Renewal In Light Of The Past

The parsha opens זאת תורת העולה but it talks about the terumas hadeshen not the avodah of the olah itself? 

The Or HaChayim says על דרך רמז this parsha alludes to the survival of Klal Yisrael through the golus.  כל הלילה עד הבקר refers to the dark days of the golus.  זאת תורת העולה, what is the way to rise above the challenges, what is the way to keep on going up?  The terumas hadeshen.  The terumas hadeshen is the culminating avodah of the day.  Rav Hirsch explains the terumas hadeshen represents the culmination of a previous day's work, a completed era, gives birth to a new day of avodah ,a fresh start.  ושמו אצל המזבח, that fresh start doesn't ignore the past but builds off the past.  It looks to the past to inspire a better future. 

Why do we read Parah only before Pesach if every holiday has an obligation of korbanot that one should be tahor to offer?  The parsha of Parah is not just a message of purifying one's self from tumah that disqualifies one from offering the korban, it is a message to purify and cleanse from sins.  That is why the haftorah contains the message of purity from sins, וזרקתי עליכם מעם טהורים.  The burning of the parah represents burning the past, leaving behind the old ways and receiving the purifying waters to start afresh.  That is why it is specifically before Pesach, the spring time, time of renewal when things come out of their hibernation that this message of parah is given.    

The Rambam Parah (3:4) says  וְכֵן הָיוּ מַצְנִיעִין מֵאֵפֶר כָּל פָּרָה וּפָרָה שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין בַּחֵיל. וְתֵשַׁע פָּרוֹת אֲדֻמּוֹת נַעֲשׂוּ מִשֶּׁנִּצְטַוּוּ בְּמִצְוָה זוֹ עַד שֶׁחָרַב הַבַּיִת בַּשְּׁנִיָּה. רִאשׁוֹנָה עָשָׂה משֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ. שְׁנִיָּה עָשָׂה עֶזְרָא. וְשֶׁבַע מֵעֶזְרָא עַד חֻרְבַּן הַבַּיִת. וְהָעֲשִׂירִית יַעֲשֶׂה הַמֶּלֶךְ הַמָּשִׁיחַ מְהֵרָה יִגָּלֶה אָמֵן כֵּן יְהִי רָצוֹן.  With every parah there is a new beginning but it builds upon the past.  When one goes through the taharah of the parah, the ashes are not thrown away but are kept as building blocks for the future.

Todah

There is a discussion in the Achronim if there is an obligation on the 4 people that have been saved to bring a korban todah or if it is a nedavah.  Rashi on Chumash, Menachot (79b) and Tosfos Rid Rosh Hashana (5b)5 seem to hold that it is a chiuv.  However, the Shittah in Menachot disagrees with Rashi as does the Tur on Chumash.  There are a lot of other mekorot, see some of the discussion on the otzar forum.  

The Panim Yafos says the reason the Torah did not mention the chometz loaves of the todah in parshat Vayikra as an exception to the rule of normally not allowing chametz in the Mishkan is because the todah is not an obligation.  The Chatam Sofer says the todah is recorded in Tzav and not Vayikra because Tzav is the commandments to the kohanim, the tzaddikim, and they bring a todah even when there is no obligation because of the נסיך שבכל יום and hence the Torah says אם על תודה, a reshus, for we are talking about the voluntary todah. 

R.A.E. siman 119 cites the sefer Orim Gedolim has a safek if one person is saying hagomel for one version of being saved can he be motzei someone else who has to say it for a different reason, ואם המברך חייב ומברך הברכה על שהיה חולה ונתרפא וזה שומע חייב בברכה על שהיה הולך מדבר מסתפק בס' אורים גדולים בדרשותיו פ' צו די"ל דיוצא בלא עניית אמן או דאף בעניית אמן אינו יוצא עיי"ש.  The question seems to be if there is a general name of korban todah for all those that need ot bring a todah or the reason for the bringing becomes part of the name of the korban. Rav Yitzchak Sorotskin cites at least a הו"א to this idea that the reason for the obliation becomes part of the name of the korban from Rashi Zevachim (7a) that explains the chiddush the Gemarah says that if one shects a todah for the sake of another todah that one is obligated that it is valid for אע"פ שלא באו על הודייה אחת דארבעה צריכין להודות כדאמרינן בברכות (דף נד:) וכתיב בהו (תהילים ק״ז:כ״ב) ויזבחו זבחי תודה ושחט תודה בשעת עלייתו מן הים לשם תודה שהפריש על יציאתו מבית האסורין.

North And Hidden

The possuk in Vaykra about the korban olah says (1:11) וְשָׁחַ֨ט אֹת֜וֹ עַ֣ל יֶ֧רֶךְ הַמִּזְבֵּ֛חַ צָפֹ֖נָה לִפְנֵ֣י י״י֑.  In our parsha, Tzav, in in Ch. 6 it says that one should slaughter the חטאת where the olah is slaughtered.  Again in Ch. 7 it says that the אשם should be slaughtered in the place of the olah. Why is it only regarding the olah that the Torah spells out explicitly that it should be slaughtered in the north side?  Furthermore, the first parsha of the korban olah is the cattle offering and there it doesn't mention that it should be slaughtered on the north side, only in the second parsha, that of the sheep or goat family, why?

The midrash (2:11) says וְשָׁחַט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר וגו' וּבָאַיִל הוּא אוֹמֵר (ויקרא א, יא): צָפֹנָה לִפְנֵי ה', אָמְרוּ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעָקַד אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ אֶת יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ הִתְקִין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שְׁנֵי כְבָשִׂים, אֶחָד שֶׁל שַׁחֲרִית וְאֶחָד שֶׁל עַרְבִית, וְכָל כָּךְ לָמָּה, שֶׁבְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מַקְרִיבִין תָּמִיד עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְקוֹרִין אֶת הַמִּקְרָא הַזֶּה צָפֹנָה לִפְנֵי ה', זוֹכֵר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עֲקֵדַת יִצְחָק, מְעִידַנִי עָלַי אֶת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת הָאָרֶץ, בֵּין גּוֹי בֵּין יִשְׂרָאֵל בֵּין אִישׁ בֵּין אִשָּׁה בֵּין עֶבֶד בֵּין אָמָה, קוֹרִין אֶת הַמִּקְרָא הַזֶּה, צָפֹנָה לִפְנֵי ה', זוֹכֵר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עֲקֵדַת יִצְחָק, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: צָפֹנָה לִפְנֵי ה'. The slaughtering on the northern side is a reminder to the akedah.  Hence, the din is spelled out explicitly in the context of the olah which parallels the akedah.  That is why it is mentioned in the sheep family offering for it was an איל offered in place of Yitzchak (Meshech Chachma.)

What is the connection between the akedah and the shechita בצפון?  The Rokeach connects it to the terminology Chazal use when referencing the merit of the akedah, אפרו של יצחק צפון שם.  That is he related the word צפון, north to the word צפון, hidden.  This play on words can be found in the above midrash in the part that follows, דָּבָר אַחֵר, צָפֹנָה לִפְנֵי ה', כְּנֶגֶד מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב שֶׁהֵם צְפוּנִים לְפָנָיו.  The Rokeach continues that this merit of Yitzchak counterbalances the מצפון תפתח הרעה that Yeshiayah prophesied about.  It is a nice play on words, but how does the merit of the akedah counteract the evil and how is this connected to the korbanot in the north?

The Bechai Vayikra (1:11) explains that the north side represents the middah of gevurah.  מצפון תפתח הרעה because that is where gevurot emanate from.  As we know, Yitzchak perfected the middah of gevurot for holiness.  Hence, the antidote, to counteract the gevurot expressed in a harsh manner of תפתח הרעה, is the akedah of Yitchak, which is the ultimate use of gevurah, to overcome one's innate desire to live because of the command of Hashem.  It isn't coincidence that there are two meanings to the word צפון. It is the middah of gevurah to be able to bring out the hidden powers of an individual.  To bring out the potential from within; not to hand out a free gift of external help is an expression of gevurah.  [That is why the Torah stresses that Yizchak dug wells, as discussed here.]  This is the meaning of why korbanot must be shechted בצפון.  When one brings a korban it isn't just a process of slaughtering an animal, it obligated introspection and for a person to dig into the depths of his soul.  The direction is reflective of the psychological, spiritual process that the person is experiencing. 

The aforementioned midrash says that when we recite the possuk of slaughtering the olah in the north, Hashem remembers the merit of the akedah.  Based upon this we add this possuk to the parsha of the tammid in korbanot (see Beis Yosef siman 1.)  Tefillot are in place of korbanot, just as the korban awaked such feelings of introspection, so too our prayers should put our focus on what is צפון בלב.

Well, I figure I might as well be seasonal here.  One of the simmanim of the Seder is צפון.  It is of course the time to hide the matzah but it time to open up the soul.  The matzah is hidden and then taken out at the end of the Seder.  As the Baal Shem Tov said (recorded in Yom Yom 17 Eyar) סיפר הצמח צדק תורת הבעל שם טוב: כתוב "כי תהיו אתם ארץ חפץ אמר ה' צבאות". כמו שהחכמים הגדולים ביותר אף פעם לא ישיגו את גודל אוצרות הטבע, שטבע השם יתברך בארץ, ש"הכל היה מן העפר", כך לא יכול אף אחד להשיג את האוצרות הגדולים הנמצאים אצל יהודים, שהם חפצו של הקדוש ברוך הוא.  Every one has a treasure chest in their soul that just has to be dug up.  The Seder is a time when one can access that treasure chest.

Fresh Coffee And Pesach

The first Mishna in Zevachim says that all korbanot that are slaughtered שלא לשמו the korban is kosher except the חטאת ופסח.  One brings a chattas as a baal teshuva.  It is a new beginning.  Similarly, the pesach is offered as the nation was entering a whole new relationship with Hashem.  The lesson of the chattas and the pesach is that when one is at the beginning of a new stage, one must be in 100%. One can't start a new stage in life with any aspect of שלא לשמה.  

Rashi Ki Sesa (34:3) based upon the Tanchuma says about the second luchos ואיש לא יעלה עמך – הראשונות על ידי שהיו בתשואות וקולות וקהילה שלטה בהן עין רעה. אין לך יפה מן הצניעות.  If this is the case, why were the first luchos given with such fanfare?  Rav Biderman explains with a משל of making coffee.  When you make the coffee, its too hot to drink and you have to wait for it to cool down in order to drink it.  So why not just make at a cooler temperature in the first place?  Because then the beans won't get cooked properly by the water.  So too in order for the luchos, for the Torah to be cooked into the נשמות of Klal Yisroel there had to be much fanfare.  It is only the second time around that it could be given privately.  To enter into a kabbalas hatorah there must be a big bang, you must be fully into it and only then will that fire be fully settled into the soul. 

Rashi Kedoshim (20:26) brings the Chazal רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אומר מנין שלא יאמר אדם נפשי קצה בבשר חזיר, אי אפשי ללבוש כלאים, אבל יאמר אפשי, ומה אעשה ואבי שבשמים גזר עלי, תלמוד לומר ואבדיל אתכם מן העמים להיות לי, שתהא הבדלתכם מהם לשמי, פורש מן העבירה ומקבל עליו עול מלכות שמים.  The Maggid says that this applies to a person under regular circumstances.  However, one who has slipped up and is doing teshuva for an averah that s/he committed must say אי אפשי בבשר חזיר for the only way to do teshuva is to completely eradicate one's desire for the averah.  There can't be any link to one's previous mishaps  in order to move forward.  I believe this idea goes hand in hand with the previous one.  Any connection to the past undermines one's ability to turn over a new leaf 100%. 

Rav Hirsch sees this message in  that the removal of the דשן.  He says that this service in the Mikdash teaches us that when one has a new day, a fresh start, then one must completely throw out the past. In his words " תחילתו של כל יום חדש מזמינה אותנו לגשת לתפקידנו במסירות מלאה ורעננה, כאילו מעולם לא השגנו דבר קודם לכן. אסור שזיכרון הישגי האתמול יפגע בעשייתנו היום. מחשבות על מה שכבר הושג עלולות להחניק כל התעוררות להגיע להישגים חדשים. אוי למי שזחה דעתו מתוך סיפוק על הישגיו בעבר, שאינו מתחיל עבודת כל יום חדש כאילו היה היום הראשון של עבודת חייו! והוציא את הדשן – יש להסיר מן המזבח כל זכר לעבודת יום האתמול, כדי שעבודת היום החדש תוכל להתחיל על יסוד חדש לגמרי."

Many holy works point out that the word חודש comes from the word חדש.  Every month the moon renews itself and so too a person has a renewal (that is why there is Yom Kippur katan.)  The month of ניסן is ראשון of all the months.  All of the months power of חידוש stem from ניסן.  It is in ניסן and obviously the high point is Pesach that there is a power of renewal in the air.  It is up to a person to use the potential and put in 100% effort to change for the better; to throw away the שאור שבעיסה from the previous day and offer the pesach completely לשמה.  (One who does the proper avodah during Pesach and Omer is saved from the din of Rosh Hashana, ואכ"מ.)  The trees blossom in Nissan, do you?

Terumas Lachmei Todah

The Gemorah in Menachos (76b) has a doubt if a person eats the terumas lachmai todah  - the loaves of the todah that must be given to the kohan if there is an obligation of death/ reimbursement of an additional fifth  for eating them like by teruma or not.  The Gemorah is unsure if it has the status of terumas maser that is hukash too or it is excluded because of a miut. 

The Rambam (Maaseh Korbanot 9:13) seems to understand the question is a general one if the terumas lachmai todah has the status of teruma or not.  It should follow that according to the Rambam the same doubt of the Gemorah would apply to all the laws of teruma (see Briskor Rav.)

The Minchas Chinuch #284:8 understands that the Gemorah is asking a specific question because of the miut but it does have the status of teruma and therefore before separating the terumah loaves there is a prohibition of tevel to eat from the loaves.  This view is stated explicitly in the mefaresh in Nedarin 12b.  (It also seems to come out that way from the Rash there, עיי"ש.)

The Minchas Chinuch #283:25 points out the Gemorah doesn’t question if a kohanes that married a yisroel and her husband dies if she regains her right to eat terumas lachmai todah like terumah or not.  Why didn’t the Gemorah raise that inquiry?  He explains that the Gemorah understood that for sure she doesn’t regain her rights to eat them.  The Gemorah in Yevomas 87a says that the prohibition of Vakira 22:12 היא בתרומת הקדשים לא תאכל  applies to a kohanes that married out that she no longer regains her rights to eat the chazeh and shok from kodshim.  Says the Minchas Chinuch, the terumas lachmei todah are included in תרומת הקדשים and therefore she doesn’t get to eat them.  It comes out that there are two issurim prohibiting the eating of the terumas lachmei todah, one because of its status as terumah and other because it is תרומת הקדשים.  The last piece in the Brisker Rav on Zevachim cites Reb Chim brought a Yerushalmi Yevomos (very end of Ch. 9) that says like the Minchas Chinuch.  See more about this in Chidushai Hagra"m pg. 93-95. 

The Gemorah in Zevachim 36a says there is a prohibition to eat the loaves of the todah before the terumah was taken off.  According to the Minchas Chinuch it would be the issur tevel but according to the Rambam that there is at least a question if we view the terumas lachmei todah as terumah what would be the issur? According to the other Minchas Chinuch it would seem he would have to learn there is some independent issur of תרומת הקדשים לא תאכל.

Eating Kodshim

The Rambam positive commandment #68 and the Chinuch #134 count a mitzvah to eat the minachos based upon the verse 6:9 וְהַנּוֹתֶ֣רֶת מִמֶּ֔נָּה יֹֽאכְל֖וּ אַֽהֲרֹ֣ן וּבָנָ֑יו מַצּ֤וֹת תֵּֽאָכֵל֙ בְּמָק֣וֹם קָדֹ֔שׁ בַּֽחֲצַ֥ר אֹֽהֶל־מוֹעֵ֖ד יֹֽאכְלֽוּהָ.  The Rambam positive commandment #89 and Chinuch #102 count a mitzvah to eat korbanot based upon the verse in Tetzaveh וְאָֽכְל֤וּ אֹתָם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר כֻּפַּ֣ר בָּהֶ֔ם לְמַלֵּ֥א אֶת־יָדָ֖ם לְקַדֵּ֣שׁ אֹתָ֑ם וְזָ֥ר לֹֽא־יֹאכַ֖ל כִּי־קֹ֥דֶשׁ הֵֽם.  The Minchas Chinuch asks why do they count it as two separate mitzvot if it seems to be the same idea, to eat the parts of the offering that are permitted to people?  In fact, that indeed it is the opinion of the Rasag in mitzvah 122 (see Rav Perlow) that these two commandments are in in fact one mitzvah.  Reb Leeb Malin (volume 2 #43) explains that the mitzvah of eating korbanot is that the כפרה is only completed via the eating of the offering (as the verse says אֲשֶׁ֣ר כֻּפַּ֣ר בָּהֶ֔ם, see Pesachim 59.)  Therefore, menachos that are merely a voluntary offering the eating can’t be part of the atonement, rather it is a separate, independent commandment to eat the mincha.  Based upon this we can understand why the Ramban holds that the eating of korbanot isn’t a mitzvah for it is considered part of the procedure of the korban but agrees that the eating of a mincha is a mitzvah (see Minchas Chinuch that questions this.)  That is because the eating of a korban is part of the kappareh of the korban, it is part of the process of the korban, but the eating of the mincha is indeed an independent din.

The Torah says the mincha of a kohan must be burnt.  Why does is there a mitzvah to eat the mincha of everyone else but a commandment to burn the mincha of a kohan?  Rav Hirsch explains that the eating of the mincha is to represent that even the material side of a person’s existence of a person should be infused with holiness.  The Kohan’s mincha is completely burnt for he is supposed to be completely dedicated to Hashem, he isn’t supposed to have any life ventures separate from his service of God, hence his mincha is completely sacrificed to God.

Minchas Chavitin

A few points on the minchas chavitin.

1. The Kohan Gadol brings a minchas chavitin every day half is offered in the morning and half in the evening.  It was an עשירית האפה of flour baked into 12 loaves.  The Rambam and Raavad disagree if 12 loaves were made and then split into two, half offered in the morning and half in the evening (Rambam) or if 6 were offered in the morning and 6 in the evening (Raavad.)   The Gemorah in Menachos 51b has a derasha from ומחיצתה בערב that if the Kohan Gadol dies in the middle of the day that the new Kohan Gadol doesn’t bring in the evening the completion of the first one’s korban, rather he has to bring his own for the afternoon (and offers half of it, so half of his חביתין and half of the first one’s go to waste.)  The Mikdash Dovid asks why do we need a verse that the second one can’t offer the first one’s korban, one can’t use someone else’s korban for his obligation?  He proves from here that חביתין isn’t a personal obligation on the Kohan Gadol, its an obligation of the day that חביתין must be offered by the Kohan Gadol.

2. The Mishna brings a machlokes between Rebbe Shimon and Rebbe Yehuda if no one else was appointed that day who brings the second half of the korban, if it’s the heirs or the community.  The Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 22) explains the debate hinges on if we view the chavitin as a korban tzibbur because the Kohan Gadol prays for the tzibbur (see Chinuch’s reason for the mitzvah,) or we view it as the obligation of the Kohan Gadol.  [See Ritvah and Tosfos Rosh Yoma 50b.]

3. The Rambam Temiddim 3:18 says the chavitin were to be offered every day together with the tammid.  The Briskor Rav points out that we see from the Rambam that he’s not just telling us the timing of the offering (for by other things done after the tammid, he doesn’t mention there is a connection to the tammid,) rather the chavitin are part of the completion of the tammid.  He supports this from the Torat Kohanim that requires a derasha to prove that it can be offered even after the tammid.  Why do we need a derasha?  Because its part of the tammid I would’ve thought that it can’t be offered after the tammid.  See also Rashi Yoma (34a) ד"ה שום מנחה

Seder Of The Temmidim

The Ramban in mitzvas aseh that the Rambam forgot #11 includes a commandment to offer all sacrifices between the two temmidim offered every day which the Gemorah derives from our parsha, 6:5 וְהָאֵ֨שׁ עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֤חַ תּֽוּקַד־בּוֹ֙ לֹ֣א תִכְבֶּ֔ה וּבִעֵ֨ר עָלֶ֧יהָ הַכֹּהֵ֛ן עֵצִ֖ים בַּבֹּ֣קֶר בַּבֹּ֑קֶר וְעָרַ֤ךְ עָלֶ֨יהָ֙ הָֽעֹלָ֔ה וְהִקְטִ֥יר עָלֶ֖יהָ חֶלְבֵ֥י הַשְּׁלָמִֽים.  העולה tells us that the tammd in the morning is first and עליה השלמים tells us עליה השלם, the tammid of the afternoon must be last (see Pesachim 58b.)  It comes out to be an aseh derived from a lav to offer all korbanot between the temmidim.  

Rav Perlow in his magnum opus, his commentary on the Smag lav 264 says the Rambam doesn’t count it as a separate mitzvah because it is a detail in the mitzvah of the tamid and the Rambam in shoresh 12 explains that details of a law aren’t counted as separate mitzvot. 

We see that there is an argument between these Rishonim if the din is law in the tammid, it must be the start and end of the day or if it is a law in korbanot that they must be sandwiched between temmidim.   See Briskor Rav Menachos 49a if there is an issur of offering korbanot before/after the tammid if there is no tammid (see also Or Hachaim at the beginning of our parsha,) the issue should hinge on this point.  It is noteworthy that the Megillas Ester gives a different explanation for the omission of the Rambam and that is that he doesn’t count an issur aseh as a mitzvah.   

 

Tosfos in Pesachim equates the law that nothing can precede the tammid of the morning to the law of תדיר קודם.  According to Tosfos the two dinim of nothing before the morning tammid and nothing after the afternoon tammid are distinct.  The afternoon tammid limits the time that a korban can be offered but the morning tammid takes precedence before other korbanot, but it doesn’t come to limit the time one can offer a korban. However, the simple reading of the Ramban (ibid) is that they are the same law.  Tosfos in Yoma 29b and Menachos 49b that understands that the law of the tammid having to take precedence applies to disqualify a korban offered a night because it preceded the tammid of the morning.  At night there is no commandment yet to offer the tammid, yet Tosfos assumes there is a law that the tammid must be offered first, we see he holds its not just a law of precedence, it’s a law limiting the time frame of korbanot.  

There is a debate in the Rishonim if a korban offered before the morning tammid becomes disqualified (see Tosfos Pesachim, Tosfos Horious 4a, Ritvah Yoma 29a, Raavad Tammid 29a etc.)  One might think this should hinge upon the issue we started with.  If it’s a din in the tammid, then its not something wrong with the korban offered and it should still be valid.  However, if it’s a law in the korban, then it will deem the korban invalid.  However, this explanation doesn’t hold water for the Raavad holds the korban becomes disqualified even though he holds that it’s a din in the tammid for he says if there is no tammid, then one offers other korbanot at any time.  So, what could be the explanation of his opinion?

 Rav Ezrachi (Pesachim #25) explains the yesod of the din (he answers many questions with this principle,) is a law of seder in the daily korbanot.  The Torah is giving an order in which the korbanot must be offered.  Based upon this, I believe we can understand the Raavad.  What’s wrong with the korbanot is that they didn’t follow the prescribed order and that disqualifies them. 

Rashi on the verse, 6:5 and even clearer in Pesachim 58b and 59a (and Yoma 33b) is clear that the law of the morning tammid coming first is a law in the fire of the mizbaoch, that the tammid should be the first offering burnt on the fire.  This fits very well with the context of the possuk that puts this law of השלמה within the commandment to have a fire on the mizbaoch.   Based upon this we have an answer to the question of Tosfos as to why this isn’t the regular law of תדיר קודם.  The Mefaresh on Tammid (39a) says that even korbanot that were burning overnight can’t be burnt in the day before the tammid.  The Rosh disagrees for the tammid must only come before the korbanot of the day.  The Mefaresh however holds like Rashi that its in a din in the fire of the mizbaoch that the first offering burnt on it must be the tammid.  This law wouldn’t be included in the regular rule of תדיר קודם because their mitzvah has already been started (Minchas Avraham Yoma.)   

What we see from here is that the Torah emphasizes the very important, basic principle in Judaism (as discussed by Rav Yeruchem in intro. to Daas Torah,) of seder.  The Torah prescribes an order for the Temple service because such a holy place must run on a daily schedule. 

The Rambam Kli Mikdash 10:1 gives the order in which a kohan must don his garments based upon the pessukim in our parsha.  This makes sense only in because the Rambam holds there is an independent mitzvah to wear the garments; its not just a preparation for the avodah as discussed here.  The Briskor Rav (Kuntres Yoma) points out that the Rambam learns from the order Aharon and his sons put on the garments the order in which it must be done.  He questions how we can learn from here if a may just be a הוראת שעה for that time.  Either way we see again that the order in which things were done plays a vital role in the fulfillment of the mitzvah in its optimal form.  

Cleaning Out Holy Vessels

Rashi (6:21) explains that the obligation to break a earthenware vessel that absorbed the taste of kodshim doesn’t only apply to the scenario of the verse, a chatas, but applies to all kodshim.  This is the opinion of the Raavad as well in Maaseh Korbanot (8:14.)  Therefore, Rashi understands the Mishna in Zevachim  (11:4) that says there is a stringency of chatos over other offerings refers to the law of washing out a blood stain.  The Rambam disagrees and holds the law of breaking an earthenware vessel applies only to a chatas but by other kodshim it suffices to wash out the vessel.  However, this is very difficult for it is the same verse that tells us the law that a copper vessel that absorbed the taste of kodshim must be washed out as the law of breaking an earthenware vessel.  So how could the Rambam rule that the law of washing the copper vessel applies to all kodshim (as the Gemorah 96b says,) but the law of breaking an earthenware vessel only applies to a chatas?  How can the possuk be split that way? 

The simple understanding of the requirement to wash out the vessel is to remove the taste absorbed in the vessel, to כשר  it (see Gemorah (97a.)  However, we also find the Gemorah (94b) derives that washing must be done in a מקום קדוש (Rashi (93b) explains that means the עזרה, in regard to לשכות built in חול ופתוחות לקודש see Chizkuni (6:20) and Meshech Chachma.)  If it is a mere act of koshering the vessel, why must it be done in a holy place?  We see that it is just a mere act of koshering but there is an aspect of a mitzvah to it as well.  [The two aspects are derived from the obligation to wash it in a the עזרה but yet one must wait until the taste becomes נותר.]  The Rambam understands that it is the aspect of mitzva that is said only in regard to the chatas (see law 11 and 14 ibid that only in regard to the chatas must the washing be done in the עזרה.)  The breaking of the earthenware vessel doesn’t remove the issur on it as we see there was a miracle that it sank into the ground (Yoma 21a.)  That means the possuk only requires the breaking because of the aspect of mitzvah and that is only required by chatas.  Hence, the verse is consistent according to the Rambam, it is telling us the obligation of the mitavah to remove absorptions of taste and that only applies to the chatas (Rav Dovid Solevetchik in the name of Rav Chaim.)

The problem is that the Gemorah in Pesachim 30b derives from the obligation to break the vessel that a earthenware vessel has no possibility of הכשר.  According to the Rambam there are two problems. 1. We see that there is הכשר  because washing out works for taste absorptions that aren’t from a chatas?  2. How can learn from here if it merely a mitzvah?  Rav Chaim explained that the Rambam understands that there is washing out works to remove most of the absorptions in the earthenware vessel to the degree that it will not give any significant taste.  However, it doesn’t extract it entirely.  Therefore, it is the Torah gives a mitzvah by the absorption from a chatas that even that slight amount forbids the vessel from usage and it must be broken.  [This idea is in Ramban Pesachim 30b, Shaar Hamelech laws of Chametz 5:25.]  However, by other kodshim it suffices to wash it out.  How can the Gemorah derive that even in regard to chullin there is no way of koshering the vessel?  The Gemorah only says it in regard to יין נסך וחמץ בפסח where there is no bittul and even a miniscule taste left will cause an issur.

Rashi (95b) understands that the washing out of the vessel functions as a means of הגעלה.  The Meiri in Pesachim 30b brings such a view as well.  The Ridvaz points out that the Rambam disagrees and holds it is just an obligation to wash out the vessel, not to do an act of הכשר.  Why doesn’t the Rambam require hagalah?  The Riddav explains that it is נותן טעם לפגם and therefore there isn’t any reason that there should be a requirement to kasher the vessel.  So why does the Rambam require spits, grills and other objects used on the fire to get hagalah?  He explains since it is used on the fire it has a greater absorption and requires hagalah.  It comes out according to the Rambam that the washing out isn’t a normal act of hecsher but is a special law over here by kodshim (see Briskor Rav and Netziv on Shieltos 137.)  Based upon this we understand that why the Rambam holds even if one washes out the vessel before its נותר rather once the time one has to eat the korban has ended there also is a requirement to wash out the vessel.  Why it isn’t נותר  yet, there is no issur yet?  Because according to the Rambam the din isn’t to remove the נותר, it’s an independent law the Torah prescribes.

Other Rishonim hold that there must be an act of hagala to kasher the vessel and are bothered why is it a problem, it should be נותן טעם לפגם before it becomes נותר so why must it be koshered?  See Rosh Avodah Zarah Ch. 5 #36, Ran (76a), Mizrachi etc.  It is noteworthy that the Chavvas Daas (93:2) proves that the koshering isn’t to avoid the vessel being forbidden for one must wash it out even if its not used for cooking, rather the Torah wants the נותר  itself to be removed

Purim And Todah

מצינו קשר בין פרשת השבוע והיו"ט שחל בשבוע זו דהיינו פורים.  חז"ל (ירושלמי תענית ב:ב) אומרים כל המועדים עתידין ליבטל חוץ מפורים.  ויש עוד מאמר חז"ל (ויק"ר ט:ז) כל קרבנות עתידין ליבטל חוץ מקרבן תודה.  וצריך להבין מה מיוחד ביו"ט של פורים והקרבן תודה שלא יבטלו?  ועוד יש למצוא את הצד השוה בין ב' דברים אלו שיוצאין מכלליהם ולא יבטלו.  מה הקשר בין התמיד ופורים? 

בכל המגילה כלל ישראל נקראין בשם יהודים וזה מעניין שלא מצינו בתנ"ך שקוראין לכל ישראל יהודים.  וצריך להבין למה התשמש המגילה בשם זה דוקא?  וחז"ל כבר מעוררין למה מרדכי נקרא בשם יהודי והאם באמת היה יהודי או לאו (עיין מגילה דף יב) ועדיין צריך להבין למה מגדיש המגילה שהוא יהודי? 

אדמו"ר הזקן בתורה אור ריש פרשת ויחי מסביר שהשם יהודה שורשו מלשון הודאה.  "בחי' יהודה שהוא בחי' הודאה הוא בחי' ביטול והתכללות באא"ס ב"ה ממש הסוכ"ע."  ועפי"ז כ' בתורה אור על המגילה דף צט. שבנ"י נקראין במגילה יהודים על שם הביטול שלהם.  וצריך להבין כונתו ולמה מבטא ענין זה של ביטול לאא"ס דוקא בפורים?

כתוב במגילה שהיו"ט נקרא פורים על שם הפור.  וצ"ב למה מרדכי וכל החכמים בחרו דוקא בשם זה שלכ' מורה רק על פרט צדדי בכל הסיפור ועוד שהפור נעשה ע"י המן ולא ע"י ישראל ולמה מזכירין מעשיו?  בחסידות מוסבר (ראה הוספות לתו"א עמ' קכא. ומאמרו של הרבי תשי"ג ד"ה על כן קראו ועוד מקומות) שגורל מורה על דבר שא"א לבחור ע"י שכל משום שב' הצצדים נראין שוין וא"א לבא לידי מסקנה מה יצדק ומשום כך מטיל גורל וכל מה שיצא ע"י הגורל הוא יעשה.    

 הנס הגדול של פורים היה דאפי' במקום שאין חילוק בין לישראל והמן שנראה כמו גורל שיכול לבחור או בהמן או בישראל, אפ"ה יש בחירה בישראל.  (והיינו במקום למעלה מסדר השתלשלות, שאין חילוק כלפי מעלה בין טוב ורע והמן חשיב להגיע לדרגה זו ולכן יהיה לו כח לשלוט על ישראל עיין במהר"ל על עץ גבוהה נ' אמה ובהמועדים עפ"י חסידות של הר' יואל קאהן ואכ"מ.)  בפורים נתחדש שאפי' בגורל יש בחירה, המאזניים לעולם נוטים כלפי ישראל.  ולכן שפיר בחרו חכ' בשם פורים כדי להבליט יסודו של הנס.  זה לא סתם חגיגה של הצלה מהשמדה אלא יו"ט לחוג את גודל בחירת עם ישראל ע"י הקב"ה.

למה יש בחירה אוטומטית בישראל?  התירץ הוא שלעולם יש קשר בין נשמת ישראל והקב"ה.  כנראה זה היה כונת אדמו"ר שהבאנו לעיל "בחי' יהודה שהוא בחי' הודאה הוא בחי' ביטול והתכללות באא"ס ב"ה ממש הסוכ"ע."  הקשר בין עצם הנשמה וה' ג"כ עולה על כל סדר השתלשלות. ובחי' זו של הנשמה נקראית בחי' הודאה.  ענינו של הודאה הוא ליבטל לדבר אחר, להודות שצריך עזר וסייעוה מדבר אחר.  מי שמודה לכח אחר מורה שצריך להיות קשור לכח ההוא.  בחי' זו של הנשמה, בחי' ההודאה, החלק שמסכים אם קשר שלו אם ה', לעולם נמצא בדרגה של הודאה והשתחוה לה'.

ולפי זה יובן גדלותו של פורים על שאר המועדים.  כל המועדים יש בהם הארה והמשכת אור ה' בעולם והם ימים קדושים אבל פורים מגיעין למעלמ מזה, אנחנו מגיעין למעלה מסדר השתלשלות עד א"אס ממש.  ולכן מובן למה אין פורים אסור במלאכה כמו ביו"ט דעלמא.  מה החילוק?  היינו טעמא משום דיו"ט שיש המשכת קדושה צריך פרישות מחול אבל פורים אינו רק הארת קדושה אלא קשור אם א"ס ממש שקדושה וחול שוין אצלו.  (עיין הנ"ל בתו"א וד"ה ויושט המלך.)  וענין זה מתבטא ע"י ענין ההיפוך שמצינו במגילה.  מה שמתגלה אא"ס ב"ה גם בהחול, מה שאחשורש נעשה הכלי לגרום הגאולה, הפיכת יום שנראה רע לטוב, החודש אשר נהפך מאבל ליו"ט, זה שייך רק בדרגה זו למעלה מהשתלשלות שחשיכה ואורה שוין לפניו.  רק ע"י שמגעין לדרגה זו מתגלה הפנימיות שיש בכל דבר, ששורה אא"ס בכל דבר אפי' בהחושך.

בודאי קרבן התודה מורה על הודאהת וביטול האדם כלפי ריבונו.  האדם שנמצא בסכנה, שיש שיקול אם לחיים אם למות ג"כ נמצא במצב של גורל.  הוא עומד בין החיים ובין המתים וה' בחר לו לחיים.  גילוי זה של בחירה לחיים מחייב האדם ליתן הודאה עבור מה שנבחר לחיים.  התגלות הבחירה ביהודי לחיים הוא כמו פורים פרטי שלו.  האיש נמצא במצב של סכנה נורא אבל ניצול הימנו.  ונמצא מצב שהיה נמצא בה שבשעתו היה נראה נורא ואיום נהפך לשמחה עצומה על שנמלט מהצרה ונשאר בחיים.    

לא נמצא שום חמץ בבית המקדש חוץ מלחמי תודה ושתי הלחם.  מה מיוחד בהתודה?  (לענין שתי הלחם תעיין בשבועות.)  המהר"ל בתפארת פ"ל מסביר שחמץ ומצה הם דברים חלוקים "להודיע כי כל הכחות אשר הם מחולקים הכל הוא אליו יתב'.  ודבר זה ראוי שיהיה הקרבן כאשר נעשה לו נס והציל אותו מן המיתה ובזה מודה לו כי האדם הוא אל השם יתב', שהרי הציל אותו, שע"ז מביא קרבן תודה. ולא שהוא לבד אל השם יתב', רק כל חילופי המציאות, הכל הוא אליו יתב', עד שהוא יתב' הוא אחד ואין זולתו.  ודבר זה יהיה לעתיד, כי יהיה השם יתב' אחד ואין זולתו.  ולכך קרבן תודה לא יהיה בטל, כי קרבן תודה מורה כי כל חילופי וחילוקי המציאות אל השם יתב', וכאשר הכל אל השם יתב', אז הוא אחד ואין זולתו ולכן קרבן זה לא יהיה בטל לעתיד." 

ויש להוסיף שבתודה מבטא הענין שכל דבר אפי' מה שנראה רע באמת יש בו התגלות אלוקות וליפך נמצא בו השמחה הגדולה ביותר.  עיין נצי"ב בהעמק דבר שמבאר גודל השמחה שיש בהתודה ושצריך לשתף בו גם אחרים. 

מצינו למידין שבין בתודה, בין בפורים, יש התגלות נפלאה של בחירת ישראל, יש התגלות של אא"ס למעלה מכל סדר השתלשלות ולכן יש בהם כח להפך מה שנראה רע לטוב וגילוי אור מתוך החושך.