Tzav answers

Tzav 5731

Alef.

VaYikra 6:3

“And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh; and he shall take up the ashes whereto the fire hath consumed the burnt-offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar. “

The idea expressed by R. Levi in the Yerushalmi  is that while removing the remains from the previous sacrifices would appear to be the kind of activity reserved for lowly classes rather than the priests who perform the Divine Service, since the Mishkan is the place where HaShem Concentrates His Presence, all men, including Kohanim, are considered to be the same when contrasted with God. Consequently, all activities are appropriate for all men, regardless of their official status.

Beit.

              VaYikra 6:4

              “And he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes without the camp unto a clean place.”

1.  The psychological basis for the sources in Masechet Shabbat is that when one prepares oneself for the performance of a Mitzva, greater Kavana is possible, and one reflects a sense that he is moving from one area of activity to a higher one.

2.  The term דברי קבלה is a reference to biblical texts other than the Chumash. Literally, these are words that are exactly handed down from generation to generation because they have been codified into NaCh.

The הוה  אמינא were we only to have the source from VaYikra is that this is a special stringency for the Divine Service in the Tabernacle/Temple. However, for religious practices that do not take place in such a holy place, it might not be necessary to go to such extremes. Consequently the verses in Amos and Yeshayahu demonstrate that this is a principle that applies to all people in all places.

3.  (R. Hirsch’s commentary is cited by Nechama at the end of the Alon HaDeracha that accompanies this Gilayon.)

      According to the Gemora in Shabbat, the change of clothes is associated with performing some new Divine Service, in this case the removal of the ash from the altar. R. Hirsch suggests that the removal of the ash demonstrates that despite the fact that we are about to perform the same act of sacrifice that we did yesterday, today is a new day and the service that we are about to do should be approached as if it is entirely new. This engenders donning new clothes as well.

Gimel.

1.א. VaYikra 6:2

“Command Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the law of the burnt-offering: it is that which goeth up on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morning; and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning thereby. “

RaShI’s comment is generated by the fact that only by the Whole Burnt Offering in Chapt. 6 is the imperative “Tzav” employed. When the text later speaks about the meal offering (v. 7), the offering brought by the Kohanim on the day of their anointment (v. 13), and the sin offering (v. 18), the term “Tzav” does not appear.

ב.  As opposed to the other sacrifices mentioned, the Kohanim receive the least portion of the Korban with respect to the Olah. Consequenlty, to them there is a monetary loss in terms of the portions of the sacrifice allotted to them.

ג.  When a point of view is the singular point of view cited, then the order is “אמר X”; when there is more than one opinion mentioned, the view that responds to the first view follows the sequence: “X אומר”. The RaShI’s in Shemot 22:14 and BaMidbar 11:22, because the text states there was a dispute before mentioning the names and views of the disputants, each view follows the pattern: “X אומר”.

2.  Here is Siftei Chachamim’s explanation for RaShI’s contention that the place where the ashes were placed was to the east of the ramp leading to the top of the altar:

(י) משום דכתיב “אצל המזבח”, והכבש הוא אצל המזבח, ומנלן שהיה במזרחו של כבש? מוכח משום דכתיב “אצל המזבח קדמה” בפרשת ויקרא (לעיל א, טז) וגם שם משמע אצל הכבש’ וכתיב בהדיא קדמה א"כ שמע מינה שמקום הדשן היה במזרחה דהיינו קדמה:

ויקרא א:טז "וְהֵסִיר אֶת מֻרְאָתוֹ בְּנֹצָתָהּ וְהִשְׁלִיךְ אֹתָהּ אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ קֵדְמָה אֶל מְקוֹם הַדָּשֶׁן:"

"And he shall take away its crop with the feathers thereof, and cast it beside the altar on the east part, in the place of the ashes".

3.  The verse reads literally:

)ויקרא פרק ו :ג( וְלָבַשׁ הַכֹּהֵן מִדּוֹ בַד וּמִכְנְסֵי בַד יִלְבַּשׁ עַל בְּשָׂרוֹ וְהֵרִים אֶת הַדֶּשֶׁן אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל הָאֵשׁ אֶת הָעֹלָה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְשָׂמוֹ אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ:

“the ash that the fire consumed the Whole Burnt Offering”. Consequently RaShI explains that the ash was produced by the fire consuming the Whole Burnt Offering.

4.  VaYikra 6:6

      א. “Fire shall be kept burning upon the altar continually; it shall not go out.”

If the end of the verse states that the fire should not be allowed to go out, why does it have to say previously that it should burn continually? Isn’t this redundant?

ב. Nechama’s point apparently is that while the Rabbinic tradition might present a number of interpretations of a certain biblical phrase, RaShI  might not cite all of them.

רש"י ויקרא יט: כו לא תאכלו על הדם - להרבה פנים נדרש בסנהדרין (סנהדרין סג) אזהרה שלא יאכל מבשר קדשים לפני זריקת דמים ואזהרה לאוכל מבהמת חולין טרם שתצא נפשה ועוד הרבה:

However, when he chooses, it might be because he prefers one to the other in terms of the manner in which it explains the biblical text. Consequently, in our case, perhaps he felt that to state that the fire should burn on Shabbat as well as the other days of the week does not account for the redundancy as well as creating a Gezeira Shava with the Menora based on the word “תמיד”.

On the other hand, if there are Rabbinic interpretations and he cites none of them, then he feels that they are digress too far from the simple meaning of the text.

(שמות לא: יג) וְאַתָּה דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר אַךְ אֶת שַׁבְּתֹתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ כִּי אוֹת הִוא בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם לָדַעַת כִּי אֲנִי יְדֹוָד מְקַדִּשְׁכֶם:

רש"י: אך את שבתתי תשמרו - אע"פ שתהיו רדופין וזריזין בזריזות המלאכה שבת אל תדחה מפניה כל אכין ורקין מיעוטין למעט שבת ממלאכת המשכן:

השווה את דברי המפרשים הנ"ל לדברי המכילתא ג':

...מניין לפיקוח נפש שדוחה את השבת? ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר (י"ג): "אך את שבתותי תשמרו" אך – חלק. יש שבתות שאתה דוחה, יש שבתות שאתה שובת. ר' שמעון בן מנסיא אומר: הרי אתה אומר (י"ד): "ושמרתם את השבת כי קודש היא לכם" – לכם שבת מסורה, ואי אתם מסורים לשבת. ר' נתן אומר (ט"ז): "ושמרו בני ישראל את השבת לעשות את השבת לדורותם" – חלל שבת אחת, כדי שתשמור שבתות הרבה.

3.	מדוע לא הלך רש"י בעקבות אחד מהם?