Tzav. Three He'aros on Zerizus

1. Rashi in the beginning of the parsha:

צו את אהרן. אֵין צַו אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן זֵרוּז מִיָּד וּלְדוֹרוֹת; אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, בְּיוֹתֵר צָרִיךְ הַכָּתוּב לְזָרֵז בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ חֶסְרוֹן כִּיס (ספרא):

Rashi in Devarim 1:16:

ואצוה את שפטיכם. אָמַרְתִּי לָהֶם הֱווּ מְתוּנִין בַּדִּין – אִם בָּא דִּין לְפָנֶיךָ פַּעַם אַחַת, שְׁתַּיִם, וְשָׁלוֹשׁ, אַל תֹּאמַר כְּבָר בָּא דִּין זֶה לְפָנַי פְּעָמִים הַרְבֵּה, אֶלָּא הֱיוּ נוֹשְׂאִים וְנוֹתְנִים בּוֹ (שם):

Rav Bergman (Ma'amarim here in Tzav) points out that Mesinus in the context of din means moving slowly - as in Brachos 20a,

כי הא דרב אדא בר אהבה חזייה לההיא כותית דהות לבישא כרבלתא בשוקא סבר דבת ישראל היא קם קרעיה מינה אגלאי מילתא דכותית היא שיימוה בארבע מאה זוזי א"ל מה שמך אמרה ליה מתון אמר לה מתון מתון ארבע מאה זוזי שויא:

Rashi there:

מתון מתון - לשון מאתן:

ד' מאות - ב' פעמים ב' מאות כלומר השם גרם לי לשון אחר מתון מתון לשון המתנה אם המתנתי הייתי משתכר ד' מאות זוז:

So what does Tzav connote? Alacrity or deliberation? Rav Bergman answers that there is physical atzlus and there is mental atzlus. A person that is mentally lazy will answer questions by rote. A person that is a mental Zariz will think through the question and the circumstances and quickly review the basis for the psak.

So Zrizus is always speed and alacrity. But in the case of psak, it means to be mentally agile and quick, and to use every iteration of a question as an opportunity to reexamine old certainties.

2.  From Reb Yerucham.  The word tzivui was used in regard to the exact same dinim in Tetzaveh. Two ziruzim were needed, exactly as the Mesillas Yesharim says in perek 7. I am widely known as something of an expert on atzlus, so trust me when I tell you that the Ramchal is right. Sometimes you decide something needs to be done, and somehow you congratulate yourself on your strength of character as demonstrated by your decision, and the self-congratulatory satisfaction replaces the actual motivation to get it done. The same happens when you begin a project that takes time and work, and after a day or two..... 

3.  Reb Moshe, in the new Kol Rom, says that the instruction of zerizus is particularly important in the parsha of Olah. A person brings an olah, which seems to yield very little practical benefit to anyone, and it reminds him that our efforts are not tied to our success. The Ribono shel Olam decides what will succeed and what we will have. A person might use this faith, this sharp spiritual perception, to justify sloth. So the Torah says No, whatever you choose to do for a parnassah, don't do it half heartedly. Do it with energy and diligence and focus - with Zerizus!

(You need to see it inside, but I can't quote it verbatim because A, it's copyrighted, and B, even if I decided it's ok to steal someone's hard work, it's not available online.)

Tazria, Vayikra 13:3. A Kohen Must See the Tzara'as.

 The Torah says that if a nega appears, only a kohen may pasken whether it is Tzara'as. If he is not a Talmid Chacham, he has to take a lamden with him to tell him what to pasken. But the Kohen has to examine the nega'im, and, ultimately, he has to pasken.

Rabbi Dr. Gary Schreiber pointed out that the avoda of the miluim, the process by which the Kohanim were inaugurated, has similarities to the tahara process of the metzora. If you carefully compare the two, you will find that they have avodos in common which are rarely found elsewhere. He said an excellent, and, I think, new, pshat that explains both connections of Kehuna to Tzara'as.

A kohen is subject to the temptation of gaavah, because of his entitlements (the twenty four Matnos Kehuna) and his kedusha (which enables him to do the avodah and requires him to be tahor). Also, Kohanim are aware of everyone’s sins, because whoever brings a korban chatas has to be misvadeh; furthermore, when someone brings a chatas, he has to clearly explain to the Beis Din of the Kohanim why he is bringing it, so they can be sure that the Korban Chatas is indeed required and that it is not chulin ba'azara. So he might say lashon hora. This is a dangerous position to be in: you are born with superior kedusha, Klal Yisrael has to sweat to wrest a living from the earth while you sit at home and get your food-- grain, fruit and meat-- delivered tied with a bow, and you are privy to all their embarrasing failures and sins. It would not be surprising if Kohanim viewed the rest of Klal Yisrael as if they were a bunch of donkeys. This natural tendency to ga'avah and lashon hara can bring Tzara'as.

So the Torah says that the kohanim must personally look at nega’im. They need to see what the result of gaavah and lashon hara are. This constant visual reinforcement will help them control their yetzer hora. Very few oncologists smoke, and many dermatologists obssesively avoid exposure to sunlight, because day after day they see the deadly results of irresponsible and self destructive behavior; so, too, Kohanim are obligated to closely examine the nega'im of Tzara'as, and this will remind them to eschew the traits that bring Tzara'as - Ga'avah and Lashon Hara.

And this explains why the Avodas HaMilu'im recalls Taharas Metzora. The foundation ritual of Kehuna mirrors the taharas metzora process, so that every kohen will read this parsha and remember that the superior status he was granted brought with it a concomitant danger, and that every day he must be on guard against the temptations of ga'avah and lashon hara. Indeed, this concept is found in the Bracha the Kohanim give Klal Yisrael: Yevarechacha Hashem Veyishmerecha: every blessing brings along a heightened risk and the need for shemira. Kohanim, too, are blessed with many things, and these blessings create the need for greater shemira.

(Dr. Schreiber's words:
"...the similarity between the avoda of the taharas hametzora and the miluim of the kohanim which requires blood placed on the the bohanos of each of them. The kohen will hopefully carry the initial impression with him through his years of avodah and refrain from the failings that lead to one becoming a metzora.")

Update 2017: R Avrohom Bukspan sent a comment that connects a Medrash on this inyan. Vayikra Rabba 15.

רבי בשם רבי חמא בר חנינא: 

צער גדול היה לו למשה בדבר, כך הוא כבודו של אהרן אחי להיות רואה את הנגעים?! 

אמר ליה הקב"ה: לא נהנה (אותו) מהם כ"ד מתנות? 

מתלא אמר: דאכיל בהדי קורא ילקה בהדי קילא, (= האוכל מן הקור לוקה מן הקורה).

There are too many pshatim on the words דאכיל בהדי קורא so we won't go into that, but, as I responded to Reb Avrohom, 

Very interesting pshat in the Medrash. Pashtus, it means that if a person shares his blessings with you, you can't turn your back on him when he's suffering and say it has nothing to do with you, you have to share his pain as well. But the way you're connecting it to this pshat, it's Chazal's way of describing what Gaavah is all about- that when it comes to taking, you think you're entitled, so that when the man needs sympathy, you don't feel any obligation to him. "I took because I deserve, and it's an honor for him to give me. I owe nothing to him!" So the Torah says, no. It was a gift, and you should be makir tov to the extent that his pain is your pain.

Update 2021:

Just to outline the similarities between Taharas Metzora and Chinuch Kohanim and Leviim. Chinuch Leviim is in Behaaloscha, and Kohanim is in Tzav.

1. Taglachas: 

Metzora, (ויקרא יד, ט) 

וְהָיָה בַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי יְגַלַּח אֶת כׇּל שְׂעָרוֹ אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ וְאֶת זְקָנוֹ וְאֵת גַּבֹּת עֵינָיו וְאֶת־כׇּל־שְׂעָרוֹ יְגַלֵּחַ 

Leviim וְהֶעֱבִירוּ תַעַר עַל כָּל בְּשָׂרָם" (במדבר ח, ז)

2. Kibus:

Metzora וְכִבֶּס אֶת בְּגָדָיו" (ויקרא יד, ט) 

Leviim וְכִבְּסוּ בִגְדֵיהֶם וְהִטֶּהָרוּ" (במדבר שם)

3. Tevilla.

4. Tenufa, by Metzora on his living Korban, by the Leviim on them personally.

5. Dam and Shemen on the persons:

Metzora  וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן מִדַּם הָאָשָׁם וְנָתַן הַכֹּהֵן עַל תְּנוּךְ אֹזֶן... וכו" (ויקרא יד, יד, י'ז)

וּמִיֶּ֨תֶר הַשֶּׁ֜מֶן אֲשֶׁ֣ר עַל־כַּפּ֗וֹ יִתֵּ֤ן הַכֹּהֵן֙ עַל־תְּנ֞וּךְ אֹ֤זֶן הַמִּטַּהֵר֙ הַיְמָנִ֔ית וְעַל־בֹּ֤הֶן יָדוֹ֙ הַיְמָנִ֔ית וְעַל־בֹּ֥הֶן רַגְל֖וֹ הַיְמָנִ֑ית עַ֖ל דַּ֥ם הָאָשָֽׁם׃

Kohanim, (ויקרא ח, כד-ל)וישחט ויקח משה מדמו ויתן על־תנוך אזן־אהרן הימנית ועל־בהן ידו הימנית ועל־בהן רגלו הימנית

ויקרב את־בני אהרן ויתן משה מן־הדם על־תנוך אזנם הימנית ועל־בהן ידם הימנית ועל־בהן רגלם הימנית

Shemen, by the Kohanim, ויקח משה משמן המשחה ומן־הדם אשר על־המזבח ויז על־אהרן על־בגדיו ועל־בניו ועל־בגדי בניו אתו ויקדש את־אהרן את־בגדיו ואת־בניו ואת־בגדי בניו אתו 

UPDATE 2022.

I just saw an email from R Zweig's yeshiva in Miami. He says that the lesson of davka these three limbs is that a kohen, elevated to Keser Kehuna, holier than every other Jew, needs to be reminded that his is a position of service, not self-aggrandizement. So you put the dam on his hand, leg and ear - The kohen is charged with the work of doing for others, and going to others, and listening to others.  The same lesson is taught the Metzora, who needs to change from self centered to sympathetic.

His words:

In this week’s parsha, we find Hashem giving Moshe instructions for the official installation of Aharon and his sons as kohanim – the priestly class of Bnei Yisroel. Moshe then gathers all of Bnei Yisroel to watch as he follows a step-by-step process for initiating Aharon and his sons as the kohanim.

Aside from the steps that might be expected in the process of elevating their status – immersion in a mikveh, dressing them in priestly vestments, applying and sprinkling the special anointing oil to all the vessels in the Mishkan and to Aharon and his sons as well, etc. – we find a very unusual ritual.

Several sacrifices were offered: a bull was brought as a sin offering, a ram was brought as a burnt offering, and a second ram was brought as a peace offering (see 8:22 and Rashi ad loc). Moshe then applied the blood of the peace offering to Aharon’s and his sons’ right ear lobes, right thumbs, and right big toes.

This ritual is only performed in one other place in the Torah: by the purification of a person who has been struck by tzora’as – commonly (and incorrectly) translated as leprosy.

hat is the meaning of this enigmatic ritual and what is the relationship between initiating the kohanim and cleansing one who has recovered from tzora’as?

Aharon and his sons were being elevated to a new status over the rest of the Jewish people. They were now receiving forevermore one of the three crowns that Hashem gifted to this world; they were receiving the crown of kehuna. Without proper perspective, being crowned can be a dangerous affair as it can easily lead one to harbor false notions of self-importance. A person can actually begin to believe that he is receiving this honor because there is something intrinsically great about himself.

The unique ritual of placing the blood on the ear lobe, thumb, and big toe is intended to address this issue. The unifying connection between all of these parts of the body is that the ears, fingers, and toes represent the person’s extremities. When a person gets cold, the first parts that are affected are the extremities – namely the ears, fingers, and toes – because they are the furthest from the core of the body. Yet, when a person is asked to point to himself, he always points to his core. Thus, by emphasizing the extremities, this ritual demonstrates that the position is not about them personally, it’s about what they can do for others.

The message they receive is that while being anointed a kohen is an honor, it is more significantly a great and awesome responsibility. The Talmud has a dispute about whether the kohanim are agents of the people to Hashem or agents of Hashem to the people, but everyone agrees that they are merely agents. In other words, they are facilitators not principals. This is the message conveyed by placing the blood on the extremities.

This is also true of a person who has been struck by tzora’as. This punishment comes as a consequence of speaking loshon hora. The core motivating force of one who speaks loshon hora is the desire to elevate oneself by putting others down. While every sin contains an element of self-centered behavior, loshon hora is the sin of focusing on the perceived importance of oneself and trying to elevate the opinions of others regarding one’s own self-importance. This is why a person needs a kohen to declare them unclean and the process of purification is the same as the kohen’s initiation. The message they are supposed to receive and internalize is that they need to focus less on themselves and their own importance.

ADDITIONAL UPDATE 2022

Dr. R' Hertzka Grinblatt offered another very good explanation for the commonality among Metzora and Kohen and Levi. He said that all three need to be kovei'a themselves in a machaneh.

The Metzora needs to be allowed into Machane Yisrael; the Levi into Machane Levi'ah; the Kohen into Machane Shechina.

This is a case of תן לחכם ויחכם עוד, and also an application of די לחכימה ברמיזה. Because you can cavil that the Metzora was already muttar to enter the machane after the Shtei Tziporim; and the Levi? He doesn't need any hetter to go into the Har HaBayis. But the point is still excellent. There are three machanos. Each of the three is the place of the parts of Klal Yisrael. For all three of these people, it is part of the process that is KOVEI'A them into their machane position. Again, I can explain it for you, I can not understand it for you. 

Tzav: The Minchas Chavitin

I posted in Shemini on the Rishonim that say that a Kohen Hedyot on the day of his investiture, when he brings his Minchas Chavitin which is called a Minchas Chinuch, has certain denim of a Kohen Gadol. This is based on the fact that the korban brought on by a young kohen on his first day is brought by the Kohen Gadol every day he is in office.  This is the shakla v'tarya Rabbi Avraham Bukspan (Miami, author of Classics and Beyond/אבני קודש/Parsha Pearls) and I had mei'inyan le'inyan.

From Rabbi Bukspan:

Tzav 2 — Kohanim and Korbanos and Klal Yisrael

זה קרבן אהרן ובניו אשר יקריבו לה' ביום המשח אתו עשירת האפה סלת מנחה תמיד מחציתה בבקר ומחציתה בערב:

הכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו יעשה אתה חק עולם לה' כליל תקטר…

This is the offering of Aharon and his sons, which each shall offer to Hashem on the day he is inaugurated: a tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a meal-offering; continually, half of it in the morning and half of it in the afternoon…The Kohen from among his sons who is anointed in his place shall perform it; it is an eternal decree for Hashem; it shall be caused to go up in smoke in its entirety (Vayikra 6:13, 15).

            Often, a topic's location in the Torah speaks volumes, clueing us into wonderful lessons to learn and live life by. The placement of the korbanos the Kohanim brought upon being initiated into their holy service is such an instance. 

            Though the final third of Parashas Tzav describes the seven days of the inauguration of the Mishkan and the Kohanim, the minchas chinuch, the flour-offering brought by a Kohen on his first day of service, is found earlier in the parashah (between the korban minchah and korban chatas). If this is an inaugural sacrifice, why is it not placed near the laws that apply to the inauguration of the Kohanim?

             In general, a man of means would be the one to offer a large animal as a sacrifice, since that comes at a considerable expense. One with less disposable income would bring a less expensive bird, and one in the most dire straits would bring a minchah, a small amount of flour, scraped together from the free-for-the-taking leket, shichechah, andpe'ah.  

            Rav Zalman Sorotzkin (Oznayim LaTorah ad loc.) describes how feelings of worthlessness may shroud the pauper as he self-consciously, and with great embarrassment, brings what he perceives is the least of the korbanos. In Rav Sorotzkin's words, the poor person says to himself, "Everyone else brings animals and birds, while I, the poor man, have nothing with which to honor Hashem but a tenth of an ephah of flour!"

            For this reason, writes Rav Sorotzkin, right after the poor man's meal-offering, we find the meal-offering brought by the Kohen at his investiture into office. Hashem is showing the pauper who else is bringing a meal-offering: the Kohen, from the elite of Klal Yisrael. As Rashi explains (verse 13), though this korban was brought by all Kohanim only on the day of their inauguration, the Kohen Gadol brought it every day. In fact, he even brought it on Yom Kippur. Hashem was telling the pauper, "Even Aharon, on the day he enters the Kodesh HaKodashim, is to offer the same. What's more, the Kohen Gadol brings half of the measurement (of a tenth of an ephah) in the morning, and the other half at night, not even all at once — while yours is whole, offered all at one time. You have nothing to feel bad about."

            We can turn around the idea of the Oznayim LaTorah to demonstrate how it is also for the sake of the Kohen that he and the pauper bring the same korban. After undergoing a chinuch process and then waiting seven days (Vayikra 8), Aharon and his sons officially became Kohanim. From that point on, they were Klal Yisrael's elite. They were supported by the Klal, and had access to places that would render others guilty of a high crime. Bnei Yisrael needed their services and came to them with their problems. They were the holders of high office, with unique power and prestige. There is even a mitzvah to treat them with special honor (Vayikra 21:8).

            All of this could subtly induce feelings of superiority and unjustified importance. To preempt this, the Kohen, at the moment of his advancement, had to learn the lesson that only a minchas chinuch could teach. By bringing a poor man’s korban, he was making a statement: "I realize that I was not selected to lord over others but to serve, not to receive rewards but to help make life rewarding to others." At the very moment that he was elevated to high office, he had to be made aware that he should not feel elevated.

            The challenge facing the Kohen Gadol was far more serious, as he was the principal figure in the Beis HaMikdash. In contrast to the Kohen Hedyot, who served in theBeis HaMikdash for only two weeks a year, the Kohen Gadol served there all year long. And on Yom Kippur, he performed the special avodah of the day, even entering the Kodesh HaKodashim, the holiest place on earth. The other Kohanim, whom we have to honor, must themselves honor the Kohen Gadol. To thread the needle between accolades and humility could not have been easy for him.

             A Jewish king had to have a personal copy of the Torah strapped to his arms at all times:  "Le’vilti rum levavo mei’echav — So that his heart does not become haughty over his brothers” (Devarim 17:20).He may have been king, but he could not allow it to go to his head.  In order to uphold his moral and ethical compass, a Kohen Gadol also needed a tangible reminder.

            Yet one minchas chinuch, at the beginning of his career, would not have been sufficient. On a daily basis, the Kohen Gadol was to bring the same korban as the pauper did, to demonstrate that he may have merited high office, but he should not feel any higher than the people.  Like his forebear Aharon, who was praised for not allowing the office to change him (Bamidbar 8:3: Rashi, Ohr HaChaim), the Kohen Gadol had to maintain his spiritual equilibrium. As the Abarbanel (verse 13) explains, the Kohen Gadol had to offer a minchah every day, thereby bringing the feeling of humility into his heart, since after all, his offering was the same as the poor person's.

            Perhaps that is why he had to bring only half of the korban every morning and the other half every evening, taking the same tenth of an ephah as the most destitute person and dividing it into two. He thereby acknowledged that though he was the representative of the entire nation, he was not even giving as much as the poorest person at any one time.

            Rav Michel Zilber (cited in VeShalal Lo Yechsar ad loc.) has a far different pshat to explain why the Kohen Gadol brought what was essentially an inaugural korban every day.

As we saw in Rashi's explanation cited in the beginning of this piece, the pasuk weaves together the laws of the one-time minchas chinuch of the Kohen Hedyot with the dailyminchas chavitin of the Kohen Gadol. Why is this?

            Rav Zilber explains that even the daily korban of the Kohen Gadol was, to a certain extent, an inaugural one. The Kohen Gadol was supposed to be in a constant state of spiritual growth, with no ceiling or limits. As such, every day he was like a new person, different and greater than the day before. Consequently, his avodah on any given day was also new, filled with novel facets in his service to Hashem and the Klal. That is why he brought a daily meal-offering, which was essentially no different from a minchas chinuch, as he underwent a new inauguration on a daily basis.

            Rav Zilber concludes that this can serve as a lesson for us all. We need to constantly find new ways to grow and serve Hashem. The depth of our mitzvos and the care we put into them can always be improved and brought to the next level, as we constantly offer Hashem our personal minchah chadashah.

My response:

If I were to say it, I would use a slightly different approach, based on an idea I heard from Reb Moshe innumerable times. Davka the Kohen Gadol, who has reason to think that he stands on the highest plateau, needs to be reminded that as far as what he might achieve, he is no farther along than a kohen hedyot on the first day he is doing the avoda.

So there are two lessons. One, that a kohen hedyot should realize that he must seize the new opportunity and that he has the ability to be as great as the Kohen Gadol, and Two, the great Kohen Gadol has to be reminded never to rest on his laurels, that he has great horizons that remain to be achieved.

The Hedyot needs to know that he has the potential to be a Gadol. The Gadol needs to be reminded that he is just a Hedyot.

(Or, if you apply it to a Bar Mitzvah, 

The Bar Mitzva bachur needs to know that he now has the opportunity to become the greatest man in Klal Yisrael, and the greatest person in Klal Yisrael must be reminded to have the humility and receptiveness of a Bar Mitzva bachur.)

This reminds me of a Rashi in Melachim I 5:13 that I just learned with my wife the other day, which also relates to this week's parsha, Tazria. Speaking of the wisdom of Shlomo HaMelech, the passuk says

וַיְדַבֵּר֮ עַל־הָֽעֵצִים֒ מִן־הָאֶ֙רֶז֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּלְּבָנ֔וֹן וְעַד֙ הָאֵז֔וֹב אֲשֶׁ֥ר יֹצֵ֖א בַּקִּ֑יר וַיְדַבֵּר֙ עַל־הַבְּהֵמָ֣ה וְעַל־הָע֔וֹף וְעַל־הָרֶ֖מֶשׂ וְעַל־הַדָּגִֽים׃

Rashi says

וַיְדַבֵּר עַל הָעֵצִים. מָה רְפוּאַת כָּל אֶחָד, וְעֵץ פְּלוֹנִי יָפֶה לְבִנְיָן פְּלוֹנִי, וְלִטַּע בְּקַרְקַע פְּלוֹנִית וְכֵן עַל הַבְּהֵמָה, מָה רְפוּאָתָהּ, וְעִקַּר גִּדּוּלֶיהָ וּמַאֲכָלָהּ. וּמִדְרַשׁ אַגָּדָה: מָה רָאָה מְצֹרָע לִטָּהֵר בְּגָבוֹהַּ שֶׁבַּגְּבוֹהִים, וּבְנָמוּךְ שֶׁבַּנְּמוּכִים. וְעַל הַבְּהֵמָה וְעַל הָעוֹף, מָה רָאָה זֶה לִהְיוֹת כָּשֵׁר בִּשְׁחִיטָה בְּסִימָן אֶחָד, וְזֶה בִּשְׁנֵי סִימָנִין, וְדָגִים וַחֲגָבִים בְּלֹא כְלוּם.

The classic drush about needing to be reminded of gavhus and of nemichus, עפר ואפר ובשבילי נברא העולם. Like the Chovos Halevavos in שער הכניעה פרק ב

Tzav: Drasha for Sheva Brachos (#4) The Korban for Newlyweds.

This is Drush, and not intended for analysis with scalpels.

Rabbeinu Bachay in Parshas Tzav says (second column sixteen lines from the bottom) that newlyweds bring a Korban Todah.   He says that anyone that experiences a special joyous event should bring a Korban Todah, and in particular he says that a Chassan and Kallah should bring this korban.  Most importantly, Rabbeinu Bachaya is telling us that when the passuk in Yirmiahu (33:11-12) says that people will once again  bring the Korban Todah, it is referring to the beginning of the passuk that talks about the joy of the Chasan and Kallah, and the passuk means that Chassanim and Kallos used to- and someday soon will again bring- a Korban Todah.

כֹּה אָמַר ה, עוֹד יִשָּׁמַע בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם אֹמְרִים חָרֵב הוּא מֵאֵין אָדָם וּמֵאֵין בְּהֵמָה בְּעָרֵי יְהוּדָה  וּבְחֻצוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַם, הַנְשַׁמּוֹת מֵאֵין אָדָם וּמֵאֵין יוֹשֵׁב, וּמֵאֵין בְּהֵמָה.   קוֹל שָׂשׂוֹן וְקוֹל שִׂמְחָה, קוֹל חָתָן וְקוֹל כַּלָּה, קוֹל אֹמְרִים הוֹדוּ אֶת ה' צְבָאוֹת כִּי טוֹב ה' כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ מְבִאִים תּוֹדָה בֵּית ה:, 

I understand that the exuberant Chasan and Kallah would sing  הוֹדוּ אֶת ה צְבָאוֹת כִּי טוֹב ה כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ.  But the idea that Chasan and Kallah bring a Korban Todah is interesting, because we usually associate the korban with having survived some mortal danger.  The Gemara (Brachos 54b,  and see Rambam 10 Brachos 8 and OC 219:1) specifies four people who are obligated to bring this korban, and all are people who were saved from danger.  In fact, this idea is reflected in our Tefilla.  One who was saved from this type of danger makes the Bracha Birkas Hagomel.  For general celebration, you can bring a shlamim or an olah, and the appropriate bracha is She'hechiyanu.  So it's interesting that Rabbeinu Bachay says that a Korban Todah is brought to celebrate a joyous occasion.  More importantly, why does Rabbeinu Bachay single out being newly married as the archetypal circumstance of bringing the Korban Todah?

The Gemara (Sota 2a) says אמר ר' יוחנן וקשין לזווגן כקריעת ים סוף שנאמר (תהילים סח) אלהים מושיב יחידים ביתה מוציא אסירים בכושרות, marrying people off is as "hard" as splitting the sea, as it says in Tehillim, G-d settles the solitary in a house; He frees those who are bound in "Kosharos," shackles.  (Rashi in Sotah, expanding on the interpretation of the verse as referring to the redemption from Mitzrayim, says that Kosharos means a season that is temperate, neither hot nor cold, because the geula from Mitzrayim was in the Springtime.)  The Gemara sees in this passuk a connection between marriage- "G-d settles the solitary in a house"- and the redemption from Egypt, "He frees those who are bound in shackles."  Thus, the Gemara equates a successful marriage and the splitting of the sea.

Rashi explains that the miracle of marriage is taking a boy, a yachid, and a girl, a yechida, and creating from these yechidim a completely new home, a new kingdom, and this is a miracle comparable to the splitting of the sea.  The ability of individuals to willingly and successfully cede their independence to a new mutual identity is only possible with divine assistance.

Although the Gemara focuses on the aspect of divine intervention- krias yam suf, one can see in the Gemara another thought.  The passuk is also telling us that that getting married is similar to being freed from a prison Motzi assirim.  In what sense is that true?  

Until someone is married, he is imprisoned by limited emotional horizons.  He suffers from the astigmatism of egotism; he has no idea what it means to care for someone else more than he cares for himself, he lacks the basic understanding of what it means to be a fully realized human being, he is in danger of being emotionally stunted, a Wagnerian Nibelung.  So, despite the Orwellian undertone, getting married really is like being liberated from prison.  

As the Netziv says, the Korban Todah is brought על שנחלץ מצרה; literally, the word צרה means travail, but it is related to the word צר which means tight and constrained.  So the best translation would be that the korban is brought on the occasion of "release from confinement."  That is certainly an apt description of marriage.    נחלץ מצרה means that he was granted expansion, an expansion that unbound him from his isolated strait.

That sentence deserves to be emphasized.   על שנחלץ מצרה means that he was unbound from his strait of isolation.  This is the foundation of the Korban Todah, and it is a perfect description of what marriage can give us.

GS point out that Rashi in Vayishlach, by Machalas bas Yishmael, brings the Yerushalmi that "Chasan mochlin lo."   If so, he says, the chasan certainly ought to bring a korban Todah.  So for one thing, he was spared the onshim of his aveiros.  Secondly, a spiritual hatzala is comparable to a physical hatzala.  (Similar to Megilla 14, where the Gemara says a kal vachomer, if from avdus to cheirus you say Shira, KV from death to life, so Chazal were kovei'a Megillas Esther as part of Kisvei HaKodesh.)

As I mentioned above, the classic use of the Korban Todah is for a person that has has one of the following four experiences:  These can be remembered with the mnemonic Chayim, חיים..  That is, Chavush/freed from prison; ; Yeshurim/recovered from illness; Yam/returned from an ocean voyage; and Midbar/returned from travel in the desert.  Homiletically, one might say that all the elements of obligation for the Korban Todah are present when one gets married.  He was a is a choleh, because if a person doesn’t get married, the Gemara says (Kiddushin 29b), he deteriorates physically (tipach.)  He is like a traveler in the desert, as Hashem said that He remembers the love of our first relationship, when we followed Him into the desert, zacharti lach...lechteich acharai bamidbar, the willingness to risk everything because you love and trust your spouse..  He is like a prisoner freed from jail, because he has freed himself from the emotional prison of yechidus.  And he is like one who has returned from a sea voyage, because after the long and lonely odyssey as he searched, he has finally come into his home port.

In our time, a person who survives a danger stands at the Bimah (or a woman does this at home with a minyan) and makes the Bracha Hagomel.  One could support the notion that a Chassan and Kallah should do the same.  Of course, there is no such minhag.  But certainly, when they say Modim in Shmoneh Esrei, they should express their gratitude to Hashem for bringing them together and helping to create a new household.  It doesn't hurt to also have your marriage in mind when you say "Sim Shalom."

Note:  Besides the Korban Todah, in the time of the Beis Hamikdash, a Chassan would come to the Beis Hamikdash especially on Shabbos, because on the east side of the structure there was a gate made of white glass through which only newlywed men would enter.  When people would see a man come in through that gate, they would all bless him, saying "He Who dwells in this house, may he bless you with sons and daughters!"  (From Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer 17.  Although there is no mention of this gate in the Mishna in the first perek of Middos, which enumerates and describes all the entrances to the Beis Hamikdash, it is mentioned in Maseches Sofrim 19:12.)  As it says in Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer, even though now we have no Beis Hamikdash, we should do the same when the Chassan comes to Shul on Shabbos.

הנכנס בשער חתנים היו יודעים בו שהוא חתן והיו אומרים לו השוכן בבית הזה יברכך בבנים ובבנות

~

Tzav, Vayikra 7:12. Korban Todah: Man was created to struggle.

This post has two sections.  The first deals with the Korban Todah, and the feelings one should have when bringing a thanksgiving offering.  The second part was brought up in the comments when I first posted this, and discusses the meaning of 'Todah' as used in Korban Todah and in Shmone Esrei.

Part I

(Based in part on the Ksav Sofer, Beis Halevi, Tzidkas Hatzadik)

The Korban Todah (Todah meaning gratitude or acknowledgment) is an offering that one brings when he is saved from some imminent danger.  Chazal (Brachos 54) say, for example, that four events create an obligation to bring this korban: recovery from illness, release from prison, finishing a trip through the desert, and reaching land after a sea voyage.



Tehillim (50:23:

זֹבֵחַ תּוֹדָה יְכַבְּדָנְנִי  וְשָׂם דֶּרֶךְ אַרְאֶנּוּ בְּיֵשַׁע אֱלֹהִים.  

One who slaughters a Korban Todah honors Me, and [I will] prepare the way; I will show him the salvation of God."
The word 'yechabda'ne'ni' would normally be written 'yechabdeini'.  It seems to have a superfluous "nun". The Tanchuma (sort of like the Gemara Sanhedrin 43b) says that the double ‘nun’ tells us to double our appreciation, to offer “kavod achar kavod”  to hashem.  A person who is saved from a danger and brings a korban todah should recognize that even the tzaros were intended for his benefit; he should praise Hashem for both the tzaros and the yeshuos, the danger and the salvation.  This is why the end of the passuk says be’yesha Elokim”-- the salvation of Elokim.  But Elokim is midas hadin, the trait of strict judgment, not mercy!  The answer is that when the person looks at the gezeira of the midas hadin, and he is “sahm derech”--that is, that it makes a lasting impression on him and he is chozer beteshuva or it is memarek his aveiros, then he will see that the Elokim itself is part of his yeshua.

וישב יעקב. בקש יעקב לישב בשלוה קפץ עליו רגזו של יוסף. לא דיין לצדיקים שמתוקן להם העוה״ב אלא שרוצים לישב בשלוה בעוהיז.

The Medrash in Vayeisheiv (brought in Rashi there) says, Tzadikim should know that life is not about tranquility and peace.  Life is about conflict and tests, and we are expected to bravely face them and overcome them.  Not only are we expected to win our battles, but when we do win, we bring a korban today and thank the Ribono shel Olam for testing us.  Ke'sheim she'mevorchim....

What was the essential difference between Shaul Hamelech and David Hamelech?  Why did Shaul's reign die with him, while David began an eternal dynasty? 

In I Shmuel 16:11-12 David Hamelech is described as

 אַדְמוֹנִי, עִם יְפֵה עֵינַיִם וְטוֹב רֹאִי

rubicund, though with beautiful eyes and handsome appearance.

The Malbim there explains that there was an innate conflict in David's personality.  He was driven by very powerful human urges, but he was so spiritually strong that he not only overcame them, but he incorporated those carnal and aggressive forces into his service of Hashem.  When Shmuel came to Yishai to find the king that would replace Shaul, he first saw Eliav.  He saw in Eliav the same characteristics he saw in Shaul--  who is described as being head and shoulders higher than any other person (I Shmuel 9:2):

מִשִּׁכְמוֹ וָמַעְלָה, גָּבֹהַּ מִכָּל הָעָם.

The same words are used to describe Eliav:

יַּרְא אֶת אֱלִיאָב; וַיֹּאמֶר אַךְ נֶגֶד ה' מְשִׁיחוֹ.    וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל שְׁמוּאֵל אַל תַּבֵּט אֶל מַרְאֵהוּ וְאֶל גְּבֹהַּ קוֹמָתוֹ כִּי מְאַסְתִּיהוּ  כִּי לֹא אֲשֶׁר יִרְאֶה הָאָדָם כִּי הָאָדָם יִרְאֶה לַעֵינַיִם וַיהוָה יִרְאֶה לַלֵּבָב

David was not like Eliav or Shaul.  He was not a perfect, tranquil, natural tzadik.  His life was constant battle against a roaring lion of a Yetzer Hara.  He won every single battle, but the war raged on almost his whole life.  This distinguished David from his brother Eliav and from his predecessor, Shaul.  It was precisely this trait, this weakness/strength, that Hashem wanted in His warrior-king. (It's interesting to think about the difference in perspective between the Greek trope of the hero's 'fatal flaw' that ultimately results in the protagonist's downfall, and the Torah idea of the 'enlivening flaw,' the flaw one strives to overcome, and, by doing so, makes himself a true hero.)

As Reb Tzadok says in his Tzidkas Hatzadik #244, (a chapter very much worth reading in the entirety)

כל מלחמותיו הי׳ בניצוח היצר.   כפי מה שנצח ליצר, כך נצח לאומות שהכל אחד

All David's battles were to vanquish his yetzer hara, and concommitant with winning that battle he vanquished other nations in war, for all is one.

(Thank you to R' Moshe Eisemann in his "Music Made in Heaven" for the mareh makom.)

We find anecdotal examples of this happening all around us. Chazal pointed out the tragic irony of how holy geirim, who have voluntarily chosen to take on the obligations and burdens dangers of Judaism, so often face terrible and unending challenges-מפני מה גרים בזמן הזה מעונין ויסורין  באין עליהן.  We see this happen to Ba'alei Teshuva as well. You would think that they would be rewarded with some peace and quiet, that they earned a period of tranquility during which they could fortify and deepen new spiritual circumstances. But nebach, most often they are beset with hard times- physical, financial, and personal.

So the passuk in Iyov (5:7), כִּי אָדָם לְעָמָל יוּלָּד וּבְנֵי רֶשֶׁף יַגְבִּיהוּ עוּף, is not a curse; it is Hashem's will that we overcome challenges and win battles.  Our name itself proclaims this purpose: Yisrael-- ki sarisa- vatuchal.  Having faced the challenge, and having overcome it, we thank Hashem for both, "al hamilchamos ve'al hayeshu'os."  (Beis Halevi on Az Yashir Moshe.)

~

Reb N.G. wrote about a closely related idea, and its connection to Pesach, here.

 ~

I can't help but to put in a story about George Orwell on this topic.  Its relevance will become apparent.

Finally, eight or nine days after leaving the front, I had my wound examined. In the surgery where newly-arrived cases were examined, doctors with huge pairs of shears were hacking away the breast-plates of plaster in which men with smashed ribs, collar-bones, and so forth had been cased at the dressingstations behind the line; out of the neck-hole of the huge clumsy breast-plate you would see protruding an anxious, dirty face, scrubby with a week's beard. The doctor, a brisk, handsome man of about thirty, sat me down in a chair, grasped my tongue with a piece of rough gauze, pulled it out as far as it would go, thrust a dentist's mirror down my throat, and told me to say ‘Eh!’ After doing this till my tongue was bleeding and my eyes running with water, he told me that one vocal cord was paralysed. ‘When shall I get my voice back?’ I said. ‘Your voice? Oh, you'll never get your voice back,’ he said cheerfully. However, he was wrong, as it turned out. For about two months I could not speak much above a whisper, but after that my voice became normal rather suddenly, the other vocal cord having ‘compensated’. The pain in my arm was due to the bullet having pierced a bunch of nerves at the back of the neck. It was a shooting pain like neuralgia, and it went on hurting continuously for about a month, especially at night, so that I did not get much sleep. The fingers of my right hand were also semi-paralysed. Even now, five months afterwards, my forefinger is still numb — a queer effect for a neck wound to have.
The wound was a curiosity in a small way and various doctors examined it with much clicking of tongues and ‘Que suerte! Qye suerte!’ One of them told me with an air of authority that the bullet had missed the artery by ‘about a millimetre’. I don't know how he knew. No one I met at this time — doctors, nurses, practicantes, or fellow-patients — failed to assure me that a man who is hit through the neck and survives it is the luckiest creature alive. I could not help thinking that it would be even luckier not to be hit at all.

- George Orwell, from "Homage to Catalonia", where he describes his hospital stay after being shot in the neck.

~

Part II

What does the word "Todah" mean in, as used in Korban Todah and in Modim in Shemoneh Esrei?

UPDATE, DECEMBER 2011:
I found that the Oneg Yomtov, in his Hakdama, brings a very relevant Maharit, and comments on it, and says many of the things we discussed here, and adds to them as well.  It's worth seeing!!!)

1.  Great Unknown pointed out that in the Gemara in Sanhedrin, which is similar to the Tanchuma, the Gemara uses the double nun to mean that one who shechts his yetzer hara honors Hashem in both this world and the next; there, Rashi explains "todah" to mean "confession."  However, I said that the Tanchuma is very different than the Gemara in Sanhedrin.  (As you will see, it turns out that the difference between the Gemara and the Tanchuma is a big and widespread machlokes.)

2.  Eli told us that there are many sources that indicate that one who brings a korban Todah must say "vidui," though exactly what the viduy contains is unclear. (I believe that the organizing principle for Eli's mekoros is the machlokes that will become clear in a moment.)

Taanis 23, re: Hony Hame'agel. הביאו לי פר הודאה and Rashi says להתודות עליו (however, it seems from Rashi there that it was Shlamim, not Toda; see Gevuras Ari and Maharsha there). See also Mitzpe-Eytan there.

Rashi Iyov 33:27 -- יעשה שורות של אנשים כשניצול מחליו ויתודה ליוצרו

Rashi Divrey-Hayamim 2:33:16 "ויזבח עליו זבחי שלמים ותודה" - שהביא קרבן תודה והתוודה להקב"ה שהשיבו לירושלים ולמלכותו

Rashi Hulin 12 says that אשר כופר בהם refers to Shlamim. Same in Hulin 130 and Erchin 21. All say that even Shlamim has an aspect of Kapara, thus probably requiring Viduy (compare with Rambam Maase-Hakorbanot 3:15)

So, it seems Toda requires Viduy also. This could go either way: Viduy might just mean "to acknowledge", like in Viduy Maaser, which is a strange kind of Viduy, saying לא אשמתי, לא בגדתי. So the Viduy in Toda is just acknowledging the טובה coming from Hashem. Or we could say that there is an aspect of Kapara in Shlamim, and maybe in Toda too, unlike the the Tanchuma. At least be-derech drush one could argue that the two are not that far away: being thankful requires acknowledgement of not being worthy of what you got. That's why we say "הגומל לחייבים", not just out of Anava, but this is actually part of giving thanks.

Nafka-Mina to this drush is that the Viduy of תודה, even if we accpet it's a Viduy על חטא, does not require תשובה.

3.  I said that...
It is certainly clear in the context of the Modim in Shmoneh Esrei that the word means acknowledgment, just as 'appreciate' means to recognize and to be grateful. מודִים אֲנַחְנוּ לָךְ. שָׁאַתָּה הוּא ה' , and then

נודֶה לְּךָ וּנְסַפֵּר תְּהִלָּתֶךָ עַל חַיֵּינוּ הַמְּסוּרִים בְּיָדֶךָ. and וְעַל נִסֶּיךָ שֶׁבְּכָל יום עִמָּנוּ. And of course, the expression is to be "מכיר טוב".

I wonder, though, if someone recognizes that he got a valuable gift from someone, but doesn't feel or exhibit gratitude. He is technically מכיר טוב, but in the real sense, he is a כפוי טוב.

4. Then, great unknown said...

I rather thought that if i gave you enough time, you would back into the gemora in megilla: i.e., the limud that modim comes after avoda from zoveach todah. in fact, there rashi says: אחר זביחה תן הודאה

an extensive study of the connection between vidui and hoda'ah can be found in r mattis wienberg's patterns in time on chanukah, based primarily, iirc, on the sefas emes. i however do not have either available to me to verify that.


5.  Then I said...
I wish I thought of the Gemara in Megilla, on 18a. The Gemara is talking about the order of the brachos in Shmone Esrei, and it goes like this:

וכיון שבאת עבודה באתה תודה שנאמר (תהילים נ) זובח תודה יכבדנני ומה ראו לומר ברכת כהנים אחר הודאה דכתיב (ויקרא ט) וישא אהרן את ידיו אל העם ויברכם וירד מעשות החטאת והעולה והשלמים אימא קודם עבודה לא ס"ד דכתיב וירד מעשות החטאת וגו' מי כתיב לעשות מעשות כתיב ולימרה אחר העבודה לא ס"ד דכתיב זובח תודה מאי חזית דסמכת אהאי סמוך אהאי מסתברא עבודה והודאה חדא מילתא היא

Rashi there:

זובח תודה. אחר זביחה תן הודאה: חדא מילתא היא. אף הודאה עבודה של מקום הוא

6. I said....
Eli, I just read your comment more carefully. I agree. A sense of entitlement is incompatible with hakaras hatov. A craftsman is not makir tov for being paid for his work, and a malveh is not makir tov for being repaid. Actually, a malveh probably is.

As far as the issue of Choni Hame'agel's korban that Eli brought from the Gemara in Taanis 23a, Eli also brought the Gvuras Ari on that Gemara. Here's someone who brings the whole Gevuras Ari and the Rambam:

http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=7160&st=&pgnum=29&hilite=

He holds the Todah was a simple Todah, that Choni was saying "Ribono shel Olam, thank you for the fine rain You sent. We've had enough."

Reb Yosef Engel says the same thing in Rosh Hashanna 30a.

7.  Then, I remembered that R' Chaim Brown had written about a very similar matter some months ago at Divrei Chaim.  The bottom line of the discussion there is that there's a machlokes Bavli and Yerushalmi whether Mizmor LeSoda is about the Korban Todah or just about the concept of Vidui by other korbanos, or viduy in general.  He brought Yerushalim Shevuos 6b in the Vilna print that says it refers to the vidui of Korban Chatas, and he connected this Yerushalmi to a Magen Avraham in OC 51:10.  I brought the Bavli in Shevu'os 16b that it was sung when a person brought a personal Korban Todah.

8.  Then R' David Guttman of the Yediah blog brought the Yalkut Shimoni in Tehillim 100 that says that the word Todah means admission, and the Otzar Hatefillos on Modim that says that because Modim means 'admit,' that's why the next word is vocalized "sha'ata" (meaning 'that') instead of 'she'ata' (meaning 'because'.)  I think that even though the Abudraham clearly agrees with that, it's wrong anyway.

The Abudraham: says that you have to say modim yourself, you can't be yotzei with a shliach, because it's kabalas ol malchus shamayim, and KOMS can't be done with shlichus.  If it was thanks, it would have no connection with KOMS.  He must hold it's not Thanks, but rather acknowledgment.

But I think he's wrong.  It means Thanks.  My proof is from Sotah 40a, where it says Modim....ahl.  Ahl means 'for.'  Modim for....doesn't make sense if it means acknowledgment, but it makes sense if it means thank you for....

9.  I later saw that the pirush on the side of the Yerushalmi there, the Tzion vi'yerushalayim, in Shavu'os brings that this is indeed a machlokes what Mizmor LeSodah refers to, and he brings from a sefer Magen Giborim that it's a pervasive machlokes (Radak and Rashi in Tehillim, the Tur and the Beis Yosef in OC 281, and so on) whether it refers to the Korban Todah or the concept of Viduy, and the mefareish says Ha, he didn't remember this Yerushalmi.  But I say, Ha on the Tzion vi'rushalayim, because he should have realized that the Tanchuma also says like the Bavli in Shavu'os, and he should have brought the Gemara in Sanhedrin that is like the Yerushalmi.

10.  I sent a letter to Eli, saying the following:

Although the introduction of prakim in Tehillim doesn't always have a lot to do with the content, here it says "de'u ki Hashem...."  I think it's a little unusual, the word "de'u."  But if Todah means acknowledgment, then "de'u" makes perfect sense.  Realize.  Don't live just out of habit.  Don't walk around without an awareness of what you owe and to whom you owe it.  Then the perek ends by saying "hodu lo," now that you remember who made you and what you owe him, you will naturally be grateful for what he's done for you.

11.  So: If you hold like the Yerushalmi in Shavuos and the Bavli in Sanhedrin, you can go ahead and say Mizmor Le'Sodah on Pesach.  According to them, it has nothing to do with the Korban Todah, it's just about the concept of Viduy.  It might be hard to agree with, but you can't argue with the Gemara.


And so that's the mussar haskeil of this piece.  Astonish your friends and neighbors, say Mizmor LeSodah aloud on Pesach, and tell people it's because you hold like the Yerushalmi in Shavuos and the Bavli in Sanhedrin, and that the Tanchuma has no halachic status.  It's wrong le'halacha, but it's no worse than saying "she'hotzi lechem min ha'aretz" (Brachos 38a).

12.  An interesting addition: when we make a birkas hagomel, we say "hagomel lechayavim tovos shegmalani kol tov."  After knowing the above, the odd insertion of lechayavim makes wonderful sense. Vidui and Hoda'ah.

13.  And here's the prize.  Thanks to Eli who noticed it right before the Tanchuma I brought down:
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14123&st=&pgnum=291
Second to last line.

שאין תשובה לפני הקב״ת יותר מן הודייה

Tzav, Vayikra 11:33. Umipesach Ohel Moed lo seitzu shivas yomim.

There are several medrashim that say that when Nadov and Avihu died, no aveilus followed their death. The Aveius was nidche because of the simcha of the Chanukas Hamishkan. But in a sense, the Medrash says, the "aveilus" came before they died, and this was an additional reason for the requirement that the Kohanim stay in the Ohel Moed for seven days prior to their inauguration. As it turns out, then, Nadav and Avihu sat Shiva for themselves.

In Moed Kattan 20a the Gemara learns the din of sitting shiva from a possuk in Amos 8:10, “vehafachti chageichem l’eivel,” I turn your holidays into mourning. Just as the shalosh regalim are seven days long, so, too, aveilus is seven days long. Tosfos asks why the gemara didn’t simply learn the law of shiva from a clearer– and earlier– reference, in Breishis 50:10, where Yosef was mis'abeil for Yaakov, where it says “vayaas le’aviv eivel shivas yamim.” Tosfos answers that we are looking for a case of real aveilus, which begins after the burial, and the ‘eivel’ in that passuk took place before Yaakov’s kvurah. He also brings the Yerushalmi that we don’t want to bring a rayah from before mattan Torah.

The Likutei Yehuda brings that one of the Gerer Rebbes (I don’t remember which one) saw an old sefer that said the following:

Even before the chet of the Eitz Hada’as, man would not have lived forever, because a world without death cannot exist. But before the chet, a man would decide when he had done all he was sent here to do, and all he was able to do, and he would get all his friends together, and make a celebratory seuda, and then he would go and die; he would simply stop living, just as the people of Luz would do. After the chet, people no longer know when they are going to die, and they don’t have a clear idea of what their purpose in life is, and they die whether they are ready or not. This change introduced the tragedy and fear and anxiety of death. Therefore, the ‘chag’ in the possuk in Amos the gemara brings– vehafachti chageichem– alludes to the valedictory celebration that would have accompanied death if not for the chet of Odom Horishon; that chag has been turned into eivel. This, then, is a reference to Adam in Gan Eiden, who long preceded the possuk of vayaas l’aviv eivel shiv’as yamim. So even without the Yerushalmi’s answer that we prefer to not bring psukim from before mattan Torah, the reason the Bavli chose the passuk in Amos was that the passuk of ‘ve’hafachti’, though written much later, refers to an event that long preceded the passuk of “vaya’as le’oviv eivel shiv’as yomim.”

These two ideas, that sometimes shiva can precede death, and that a levaya might be a celebration, are not mere theory. You have to wonder, how can the seven day isolation that accompanied the inauguration of the kohanim have been characterized as a pre-death shiva? What does that have to do with shiva? Perhaps the answer is that the seven days of isolation were a farewll to their past life, and now, as kohanim, they would have begun a completely new type of existence. That being the case, it was, in a sense, the same as the shiva that follows the death of a normal person. And as for the pre-Eitz Hada'as concept of death, I have attended levayos where, despite the attendant sadness, there was an undercurrent of the pre-expulsion feeling, where the person had had overcome so much and had acheived so much, that the levaya was as much a celebration of a life well lived as it was a tearful farewell.

Tzav, Vayikra 6:5,6. The Fire on the Mizbei'ach.

6:5-6. Tukad, ubi’eir, and Lo sichbeh. There is a halacha that even though there was a supernatural fire on the mizbei’ach, it is a mitzvoh to add natural fire as well. The Sefer HaChinuch says the purpose of the eish min hahediot, the natural fire, was to attenuate and lessen the neis. Even in the greatest of miracles, such as the splitting of the sea, the Ribono Shel Olam desires the contribution of a natural element.

I mentioned this rule once in the course of a drasha, and I quoted the words of the passuk "Eish tamid tukad ahl hamizbeiach lo sichbeh", an eternal fire shall burn on the Mizbei'ach and shall not be extinguished. Dr. Meir Z was sitting next to me, and he mentioned that he had taken care of Mr. W, YH’s father in law, until his death two or three years before. Toward the end, Mr. W suffered from dementia, but he constantly repeated this passuk, to the point that his non-Jewish caretakers used to call him Mr. Eishtamid. Dr. Z said that nobody had found a satisfactory explanation for why he did this, and it was a real puzzle, because he was incapable of any rational thought or intelligible speech besides this one possuk. Dr. Z said that the family had some theories about it, but before he continued, I told him that there was nothing to discuss, because the reason was very simple and very clear. There is a minhag, brought in the Siddur Ha’Ari Z’l, to repeat this possuk as one is falling asleep.

The idea behind the minhag is that we ask Hashem to protect us as we feel the bond between the body and the neshama weakening. This man apparently used to do this as he would fall asleep, and now that he found himself in a sort of unending dream state, forever suspended between wakefulness and sleep, he would do as he did his whole life and repeat the possuk. He was so accustomed to say it, that he did so even when he could no longer think, when his cognition was almost completely withered away. Dr. Z told this to YH, and when YH next saw me he rushed to bring over his wife, and I explained to her what it meant, and she tearfully said that she is learning far more about her father after his petirah than she knew when he was alive.

This reminded me of how, at the time that his blood calcium level had risen to a point that he had lost almost all his cognitive abilities, R Moshe Feinstein used to finger the corners of the woolen blanket he was covered with. At first, we assumed this was meaningless, compulsive movement. But we later realized that his whole life, he was machmir not to be covered with a woolen blanket during the day because of the tzitzis problem*, and that his body or his neshama felt that something was wrong, even though his mind was not functioning. When we changed blankets, he no longer exhibited this behavior.

These stories are a mussar haskeil about how a life of torah and mitzvos can so suffuse a person with spirituality that his body becomes intrinsically holy and aware of its circumstances, even when the physical mind no longer functions. It’s a kind of Daas Torah of the body. A person can reach a level where we the dualism of physical brain function / spiritual consciousness, which normally is very hard to discern in the physical world, expresses itself in the person's physical behavior, and the inviolate spiritual consciousness can be observed to control the person's physical awareness and action.

I suppose one could say that just as there was an eish min hashomayim and an eish min hahediot on the mizbeiach, so, too, every person's consciousness comprises both ishim. When the latter dies down, the former takes its place.

We see a similar thing in Tamid Nishchat when Hillel came from Bavel and said that he didn’t remember how to get the knives to the Shechitas Psachim on Shabbas, and he said let’s just wait and see what the people do. There, too, Hillel knew that there is a meta-physical aspect to the Klal Yisroel, both as a whole and as individuals, that will express itself when the intellect and conscious awareness fails.

* (The tzitzis problem I mentioned is this: the Rambam and the Rif hold that only wool and linen are chayav tzitzis mid’oraysa. The Rosh paskens that all cloth is chayov mid’oraysa. The Rosh holds that a night garment is not chayav tzitzis even if it is worn during the day. The Rambam, on the other hand, holds that a night garment worn during the day is chayav. Therefore: if a person wears a night garment made of non-wool during the day, according to everyone it is not chayav mid’orayso: according to the Rambam, it is pattur because it is a not wool. According to the Rosh it is pattur because it is a night garment. But if a person wears a woolen night garment during the day, then according to the Rosh it is not chayav mid’orayso because it is a night garment. But according to the Rambam, since it is wool and it is being worn during the day, it is chayav mid’orayso. Reb Moshe, although he paskened like the Ramo who paskens like the Rosh, was machmir like the Rambam where it was an issue of chiyuv d’orayso.)