Above And Below

Why was Moshe the one to serve in the Mikdash for the first 7 days (Rashi 8:28) and only afterward did Aharon take over?  Why for the first 7 days was the Mishkan taken down every day but only after the 8th day did it last?  

The Mishkan is an other worldly building meant to bring the presence of the Shechina down into this world.  It does not fit into the natural barriers of the world.  The first 7 days of the inauguration where to adjust the Mishkan to this world.  That is why it was 7 days, the complete cycle of a week of nature.  That is why the Mishkan needed to be taken down every day for it did not fit within the order of nature.  It took the power of Moshe Rabbenu, who was always connected to the higher realms to be able to connect the Mishkan to the world.  Only after the first 7 days did the Mishkan now become incorporated into the nature of the world (not that the Mishkan became lower, but that nature was elevated to be able to contain a Mishkan.)  Now, on day 8, the day that is above teva, meaning not that teva was broken but rather teva was expanded and elevated, can the avodah be given over to Aharon to do to the avodah on a daily basis.  Moshe has to serve the first 7 days because at that point the Mishkan can not fit in the world without the avodah of Moshe, who is simultaneously connected to this world and above.  Then the super natural Mishkan can become incorporated into the world (based upon Shem MiShmuel 5671, see also Sfas Emes 5639, Imrei Emes Shemini Atzeret 5761.)  

That is why on Yom Kippur the sprinkling is 1 +7, the above teva, 8th sprinkle gets incorporated into the teva.  The אחת למעלה unites with the שבע למטה.  The teva expands to include that which is beyond it.

וירד מעשת החטאת והעלה והשלמים.  The Apter Rav says this hints to the idea that even the great leaders who are busy atoning for people and raising the worlds to higher levels have to at times go down from their lofty thoughts in order to connect to people.  But this going down leads to greater heights.  The above teva becomes etched into the teva.   

החדש הזה לכם.  Nissan is the time of great miracles, it is a time ripe for above nature revelations.  However, even great miracles have to become incorporated into the boundaries of time.  We incorporate the miracles to fit into nature by elevating our nature.

Fishy Lessons

A note on the simanim of the fish, the סנפיר וקשקשת.  The Gemarah (Chullin 68b) says כל שיש לו קשקשת יש לו סנפיר ...ליכתוב רחמנא קשקשת ולא ליכתוב סנפיר א"ר אבהו וכן תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל (ישעיהו מב, כא) יגדיל תורה ויאדיר.  The Ritva Niddah (51b) says that the Torah wrote the סנפיר to tell us this is also the cause of the tahara.  Rav Kook echoes this idea in letter 103, וא"כ אם הי' כתוב קשקשת הייתי אומר שכח הטהרה מונח בקשקשת לבד, ובסנפיר לא משכח טהרה, כתב רחמנא סנפיר להודיענו הידיעה המופשטת שכח הטהרה מונח בשניהם, וממילא ידענו שאין הסימנים ענינים הסכמיים, אלא שבהם מונחת הטהרה,.  In other words, להגדיל תורה is to tell us the depths of the Torah.  

The lesson of the סנפיר וקשקשת is expounded on in derush in various forms but the basic gist is that the קשקשת the scales is the bdrock protection of the individual and the סנפיר represents a person moving forward, being מחדש, the two have to go hand in hand.  One can move forward only rooted in the mesorah of the accepted traditions, or in other words one can strive to advance but it must be rooted in proper middot of love and fear of G-d.  

The Netziv (11:9) במים בימים וגו׳ – האי במים מיותר. ואין לומר ללמדנו אפי׳ נשר כשהוציאו כשר דזה מקרא מפורש להלן י״ב כפרש״י. אלא בא ללמדנו דוקא כשנוטלו האדם במים. לאפוקי יצא מעצמו על הארץ מיקרי שרץ הארץ כדאי׳ במכות ד״ז האי ביניתא דבי כרבי מלקינן עליה משום שרץ השורץ על הארץ וכפי׳ ר״ת שם. As the Netziv notes himself, this idea is rooted in Raabenu Tam Makkot (16b) ר"ת ביניתא כמו דג קטן הנמצא במחרישה וקמ"ל דאע"ג דנמצא במים היה מותר לפי שיש לו קשקשים, אפ"ה לוקה אע"ג דאי הוי במים טהור.  It comes out according to this ruling that a fish with kosher simanim if it sometimes flops around on land, it is prohibited if taken from the land for at that time it has the law of a sheretz.  See more about this here and discussion here.  

Proper Knowledge

What does Parshat Shemini have to do with with parshat Parah?  Rashi says the parah is an atonement for the agel.  How does the parah atone for the agel?  Why is the derash of acquiring Torah by being ממית יצמו עליה (Berachot 63b) derived from אדם כי ימות באוהל in the parsha of Parah?  Why did Adam have to die because of eating from the eitz hadaat?  What was so wrong with eating from the eitz hadaat, why would gaining knowledge be prohibited?  

Before eating form the eitz haddat Adam had soul knowledge.  His daat was in tune with the chachma Elokut.  His actions were motivated by a pure spiritual outlook.  The eitz haddat brought bodily knowledge into Adam.  He now had daat about how his guf viewed things.  He went from a pure spiritual being who was governed by the nefesh to a being where the nefesh and guf had conflicting values.  This separation of the guf and nefesh means that it became impossible for Adam to fully achieve unity with Hashem in bodily form.  Therefore, there had to be death to the body for the soul to experience complete unity with Hashem.  This separation is what leads to a person being tamah upon death. 

The Beis Halevi (cited here,) explains that the source of the sin of the agel was that Klal Yisroel had a chesbon that they needed something to connect them with Hashem.  They used eitz hadaat knowledge.  They had a plan which made sense based upon their assessment of the situation but it was not what Hashem wanted, it was not in line with Sechal Eloki.  The tikkun to this tumat meis is to nullify themselves to soul knowledge.  To try to listen to the whispers of the soul.  This is reflected in the avodah of the parah adumah which is the paradigm of all chukim.  It is when one suspends their own manly knowledge and accepts their is something that escapes the sophistication of the human mind.  The closest way to come to this form of knowledge, the way to come closest to be in line with Sechal Eloki is through intense study of Torah.  That is why the derash of  intense Torah study is derived through the parsha of parah.  For it is the parsha of parah that comes to fix the sin of man, to get tangled in the brain which reflects the desires of the body and lose the pure thought process of the nefesh.  The way to become closer to true knowledge through Torah study.  

As explained in the last post, the sin of Nadav and Abihu was not following the rules that Hashem set forth for avodah.  They wished to offer a sacrifice of their own accord.  This made sense to them but it was not in line with the Ultimate Daat. The tikkun for that is the parah. 

The Rambam at the end of the Laws of Mikvaot describes how one who descends into a mikvah should view himself as being enveloped into the מי הדעת.  When one goes into a mikvah the intent is to purify the mind to be able to come closer to the pre sin knowledge.  In the avodah of the parah the מים חיים, the water untainted by sin which causes is death is sprinkled upon the individual to draw him closer to the proper daat.  It is a עתתערותא דלעילא to purify mankid from all of his חשבונות רבות which clutter the head.

Silence In Death

What is the connection between the death of the Nadav and Avihu and the parsha of the forbidden animals?  The parsha of the avodat yom kippurim follows after it mentions the death of Nadav and Avihu. What is the connection between the death of Nadav and Avihu and the avodah of Yom Kippur?  Why was Aharon's acceptance of the death of his sons accepted through silence and not through the normal way of talking about the deceased? 

The midrash (11:6) says וַיַּרְא כָּל הָעָם וַיָּרֹנוּ וַיִּפְּלוּ עַל פְּנֵיהֶם, אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן, כָּל שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַסְּנֶה הָיָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְפַתֶּה אֶת משֶׁה שֶׁיֵּלֵךְ בִּשְׁלִיחוּתוֹ לְמִצְרַיִם, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (שמות ד, י): גַּם מִתְּמוֹל גַּם מִשִּׁלְשֹׁם גַּם מֵאָז דַּבֶּרְךָ אֶל עַבְדֶּךָ, הֲרֵי שִׁשָּׁה, וּבַשְּׁבִיעִי אָמַר לוֹ (שמות ד, יג): שְׁלַח נָא בְּיַד תִּשְׁלָח, אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, משֶׁה, אַתְּ אוֹמֵר שְׁלַח נָא בְּיַד תִּשְׁלָח, חַיֶּיךָ שֶׁאֲנִי צוֹרְרָה לְךָ בִּכְנָפֶיךָ, אֵימָתַי פָּרַע לוֹ, רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי וְרַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ, רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמַר כָּל שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי אֲדָר הָיָה משֶׁה מְבַקֵּשׁ תְּפִלָּה וְתַחֲנוּנִים שֶׁיִּכָּנֵס לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּבַשְּׁבִיעִי אָמַר לוֹ (דברים ג, כז): כִּי לֹא תַעֲבֹר אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן הַזֶּה. רַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ אָמַר כָּל שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּלּוּאִים הָיָה מְשַׁמֵּשׁ בִּכְהֻנָּה גְדוֹלָה וְכַסָּבוּר שֶׁלּוֹ הִיא, בַּשְּׁבִיעִי אָמַר לוֹ, לֹא שֶׁלְךָ הִיא אֶלָּא שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ הִיא, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי.  What is the connection between Moshe's refusal to take the job of being the leader and redeemer of Klal Yisroel and his loss of the kehunah gedolah and the inability to enter Eretz Yisroel? 

Moshe Rabbenu refused to take up the shlichut that Hashem sent him upon because he was כבד פה וכבד לשון.  The Maharal (Gevurot Ch. 28) explains that since Moshe was total ruchni he could not fit into the worldly bounds that words place upon ideas.  This is why Moshe Rabbenu was the fitting leader for the generation of the midbar, the generation that lived in a miraculous manner.  The mishkan was a place where heaven met earth.  It was a combination of where the finest, beautiful items were used to serve G-d.  Entering Eretz Yisroel provided this challenge for everyone.  People had to ted to earthly matters that are to be used for holy endeavors.  Moshe Rabbenu was not the man for this mission and the kehuna gedolah was given to Aharon and the entery to Eretz Yisroel was led by Yehoshua.  

Nadav and Avihu inherited from their father the ability to bring kedusha to the gashmi as well but they went as step further.  ויחזו את האלקים ויאכלו וישתו. They did not see this as a chutzpah because to them the gashmi was just as holy as the ruchni.  Their אש זרה was trying to emulate the avodah of the שיער לעזעזל that we offer on Yom Kippur.  The sair also counts as an offering to G-d.  Even our sins, that which is not desired becomes part of an offering to G-d.  Nadav and Avihu tried to accomplish the same thing with their offering thas was חוץ לתחום, not in the normal prescribed order.  In theory their practice may not be wrong but the time for such an ability that even an אש זרה can be part of the avodat Hashem has not been reached yet.  That is why Aharon's נחמה was not expressed in words for since the reason for their death involved incorporating the gashmi into the ruchni the nechama had to go the opposite direction and could not be limited to words.  Therefore, following their deaths the Torah gives boundaries to what foods one can eat for we are bound by rules of kedusha and that which can not be  incorporated.  (Based upon articles here and here.)

Alive Or Dead

Rambam Maacalos Assuros (2:21) says אֲבָל הָאוֹכֵל בְּרִיָּה טְמֵאָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ כֻּלָּהּ הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה פְּחוּתָה מִן הַחַרְדָּל. בֵּין שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ מֵתָה בֵּין שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ חַיָּה.  This is the rule of בריה, if an entire creature is eaten one is obligated even for less than a כזית,  In Ch. 4 law 3 he says הָאוֹכֵל עוֹף טָהוֹר חַי כָּל שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל נְבֵלָה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כְּזַיִת הוֹאִיל וַאֲכָלוֹ כֻּלּוֹ. וְאִם אֲכָלוֹ אַחַר שֶׁמֵּת עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בּוֹ כְּזַיִת.  Here he defines a "creature" only as a live being whereas before even a dead creature was defined as a "creature" to make one obligated.  What's the difference?  The Briskor Rav (Nazir 51b) says that these are two different dinim.  When dealing with a בְּרִיָּה טְמֵאָה, then any creature fits into the possuk that prohibits it from being eaten, whether alive or dead.  However, in Ch. 4 the obligation is for נבלה (a situation of נבלה מחיים, see Rav Chayim there,) then the law of בריה says that it equals a כזית because of its חשיבות and that is only if the creature is still alive.  Comes out according to the Rav that when dealing with a בְּרִיָּה טְמֵאָה, its not that the שיעור is a כזית, rather the שיעור is the בריה but if one doesn't consume a בריה then they are obligated for a כזית.

From Pesach To Shemini

We jump right from Pesach into Shemini; what's the connection?  The main two themes of the parsha are the inauguration of the mishkan and the laws of kosher animals; how are these events connected?

The Maharal Gevurot Hashem Ch. 66 says that if yitzias mitzraim invoked great miracles then the purpose of yitzrias mitzraim must be for a great purpose.  What is that purpose? That Hashem should be able to connect and dwell in this lowly world.  Originally the world was created with that connection, but then through the sins of man it was broken and had to be reestablished.  The events following yitzias mitzraim; mattan torah and the building of the mishkan are the beginning of reestablishing that connection.  These were tremendous events where Hashem connected and interacted with mere mortal humans.  The high point of this is Shemini, as the Tzror Hamor says ולכן כמו שבבריאת העולם עיקר שכינה בתחתונים היתה. כן אמר בכאן כי היום השם נראה אליכם כמו שהיה בראשונה.  

The possuk Shemini (9:6) says וַיֹּ֣אמֶר משֶׁ֔ה זֶ֧ה הַדָּבָ֛ר אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּ֥ה יְהֹוָ֖ה תַּֽעֲשׂ֑וּ וְיֵרָ֥א אֲלֵיכֶ֖ם כְּב֥וֹד יְהֹוָֽה.  The question is that it doesn't say anything to do, so what is the זה הדבר?  The meforshim say various interpretations but the basic gist is based upon the Toras Kohanim: ויאמר משה זה הדבר אשר צוה ה' תעשו" -- אמר להם משה לישראל אותו יצר הרע העבירו מלבכם ותהיו כולכם ביראה אחת ובעצה אחת לשרת לפני המקום. כשם שהוא יחידי בעולם כך תהא עבודתכם מיוחדת לפניו. שנאמר (דברים י, טז-יז) "ומלתם את ערלך לבבכם" -- מפני מה? -- "כי ה' אלהיכם הוא אלהי האלהים ואדוני האדונים". עשיתם כן -- "וירא אליכם כבוד השם".  The זה הדבר is to remove the יצר הרע.  (The unity the midrash speaks about would seem to be alluded to since the possuk talks in a singular tone.)  How is this alluded to in the words זה הדבר?  Explains the Sfas Emes (first one on Shemini,) that in everything there is a פנימיות to be used for the Divine plan but it is hidden and it is up to us to take it out.  הדבר is the created matter, זה is the ability to see that נקודה (as Chazal say by the prophesy of Moshe it says זה for he saw things with a clarity, that is the ability to see the נקודה.)  The ultimate recognition of this is in the Mishkan where everything is elevated directly to Hashem.  Hence through being able to remove the יצר הרע, too see the זה inside the דבר, then 'וְיֵרָ֥א אֲלֵיכֶ֖ם כְּב֥וֹד ה.  (See Sifsay Chayim.) 

The midrash (13:3) says  דָּבָר אַחֵר, זֹאת הַבְּהֵמָה, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (משלי ל, ה): כָּל אִמְרַת אֱלוֹק צְרוּפָה, רַב אָמַר לֹא נִתְּנוּ הַמִּצְווֹת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֶלָּא לְצָרֵף בָּהֶן אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת, וְכָל כָּךְ לָמָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ל, ה): מָגֵן הוּא לְכָל הַחֹסִים בּוֹ.  The Sfas Emes explains that all of creation (אמרות ה are the 10 מאמרות that all creation emanated from,) become purified through our eating properly, elevating that which is permitted and by refraining from that which is forbidden.  That is why this parsha follows right after the mishkan.  For ושכנתי בתוכם, our innards are a reflection of the mishkan and must elevate that which enters.  [The Sfas Emes adds in תרמא and מח that in the future and pre- agel there were/will be no forbidden animals for everything will be refined completly,]  The Pesach to Shavout bridge, the counting of the Omer is the time that we work on זה הדבר, on refining ourselves (מצרף,) to be able to connect to Hashem.

Large Vessels

This is an incomplete idea, but as a certain R.Y. likes to say, “it’s a starting point.” Thanks to a friend of mine for giving me some of the m.m.’s on this topic.  The Mishna in Kelim (15:1) says הַשִּׁדָּה, וְהַתֵּבָה, וְהַמִּגְדָּל, כַּוֶּרֶת הַקַּשׁ, וְכַוֶּרֶת הַקָּנִים, וּבוֹר סְפִינָה אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִית, שֶׁיֶּשׁ לָהֶם שׁוּלַיִם, וְהֵן מַחֲזִיקִין אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה בְלַח, שֶׁהֵם כּוֹרַיִם בְּיָבֵשׁ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ טְהוֹרִין.  The reason, explained in the Gemorah in many places, including Bechorot (38a,) cited in Bartenura here is דומיא דשק בעינן מה שק מיטלטל מלא וריקן אף כל מיטלטל מלא וריקן.  There is a hekesh from wooden vessels being susceptible to tumah to sack (Shemini 11:32,) so it has to be similar in that it can be moved even if its full as opposed to these large vessels that cannot.  Rashi in Eruvin (14b) and Menachot (31a) explains the din שמחזיקים מ' סאה בלח שהן כוריים ביבש יצאו מתורת כלי ואין מקבלין טומאה.  It’s not just a גזירת הכתוב that since its not similar to sack, these vessels don’t receive tumah, but the logic is that they lose their name of being a כלי. 

This understanding may be supported from the fact that we find regarding other dinim such large vessels aren’t considered כלים.  The Tosefta Yadayim (1:6) states that one may not use such a vessel for נטילת ידים and the Chasdei Dovid gives the explanation since its not considered a כלי.  The Gemorah in Shabbos (35a) brings this Mishna to prove that large vessels can’t be moved on the Shabbos because they are no longer in the category of כלים.  Similarly, in Ohalos (9:12) we find that this type of a vessel acts as a אהל to block tumah.  This idea of viewing these vessels as a אהל and not as a vessel is also reflected in Eruvin (35a. [see Rashi and Ritva there].) 

This idea is used by the Pnei Yehoshua Shabbos ((83b-84a) and the Mishna Achrona Kelim (24:1) use this idea to explain the opinion of the Rambam that there isn’t even any טומאת מדרס on these vessels.  Tosfos Shabbos (84a) holds there is for it can still be used to sit upon.  They point out that it sounds like the Rambam disagrees and explain because it’s not considered a vessel and is hence not subject to טומאת מדרס. 

However, we do find two places that seem to contradict this assertion.  The Mishna in Parah (5: 5) says one may use a boat to sanctify the waters of the פרה אדומה even though they require a vessel to sanctify them (see Tos. Yom Tov for possible different interpretation of the Mishna.)  We see from this Mishna even large vessels constitute as vessels.  This runs contrary to the understanding that they aren’t considered vessels? [One may easily escape this difficulty because there is an opinion in Tractate Shabbos (ibid) that a boat isn’t susceptible to tumah because of a special possuk and the Tannah may be following that opinion.]  However, what must be understood that regarding other vessels besides wood, where there is no hekesh, even large vessels are tamah as we see the Gemorah in Shabbos says regarding earthenware vessels.  According to the above approach they should be tahor for they aren’t vessels? 

Its also noteworthy that Tosfos in Pesachim (109b) brings that the Yerushalmi asks how could the yam Shlomo made be valid as a mikvah it should make the water מים שאובין and invalidate the waters?  Tosfos proves from here that even large vessels are considered a כלי and will make the water שאובין.  [Tosfos may hold that large vessels are considered כלים, see Tosfos in Menachos, Shabbos 35a.]  However, will Rashi agree to this din?  [See שיעורי ר' יחיאל מיכל in all the places and משנה טהרות.]

More On Hechsher

Follow up on this post from last week.

The Gemorah in many places brings the law of Devai Rebbe Yishmoel that something that will obtain a greater state of tumah later on doesn’t require hechsher to become tamei.  Based upon this he rules that a bird which is a nivelah since it will cause a person to be tamei to even be מטמא garments when it is eaten, it doesn’t require hechsher to have tumas ochlin.  He bases it upon the source for hechsher of a food which is said in regard to a seed which will not obtain a greater status of tumah later on but something that will doesn’t require hechsher.  It is a debate in the Rishonim what it means that it doesn’t require hechsher.  Rashi in Chullin 121a holds that it is susceptible to tumah even if it didn’t become huchshar through a liquid.  The Raavad (Avos Hatumah 3:3) understands that it means that it doesn’t require something tameh to touch it, it will become tameh automatically, but it does require hechsher for it to be tameh.  [His opinion is very difficult for it seems to be contradicted by the Gemorah in Niddah 51a as Rebbe Akiva Eger (Teshuvot volume 2 #99 points out.)  Furthermore, the whole source of the law is derived from the possuk written in regard to hechher so how could it be telling me a law regarding tumah but not regarding hechsher?  Because of these problems the Chazon Eish changes the text of the Raavad.]  Either way, the Rashash in Zevachim 105a explains the reason of the Raavad is because without hechsher its not called a food and therefore can’t be metameh without hechsher.  Based upon the Chinuch and Rashi on Chumash that that is the reason for the need of hechsher to ready a food to be tamah, why would the Raavad not be right?

The Rambam (Tumas Oclin 2:14) rules that a food that wouldn’t be eaten by humans will not be susceptible to tumas oclin. However, if the food already become tameh then it remains tameh until it becomes unfit even for the consumption of a dog.  What is the difference it became tameh already, at whatever stage it’s no longer considered a food it shouldn’t be susceptible to tumah or remain tameh?  The Achronim (Steipler Taharos, Achiezer volume 2 #11) explain that the Rambam holds it only loses the status of a food if it no longer fit for consumption by a dog and that’s why the tumah only falls off at that stage.  In order to be susceptible to tumah there is another category, its not enough to be considered a food, it must be עומד לאכילה, it must be desired by a human to eat it.  Once it becomes a food that a person wouldn’t consume it is no longer עומד לאכילת אדם.  The source for this is the Mishna in Taharos Ch. 5 that the food must be מיוחד לאדם ands its based upon the Toras Kohanim Shemini 11:34 מכל האוכל אשר יאכל פרט לאוכל סרוח, the derasha teaches us that to be tamah the food must be desired for human consumption.  

Based upon this principle that it needs to be עומד לאכילה, we can revisit the Chinuch.  He doesn’t mean that without hechsher it’s not considered a food at all, he means that it’s not עומד לאכילה.  Without hechsher it is a food fit for consumption, but it won’t become tamah because its not desirable to eat.  This whole law that the food must be desired by a person to become tamah is only when it is becoming tamh via something else like the context of the derasha of the Toras Kohanim.  However, something that will obtain a greater level of tumah will obtain a status of tumah in its own right even without outside help, hence as long as it is considered a food it will become tamah (Asher L’Shlome Taharos # 77.) 

What Makes A Food

The Chinuch in mitzvah #160 explains the reason for the need for hechsher for foods to be suspectable to accept tumah because the food is only considered complete after liquid has been applied to it.  It is clear that he holds the hechsher gives the good the shem food.  This is the opinion of Rashi as well who says that it’s not called a food until water has fallen upon it.  This would seem to be supported by thew Gemorah in Chullin 118a that says fruits that haven’t had water put on them are like incomplete vessels.  Another support is from the Gemorah in Kiddushin 59 that compares the water on the fruits to the competion of vessels.  The Toras Kohanim has a ריבוי  to include that besides tumah from a שרץ, a food that has been huchshar can also be susceptible to tumah it is  in the airspace of an earthenware vessel.  Why do we need a ריבוי  if the point of hechsher is that it is considered a food, what difference does it make what the form of tumah is?  It would seem from here that it is a din in the tumah, the Torah gives a law in tumah that it takes effect only after the food has become wet.  This fits with the reason of the Ramban that tamei things will stick to a wet food (Bad Kodesh volume 4 #60 and on the possuk.)

The Rambam Tumas Ochlin (12:1) holds that the fruits become huchshar latumah only if the water fell on them and the owner wanted it to get wet.  The Kesef Mishne cites the Rashba holds it helps if the one that put the water on the fruits wanted it.  However, the Rambam holds that doesn’t suffice.  The Kesef Mishne explains that someone else can’t cause tumah to what isn’t there’s.  Rav Shmuel Rozovski (Shiurai Bavva Metzia siman 19) adds explanation based upon the previous sources that the point of hechsher is to complete the shem food.  If so, only the owner can complete the shem food just like only the owner can make his utensil complete to be susceptible to tumah.
See more about this here.

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.   

Entering The Temple Drunk

Tosfos Kerisus 12b says the prohibition of a kohan after drinking only applies if he served avodah but to merely enter the mikdash there is no prohibition.  This is the opinion of the Ramban (on the possuk 8:9 and in his attacks on sefer hamitzvot lavin #73.)  (One should note that there is a rabbinic prohibition merely to enter the Mikdash.) The Rambam (ibid) and in Beas Mikdash 1:15 holds that there is a prohibition even to merely enter after drinking.  The Rambam holds the entering to the עזרה alone is prohibited for a kohan that grew his hair long or had his clothes ripped as well. In Sefer Hamitzvot #73, #163 and #164 the issurim of a kohan drinking wine and serving, growing long hair and ripping their clothes, he says the prohibition is to enter the Mikdash that way.  However, the prohibitions for a zar to serve or a kohan when he is tamah #74-76 he says the prohibition is to serve in the Mikdash. 

The Achronim (Bad Kodash, Mases Moshe Pesachim) point out that we see that the Rambam holds that even though the חיוב מיתה is only for serving in the Mikdash, it is entering the Mikdash with a תנאי  of doing avodah that causes the מיתה, not the avodah itself.  

The debate between the Rambam and Ramban is if what it says in the Mishnaos in kelim about the numerous maalos that exist in parts of the har habais if it’s a Torah law or a rabbinic law (see Yoma 44b.)

Rav Hirsch On Shemini

Few points from the Rabbiner.
1. The commandment of the kosher and non-kosher animals is communicated to Klal Yisroel via Moshe and Aharon.  Why is Aharon involved in communicating this commandment more than most others?  Rav Hirsch explains that this commandment is beginning of the next stage of the formation of Klal Yisroel.  After the building of the mikdash, we are instructed that the point isn’t a physical construction, it is to bring kedusha into the individual.  Moshe is the one charged with transmitting the law to the people and Aharon is the one entrusted with task of being the educator, the one to teach how to carry out the laws.  It is specifically this additional layer of the nation that requires the direction of Aharon to make sure it takes root carefully.

2. Rav Hirsch views the laws of tumah to be physiological.  At the end of his commentary on this week’s parsha, he goes through a detailed explanation about how the rules of tumah reflect a person’s feelings when encountered with something that is tamai.  Of course, this is not like the kabbalists that view tumah as an actual status that affects the object.  This would seem to be supported by the Gemorah in Menachos 24 that discusses if we say שבעא לה טומאה and a tamah object doesn’t accept further tumah.  If tumah is merely psychological why should it not become tameh a second time?

Siman Or Sibah

There is a chakirah if the simonim of a non-kosher animal are as the word simonim-sign applies, an indicator that the animal is tamah or the signs actually cause the tumah (see Likutay Sichos volume 1 in name of the Rogatchover.)   The Gemorah in Chullin 42b says that Moshe was shown all the of the animals and told if they were muttur or assur.  Why was this necessary?  The Maharal explains because the simonim just indicate the tumah, Moshe was revealed the cause of the tumah as well. He assumes the simonim are merely indicators, not causes.  

On the other hand, the Gemorah in Niddah 51b says that the Torah wrote fins and scales, even though all that have scales have fins, “lehagdil Torah veyadir.”  The Ritvah understands this to mean that the Torah was identifying the causes of the tumah which are the simonim.  In other words, the Ritvah understands that the simanim are a aebah, the cause of the tumah.  The midrash and Ramban ask if the Torah tells us animals with one siman are tamah, for sure animals without any simanim are tameh, why did the Torah did to say they are tameh?  If simanim are merely an indicator then there is no kal v'chomer because more indicators doesn't actually affect the din.  Since they assume it is a kal v'chomer it would seem that they hold as well that the simanim are indeed a sebah, the cause of the tumah.  However, possibly the answer of the Ramban is to be understood to be making this point that the simanim are merely simanim (see it inside.)

The Rambam counts a mitzvah to know the simanim of grasshoppers, birds, fish and animals as separate positive commandments (#149-152.)  (The Kesef Mishne (beginning of Maacalos Asuros,) Bach beginning of siman 79 and others debate if it’s a commandment just to know the simanim or its just if one wants to eat then they must verify that its kosher.)  If the mitzvah is merely to know the simanim of the animals, why is there a separate mitzvah for each animal, it should be just one mitzvah to check simanim?  It would seem from here that the Rambam holds that the simanim are a sibah, it causes the issur and therefore one must identify each cause.  This would be strengthened by the Rambam Maacalos Assuris 2:1 which cites the same derasha as Rashi does on 11:8 that if there is a lav to eat the animals that have one siman it is a kal v’chomer that animals without any simanim are prohibited by a lav.  If they are merely simanim then there is no kal v’chomer for an animal with one siman isn’t closer to being permitted more than one without any simanim.  We see from here again that he holds the simanim are causing the tumah and it is a valid kal v’chomer for the animal with one siman has part of the cause of taharah and still is prohibited, for sure that which has no cause of taharah is prohibited.

Non-Priestly Blessing

Rashi explains (9:22) that the beracha Aharon said was birchat kohanim.  The Ramban asks that it doesn’t sat the commandment of birchas kohanim until Parshas Nasso?  The Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 22) explains that Rashi doesn’t mean that Aharon was fulfilling the commandment of birchat kohanim rather it was the text that Aharon chose to say his beracha.  Aharon used this text as a means of expressing a request for forgiveness for the agel. 

Based upon that explanation it is not problematic what the achronim ask why did only Aharon do birchat kohanim and not his sons, they also have the mitzvah?  Based upon this, the mitzvah wasn’t given yet, this was just Aharon’s personal blessing.

Dunking Hands

The Toras Kohanim derives that a mikvah causes taharah only if it has 40 seah but a natural spring, a מעין  doesn’t require 40 seah and it causes taharah even with a כל שהוא.  However that halacha of a מעין  isn’t applicable for a human being because the whole body has to be covered.  the Gemorah (Chagigah 11a) says that 40 seah is required for a mikvah because that is the amount of water necessary to completely cover a person’s body.  That is measuring with the average person and therefore by a mayen we may measure with the specific person dunking.  However, the Rosh and R”i hold even in regard to a mayen 40 seah are required (see Tur Yoreh Deah beginning of siman 201 cites all the opinions.) 

Rav Shimon Shkop (Sharei Yosher 3:19) says that the 40 seah requirement for a mikvah isn’t an amount of water necessary o be contained in the mikveh to cause taharah, it’s necessary for the shem mikvah as opposed to the 40 seah requirement for a mayen is just an amount of water needed to cover the person dunking. 

The Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 159:14 brings two opinions if for netilas yadayim one needs to dunk his hands in a mikvah of 40 seah or its enough if it has enough water to cover his hands.  However, by a mayan everyone agrees 40 seah isn’t required.  If 40 sea is only necessary because that’s the amount of water needed to cover a person’s body, when it comes to washing only one’s hands, 40 seah shouldn’t be required.  So why is there an opinion that 40 seah is required?  Furthermore, what’s the difference between the mayan and mikvah? 

It would seem they hold that 40 sea is required for the shem mikvah and therefore require 40 seah even for cleaning just one’s hands.  However, in a mayan there is a chalos of causing taharah even with less than 40 seah.  The 40 seah requirement is just to cover the person's body but for hands 40 seah wouldn't be required as Rav Shimon explained (Yalkut Yosef.)  However, this explanation is difficult for it assumes that there is an opinion that there can’t be a mikvah with less than 40 seah but we see that to dunk utensils that are small it is enough with a רביעית (see Pesachim 17b and Rashi there;) seemingly one can have a mikvah with less than 40 seah?  However, the Gemorah comes out (Nazir 38b) that the Rabbis always required 40 seah for a mikvah so it can be that same enactment applies to washing hands.  If so, why is there an opinion that 40 seah isn’t requires for washing hands, what happened to the Rabbinic decree?

Tumah Of The Heart

The Gemorah (Yoma 39a) has a derasha on the possuk (11:43) venetmasem bam—you shall become tamah because of them, that it should be read as venetamtem-it shall block up.  Things which are forbidden to eat will block a person’s heart and separate him from Hashem.  Why is it that forbidden foods contaminate the heart of a person?  The Gemorah could be understood in two ways, either it’s the issur of the Torah that causes the contamination or possibly there is something in the physical makeup of the forbidden foods which causes the contamination.  The Maharal in Teferes Yisroel chapter 6 understands that it’s the issur which causes the contamination.  This would seem to be the opinion of the Raf in the Ain Yaakov who explains as well that the issur causes the contamination.  On the other hand, the Ramban explains the reason why certain foods aren’t allowed to be eaten is because these animals have cruel traits and these traits become part of a person when he eats those animals.  This approach is followed le’halacha by the Chosom Sofer in Responsa 83 that doesn’t allow even a shotah to eat forbidden foods for it will contaminate their heart.  The shotah is exempt from the issur, yet the Chosom Sofer assumes his/her heart will still be contaminated.  The Tanyah assumes this position as well in chapter 6.  The crux of the debate seems to be dependent on what the Maharal discusses in the previous chapter in Teferes Yisroel if the Torah forbade things because they are evil inherently or they become evil because the Torah forbids it.  The Maharal holds like the second way therefore, he explains that it’s the issur which causes the contamination.  However, the Ramban follows his own approach (quoted in Maharal,) that things that the Torah forbade are inherently evil.

7 = 8

The parsha starts by saying the preparation of Aharon and his sons was done on the eighth day.  The Kli Yakar is bothered why is it called the eighth day indicating it continues after a previous seven.  The first seven days were the days of preparing the Mishkan for the service in it and the eighth day was to prepare the Kohanim, a seemingly separate idea?  He explains that seven is the completion of tevah and the eighth day always represents that which is above tevah, kedusha.  The Shechinah coming to rest in the Mishkan was an above teva experience, hence the Torah says it happened on the eighth day because it was eight, kedusha that represented the event that was happening.  However, this explanation seems difficult, for the number eight indicates it is a continuation of seven, however according to the Kli Yakar eight is completely separate from seven? 

The Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 3) explains that only after the completion of our service of Hashem in its entirety, represented by seven do we become ready to accept eight.  It is only after man has completed his service to its nth degree that a person becomes ready to accept the kedusha of eight.  It was only because of the avodah done on the first seven days that the Shechinah can come to the Mikdash on the eighth day.   The Nesivos Shalom says that in Shabbos itself, besides being the completion of tevah, there is also an aspect of eight to it.  Through completing our avodah of seven, we are able to reach to the level of eight in Shabbos as well.

The same idea is found in sefiras ha’omer.  The Torah says תספרו יום  but we count only to 49.  We do our max effort which is to reach the 49 gates of wisdom.  Once we have completed our avodah to its fullest extent, then we are given the שער נ' as a free gift from Hashem.

How To Be a Cannibal

The Ramban (11:3) cites the Rambam that the words אותה תאכלו comes to exclude human flesh is prohibited because of an aseh.  The Ramban disagrees since the Gemorah (Ketubos 60b and Kiresos 21b) excludes blood and milk from any issur and the rule is what comes from something that’s tamah is tamah so it must be that the flesh of humans isn’t prohibited.  The Ramban echoes his words in Ketubos 60b.  The Ramban does mention that after death the dead person is assur be’hanah and therefore it will be prohibited.  The Rosh in Ketubos and the Rashba in responsa 364 maintain that human flesh is only rabbinically prohibited (the Meiri and Avnei Nazer Even Ha’ezer 332 indicate the Rambam will also agree to the rabbinic prohibition.)

 In response to the question of the Ramban, the Maggid Mishnah (Maacolos Assuros 2:3) says that according to the Ramban the possuk tells us that the blood and milk are muttar despite the fact that the flesh is assur.  As to why this is understood as an exemption to the rule and doesn’t disproof the rule, the Maggid explains that the rule of something coming from an issur is assur doesn’t apply to an issur aseh (see Shach 79:4 and Pri Migadim ad loc.)  Why should this be true, what’s the difference?  I would suggest that an issur aseh is merely an issur gavreh and doesn’t define the object as a davar tameh.  The Maggid in fact finds it difficult according to the other Rishonim why do you need a possuk to permit the blood and milk.  Rav Chaim on Shas explains the there are two issurim included in coming from something tamah.  1. It’s a siman that what comes from the davar tamah is also assur.  2. It creates a separate issur on what comes from the davar tamah.  The possuk excludes that it doesn’t become its own issur however the Rishinim are assuming that it still should be assur because it came from something tamah.  He explains the Rambam holds both are excluded (he explains it depends on 2 peshatim in Rashi Kiresos.)

The Re’ah is of the opinion that there is an issur lav on human flesh.  He holds that blood should have been included in the issur of basar, however the verse permits it (see Rivash response 373 and the Kehilas Yaakov Zevachim siman 20 for a discussion if blood is considered flesh, the Re’ah holds it is.)      

The Ritvah in Ketubos says that anyway human flesh would be prohibited to eat because of aver min hachai.  The Rashbash responsa 518 maintains this way as well.  The Ran and Rashba (ibid) refute that if it was permitted there would be no obligation of shechitah and hence no aver min hachai (see siman 13 in Bais Yosef and Remah no aver min hachai on fish that don’t require shechitah.)  See also Or Sameach Maacolos Assuros (2:3.)  They seem to be debating if it doesn’t say the din of shechitah do we assume it exists automatically or not.