Rashi in Taanis 29 says that we try to be more joyful in Adar because it is the month of the great miracles that saved our nation, Purim in Adar, which then leads into Nissan and Pesach.
The Sfas Emes there offers a different explanation which directly relates Av to Adar. He says that in the month of Av we diminish our simcha because of the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash. Adar, he says, is the converse of that event, because in Adar we joyfully used to give the Machatzis Hashekel, the annual half-shekel donation which was used to buy communal offerings and appurtenant utensils, and to pay for the maintenance of the Beis Hamikdash.
Reb Reuven Feinstein points out that the Gaon distinguishes Simcha from Sasson. The Gaon says that Sasson is the celebration of a joyful experience or achievement. Simcha celebrates a new opportunity to do wonderful things. שמחים בצאתם וששים בבואם. A chassan and kallah have both Sasson and Simcha, Sasson for what they've gotten, and Simcha for the opportunity to achieve more happiness and to do new and special mitzvos in the future. Simcha is enthusiasm, Simcha is excitement. Of course, we are forever grateful that Hashem saved us from our enemies. But when we say Mishenichnas Adar Marbim BeSimcha, it doesn't mean just that we are happy about what happened in the past. Simcha means we take the time to realize that this month gives us special opportunities to grow, to achieve, to contribute to the Geula and the Binyan Beis Hamikdash and the return of the Shechina to Klal Yisrael. Charles DeGaulle, of a famously sober mien, was asked by a reporter whether he was happy. He answered "What do you take me for, an idiot?" He had a point. Simcha that is satisfaction with what is is a dead end. Simcha that is enthusiasm for what you can do is the beginning of a journey to greatness. Marbim BeSimcha is not just commemoration; it is a celebration of an opportunity. See to it that you really have something to celebrate: take advantage of the opportunity! Be mechazek others, bring happiness to your friends and neighbors, raise the level of your community- including the people who are not exactly like you. Surprise someone whom you barely know with a nice Shalach Manos- not a trivial apple and grape juice. Give a pastrami sandwich. B'dieved, pizza will also do. And don't forget the beer (the mature palate prefers IPA).
(It's been noted that the idea of Marbim does not necessarily apply to the first Adar in a leap year. Indeed, the Yaavetz holds like that. Others hold it does apply. Since safek derabanan lekula, you don't have to be machmir to be marbeh simcha in Adar Rishon. But you can be marbeh besimcha if you want to, and you won't be nikra hediot.)
AND NOW, KODSHIM.
There is a category of Korbanos called "The Nisrafim." Unlike most korbanos, which are burned in the Beis Hamikdash, this category comprises Korbanos that, when correctly brought, are burned outside of Yerushalayim. The only members of this group are:
פר העלם דבר של ציבור
פר ושעיר (העלם דבר של) עבודה זרה
(פר (העלם דבר של) כהן המשיח (ולא כהן גדול מרובה בגדים
פר כהן גדול ושעיר של יום הכיפורים
All these korbanos are burned outside of Yerushalayim, outside Machaneh Yisrael. (Yes, Para Aduma is also burned outside of Yerushalayim. Parah Aduma is irrelevant to this discussion. It is sui generis.) These korbanos share one more element. By most korbanos, the blood is applied to the exterior Mizbeiach, and absolutely not in the Heichal/Ohel Moed. For these korbanos, however, the blood is applied in various places within the Heichal.
So we find two rare avodos in this group, which we will call A and B. 'A' is the avoda in the Heichal, and 'B' is burning outside the Machaneh.
When we find association of two atypical characteristics, there are four possibilities:
A → B.
B → A.
Unknown C → both A and B.
Unknown C → A and Unknown D → B.
Evidence for the first linkage, that A causes B, is to be found in the case of a standard Chatas whose blood was inappropriately brought into the Heichal for the purpose of Kapara. Such a Chatas is not eaten. Instead, it must be completely burned, as are the Nisrafim listed above. We see that A, bringing the blood into the Heichal, even where this is erroneous, results in B, the application of the rule of Nisrafim. It is possible that this converts the exterior Chatas into an interior Chatas, at least to some extent. Indeed, the Aruch Hashulchan in Kodshim 122 speculatives that bringing it into the Heichal elevates the kedusha of the blood and renders it unfit/overqualified for the lower-kedusha external Mizbeiach.
In fact, the Sfas Emes (Zevachim 82) says a remarkable thing. Although we hold, like Rebbi Eliezer, that External Chatas blood brought into the Heichal with intent to do the blood avodah there is enough to render it unfit, Rebbi Shimon holds that only actually using the blood in the Heichal renders it unfit. The Sfas Emes says that there is a world of difference between Rebbi Eliezer's "Unfit" and Rebbi Shimon's "Unfit." Rebbi Eliezer holds that the korban becomes useless and deconsecrated. Rebbi Shimon, he says, holds that using the blood in the Heichal generates a kapara for the owner of the korban, although we have to burn the meat outside of Yerushalayim. The former understands the result to be a derogation, a deconsecration, of the korban. The latter understands it to be a conversion from one form of Chatas to another, such that the korban is then burned, but the owner gains the intended benefit of the korban.
What does all this have to do with Parshas Titzaveh????
This parsha describes the Miluim, the inauguration of the Mishkan, which included the investiture of the Kohanim. This involved certain Korbanos. One of these Korbanos was a Par, a bull, as a Chatas. The service of this korban was the same as that of any other Chatas, namely, that lines of blood were placed on the corners of the top of the Mizbei'ach, but there was one aspect of this korban that is unique. It is the one and only exterior Chatas that is burned outside the Machaneh. In other words, it is the only Chatas whose blood is not placed on the interior mizbei'ach that must be burned outside the Machaneh, and not in the Azara. Rashi notes this fact in Shemos 29:14.
וְאֶת בְּשַׂר הַפָּר וְאֶת עֹרוֹ וְאֶת פִּרְשׁוֹ תִּשְׂרֹף בָּאֵשׁ מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה חַטָּאת הוּא, and Rashi says תשרף באש: לא מצינו חטאת
חיצונה נשרפת אלא זו
Reading just this Rashi will leave you with the wrong impression, because there actually was one other such exception- the calf Chatas brought by Aharon on the eighth day of the Miluim. There Rashi says the same as he says here, that the only exterior chatas's that are burned outside the encampment are that calf and our parsha's bull. The two are essentially the same, in that they were both investiture Chata'os, one for Kohanim in general, and one for Aharon alone. (Yes, the korban Chatas that invested the Leviim in Be'haaloscha was also burned. But I believe it was burned like an Olah, on the Mizbei'ach.)
Now this is a classic case of a Gzeiras Hakasuv, a halacha that clearly will defeat any attempt to understand it. Nonetheless, it does seem to contradict our assumption that burning the internal chataos is tied to the avoda being done in the Heichal. Here, the avoda is not done in the Heichal, and it was burned anyway. But this morning, when I was saying the shiur, I mentioned the Rashi, and someone pointed out that it might be incorrect to say that the unique aspect of this korban is that it is burned outside the machaneh even though the blood avoda in in the Azara. The chidush might be that although it is a par of the kohen gadol, like that of Yom Kippur, and therefore needs to be burned outside, nonetheless the blood is put on the exterior mizbeiach.
To review:
We assumed that bringing inside for avoda results in burning outside the Machaneh. A leads to B. It is possible, though, that an unknown external factor, C, results in both A and B. This was shown to be unlikely from the case of an exterior Chatas whose blood was brought into the Heichal for Avodah, so that an undesired A occurs, and the result is B. Clearly, then, we cannot say that A and B are the results of some outside X. It seems clear that A results in B. But if so, how are we to understand the Chatas of Miluim? There is no A, and still there is a B. So we might say either that yes, A does cause B, but some other factor can also cause B, or that A and only A causes B, but here, by the miluim, what seems to be non-A has the same effect as A. So the question is rephrased. Why, by the Miluim, is an outside Avoda essentially the same as an inside Avoda?
And the answer to this comes partially from Ramban, but mostly from the Netziv. The Ramban says that these Miluim Korbanos were really forms of Kapara for Avoda Zara, and so are included in the standard category of Se'ir Avoda Zara. The Netziv argues and says that they must be Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur, a similar idea. But why was the blood on the outside Mizbei'ach? The answer is, as the Netziv says in Shemos 40:9 DH Vehaya Kodesh, that there were No Avodos Pnim until the eighth day of the Miluim, because until then, only the outside Mizbei'ach had been annointed and only it had kedusha- and that kedusha happened to be Kedushas Bama. According to him, there was no concept of Avodas Pnim until then, or, alternatively, Chutz had the same din as Pnim, because ein pnim mimenu. Now if Chutz could serve as Pnim, this all makes sense. Yes, the Miluim had the din of Par He'elam Davar, or Se'ir Avoda Zara. Therefore, their avodas hadam resulted in Sreifa outside the Machaneh. The fact that this was done on the outside mizbei'ach didn't matter. The definition of A is either that the Torah requires an avoda called Zerikas Pnim, and this type of Zerika was done, or that in fact the zerikas dam was done in the Heichal. Here, the avodas hadam of these korbanos was A. So even though it was done on the outside mizbei'ach, it had a din of Zerikas Pnim. Other chata'os done on this mizbei'ach had a din of Zerikas Chutz. But for these unusual korbanos, what was done was a kiyum of a requirement for a Zerikas Pnim, and so it is called A. And A results in B. And if that's not marbim be'simcha, I don't know what is. (please note that I am not interested in discussing why these korbanos are burned outside the machaneh. I am not qualified to discuss that, and I am not at all interested in listening to people who think they are.) I tried to use the Gemara in Rosh Hashanna 26a, that Shofar, which comes l'zikaron, is like pnim, but as attractive as it sounded, it turned out to be a dead end. |
9 comments:
And after people finish learning kodshim, they can get around to learning Kodoshim, which they should have been doing in the first place.
לשון חכמים לחוד ולשון בעלי דקדוק לחוד
Speaking of which, I was shocked to learn that while in American yeshivos we're makdish animals, in Eretz Yisrael they're mekadesh them.
By the by, what did Rav Rudderman say? What did your father say? What did Reb Chaim Zimmerman say? Kodo-what? Maybe Rabbi Regensburg.
I know many people who were mekadesh animals. They just didn't discover that in time.
Many decades ago, I was asked to write a computer program that would vowelize a hebrew text based on the rules of dikduk. In my research phase, I purchased one of the first seforim vowelized using a similar program. I was impressed with the results until I came to a possuk. It seems that the Ribbono Shel Olam has different rules than those we follow.
Similarly, while you invoke many great authorities, I humbly submit that I take my rules from the Chumash. I suspect that lashon rabbo does not apply to the pronunciation of Lashon Kodesh found in Tanach.
For example, does anybody mispronounce tofach as tefach.
By the way, to Rav Regensburg you can add Rav Gifter.
And, furthermore, what did Rav Ruderman, my father, Rav Zimmerman say when they said the mishnayos of Aizehu Mekoman every day: kodshei kodshim or kodshei kodoshim; kodshim kalim or kodoshim kalim?
Taking it one step further: what do you say?
I'm sure they all said Korbonos before pesukei d'zimra, like all good baalei bayis.
But you're right. In the context of davening, they probably said kodoshim. But like I said, the nusach of yeshivos is different. Best Raya- the way litvishe yeshivos in Eretz Yisrael davka mess up the mile'el and mile'ra and the kametz and patach when they're leining or learning in Yeshiva. Sometimes it sounds funny, like a healthy person imitating a lisp.
So when you say kiddush, is the Ribbono Shel Olam being madkish the Shabbos? [Actually, this requires much more analysis, since we do say in many places makdishim, lehakdish l'Yotzram...]
Of course, if anyone had ever accused you of consistency [the hobgoblin of little minds], I would ask why you use Yoma in the blog [which is the way it is pronounced by a few great talmidei chachamim and those whose exposure to shas is through Artscroll] as opposed to the great unwashed pronounciation of Yuma.
You're right. I write Yoma, but say Yuma. Did you ever read Reb Yaakov Emden's essay about dikduk dilettantes (dillettanti)? It's entertaining, especially the part about ושמור צאתנו.
No,I haven't. Please send a cite and/or a link.
And just for precision, I suspect that you can add R' Yaakov to the list of R' Regensberg and R' Gifter.
However, this is just a suspicion, and I wonder if anybody out there could tell me if R' Yaakov said Kodoshim or, perish the thought, Kodshim.
Post a Comment