Three Parshios Of Menorah

The Torah commands the lighting of the Menorah in three distinct parshios, Tetzaveh, Emor, and Behaloscha. Are these repetitive commands, or does each serve a unique purpose? While both Rashi and the Ramban agree that these passages do not simply repeat themselves, they differ fundamentally on what each parsha comes to teach us.

 According to the Ramban (see Emor 24:2 and beginning of Behalsocha,)  there is one primary commandment to light the Menorah, which is introduced first, and the subsequent portions add layers of detail. In Titzaveh the Torah tells us the primary commandment to kindle the menorah. In Emor the Torah adds crucial practical details. It either introduces an ongoing obligation for Bnei Yisrael to donate oil beyond the initial Mishkan campaign, or it establishes a law that the lighting must occur specifically on the physical Menorah structure, rather than just lighting flames on anything.

Rashi views these parshios as entirely distinct parshios. Rashi in Emor (24:2) says the command in Emor is the actual commandment to kindle the lights. The parsha in Titzaveh  mentions the menorah merely as part of the  blueprint and construction phase of the Mishkan but not as a command to actually light it. 

What does Behalocha add? The Ramban says since the Torah just finished details of the inauguration of the Mishkan, the Mishkan is the subject at hand, therefore, the Torah here adds a few more details about the menorah. This fits with the Ramban's approach that the additional parshiot just add details to the basic law of lighting the menorah. According to Rashi however, Behalosha also teaches us something different.  Rashi opens his comment on the parsha, פרשת המנורה, this is not a command to light the menorah but is a command about the cheftzah of the menorah itself. The main possuk is וְזֶ֨ה מַֽעֲשֵׂ֤ה הַמְּנֹרָה֙ מִקְשָׁ֣ה זָהָ֔ב עַד־יְרֵכָ֥הּ עַד־פִּרְחָ֖הּ מִקְשָׁ֣ה הִ֑וא (see Or HaChayim asks why it is repeated but according to Rashi in the other parshios it was a detail, this is the main command.) The possuk of lighting is only to illustrate how the lighting also plays a role in enhancing the creation of the menorah. How? The Torah describes the menorah in Terumah as the middle being the גוף of the menorah with 6 branches extended outward. How is this apparent in the menorah after it is assembled? That is what our parsha adds the lighting is toward the face of the menorah, toward the middle of the menorah. This also answers the question of the Or HaChayim why the Torah doesn't use the terminology of a command but rather just a passive voice, "when you light, the flames will cast their light," why say an active command? Because the parsha is not coming to say a command to light the menorah but rather to describe the cheftzah of the menorah. This explains how Aharon's מדליק ומטיב את הנרות is greater than the nesiem for he gets to create the cheftzah of the menorah, to inaugurate the menorah, on a daily basis when he prepares and kindles the lights in a way that is reflective of the cheftzah of the menorah on a daily basis (based upon Likutay Scihos volume 28.)  

The Korban Makes The Holiday

In Parshas Pinchas the Torah delineate the korbanot of every holiday. In Emor we are told the holidays and that korbanot are offered but the Torah does not give the details of the korbanot. However, the Torah does tell us the offering of the shtei halechem and the accompanying sheep. Why is this korban mentioned here? 

The questioned is asked why do we not mention the shtei halechem in the mussaf prayers on Shavuot? Rav Yaakov Ariel answers that the korbanot of the mussafin are brought as korbanot of the holiday and are therefore mentioned in the prayers of mussaf. However, the shtei halechem are not offered as part of the holiday but as part of being chag habikkurim. In other words, the mussaf korbanot are offered because it is a holiday. The shtei halechem are not offered because of Shavuot, but rather it is chag habikkurim because the shtei halachem are offered on the day. He adds from the Shem MiShmuel that we offer the mussafin to come close to Hashem but the korbanot accompanying the shtei halachem are because the shtei halachem representing the Torah is Hashem giving himself over to us. 

This is why the sheri halechem and its korbanot are in Emor for they are not a part of the mussafin offering but instead are part of the establishment of the holiday, part of creating the day as chag habikkurim. 

Kedushas Ha'aretz And Omer

ואם תקריב מנחת בכורים לה.  The Toras Kohanim has a derash on the word אם indicating the omer may or may not be offered that עתידה שתפסוק ותחזור, for now we don't have a korban omer but it will return.  But all korbanot are not offered now so why single out the omer?  The Meshech Chachma explains when it comes to korbanot מקריבין אע"פ שאין בית, the kedusha of the original Mikdash lasts forever after it was erected but in regard to the kedusha of the land itself the first kedusha of the land was batel and only came back to be everlasting through the conquest of Ezra.  Therefore, the omer which must be offered from grain of E.Y., in between the first golus and the conquest of Ezra would not be able to be offered because the kedusha of the land did not exist at that time and it is that timeframe which the Sifri is referring to. 

The Toras Hakodesh (volume 3 siman 30)  goes a step further.  The Or Sameach (Temidim 8:3) explains that the omer and shtei halechem are exempt from the obligation of terumot since they are called ביכורים which are exempt from terumot.  In other words, sometimes the omer korban has the status of bikkurim.  Nowadays, even though the kedusha of Eretz Yisrael remains, there is no obligation on a Biblical level of terumot since the obligation of teruma is only when the majority of Jews come into Eretz Yisrael, ביאת כולכם (Rambam Terumot 1:26.)  What about other obligations that stem from the kedusha of the land, would they also have this condition of ביאת כוכלם or is it limited to teruma and challah?  Simply understood it should be a גזירת הכתוב for terumah and challah but one could argue that it is not a mere halacha in the obligation of terumah and challah but is a halacha in defining when the kedushas ha'eretz is complete and would apply to other agricultural obligations well.  Argues the Toras Hakodesh, in that case we can say that the bikkurim would not apply unless there is ביאת כולכם and the omer offering having the status of bikkurim will not apply as well.  In this vein the Sifri is not just talking between the time of the two בתי מקדש but nowadays as well even though מקריבין אע"פ שאין בית but the omer can't be offered for it needs ביאת כולכם to establish the kedusha of the land regarding agricultural obligations.   

The Gemarah Rosh Hashana (13a) asks how the omer was offered immediately after entering Eretz Yisrael is if grew to be a third of its growth in the hands of gentiles?  The Minchas Chinuch (302) asks why did the Gemarah asks that it grew in chutz laeretz since Eretz Yisrael was not imbued with the kedush of כיבוש yet?  The Minchas Avraham on the Toras Kohanim suggests that for the omer there was no need for the formal קידוש of the land through כיבוש but it suffices that the land had the status of the promised land of Eretz Yisrael and for that there is no need for an act of כיבוש to establish the obligation.  It comes out according to his argument that there is no need for כיבוש to offer the omer but rather the status of Eretz Yisrael which applies even without the formal kedusha (as explained by my father, 'kedushas eretz yisrael'.  In that case, the Mesech Chachma's assertion that there is a need for kedushas ha'aretz to offer the omer would be incorrect.       

The Mishna in Kelim (1:6) says ארץ ישראל מקודשת מכל הארצות. ומה היא קדושתה? שמביאים ממנה העומר והביכורים ושתי הלחם.  Why does the Mishna not list terumot and maasarot?  And the Gra takes out bikurim from the list, why?  Rav Aharon Kotler (Osef Chidushay Torah #33) explains that the Mishna is referring to halachot that apply because of the kedusha of Eretz Yisrael itself as the promised land not halachat that are established due to the kedusha of כיבוש.  If so, the obligation of the omer and shtei halechem does not depend on the kedusha of כיבוש but will be limited to the actual promised land.  That is why the Ran Nedarim (22a) says that one can not bring the omer from grain of עבר הירדן because even if it has kedusha, it is not part of the actual promised land. The Gra removes bikurim from the Mishna since he holds it is a mitzvah that depends on the the kedusha of the land which depends on כיבוש, not on the actual land of Eretz Yisrael proper (it depends on who to rule like in a Mishna Bikurim 1:10.)

Rav Chatzkal's Perspective On The Eichmann Trial

 From the Mir parsha sheet.

כשלכדו את הצורר הנאצי אדולף אייכמן שר"י והביאהו למשפט בישראל, רבתה ההתרגשות. מרן המשגיח הגאון הרב יחזקאל לוינשטיין זצללה"ה ביאר בשיחתו את ההסתכלות הנכונה אודות כך:

הנה תפסו את הרוצח ומביאים אותו למשפט, ומדברים על זה בלא הרף. העיתונים מקדישים לכך עמודים שלמים, ונשמעים דיבורים שזכינו לעשות בו נקמה, וא-ל נקמות ה'. ובאמת אלו דברי הבל, ורחוקים מהשקפת התורה.

לו באמת היה ענין הרציחה חמור בעינינו כל כך, למה אדישים אנו כשאלפים מתו ברעידת אדמה, ורבים נפצעו, והמונים נותרו ללא קורת גג.

ומה היא תאוות הנקמה, האם על ידה יקומו ששת המיליונים לתחיה?! ומה הפליאה הגדולה אודות הרוצח, וכי מעט רוצחים יש בעולם, והלא כל גוי חשוד על רציחה, וכמות רציחותיו תלויה רק במידת החכמה והאפשרויות שהיו בידיו. הלא אסור להלוות לעם הארץ כי חשוד על הרציחה, משום שעל חייו לא חס על אחרים לא כל שכן (פסחים מט.). וזה נאמר על יהודי שאין בו תורה, על אחת כמה וכמה בנכרי, שכל מציאותו היא "על חרבך תחיה" (בראשית כז, מ), ועלול להגיע לרציחה בשל נגיעה לכבודו.

כל ההתפעלות נובעת מתאוות הניצחון, שביקשוהו והביאוהו, ומתגלה בזה חכמה ותושיה והצלחה. מכך נובעת ההתפעלות, ואין לה כלום עם נקמת ה'. ובכלל, על פי דרכי התורה כל ההסתכלות אף על הרשע הגדול ביותר אינה בשנאה, אלא בדרישת כבוד שמים שיתגדל בהענשתו. אבל כשלעצמו יש לחוש "מעשה ידי טובעים בים...", ו"בנפול אויביך אל תשמח", ונשתכח מאתנו כל ענין "צלם אלקים"!

ושמעתי מהגה"צ רבי אשר קלמן הי"ד [גיסו של הרב כהנמן מפוניבז' זצ"ל] בעת למדנו יחדיו בקעלם, שזהו שנאמר (תהלים קמט, ט): "לעשות נקמה בגויים תוכחות בלאומים, לאסור מלכיהם בזיקים ונכבדיהם בכבלי ברזל, לעשות בהם משפט כתוב - הדר הוא לכל חסדיו הללויה". כלומר, רק לחסידיו שכבוד שמים בראש מעיניהם, רק עבורם הנקמה היא הדר! וכן פירשו בקעלם מה שנאמר (ש"א טו, לג) "וישסף שמואל את אגג לפני ה' בגלגל", שאמנם בהריגתו היתה מצות מחיית עמלק ועשיית דין "כאשר שכלה נשים חרבך כך תשכל מנשים אמך" (שם), אבל לא המיתו מפני רגש הנקמה והשנאה אלא "לפני ה' ", בטהרה מוחלטת.

וכשם שנאמר בפרשתנו במגדף (כד, כג) שרגמוהו "כאשר ציווה ה' את משה". לא לשנאת בן המצרי שהתקוטט עם בן ישראל, אלא מפני שמירת ציווי ה' בלבד

No Date

והניף את העמר לפני ה לרצנכם ממחרת השבת יניפנו הכהן.  The Sfas Emes (Pesach 5640) asks it should have said לרצנכם ממחרת השבת יניפנו הכהן for it is on that day we start counting, what is ממחרת?  He explains the Torah is saying from the day you start the waving process and it continues until Shavuot.  For although the physical act of waving the omer only takes place on the first day of chol hamoed Pesach the waving represents Klal Yisrael raising themselves to come close to Hashem.  The possuk says לרצנכם, why it is an obligation?  It hints to the idea that your desires should be channeled to be used to serve Hashem.  

Many commentators note that the Torah never gives a specific date for the holiday of Shavuot but instead the Torah just says 50 days after Pesach there is a holiday.  Why is this so?  On approach is that the holiday of Shavuot is the culmination of the holiday of Pesach.  On Pesach we became free but the freedom is only a means of becoming servants of Hashem as mentioned from Rav Yerucham.  The holiday of Shavuot as indicated in the name, weeks is a culmination of the preparation of the days and weeks of the omer bridging the gap between Pesach and Shavuot.  It is a process that starts ממחרת השבת and continues.  Rav Shmuel Rabinovitch suggests this a reason we read Rus on Shavuot.  The difference between Rus and Orpah is that Rus took the journey with Naomi all the way home but Orpah left; the lesson is that we must follow the path, the journey, all the way to the end.  

Another approach is that since Shavuot is the holiday celebrating the giving of the Torah, the Torah does not give a precise date for Torah can not be limited by time and space.  This approach is described in greater detail by Rav Steinsaltz.  

Don't Defile Yourself

אֱמֹ֥ר אֶל־הַכֹּהֲנִ֖ים בְּנֵ֣י אַהֲרֹ֑ן וְאָמַרְתָּ֣ אֲלֵהֶ֔ם לְנֶ֥פֶשׁ לֹֽא־יִטַּמָּ֖א בְּעַמָּֽיו

Why the double terminology of אמר ואמרת? Why does the possuk switch from speaking to the klal to speak to the individual לא יטמא, it should have said לא יטמאו? Why does it say לנפש לא יטמא and not למת לא יטמא? Why does it say בני אהרן, we know the kohanim are the offspring of Aharon? The Chassidishe seforim understand this possuk is not just a halacha to kohanim not to defile themselves to the dead but the Torah is a also giving a command to everyone not to defile themselves with things that will contaminate their soul (see Toldot Yaakov Yosef, Mey Hashiloach etc. that develop the possuk according to their explanation.) The first command, אמור אל הכהנים is a general command not to defile one's self. This refers to things which defile everyone and there is a general warning for everyone to avoid those activities. L'havdil that is like the warning on a cigarette package that the product inside will likely cause harm. Who should teach about taharah, how to avoid defilement? Kohanim בני אהרן, those that are attached to Aharon, who achieved this level of purity (see the Midrash begging of the parsha about the yirat shamayim of Aharon and Sfas Emes 5652,) and can teach it to the klal.  ואמרת אלהם, another command, לנפש לא יטמא, one should not defile their own nefesh. Everyone has their own path with the things to avoid because they will harm the individual in their service of Hashem. There maybe things which do not affect one person but cause harm for another individual. That is like the warning on medications that they could be good for some people but for people taking other mediations or other complications, the medication can be very harmful.  The Torah warns one must be careful to avoid things which are harmful for one's own nefesh (see Toldot, Emrei Emes 5683.)

Todah And Shavuot

This post is based on a shmuz by Rabbi Yosef Elefant.

What does the avodah of sefirah have to do with the korban omer? 

The Ramban (23:17) says והנה בחג השבועות שהוא יום מתן תורה יביא הקרבן בדין תודה כי הוא יום העצרת והמשכיל יבין וזה סוד מה שאמרו רבותינו (ויק"ר ט ג) כל הקרבנות בטלין וקרבן תודה אינו בטל לעולם וכו' כי בו מצה וחמץ כענין בעולם הבא.  What is unique about this combination of chametz and matzah and why is it offered in the todah?  The ultimate תודה, thanks, is to recognize that even the bad, the חמץ in life also plays an important role in one's life.  That is the ענין עולם הבא where it is clear that everything is a manifestation of  the יחוד of Hashem.  The todah demonstrates that opposites, chametz and matzoh coexist.  What does that have to do with Shavuot , which the Ramban says is the same idea as the todah?  As elaborated in the Sifsay Chayim Moadim 2 pg. 22 footnote 11:

The Maharal (Teferet Ch. 24-25) explains the conversation between Moshe and the malachim recorded in the Gemarah if the Torah should be given to mankind is that the answer of Moshe is that the Torah must be given to gashmiout.  The Maharal expounds at length that every שכל requires a כלי of gashmi to hold it.  That's why the omer is a korban of animal food because the Torah is given to the gashmiout of a person.  As he concludes in Ch. 25, לכך היה הקרבת עומר בט"ז ניסן מן השעורין. שהשעורין הם גופניים, כי הם מאכל בהמה. וקרבן זה ביום ראשון של ספירה, כי הגוף הוא מוכן לקבל מדרגת השכל, וכמו שהתבאר לפני זה, כי אי אפשר לתורה רק שיהיה לה מקבל גשמי.  The process of kabbalat haTorah, of sefirat haomer, starts with a korban of animal food because that is the reason why Torah was given to mankind because he is made up of gashmi.  That is why the korban of the omer is the hakdamah to the avodah of sefirat haomer because that is what brings the Torah to mankind.   

On Shavuot we celebrate the fusion of the ruchni and the gashmi.  That is the chametz and the matzah.  Torah.  It is a celebration that the fusion of opposites is what brings out the power of the Torah.  That is the message of the todah, the recognition of the need for the chametz and matzah, the ultimate unity, which is expressed in Olam Habah.  

For a different explanation see here.

Makdish A Baal Mum And Temurah

The Rambam Issuray Mizbaoch (1:2) rules if one is makdish a baal mum to the mizbaoch one gets lashes, "וְכָל הַמַּקְדִּישׁ בְּהֵמָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ מוּם לְגַבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה וְלוֹקֶה עַל הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב-כ) "כּל אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ מוּם לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ" מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁזּוֹ אַזְהָרָה לְמַקְדִּישׁ בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין אֲפִלּוּ הִקְדִּישׁוֹ לִדְמֵי [נְסָכִים] לוֹקֶה שֶׁבִּזְיוֹן קָדָשִׁים הוּא:  This depends on the girsa in the Genmorah Temurah 7a.  The Chinuch (#285) asks why should there be malkos if its a lav that does not have an action.  He answers that the Rambam held it is like the lav of temurah that one gets lashes for violating it since they are both lavin about hekdesh.   The Minchas Chinuch explains the Chinuch means that the speech that that causes the acvtion is considered an action like the Geomrah says in Temurah (3a.)  The difficulty (as the M.C. himself notes,) is that the Rambam does not rule that there are lashes for violating temurah because his words create an effect rather he says it is a kabbalah of the sages (Temurah 1:1) "מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁכָּל מִצְוַת לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ מַעֲשֶׂה אֵין לוֹקִין עָלֶיהָ חוּץ מִנִּשְׁבָּע וּמֵמִיר וּמְקַלֵּל אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בְּשֵׁם. שְׁלֹשָׁה לָאוִין אֵלּוּ אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בָּהֶן מַעֲשֶׂה כְּלָל וְלוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֶן."  If that is the case, there is no comparison to the case of being makdish a baal mum to the mizbaoch?  As mentioned in the past, the Rambam doesn't disagree with the logic that if one's speech causes an action there is lashes, the Rambam just held that is not applicable by temurah.  The Rambam held the lav of temurah is not causing the kedusha to become attached to the second animal, it is to attempt to remove the kedusha from the first animal.  The fact that the second animal becomes kadosh is not because of his actions its because of the גזירת הכתוב.  That is why the Rambam does not understand that temurah is considered that his words are causing an action, for they are not causing the chalos kedusha.  However, by makdish baal mum the Rambam can indeed agree that the dibbur is considered an action.

What is bothering me is that the language of the Chinuvh does not sound like the M.C.'s understanding.  He never mentions בדיבוריה קעביד מעשה and just seems to draw a hekesh between two different lavin of hekdesh.   But why would we compare them, if there is a specific kabbalah that temurah gets leshes even though there is no action how would that carry over to being makdish a baal mum? 

Haddasim and Dead People

The Gemorah in Shabbos (33b) relates the story of Rashbi in the cave.  After he exited for the second time he was no longer tormented by people doing mundane activities.  The Gemorah recounts that he was appeased by seeing a old man running close to Shabbos with two haddasim to honor Shabbos.  What did Rashbi see in the haddasim of the fellow running erev Shabbos that made him appeased with the feeble actions of man?   Rav Kook explains (his words are better than my translation so you will have to read the Hebrew.) קדושת השבת יש שנים בכחה: האחד מה שהיא מקדשת ומעלה את ישראל בקדושתה העליונה ומרוממת אותם בעצם קדושת היום למעלה מכל עניני חול ומדבקתם בכבוד עליון וקדושה עליונה. חוץ מזה, היא ממשכת ג"כ את כח כל ימי המעשה עם כל חילונותם ושפלותם, שע"י שהם נזכרים בקדושת השבת הנם מתרוממים. ובאין הכרה מוחשית, הנפש הישראלית מרוממת עצמה אפילו בימי החול מפני זכר של יום השבת, ובזה אין דברי החול שפלים כ"כ כמו שהם נראים בחיצוניות שלהם, כ"א הם הולכים ומתעלים בקדושת השבת. ואע"פ שרוב הזמן הנם עסוקים בעבודת החול, מ"מ כ"כ הקדושה קרובה היא אל לבם, עד שהתכלית העליונה שבחיים מונחת עמוק בתוך הלב שהיא נעוצה דוקא בהקדושה. וכפי הרוממות של גילוי קרבת אלקים ב"ה בנפש, שהיא כמדת הטוב והצדק ויתר דרכי השם יתברך שנדבקים בה, ע"פ המבט הזה יש להשקיף על חיי שעה ועל העוסקים בהם בעין של קורת רוח. בין השמשות הוא המעבר שבין העבר להעתיד והוא מקשר את החול אל הקודש, ומורה השפעת הקודש על החול ע"י קישורו, אע"פ שמצד ההרגשה החיצונה נראה שהחול הוא מאד מגושם ופחות, מ"מ יש בו כח פנימי שרק בסקירה של הרגשה פנימית חדה הדומה לחוש הריח, שהוא דבר שהנשמה נהנית ממנו ואין הגוף נהנה ממנוי, רק אז יוכר קדושתו ועילויו. וזה הכח של פעולת הקודש על החול הוא פועל את הזריזות המעשית, עד שמעורר ג"כ את כחות הזקנה להיות מזורזים בפועל ובמעשה, ומ"מ אע"פ שהחול מושפע מהקודש מ"מ אין מעלת הקודש נופלת לחשבה רק כמצורפת אל החול, כ"א היא עומדת במעלתה לעצמה ג"כ. ע"כ בהגלות להם שבהדי פניא דמעלי שבתא ההוא סבא, שלא היה לו ראוי להמצא בקרבו כבר כח הזריזות למרוצה וחפזון, ומה שינה עליו טבעו להיות פעולת החיים כ"כ ניכרת עליו לקדושה, דהוה נקיט תרי מדאני אסי, להריח בהם לכבוד שבת, בהוראה על ההרגשה הפנימית הרוחנית הצריכה לצאת מקדושת השבת. אמנם תרתי ל"ל, אחד כנגד זכור, המורה על היחש של השבת עם החול, ואחד כנגד שמור המורה על עצם השמירה של קדושת השבת כשהיא לעצמה. אמר כמה חביבין מצות על ישראל, שקדושת המצות היא הנשמה המונחת בתוך כח החיים של גלגל כל פעולותיהם, שהן נראות כ"כ פשוטות ושפלות. יתיב דעתייהו, ולא הצטערו עוד על חיי עולם הנבלעים מחיי שעה, בראותם כי גם בחיי שעה יש לישראל קישור אמיץ לחיי עולם, וזה הקישור הוא מחדש ונותן כח לכושלים ועיפים, להיות זריזים לעבודת הקודש, גם בימי זקנה ושיבה. ועילוי הקדושה הזאת של הפיכת טבע הזקנה הכבדה לזריזותה של הילדות, דבר זה א"א לצאת אל הפועל כ"א ע"י פעולות החול כשהן מתפרצות מחוגן לעלות אל הקודש, כאותו היחש שיש לחיי עולם אל חיי שעה, שהם מוסיפים מעלה בצירופם, ע"כ יתיב דעתייהו.  

Rashi (23:3) says ששת ימים וגומ׳ – מה עניין שבת אצל מועדות? ללמדך שכל המחלל את המועדות מעלין עליו כאילו חילל את השבתות, וכל המקיים את המועדות מעלין עליו כאילו קיים את השבתות. Why are Kohanim prohibited from contracting tumah from a dead man?  The kohan is the representative of kedusha present in this world.  Many acknowledge that after death there is kedusha.  People are willing to do all sorts of rituals, incantations and segulot to attempt to enhance the connection with the Almighty. However, to appreciate the connection one has with Hashem in עלמא הדין is a little more complex.  It is the job of the Kohan to ensure that kedusha is not retrained to death and hence he is instructed not to deal with the dead.  It is his job to see the kedusha present in everyday life.  It is the lesson Rashbi had to learn.

Two Types Of Offerings On Shavuot

 Among the mussaf offerings enumerated in parshas Pinchas the Torah does not mention that the goat offered on Shavuot is a chatas.  The Yerushalmi (Rosh Hashana 21a) says the reason is once one accepts the yoke of Torah sins are not looked at.  However, in this week's parsha it does  mention the korban as a chatas,  וַעֲשִׂיתֶ֛ם שְׂעִיר־עִזִּ֥ים אֶחָ֖ד לְחַטָּ֑את, why can it mention it is a chatas here but not in Pinchas?  The Daas Zekanim in Pinchas (28:30) asks why we don't mention the sair mentioned in Emor in the mussaf prayers of Shavuot?  He explains וי״ל שהם נזכרים בכלל מה שכתוב וביום הבכורים בהקריבכם מנחה בשבועותיכם בגלל המנחה כל אלו באין ולא במוסף.  In other words, there are two different types of korbonat offered on Shavuot.  There are the offerings because it is Shavuot, the day of mattan Torah and then there are offerings to accompany the shtei halechem.  It is the offering that comes because it is Shavuot where chatas isn't mentioned because it is a day of kabbalas Hatorah, we don't mention the sins.  However, in Emor, the Torah is listing the shair offered to come along with the shtei halechem and there chatas can be mentioned.  This is clear from the Rambam as well.  In Ch. 8 of Temmidin U'mussafin he says: בְּיוֹם חֲמִשִּׁים מִסְּפִירַת הָעֹמֶר. הוּא חַג הַשָּׁבוּעוֹת. וְהוּא עֲצֶרֶת. וּבַיּוֹם הַזֶּה מַקְרִיבִין מוּסָף כְּמוֹ מוּסַף רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ שְׁנֵי פָּרִים וְאַיִל וְשִׁבְעָה כְּבָשִׂים כֻּלָּם עוֹלוֹת וּשְׂעִיר חַטָּאת. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בְּחֻמַּשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים וְהֵם מוּסַף הַיּוֹם. וְעוֹד מְבִיאִין יֶתֶר עַל הַמּוּסָף בַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה מִנְחָה חֲדָשָׁה שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וּמַקְרִיבִין עִם הַלֶּחֶם פַּר וּשְׁנֵי אֵילִים וְשִׁבְעָה כְּבָשִׂים. הַכּל עוֹלוֹת. וּשְׂעִיר חַטָּאת. וּשְׁנֵי כְּבָשִׂים זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בְּחֻמַּשׁ וַיִּקְרָא.  One of the שעירים is offered because it is the holiday of Shavuot and the other is offered to accompany the shtei halechem. (Rav Eliyahu Baruch.)  [It is noteworthy that the Chabad nusach of the the mussaf does mention both seirim.  The simple peshat in that would be that even though the sair is offered to accompany the shtei halechem, since it effects a kapparah it is mentioned.  See here.)  [Also see here, especially bottom.]

Sanctify Thy Self

Why does the Torah place the law of kiddush Hashem, ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל right before the parsha of the moadim?  After the moadim the parsha continues to the subject of the menorah, lechem hapanim, the mekallal and then laws about hitting another individual.  Is there any order or reason for the juxtaposition of all of these various laws and why are they all here, in parshas Emor?

What does it mean kiddush Hashem and chillul Hashem, a person's actions don't add or subtract anything from G-d? In the view of the Sfas Emes these ideas take on new meaning.  It is about a person's own connection with their true self.  The Sfas Emes translates ונקדתי בתוך בני ישראל that the תוך, the פמיניות of every Jew is kodesh and kiddush Hashem means to bring out that kedusha.

The Gemorah (Berachos 21b) has a gezerah shaveh תוך תוך from הִבָּדְלוּ מִתּוֹךְ הָעֵדָה הַזֹּאת וַאַכַלֶּה אֹתָם כְּרָגַע.that a דבר שבקדושה may only be recited in the presence of 10 Jews.  Why must we learn out from  reshaim?  The Rebbe Reyatz in a sicha, (sichos 5704 pg. 29, 26-27 in the hebrew edition,) explains that we are learning out that the תוך that remains uncorrupted is what makes even kedusha present to warrant saying a דבר שבקדושה (see also Tanya Letter 23 and Likutay Sichos volume 33 Shelach sicha 2.)  How does more people standing together bring a greater level of kedusha; what joins them?  The The Sfas Emes explains that people are different in terms of body, but the source of our souls stems from the same source as it says in Tanya Ch. 32 'לכן נקראו כל ישראל אחים ממש מצד שורש נפשם בה' אחד רק שהגופים מחולקי.  So when 10 Jews get together, their souls combine together for a קומה שלמה of 10 levels of kedusha.  That is why the parsha of Kiddush Hashem precedes the parsha of the moadim because it is the kedusha of the פנימיות of Klal Yisroel, where the Klal is together, that brings about the kedusha of the moadim.  In his words (5655,) ונראה דזה סמיכות פרשת מועדות למצות ונקדשתי. דהנה מקראי קודש הם בכח התאחדות בנ"י.

That is why the Torah doesn't write the law of מסירת נפש as a command, for to bring out one's תוך, קדושה פנימית,it  must come from within a person and is not something that can be done to merely fulfill a command (see Sifsay Chayim.)

That is the basis of the continuation of the parshios after the moadim.  As the שפ"א said, it is the kedusha of Klal Yisroel that brings the kedusha of the moadim.  Following it that comes the parsha of the menorah for the menorah represents the kedusha of Klal Yisroel that brings about the kedusha in the mikdash as the Sfas Emes says (5660) וכמו כן במקדש קיבלו בנ"י נשמה יתירה ולכן בשניהם נאמר עדות כמ"ש בגמ' עדות הוא שהשכינה שורה בישראל. שע"י בנ"י ירדה הקדושה בבהמ"ק.  Following that comes the לחם הפנים, the 12 loaves representing every tribe, to be our representatives in the Mikdash on Shabbos.  Although we ourselves aren't present  in the Mikdash on Shabbos that is because our תוך isn't able to be revealed on such a constant basis.  To represent our תוך is worthy of being present, we are represented by לחם הפנים, the bread which reflects our פנימיות.  That is why in the days of the future every Shabbos will be a time for pilgrimage to the Mikdash (as mentioned in the Psektah based upon the verse in Yeshayehu 66:23,) for then our פנימיות will be able to be revealed every week.

After establishing kedusha, the next two parshios, the mekallel and striking another Jew depict polar opposite, chillul Hashem.  The mekallel is the dimetric opposite of kiddush Hashem.  And following that comes the parsha of striking another Jew which is akin to cursing Hashem as the Sfas Emes (5661-2,) says בפסוק ולא תחללו את שם קדשי. כי הקב"ה חתם שמו ית' באיש ישראל וצריכין לשמור זו הנקודה שלא לעשות זה הכח חולין.  The פנימיות, the תוך בני ישראל is what gets affected when violating the mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem.  A person becomes distant from the kedusha that is present within himself.  Continues the Sfas Emes, ולכן נסמך בכתוב בנקבו שם יומת וסמיך לי' ואיש כי יכה כו' נפש אדם כו' שבנפש ישראל שורה השם.  That's why the laws of hitting another Jew follows after the mekallel, for hitting another Jew is tainting the 'שם ה inside of him in the same vain the blasphemer sought to taint Hashem. 

Hot Bread

Rashi brings an opinion that the מקלל was inspired to his actions from the showbread לגלג ואמר ביום השבת יערכנו, דרך המלך לאכול פת חמה בכל יום, או שמא פת צוננת של תשעה ימים, בתמיה.  It isn't clear why a man should be inspired to curse G-d merely because he thinks the priests din't get fresh bread.  Maybe he would find that upsetting but to go ahead and curse G-d seems to be taking it way too far.  Why did he feel the need to curse because of this?  I will this this question hanging.

The Gemorah Chagigah (26b) says that indeed the bread didn't become cold - מלמד שמגביהין אותו ומראין בו לעולי רגלים לחם הפנים ואומרים להם ראו חיבתכם לפני המקום סילוקו כסידורו דא"ר יהושע בן לוי נס גדול נעשה בלחם הפנים כסידורו כך סילוקו שנאמר (שמואל א כא, ז) לשום לחם חום ביום הלקחו.  Why did the bread remain hot; was a miracle warranted just for the kohanim to enjoy hot bread?

Rav Hutner in Pachad Yitzchak Pesach maamer 58 explains this point.  I will write my understanding of his words which may be way off.  The Bechai in Berashis points out that decay, death, rotting aren't natural.  If man had not sinned, indeed the body would have lasted forever.  It is only because of the sin of man that spoilage was introduced into the world.  בפנימיות everything should maintain the same freshness and strength as  it had at the time of existence.  In the Mikdash, especially in the לחם הפנים, the bread that reflect פנימיות, the bread remains with the same freshness as it had at the time of the baking.

The simple interpretation I believe is that the nes isn't necessary, the language of the Gemorah indicates that indeed the miracle isn't necessary, it is to reflect the great love Hashem has for us that he wanted the Kohanim to enjoy hot bread.

Why Do You Eat Terumah

 וְכֹהֵ֗ן כִּֽי־יִקְנֶ֥ה נֶ֙פֶשׁ֙ קִנְיַ֣ן כַּסְפּ֔וֹ ה֖וּא יֹ֣אכַל בּ֑וֹ.  Rashi cites ואשת כהן אוכלת בתרומה מן המקרא הזה שאף היא קניין כספו.  Rashi Ketubot (58a) adds וכי היכי דקידושי ביאה מאכילין בארוסה דאיתקיש הוויות להדדי.  [I'm not sure if Rashi here on Chumash that omits this point disagrees or is just citing the basic din mentioned in the Gemorah.]  From the fact that Rashi needs the hekesh to know how if the kinyan kiddushin not done through money the kohan can still feed his wife teruma, it seems he understands קנין כספו is literally a kinyan done through money.  If so, how do we know that a slave acquired through chazakah or shtar can eat terumah?  Rav Elchonon (Kovetz Haoros) says when it comes to the slave the words קנין כספו are referring to the type of kinyan one has in the slave; that is the monetary kinyan.  However, one doesn't have a monetary kinyan through kiddushin, so קנין כספו can't refer to the type of kinyan, it must refer to actually acquiring through money and hence Rashi needs the hekesh for the other kinyanim.  It comes out according to Rav Elchonon, that the slave eats terumah because of the קנין ממון his master has in him but a wife eats because of the קנין איסור acquired through money.  The difficulty is if we assume that קנין כספו regarding the slave refers to the type of kinyan, then how does the Gemorah know that it also refers to the literal קנין כספו of kiddushin?

Even though one doesn't acquire any monetary gain through kiddushin, the Achronim bring many proofs [and it is the simple read of the Gemorah in the beginning of Kiddushin,] that the act of kiddushin, of acquiring the women so to speak, is a monetary kinayan just like any other kinyan when one acquires ownership the ownership rights is a קנין ממון in the object.  The Maseas Moshe on Kiddushin suggests that is all true when the kiddushin is done through money but it its done through shtar or beah then the kinyan will be defined as a eishus type of kinyan.  He says, if we follow this approach, then we can understand the Rashi.  No matter how a slave is acquired, one is acquiring a קנין ממון is the slave and can feed it terumah and the same is true when doing kiddushin though money.  When doing kiddushin with another method, then the kinyan isn't defined as a קנין ממון and Rashi needs to invoke a hekesh in which we learn out that when does the other kinyaninm he ends up with a קנין ממון in his ארוסה as well.  If we take this approach it comes out the reason a slave and ארוסה eat terumah is because of the קניו ממון that one has in them.  However, the chiddush of the Maseas Moshe it tremendous and one can definitely debate its truth.     

The אבני מלואים in Teshuva 17 learns up in Tosfos Yebamot (66a) that its the קנין איסור one has in his slaves that allows him to feed them terumah.  In his view קנין כספו means literally acquired with money.  According to his approach, how do we answer the question of Rav Elchonon, why do we need a hekesh for the other kinyanim of kiddushin, but not for the other kinyanim of the slave?   I was going to suggest an answer but I would rather leave it as a question and maybe someone can suggest an answer.

Quarantined Kohan Gadol

The Rambam Kli MIkdash (5:7) says וּבַיִת יִהְיֶה לוֹ מוּכָן בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ וְהוּא הַנִּקְרָא לִשְׁכַּת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל. וְתִפְאַרְתּוֹ וּכְבוֹדוֹ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה יוֹשֵׁב בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ כָּל הַיּוֹם. וְלֹא יֵצֵא אֶלָּא לְבֵיתוֹ בִּלְבַד בַּלַּיְלָה אוֹ שָׁעָה אוֹ שְׁתַּיִם בַּיּוֹם. וְיִהְיֶה בֵּיתוֹ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם וְאֵינוֹ זָז מִשָּׁם:  Why is this the תפארת of the Kohan Gadol; what is the great glory of being confined to the mikdash? 

I think the simple peshat in the תפארת is that the Kohan Gadol's life is entirely devoted to the mikdash; he was always in holy mode, no breaks.  However, Rav Shimshom Pinkus says a deeper peshat. 

At the end of Dovid's life he commands Shlomo to find a way to kill Shimi ben Garah.  So Shlomo tells him he must be confined to Yerushalayim and if he leaves he will be killed.  Eventually he leaves and is killed.  Asks Rav Chayim Shmulevetz, how was this a way for Shlomo to fulfill Dovid's command; how did he know Shimi was going to leave and why did Shimi leave if he knew that he would be killed or it?  He explains that a person can be confined to his/her place without a problem if they choose to do so.  The minute it is a command, then the person feels shackled; they feel locked up.  It is possible without any command Shimi might have never left Yerushalim, but Shlomo knew if he commands him to satay, then every second the itch in Shimi to throw off the yoke of confinement placed upon him will grow stronger.  

Why can't a person stand to be contained?  Rav Shimshon Pinkus suggests that it is built into the nature of mankind to want to be connected to the entire world.  This desire, urge and impulse stems from the first man, Adam, that stretched from one end of the world to another (Chagigah 12a.)  Even after he shrunk after the sin, the innate desire to be able to extend through the entire world is still present in mankind and if that capability is denied then a person feels a tremendous lacking and suffers. 

There are two opinions in Chagigah if Adam stretched from one end of the world to the another or from the ground to the heavens.  Says Rav Pinkus, these two opinions are reflected in a person's nature.  Man can either desire to know what's going on in the entire world or remain rooted in his place but yen to know what's going on in the heavens.  These are two different opinions in the Gemorah; the two are exclusive, either one wants to know what's going on in the entire world or  know what's transpiring above us.  That is the תפארת of the Kohn Gadol; his confinement wasn't a jail sentence, it signified that his desire wasn't to know what was going on in all the corners of the world, rather his entire focus was to stick his head in the heavens.  Concludes Rav Pinkus with words of mussar:

Din Avelus

The Rambam positive commandment #37 says that we learn out from the commandment to a kohan to become tamah to his relatives that there is a commandment of avelus, to mourn over one’s dead relative.  The Rambam in the beginning of the laws of Avel cites the possuk of לא אכלתי חטאת היום as the source to the law of avelus.  So, what is the source?  The Achronim explain that the source is from the commandment to a kohan to become tamah.  The possuk at the beginning of the laws of Avel is to teach us that avelus is only one day, the seven days are only Rabbinic. 

It is clear that the Rambam holds part of avelus is the aspect of becoming tameh to the relatives.

The Rambam Avel 2:6 maintains that that woman kohanot aren’t included in the mitzvah of becoming tamah to relatives.  The Raavad disagrees.  Why does the Rambam hold woman aren’t included in the mitzvah?  He holds the mitzvah is only given to one who is normally forbidden to become tamah.  The mitzvah shows us the importance of becoming tamah by appling even to those that are forbidden to become tamah; hence it only applies to kohanim, not kohanot.

Rights Of Eating

Rashi 22:12 explains that the possuk קנין כספו tells us that the wife of a kohan eats teruma.  Rashi also brings in Bamidbar 18:11 the Sifri has a derash that we learn out from כל טהור בביתך יאכל אתו that the wife of a kohan eats teruma.  Why do we need two sources?  The Gur Aryeh explains that קנין כספו teaches us even if just אירוסין  was done she can eat teruma.  The second possuk, כל טהור בביתך יאכל אתו teaches us even if he didn’t make her קנין כספו, it is his יבמה, she still eats teruma. 

Rav Shmuel Rozovski (Kiddushin 10a) suggests that the two derashot are distinct.  If we just have the derasha from קנין כספו then she eats teruma like a slave, she eats because of the husband.  However, the derasha of כל טהור tells us she has her own rights to eat teruma.  It is because of this second derasha that one can fulfill their obligation of giving teruma by giving it to her. 

The Gemorah in Yevamot (66a) says slaves of a kohan that buy slaves may feed them teruma.  The Chinuch (280) limits that to the second slave.  If it’s a slave that buys a slave that buys a slave, the third level slave may not eat teruma.  Rebbe Akiva Eger points out that the Rambam in Terumot 7:18 seems to disagree for he says if the slaves of the wife of a kohan purchase slaves then they can eat teruma even though its three times removed from the kohan.  However, based upon the derasha that a woman is considered to be eating in her own right, we don’t have to say there is a disagreement.

Sefirah Chinuch

Rashi explains the double language of emor ve’amrtah teaches us that the gedolim must warn the ketonim on the issurim to kohanim.  The word that Rashi uses to say warn is lehazher which can also be translated as zohar-shine.  Chinuch isn’t supposed to be superimposing additional rules on the katon, it is to bring out that shine that is buried within the child.  להזהיר גדולים על הקטנים, through teaching the teacher will gain rays of light as well.  It is by giving to others that the best of the teacher/parent is brought out (see Likutay Sichos volume seven.) 

Sefiras Haomer is the chinuch of Klal Yisroel for kabbalas hatorah.  The possuk (25:15) says usfartem lachem.  Why the extra word lachem?  Why is the korban omer called omer because of its measurement, why is this significant?  The Ksav Vekabalah explains that lachem means for your benefit (like Rashi says at the beginning of Lech Lecha.)  The word seferah is related to sappirah-sapphire, which is something clear and shiny.  The count of the omer is not just a count of a day, it is a count toward purity.  The possuk means וספרתם לכם, purify yourself in order to be ready to accept the Torah.  Hashem gives us the time of sephirah to reveal the pure, untainted holiness that exists within us.  Hashem is being mechanech us for the acceptance of the Torah.  That’s why the korban is called an omer.  Omer can mean servitude (as in לא תתעמר בה in beginning of Ke Tatzah.)  We are counting towards the day when we learn what we really should be applying ourselves too; the Torah.  On Peach the korban omer is waved to indicate that all the four corners of the world and the winds represented by the waiving is all a means to the end.  The success that is obtained in the material world is so that we have peace of mind in order to focus on the Torah.    

One of the famous questions asked about Shavous is why is there no mention in the Torah of it being the holiday where we accepted the Torah?  Rav Eliyah Lopian answers that the Torah wants to highlight that what is necessary for kabbalas hatorah is our preparation for it.  Therefore, it is referred to by the Torah as Shavous indicating that it’s the weeks of preparation that make the Yom Tov.  It is our acceptance of Hashem’s chinuch that matters.

Terumah Payment

The Mishna in Terumot 7:2 says that a kohanet that marries a yisroel (and now can no longer eat teruma,) and subsequently eats teruma pays the value of the teruma but not the additional value of the fifth that one must normally pay when eating teruma by accident.  She is exempt from the fifth because that obligation is only on one who is a זר their whole life, not one who becomes a זר.  If that is the case, why must she pay the value of the teruma?  The Rash explains that she must pay like any other stolen goods.  According to this explanation, she must pay only if she took the teruma from another kohan.  However, if she owned the teruma she wouldn’t need to pay.  Rav Chaim Kanievsky in Derech Emunah Terumot 10:12 ס"ק קפד cites Rishonim that indicate she must pay even if it doesn’t belong to a kohan (see Rashi Sanhedrin 51a , Ramah there and Ri ben Malki Tzedek on the Mishna.)  Why would they disagree, what other reason would there to have to pay? 

The Emunat Yehosha (#139) says that we see from the passukim that there are two reasons to pay for the teruma that is eaten.  It says in 22: 14 "And if a man unintentionally eats what is holy, he shall add a fifth of it to it and give the kohen the holy thing.  15 And they shall not desecrate the holy things of the children of Israel, those that they have set aside for the Lord,  16 thereby bringing upon themselves to bear iniquity and guilt, when they eat their holy things, for I am the Lord Who sanctifies them."  We see that there is a desecration of the chefta and a sin on the gavra. 

If one eats the teruma במזיד s/he only pays the value of the teruma, not the additional fifth.  The Rambam (perush hamishna 7:1) explains that the sin is too great to be atoned for by paying an additional fifth.  If could be that the sin that’s not atoned for is the sin on the gavra but the desecration of the cheftza of teruma requires one to pay the basic value of the teruma. 

In a similar vein we can explain the aforementioned din.  The daughter of the kohan doesn’t have to pay as atonement for the sin of the gavra but she must pay the base value of the teruma because of the desecration of the cheftza.

Forced Mazid

Rashi (24:21) says the Torah spells out the name Shlomis bas Divri to tell us only she was a zonah but no one else was.  The Mizrachi asks why is she called a zonah if Rashi in Shemos explains how she was אנוס?  He says even though she didn’t willingly violate an issur, there still was an act of znus so she is called a zonah.  Levush says since it happened because of her being too outgoing and speaking to everyone it called her fault.  Sounds like there arguing if one put himself into a situation where they are susceptible to sin if it’s called a מזידor not.

Two Counts

The Gemorah Menachos 65b says וספרתם לכם tells us that every individual must count.  Tosfos explain that we would have thought there is an obligation only on בית דין like the counting of the years of shmittah, קמ"ל there is an obligation on every individual.  Why would we have thought there is only an obligation on the בית דין if it is a mitzvah like any other?  The Chizkuni in Behar says that in regard to shmittah the Torah mentions the counting once and its merely an obligation on the בית דין.  Siferas Haomer is mentioned in Reah and in Emor to tell us there is an obligation on the בית דין and an obligation on the individual.  He holds even at the end of the day there remains an element of obligation on the בית דין alone.  What is the nature of this obligation?

In regard to the counting of the shmittah cycle Reb Chaim explains that the mitzvah isn’t merely to count but that it is the count of the cycle that gives the kedusha to the year of yovel.  The Torah calls the holiday Shavout indicating that it is the חפצא of the counted weeks that give the kedusha to the holiday.  Therefore, we would have said (and according to Chikuni we do say,) that the counting is part of establishing the holiday and has to be done by בית דין just as they are entrusted with being מקדש the months. 

Based upon this idea we can understand the Gemorah in Menachot 66a that Amemar counted the days but not the weeks because it is a mere זכר למקדש.  It is צ"ע why not count the weeks as well because of זכר למקדש?  However, in light of the Chizkuni it is beautiful for the counting of the weeks is mentioned in Reah where it says וספרת לך meaning to ב"ד that they must count the weeks.  It is in Emor where the Torah says to count the days and it says וספרתם לכם, an obligation on every individual.  Therefore, the mitzvah onב"ד  is the weeks so there is no זכר למקדש for the individual to do it, is it only the mitzvah to count the days that there is זכר למקדש for every individual (Eretz Hatzvi (Shecter) siman 3 and footnote 3, see also Bad Kodesh on Moadim.)