There are many karbanos (offerings) described in our Parasha, but only two nouns used to describe the person bringing these offerings. One who brings an animal offering that is not obligatory (or mandated), but brings it out of a desire to do so, is called “uh-dum,” a human (Vayikra 1:2). Pronouns are then used until the (non-obligatory) grain offering is described (2:1), where the noun “nefesh” (living, breathing being) is employed. When describing one who brings obligatory offerings (such as the various sin offerings), “nefesh” becomes the only noun used (4:2, 4:27, 5:1, 5:2, 5:4, 5:15, 5:17and 5:21). It would seem, then, that “nefesh” is the appropriate noun in this context; any other would be out of place. In fact, Rashi tells us (1:2) that the reason the Torah started with the noun “uh-dum” (human) was to equate every person who brings an offering to the first human, “Uh-dum” (Adam). Just as the offerings that Uh-dum brought were not from stolen goods (as there was no one he could have stolen them from), so too any offering brought by us cannot be from anything that was stolen. After teaching us this lesson, though, only “nefesh” is used.

Despite “nefesh” seeming to be the proper noun (pardon the pun) to refer to one who brings an offering, when the grain offerings are described, Rashi is bothered by the use of the noun “nefesh.” He explains that it is normally the poor who bring non-animal offerings, and because it is a greater sacrifice for the poor person to bring any voluntary offering, G-d considers it as if he brought his own nefesh, i.e. himself, as the offering. While Rashi points out that this is the only time “nefesh” is used regarding a voluntary offer, its use here shouldn’t need an explanation, as “nefesh” is used extensively by the mandatory offerings. Why is “nefesh” more indicative of G-d considering it an offering of one’s self by a voluntary grain offering than it is by the obligatory offerings? Why would using “nefesh” need any explanation at all?

Ralbag, in his explanation of the purpose of bringing karbanos (discussed when Noach brought his offerings after the flood, and in his concluding thoughts to Parashas Tzav), describes how spiritual growth is attained by concentrating on the growth of the intellect while minimizing things of a mundane nature. When we take an animal, which has no human intellect but otherwise has the same mundane aspects as humans, and slaughter it as an offering, we are showing that we do not value the animalistic parts of our nature. Rather, we are attempting to mitigate its effects on us, allowing the human intellect to shine through.

The term “nefesh” is used to describe all living, breathing things, such as animals and humans. We find the term “nefesh” referring specifically to animals during creation (Beraishis 1:20-21 and 1:24) and elsewhere (Vayikra 24:18). When Ralbag describes subjugating our base tendencies, he uses the term “nefesh behamis,” the “animal-like nefesh” that is part of every human being. Therefore, when describing the sin-offerings, the Torah uses the tern “nefesh,” as it was this aspect of the person that led to sin, and it is precisely this aspect that the sinner is trying to subjugate when repenting (which includes the bringing of the sin-offering). When the offering is not a sin-offering, however, this manifestation of our mundane nature is not evident, and the use of the term “nefesh” seems inappropriate. Rashi therefore points out that we never find the noun “nefesh” by a voluntary offering, with the exception of the grain offering. Usually “nefesh” refers to the mundane side of a person, but here, where the offering was not being brought as part of the process of minimizing animalistic tendencies, it must signify something else. Therefore, Rashi (based on Menachos 104b) tells us that the Torah used “nefesh” by voluntary grain offerings in order to show how much value G-d places on the meager offering of the pauper, considering it as if he or she (see Vayikra Rabbah 3:5) brought him or her self as an offering.

Netziv says that by using the term “nefesh” the Torah indicates that bringing a grain offering, despite it being voluntary (and not a sin-offering), also achieves some sort atonement. He cites several proof texts to show that it was brought as part of the process of improving character flaws (as opposed to atoning for specific sinful actions), and explains the correlation between grain offerings and correcting character flaws. Nevertheless, grain offerings were not only brought by those who were trying to improve their character traits; most people (unfortunately) don’t spend much time or effort in this area. The majority of grain offerings were brought by those who didn’t have any discretionary funds to spend on offerings (all the items needed for a grain offering are included in the things that field owners must leave for the poor, see Chasam Sofer’s Toras Moshe). As Rashi put it, “who usually voluntarily brings a grain offering? A poor person.” Therefore, if the term “nefesh” didn’t also apply to a poor person’s grain offering, it wouldn’t have been used. Since the Torah does describe the person who brings a grain offering as “nefesh,” and most who brought one were poor (and would have brought something else if they weren’t limited to taking food off