Parsha discussion

Question:  Why are the rules for נגע בשחין and נגע במכוה separated when the rules are virtually identical? Approach: Perhaps we can explain that the white hairs have a somewhat different appearance based on the background burn in each case, and hence we need to be told that - despite their differences - they are to be treated the same.

Question:  Why are the requirements for eating sea creature repeated? Approach:  We can perhaps explain, based on the משנה, that the double mentioning of the "if there are no fins and scales, it may not be eaten" to empahsize that a sea creature with scales always has fins, and hence the case of one sign (as happens with land animals) doesn't occur.

Question:  Why is the obligation to sacrifice the fats of the breast of the שלמים mentioned here and not in פרשת ויקרא? Approach:  It might be suggested that these fats are not offered as part of the fats if the חטאת (to which they’re compared in פרשת ויקרא). We might also suggest that perhaps the כהנים could eat these fats of the חטאת, although that’s unclear.

Question:  Why are the details (which are all identical with one exception) of the שלמים repeated for the different animal types? Approach: We can perhaps suggest that the details are there to show the difference between the עולה and שלמים; in that females can be offered, and only the חלבים are offered up. And this is stressed in the detail that it applies in any case of a שלמים.

Question:  Why are the uses of fabrics, wood etc not listed? Just the metals and the fabrics used for the בגדי כהונה (which would have been only a fraction of the overall use) Approach : It would appear that the accounting was only deemed necessary for metals; the last of which (apart from a small amount of gold used in some of the clothing) was used in the hooks for the outer wall of the חצר, and hence the accounting was done now. The פסוק at the end of the paragraph, relating to the fabrics, then leads into the making of the various בגדי כהונה, but didn't need to be accounted for per se (presumably due to their relatively low value).