, "בקרבנות נדבה דיבר הענין," היינו שענין ומהות הקרבנות הוא הנדיבות לב שיש בו היינו רצון האדם לנדוב לה' (עיין לקו"ש חי"ח שיחה ב'.)  

ויש להוסיף שבמשנת ר' הירש אין העלייה וקורבה בקרבן דין בגברא – האדם המקריב (כלשון הכת') אלא גם בחפצא של הבהמה.  הנה נודע שר' הירש נלחם בכל כחו כנגד הריפורמים המושחזים בגרמניא ואחת מטענות העיקריות שלהם הוא שמה לנו בצפייה לירושלים, לבית המקדש, לקרבנות, זה מעוד פרימיטיבי ואכזרי להקריב קרבנות ע"ג מזבח.  ור' הירש מוצא תשובה לזה בדברי התו"כ בדברי ר' יוסי שאומר בכל פרשת הקרבנות לא מוצאין שם אלקים אלא הקרבן הוא לשם יק'וק'.  מה התו"כ קמ"ל בזה, מה היסוד שרוצה ללמדנו?  (עיין ראב"ד וקרבן אהרן משכ' לבאר.)  ור' הירש ביאר שהכונה שאין קרבנות חובה מטעם שם אלקים, שם של מידת הדין, במחשבת רציחת בע"ח ואכזריות, אלא חובה משם של מידת הרחמים.  ע"י הקרבה יש לבהמה עלייה, הוא מוקטר לפני רבון העולמים לריח ניחוח.  זה לא מצוה של הריגה, זה נותן להבהמה חיים, יש לו רוח חדש, חיים נצחיים ע"י הקרבתו בקדושה.  יש בקרבן, בהבהמה עצמו קירבה לה' ע"י הקרבתו.  

יש א' זעירא בויקרא ללמד את הענוה של משה רבינו (עיין בבעה"ט.)  ולמה זה מרומז דוקא פה בריש ויקרא?  אומרים הבעלי מוסר שזה יסוד של קרבן שהאדם ימעט עצמו כלפי רבונו.  עיין סוטה ה: שמי שדעתו שפלה מעלה הכתוב כאילו הקריב כל הקרבנות שנא' זבחי אלקים רוח נשברה.  עיי"ש בחי' אגדות של מהר"ל שהסביר לפי דרכו שמי שיש לו ענוה נתקרב אצל הקב"ה.  

Meilah (Reb Chayim)

It is well known the chakirah if the prohibition of מעילה is a monetary prohibition, like an איסור גזל מהקדש or is it a category of איסור והיתר, a prohibition of obtaining benefit from hekdesh.  There seem to be contradictions from various passages in the Talmud.  For example, in Pesachim 26a, the Gemorah brings a proof from מעילה through gazing or smelling to a discussion of איסור הנאה.  There is no loss to hekdesh in these cases, yet there is מעילה and the Gemorah equates it to איסו"ה, so it would seem a איסו"ה.  However, the Gemorah in Babba Kamma 21b equates a case of hekdesh to understand if there is a monetary obligation to pay for הנאה without causing a loss to the owner.  It would seem from here to be a monetary issur.  There is much discussion in the Achronim how to answer this, ואכ"מ. 

However, there seems to be a contradiction in the teachings of our master and teacher, Reb Chayim Briskor.  In his book on the Rambam, he proves from the fact that the issur only applies to the amount of a prutah that it is a monetary issur. 

The Rambam rules that one who violates meilah intentionally has to pay it back and gets whipped.  The question is that one never receives two punishments, both lashes and having to pay?  Reb Chayim explains that כדי רשעתו is a law in ב"ד, that they can’t administer two punishments.  The payment for meilah isn’t the regular payment of a monetary obligation that ב"ד administers, it is a payment to atone for violating hekdesh, it is a כפרה and isn’t administered by ב"ד, hence they can give lashes to the violator.  The first teaching of Reb Chayim views it as a monetary issur, yet here he views the payment different from that of a run of the mill thief? 

It would seem that he differentiates between the issur and the payment.  The issur  is that of gezel hekdesh but the payment is a כפרה for violating hekdesh.  Hekdesh isn't considered an owner to demand payment (one who damages hekdesh is exempt,) it is only כפרה that causes one to pay.  

It is noteworthy that the Gemorah in Babba Metziah 55 has a derasha that one must payback even a violation of meilah that is less than a שוה פרוטא.  However, the Rambam (7:8) understands that isn’t the rule of meilah, there is no lashes, it is only a derasha to pay the loss.

Salty Korban

The Ramban in his 12^th rule of what’s counted as a mitzvah disagrees with the Bahag that counts the avodos of the korbanot such as יציקה, בלילב, פתיתה ומליחה as separate mitzvot.  He says those are all included in the mitzvah of the mincha itself.  However, the Rambam himself counts offering salt on a korban as a mitzvah (Sefer Hamitzvot 62,) so why does he disagree with the Bahag counting the salting as a mitzvah?  The Briskor Rav explains that the obligation of putting salt on a korban is written in the parsha of the mincha.  In regard to the mincha, the salt isn’t part of the general rule to offer salt on korbanot, it is part of the mincha offering itself.  In regard to other, then the salt isn’t part of the sacrifice, its part of a general rule to offer salt with the sacrifice.  The Rambam doesn’t count the salt of the mincha as a mitzvah for it is part of the mitzvah of the mincha.  It is the mitzvah of the salt on all sacrifices that isn’t a detail of the sacrifice that the Rambam counts as a mitzvah.  This is very מדיוק in the Rambam that cites the words על כל קרבנך תקריב מלח, not וכל קרבן מנחתך במלח תמלח.

The Rambam in איסורי מזבח ה:יב says הקריב בלא מלח כלל לוקה שנאמר ולא תשבית מלח ברית אלהיך ואע"פ שלוקה הקרבן כשר והורצה חוץ מן המנחה שהמלח מעכב בקמיצה שנאמר ולא תשבית מלח ברית אלהיך מעל מנחתך:  See the Kefes Mishne what is the source of the Rambam.  However, we see that the Rambam differentiates between the מנחה where salt is מעכב the korban vs. other korbanot that it isn’t.  According, to the Briskor Rav it is understood that it is the salt of the מנחה that is part of the מנחה itself but by other korbanot it doesn’t affect the fulfillment of the sacrifice.  (See also Tosfos Menachos 67b ד"ה יצק and Tosfos Tov Tov there.)

Why does the Torah forbid adding honey to a korban but requires bitter salt to be added?  Rabbi Y.Y. Jacobson explained that honey is an external addition and flavor to sweeten the food.  Salt doesn’t add its own flavor, it helps bring out the flavors that exist within the food.  The Torah is teaching us that for a person to bring out his potential there may be an aspect of bitterness, but it will help him/her make the most of their abilities.  It is sugarcoating that leaves a person shortchanged and unable to give his/ her greatest abilities to be used for Hashem.

Vidduy On Korbanot

The Gemorah in Zevachim (7b) proves that aקרבו עולה  is offered as a "present" and it can't be offered as atonement.  The Gemorah proves this with a ממנ"ש; if the person repented, there is no need for the atonement of the עולה, and if he didn’t repent, then there the korban would beזבח רשעים תועבה.  The Minchas Chinuch (364:3) asks that there is a scenario where it makes sense to offer the olah as atonement. He gives a case where the person did teshuva to remove זבח רשעים תועבה, but didn't yet recite vidduy so his teshuva is incomplete and he is bringing the olah to complete his teshuva.  So why does the Gemorah say there is no possible case that the olah will be offered as an atonement offering?

The Gemorah implies that the person who did a sin and didn't repent, his offering is זבח רשעים תועבה and is an invalid korban.  However, the Rambam rules in (מעשה קרבנות (ג:ד that only the קרבן of a  מומר or one who is משומד to an averah isn’t accepted.  It is clear that the korban of a one-time offender is accepted and isn't invalidated because of זבח רשעים תועבה.  This Rambam seems to fly in the face of the Gemorah?  The Achronim say that the Gemorah doesn't mean that זבח רשעים will create aפסול  in the korban because the person has a שם רשע.  What the Gemorah means is that the korban won't atone for the owner (like a korban offered שלא לשמה,) because the person is still in violation of the issur.  For something that the individual is still in violation of, there can be no atonement.  That's the answer to the Minchas Chinuch's question, even if the person is no longer a רשע, as long as the sin he is bringing the korban for isn't fully atoned, there can be atonement through the korban.  The Rambam is telling us when the korban actually becomes disqualified and that is only in the case of aמומר  or משומד and that is derived from a different source different source, מכם להוציא מומר ראה רמב"ם הנ"ל וחולין ה: ועיין היטב ברש"י שם ד"ה דלאו חיובא שי"ל כונתו כנ"ל.

The Rambam records the law that one who brings a sacrifice must repent twice. Once at the beginning of the laws of Teshuva and a second time at the end of the 3^rd Ch. Of מעשה קרבנות.  Why does the Rambam repeat this law?  The Briskors say we see that there are 2 dinim in the vidduy of a korban.  One law is a din in teshuva.  Part of teshuva is to recite vidduy and the teshuva process is expressed when offering the korban.  This is what the Rambam in the Laws of Teshuva is teaching us.  There is another law, that is a din in a korban that one must say what the korban is being offered for.  That is the essence of the vidduy, not as teshuva.  The proof is that the Rambam says even when offering a שלמים, which isn't offered as a  כפרה one must sayדברי שבח  when bringing the korban.  Another proof to this difference is that the Rambam also says that the person says עויתי וכו עשיתי תשובה.  In the Laws of Teshuva he adds additional text and doesn’t say that the person says I did teshuva.  Why these differences in the two places?  The reason for this is because when it comes to the korban, the person already finished his teshuva process and said vidduy, he is just coming to explain the essence of the korban is for his sin.  

The Achronim ask how can one recite vidduy when offering the korban if it is done while leaning upon the korban and the Gemorah in Yoma 87b says that vidduy must be recited while standing? Now we understand that the vidduy of the korban isn’t that of teshuva, so it doesn’t have to be recited while standing (L’Tshuvas Hashana Laws of Teshuva (1:1) and Masaes Hamelech Zevachim (7b.)) 

Based upon the Rambam in the Laws of Teshuva its difficult why didn’t the Gemorah say that the korban shouldn’t atone because it is lacking vidduy?  The Rambam in the laws of Teshuva never mentions that an עולה  requires vidduy.  It would seem since it is not an obligation to bring it for a sin, it will effect atonement even without vidduy, it is only because of זבח רשעים תועבה that it won’t affect atonement (see גרי"ד מירושלים.)

However, even though the Gemorah says the עולה  isn’t מכפר, Rashi (1:4) says that an עולה atones for  עשה ולאו הניתק לעשה.  The Rambam (מעשה קרבנות (ג:יד  says the same thing.  So is it a כפרה or not?  (See Tosfos Zevachim,  וצ"ב.)   The Rokaoch laws of Teshuva 28 that says even though teshuva alone works for an עשה, the person will still receive a little bit of pain from heaven.  Why is this?  The Gemorah says that the עולה  comes as a present to Hashem.  The Tanya in Egeres Hateshuva Ch. 2 explains that it is true that a person is cleansed from the sin through the process of teshuva, the person’s relationship with Hashem is marred and in order to get back in good graces one brings an עולה.  Since nowadays we don’t have the capability of bringing korbanot the Kabbalists taught numbers of fasts that will get the person back into good graces.  The fasts aren’t part of the process of teshuva, they are to remove the affects that the sin leaves.  (See there how he explains that one can make up the fasts through charity.)

It is clear that the Rambam understands that there is no atonement via the שלמים and that’s why he says that one says דברי שבח on the שלמים.  The Achronim point out that Rashi Taanis (23a) ד"ה פר הודאה is clear that even a שלמים  requires vidduy of teshuva (see Maharsha there) and that is how the Ralbag Divrei Hayamim 2 (30:22) explains the verse there.  [See also Tosfos Yoma 5a and Rash on Toras Kohanim (nedava 4:5.)  However, it needs explanation for why would there be vidduy if isn’t offered as atonement?  Rashi Aracin (21a) ד"ה ממשכנין says that a shelamim atones for an עשה (ומקורו מתנחומא תצוה טו.) [However, it is noteworthy that the שמ"ק changes the text to עולה.]   ]See Nitziv Zevachim (29b) that it atones for the עשה of גמ"ח  where the details aren’t clear, based upon that we can understand why it is different from the atonement of the עולה.  It is interesting that he feels the Rambam isn't a contradiction to Rashi for he understands that there is no vidduy said for a sin that isn't explicit. ] (Based upon intro. to Emrei Chayn volume 4.)