רצה והחליצנו

                                                          The Abudraham on רצה והחליצנו.

 The Arizal says the intent should be on the meaning of removing - that is the malach of the week.

Salty Solutions

The Zohar says that the three men Avrohom saw were the three Avos.  How could Avrohom see them if two of them didn’t exist yet and one of them is himself?  The possuk says וירא אליו, why doesn’t it say whom Hashem appeared to?

The Meor Einayim says that the parsha contains a lesson for all of us.  That’s why it doesn’t say who Hashem came to for the Torah is hinting that there is a lesson when Hashem comes to every individual.  He says Hashem comes to every individual in אלוני ממרא, meaning at the strength of one’s rebellions against Hashem.   Where a person finds it the hardest, that is where Hashem appears to him.  That is where he is given the opportunity to shine.  How? והוא יושב פתח האהל כחום היום, the doorway is opened for him when he feels the passion of the thoughts of teshuva implanted in his mind by Hashem.  In his words -זהו וירא אליו ה׳ כתב סתם ולא כתב אל אברהם כי קאי על כל אחד מישראל שמתראה אליו השם יתברך דהיינו אפילו רשע גדול ח״ו מתראה אליו השם יתברך דהיינו הרהורי תשובה שבאים לו כנ״ל והוא יושב פתח האוהל פירוש שזה פותחים לו פתח כחום היום כשבא לו התלהבות הרהורי תשובה.  Continues the parsha, וַיִּשָּׂ֤א עֵינָיו֙ וַיַּ֔רְא וְהִנֵּה֙ שְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה אֲנָשִׁ֔ים נִצָּבִ֖ים עָלָ֑יו וַיַּ֗רְא וַיָּ֤רׇץ לִקְרָאתָם֙ מִפֶּ֣תַח הָאֹ֔הֶל וַיִּשְׁתַּ֖חוּ אָֽרְצָה.  The Meor Einayim explains in his vein that a person takes to heart the feelings of teshuva inspired within him and feelings a great desire to be able to reach the maasim of the Avos (Tanna D’ve Eliyahu Ch. 23,) and completely nullifies himself before Hashem.  In his words - וישא עיניו פירוש כשמגביה השכל שלו וירא והנה שלשה אנשים אברהם יצחק ויעקב רצה לומר שהוא מדריגת האבות שהיו מרכבה לשמו הגדול. וירא וירץ לקראתם שאומר מתי יגיע מעשי למעשי אבותי ורוצה להגיע גם כן למדריגה זו להיות מרכבה אליו יתברך שילך רק למקום שהוא יתברך רוצה. מפתח האוהל מאותו פתח שפתחו לו כנ״ל ואז וישתחו לאפיו השתחואה הוא המשכה שממשיך המשכה לבחינת ארציות והבן. 

The lesson is that it is where a person feels that they are most distant from Hashem that can be the mode to bring a person the closest to Him. This is the lesson of Chazal (Midrash 41:4) אמר רבי יצחק (תהלים פט): מצאתי דוד עבדי. היכן מצאתיו? בסדום:  How can it be that Dodiv arises from a place that was so bad it had to be eradicated?  In the Sedom of every individual, in the lowliest aspects of the soul, there is the opportunity for Dovid to rise up.  Only where there can be an opening for such rebellion against Hashem can there be opportunity for the tremendous bittul.  The reason for all the lack of normal civilized conduct in Sedom was because of its great spiritual potential.  Because it had such great energy without anything to contain it, things went haywire.  Ultimately that power is harnessed in Dovid Hamelech.  That is why the possuk in Yechezkal (16:53) says וְשַׁבְתִּי֙ אֶת־שְׁבִ֣יתְהֶ֔ן אֶת־שְׁב֚וּת (כתיב שְׁב֚יּת) סְדֹם֙ וּבְנוֹתֶ֔יהָ.  Once Moshiach is here, the great spiritual power of Sedom can be harnessed in the proper vessels and it can be inhabited again (Likutay Sichos volume 35.)

The Sefer Gilgulay Nishomos from the Rammah M’pano says עידית אשתו של לוט אין לה גלגול, דכתיב עד היום הזה, ובמשנה ג"כ הרואה אשתו של לוט (מאי) מברך כו', כי נשמתה היא דוממת, וכל מה שמלחכים ממנו הבהמות חוזרה לקדמותה הראשון, ותיקונה הוא על כל קרבנך תקריב מלח, וכן על השלחן שהוא מזבח צריך מל"ח מח"ל לח"ם.  What does this mean, how it putting salt on bread or a korban a תיקון for Lot’s wife and why can’t she get our of her salted state?  Why was the wife of Lot transformed into a pillar of salt of all things?  Salt in it of itself is not a food.  One can't eat large amounts of salt strait for it is too bitter.  It is merely meant to enhance, enrich and bring out the qualities of another food.  When one faces salty patches in life, s/he can't get stuck in them for it will just bring a person down.  Those bitter moments and struggles are productive only if used to bring a person to open the door to climb to greater heights, as we learnt from the Meor Einayim.  The mistake of Lot's wife was that she couldn't pull herself away from the salt of Sedom.  She couldn't go forward with the knowledge of her actions as a Sedomite for so many years.  Hence, she became a salt stick of shame and pain and her whole essence became transformed into salt and she couldn’t go further.  That is why the תיקון for this is to add salt to our bread and korbanot for then we are using the salt to elevate us to come closer to Hashem, we don’t become submerged in salt, but elevate it.  We are taking our אלוני ממרא and using it for the positive, not being consumed in it.  (Based upon Avodas Halevi and lecture by Rabbi Y.Y. Jacobson.)   

Avrohom As Kohan Gadol And Sacrifices Of An Onan

The Yalkut Shimoni (remez 101) says אמר יצחק לאביו אבא קשור שתי ידי ושתי רגלי שלא אבעט אותך ונמצאתי מחלל מצות כבד ועשה כן וככהן גדול הגיש את מנחתו ואת נסכו והקב"ה רואה את האב מעקיד בכל לב והבן נעקד בכל לב ומלאכי השרת צועקים ובוכים שנאמר הן אראלם וגו.  The Zais Ra'anan says the Yalkut had to say that Avrohom had the status of a Kohan Gadol for otherwise how would he be able to sacrifice Yitzchak, as he is slaughtering him he would become an אונן and that would defile the avodah as it says in Zevachim (16a.)  Therefore, the Yalkut says Avrohom has the status of a Kohan Gadol that can offer sacrifices even as an אונן.  It is noteworthy that the Gemorah there is unsure if an  אונן can sacrifice on a במה so it would be possible to say that even if he isn't a Kohan Gadol, Avrohom may still be able to do the avodoh for he was sacrificing on a במה as there was no Mikdash.  However, the source of this Yalkut is the Pirkey D'Rebbe Eliezer Ch. 31.  Two weeks ago this blog discussed if the sacrifices of Noach were considered that of a במה or that of the Mikdash. It is clear from the Gemorah Zevachim (115b) that has a derash of ויבן נח מזבח לה' ויקח מכל הבהמה הטהורה ומכל עוף הטהור בהמה כמשמעו חיה בכלל בהמה that Noach was allowed to offer even חיות even though they can't be offered  in the Mikdash.  That is because the Gemotah understands the sacrifice of Noach was considered to be a במה offering as mentioned in the previous post.  However, the Pirkey D'Rebbe Eliezer Ch. 23 assumes that Noach only sacrificed animals that are allowed to be brought in the Mikdash (see Radal.)  Presumably that is because he holds that the sacrifices of Noach were offered in the place of the Mikdash and hence had the status of Mikdash offerings.  Therefore, לשיטתו we can't say the offering of Avrohom (in the same spot,) had the status of a במה offering.

The Mikor Baruch siman 5 takes issue with the Zais Ra'anan that his point should be dependent upon the machlokes Rashi and Tosfos in Yoma (13b) if Rebbe Yosi allows one who became an אונן in the middle of the avodah to complete the avodah.  According to Rashi that learns the Geomrah is refering to a regular Kohan, once you started at a valid time, you finish the job.  If that's the case, Avrohom would become an אונן only after doing the shechitah, and hence would be allowed to finish the job, so we don't have to say he is a Kohan Gadol?

The din of Rashi itself needs to be explained for the Gevuros Ari asks why is becoming an אונן midway different from becoming a בעל מום where he can't finish the job (Zevachim 15a?)  Furthermore, according to Rebbe Yishmoel the whole source that an אונן invalidates the avodah is learnt out from a בעל מום, so how can the din be different?

What we see is that Rashi understood the disqualification of an אונן is distinct from that of a בעל מום.  The Gemorah (16b) says אונן: מנלן דכתיב (ויקרא כא, יב) ומן המקדש לא יצא ולא יחלל הא אחר שלא יצא חילל רבי אלעזר אמר מהכא (ויקרא י, יט) הן הקריבו אני הקרבתי מכלל דאי אינהו אקריב שפיר אישתרוף.  From here we learn out that an אונן disqualifies the avodah.  We see from here the גדר of why a kohan gadol serves is because he is tied to the mikdash.  He is not allowed to leave the mikdash even in his state of אנינות.  The Rambam writes in Beas Mikdash (2:5) כֹּהֵן שֶׁיָּצָא מִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ בִּשְׁעַת הָעֲבוֹדָה בִּלְבַד חַיָּב מִיתָה בֵּין כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בֵּין כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא י ז) "וּמִפֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא תֵצְאוּ פֶּן תָּמֻתוּ."  This din not to leave the mikdash has an application regarding a regular kohan when he is doing the avodah.  Hence, it's quite understandable that in the middle of avodah a kohan doesn't have to stop for vis-a-vis this avodah he has the same status as a kohan gadol.  A בעל מום must interrupt his avodah for he will always create a pesul.  However, the kohan mid avodah is so to speak promoted to kohan gadol status where he continues to finish what he is doing.

The Gemorah in Moad Katan (14b) says והא כה"ג דכל השנה כרגל לכולי עלמא דמי דתנן כהן גדול מקריב אונן.    Rashi explains the Gemorah (ibid) דתנן כ"ג מקריב אונן מדאמר לו אהרן למשה ואכלתי חטאת היום (ויקרא י׳:י״ט) ולא אמר למשה והקרבתי מכלל דהקרבה באנינות ולמדנו דכ"ג מקריב אונן אבל כולי עלמא בשאר ימות השנה אונן אינו משלח קרבנותיו כדאמרינן לקמן (מועד קטן דף טו:) שלמים בזמן שהוא שלם ולא בזמן שהוא אונן וברגל משלח וכהן גדול אונן מקריב כל השנה אלמא כל השנה לדידיה כרגל דמי.  Why does Rashi contrast that other kohanim can't send their korbanot when their in אנינות and not the fact that they can't offer their korbanot?  The Minchas Chinuch (264:29) proves because that even on a regel a kohan can't offer a korban for אנינות applies on the regel as well.  The heter for the kohan gadol to serve in אנינות isn't because he is considered in the midst of the regel, rather because the Torah allows him to serve.  The manner in which see he is considered to be in the regel is since he is allowed to send a korban to the mikdash in אנינות.  Hence, Rashi explains the distinction regarding sending korbanot.  What is the difference between sending in or offering the korban? According to the above explanation the kohan gadol can serve because of his connection to the mikdash, its only regarding sending in a korban that his heter is because he is considered to be in the regel. [However, even according to the Minchas Chinuch the Rashi is difficult because its פתח בכד וסיים בחבית, he starts with talking about offering the sacrifice and then switches to sending the sacrifices.] (See Radal, Rogatchover, Avi Ezri, Chabatzoles Hasaron, Masseh Yad.)
A nice addition from the Mishmar Halevi:

Don't Ask

The Midrash Tanchuma at the beginning of Vayerah says וּלְפִיכָךְ אֵין מִתְפַּלְּלִין בַּשַּׁבָּת שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה, שֶׁאִם יִהְיֶה לוֹ חוֹלֶה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, נִזְכָּר בְּרוֹפֵא חוֹלֵי עַמּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהוּא מֵצֵר, וְהַשַּׁבָּת נִתְּנָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לִקְדֻשָּׁה לְעֹנֶג וְלִמְנוּחָה וְלֹא לְצַעַר, לְכָךְ מִתְפַּלֵּל שָׁלֹש בְּרָכוֹת רִאשׁוֹנוֹת וְשָׁלֹש אַחֲרוֹנוֹת וְהַמְּנוּחָה בָּאֶמְצַע.  From here it would seem the reason one may not request things on Shabbos is to avoid causing pain on Shabbos. This reason is cited in Sefer Hapardes L'Rashi (pg. 316) and the Manhig tefillah siman 11. However, the Vayikrah Rabbah (34:16) seems to say a different approach as to the prohibition of making requests on Shabbos: מִמְּצוֹא חֶפְצֶךָ, מִכָּאן אָסוּר לְאָדָם לִתְבֹּעַ צְרָכָיו בְּשַׁבָּת. רַבִּי זְעִירָא בָּעֵי קוֹמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּא בַּר אַבָּא אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִלֵּין דְּאָמְרִין רועֵנוּ זוּנֵנוּ פַּרְנְסֵנוּ בְּשַׁבָּת, מַהוּ, אָמַר לוֹ טוֹפֶס בְּרָכוֹת כָּךְ הִיא. (ישעיה נח, יג): וְדַבֵּר דָּבָר, אִמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחָאי, כַּד הֲוַת מִשְׁתָּעֲיָא מוֹתָר מִלִּין בְּשַׁבַּתָּא הֲוָה אָמַר לָהּ שַׁבַּתָּא הִיא וַהֲוַת שָׁתְקָא.  The second half of the discussion regarding the text on benching on Shabbos is found in the Yerushalmi Shabbos (78b) as well.  The Gemorah in Berachos (21a) says גברא בר חיובא הוא ורבנן הוא דלא אטרחוהו משום כבוד שבת.  Simple reading of the Gemorah sounds like the midrash in Vayikra that there is no issue with asking requests on Shabbos, it is merely for כבוד שבת that it wasn't required.  Unless we reinterpret that טירחא means that a person shouldn't come to have צער  on Shabbos.     

The Rambam Tefillah (1:10) says וְיֵשׁ מִן הַגְּאוֹנִים מִי שֶׁהוֹרָה שֶׁאָסוּר לְהִתְפַּלֵּל תְּפִלַּת נְדָבָה בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת וְיָמִים טוֹבִים לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מַקְרִיבִין בָּהֶן נְדָבָה אֶלָּא חוֹבַת הַיּוֹם בִּלְבַד:  The Raavad says אני דעת אחרת יש עמי בכל אלה דרבי יוחנן לא אמר הלואי שיתפלל אדם כל היום אלא י''ח שהיא תפלת רחמים ובקשה ושוהה ביניהן כדי שתתחולל דעתו עליו ויתכוין דעתו לבקש רחמים אבל תפלת שבת וי''ט שאינו אלא הודאות לא אמר ר' יוחנן ואם יודה ויחזור ויודה ברכה לבטלה היא.  Rav Yitzchak Sorotzkin suggests that this debate may depend on the above reasons.  It one should not request matters on Shabbos just so not to be טורח the individual then technically the person can be considered obligated in a תפלה of requests and can pray a נדבה.  However, if Chazal forbade asking requests so one doesn't feel bad feelings on Shabbos then a נדבה is just as much prohibited.

The Alter Rebbe in the Siddur says to say רוענו זוננו [roanu instead of rianu,] (presumibly to make it a praise, not a request,) but how can he rule not like the Yerushalmi and Midrash? 

Yischok or Yitzchok

A friend of mine pointed out to me last Friday that in the krias shem at a bris, we say in the middle אֲשֶׁ֣ר כָּ֭רַת אֶת־אַבְרָהָ֑ם וּשְׁב֖וּעָת֣וֹ לְיִשְׂחָֽק׃.  He wanted to know why יצחק was spelled with a 'ש.  I pointed out to him that that's  what it says in Tehillim (105:9,) which is the source of that line.  According to the קונקורדציה, it is spelled that way 4 times in Tanach, in the also verse of Yermiyahu Ch. 33, this verse in Tehillim and twice in Amos Ch. 7, verse 9 and  16.  The Metzudos Tzion in Yermiyahu says ישחק. יצחק כי זסשר״ץ מתחלף:  However, what is the significance of this change?
The Yalkut Maom Loaz in Yirmiyahu brings from Chazal:

                                        

A different interpretation is given by the Mincha Gedolah in Amos (7:9.) The possuk there is talking about the bammot made for avodah zarah in the land of the ten tribes.  He quotes from the Alshich that the 'ש in place of the 'צ comes from the name of עשו.  He explains that Yaakov is already connected to Esav via the 'ע that exists in his name and the 'ו that sometimes appears in his name. Therefore, when referring to the tribes that did the actions of עשו it adds the connection of the  'ש in the name of Yitzchak.  The problem with this explanation is that it doesn't seem to explain why the possuk would switch in Tehillim and Yermiyahu.

Two Types Of Milah

Rashi at the end of Lech Lecha (in some editions,) quotes a midrash in Vayerah (49:2,) מִיָּד נָטַל אַבְרָהָם סַכִּין וְהָיָה אוֹחֵז בְּעָרְלָתוֹ וּבָא לַחְתֹּךְ וְהָיָה מִתְיָרֵא שֶׁהָיָה זָקֵן, מֶה עָשָׂה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ וְאָחַז עִמּוֹ, וְהָיָה אַבְרָהָם חוֹתֵךְ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (נחמיה ט, ז ח): אַתָּה ה' הָאֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר בָּחַרְתָּ בְּאַבְרָם וגו', וְכָרוֹת לוֹ הַבְּרִית אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן אֶלָּא וְכָרוֹת עִמּוֹ, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אוֹחֵז בּוֹ.  There is another Midrash at the end of Lech Lecha (47:9) that says נִמּוֹל אַבְרָהָם, אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא הִרְגִּישׁ וְנִצְטָעֵר כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכְפֹּל לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שְׂכָרוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי מָל אַבְרָהָם אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן אֶלָּא נִמּוֹל, בָּדַק אֶת עַצְמוֹ וּמָצָא עַצְמוֹ מָהוּל. אָמַר רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה בְּהַהִיא עִתָּא אֲקֵיל רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא לְרַבִּי לֵוִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ שַׁקְּרָנָא כַּזְבָּנָא אַתְּ, אֶלָּא הִרְגִּישׁ וְנִצְטָעֵר כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכְפֹּל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שְׂכָרוֹ.  According to Rebbe Levi, Avrohom didn't have to do the milah at all, Hashem did it.  How could Hashem do the milah for Avrohom, if he had a commandment to do milah, how did he fulfill the mitzvah?

By way of intro. I will share a peshat in a midrash from Rav Schwab.  The Tanchumah at the beginning of Titzaveh says יְלַמְּדֵנוּ רַבֵּנוּ, קָטָן לְכַמָּה נִמּוֹל? כָּךְ שָׁנוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ: קָטֹן נִמּוֹל לִשְׁמוֹנָה. מַה טַּעַם? כְּשֵׁם שֶׁנִּמּוֹל יִצְחָק אָבִינוּ.  The midrash is very difficult for what is the question, its an open possuk in Lech Lecha (17:12) וּבֶן־שְׁמֹנַ֣ת יָמִ֗ים יִמּ֥וֹל לָכֶ֛ם כׇּל־זָכָ֖ר לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶ֑ם or Tazria (12:3) בַיּ֖וֹם הַשְּׁמִינִ֑י יִמּ֖וֹל בְּשַׂ֥ר עָרְלָתֽוֹ.  And why does the midrash answer with the possuk of Avrohom doing the bris for Yitzchak, which is just a story, not with the possuk of the command?  And what is this doing in the beginning of Titzaveh?  Rav Shwab explains that the midrash knows when the action of circumcision is done.  However, the milah of the skin is merely an indicator of the milah of the heart.  The midrash wants to know when does the milah of the heart happen.  Is it possible for an eight day old kid to be have the תיקון הנפש done, or does that only come about when he obtains brains?  The midrash answers the possuk says (21:4) וַיָּ֤מׇל אַבְרָהָם֙ אֶת־יִצְחָ֣ק בְּנ֔וֹ בֶּן־שְׁמֹנַ֖ת יָמִ֑ים, obviously its Yitzchak, his son, just say וַיָּ֤מׇל אַבְרָהָם֙ אותו?  We see that already at eight days he is called Yitzchak, he has the nefesh and powers of a Yitzchak.  From here the midrash derives that the milah of the heart comes simultaneously with the milah of the skin.  How does this happen if he doesn't have any brains?  It's the zerizut of the father and mesiras nefesh that causes this תיקון הנפש to happen.  That's the דיוק of the possuk (ibid) כַּאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה אֹת֖וֹ אלקים, the word צִוָּ֥ connotes zerizut (Kiddushin 29a.)  That's why it appears in the beginning of Titzaveh, to pick up on this theme of zerizut.  

Now that we have established that milah is also a תיקון הנפש, we can revisit the above midrashim.  The possuk in Ekev (10:16) says וּמַלְתֶּ֕ם אֵ֖ת עָרְלַ֣ת לְבַבְכֶ֑ם וְעָ֨רְפְּכֶ֔ם לֹ֥א תַקְשׁ֖וּ עֽוֹד:  You shall circumcise the foreskin of your heart.  However, in Nitzavim (30:6) it says ומל ה' אלקיך אֶת־לְבָֽבְךָ֖ וְאֶת־לְבַ֣ב זַרְעֶ֑ךָ.  And the Lord, your God, will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring. It seems to be a contradiction, do you do the milah of the heart or does Hashem do it?  The Alter Rebbe explains (Torah Or end of Lech Lecha,) that there are two levels of alah to be removed.  This is the arlah that can be removed through teshuvah; that is your obligation.  Then is is a more fine tuned and more delicate arlah that is beyond one's grasp to remove himself; that Hashem will do.  Based upon this we can say of course Avrohom did the actual milah as he was commanded, the midrash means that Avrohom also merited that Hashem removed the second layer of the arlah as well.  That is the intent that Avrohom was too old, he didn't have the strength to remove this additional layer of arlah, so Hashem helped him complete the job.    

Why Have The Segan Kohan Gadol?

There is a memra of the Rabbe Chanina Segan Hakohanim that appears in a few places in Shas, one of them being Yoma (39a.)  רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים אומר למה סגן מימינו שאם אירע בו פסול בכהן גדול נכנס סגן ומשמש תחתיו.  According to this גירסא the Gemorah is saying Why did the Deputy remain at the High Priest’s right side throughout the day’s service? Because if some disqualification befalls the High Priest, the Deputy can step in and serve in his stead.  However, Rashi brings another גירסא that the Gemorah is asking what is the point of the appointment of a Segan: ואני שמעתי מרבינו יצחק בר יהודה למה סגן ממונה שאם יארע פסול אבל כל זמן שלא יארע בו פסול אין הסגן עובד שום עבודה בעולם.  According to this approach the Gemorah seems to be saying the whole purpose of the Segan is to be a backup. [It is a little difficult that Rashi says אין הסגן עובד שום עבודה בעולם for the Segan has jobs as Tosfos (15b) cites from the Yerushalmi.]

The Rambam Kli Mikdash (4:16) says מְמַנִּין כֹּהֵן אֶחָד יִהְיֶה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל כְּמוֹ הַמִּשְׁנֶה לַמֶּלֶךְ וְהוּא הַנִּקְרָא סְגָן. וְהוּא הַנִּקְרָא מְמֻנֶּה וְיִהְיֶה עוֹמֵד לִימִין כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל תָּמִיד וְזֶה כָּבוֹד הוּא לוֹ. וְכָל הַכֹּהֲנִים מִתַּחַת יַד הַסְּגָן.  It is clear that the Rambam understands the point of the Segan isn't to be a mere backup, its to be the Kohan Gadol's valet.  So, he must have learnt like the first גירסא.  The Rambam goes לשיטתו in the Laws of Avodat Yom Kippurim (1:3) that says וּמַתְקִינִין לוֹ כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אַחֵר שֶׁאִם יֶאֱרַע בְּזֶה פִּסּוּל יַעֲבֹד הָאַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו.  No mention of the Segan, any Kohan can be appointed to be the backup.  [This raises difficulties in the Gemorah Nazir 47b as the Briskor Rav there points out, ואכ"מ.]

The Briskor Rav tries to read even into the second גירסא that it also agrees the main job of the Segan is to serve the Kohan Gadol, the Gemorah is only asking why do they designate the Segan in place of the Kohan Gadol on Yom Kippur.  However, it doesn't seem that way from the Rishonim.  Tosfos Yeshanim asks why would they need a Segan in Bais Rishon, they had the משוח מלחמה?  He answers that there will be איבה for the משוח מלחמה already has some of the dinim of the Kohan Gadol.  But we see from the question that he assumes the whole point of the Segan is merely to be a backup, not to serve the Kohan Gadol.