The gemara Zevachim 101b tells us that even though Aharon and his children had been anointed as kohanim and been invested in their job during the days of miluim, Pinchas was not counted among them and it was not until this parsha that he became a kohen:
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לֹא נִתְכַּהֵן פִּינְחָס עַד שֶׁהֲרָגוֹ לְזִמְרִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו בְּרִית כְּהֻנַּת עוֹלָם
The gemara quotes a second opinion
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: עַד שֶׁשָּׂם שָׁלוֹם בֵּין הַשְּׁבָטִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּשְׁמַע פִּינְחָס הַכֹּהֵן וּנְשִׂיאֵי הָעֵדָה וְרָאשֵׁי אַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ׳״.
Meaning, it was later, in the days of Yehoshua, when Pinchas was sent as an emissary to prevent the people living in Eivar haYarden from breaking away, that he became a kohen. What does this second opinion do with the pasuk in our parsha ״וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו״? The gemara answers that the pasuk is a bracha. Rashi and Tos disagree how to interpret that answer. Rashi explains בשרו שלא תפסוק כהונה מזרעו אבל עדיין לא נתכהן: Pinchas would in the future be blessed with eternal status as kohen, but it did not happen yet. Tos explains מיד היה יכול להיות כהן אלא שתחילה צריך להלבישו ולמושחו ולחנכו בחביתין כדין הדיוטות המתחנכים בחביתין כדאמרינן בסוף התכלת (מנחות דף נא:) אבל שמא לא נתרצו לו כל ישראל באותה שעה מפני שהרג נשיא שבט עד ששם שלום בין השבטים בימי יהושע ואז נתרצו לו והלבישוהו [ומשחוהו] וחנכוהו בחביתין: Pinchas was already appointed kohen by Hashem, but there is a process that has to be followed before he could serve and do avodah and that process depends on Bn"Y acquiescing. At this point, Bn"Y was not yet on board with what Pinchas had done to Zimri, and so the process was delayed until the days of Yehoshua. (There is actually a third view, quoted in Zohar, that Pinchas became a kohen with Aharon and his children, but because he killed Zimri he would have lost the kehuna status and been barred from avodah if not for Hashem's intervention and renewal of his status.)
What's the hesber of the machlokes Rashi and Tos? One approach I saw is that the gemara (Nedarim 35b) has a safeik אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הָנֵי כָּהֲנֵי, שְׁלוּחֵי דִידַן הָווּ, אוֹ שְׁלוּחֵי דִשְׁמַיָּא. The Rishonim ask why this is a question when the gemara (Kid 23b) proves conclusively that they shluchei d'Shemaya:
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: הָנֵי כָּהֲנֵי שְׁלוּחֵי דְרַחֲמָנָא נִינְהוּ. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ שְׁלוּחֵי דִידַן נִינְהוּ, מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דַּאֲנַן לָא מָצֵינַן עָבְדִינַן וְאִינְהוּ מָצֵי עָבְדִי?
Ran answers that Rav Huna's conclusion is correct, but the sugya in Nedarim wanted to explore whether there was a proof from a Mishna or braysa to support that conclusion. Tosfos in Kid answers that Rav Huna is maybe only half right. Undoubtedly the kohanim are שְׁלוּחֵי דִשְׁמַיָּא, as Rav Huna proved. The safeik in Nedarim is only whether kohanim ALSO have a status as שְׁלוּחֵי דִידַן.
Rashi holds like the Ran, that a kohen's role is purely שְׁלוּחֵי דִשְׁמַיָּא. It is up to Hashem alone to appoint someone to that role. Tos l'shitasam holds that a kohen also fills a role of being שְׁלוּחֵי דִידַן; therefore, even if Hashem granted Pinchas the status of kohen, if Bn"Y were not yet prepared to go along with that decision, he was unable to serve.
Ramban explains the bracha to Pinchas לָכֵן אֱמֹר הִנְנִי נֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת בְּרִיתִי שָׁלוֹם that וצוהו שיודיע לישראל שהוא כהן לעולם. Isn't every kohen a כהן לעולם? Is it possible to be a kohen and not be a כהן לעולם?
The gemara (Brachos 46) relates that Rav Zeira became very ill and recovered. Rabbi Abahu hosted a party to celebrate, and invited Rav Zeira to say ha'motzi to start the meal. Rav Zeira declined, as there is a din that the baal ha'bayis should be the one to break the bread. Asks the Rashba: didn't Rabbi Abahu know that? What was Rabbi Abahu thinking? Rashba answers that since the meal is in Rav Zeira's honor, it is like he is the baal ha'bayis. L'halacha, the MG"A paskens based on this Rashba that the baal ha'bayis can defer and choose to honor someone else. Ad kan the sugya. The Aderet writes that he doesn't understand how the Rashba's question even gets off the ground. There is a Yerushalmi that indicates that Rav Zeira was a kohen. Of course Rav Zeira should have been given the honor to be the one to break bread because a kohen always gets first dibs! To get around this issue the Aderet serves up a big chiddush. He suggests that perhaps this episode occurred after the famous Purim seudah in which Rabbah became so inebriated that he (if the gemara is to taken literally) killed Rav Zeira, who was his guest, and then, after realizing what he did, davened and brought Rav Zeira back to life. True, Rav Zeira 1.0 was a kohen, but maybe a person who is reborn, Rav Zeira 2.0, is a different person entirely, and therefore no longer a kohen!
R' Meir Don Plotzki in Chemdas Yisrael (78:3) writes that if the Aderet is correct, then we understand what the Ramban in our parsha meant. Pinchas = Eliyahu, and Pinchas 1.0 is just the first iteration of his time on earth. Although other people may change status when they come back, Pinchas is blessed, as Ramban writes שהוא כהן לעולם -- even after coming back to our world for another round, no matter how many times around, he remains a kohen and does not lose his status.
When a letter with this chiddush reached Rav Chaim Berlin, he wrote back to the Aderet that surely he meant this as Purim torah, as there is a black on white gemara against him. Sanhedrin 90b:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִנַּיִין לִתְחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּנְתַתֶּם מִמֶּנּוּ [אֶת] תְּרוּמַת ה׳ לְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן״. וְכִי אַהֲרֹן לְעוֹלָם קַיָּים? וַהֲלֹא לֹא נִכְנַס לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לוֹ תְּרוּמָה! אֶלָּא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁעָתִיד לִחְיוֹת, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל נוֹתְנִין לוֹ תְּרוּמָה. מִכָּאן לִתְחִיַּית הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה.
How could Aharon eat terumah after techiyas ha'meisim? According to the Aderet, wouldn't Aharon 2.0 be a different person than Aharon 1.0 and therefore not have the status of a kohen?
This topic became a to-do. It's hard to believe the Aderet meant this as a joke because he repeats the chiddush in a few places. Some rallied to defend the Aderet because they could not believe a genius like that missed a gemara. The Rambam in Sefer haMitzvos (shoresh 3) writes that after techiyas ha'meisim there will be a new miluim process to sanctify the kohanim just like there was the first time around. This suggests, in line with what the Aderet wrote, that without such a process Aharon 2.0 would not have the same kohen status as Aharon 1.0. Surely the Ramban did not forget the gemara in Sanhedrin! One is forced to say that the gemara in Sanhedrin means that Aharon would be able to eat terumah after the new miluim process is completed.
R' Meir Don Plotzki elsewhere (in the Kli Chemdah) says that he is not so happy with this chiddush. What he says reminds me of an old joke, and sadly I have to admit that I wrote this whole shtickel this week just so I could say this old, bad joke. A guy who came to the Rabbi and said that he wants the Rabbi to make him a kohen. The Rabbi told him that it's just not possible. The guy said, "Come on Rabbi, I'll give $10,000 to the shul if you make me a kohen." Once again the Rabbi brushed him off. The guy was not to be disuaded and said, "Rabbi, I'll give $100,000, just make me a kohen." The Rabbi once again refused, but was curious and asked the man why he wanted so much to be a kohen. The guy responded, "My father was a kohen, my grandfather was a kohen, so I want to be a kohen." The Kli Chemdah knew the joke and argues that being a kohen is not like a din or a status or like being right or left handed. It's a function of a person's lineage. If your father is a kohen, you're a kohen. If Rav Zeira or anyone else comes back for round 2.0, their "being" must still have had a father, a grandfather, etc. so how can it be that they are not a kohen?
This topic is an even bigger to-do. Is 2.0 really the son of the same father as 1.0? Is he chayav in kibud av? When Elisha haNavi brought the child of the Isha haShunamis back to life, he told her שְׂאִי בְנֵךְ. Sounds like the parent is still the parent even though the child is on life 2.0 Is his wife still his wife, or does he need to do kiddushin all over again? Chazal tell us at mattan Torah "parcha nishmasam" of Klal Yisrael, it was like they died and underwent techiyhas ha'mesim. Nonetheless, afterwards Hashem commanded "shuvu lachem l'ohaleichem," to return to living together as husband and wife, presumably without a new kiddushin being done. Sounds like the wife/husband of 2.0 remains the same as that of 1.0. (Don't think this is all pilpul and theory. Maybe it applies l'maaseh to someone r"l pronounced clinically dead on the operating table, for example, but then somehow recovers?)
There is pilpul on top of pilpul on these issues. Tein l'chachan v'yechkam od, this is just roshei perakim to whet the appetite.
No comments:
Post a Comment