not knowing whether to dance or cry

I was struck by the fact that Rashi and Ramban have diametrically opposed interpretations of the last pasuk in our parsha:

 וַיַּ֥עַשׂ אַהֲרֹ֖ן וּבָנָ֑יו אֵ֚ת כׇּל־הַדְּבָרִ֔ים אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּ֥ה ה׳ בְּיַד־מֹשֶֽׁה

 

Rashi comments:

 

ויעש אהרן ובניו – להגיד שבחן, שלא הטו ימין ושמאל

 

The kohanim did exactly as instructed, with no deviation.

 

Ramban, on the other hands, notes the expression used in our pasuk, אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּ֥ה ה׳ בְּיַד־מֹשֶֽׁה, is unusual.  Usually we see the phrase כּאשר צוה ה׳ את משה.  Why the difference here?  He explains:

 

אבל בכאן מפני שהוסיפו על המצוה, לא אמר כן, כי לא עשו כאשר צוה השם, אבל עשו כל הדברים אשר צוה השם, ועוד נוסף עליהם מה שיאמר באש זרה: אשר לא צוה אותם

 

The kohanim did exactly as instructed, plus.  That plus is a deviation that, as we will read in next week's parsha, would lead to tragedy.  

 

I understand the need to tell us that things did not go according to plan.  However, according to Rashi, why does the fact that things did go according to plan warrant a mention?  Clearly the Torah does not tell us every time Moshe gave some command or mitzvah that Bn"Y obeyed as instructed.  It's assumed.  So why would we not make that assumption here?  We does the Torah have to spell it out?

 

This is not the only place we find this phenomenon.  One other well known example occurs in the parsha of lighting the menorah (BaMidbar 8:3)

 

וַיַּ֤עַשׂ כֵּן֙ אַהֲרֹ֔ן אֶל־מוּל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הַמְּנוֹרָ֔ה הֶעֱלָ֖ה נֵרֹתֶ֑יהָ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה ה׳ אֶת־מֹשֶֽׁה

 

Rashi: ויעש כן אהרן – להגיד שבחו של אהרן שלא שינה.

 

Maharal in Gur Aryeh explains why the fact that Aharon did as instructed warrants mention:

 

וקשה, מאי שבח יש בזה שהיה מדליק המנורה, ויש לתרץ, דהוצרך צמצום גדול לצמצם שיהיו כולם נגד האמצעי ממש, והוצרך לצדד אותם.

 

Another example that has to do with Pesach, since it is inyana d'yoma (BaMidbar 9:5):

 

וַיַּעֲשׂ֣וּ אֶת־הַפֶּ֡סַח בָּרִאשׁ֡וֹן בְּאַרְבָּעָה֩ עָשָׂ֨ר י֥וֹם לַחֹ֛דֶשׁ בֵּ֥ין הָעַרְבַּ֖יִם בְּמִדְבַּ֣ר סִינָ֑י כְּ֠כֹ֠ל אֲשֶׁ֨ר צִוָּ֤ה ה׳ אֶת־מֹשֶׁ֔ה כֵּ֥ן עָשׂ֖וּ בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

 

Sifri darshens: ככל אשר צוה י״י את משה – להודיע שבחן של ישראל שכשם שאמר להם משה כן עשו.

 

Here too, Maharal (on our pasuk) explains why the fact that Bn"Y followed instructions warrants mention: מפני כי הפסח הוא מוטל על כל יחיד ויחיד לעשות הפסח, ולא כמו שאר המצות, כי קרבן זה יש לו שעה ידועה ומוגבלת לכל ישראל:

 

(Parenthetically, why does Rashi in our parsha and Rashi in the parsha of lighting menorah quote the derash of להגיד שבחו or להגיד שבחן, but he doesn't do so in that parsha of korban pesach?  The Sifri has the derasha, but Rashi is silent.  I don't have an answer yet.)

The common denominator in these cases is that there was some difficulty to be overcome, and the pasuk tells us that everything was done exactly כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה ה׳ אֶת־מֹשֶֽׁה despite the difficulty.  So what was the difficulty Aharon faced and that he overcame in our parsha?  I want to offer three possibilities: a practical difficulty, a psychological challenge/difficulty, and an emotional one.  

 

The miluim were a seven day prep and training period for Aharon and his sons to learn how to do avodah.  When you have a period of time set for training, you don't expect a person to perform the same on day #1 as on the final day.  Let's say you decide to devote six months to learn to play the piano  One would hope that on the last day of month 6 your playing is significantly better than on the day you started.  In our case, the praise of  שלא הטו ימין ושמאל is not talking about what happened only on day seven of the miluim.  It's talking even about day one.  Not only did Aharon or his sons not err in a way that would pasel a korban, but, explains the Lubavitcher Rebbe, לא הטו, they did not make the slightest deviation, the slightest error, even something that was not l'ikuva.  Despite the practical challenges of performing a task that he had no prior training for, Aharon did a flawless job from the get-go.   It would be like sitting down at that piano on day #1 with no prior training and banging out a flawless rendition of Rachmaninoff's Concerto No. 2 (enjoy!). Only someone who is completely connected to what he is doing can pull that off. לֹא יְאֻנֶּה לַצַּדִּיק כׇּל אָוֶן (Mishlei 12:21)  That was the special bracha of Aharon.

Maharal offers another answer based on a Chazal:

 

אלא שעשו זה בשמחה לקיים מה שאמר להם משה כאילו שמעו מפי הגבורה. ... דזה שייך כאן, כי דרך עולם – גדול שנצטווה מאחר, אינו עושה בשמחה שהוא ישמע לאחר, אבל אהרן היה שמח כאילו בעצמו שמע.

 

Even though the commands were given בְּיַד־מֹשֶֽׁה and not to him directly, and no one, not even the great Aharon, likes to be bossed around -- psychologically, we have an adverse reaction to taking orders -- that didn't diminish Aharon's simcha, that didn't diminish he meticulousness in doing the avodah properly.

 

I wanted to suggest another reason that the praise warrants mention here.  The Tanchuma at the beginning of next week's parsha writes as follows:

זֶה שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב: שׁוֹמֵר מִצְוָה לֹא יֵדַע דָּבָר רָע (קהלת ח, ה). מִי הָיָה. זֶה אַהֲרֹן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וּמִפֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא תֵּצְאוּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים, וּפֶתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד תֵּשְׁבוּ יוֹמָם וָלַיְלָה. אָמַר לָהֶם מֹשֶׁה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו, שִׁמְרוּ אֲבֵלוּת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים עַד שֶׁלֹּא יַגִּיעַ בָּכֶם. וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת מִשְׁמֶרֶת ה', שֶׁכָּךְ שָׁמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי אֲבֵלוּת עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא אֶת הַמַּבּוּל, כִּבְיָכוֹל. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁנִּתְאַבֵּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַיִּנָחֵם ה' כִּי עָשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָם וַיִּתְעַצֵּב אֶל לִבּוֹ (בראשית ו, ו). וְאֵין עֲצִיבָה אֶלָּא אֵבֶל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַתְּהִי הַתְּשׁוּעָה בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא לְאֵבֶל עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל כִּי אָמַר הָעָם כִּי נֶעֱצַב הַמֶּלֶךְ עַל בְּנוֹ (ש״ב יט, ג). וְכֵן עֶזְרָא אָמַר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיוּ בּוֹכִין אִישׁ אֶל אָחִיו וְאִישׁ אֶל בְּנוֹ, לְכוּ אִכְלוּ מִשְׁמַנִּים וּשְׁתוּ וְגוֹ' וְאַל תֵּעָצְבוּ כִּי חֶדְוַת ה' הִיא מָעֻזְּכֶם (נחמיה ח, י). בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה שָׁמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הָאֵבֶל עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא אֶת הַמַּבּוּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַיְהִי לְשִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים וּמֵי הַמַּבּוּל הָיוּ עַל הָאָרֶץ (בראשית ז, י). וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁנִּתְאַבֵּל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל עוֹלָמוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא אֶת הַמַּבּוּל, אַף אַתֶּם שִׁמְרוּ אֶת יְמֵי הָאֵבֶל עַד שֶׁלֹּא יַגִּיעַ בָּכֶם. הָיוּ מְשַׁמְּרִים וְלֹא הָיוּ יוֹדְעִים עַל מָה מְשַׁמְּרִים. כְּמַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר: שׁוֹמֵר מִצְוָה לֹא יֵדַע דָּבָר רָע.

 

Imagine that it's one week to go before the chassunah, and the Rabbi pulls aside the chaosson and kallah and says to them that he has a special task for them to complete in this week before the wedding.  He wants them G-d forbid to sit shiva. Can you imagine what the chosson and kallah would think?  "The Rabbi has lost his marbles!" is what they would think.  Here, it's one week before the grand inauguration of the mishkan, a day of overwhelming simcha, and Moshe comes and tells Aharon and his sons that they need to sit shiva. Emotionally, it's something that is jarring and out of sync with their feelings.    לֹא יֵדַע דָּבָר רָע they have no idea what bad thing they are sitting shiva for, they have no idea why that have to do this, but they do so anyway.  

 

The flipside is the episode in Sefer Ezra that the Midrash refers to..  It's Rosh haShana everyone in shul is crying tears of remorse.  Each person is in aveilus for himself, because he married a shiksa and he realizes it's the Yom haDin and he is finished, his life is ruined.  Ezra gets up and gives a derasha and tells this guy to go out and party, וְאַל תֵּעָצְבוּ כִּי חֶדְוַת ה' הִיא מָעֻזְּכֶם.

 

R' Zalman Sorotzkin writes in the Oznayim laTorah  that Chazal are trying to tell us that a person can have no idea where he is holding.  Am I at a chasunah or am I in the beis aveilus?  We don't even understand the reality before us.  Sometimes we are on the cusp of tragedy and don't even realize what is around the corner, and sometimes we are tearing kri'ah like our life is ruined and we should instead be dancing.  That's a very sobering thought.

 

Since it's shabbos ha'gadol, maybe we can connect this to leil ha'seder.  When it comes to the leil ha'seder, on the one hand we recline like kings, we eat the korban pesach al ha'sova, we recline like kings but on the other hand we eat lechem oni, we eat maror, we eat eggs to remind us of 9 Av.  What kind of hodge podge is this?  Is it a beis ha'mishteh or  beis aveil?  According to the Abarbanel that's the meaning of mah nishtana.  It's the contrast between haseiba and tibul (which is how the rich would eat) with maror and lechem oni that arouses curiosity.  We exist in a twilight world and can't make sense of things.  But that's an accurate reflection of life, or at least life as we know it now.  The Yaavetz, in his commentary, writes that in our galus we are like a chatzi eved chatzi ben chorin.  We can (sometimes) find peace and prosperity in foreign lands, but we know that this is not where we belong.  We are in a state of "yachatz," a matzah half full, half empty, unsure of which way things will tilt this year.  In Eretz Yisrael, there are missiles flying.  The danger is real.  But we all sense that it's not time for aveilus, that we are on the cusp of something big, something great just out of reach.  

sheves achim gam yachad

  ת"ר כשמן הטוב היורד על הראש וגו' כמין שתי טיפין מרגליות היו תלויות לאהרן בזקנו אמר רב כהנא תנא כשהוא מספר עולות ויושבות בעיקרי זקנו ועל דבר זה היה משה רבינו דואג שמא חס ושלום מעלתי בשמן המשחה יצתה בת קול ואמרה כטל חרמון שיורד על הררי ציון מה טל אין בו מעילה אף שמן שיורד על זקן אהרן אין בו מעילה ועדיין אהרן היה דואג שמא משה לא מעל ואני מעלתי יצתה בת קול ואמרה לו הנה מה טוב ומה נעים שבת אחים גם יחד מה משה לא מעל אף אתה לא מעלת

Why was Moshe worried about the issue me'ila when he had no benefit from the shem ha'mishcha?  Rabeinu Gershom on the daf explains שמא מעלתי לפי שהזקן לא נצטוה למשוח והיה רואה בו ב׳ טיפין מן הראש ירדו לזקן:.  R' Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi, however, quotes the comment of the Shita MeKubetzet on the same sugya and uses that to answer the question.  The full text of the chapter of Teh (133) the gemara is quoting is as follows:

שִׁ֥יר הַֽמַּֽעֲל֗וֹת לְדָ֫וִ֥ד הִנֵּ֣ה מַה־טּ֖וֹב וּמַה־נָּעִ֑ים שֶׁ֖בֶת אַחִ֣ים גַּם־יָֽחַד:

כַּשֶּׁ֚מֶן הַטּ֨וֹב | עַל־הָרֹ֗אשׁ יֹרֵ֗ד עַל־הַזָּ֫קָ֥ן זְקַ֥ן אַֽהֲרֹ֑ן שֶׁ֜יֹּרֵ֗ד עַל־פִּ֥י מִדּוֹתָֽיו:

כְּטַ֥ל חֶרְמ֗וֹן שֶׁיֹּרֵד֘ עַל־הַרְרֵ֪י צִ֫יּ֥וֹן כִּ֚י שָׁ֨ם | צִוָּ֣ה ה׳ אֶת־הַבְּרָכָ֑ה חַ֜יִּ֗ים עַד־הָֽעוֹלָֽם:

Why does the word זְקַֽן appear twice in the second pasuk?  The Shita answers that when the shemen ha'mishcha was placed on Aharon's beard, Moshe felt as if it was on his own beard.  That's מה טוב ומה נעים שבת אחים גם יחד.  Moshe felt such pleasure from seeing his brother become kohen gadol, it was as if he gufa was standing in Aharon's shoes.  M'meila, if it was as if Moshe was annointing himself as well as his brother, then b'shmala annointing Aharon, that was the mitzvah, but there was no mitzvah for Moshe himself to be annointed.  Was that hanaah that Moshe himself got an issur me'ila?

Putting aside the issue me'ila issue, the takeaway thought here is that when you are singing אחינו כּל בּית ישׂראל, do you really feel like you are in your brothers' shoes?  That his/her experience is your experience, that you vicariously share in everything?  That was the level of Moshe Rabeinu's  הִנֵּ֣ה מַה־טּ֖וֹב וּמַה־נָּעִ֑ים שֶׁ֖בֶת אַחִ֣ים גַּם־יָֽחַד.  That is what we should aspire to.

R' Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi goes on to discuss why it is that Aharon became concerned for the issue me'ila only after the bas kol responded to Moshe.  M'mah nafshach: if there was something to be concerned about, he should have been concernde from the get-go, and if the bas kol revealed there was nothing for Moshe to be concerned about, then why Aharon troubled?  Take a look.

The punchline of why there is no me'ila is מה טל אין בו מעילה אף שמן שיורד על זקן אהרן אין בו מעילה.  The shemen ha'mishcha is compared to tal, and tal is not subject to any issur me'ila. 

R' Shimon Sofer asks: Why does the gemara compare the shemen davka to tal?  Why not some other liquid?

The gemara (Taanis 4) writes that Bn"Y asked Hashem to be like rain:

אָמַר רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה אַף כְּנֶסֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל שָׁאֲלָה שֶׁלֹּא כַּהוֹגֶן וְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הֱשִׁיבָהּ כַּהוֹגֶן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר {הושע ו׳:ג׳} וְנֵדְעָה נִרְדְּפָה לָדַעַת אֶת ה׳ כְּשַׁחַר נָכוֹן מוֹצָאוֹ וְיָבוֹא כַגֶּשֶׁם לָנוּ.

To which Hashem responded that their request was wrong.  Rain is not always a blessing.  Rain does not always fall.  They instead should have asked for Him to be like dew, which always is there, and is always a blessing.  Our request was not formulated properly, but Hashem responded anyway and blessed us that he would be like dew:

אָמַר לָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בִּתִּי אַתְּ שׁוֹאֶלֶת דָּבָר שֶׁפְּעָמִים מִתְבַּקֵּשׁ וּפְעָמִים אֵינוֹ מִתְבַּקֵּשׁ אֲבָל אֲנִי אֶהְיֶה לָךְ דָּבָר הַמִּתְבַּקֵּשׁ לְעוֹלָם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר {הושע י״ד:ו׳} אֶהְיֶה כַטַּל לְיִשְׂרָאֵל.

Shem m'Shmuel (Pesach 5772) explains the difference between rain and dew as follows:

כי גשם פעמים מתבקש פעמים אינו מתבקש, פי' דגשם הוא השפעה הבאה לעומת המעשים לטוב או למוטב וכשח"ו אין מעשים טובים מה גם להיפוך יכולה ח"ו לבוא השפעה להיפוך, וכעין גשם המבול, אבל בבחי' טל הוא לטובה לבד, ובא אף בלא אתעדל"ת, רק אם הוא כלי מוכשר לקבל,

Rain is something you ask for.  When you make a request, you don't always deserve to get what you ask for.  You don't always realize the right thing to ask for.  Dew is something that is there whether you ask for it or not, whether you want it or not, whether you deserve it or not.

Aharon was concerned lest his acceptance of the kehuna be tainted by the desire for pesonal aggrandizement, for his own enjoyment of the position, for the honor.  Accepting the position on those terms would be an issur me'ila, taking advantage of hekdesh for personal gain.

Hashem responded that He knows this is not somethign Aharon would ever ask for.  It's not like the rain -- פעמים מתבקש.  Rather, the position is like the dew.  Aharon's acceptance was not because he wanted the position and not even because he thought he deserved or earned the position, but simply because it was the ratzon Hashem.

how will we know what to do? reviving lost mesorah; issurei achila -- issur gavra vs issur cheftza

1) One of the things I like about R' Shteinman's torah is that his questions/answers are not far-flung lomdus, but are, dare I say it, rooted in common sense.  On this week's parsha he quotes the Chofetz Chaim's charge to learn kodshim so that once geulah comes b'karov gedolei yisrael will be able to pasken on issues relating to the mikdash and kodshim.  R' Shteinman asks: how are these gedolim supposed to figure out what to do?  He quotes that the Ponivicher Rav dealt with this very question and responded that he will just follow the Chofetz Chaim's lead.  That just kicks the can down the road.  How is the Chofetz Chaim supposed to figure out how to pasken?  And if you say that we will have a techiyas ha'mesim and can just ask Moshe or Aharon, then why bother learning kodshim to try to figure everything out?  We can just ask Moshe and Aharon?  

I've had a similar thought since I began wearing techeiles.  When you order techeiles from the Ptil Tekhelet site they give you a whole menu of options to choose from as to which shita to follow in tying the tzitzis.  How do you know what to choose?  Any mesorah as to what to do has been lost for at least 1200 years or so!  We are halachically flying blind.  And that is assuming you even want to wear techeiles, which a large segment of the Jewish world, for one reason or other, has yet to be convinced to start doing.  Imagine we somehow finally fulfill the mitzvah of binyan beis ha'mikdash in our times.  Any mesorah as to what to do has been lost for even longer than the mesorah of techeiles.  Already in Mishnayos (Midot 2:5) we have Tanaim saying about lishkos of the azarah אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: שָׁכַחְתִּי מֶה הָיְתָה מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת that they forgot what the space was used for.  How are we supposed to know?

2) While on the topic of R' Shteinman's torah, here is another interesting question he raises:

 וּכְלִי־חֶ֛רֶשׂ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תְּבֻשַּׁל⁠־בּ֖וֹ יִשָּׁבֵ֑ר וְאִם⁠־בִּכְלִ֤י נְחֹ֙שֶׁת֙ בֻּשָּׁ֔לָה וּמֹרַ֥ק וְשֻׁטַּ֖ף בַּמָּֽיִם (6:21) 

Is this a mitzvah or a matir?  Meaning, what if you want to just throw the utensils in the garbage?  Is there an obligation of מֹרַ֥ק וְשֻׁטַּ֖ף בַּמָּֽיִם or is it just a matir if you want to use the kli? 

Another interesting one: Off the cuff I would have assumed that when you have a lav ha'nitak l'aseh, the aseh has to be done by the person who violated the lav in order to give him a ptur from malkos.  You see from our parsha that is not true   The gemara writes that there are no malkos for the issur nosar because it is a lav ha'nitak l'aseh, but it sounds like the mitzvah of burning nosar (6:17) can be done by anyone.  

And if you like a Brisker style chakira, R' Shteinman occasionally throws those out there too: The gemara (Zev 87) raises the question of whether something hung in the airspace above the mizbeiach counts as being on the mizbeiach itself or not.  Yesh lachkor whether the gemara means the airspace is the makom mizbeiach, or whether it's not the makom mizbeich, but it has the din of makom mizbeiach.  

I could go on all day quoting interesting points from the Ayeles haShachar, but I don't have all day so תן לחכם ויחכּם עוד.  That was just to whet the appetite.  Maybe I should do something like that every week.

3) וְהַנּוֹתֶ֣רֶת מִמֶּ֔נָּה יֹאכְל֖וּ אַהֲרֹ֣ן וּבָנָ֑יו מַצּ֤וֹת תֵּֽאָכֵל֙ בְּמָק֣וֹם קָדֹ֔שׁ בַּחֲצַ֥ר אֹֽהֶל־מוֹעֵ֖ד יֹאכְלֽוּהָ

Based on the language of the pasuk the Malbim makes what sounds like a Brisker chiluk .  He writes that when the Torah uses the term אוכל, it is referring to the gavra, but תֵּֽאָכֵל֙, passive voice, nifal, refers to the cheftza, the item being eaten.  Nafka minah: whether or not you need to eat a shiur.  When the object is being referred to, the shiur is any amount; when it is the person eating being referred to, then אין אכילה פּותה מכּזית (see Beis haLevi quoted in this post.)

 יש הבדל בין פעל ׳אכל׳ בקל ובין הנפעל. שפעל ׳אכל׳ בקל מוסב על האדם האוכל ולא יקרא אוכל אלא בכזית; שפחות מזה נקרא ׳טועם׳ – ״כי טעמתי מעט דבש״ (שמואל א י״ד). וכמ״ש בספרא לקמן [(פרשה י מ״י) (אחרי מות פרק יב מ״ב) (אמור פרק ד מט״ז) (אמור פרק ו מ״ג) ובפסחים (דף לב.)] ״סתם אכילה בכזית״. אבל הנפעל מוסב על הדבר, ואף אם נאכל כל שהוא – הגם שלא יקרא ׳אכילה׳ מצד האוכל שלא אכל רק טעם – מכל מקום הדבר ׳נאכל׳ ואיננו. וזהו שאמר בספרא שלכן שינה ואמר ״מצות יֵאכל״ בנפעל ולא תפס הלשון שדבר בו עד עתה – ״יאכלו אהרן״ ״יאכלוהו״; והיה לו לומר ״מצות יֹאכלו״. ללמד שאף שלא נשאר רק מקצתה - בכל זאת תאכל.

With this he explains the Rambam (Cu"m 1:7) who writes that the shiur of the issur achilas chameitz is a kol she'hu:

האוכל מן החמץ עצמו בפסח כל שהוא הרי זה אסור מן התורה שנאמר לא יאכל

The Kesef Mishna asks two questions, the second of which is . ועוד קשה דאי מקרא איפכא ה"ל למילף מיניה דלא יאכל שיעור אכילה משמע וצ"ע. It uses the word achila, so how can the Rambam say you are chayav on less than a k'zayis?  Answers the Malbim: because it is nifal, passive voice, a din in the cheftza, not the gavra, so there is no shiur.

The problem is if this is correct, then the same chiddush should apply to other issurim as well written in lashon nifal:

וְכִֽי־יִגַּ֨ח שׁ֥וֹר אֶת־אִ֛ישׁ א֥וֹ אֶת־אִשָּׁ֖ה וָמֵ֑ת סָק֨וֹל יִסָּקֵ֜ל הַשּׁ֗וֹר וְלֹ֤א יֵאָכֵל֙ אֶת־בְּשָׂר֔וֹ וּבַ֥עַל הַשּׁ֖וֹר נָקִֽי׃ (Shmos 21:28)

 וְכָל-הַשֶּׁרֶץ, הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל-הָאָרֶץ--שֶׁקֶץ הוּא, לֹא יֵאָכֵל (Vayikra 11:41)

Is there an issur for eating less than a k'zayis of shor ha'niskal, or of a sheretz?!

Ohr Sameiach explains that the Rambam's chiddush may be unique to chametz based on the context of the pasuk:

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֜ה אֶל־הָעָ֗ם זָכ֞וֹר אֶת־הַיּ֤וֹם הַזֶּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יְצָאתֶ֤ם מִמִּצְרַ֙יִם֙ מִבֵּ֣ית עֲבָדִ֔ים כִּ֚י בְּחֹ֣זֶק יָ֔ד הוֹצִ֧יאה׳ אֶתְכֶ֖ם מִזֶּ֑ה וְלֹ֥א יֵאָכֵ֖ל חָמֵֽץ׃ (Shmos 13:3)

The pasuk is talking about Pesach Mitzryaim, not Pesach as celebrated for future generations.  At the time of that Pesach, we had not undergone the geirus of mattan Torah and in effect, were still bnei Noach.  Rambam says in Hil Melachim that there is no concept of shiurim for a ben Noach (see this post); therefore, the issur chametz would be violated even on a kol she'hu.  Once the issur was established, it carried over the Pesach doros in the same way.    

mitzvas achilas korbanos

Rambam and Ramban (Sefer haMitzvos 89, Mitzvos Aseh Rambam omitted #1) disagree as to whether the mitzvah of achilas kodshim applies only to kohanim or whether there is also a mitzvah for the baalim to eat (see also Rashi Pesachim 59).

The Mishna at end of Pesachim talks about the bracha said on eating the chagigah on seder night. Tzlach asks: according to Rambam who holds the mitzvah of achilah is only for kohanim, why is there a bracha recited by the baalim on their achila of the chagigah?  "Asher kidishanu b'mitzvosav v'tzivanu..." -- what's the tzivuy, there's no mitzvah?

The Einayim laMishpat (Nedarim 4) answers that since the korban pesach must be ne'echal al ha'sova, i.e. you have to have fill up on a meal before eating the korban pesach, therefore eating the chagigah becomes necessary and a mitzvah in order to properly fulfill korban pesach. (I'm not sure why the meal has to be chagigah and nothing else.)

The Netziv in last week's parsha adds an additional chiddush based on peshuto shel mikra.  The gemara darshens the pasuk  הַכֹּהֵ֛ן הַֽמְחַטֵּ֥א אֹתָ֖הּ יֹאכְלֶ֑נָּה בְּמָק֤וֹם קָדֹשׁ֙ תֵּֽאָכֵ֔ל בַּחֲצַ֖ר אֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵֽד׃ (6:19) to mean, as Rashi writes, המחטא אותה יאכלנה – הראוי בעבודה, יצא טמא בשעת זריקת דמים שאינו חולק בבשר, that a only a kohen who was capable of eating the korban at the time it was offered (zerikas ha'dam) gets a portion.  If the kohen was tamei at the time of zerikas ha'dam, even if he will be tahor and capable to eating it later, he does not get a piece.

Al pi peshuto, however, the simple meaning of the words are that specifically the kohen who did the avodah  -- הַֽמְחַטֵּ֥א-- is the one who should eat the korban. 

 Netziv writes:

אלא הפי׳ דאע״ג דכל זכר בכהנים יאכל אותה והיא מצוה עליהם כמש״כ הרמב״ם בפי׳ המשניות אהלות פי״ח שכל אכילת קדשים מ״ע היא. מכ״מ על המחטא היא מיוחדת ביותר משום שבאכילת הכהן מתכפרין הבעלים. והכהן המתחיל במצוה אומרים לו גמור אע״ג דאיכא דעדיף מיניה

Ramban has a similar idea, also al pi peshuto shel mikra albeit she'lo k'kalacha, later in the parsha.  

וְכׇל־מִנְחָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֤ר תֵּֽאָפֶה֙ בַּתַּנּ֔וּר וְכׇל־נַעֲשָׂ֥ה בַמַּרְחֶ֖שֶׁת וְעַֽל־מַחֲבַ֑ת לַכֹּהֵ֛ן הַמַּקְרִ֥יב אֹתָ֖הּ ל֥וֹ תִֽהְיֶֽה׃

וְכׇל־מִנְחָ֥ה בְלוּלָֽה־בַשֶּׁ֖מֶן וַחֲרֵבָ֑ה לְכׇל־בְּנֵ֧י אַהֲרֹ֛ן תִּהְיֶ֖ה אִ֥ישׁ כְּאָחִֽיו׃ (7:9-10)

The first pasuk talks about the לַכֹּהֵ֛ן הַמַּקְרִ֥יב אֹתָ֖הּ , specifically the kohen who brought the mincha, eating it.  The second pasuk speaks about לְכׇל־בְּנֵ֧י אַהֲרֹ֛ן תִּהְיֶ֖ה אִ֥ישׁ כְּאָחִֽיו׃, all of the kohanim sharing in the korban.  Al pi peshuto, when it comes to a baked korban, or one cooked on the machavas and marcheshes, there is a mitzvah specifically for the kohen who offered it to eat it.  When it comes to a mincha that was not baked, then לְכׇל־בְּנֵ֧י אַהֲרֹ֛ן תִּהְיֶ֖ה, anyone can eat (see Netziv there as well).

In a few weeks the daf yomi will get to Yevamos 40, where the gemara explains a braysa as follows:

הכי קאמר מצות תאכל במקום קדוש מצוה שבתחלה היתה עליו בכלל היתר רצה אוכלה רצה אינו אוכלה (נאסרה חזרה והותרה יכול תחזור להיתירה הראשון) רצה אוכלה רצה אינו אוכלה רצה אינו אוכלה והכתיב ואכלו אותם אשר כופר בהם מלמד שהכהנים אוכלים ובעלים מתכפרין אלא רצה הוא אוכלה רצה כהן אחר אוכלה ת"ל מצות תאכל במקום קדוש מצוה

The implication is exactly like the Netziv and Ramban. You might have thought any kohen can eat the korban, צה הוא אוכלה רצה כהן אחר אוכלה, kah mashma lan  מצות תאכל במקום קדוש מצוה that specifically the kohen who did the avodah should eat it.  Tosfos writes:

  א"נ הכא מרבוי [ילפינן] דכהן המקריב צריך שיאכל ממנה ולא כולה:  

R' Chaim Kanievski in Taama d'Kra brings a proof from a Mishna for this yesod.  The Mishna (Pes 91b) writes:

אונן טובל ואוכל את פסחו לערב אבל לא בקדשים

Rashi explains:

ואף על פי שעדיין לא נקבר דאין אנינות מן התורה אלא ביום שנאמר (ויקרא י) הן היום הקריבו ואני אונן ואכלתי חטאת היום יום אסור לילה מותר... אבל לא יאכל אונן לערב בשאר קדשים דאסור אנינות לילה מדרבנן ולגבי פסח לא העמידו דבריהן במקום כרת

What's the hava amina that a kohen should be able to eat other kodshim when he is in a state of aninus derabbanan (aninus layla)?  Just let some other kohen eat the meat?!

QED that just like a person has a mitzvah of achilas korban pesach, the specific kohen who offers the korban has a mitzvah of achilah on that korban, and that chiyuv potentially might be doche issurim, km"l that it is not.

I am bothered by 2 points: I don't understand why Netziv needs to direct us to the Rambam in Peirush haMishnayot in Ohalot when Rambam says in Hil Maaseh Korbanos ch 10 that אכילת החטאת והאשם מצות עשה שנאמר ואכלו אותם אשר כופר בהם. הכהנים אוכלים ובעלים מתכפרים. והוא הדין לשאר הקדשים שאוכלין אותן הכהנים שאכילתן מצוה:  There must be some point the Netziv saw in the Peirush haMishnayos that is not clear from the Rambam elsewhere, but I am missing it.

Secondly, I don't understand why Netziv doesn't quote this Tos in Yevamos (if the Netziv remembered a Rambam in Peirush haMishnayos in Ohalot, he did not forget a Tos in Yevamos).  True , Tos is not exactly the same as Netziv's point.  Netziv is arguing that achilah is the gmar mitzvah of avodah,  תשלם כפרת המתכפר, as Rambam writes in Sefer haMitzot, and therefore is incumbent upon the person who started avodah.  The gemara in Yevamos is based on the derasha of  מצות תאכל במקום קדוש , which could be an independent chiyuv.  Nonetheless...  

even after death

Thinking of R' CK's death when learning the parsha, I saw the Netziv notes on the pasuk  זֶ֡ה קׇרְבַּן֩ אַהֲרֹ֨ן וּבָנָ֜יו אֲשֶׁר־יַקְרִ֣יבוּ לה׳ בְּיוֹם֙ הִמָּשַׁ֣ח אֹת֔וֹ (6:13)  that even though the parsha is speaking about the minchas chavitim, which was offered by the KG every day, half in the morning and half in the afternoon, it uses the plural יַקְרִ֣יבוּ.  He explains that even though the KG pays for the korban out of his own pocket and is the one who brings it as an offering, it is really on behalf of all the kohanim collectively.  Proof that this is correct: if the KG dies before the afternoon half of the offering is brought, it comes from the funds of the tzibur.

In truth, this is a machlokes Tanaim, and the is a shita which holds that if the KG dies, the afternoon portion comes from his estate, taken from the yorshim.

Shem m'Shmuel writes that this opinion also accepts the thesis that the korban is on behalf of the tzibur.  Just like when the KG was alive, he offered the minchas chavitim for the klal, so too after death, the KG is still there in the olam ha'emes working on behalf of the klal.  Therefore, the korban still comes from his pocketbook.

the taste has to linger

I saw someone explain that the command given to Bnei Yisrael not to leave their homes on Pesach night in Mitzrayim is because a person might be thinking it's the last night here in Egypt, let me go for a stroll and take one last look at the old neighborhood, let me grab a few memories for old times sake to take with me, etc.  The person who thinks that way shows in his heart of hearts that he still is connected to the old neighborhood -- he feels some pain, even if only a bit, at having to leave.  Hashem comes and says let that not be you.  Leave b'simcha, with no regrets, no last look back.  

I was thinking of that last night as everyone tries to get in a last pizza, a last morsel of chametz, before Pesach kicks in.  It's like our last look back before we have to start on the matzah.  

Rashi comments at the beginning of the parsha צו את אהרן – אין צו אלא לשון זרוז מיד ולדורות.  Chasam Sofer explains that if something happens infrequently, it is out of the norm and it generates its own excitement.  If the Mets were to make it to the World Series, everyone is interested, everyone is excited.  If the Yankees make it, it's just the same old routine.  When you have a command which is מיד ולדורות, that will continue for generations into the future continuously, then we need  לשון זרוז so it doesn't become stale and boring, so that the excitment continues.  

This is the question of the chacham at the seder.  "Mah ha'eidus.... asher tzivah Hashem eschem."  Pesach comes once a year and the whole house gets turned upside down. It's exciting!  Why do you need tzivah = tzav לשון זרוז here?

To which we answer, "Ain maftirim achar ha'pesach afikoman," the taste has to stay with you.  Today it's exciting because the whole house is covered in tin foil and we are sitting at a seder, but what about tomorrow when things are back to normal?  What about the next day after that?  How do you keep the taste in your mouth, how do you preserve the excitement?

This is the daunting challenge facing us on leil ha'seder and in reality, all year.  The goal of v'higadta l'bincha is not just to tell a story, to give a speech like all the other speeches you give your children about what they should/should not do.  It's v'higadta l'bincha... leimor -- the goal is to implant the message so that one day they can say it over to their children.  The mitzvah of leil ha'seder is  מיד ולדורות, so that taste will last for generations.  "U'lfi she'hotzi atzmo min ha'klal kafar b'Ikar v'af atah."  The "v'af atah" is the end of that sentence, not the start of a new sentence.  The rasha was kafar b'Ikar and you sat by and watched and didn't try to do anything!?  "...kafar b'Ikar v'af atah," then you are just as guilty as he is.  The effort may not be successful, but at least you have to try.  

So we try to fulfill V'higadta l'bincha as best we can, and if you want some chizuk, the Sanz-Klausenberger Rebbe says to look at the end of that pasuk.   When we left Egypt we were spiritually in the sub-basement, below the ground floor, "v'at arom v'erya," lacking any mitzvos.  Hashem gave us just 2 mitzvos to start with, pesach and milah, and that alone was enough to bring us to geulah.  So when you face the disaffected "aino yode'a lishol" who is too disinterested to ask on his own, "at psach lo," start with something, "v'higadta l'bnincha leimor," saying whatever you can, and Hashem will give you siyata d'Shemaya from there.  We then quote the end of the pasuk as proof: "...baavur zeh asa Hashem li b'tzeisi miMitzrayim," geulah started with our taking just a baby step of mitzvos, and Hashem jumped in and helped with the rest.  So start with a baby step of teaching something, with a pesach maybe the size of a needle opening, and Hashem will take care of the rest.

Chag kasher v'sameich, and hopefully we will all get the siyata d'Shemaya we need to fulfill vhigadta and all the mitzvos haPesach properly.

Notes from the Underground - Day 8, Erev Shabbos

Today is the 8th work day in the bunker, 8 = l'maalah min ha'teva.  What can we take away from Shabbos, from Shabbos haGagol?


 (8:33) וּמִפֶּ֩תַח֩ אֹ֨הֶל מוֹעֵ֜ד לֹ֤א תֵֽצְאוּ֙ שִׁבְעַ֣ת יָמִ֔ים עַ֚ד י֣וֹם מְלֹ֔את יְמֵ֖י מִלֻּאֵיכֶ֑ם
(8:35)וּפֶ֩תַח֩ אֹ֨הֶל מוֹעֵ֜ד תֵּשְׁב֨וּ יוֹמָ֤ם וָלַ֙יְלָה֙ שִׁבְעַ֣ת יָמִ֔ים



The redundancy here is apparent.  What does pasuk 35 add that pasuk 33 does not already tell us?

This year we can connect to this parsha like no other year before.  For seven days Aharon and his sons were isolated in the bunker -- just like us.  This was their training ground to learn how to properly do avodah.  Netziv explains that "teishvu yomam v'layla ushmarten es mishmeres Hashem" means that Aharon and sons were sitting and were kove'a yeshiva, learning and being mechadesh in halacha.  Netziv says a chiddush: the gemara in Menachos 99 writes that a person who learns something in the morning and something in the evening has been yotzei the minimum shiur of v'hagisa yomam v'layla.  Why does the gemara use davka the term morning and evening -- why not just say if ha person learns something by day and something by night?  Netziv answers that the makor for this Chazal is our pasuk.  The Yerushalmi learns that there was a special inyan of connecting the day and night which demanded that the kohanim be oseik in Torah davka in the morning, as night was turning to day, and/or the evening, as day was turning to night.  So too, there is such an idea in limud haTorah, to begin your day with Torah, to close out the day and come into night with Torah.  Aharon and his sons were modeling for us what it means to be oseik in Torah.  That's why they retreated from the world, that's what they were in Ohel Moed for, and maybe that's what we are supposed to be doing in our bunkers too.  It is amazing how these days you can tune into a shiur on zoom at almost every hour of the day or night without having to leave your desk. The opportunities for limud haTorah have expanded to an unimaginable degree thanks to this crisis.  The shame is that it took a crisis to create this.

Af al pi kein, the goal of life is not to live in a bunker.  The miluim lasted 7 days and that was it.  We've been inside for more than a week already and we are all sick of it.  We want to leave the bunker, but what we need to be careful of, and maybe this is the tnai in the former happening, is that the bunker shouldn't leave us.  Pasuk 33 is the command to spend 7 days in the bunker, in Ohel Moed.  Pasuk 35 is a different idea entirely.  Pasuk 35 is telling you (see Chasam Sofer, Maor v'Shemesh) that when you return to "yoman v'layla," day and night of normal life, you should carry with you and reflect on the "teishvu shivas yamim," to the days of miluim, to the days of the bunker. The experience needs to make a lasting impression.