No Self

וכל אדם לא יהיה באוהל מועד בבאו לכפר בקודש

The Midrash asks but is not the Kohan Gadol himself a person?  The Midrash answers בשעה שהיה רוח הקודש שרוי עליו היו פניו בוערות כלפידים עליו.  The simple understanding is that the Kohan Gadol was elevated to angelic status and was not considered a person.  In the post, 'Are Angels Men' it was pointed out this seems to disagree with the opinion that even angles are prohibited to enter.  However, the Matnos Kehuna on the Midrash says that is quite difficult for the very previous line in the Midrash by the same opinion, Rav Abahu, says the figure that Shimon Hatzaddik saw coming into the Kodesh Hakadashim with him was Hashem Himself.  Why is he forced to say this?  For he holds the prohibition encompasses angles as well and if so, it must have been Hashem Himslef entering with Shimon Hatzaddik.  So he holds the prohibition applies to angels as well, so what it the answer of the Midrash that the Kohan Gadol was like an angel?  Rav Tzaddok (Pri Tzaddik Erev Yom Kippur #7) explains that the Kohan Gadol lost all form of gashmios upon entering the Kodesh Kadoshim and was elevated even beyond the level of an angel who has a form, albeit very refined.  When the Kohan Gadol entered, he was in total sync with his neshama which is directly connected to Hashem unlike an angel who is a separate being.  

The Mei Hashiloach says וכל אדם means that the Kohan Gadol must remove all vestiges of his אדםness, of his own self, when entering באוהל מועד.  He is not bringing in himself to make an offering to G-d but is there to receive from Hashem that which is totally beyond the human grasp. 

Putting the two Rav Tzadook with the Ishbitzer, the Kohan Gadol is not entering the Holy of Holies due to his great preparations but instead, he is entering into a complete state of negation of self to receive Divine inspiration way beyond one's own grasp.  

There is a discussion on otzer hachama forum as to the geder of this issur with some interesting stories. 

Take It Outside

The Midrash has many a derash on בזאת יבא אהרן as to what the word זאת refers too.  One of these derashot is that it refers to Shabbat as in (ישעיה נו, ב): אַשְׁרֵי אֱנוֹשׁ יַעֲשֶׂה זֹּאת.  What is the connection between Shabbat and the Kohan Gadol entering the kodesh kadashim? 

The Rambam (end of Ch. 4 of Avodat Yom Hakippurim) says  וְיוֹצֵא לְבֵיתוֹ וְכָל הָעָם מְלַוִּין אוֹתוֹ עַד בֵּיתוֹ  וְיוֹם טוֹב הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה עַל שֶׁיָּצָא בְּשָׁלוֹם מִן הַקֹּדֶשׁ.  Why does this belong in Hilchot Avodat Yom Hakippurim, what does it have to do with the avodah?  The source of the Rambam is the Mishna Yoma (7:4) but the the Rambam adds the words, וְיוֹצֵא לְבֵיתוֹ, why does he add these words?  The Rebbe (Likutay Sichos Acharey volume 32) explains that part of the avodah is to take it out of the kodesh kadoshim, to be able to bring the kedusha into one's life.  The ויוצא מביתו is the conclusion of the avodah, to take the spiritual heights reached in the holiest place and to bring it inot one's house.  

Rav Zevin explains that is the connection of Shabbat and the Kohan gadol entering the kodesh kadashim.  Just as when it comes to Shabbat the point is not merely to have shabbat as a day of holiness apart from the week but to bring the kedusha of shabbat into the week, so too the Kohan Gadol must be cognizant that the kedusha that he feels in the holiest place must be able to be converted into an energy source for the year. 

This is why the parsha starts with a warning from the death of Nadav and Avihu.  They died בקרבתם לפני ה, they were not able to bring kedusha down and their souls expired (see Or Hachayim.)  The Torah is commanding Aharon בזאת, to be able to bring the kedusha outside, not like Nadav and Avihu. 

Rashi at the beginning of Kedoshim says נאמרה פרשה זו בהקהל.  The Balleye Mussar say the point is that it is one thing to remain kadosh when one is in a a log cabin in the middle of nowhere but to remain a kadosh surrounded by people when one encounters with peer pressure and temptations, that is indeed a chiddush.  It is when one is not in a kodesh kadoshim, that proves if one is a kadosh.  

Don't Come To Close

Why does the Torah need to introduce the avodah of Yom Kippur with the death of Nadav and Abihu?  The Or Hachaim explains the sin of Nadav and Abihu was as the possuk says בקרבתם לפני ה, they desired to come so close to Hashem that their souls could no longer be contained in the human body.  When one experiences the sight of the avodat Yom Kippurim and experiences a spiritual uplifting, they may be so ceased by a desire to come close to Hashem that they want to rush into the kodesh kodashim to come into the holiest place on the holiest day.  The Torah cautions אל יבא בכל עת אל הקודש.  Such actions, although with good intentions are not favorable as was seen in the incident of Nadav and Abihu.  Instead the kedusha of the day must inspire one to lead a life of kedusha (see Likutay Sichos volume 3.)  

The Rambam at the end of Ch. 4 of Avodat Yom Kippurim describes how the kohan gadol would make a feast when he returned home after Yom Kippur.  Why does the Rambam need to cite this in the Laws of Yom Kippur, is this a law in the avodah itself?  The point of the avodah is to bring it into the house.  To bring the kedusha of the avodah done on Yom Kippur use it to infuse one's life.  This is the completion of the avodah itself (see Likutay Sichos volume 32.)   

This idea is the bridge between the parshiot of Vakra until now and the parshiot that follow.  Most of the parshiot until Acharei deal will laws of korbanot and the erection of the Mishkan.  After the parsha of the avodah on Yom Kippur, the Torah gives parshiot with many commandments which have to do with a person's behavior.  It is the switch from the kedusha of the Midhkan and its offerings and to take that and infuse one's daily life. 

Let Him Greave

דבר אל אהרן אחיך.  We know that Moshe is Aharon's brother, why does the Torah need to specify that here?  Why is there a gap of a few parshiot between the episode of the death of Nadav and Abihu and the subsequent commandments given only in our parsha?  I heard an insight in the name of Rav Nissin Alpert.  When one is in deep pain, they need to be given time and space to be able to move beyond the shock and grief of the moment.  That is why there cannot be commandments directly following the events of Aharons' sons dying.  It is given אחרי which is after some time had passed.  That is why the Torah says אל אהרן אחיך.  These commandments will touch a chord in Aharon and remind him of what happened to his sons.  Such commandments can't be given over as Moshe the teacher but must be given from Moshe the brother.  They must be given with sensitivity and compassion as to not to cause Aharon too much grief.  

A few other scattered points. 

On Chol Hamoed there are speakers in a local shul.  One of them was Rav Aharom Kahn.  He mentioned that there are only two times throughout the year when incorporated into the text in לשנה הבא בירושלים, on Pesach at the end of the Haggadah and on Yom Kippur at the conclusion of neilah.  Why these two times?  Because are entire experience of the holiday is greatly lacking on these two days.  A Yom Tov of Pesach without the actual korban Pesach and a Yom Kippur without the avodah are two holidays where we feel that the day is very lacking without the Mikdash and the korbanot of the day. 

After the avodat hayom the Torah mentions the issur melacha and the mitzvah of ענוי and only after that is says (16:30) כי ביום הזה יכפר עליכם...  Seemingly that possuk should be placed in the context of the avodah which enacts the atonement?  The possuk is not placed in part of the avodah for it the avodah is a chiuv on the tzibbur, it is how the nation achieves atonement.  Then the Torah tells us the specific obligation of the day that everyone must keep, the issur melacha and ענוי.  Another obligation on every individual is כי ביום הזה יכפר עליכם, to do teshuva (see Seforno.)  It is only with this teshuva that is 'לפני ה, private between each individual and Hashem that one reaches תטהרו, complete cleansing. 

Serving G-d

What was so wrong with Nadav and Avihu bringing a korban that Hashem didn't command?  Why could they not add to the avodah?  Rav Hirsch explains that the whole concept of avodah is to fulfill the commands and will of the master.  The many halachot, details and intricacies in Seder Kodshim are all part of the avodah.  One who deviates from this is not doing avodah but rather is serving his own heart's desire.  

There were some avodah arah with strange ways of serving it such as baal paor where one would defecate themselves before the avodah zarah.  Why would it have such a denigrating avodah?  Because the root of the adovah zarah was in essence serving one's own desires.  The avadoh zarah was a mean's to appease the forces for one to do what they desire.  It is a means of allowing one to do what their heart desires.  The Torah understands that avodah must be the opposite.  It is a means of coming close to Hashem according to how Hashem desires. 

Common Denominator

This Shabbos we have two parshios and we are in the midst of sefiras haomer.  What is the connection between all these things?

As mentioned before, based upon the Or HaChayim, the sin of Nadav and Avihu was that they felt such a yearning to come close to Hashem that there souls couldn't be contained in their bodies any more.  Nadav and Avihu were so holy that they wanted to jump out of the boundaries of גשמיות.just couldn't take any גשמיות.   The failure of Nadav and Avihu was that G-d doesn't want us to leave aside the גשמיות of this world and become complete angels.  The message is that yes, we should all strive very much to reach 'קרובה לפני ה, but there must be a way back into this world.   We must learn to control גשמי and use it for the better good.

Rashi at the beginning of Kedohim says דבר אל כל עדת בני ישראל – מלמד שנאמרה פרשה זו בהקהל.  Presumably all the laws of the Torah had to be told to everyone, so what is the emphasis here that this parsha was said before everyone?  The Maor V'shemesh explains that in order to separate from the incorrect, corrupt and evil ideas and actions that people have/do, one must  separate from society as the Rambam writes in Deot Ch. 6.  However, that is just a way of avoiding negatives influences but isn't a path to kedusha.  To be kadosh, one must be able to interact with other people and elevate the surrounding society.  In the words of the Mesillas Yesharim, the Rambam is referring to a פרוש, one who separates from עניני עולם הזה so that s/he is dragged down by the חומר/גשמי/חול that is present in this world.  The parsha of Kedoshim introduces us to a level where on is able to take the parts of this world that seem separate from kedusha and infuse them with kedusha.  Such an individual is a kadosh.  [This seems to contradict Rashi and Ramban's explanation of kedusha that it involves seperating from גשמי?  The Sifsay Chayim reconciles this with the view of Mesillas Yesharim that the yesod is to be in control of גשמי; the Rashi and Ramban are describing the first steps of kedusha, which involve פרישות, however, the ultimate kedusha is to evelate the גשמי as we say in birchas hamitzot, אשר קדשנו במצותיו, we take the גשמי and turn it into a מצוה; that is kedusha.]

Pesach is a time of breaking Mitzraim.  The טומאה of this world is smashed.  It is the time of running into the cave; running away from the evil.  We are not strong enough to take on Mitzraim head on; all we can do is run and let Hashem take care of them.  That is why even as Klal Yisroel were exiting Egypt, they still had to run, why did they need to run, Pharoh and Egypt were smashed and battered?  They were running from the Egyptians, they were running from the Egypt in their hearts.   As the Tanya writes in Ch. 31 - כי ברח העם דלכאור' הוא תמוה למה היתה כזאת וכי אילו אמרו לפרעה לשלחם חפשי לעולם לא היה מוכרח לשלחם אלא מפני שהרע שבנפשות ישראל עדיין היה בתקפו בחלל השמאלי כי לא פסקה זוהמתם עד מתן תורה רק מגמתם וחפצם היתה לצאת נפשם האלהית מגלות הס"א היא טומאת מצרים ולדבקה בו ית' וכדכתיב ה' עוזי ומעוזי ומנוסי ביום צרה וגו' משגבי ומנוסי וגו' והוא מנוס לי וגו.  It wasn't the יציאה ממצרים that demanded running, it was the יציאת מצרים, the removal of the remnants and hold of the tumah of Mitzraim on the mind , heart and soul.  [Possibly that is why at the Yam Suf, G-d said not to stand and pray for praying is a time when one subdues the רע שבנפש and that wasn't within the grasp of Klal Yisroel at that point in time.]

Sefira is the time when we work on removing the רע שבנפש and becoming קדוש.  As the Gemorah in Pesachim (68b) says: א"ר אלעזר הכל מודים בעצרת דבעינן נמי לכם.  On Shavout we reach the level of being able to be שולט on גשמי, to become קדוש.  On Pesach we eat matzah, bland bread.  We are not able to partake of גשמיות besides the bare minimum.  On Shavuot we are upgraded to חמץ, שתי הלחם.  We are able to to harness the טומאה that was introduced into us and use it to elevate our learning of Torah.

Prepare For Holiness

The Mishna in Tammid (33a) says the kohen that offers the ketores carries it in a spoon which is inside the firepan.  The Gemorah in Yoma (58a) is unsure whether the Kohen Gadol may carry the incense of Yom Kippur using a firepan which is inside an outer firepan or not; do we say מין במינו חוצץ and therefore, the outer firepan is considered a חציצה between the hands of the kohen and the firepan which is the כלי שרת, or מין במינו אינו חוצץ?  Based upon this, the Rosh asks how can the kohen carry the spoon inside the firepan if it might be a חציצה?  Rav Chayim in Timmidin U’mussafin answers that the question of the Gemorah in Yoma is specific to the Kohan Gadol on Yom Kippur.  Because on Yom Kippur,  the possuk mandates that the Kohan Gadol must carry the ketores into the Kodesh Kadashim, והביא מבית לפרוכת, the והביא is part of the avodah and is subject to the pesul of chatzitzah.  However, the daily ketores, where there is no requirement of והביא, the carrying of the ketores is not part of the avodah and hence it can't have a pesul chatzitzah.

This patterns the avodah of these days.  What we see here is that in order to enter the Kodesh Kedoshim, part of the avodah is how you enter.  A lack of proper preparation is a lack in the avodah itself. One must prepare themselves to enter such a holy place.  That is the avodah of sefirah; to prepare for Shevout.  One who doesn't prepare is lacking in his Shevout! 

Clean Up

Vayikra (16:23) וּבָ֤א אַהֲרֹן֙ אֶל־אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֔ד וּפָשַׁט֙ אֶת־בִּגְדֵ֣י הַבָּ֔ד אֲשֶׁ֥ר לָבַ֖שׁ בְּבֹא֣וֹ אֶל־הַקֹּ֑דֶשׁ וְהִנִּיחָ֖ם שָֽׁם.  Rashi: ובא אל אהל מועד – להוציא את הכף ואת המחתה שהקטיר את הקטרת לפניי ולפנים.  The question is why is does the Kohan enter the holy of holies merely to remove a fire pan and spoon, just include leave it to next year?  The Chizkuni says ויש לומר: דאין זה ביאה ריקנית שאם יניח שם כף ומחתה בדשנם גנאי הוא כלפי מעלה משום דמאיס.  This is an important lesson that cleaning up one's mess is itself an important process to not leave things in disarray.  There are many other interpretations, however I want to share a lovey dubby interpretation from the Shefa Chayim.

זבח רשעים תועבה And שעיר משתלח

This blog mentioned previously the question of the Gemorah in Shavuot (12b) that why would one need to be atoned for a ביטול עשה with the שעיר משתלח.  If he did teshuva, there is no need for the שעיר for there is immediate forgiveness, and if he didn't do teshuva, then its a זבח רשעים תועבה?  This blog discussed in the past if the שעיר לעזעזל has the status of a korban or not.  This Gemorah seems explicit that it does have the status of a korban? Indeed, the Pnei Yehoshua points out that the language of Rashi on the Gemorah, הא כתיב זבח רשעים תועבה - והיכי מכפר עליה קרבן יוה"כ: is clear that the שעיר has the status of a korban.  However, the Pnei Yehousha himself disagrees with this assertion and understands that the Gemorah is asking from a קל וחומר.  If for a inadvertent sin can't be atoned by a korban, for sure a sin committed wantonly can't be atoned for without teshuva.

We see in this Gemorah (according to Pnei Yehoshua anג those that hold the שעיר isn't a korban,) that the din of זבח רשעים תועבה isn't said as a פסול in a korban.  It's not a law that  of a rasha is disqualified.  It's a law in kapparah, one who is still in the status as one who has violated the averah isn't eligible to  the kapparah of any means. That is what we explained in the past, that זבח רשעים תועבה doesn't disqualify the korban, it disqualifies the kapparah of the korban (see Birchas Avrohom.)      

Aharon's Sickness

בריש הפרשה מסביר רש"י למה התורה אומרת שהציווי לאהרן שלא יבא בכל עת אל הקודש נאמרה אחרי מות שני בני אהרן?  מדוע חשוב לדעת מתי נאמרו הדברים?  ורש"י מפרש מה תלמוד לומר, היה רבי אלעזר בן עזריה מושלו משל לחולה שנכנס אצלו רופא. אמר לו אל תאכל צונן ואל תשכב בטחב. בא אחר ואמר לו אל תאכל צונן ואל תשכב בטחב שלא תמות כדרך שמת פלוני. זה זרזו יותר מן הראשון, לכך נאמר אחרי מות שני בני אהרן.

ויש לעמוד על כמה נקודות בדברי רש"י שצריכין ביאור.  השאלה הראשונה היא למה צריך להביא בהמשל ב' רופאים ולא סגי בחד רופא שמוסיף על דבריו שלא תמות כמו פלוני?  עוד צ"ע שאין המשל דומה לנמשל שאהרן אינו חולה שצריך להזהירו שלא ימות ולכ' מתאים יותר משל מאדם בריא שמזהירו שלא יקבל חולי? ועוד למה נקט רש"י שני דוגמאות בדוקא שלא לאכול צונן ושלא תשכב בטבח לכ' יש הרבה דברים שיוכל לכחש כחו של חולה?  ושאלה רביעית וכללית היא שצ"ע בכלל למה רש"י צריך להביא משל איך המשל מוסיף הסבר בהענין?

הרבי (לקו"ש ח"ז) מסביר דברי רש"י באופן נפלה.  שקשה ליה לרש"י למה האזהרה שלא ימות כמו נדב ואבהו נאמרה דוקא לגבי האיסור של כניסה למקדש בלי רשות ולא אצל שאר איסורים על אהרן ובפרט אצל האיסור על שתויי יין ליכנס למקדש שגם כן נכשלה בו נדב ואבהו?  ועוד לכ' מסתברא יותר לומר האזהרה אצל האיסור על שתויי יין שנאמרה היד אחרי שמתו?  והתירוץ הוא שאין שום הו"א שאהרן יעבור על מצות ה' יתב' ואי"צ באזהרה מיוחדת שלא ימות.  א"כ למה באיסור כניסה לק"ק כן צריך אזהרה נוספת?  רש"י משיב על זה ע"י המשל של החולה.  איך מתורץ השאלה ע"י המשל?  הנה בהמשל אין אנו עוסקים בשוטה בודאי החולה לא יעשה דבר שמתנגד לבריות שלו ואי"צ להזהירו על זה.  אלא החולה חש בחום גדול ורוצה לקרר כדי לפחות הצער מעליו ולכן רוצה לאכול צונן ולשכב במקום טפוח ולכן צריך אזהרה חמורה שלא יעשה כן שלא רק שלא יעזור אלא שזה יגרום שימות.  וכמו כן אהרן, בודאי סגי באזהרה לחוד שלא יעשה עבירה ואי"צ אזהרה מיוחדת שלא לעבור האיסור שלא ימות אבל לענין כניסה למקדש, לבא למקום המקודש ביותר, אהרן הוא בגדר חולה שרוצה לקרר החמימות שלו.  מהו המחלה שלו?  הוא חולה במחלת אהבה.  משום שאהרן היה לו אהבה אזה כל כך והיה לו תשוקה גדולה ליכנס פנימה היה ס"ד שיכנס לקודש אפי' אם הוא יודע שזה לא טוב להגוף שלו.  ולכן צריף אזהרה חמורה שלא ליכנס שכבר נשכל במחשבה זאת בניך (כמו שביאר אוה"ח ונתבאר כאן) ומתו.  ולכן לא מספיק בחד רופא שמוסיף על דבריו שלא ימות כמו פלוני אלא צריך עוד רופא לחזק הענין.  עיין בפנים מה שביאר נקודות נוספות ברש"י ואיך ביאור הזה מדוקדק בשם בעל המאמר שהביא רש"י.

וי"ל שמסר הזה נשנה בסדר הזאיות של עבודת יוה"כ המופע בפרשתנו.  כידוע מסדר עבודת יוה"כ שמנגנין בנגין המסורתי בבהכ"נ במוסף של יוה"כ, הכ"ג הזה נגד הכפורת אחת למטה ושבע למטה.  ומהו היסוד באחת ואח"כ שבעה ולמה בכל אמת מההזאות למטה הוא צריך לחזור ולהגיד אחת כנגד ההזאה למעלה?  יסוד הדברים הוא שההזאה האחת למעלה מסמל התשוקה שיש לבחי' האחת בנשמה, אותו חלק שמכיר באחדות העולם, שרוצה לעלות למעלה מגדרי העולם.  אבל צריך להוריד את זה למטה ולא רק קצת למטה אלא שיחדוד לתוך כל ז' המדות של האדם.  הקב"ה מצווה שאותו אהבה, אותן געגיונים שכל נשמה שואף ביוה"כ, יום שיש בו גילוי יחידה בנפש, יהיו כלים להפוך התחתונים לעליונים.  הקב"ה מזהיר אותנו אל תבא אל הקודש, אל תצא ממשכא דחויא (מהגוף הגשמי) לבא אצלי אלא אותו אהבה תכניס בתוך העולם ותהפוך העולם למקום של קדושה.  ע"י כחו של האחת למעלה תעשה אחת ואחת, אחת ושתים, תהפוך המדות שלך לכלים שמלאים אהבה להקב"ה. 

ובאמת אנחנו הולכין בדרך הזו בתפילת יום יום.  יש האחת למעלה בק"ש ע"י קבלת מס"נ שאדם עולה למעלה אבל אח"כ צריך להמשיך הכח הזה בעוה"ז ע"י תפילה ותורה (עיין הג' צ"צ בלקו"ת שיר השירים מב.)  

ומה מאד מתאים המסר הזה לשבוע אחרי חג הפסח. חג שמלא באהבה וחיבה, אחוה וחדוה בין הקב"ה ובין כלל ישראל כמו שלמידין משיר השירים שקורין בפסח. ימים של משכני אחריך נרוצה, קפיצה גדולה מעבדי פרעה לעבדי ה'. בודאי נשאר בנו האורות של החג אבל קשה לחזור לתמידין כסדרן בלי המוספין כהלכתן. והקב"ה מלמד לנו שעל תדאג, על תעצב שתכלית כל האורות הוא להמשיכו תוך חיי היום היום להפוף גם הימים הרגילים לימי קירבה לפני המקום.  להמשיך האחת למעלה לז' למטה, שלא לקרר את האהבה ע"י מיתת הגוף אלא ליכנס כל החמימות בתוך עבודתנו של היום יום.

Are Angels Men

The Rishonim don’t count a lav of וכל אדם לא יהיה באוהל מועד בבאו לכפר בקודש.  Why not?  Rav Perlo explains (end of negative commandment 193) that the commandment isn’t a lav on the individual, rather it is a pesul avodah.  The proof is from the Yerushalmi Yoma 1:5 that understands the law excludes angels from entering as well.  Angels don’t have to keep the commandments, they aren’t prohibited, rather it is telling us is everyone else is there the avodah is disqualified. 

The Medrash asks is everyone is prohibited how could the Kohan Gadol be there?  [It is a funny question for he is told to enter to do the avodah.  Rav Yosef Engel says the midrash is asking why is the Kohan Gadol allowed more than anyone else and if it’s merely because someone has to do avodah then we should sayהואיל ואישתרי לו אישתרי לכל אדם .]  The midrash answers that the Kohan Gadol is elevated to the status of an angel.  The midrash seems to disagree with the Yerushalmi and hold angels are permitted.  Rav Yosef Engel (Bais Haotzer Klal 12) says we see they are debating if angels are considered to be in the category of אדם.

It is noteworthy, as Rav Perlo notes, that Rashi Yoma 44b does seem to hold that the possuk is a prohibition on the individual to enter and that is the opinion of the Abarbenel as well.

Two Levels Of Ones

We learn from this week’s parsha וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם that one doesn’t have to give up their life to avoid violating an averah.  The Gemorah learns out that this doesn’t apply to avodah zarah, gilui ariout and shfichus damim.  What is the original thought process, does one have to give up their life or not?  Tosfos (bottom of Sanhedrin 74b) says that the initial סברא is that one doesn’t have to give up your life, but one would think to learn out from עריות and רציחה that one has to has to give up their life and וחי בהם comes to exclude from that סברא.   Now that we know that own doesn’t have to give up their life to avoid an averah we can view it as a new exemption of וחי בהם or it can be viewed as a גילוי מילתא that being forced is called אונס and it falls under the regular exemption of ולנערה לא תעשה דבר.  The Rambam (Yesoday Hatorah 5:4) rules that in a situation where one must give up their life and the person didn’t, they don’t get punished.  The Chemdas Shlomo siman 38 says we see from here that there is the regular exemption for אונס if one is forced.  There is just an additional obligation to give up your life learnt from ונקדשתי (according to Rambam,) and one violates that obligation but on the averah itself one is excepted because of the general exemption of אונס.

The Rambam counts a negative mitzvah #294 on the Beis Din not to punish one who is אנוס.  The Ramban disagrees, it’s not a mitzvah, it is merely an exemption on the perpetrator from any punishment he cites a proof from the Gemorah that learns out from ולנערה לא תעשה דבר an exemption in a situation of אונס.  In light of the aforementioned Rambam we understand that the Rambam also agrees that it is teaching us the exemption of אונס, however, there the commandment not to punish is necessary for the averot where one violates a commandment by not giving up their life [In other words, when it comes to other averot it’s not even considered an averah but regarding averot that one must give up their life it’s an averah with a פטור עונשין. (See Bais Yechezkal (Sarna) Ketubot siman 3.)]     

When one is deathly ill and gets cured by medicine from avodah zarah the Rambam (ibid 5:6) says that the person gets punished.  The Achronim ask why is it different from being forced by a gentile where there is no punishment?  They differentiate between one who is forced by a gentile, where the person isn’t willingly serving avodah zarah, the person chooses to do the averah but it against his/her will as opposed to the sick person that willingly takes the medicine (see Kovetz Ha’arot #49.)  We see that in regarding other averot that one doesn’t have to give up their life, the petur of deathly sick is from וחי בהם but being forced by someone else would have an additional petur of אונס.  What’s the difference?  Regarding a gentile in his/her 7 commandments.  They would have an exemption of אונס and wouldn’t have to give up their life (see Rambam Melachim 10:2) but they wouldn’t be able to benefit from אבר מן החי even if they are deathly ill because they have no din of וחי בהם  (Minchas Chinuch 296:3.)

Stay Inside

The Rashba in Babba Bathra 120b questions why the Torah spells out in regard to the prohibition of שחוטי חוץ that of Klal Yisroel are obligated?  He explains that it comes to teach us that even a non-kohan is obligated because shechita is kasher even if performed by a non-kohan.  We see from the Rashba that one is obligated only because the shechita is kasher.  The Achronim ask that we find that in regard to offering the korban oitsidee the mikdash the possuk says even a convert is obligated even though his offering of the korban isn’t valid?  The Mekor Baruch siman 1 explains in regard to offering the korban the offering would be accepted ex post facto because his offering is valid on a private alter.  If that is the case, why must the Rashba establish that in regard to shechita a non-kohan can shect even lichatchila? 

The Briskor Rav in Zevachim 14 establishes that the obligation for offering a korban outside vs. shechting are distinct.  The obligation for offering outside the mikdash is for doing עבודה outside the mikdash.    However, the obligation for shechting is for doing a מעשה שחיטה של פנים מהחוץ.  Based upon this difference, we can understand the Rashba.  When it comes to offering the korban outside, whatever constitutes an עבודה, even just ex post facto will make you obligated.  On the other hand, regarding shechita outside one is obligated only if the shechita is done in this manner inside the mikdash.   

The Gemorah in Kiddushin 43a and Zevachim 43a has a derash on the word הוא in regard to עבודה בחוץ that it comes to exclude one who is אונס from כרת.  The Malbim explains the derasha is that the word הוא indicates that the person has full brains.  The Rishonim ask why do we need a מיעוט to exclude אונס it is a general פטור in all of the Torah?  They give various answers.  The Raavad cited in the Rashba suggests one would think there is a no petur of אונס because the possuk equates the issur to killing someone, קמ"ל that there is a פטור אונס.  My issue with this idea of the Rashba is that the Torat Kohanim in have a dozen places has a similar derasha in regard to other חייבי כריתות  (see Malbim in Tzav #132) and over there the answer of the Raavad doesn’t apply there, so how would he explain those derashot?

We also see from this Raavad had the din been to give up your life and not violate the issur then there would be a חיוב כרת.  This seems to contradict the Rambam Ch. 3 of the laws of Avodah Zarah and Ch. 5 in Yesoday Hatorah that the obligation of כרת for Avodah Zarah is only if done with one’s own volition even though there is an obligation to give up your life.  So why does the Raavad not disagree there?      

Update On Ketores

A few months ago before the Russian bots became the only consistent readers of this blog there was a question raised here as to what the status of a ketores offered שלא לשמה is.  Reb Chaim and the Briskor Rav assume its kasher for the mitzvah isn't the atonement, just the maaseh haktorah and that was accomplished.  On the other hand the Beis Halevi is quoted as saying that its pasel because there is no such thing as a nidvas ketores and if it isn't done leshma it doesn't count for the atonement and then reverts to having the status of a nedavah.  Seems to be a contradiction in the Briskor dynasty?

In the Minchas Asher in this week's parsha and in the Minchas Avrohom Yoma 44a they want to suggest that there is no contradiction.  The Reb Chaim is referring to the ketores offered year round and that is indeed just an obligation of a maaseh haktorah.  However, the Beis Halevi is talking about the ketores of the avodas Yom Hakipurrim and that is brought as a kaparah and if its offered שלא לשמה it will not count towards the obligation of the tzibbur and will hence be passul because there can't be a nedavah of ketores.    

Walk Off A Cliff

The sair le’azazel is unique for it offers kapporah but it’s not a sacrifice in the classical sense.  So, the question is how should we view it; as a korban with a special form of avodah, or something else? 

The Ramban and Even Ezra when discussing the philosophical understanding of the sair lazazel say that it’s not a korban.  I am not sure that when can derive from their philosophical writings a halachik position, but I am inclined to think that we can.

Tosfos in Shavous (13a at bottom) says that even though normally a korban can’t effect kapparah for what happens after it’s already offered, the sair lazazel can effect atonement for the entire day.  One of the explanations for this phenomenon, explains the Tosfos HaRosh, is because the sair la’azazal isn’t a korban and therefore is not limited to the time of the sacrifice.  The Rashba (Shevous 13b) in discussing a peshat in a Tosefta also raises the possibility of it not being considered a korban. 

The Rambam Avodas Yom Hakippurim (chapter 5 laws 17-18) rules that if the sair la’azazal has a blemish or is a trefah its disqualified.  The Rambam bases these rules on pessukim.  The Minchas Chinuch (mitzvah #286) points out that the Rambam doesn’t mention the lack of an internal organ disqualifies the sair, even though it would disqualify a korban.  The Netziv in his elucidation on Chumash makes a similar point.  Why does the Rambam need verses to disqualify the sair that has a blemish or is a trefah; it should be no different than any other korban which is disqualified?  They deduce from here Rambam doesn’t view the sair as a korban. However, the Rambam in Maaseh Karbonas (18:1) rules that if one slaughters the sair outside the Mikdash it’s a violation of shchutay chutz because it will be brought in the Mikdash to have the vidduy said on it.  From here it seems that it is a korban for otherwise there wouldn’t be a violation of shchutay chutz.  [This law of Rambam seems to contradict the Gemorah in Zevachim 113b and Yoma 62b that one can only violate shchutay chutz on the sair before the lottery decides which one is for Hashem and which one is to azazel.  Reb Chaim answers that it depends on the debate in the Tanaim if the vidduy is necessary, see Briskor Rav in Zevachim 113.]  The two rulings of the Rambam seem to leave us with a contradiction as to his view on the sair lazazel?

Rav Zolti (Mishnas Ya’avetz siman 56) answers that there are two atonements in the sair.  There is the vidduy and then there is the kapporah of being sent to azazel.  The vidduy is considered the kapporah of a korban for it’s done in the Mikdash but the going to Azazel isn’t.  Therefore, the Rambam holds one violates shchutay chutz before the vidduy for its kodshim.  A blemish doesn’t disqualify the korban is talking about after the vidduy (עיי"ש a lengthy discussion involving other rulings of the Rambam as well.)     

The Gvuros Ari Yoma (41a) assumes after the lottery its not a korban.  See the sources listed by Rav Yaakov Elon in the footnotes to the Rashba (ibid) and in his sefer on Chumash, (Massah Yad volume 1) for more mekoros.  See also the work of his father, Toras Hakodesh volume 2 siman 52.  

From Tosfos in Zevachim (72a) it’s clear that the reason the limbs of the sair would be prohibited to benefit from (argument of Rav and Shmuel in Yoma 67b) is not because of the issur meilah, rather its based upon the possuk the Gemorah in Yoma (ibid) is dorash.  The Gemorah in Meilah (11a) assumes that the sair remaining forbidden even after it’s pushed off the cliff, is one of two examples acting as an exception to the normal heter of naasis mitzvaso.  Rav Elchonon (volume 2 of Kovetz Shiurim siman 21) proves that Tosfos, that understands the issur of the sair lazazel is not an issur of kodash, holds the heter of naases mitzvoso is not just a rule in kodshim, it’s a general principle.  However, I don’t understand, what issur would there be that we would say naases mitzvoso on if not for the issur of kodash?  The mitzvah that’s complete is the avodah of the sair, if the issur doesn’t stem from there how does naases mitzvoso help you? 

Tosfos Yoma (60a at the top) notices a discrepancy between the Gemorah in Meilah which considers the limbs of the sair to be an exception to the rule of naases mitzvoso as opposes to the Gemorah in Yoma which doesn’t list it.  The Minchas Chizkeyu (volume 2 siman 17) wants to say that this debate over whether the sair lazazel is a kapparah is the very debate between the two tractates.  In Yoma, the Gemorah is assuming its not considered a korban, therefore the Gemorah (67b) holds the issur must be learnt from a possuk, because there is no issur of kodesh.  In Meilah, the Gemorah understands it is a korban, therefore the issur is that of kodesh.  Of course, Tosfos in Zevachim doesn’t jive with the Gemorah in Meilah, he’s explaining according to the Gemorah in Yoma!  According to this approach, Rav Elchonan has no proof from Tosfos in Zevachim that naases mitzvoso isn’t limited to kodshim for Tosfos is going according to the Gemorah in Yoma, not the Gemorah in Meilah.    

No Is Yes

האוה"ח הקדוש (ריש פ' אחרי) שהובא והוסבר בחסידות (עיין לקו"ש ח"ג פ' אחרי) מבאר שמיתת בני אהרן לא היה מפאת איזה חסרון ח"ו על אותן שנאמרו בקרבי אקדש אלא להיפך מחמת מעלתם הם מתו.  בגלל שהם רצו לקרב אצל ה' לכן הכניסו פנימה אפי' שלא בצויי מאת הקב"ה.  היו לנדב ואבהו כח גדול של 'רצוא,' השתוקוקות גדולה להגיע עד המדרגה הגדולה ביותר.  אבל באמת התשוקה הזאת שהיה להם גופא היה חרב פיפיות בידם.  בודאי יש בזה מדרגה גדולה אבל מצד השני זה גופא היה החטא שלהם.  חטא מלשון חסרון, הם חסרו יסוד גדול בעבודת ה'.  הקב"ה אי"צ למלאכים שאין להם גוף ועומדין תמיד בקדושה לעשות רצון בוראם, כבר יש לו הרבה מלאכים לשמשו.  מה שרוצה הוא שאדם, האדם בגופו, בדמו ובשרו, יעבוד את ה'.  בודאי יש זמנים של עלייה, יש ימים טובים, ימים קדושים שיש בהם עליית נשמה אבל אין התכלית שהנשמה יפרח מגוף האדם מחמת עלייתו אלא  שהעלייה יתן לו כח להמשיך בעבודתו גם בזמנים של 'שוב', כשאדם חוזר לארץ, כשיוצא מדביקותו, בזמניים הרגילים.  והתכלית הוא עבודת ה' בתוך הגוף, ליתן אור של תורה ומצות בתוך גופו ובשרו.  וזה היה החטא של נדב ואבהו, הם רצו כ"כ לקרב אצלו יתב' עד שיצאו נשנתם מגופם.  הם לא הכירו שיש צורך לשוב אחר הרצוא, שלא ישברו את הכלים של גופם.  מרוב דביקתם היה להם שבירת הכלים ולא יכלו גופם שוב להיות נרתיק לנשמותיהם.

ונראה בדרך דרוש שיסוד זה מרומז בהפסוק גופא.  (עיין לקו"ש ח"לב פ' אחרי עוד ביאור בזה.) כ' בפסוק (ט:י) שמתו על שהקריבו אש זרה "אשר לא צוה ה'."  אדמו"ר הזקן בלקו"ת פקודי דף ו עמ' ג ובתורה אור פ' שמות דף נב עמ' ג כ' של"ת הם במדרגה גדולה ממצות עשה.  לכן מ"ע אפשר לקיימו ע"י מעשה משום שהאור שבו מיתפס ע"י כלי אבל ל"ת האור גדול כ"כ שא"א להחזיק ע"י כלי של מעשה ולכן א"א לקיימו אלא בשלילה.  וזהו כונת הפסוק ירמיה ב:ב לכתך אחרי במדבר בארץ לא זרועה.  האור הגדול ביותר זרוע ונטמן דוקא ב'הלא', דוקא בהל"ת יש האור הגדול ביותר.  

ולפ"ז נראה שזהו ביאור הכת' שנדב ואבהו הקריבו אש אשר לא צוה, הם האחזו בדרגה של לא -  אשר לא צוה ה' - שאין זה רצון ה' שהאדם ישאר בדרגה גבוהה של לא -  שיצא מהגוף שלו מחמת רוב דביקות.