Ch. 16, v. 3: "B'ZOS yovo Aharon el hakodesh" – The Medrash Vayikroh Rabboh
21:9 says that the numerical value of B'ZOS is 410, the number of years that
the first Beis Hamikdosh stood. The Baalei Tosfos ask why is only the first
Beis Hamikdosh alluded to? After all, the Kohein Godol entered the Holy of
Holies on Yom Kippur in the second Beis Hamikdosh as well. They answer that
only in the first Beis Hamikdosh were there Kohanim similar to Aharon, who
was anointed with "shemen hamish'choh."
Perhaps, another reason might be that only in the first Beis Hamikdosh was
there a KODESH similar to the Mishkon, where the Holy Ark and kaporres were
in the Holy of Holies.
Ch. 16, v. 6: "V'chi'peir baado u'v'ad beiso" – The Sfas Emes's son-in-law,
Rabbi Yaakov Biderman zt"l Hy"d, asked, "Since a Kohein Godol must marry a
woman under the age of twelve and a half years old as per the gemara Y'vomos
59a, and the gemara Shabbos 89b says that one is not punished under the age
of twenty years, how then is there a fulfillment of "u'v'ad beiso" according
to Rabbi Yehudoh (first Mishneh in Yoma, 2a) who says that the Kohein Godol
must marry an extra wife just before Yom Kippur?
The Imrei Emes answered that there is a need for atonement for "bitul mitzvas
assei" even though there is no punishment.
The GR"A says that there is punishment after the age of twenty. (Oros haGR"A)
Perhaps, there is a need for atonement to cleanse the soul of sin, even if
there is no punishment.
See responsa of the Chacham Zvi #49, who offers four explanations. See also
the responsa Nodah Bihudoh Tinyonoh Y.D. #164 and the responsa Chasam Sofer
Y.D. #155. See also Shulchan Oruch O.Ch. #343, hagohoh.
Ch. 16, v. 8: "Gorol echod laShem v'gorol echod laAzozeil" – Rashi says that
the goat which receives the lot upon which is written "to Hashem" is to
Hashem, and the one which receives the lot "to Azozeil" IS SENT to Azozeil.
Why doesn't Rashi follow through in the same style as earlier and say "and
the one which receives the lot "to Azozeil" is TO Azozeil?
We know that Eliyohu (M.R. M'lochim 1:18:26) had to convince the ox that was
offered by the false prophets to cooperate and allow itself to be
slaughtered, because it too would be part of the proof that "Hashem hu
ho'Elokim" (verse 39).
Rashi did not want to say that the goat which is sent down the precipice is
TO Azozeil, which would indicate that its purpose is for the negative
Azozeil, but rather, that it too is for Hashem, as it serves Hashem's
purposes; only that it is SENT to Azozeil. (The Holy Admor of Skulen)
Ch. 16, v. 8: "LaAzozeil" – We know that where ever there is greater
sanctity, there exists greater spiritual negativity as well, to allow for a
balance of free choice. On this most holy day of the year when atonement
abounds, there is corresponding involvement with the negative Azozeil. The
letters of this word are Ayin-Zayin-Aleph-Zayin-Lamed, which are the first
letters of ""Zeh L'u'mas Zeh Osoh Elokim." (The Holy Admor of Kamarna)
(This is a take-off on Koheles 7:14, where it actually says *HO*Elokim.)
Ch. 16, v. 23: "U'vo Aharon" – Rashi quotes the gemara Yoma 32a which says
that this verse is not in sequential order. The gemara gives a proof for
this. There is a well-known explanation of the GR"A that this verse is out
of order for the yearly Yom Kippur service, but not out of order for Aharon
during the forty years in the desert.
Rabbi Ovadioh of Bartenuroh says that although it is out of order, it teaches
us that a sanctification of the Kohein Godol's hands and feet must take place
prior to donning his eight golden garments.
Ch. 16, v. 23: "U'foshat es bigdei habod …… V'HINICHOM shom" – The gemara
Yoma 34b says that these garments had the value of 18 "monoh." This is
alluded to by the word V'HINICHOM, and "Hei-Nun-Yud-Ches-Mem," which spells
out Yud-Ches MoNoH. (Baal Haturim and Rabbeinu Bachyei)
Ch. 17, v. 13: "Asher yei'o'cheil" – Rashi quotes the Toras Kohanim 17:112
which says that this excludes the slaughtering of a non-kosher species of
animal from the requirement to have its blood covered by sand, called "kisuy
hadam," since it may not be eaten. Why not exclude a kosher species that
became treifoh when ritually slaughtered?
Rabbi Ovadioh of Bartenuroh answers that since Rabbi Meir (gemara Chulin 85a)
is of the opinion that an improper ritual slaughtering is still halachically
considered slaughtering for other matters (i.e. to be responsible to pay 4 or
5 times a sheep's or an ox's value after theft or to transgress "oso v'es
b'no"), the treifoh would also need "kisuy hadam." The T.K. gives us an
undisputed case.
The Sifsei Chachomim answers that we find the words "v'shofach es domo" here
and in 17:4. Just as there it refers to an improper slaughtering, likewise
here it means the same. Yet, the Torah still requires "kisuy hadam." We are
only left with the case of a non-kosher species to be excluded from the words
"asher yei'o'cheil."
Ch. 18, v. 5: "Asher yaa'se osom ho'odom v'chai bohem" – The Chidushei HoRI"M
interprets: "A person should train himself to derive his main life-force
through the study of Torah and doing mitzvos."
Ch. 18, v. 18: "Litzror o'le'hoh" – The Torah prohibits marrying two sisters
in each other's lifetime. Since our Patriarchs kept the Torah before it was
given, how did Yaakov marry two sisters? I will repeat answers to this
question from parshas Vayeitzei.
[[Ch. 29, v. 28: "Va'ya'as Yaakov kein" - And Yaakov agreed to work another
seven years for Rochel. Everyone asks, "How could Yaakov marry two sisters?
This is prohibited by the Torah in Vayikroh 18:18. For this question to be
viable, it has to be established that Yaakov undertook to keep all the
mitzvos of the Torah. The Mishneh in Kedushin 82a and the gemara Yoma 28b
only specifically state that Avrohom kept the Torah. A source is the Medrash
Lekach Tov 32:14. On the words, "im Lovon GARTI" (32:4) the Medrash says,
"v'TARYAG mitzvos shomarti." Garti and taryag each equal 613, indicating
that Yaakov kept all the mitzvos of the Torah.
Some answers to our question are:
1) The Ramban on verses 26:5, Vayikroh 18:25, and Dvorim 11:18, answers that
the Ovos kept all the mitzvos in Eretz Yisroel, but not in chutz lo'oretz.
Rabbeinu Dovid miBaalei Hatosfos answers the same.
2) The Ramban in the gemara Y'vomos 98a answers that they were considered
non-Jews, and the Torah considers one's children as non-relatives, so the
sisters were not considered siblings. The responsa of the Radba"z 2:696
answers the same. This rule is taken from a verse in Yechezkel 23:20.
3) The Ramban in Breishis 48:7 says that Yaakov promised to marry Rochel, and
therefore had to keep his word. Similarly MVHRH"G Rabbi Y. Kamenecki zt"l
explained that the fulfillment of the mitzvos of the Torah by the Ovos prior
to the giving of the Torah, was in the category of a "midas chasidus," and
not as an absolute requirement. If a moral issue stood in the way, their
midas chasidus would not take precedence over hurting someone, as in our
case, since Rochel would have been VERY hurt had she not ended up being
married to Yaakov.
4) The Baalei Tosfos in Moshav Z'keinim answer that they were only
patriarchal sisters, and before mattan Torah there was only matriarchal
lineage. They were therefore not considered sisters.
5) They also answer that Rochel and Leah converted and were considered like
newly born people, not having a halachic sibling relationship (see Y'vomos
22a).
6) They also answer that Yaakov had already made kidushin, and therefore did
not hesitate to complete the n'suin. The Maharsh"a in gemara Yoma 28b at the
end of d.h. "mitzvos" says that the kidushin was the labour of seven years.
7) The Trumas Ha'deshen answers that the Ovos kept the Torah only as far as
the basic reasoning behind the mitzvah dictated. In our case the Chinuch
mitzvoh #206 says that the reason for the prohibition against marrying two
sisters is that usually one's two wives compete for their husband's attention
and are commonly at odds with each other. After the Torah was given, even if
a prophet would advise that a certain pair of sisters could be married to one
man and there would be no animosity between them, it would still be
prohibited. However, for Yaakov this was permitted, as he knew that his two
wives would not come to hate each other. The Nefesh Hachaim says the same in
shaar 1, end of chapter 21.
8) The Rashb"oh in his responsa 1:94 answers this question in a purposely
unclear and esoteric manner. The Radba"z in his responsa 2:696 reluctantly
explains the Rashb"oh. He follows the lead of the Rashb"oh and is also
cryptic. He says that marrying two sisters is like making use of the King's
sceptre. This is obviously not allowed. Yaakov, however, had his likeness
etched onto the holy throne of Hashem. He may therefore use the King's
sceptre.]]
Ch. 18, v. 28: "V'lo soki ho'oretz es'chem b'tamaachem osoh kaa'sher ko'oh es
hagoy" – The verse seems to contradict itself by saying that you will NOT be
expelled when you DO contaminate the land.
A number of interpretations:
You will not be treated as the heathen nations who have occupied this land
before you and have been ejected, but rather:
1) Not only will you be expelled, but you will also suffer the
punishment of excision, "ko'reis," as stated in verse 29, "v'nich'r'su
hanfoshos ho'osos. (Rabbi Moshe of Kutzi)
2) If you fulfill the words of verse 26, "ushmartem …… v'lo saasu," then
you will be saved from punishment. Translate "V'lo" as LEST. (Rabbeinu
Elyokim)
3) You will also be expelled, but in a manner which will be more severe
than the expulsion of the heathen nations. (Rivo)
4) They have only been expelled, but did not suffer the punishment of
"ko'reis." You, however, will not be expelled, but will be punished with
"ko'reis." (Baalei Hatosfos)
The Toras Kohanim 20:123 (mentioned in Rashi) compares sinning in E.Y. to a
prince who had a sensitive digestive system, as he was used to only the
finest of foods and delicacies. Any coarse alimentation would upset his
system. Similarly, E.Y. is very sensitive to sins. Those who sin would be
expelled. The Meshech Chochmoh says in the name of his father that according
to the above parable, if the prince continued to eat coarse food he would
eventually grow accustomed to it and would successfully digest it. Likewise,
if E.Y. would ch"v be subject to continuous sinning, it would also not become
as sensitive.
This can be the meaning of our verse. The land will NOT vomit you even though
you defile it, as it has expelled the previous occupants of the land. At
that time the land was still sensitive. However, it has unfortunately become
accustomed to the sins, and instead your punishment will be excision, as per
verse 29, "v'nich'r'su hanfoshos." I believe that this interpretation fits
in best with the 4th explanation offered above by the earlier commentators.
Ch. 20, v. 26: "V'h'yisem k'doshim LI …… l'h'yose LI" – Rashi quotes Toras
Kohanim 20:128, where Rabbi Elozor ben Azarioh says that one should be holy
to Me, to fulfill the mitzvos because of My command, and not because the
restricted item is repulsive. This is the stress of the word Li in our verse.
(Note that the word "MITZVOH" literally means a COMMAND. This indicates that
the main reason for compliance is because of the command of Hashem.)
In parshas Shmini a question was raised on the writings of the Rambam in
Moreh N'vuchim which seem contrary to a Toras Kohanim in our parsha, and also
contrary to what the Rambam himself writes in Shmonoh P'rokim chapter 6.
The Rambam writes: The philosophers say that one who consciously controls his
impulses, although he does that which is correct, even while he is acting
properly, still yearns for negative actions. This causes him emotional pain
and injury. However, the pious person (the chosid) has a magnetic pull
towards that which is proper and good. Although in action they are equal, in
character qualities, the pious one is greater than the one who suppresses his
negative desires. They support this position with the words of King Shlomo
who states in Mishlei 21:10, "Nefesh rosho ossoh ra," – The spirit of an evil
person (it) is bad (even though he has done no negative actions).
Conversely, regarding the pious one who does that which is proper with
complete happiness and without experiencing feelings to the contrary, it says
(21:15), "Simchoh latzadik asose mishpot u'mchitoh l'fo'a'lei ovven."
The Rambam says that after researching into the words of Chazal, he found
that they have written to the contrary. He cites the statement in gemara
Sukoh 52a that says that whoever is greater than his companion also has a
greater evil inclination. Our Rabbis also say that he who has a greater
battle in doing that which is correct receives a greater reward; Ben Bog Bog
omeir, "L'fum tzaaroh agroh" (Pirkei Ovos 5:26). Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel
(Rashi quotes Rabbi Elozor ben Azarioh) in Toras Kohanim 20:128 has exhorted
us to not develop an attitude of refraining from sin because it is repulsive
to us, but rather that it is appropriate to be drawn to a sin, such as eating
a cooked mixture of meat and milk, wearing shaatnez, or not eating pig, but
to refrain simply because our Father in heaven has commanded us to refrain.
The Rambam says that there is a seeming contradiction here, as the
philosophers have brought proofs to their position from verses in Mishlei.
He answers this by differentiating between sins which are logical, self
evident laws which are needed for society to function properly and those
which are statutes, "chukim," laws which are not understood by limited human
logic. For example, if one has a great lust for theft or murder, his
character quality is on a low level, and it is to this that the verses in
Mishlei refer. However, it is appropriate for one to have the attitude
mentioned in the Toras Kohanim towards statutes. Note that the examples
given by Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel are all STATUTES. Intrinsically, these
matters are not bad. Only by Hashem restricting them do they become
negative. These are called "Toros hashmios," teachings which we only know by
having heard them from Hashem. One who fights his inclination to refrain
from this type of sin is to be commended and deserves a greater reward.
Regarding these mitzvos our Rabbis have taught, "Chukim shechokakti l'cho ein
l'cho r'shus l'harheir bo'hen (Medrash Tanchuma chapter 7)." By looking
carefully at the wording used in the seemingly conflicting proofs, one sees
that the difference that I have pointed out is true.
In this vein, the sefer Apirion (by the Baal Kitzur Shulchon Oruch) explains
Ch. 18, v. 4: " Es mishpo'tai TAASU v'es chukosai TISH'M'RU" – Why "asia" by
mishpotim and "shmiroh" by chukim? According to the above Rambam it is
clearly understood. Regarding mishpotim, logical laws, we are told to "DO."
Logic dictates to DO, and preferably, there is no drive to do otherwise.
However, regarding chukim, statutes, we are told to "GUARD." One has to be
on guard because his inclination towards transgressing these types of mitzvos
should be present, as per the Toras Kohanim. One refrains only because of
the Torah's command.
I will repeat the section in parshas Shmini that deals with this Rambam.
[[Ch. 11, v. 7: "V'es hachazir" - The Rambam in Moreh N'vuchim 3:48 says that
the Torah prohibited the eating of pig because it is disgusting, abominable,
and is hazardous to one's health. This seems to be contrary to the
Toras Kohanim 20:128 mentioned in Rashi at the end of Parshas K'doshim
(20:26), which says that the reason for abstaining from eating pig should not
be because one feels a repulsiveness towards swine meat, but rather, simply
because Hashem prohibited its consumption. The Rambam himself acknowledges
this reason in his Shmonoh P'rokim chapter 6. Any clarification of the
Rambam's opinion would be appreciated. ]]
D.F. wrote back:
Strictly there is no contradiction. The quote from the Rambam gives the
reason why the *Torah* prohibited the pig (because it is disgusting); the
Toras Kohanim gives the reason why *we* should not eat it (because it is
forbidden).
However, this is not satisfactory for two reasons: the Rambam is attributing
a rather odd motivation to G-d (couldn't He have made the pig healthy, rather
than prohibiting it); and we are left with a difficult motivational
requirement (to desist from something we find disgusting not because it is
disgusting).
I wonder if it is possible to read the Moreh N'vuchim differently. (Can
anyone check the Arabic?) Could it be read: pig becomes abominable etc.
because it is forbidden. That is, we should train ourselves to observe the
mitzvos with such dedication that aveiros become disgusting to us. (This is
consistent with my own experience regarding chazir, and also I believe with
the Rambam's general Aristotelian concern with the development of the
virtues). (Alternatively the Rambam might be saying that whatever the
underlying reason for the Torah forbidding pig, G-d in his mercy makes it
easier for us to keep kosher by making the pig disgusting to us.)
What then of the Toras Kohanim? Well the actual quote does not refer to what
you should *feel* about pig meat, it reads as follows: "Rabbi Elozor ben
Azaria says: Whence that a man should not say that it is impossible for me
to eat pig meat, ..….. but [he should say] that it is possible for me
(efshi), only what should I do? My Father in heaven issued an edict upon me.
We learn it from "I have separated you from the peoples to become
mine"(Lev.20.26).
Following this, someone who has educated himself to find pig meat disgusting,
should still *say* (and acknowledge to himself) that the original reason for
his behaviour was the heavenly edict; and further that he *could* even now
eat pig meat were it not for the edict. ]] Thank you, D.F.
Rabbi A.G. brought to my attention the Dorash Moshe by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein
zt"l, in parshas Shmini, which makes many of the same points as D.F. As
well, see Dorash Moshe at the end of our parsha, where he still has
difficulty with the Rishonim mentioning any reason beyond that of the Torah
prohibiting certain matters in the manner of "chukim."
PLEASE NOTE: There are differing texts in the Rambam regarding immorality.
Some texts have this included in the chukim, while others do not. The
Chinuch, among others, does NOT consider "aroyos" among the chukim.
The Chidushei HoRI"M has a most insightful interpretation into the above T.K.
He says that one should refrain from transgressing because the sin is
abominable. However, Chazal knew that a situation might arise where one may
have a temporary weakness and develop a yearning for that which is normally
abhorrent. The Chazal therefore said, "Don't ONLY say that you will not sin
because it is abhorrent to you, lest it become acceptable and you may sin.
Rather, ALSO say that even if you have an interest in doing the sin, still,
Hashem has commanded us to refrain." Thus one has a second line of defense.
FEEL FREE TO DISTRIBUTE BY COPY OR ELECTRONICALLY. FEEDBACK IS APPRECIATED. TO
SUBSCRIBE, SEND REQUEST TO: SHOLOM@AOL.COM A GUTTEN SHABBOS KODESH.
|
