Too Old

The possuk says (8:25) regarding the service of the לוים in the mikdash, ומבן חמישים שנה ישוב מצבא העבודה ולא יעבד עוד.  Rashi and Ramban explain that they are no longer fit for carrying the mishkan but can do the other avodat hamikdash.  The Gemorah in Chullin 24 has a derasha that this law of becoming unfit for the avodah only applied in the midbar but for future generations they are fitting until their voice becomes uncapable of singing.  This halacha can be viewed in two ways, either it is a siman that the age of the pesul of the לוים in the Beis Hamikdash is determined by his voice or the lack of a sweet voice is the סיבת הפסול.  The Rambam says (Kli Mikdash 3:8) כשיתקלקל קולו מרוב הזקנה יפסל.  The Rambam understands that the lack of voice is a simam of determining old age but isn’t a pesul in it of itself.  It would come out according to him that if a younger levi’s voice became sour then he would remain fit for the avodah.  On the other hand, Rashi Chullin 24b says the pesul is because the leviem must be able to sing on the same note and by that logic any levi who’s voice isn’t up to par would become disqualified to serve.

The Rambam adds שירה אבל יהיה מן השוערים יראה לי שאינו נפסל אלא לומר.  This would be modeled after the pesul of above 50 years old in the midbar where the levi is still fit for other avodot (Mahari Kurkos.)  This comparison only makes sense assuming that the pesul of קול is also because of becoming too old to serve in the Mikdash; we would have thought the levi is considered to be too blemished to serve at all,קמ"ל he is still fit to close the doors.  However, according to Rashi that it’s a pesul because of the lack of a sweet voice, this is obvious that the pesul would be limited only to singing (see Masseh Yad and additions to the footnotes on Rashba Chullin by Rav Yaakov Elon.)

How To Bless

Why is there a mitzvah for kohanim to bless Yisroel, God can give us the beracha directly?  Why must the beracha be given b’ahavah, why is this condition so critical that it becomes part of the text of the beracha said before the pessukim of birchas kohanim?

Possibly, it is the very fact that another person, the kohanim are able to look at someone else favorably that causes that Hashem will also look favorably upon the recipient.  It is because the kohan expresses such love for another individual that it arouses such love in heaven for the individual as well.

The Gemorah in Chagigah (16b) says that Hashem didn’t learn the Torah of Rebbe Meyer since he learnt from Acher.  After Rabbah bar Shela explained that he merely studied the Torah of acher, not his actions, then Hashem said the Torah of Rebbe Meyer.  Did Hashem not know this beforehand?  It’s the same idea, because Rabbah bar Shela looked favorably upon the actions of Rebbe Meyer it caused that Hashem looked upon them favorably as well (see Tzidkus Hatzaddik of Rav Tzaddok #21.)

Water: בירור or מתיר

The sotah drinks the water and is acquitted.  There are two ways to understand this process.  It may function as a בירור that she is innocent and hence she is permitted to her husband or it may be an automatic מתיר.  What is the difference between these two understandings?  If there is room to suspect that even after surviving the water, she is really guilty.  The Mishna in Sotah 22b brings opinions that if there are possibilities of some good deeds allowing the woman to survive even for up to many years after drinking the water. If the drinking of the water merely serves to determine the status of the woman, but doesn’t create an automatic heter why shouldn’t we suspect that she is really guilty, but there is a זכות  that allowed her to remain alive? Tosfos (6b bottom) brings from the Yerushalmi that has a derash that we don’t have to assume that she is still alive because of some זכות.   

The Rambam Laws of Sotah (3:20) brings the law that if the woman has a zechut she gets weak and eventually dies.  This is the opinion of Rebbe in the Mishna (ibid.)  In Law 21 he says that if she survives the water she is permitted, indicating even when she becomes weak when we know she is tameh.  It is clear the Rambam understands the waters serve as a matir to permit the woman even if we know she is tameh.  On the other hand, Tosfos (ibid) says that if we know that she is tameh because she is growing weaker, then she is prohibited.  Clearly, he holds it functions as a birur.

New Tenufah

Last week we discussed the obligation of תנופה in regard to the shtei halechem if the obligation to wave the parts of the shelamim is a new obligation or part of the regular obligation of a shelamim.  The same chakirah can be made in regard to the shelamim of the nazir.  What is the nature of the obligation to do תנופה on the parts of the shelamim; is it a new obligation or the same obligation as that of a shelamim?

The simple understanding should be that it is a new obligation for the תנופה is part of the טהרה process of the nazir and according to ר"א it is even necessary to allow the nazir to drink wine.  This would seem to be supported by the Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvot #111 that explains that the shaving and korbanot of the nazir are counted as one mitzvah as opposed to that of a metzorah is two mitzvot, because they are two aspects of one purification process. However, the Sifri asks why does the Torah have to tell us the obligation regarding the חזה ושוק if it’s an obligation by every shelamim?  The Sifri learns out from here the principle of דבר שיצא מן הכלל בדבר חדש אי אתה יכול להחיזרו לכלל עד שיחזירנו הכתוב בפירוש.  From the question of the Sifri it is clear that it views the תנופה obligation equal to that of a regular shelamim.  From here the Briskor Rav derives that it is only the additional תנופה said regarding the korbanot of a nazir; the חלה רקיק וזרוע that is part of the טהרה process, but the תנופת חזה ושוק stems from the obligation of a shelamim.

The Mishna in Kiddushin 36b says that a woman is obligated in תנופה regarding the minchas soteh and korbanot nezireh.  The Rogatchover (השמטות תרומות pg. 104) proposes that it she is obligated only on the additional תנופה of the korbanot nezireh but not in the obligation of the תנופה that applies by a shelamim.  He brings support to this from the language of the Rambam that mentions the תנופה of women only regarding the specific תנופות unique to a nazir.  This line of reasoning matches that of the Briskor Rav.

The True Crown

The Even Ezra says the word יפליא (6:2) used to describe the acceptance of neziros means פלא.  He explains it is wonderous for a person to be able to control their תואות.  He follows this approach in explaining (6:7) כי נזר אלקיו על ראשו.  He says ואיננו רחוק. ודע כי כל בני אדם עבדי תואות העולם, והמלך באמת שיש לו נזר ועטרת מלכות בראשו, כל מי שהוא חפשי מן התאות.  It is clear from the Even Ezra how strong one’s yetzer is and it requires tremendous effort to be constrained.  Rav Leeb Chasmon asks what is the big deal not to get a haircut or abstain from wine or tumah for 30 days?  It’s just a short time and doesn’t require a great power of abstinent?  He explains that what’s difficult is the kabbalah, the willingness to accept restrictions upon one’s self is the great difficulty.  This is the idea of kabbalos haTorah (we are still within the seven days where one can make up the karbonos of the chag,) to accept the yoke of  Torah.

The Fruit Offering

Last week we discussed the Mishna in Menachos that the shtei halechem should be offered before any other offering or Bikkurim from the new grain.  Why must the shtei halechem precede the Bikkurim; they aren’t offered on the mizbaoch?  There are two ways to understand this din.  Either it is telling us that even though the Bikkurim aren’t a korban the shtei halechem must precede anything that comes into the mikdash.  Or the drasha is telling us that Bikkurim are viewed as a korban.  This view can be supported from the Ramban in this week’s parsha (5:9) that the word והקריבו applies to Bikkurim which are brought toward the mizbaoch.

Korbanot Hachag

As I was attempting to pay some attention to the prayers on Tom Tov, I noticed a discrepancy in the pessukim of the mussaf offerings.  In the korbanot of the first day of Pesach it says (Pinchas 28:19) שבעה כבשים בני שנה תמימים יהיו לכם.  On Shavuot it just says (28:27) שבעה כבשים בני שנה.  On Sukkot it says שבעה כבשים בני שנה תמימים יהיו, no לכם.  What is the difference for this discrepancy?