Tazria-Metzora questions

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/98.html

Shmini Answers

Shmini 5729

Alef.

ויקרא פרק י

(ח) וַיְדַבֵּר יְקֹוָק אֶל אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר:

(ט) יַיִן וְשֵׁכָר אַל תֵּשְׁתְּ אַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ אִתָּךְ בְּבֹאֲכֶם אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְלֹא תָמֻתוּ חֻקַּת עוֹלָם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם:

(י) וּלֲהַבְדִּיל בֵּין הַקֹּדֶשׁ וּבֵין הַחֹל וּבֵין הַטָּמֵא וּבֵין הַטָּהוֹר:

(יא) וּלְהוֹרֹת אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵת כָּל הַחֻקִּים אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְקֹוָק אֲלֵיהֶם בְּיַד מֹשֶׁה: פ

(יב) וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶל אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל אֶלְעָזָר וְאֶל אִיתָמָר בָּנָיו הַנּוֹתָרִים קְחוּ אֶת הַמִּנְחָה הַנּוֹתֶרֶת מֵאִשֵּׁי יְקֹוָק וְאִכְלוּהָ מַצּוֹת אֵצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ כִּי קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הִוא:

(יג) וַאֲכַלְתֶּם אֹתָהּ בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ כִּי חָקְךָ וְחָק בָּנֶיךָ הִוא מֵאִשֵּׁי יְקֹוָק כִּי כֵן צֻוֵּיתִי:

(יד) וְאֵת חֲזֵה הַתְּנוּפָה וְאֵת שׁוֹק הַתְּרוּמָה תֹּאכְלוּ בְּמָקוֹם טָהוֹר אַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ וּבְנֹתֶיךָ אִתָּךְ כִּי חָקְךָ וְחָק בָּנֶיךָ נִתְּנוּ מִזִּבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:

(טו) שׁוֹק הַתְּרוּמָה וַחֲזֵה הַתְּנוּפָה עַל אִשֵּׁי הַחֲלָבִים יָבִיאוּ לְהָנִיף תְּנוּפָה לִפְנֵי יְקֹוָק וְהָיָה לְךָ וּלְבָנֶיךָ אִתְּךָ לְחָק עוֹלָם כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְקֹוָק:

(טז) וְאֵת שְׂעִיר הַחַטָּאת דָּרֹשׁ דָּרַשׁ מֹשֶׁה וְהִנֵּה שֹׂרָף וַיִּקְצֹף עַל אֶלְעָזָר וְעַל אִיתָמָר בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַנּוֹתָרִם לֵאמֹר:

(יז) מַדּוּעַ לֹא אֲכַלְתֶּם אֶת הַחַטָּאת בִּמְקוֹם הַקֹּדֶשׁ כִּי קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הִוא וְאֹתָהּ נָתַן לָכֶם לָשֵׂאת אֶת עֲוֹן הָעֵדָה לְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיהֶם לִפְנֵי יְקֹוָק:

(יח) הֵן לֹא הוּבָא אֶת דָּמָהּ אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ פְּנִימָה אָכוֹל תֹּאכְלוּ אֹתָהּ בַּקֹּדֶשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוֵּיתִי:

(Although HaShem Speaks directly only to Aharon in this chapter, when Moshe speaks to Aharon and his sons, he emphasizes that he has been Commanded to say these things, i.e., these are also Revelations that HaShem Delivered following the deaths of Nadav and Avihu.)

The common denominator in the instructions that HaShem Gives Aharon and his sons, aside from the manner in which to prevent another tragedy from occurring like the one that had just taken place (v. 8-11), is that the Divine Service of the sacrifices must continue to be performed and the meat allotted to the Kohanim had to be eaten, despite the terrible personal loss that the entire family had just suffered.

Beit.

רש"י ויקרא פרק י פסוק טז

דרש דרש - שתי דרישות הללו מפני מה נשרף זה, ומפני מה לא נאכלו אלו, כך הוא בתורת כהנים:

ספר גור אריה

[טו] שעיר מוספי ראש חודש היה. כדפירש רש"י לקמן (סוף פסוק יז) מדכתיב (שם) "ואותה נתן לכם לשאת עון העדה":

[טז] מפני מה נשרף זה ומפני מה נאכלו אלו. כך הוא בתורת כהנים, וכך היא הגירסא הנכונה בדברי רש"י, ומפני זה אמר (רש"י) 'כך היא בתורת כהנים', מפני שבגמרא פרק טבול יום (זבחים קא ע"ב) קאמר 'מפני מה נשרף זה ומפני מה מונחים אלו', ופירש רש"י שם בפרק טבול יום שדרש אותם שהיה להם לאכול החטאת מיד בו ביום, ולא היה להיות מונחת עד לערב. ולא רצה (כאן) לפרש רש"י כן לפי הפשט, מפני שקשה שאותה דרישה אין ענינו לשעיר של חטאת של ראש חדש אלא לשאר קרבנות, ומשמע מתוך הכתוב דכתיב "ואת שעיר החטאת דרוש דרש" דקאי אשעיר של ראש חדש, לפיכך הביא רש"י ראיה מן תורת כהנים, ששם הגירסא 'מפני מה נשרף זה ומפני מה נאכלים אלו', והשתא שתי השאלות הם על שעיר החטאת של ראש חדש; מפני מה נשרף זה של ראש חדש, ואי משום שאתם אוננים - למה אכלתם את אלו, והשתא שתי הדרשות הם תלויים בשעיר של ראש חדש. ומה שכתב הרא"ם שהוא שאלה אחת, למה נשרף זה וזה לא נשרף רק נאכל, דזה אינו, דשתי שאלות הם; למה נשרף זה, אם משום אנינות שאין לאכול חטאת (זבחים קא ע"ב), למה זה, הלא יש לכם לאכול באנינות, כי אנינות מותרת, וזה שאלה אחת. ולפי דבריכם, שאין אתם אוכלים באנינות, למה אכלתם שאר חטאת. וזה נקרא שתי שאלות; האחת לפי האמת, והשאלה השניה לפי דבריהם:

From Gur Aryeh’s point of view, Moshe’s question should deal with a single issue, rather than two separate ones. Consequently, he is challenging Aharon about the specific handling of the Chatat for Rosh Chodesh, and not bringing up how other sacrifices were handled.  With regard to the Chatat for Rosh Chodesh, Moshe inquires why it was burnt and its meat not eaten by the Kohanim—if they believed that as Onenim they were enjoined from eating the Chatat’s meat, why did they eat the meat of other sacrifices? Aharon responds that while the sacrifice was burnt, would HaShem have Approved its meat being also eaten by us, since we are Onenim? 

Gimel.

1.  R. Huna suggests that the emotion of anger caused Moshe to lose his ability to think clearly and in an orderly fashion.

              RaLBaG offers to two possible reasons: a) Moshe rushed to draw a conclusion about the matter instead of taking time to think about it. b) Moshe was better at thinking theoretically about big ideas rather than practically of how to apply those ideas.

2.  It appears to me that R. Huna is closer to the simple meaning of the text, since in v. 18 we see that Moshe jumped to a conclusion, but once Aharon explained what actually took place in v. 19, Moshe was quickly appeased (v. 20).

3.  Perhaps RaLBaG is suggesting that when Moshe claims that he cannot speak (Shemot 4:10), and ultimately HaShem Sends Aharon to be Moshe’s spokesman, that it was because Moshe did not have the patience to communicate with people who were not ready to listen to him.

Daled.

1. The underlined portion of RaLBaG means “per force, the intention in this phrase”.

2.  By the addition of “שיהי'” RaLBaG suggests that the atonement made possible by the sin offering is not solely due to its being eaten by the Kohanim, but that it be specifically eaten in the holy precincts of the Tabernacle.

Heh.

1. Just as in the case of v.’s 13 and 15, a special Commandment had to be given in order to assure that these sacrifices be eaten despite the family’s status as Onenim in light of the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, so too in the case of v. 18 with regard to the Chatat, at least according to Moshe, a special Commandment has been issued by HaShem that this sacrifice be eaten by Aharon and his sons.

2.  With regard to Ma’aser Sheini money that if not brought to Yerushalyaim for purchasing food for consumption, has to be brought by the third year of the Shemita cycle, the Tora states,

דברים פרק כו

יד) לֹא אָכַלְתִּי בְאֹנִי מִמֶּנּוּ וְלֹא בִעַרְתִּי מִמֶּנּוּ בְּטָמֵא וְלֹא נָתַתִּי מִמֶּנּוּ לְמֵת שָׁמַעְתִּי בְּקוֹל יְקֹוָק אֱלֹהָי עָשִׂיתִי כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתָנִי:

I have not eaten thereof in my mourning, neither have I put away thereof, being unclean, nor given thereof for the dead; I have hearkened to the voice of the LORD my God, I have done according to all that Thou hast commanded me.

3.  The fact that although a Kohen in the status of Onen (unburied dead that the individual is supposed to take care of) is precluded from partaking in Korbanot, it was Commanded that Aharon and his sons in this case eat from the sacrifices of the dedication of the Tabernacle, because HaShem Intended that a Sanctification of His Name be achieved at this moment. While part of that Sanctification involved the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, it also entailed the completion of the sacrifices as they were meant to be carried out.

Vav.

1. The phrase “וייטב בעיניו” could connote an internal sensibility. How would Aharon know what Moshe was feeling? By asserting that Moshe expressed the fact that he had been unaware, this would communicate to Aharon that Moshe had accepted his excuse.

2.   When the text says that Moshe heard, it would be redundant if it refers to Aharon’s words—if they are talking to one another, of course Moshe heard what his brother was saying. Consequently, the interpretation of “וישמע” is that Moshe had already heard this from HaShem, i.e., that the Aharon’s family as Onenim were not to eat from the sin offering, but Moshe had forgotten, and nevertheless was not ashamed to admit his error. This becomes another manifestation of his exemplary humility—see BaMidbar 12:3.

3.  According to R. Yaakov Kenizal’s version of RaShI, “לא בוש לומר לו שמעתי”, it would connote that Moshe was not embarrassed about telling him, i.e., Aharon, that he had in fact heard this thing, i.e., that Aharon’s family as Onenim should not eat the meat of the sing offering, from HaShem.

Zayin.

R. Yehuda believes that the emotion of anger leads to miscalculation, misunderstanding, forgetfulness. This seems to be more about how one initially feels towards another as influencing how one sees and interprets what that other is doing.

Chanania ben Yehuda reverses the sequence, and suggests that first one errs about the facts, which in turn leads one to become angry with those who he thinks have done the wrong thing, when in fact they were correct. In this case, it is the error in fact that leads to displeasure with the other individual, precluding any previous history or enmity between the two parties.

Chet.

ChaZaL/RaShI: Aharon’s question is based upon a comparison of the sacrifices that were unique to the dedication of the Mishkan (Kodshai Sha’a—temporal, specific to a certain limited context, in this case the Mincha, the Chazei HaTenufa, the Shok HaTeruma) and those which would be offered continually in the years to come (Kodshai Dorot—for generations, into the future, in this case the Se’ir HaChatat). The premise is that a sacrifice that is unique to a particular situation is less holy than one that is intended to be continual. Consequently, just because an Onen is permitted to eat from Kodshai Sha’a, it does not logically follow that he would also have permission to partake in Kodshai Dorot.

HaKorem: Aharon’s question is based upon the degree to which the Kohen Onen is required to act as if nothing has happened. Even if the Kohen avoids publicly articulating his grief via a form of Tzidduk HaDin—see VaYikra 10:3—does it go so far as even to permit him to consume the meat of sacrifices, for which it would be expected that one not merely repress his feelings of grief, but that he actually experience literal joy in order to qualify as a consumer of the Kodashim?

ShaDaL: Aharon’s question is based upon the sequence of events, the assumption being that the offering of the sacrifices preceded the deaths of Nadav and Avihu. The latters’ demise indicates that God is Displeased with at least Aharon’s family. If eating the sacrifices is in order to achieve atonement for the community, and if Aharon’s family themselves are considered to be sinful in light of the terrible loss that their family suffered, wouldn’t eating the meat of the sin offering reflect an insensitivity to the very clear indication that something is amiss with this family, and thereby incur even more severe Wrath on the part of HaShem towards this family?

4