Torah Pearls #25 – Tzav (Leviticus 6:1-8:36)

Torah Pearls Tzav, Leviticus 6:1-8:36, Aaronic, blood, cohen, Documentary Hypothesis, JEPD, Cohen, laws, Noachide, Noahide, Noahides, priest, priesthood, Torah PearlsIn this week's episode of The Original Torah Pearls we discuss the Torah portion of Tzav (Leviticus 6:1-8:36). What exactly is the JEPD theory otherwise known as the Documentary Hypothesis? What is the role of the the Aaronic priest and is it fulfilled by any particular order today? Is the command to not drink blood just for Israel or does it apply to all the peoples of the earth? All this and more in this week’s Torah Pearls!

Download Torah Pearls Tzav

Nehemia's Wall Podcasts
Subscribe: iTunes | Android | Google Play | Stitcher | TuneIn

 

Related Posts:
Prophet Pearls - Tzav (Jeremiah 7:21-8:3; 9:22-23)

10 thoughts on “Torah Pearls #25 – Tzav (Leviticus 6:1-8:36)

  1. I’m unclear about your distinction in the sin offerings (internal/external). I read that a sin offering’s blood is put on the horns of the altar of incense inside the Tabernacle. The fat is burned on the altar outside and the animal itself is taken outside the camp and burned. I do not see any contradictions in this based on the animal containing blood at all. It seems to read that a bull or goat or lamb is treated the exact same way, blood carried inside and placed on the interior altar, fat is burned on altar of burnt offerings in courtyard and the rest of the animal is treated the same way and burned outside of the camp. Nothing left to be eaten by anyone.
    The only difference is a grain offering wherein a portion of that person’s offering is sprinkled on top of someone else’s fat offering and the rest is given to the Priest. In other words, I do not find an interior/exterior differentiation. Nor do I find that a Priest ate any of the animal at all. What am I missing?

    • In fact, since you are telling us that these verses in Lev are simply the execution of the command in Ex 29, Ex 29 says that the animal is not eaten at all but burnt completely. I do not see where any animal is eaten if offered as a sin offering.

      • In re-reading it, I now see the two different altars. It seems the distinction is whether or not the sin offering is from the Priest or the people and that determines whether or not it is taken inside. But I still do not see that any animal from any sin offering (not burnt offering) is consumed. The only thing consumed is the remaining portion of the grain offering wherein the poor person could participate in the sin offering without blood but by sprinkling their offering ON TOP of someone else’s blood offering (fat portion). Does the Hebrew say differently?

  2. Thank you guys for being brave and honest in bringing up some of the topics and questions that you do, specifically Keith in this particular portion. Hard topics to bring up but absolutely necessary!!!! I only wish we didn’t have to tread so softly and that everyone was willing to throw out traditions of men for the truth of the Torah.

  3. IMHO, based on study and experience, the Documentary Hypothesis was devised so that [secular] academics could make a living arguing in the literature about who wrote what, all without ever actually considering “What does it say?”.

  4. Nehemia, your BOOKS are such a blessing! I don’t have a life that allows me to SIT and LISTEN so I miss all these lessons on vocal download. Is there a way to get these in print, or voice-on-CD, or (even better) DVDs? Even my one-year-old grandson watches your DVD over and over! Thanks and may Yehovah bless your life and work!

  5. The discussion raises two important issues among many – !) The role of the modern pastor/teacher, which appears to be both individually and institutionally self-appointed; and the contrast of tabernacle/temple regulations and timings versus our Father’s instruction that his people be obedient to his set-apart Word. Unless I am missing something, we moderns are missing the mark far worse that our predecessors, indicating that the judgement we will receive will be likewise far more severe. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth for all who do not hear his voice or do not respond when they do. Pray that your flight be not in the winter or on the Sabbath.

  6. Shalom. My understanding of the word Shok is leg, hind leg or fore leg or lower part of leg. Zeroa i understand to mean the arm, lower arm, shoulder but can also mean strength, power, might, army and violence. I guess further study on these things may shed light…
    Toda

Please leave a comment.