No, this is NOT about Rav Yechiel of Paris or the Aruch Laner and Rav Kalisher and the Chasam Sofer and Reb Akiva Eiger or the Netziv about Korban Pesach.
וַהֲשִׁמּוֹתִי אֶת מִקְדְּשֵׁיכֶם וְלֹא אָרִיחַ בְּרֵיחַ נִיחֹחֲכֶם
In the Tochecha, the passuk says that there will be/was destruction of the Mikdash, and I will not smell the fragrance of your korbanos.
Reb Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma here says that this passuk is well understood according to the Shitta of the Baal Tosfos Rabbeinu Chaim (who was famously a talmid of Rabbeinu Tam) in Megilla 10b. There is a machlokes whether the Kedusha of the Beis Hamikdash remained after its destruction. Most people read the Gemara to mean that if the kedusha remains, then private altars, Bamos, are prohibited. If the kedusha disappears, then Bamos are muttar. Rav Chaim holds that this is incorrect. He says that everyone agrees that once the Beis Hamikdash was built, never again are Bamos muttar. The machlokes is only whether the kedusha of the mikdash remains so that one could bring korbanos on the place of the Mizbei'ach.
Reb Meir Simcha explains that the first half of the pasuk, וַהֲשִׁמּוֹתִי אֶת מִקְדְּשֵׁיכֶם, means there will be no mikdash, that the kedusha of the mizbeiach will be gone so you won't be able to bring korbanos on the place of the mizbei'ach as mizbei'ach korbanos. And if you think that this will release you to bring korbanos on Bamos, the passuk says no: וְלֹא אָרִיחַ בְּרֵיחַ נִיחֹחֲכֶם . You won't even be allowed to bring korbanos on a Bama.
The great problem with this vort is that one of the prominent characteristics of a Bama is that there is no din of Rieach Nichoach on korbanos that are brought on a Bama. So how could Reb Meir Simcha say that the end of the passuk that says וְלֹא אָרִיחַ בְּרֵיחַ נִיחֹחֲכֶם is referring to Bamos? You can't possibly exclude Bamos with the words "I will not smell your Reiach Nichoach"!
The answer is that Reb Meir Simcha in several places brings a medrash that says that although there is no Reiach Nichoach on a bama, but if you build a bama on the place of the mizbeiach, then there IS Reiach Nichoach. It depends on the PLACE of the mizbei'ach, irrespective of Bama/Mizbei'ach, and irrespective of whether the place has Kedushas Mizbeiach. So the passuk means that not only won't you be able to be makriv on the place of the Mizbei'ach because lo kidsha le'asid lavo, but if you think you will be able to be makriv wherever you want with a Bama or ON THE PLACE OF THE MIZBEIACH WITH A BAMA, you're wrong, because there won't be a hetter bamos: no kedusha of the Mizbeiach to allow Mizbeiach-korbanos, and no hetter bamos which would allow a Bama on the place of the Mizbei'ach.
Derech Agav, using Reb Chaim Hakohen to deny the option of being makriv on the mekom hamizbei'ach with a mema nafshach of either mizbei'ach or bama can also be found in the Tzitz Eliezer here and here (volume 10 end of siman 13 and beginning of siman 5.)
3 comments:
There are some words there, like "kol eretz yisroel," that are mashma not like you, but it could be that he doesn't mean davka outside the mikdash, he means both in and out, so all in all, it's a good pshat.
I understand negi'us, but this is delusional. Reb Meir Simcha says "bechol Eretz Yisrael." He doesn't mean "on the place of the mitzbeiach." Yes, you need to fix some of the words about kidsha le'shaata, but that doesn't mean that you can mush "bechol Eretz Yisrael" into the mekom hamizbei'ach.
What I said was that he means that you can't use a Bama, not in all of Eretz Yisrael and not on the Mekom Hamizbei'ach. Since the passuk is also precluding the latter, the term reiach nichoach makes sense even for a Bama. If you want to think that the zetzer dropped the type and stuck the words back in randomly, good for you.
Post a Comment