Vol 17.07 - Tzav 2 Spanish French Audio Video
|Hebrew Text: Chumash-Vayikra|
1. On the verse (Lev. 6:6):
"A continuous fire shall burn upon the Altar; it shall not go out”.
Rashi cites the words:
“A continuous fire”
“The fire regarding which it says, ‘(to kindle the lamps) continually (תָּמִיד)’ (Exod. 27:20) this fire must also be kindled from (the fire) on the outer Altar”.
Plainly, one learns that the Rashi wishes to explain, here, the word “continually” (תָּמִיד) - which seemingly appears superfluous:
If the intent here is to emphasize that the fire on the Altar must burn without cessation (אויפהער), it would have been sufficient to state,
"A fire shall burn upon the Altar; it shall not go out”,
as it states in the previous verse,
“And the fire on the Altar shall burn on it; it shall not go out”
What is implied in the word “continually/Tamid”?
Therefore, Rashi teaches that the words “A continuous fire” speaks here regarding the fire of the Menorah, which is called “A continuous fire”. Namely, that its kindling – lighting – comes from the (fire of the) Altar.
However, it is not understood:
The reason that the verse adds the word “Tamid” can be learned simply – that the verse states it here to additionally emphasize the aspect of constancy (תמידות), and also in a positive sense (חיובי): The fire on the Altar must be “constant/Tamid” – without cessation.
As we indeed see, that the Ibn Ezra who is among the chief of the commentators in the style of Pshat, indeed translates, that the word “Tamid” comes to add the aspect of constancy regarding the fire of the Altar.
And although Rashi’s explanation is taken from the Midrash of the Sages, it is known (as has been mentioned many times) that even the Midrashim of the Sages that Rashi cites, in his commentary on Torah, are necessary for the simple meaning of the verse.
This is especially so, when the explanation, is not cited by Rashi with the wording, “Our Rabbis interpret” and so forth, from which it is understood that this explanation is even more proven than the Pshat of the verses themselves.
Rashi, himself, previously explains that,
“(In this passage,) we have many phrases employing the term יְקִידָה - “kindling”:
All these are expounded on in Tractate Yoma (45a), where our Rabbis differ regarding the number of wood-piles (that had to be arranged on that Altar)”.
This means that the verse, “A continuous fire shall burn etc.” speaks regarding (one of) the wood-piles which were on the Altar. Therefore, how can Rashi translate, in his comment on our verse, that this refers to the fire of the Menorah?
In that verse itself, Rashi immediately explains that its conclusion “it shall not go out” – refers to the fire of the Altar?!
2. One could answer (as the commentators indeed learn) that Rashi does not take the verse, “A continuous fire etc.”, in and of itself, out of its literal meaning (מידי פשוטו), and the entire verse speaks regarding the wood-piles on the Altar.
Rashi, however, is just coming to explain that, from the word “Tamid” (here regarding the Altar) there is an interpretation that it refers to the fire of the Menorah, which states, “Tamid”. Namely, that even the Menorah must be lit from the fire of the Altar.
However, it is difficult to learn so in Rashi, because:
“A continuous fire shall burn upon the Altar”
is not interpreted in Tractate Yoma regarding the wood-piles which must be on the Altar. Rather, one derives all the wood-piles of the Altar from the previous verses. Moreover, the reason that Rashi states, “All these are expounded on in Tractate Yoma” is just to cite (לציין) which aspect and Tractate, the Sages expound these verses.
However, according to what is known, regarding how precise Rashi is with his words, it is understood that this answer is completely not straightforward. For if it is only to cite the place where the verses are expounded, Rashi could have sufficed with saying: “all these are expounded in tractate Yoma”, as we find many times in his comments.
Therefore, one must accept, that the reason that Rashi states,
“Our Rabbis differ regarding the number of wood-piles”, is because it is relevant to his explanation.
4. The explanation of this is:
The essence of the word “Tamid” is explained by Rashi beforehand, regarding the Menorah:
“Each and every night may be referred to as “Continually/Tamid” as you would say "the constant Korban Olah" (Olat Tamid) even though it is done only from day to day. Similarly, regarding the "flat-pan Mincha" it also states “Tamid”, yet half was done in the morning and half in the evening etc.”.
Since this is so, it is difficult to say, according to Rashi’s view, that the word “Tamid”, in our case, comes to add the aspect of constancy in time, for which the verse states, “(A continuous fire etc. ) . . it shall not go out”.
For, on the contrary, “it shall not go out” means that the “fire” must burn without cessation. For “Tamid” can also mean the constancy of days, themselves, or nights themselves – and in them, itself, it can be like “Olat Tamid” - where it is not the entire day or night.
Therefore, Rashi learns that with the verse “A continuous fire”, the Torah is coming to add a different fire, which, regarding it, states, ““(to kindle the lamps) continually”. Namely, that one must light it from the Altar.
5. According to this, it is also understood, why when Rashi states beforehand:
“we have many phrases employing the term יְקִידָה - kindling”,
(relying that we will count them ourselves)
Rather, he cites all the places (even the verse, “A continuous fire”).
since “we have many phrases here” – it is logical to say, in the simple meaning of the verse that all the “kindlings” speak regarding “here” (the Altar). According to the view that maintains that there were four wood-piles arranged each day (and therefore – also the verse, “A continuous fire shall burn upon the Altar” is included with those verses which speaks regarding the wood-piles of the Altar. Moreover, according to this opinion (מ״ד), Rashi, does not have anything to explain in this verse (and according to his view one must, with difficulty, learn the translation of “Tamid”, similar to way that Ibn Ezra learns – or similar to his explanation)).
However, according to the other views (that there were not more than two or three wood-piles) Rashi explains, that they also had a proof from the simple meaning of the verse. For, as aforementioned, (it is more straightforward to say, that) “A continuous fire” speaks regarding the Menorah. That “shall burn upon the Altar” - this is the explanation according to the simple meaning of the verse. And the “kindlings” on the Altar were “many” (more than one) - however, not four.
6. From the wondrous aspect according to Halacha in Rashi’s comment:
Regarding many laws, where the matter is comprised (צוזאמענגעשטעלט) from two details which are inter-dependent, there arises the question:
What is the main detail and reason, and what is the detail that is consequential (המסובב)
Regarding the Two-Loaves which is offered on Chag HaShavuot, the law is that it must be a “new Meal-offering” (מנחה חדשה) – from the new crop. Before the Two-Loaves are offered, one must not offer, from the new crop, any other Mincha offering in the Beit HaMikdash.
The question arises:
What is the main aspect and reason?
The ramification of this, regards many aspects. Among them are:
If the reason is because the Two-Loaves must be the first of the new crop, Therefore, since the Two-Loaves can, in any event, not be the first, therefore any prohibition in this, is already, not relevant. And one may offer the Menachot of the new crop.
A semblance of this question is in our case regarding the obligation to light the Menorah from the outer Altar:
(stated in the section relating to the Altar, and therefore)
related to the Altar: one must take fire from the Altar to light the Menorah.
Among the ramifications to this is:
If, for whatever reason, there is no fire from the Altar, whether this precludes (מעכב) the lighting of the Menorah:
According to Halacha, it appears that this is a law in lighting the fire of the Menorah – that it must come from the outer Altar.
However, from that which Rashi changes, in the Talmud, from the wording of the Sages:
“The ‘continuous fire’ (אש תמיד) that I told you (i.e., the fire of the Menorah) should be lit only from a fire that is upon the top of the outer Altar”.
“Even this should be kindled from the Altar”,
it appears that this is a law in the outer Altar – that its fire must also be
(like the other “kindlings” (יקידות) here),
that which is used to light the fire of the Menorah.
Especially since this is also understood from the simple meaning of the verses, as aforementioned, since the Torah places this learning in this Parsha, where it speaks regarding the (fire of) the Outer Altar, and not in the section of the Menorah.
7. The lesson from this in Avodat HaShem:
The vessels which were in the Mishkan and Mikdash, are comprised, in general, of two types:
In Avodat HaAdam, there are these two manners of Avodah:
The Avodah with oneself (inner) and the Avodah to do and influence another Yid, to bring also those who are in the “outside” (חוץ) and in his portion in (the outside) world. Similar to the Outer Altar which specifically upon it were the Korbanot of all the Yidden offered. This is the place of the refining of the aspects of the world.
The lighting of the Menorah is the aspect of the Torah, as it states,
“For a commandment is a candle, and the Torah is light”.
Regarding this, it states,
“(to kindle the lamps) continually (נר תמיד)”
(like the obligation of Torah study (ת״ת), as opposed to Mitzvot).
Especially when one’s occupation is Torah (תורתו אומנתו), then one is at the level of “a continuous fire” (נר תמיד) – constantly connected with G-d.
One whose occupation is Torah can claim:
Since he can be a “lit Menorah” (אנגעצונדענע מנורה) and in a manner of
“(to kindle the lamps) continually (נר תמיד)”,
he does not need to rely on Mitzvot, even not a “passing Mitzvah” (מצוה עוברת)
(Note: which one will lose the opportunity, if not immediately fulfilled)
How much more so:
What does he have to do with the aspects of the world, or even with another Yid who, in comparison to the level (and quality) of one whose occupation is Torah (יושב אוהל) is considered “outside”?
On this comes the lesson that the Menorah must (will) be lit from the Altar, and
Certainly, there is the inner Altar – the lofty Avodah of a Yid with himself. However, the light of the Menorah is not lit from the inner Altar, even though it stands near it, which represents the Avodah of Pnimiyut (the inner aspect of the heart).
Rather it is specifically lit from the Outer Altar.
Moreover, in Rashi’s words, it comes out that the fire, after being on the Outer Altar, is already connected with the fire of the Menorah.
In the aspect of Avodat HaAdam:
In order for a person, whose occupation is Torah, to be “ignited” (אנצינדן) and light (לייכטן) the “fire” and light of the Torah, it must beforehand concern him that also another Yid, who is found in the “outside” should kindle and light his “candle/soul” – “the candle of G-d is the soul of the person”. Only then, can he light his soul – “candle of G-d“ - with the “light of the Torah“.
This very connection of the Menorah with the Outer Altar (to give of oneself outwardly) is so important, that it is alluded to in our verse with the word, “Continuously/Tamid”. For the aspect of “Tamid”, the constancy in the Avodah of one whose occupation is Torah, will be accomplished specifically through that which he also overcomes (גייט דורך) the tests and difficulties of the “outside” and dedicates himself (פארנעמט זיך) with also influencing other Yidden. Then he attains in his Avodah of Torah study, the quality of constancy (תמידיות)
M’Sichas Shabbat Parshat Tzav 5729
|Date Modified:||Date Reviewed:|