SEDRAH SELECTIONS PARSHAS SHMINI 5765 BS"D
Ch. 10, v. 3: "Hu asher di'ber Hashem leimore bikrovai eko'deish" - This is
as Hashem has spoken through My holy ones I shall be sanctified - Where was
this said? Rashi says in Shmos 29:43, "V'no'adti shomoh livnei Yisroel v'nikdash
bichvodi." Chizkuni says that it was inShmos 19:22, "V'gam haKohanim
hanigoshim el Hashem yiskadoshu pen yifrotz bo'hem Hashem."
Ch. 10, v. 9: "Yayin v'sheichor al teisht atoh uvo'necho" - Wine and aged
wine do not drink not you nor your sons - Besides being a prohibition for a
Kohein to drink wine and then do the service, this was a specific command to Aharon
and his surviving sons to not drink wine, as it is the custom of mourners to
be given wine, "tnu sheichor l'mo'rei nefesh" (Mishlei 21:6). This is because
they are not to display signs of mourning. (Chizkuni)
To understand why Aharon's sons are also excluded from mourning, which is
only the ruling for the Kohein Godol, it seems that the Chizkuni is following
through on his opinion in verse 6 and 19, that on the day of any Kohein's
inauguration he has the stringencies of a Kohein Godol. If so, our verse is aimed at
Aharon for all 7 days of mourning and for his 2 surviving sons only for the
first day. (Nirreh li)
Ch. 10, v. 20: "Va'yishma Moshe va'yitav b'einov" - And Moshe heard and it
was proper in his view - Rashi comments that Moshe did not say that he never
knew this ruling, but rather that he heard it and forgot it. This is somewhat
puzzling. Isn't it obvious that Moshe should tell the untarnished truth and not
cover up his shortcoming even in the slightest?
Targum Yonoson ben Uziel adds that not only did Moshe admit his mistake, but
also had this publicized, "v'a'peik kruza." However, there is a major issue at
hand. Moshe might have justified a cover-up of his blunder by thinking of a
possible very deleterious outcome. Moshe was, after all, the transmitter of the
Torah. Once he admits that he ruled incorrectly because he forgot a ruling
taught to him, there is the fear that the bnei Yisroel might loose their trust
in his being a reliable transmitter of Hashem's Torah. For him there might be
zero error tolerance. In spite of this he told the untarnished complete truth.
This carries a great lesson for those who want to bring Torah into the lives
of people who are bereft of Torah knowledge and values. They sometimes
compromise the laws of the Torah or its sanctity to make the Torah palatable to
secular Jews. The Torah does not tolerate compromising its laws. (Taam Vodaas)
Ch. 11, v. 11: "V'es nivlosom t'sha'keitzu" - And their dead body you shall
abominate - How do we have a "n'veiloh" of a species that has no ritual
slaughter in the first place? This might have led Targum Yonoson ben Uziel to comment
that you shall distance yourself from deriving benefit from a non-kosher
fish's body. However, even this requires clarification. Why is the restriction to
not do commerce with a non-kosher species of fish limited to when they are
dead?
The gemara Yerushalmi Shviis chapter #7 says that the restriction against
doing commerce with non-kosher species is limited to items that are to be eaten.
The mishnoh Okotzin 3:9 says that non-kosher fish are not considered food to
be liable to become defiled unless one specifically sets them aside for
consumption (except that in large cities this is not required as there are people
within a large population that would eat these fish).
We now understand why the restriction is limited to dead fish only. Live ones
are not assumed to be for consumption (i.e. they are aquarium material) and
one is permitted to do commerce with them. Dead ones are assumed to be for
consumption and are therefore not to be bought or sold. (Taamo Dikro)
I don't understand this. If the ability of non-kosher fish to become defiled
is automatic by dead ones, as they are clearly food, then the ruling that one
has to "have in mind to use them as food" is by live fish. A live creature
does not contract defilement. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Ch. 11, v. 14: "V'es hado'oh" - And the bird whose name is do'oh - This same
bird goes by the name "ro'oh" in Dvorim 14:13. The gemara Chulin 63 says that
the namesake of the bird indicates its special ability. It sees to an
exceedingly great distance, even being in Babylonia and spotting a "n'veiloh" in Eretz
Yisroel. There are those who are pacifists and although aware of many
wrongdoings by sinners in Eretz Yisroel, they say that if one lives outside Eretz
Yisroel, i.e. in Babylonia, and criticizes what he sees in Eretz Yisroel, only
noting the "n'veiloh" in the Holy Land, he is like this non-kosher species.
However, Taam Vodaas posits the opposite. The reason he is like the non-kosher
species is because he only sees the problem and leaves it at that. He is
responsible to protest and uproot the "n'veiloh."
Ch. 11, v. 24: "Ul'ei'leh titamo'u" - And to these you WILL become defiled -
Rashi explains that this is not a command, "you SHALL," but rather, a
statement of fact, "you WILL." If you touch any of these you will become defiled. This
Rashi seems a bit baffling. Did anyone entertain the thought that one SHOULD
defile himself, so that we need to be told that this is not the intention of
the verse? However, since the Rambam in his commentary on Poroh 3:3 writes that
one who knows of no defilement, although halachically pure, he is
nevertheless on a lower level than one who has become defiled from outside sources and
has gone through the purification process, because in this case the Torah
clearly testifies that he is pure. Based on this we might think that one should
pro-actively defile himself and then purify himself to reach this better level of
purity. This is what Rashi is forewarning. (Rabbi Y.M. Rosenbaum shlit"a)
Ch. 11, v. 33: "V'chol kli che'res asher yipol mei'hem el tocho" - And any
earthenware vessel into which will fall from them - Rashi (gemara Chulin 24b)
says that these words teach us that an earthenware vessel only contracts
defilement when it is in the vessel, and not when it has come into contact with its
outer surface. A simple explanation for this unique ruling is that earthenware
is very coarse and its outside serves no ornamental purpose. Its utility is
totally the container, inside space, its functionality. Therefore only the
inside can contract impurity. The Chizkuni explains that since there is no manner
in which an earthenware vessel that is defiled can become pure, as its only
remedy is to be broken into shards, the Torah did not want this type of vessel to
easily become defiled. Contact on the outside is the easiest and most common
manner in which a defiled object comes into contact with a vessel. Therefore
this type of impurity is waived.
Ch. 11, v. 34: "Asher yovo olov mayim yitmo" - That water will come upon it
it will be prepared to become defiled - The word "yovo" is spelled with the
letter Vov after the Veis, not the common way of being spelled. This alludes to
the fact that not only water, but any of six (Vov = 6) other liquids also
prepares the foodstuff for becoming defiled. (Taamo Dikro)
A GUTTEN SHABBOS KODESH. FEEL FREE TO DISTRIBUTE BY COPY OR ELECTRONICALLY.
FEEDBACK IS APPRECIATED. TO SUBSCRIBE, KINDLY SEND REQUEST TO: SHOLOM613@AOL.COM
See also Oroh
V'Simchoh - Meshech Chochmoh on the Weekly Parsha and Chasidic Insights |