Dovi Holtz is a Former shaliach in London (2002 - 2003), and Memphis (2007 - 2009) and currently a mechanech at the Moshe Sharett ORT school, Nof HaGalil
A year has passed and we’ve returned to Parashat Behar. Although I don’t take back the statement I made last year-that I love this parashah-it seems to me that I’ve managed to put my finger on a fundamental point that was bothering me.
The parashah doesn’t behave the way I would expect. The book of Vayikra, which the Sages call Torat Kohanim (“the Law of the Kohanim"), as its name suggests, is addressed primarily to the Kohanim. Although from time to time there are topics relevant to other parts of Israelite society, by and large the Kohanim are at the center. This is a significant point in understanding the book, and it is reflected in the fact that there is no parashah in the book in which one of two words does not appear: “kohen" (in all parashot except Shemini) or “Aharon" (in all except Kedoshim and Bechukotai). In other words, there is no parashah without these words-except for Parashat Behar.
The disappearance of the word “kohen" from the parashah is only a small expression of what is missing from it. The connection between the Kohanim and the topics of the parashah is also not really clear. Most of the parashah moves along the axis between land and care for the vulnerable, with many of its topics relating to both. Examples include the Shemitah year, the Yovel, the sale and redemption of land, and so on.
My difficulty here comes from two directions. First: as we know from the book of Devarim (18:1), the kohen has no portion or inheritance in the land, so we cannot connect him to the parashah from the perspective of land ownership. Second: although the kohen receives gifts from the land, like the poor mentioned in the parashah, those particular gifts are not mentioned here but rather in Devarim, in the source we cited.
At first, I thought perhaps it would be worthwhile to redefine the boundaries of the parashah-to define the pairing of Behar and Bechukotai not as a technical matter but as a conceptual one. There are a few indications that support this. First, the division of parashot as practiced today (according to the Babylonian tradition) pairs sections of similar character, such as Vayakhel-Pekudei or Tazria-Metzora. The pairing of Behar-Bechukotai raises the question: were they originally defined as two parashot later joined when needed, or perhaps originally defined as a single parashah that sometimes had to be split?
Second, the structure of the parashot supports expanding the boundaries. Parashat Behar opens with the unusual introduction: “Hashem spoke to Moshe on Mount Sinai, saying: Speak to the children of Israel…" (Leviticus 25:1-2), and Parashat Bechukotai ends with a parallel conclusion: “These are the commandments that Hashem commanded Moshe to the children of Israel on Mount Sinai" (27:34). It would seem that these verses point to a substantive connection between the two parashot.
I don’t know how to confirm or refute the first proof, so I won’t attempt it at this stage. The second proof is somewhat more problematic, because the phrase “on Mount Sinai" appears four times in the book of Vayikra, not twice. The first is in the middle of Parashat Tzav as a conclusion to the laws of sacrifices (7:37-38): “This is the law… which Hashem commanded Moshe on Mount Sinai on the day He commanded the children of Israel…" The second is the verse that opens Behar. The third concludes the rebuke in Bechukotai (26:46): “These are the statutes and ordinances and laws that Hashem gave between Himself and the children of Israel on Mount Sinai by the hand of Moshe." The fourth concludes the entire parashah of Bechukotai.
The decision to define the boundaries from the beginning of Behar to the end of Bechukotai excludes the first and third occurrences-an exclusion that, in my opinion, is not well justified, especially considering that the word “commanded" (tzivah) appearing in the first and fourth might indicate a much stronger connection between them.
Thus I was left with only a third proof-the content itself. Parashat Bechukotai concludes with various values, including laws of valuations of land, which parallel the land laws in Behar. In the laws of valuations, the kohen plays a central role: he determines the value of persons and land, consecrated fields go to him, and in general his role is significant. It may be that it was necessary to present the general laws in Behar before it was possible to present their connection to the kohen in Bechukotai.
But we can take this a step further. The treatment of land and Kohanim in our context can be compared to the treatment of the Kohanim of Egypt in Bereshit chapter 47. In Bereshit, during a major economic crisis, the Egyptians sell all their land to Yosef in exchange for food. The only ones who do not sell their land are the Kohanim: “for the Kohanim had an allotment from Pharaoh…" (verse 22). In the time of great crisis, the only ones who do not need to worry are the Kohanim. The law protects them, and they are secure.
In our case, however, in Parashat Behar-which deals with land ownership-the kohen is not mentioned at all, not even in connection with the cities of the Levites, which are essentially urban centers without agricultural-economic fields. The kohen appears only in Parashat Bechukotai, the parashah that deals with consecrating land to Hashem, where his role is clear, since he is the representative of the sacred domain.
But his conspicuous absence from the parashah of ownership conveys an even stronger message: The role of the kohen is not to ensure his own security and offer sacrifices. He has no land, even in times of economic prosperity, let alone in times of austerity. In contrast to the Kohanim of Egypt, whose religious role begins with taking care of themselves, the Kohanim of Hashem-who receive all their sustenance from what the people set aside-tie their fate to the success of the people and are not present in the general economic structure at all.
For comments: doviholtz@gmail.com