Vol 21.16 - Yitro 3                         Spanish French Audio  Video

Hebrew Text:

Page119   Page120   Page121   Page122   Page123   Page124  

Chumash-Shmot

 

Summary:

(5742) (End of parsha, Ex 20:23): "Do not go up to My altar with steps". and the explanation of the Mechilta and Rashi that we learn from this a Kal v'Chomer (a fortiori) not to show disrespect to one's fellow.  

 

Translation:

1. At the conclusion of our Parsha (Ex. 20:23) on the verse:

“And you shall not ascend with steps upon My altar, so that your nakedness shall not be exposed upon it."

וְלֹא תַעֲלֶה בְמַעֲלֹת עַל מִזְבְּחִי אֲשֶׁר לֹא תִגָּלֶה עֶרְוָתְךָ עָלָיו

The Mechilta states:

“Now these matters are a Kal v’chomer, (a fortiori) conclusion. If concerning these stones-which have no intelligence either for bad or good, the Holy One Blessed be He said: ‘you shall not behave toward them in a humiliating manner’. (How much more so regarding) your friend, who is in the likeness of Him who spoke and brought the world into being, must you be careful not to embarrass him!”

והרי דברים קל וחומר, ומה אם אבנים שאין בהם דעת לא לרעה ולא לטובה אמר הקב"ה לא תנהג בהן מנהג בזיון, חברך שהוא בדמותו של מי שאמר והיה העולם, דין הוא שלא תנהוג בו מנהג בזיון

This Kal v’chomer, is also cited in Rashi, however with differences and additions:

Now these matters are a Kal v’chomer, (a fortiori) conclusion, that if (concerning) these stones-which have no intelligence to object to their humiliation-the Torah said that because they are necessary, you shall not behave toward them in a humiliating manner. (In contrast,) your friend, who is (created) in the likeness of your Creator and who does object to being humiliated, how much more (must you be careful not to embarrass him)!”

ומה אבנים הללו שאין בהם דעת להקפיד על בזיונן אמרה תורה הואיל ויש בהם צורך, לא תנהג בהם מנהג בזיון, חבירך שהוא בדמות יוצרך, ומקפיד על בזיונו, על אחת כמה וכמה

The reason that Rashi states the words: “which have no intelligence to object to their humiliation” – which is different from the wording of the Mechilta which states: “which have no intelligence either for bad or good” is plainly understood:

For by emphasizing the lack of embarrassment of the stones (contrasted to the embarrassment which is by “your friend”) it plainly clarifies and strengthens the Kal v’chomer. And because of this reason, he also adds by the words “your friend”, the words: “and who does object to being humiliated” (which are not in the Mechilta.)

Also regarding Rashi’s wording:

  • “your friend, who is in the likeness of your Creator

as opposed to the wording of the Mechilta:

  • “who is in the likeness of Him who spoke and brought the world into being” –

is because “your Creator” speaks plainly regarding the Creator of the one who is ascending the steps.

However, one must understand Rashi’s words: “the Torah said that because they are necessary”:

What does the “necessity” of the “stones” add to the understanding of the Kal v’chomer, regarding “your friend”?

2. One could understand this by prefacing the difference of how the explanation and study of the verse (of which the Kal v’chomer, is stated) is clarified in the Mechilta and the way it is explained in Rashi’s commentary:

 In the Mechilta it states before this:

"So that your nakedness shall not be exposed upon it: Upon it (the altar) you may not take broad strides, but you may in the sanctuary and in the holy of holies. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If on the altar, the less formidable, it is forbidden to take broad strides, how much more so in the sanctuary and the Temple, the more formidable! It is, therefore, written "So that your nakedness not be revealed upon it." Upon it (the altar) you may not take broad strides, but you may in the sanctuary and the holy of holies. “(And afterwards the Mechilta states the Kal v’chomer: “If of stones etc.”)

Whereas Rashi in the beginning of his commentary, where he explains the verse, explains:

“Because due to the steps, you must widen your stride, although it would not be an actual exposure of nakedness, for it is written: “And make them linen pants” (Exod. 28:42). Nevertheless, widening the strides is close to exposing the nakedness (of the one ascending the steps), and you behave toward them (the stones) in a humiliating manner”.

One could say that the reason that the aforementioned Kal v’chomer, of the Mechilta comes immediately after the restriction (מיעוט) “Upon it (the altar) you may not take broad strides, but you may in the sanctuary and in the holy of holies” is because this is a forewarning of what one could ask.

The prohibition of “your nakedness shall not be exposed upon it” (“you shall not behave toward them in a humiliating manner”) is seemingly not because of the stones of the Altar, in and of themselves. But rather it is because since they are a part of the Altar (and the Temple). It is (an aspect of holiness and fear of the Altar (יראת המזבח), which is) connected with G-d’s honor (כבוד השם), that rests on the Altar (and the Temple).

(This is similar to the Mitzvah of the fear of the Temple (מורא מקדש), in general, where it states: “You should not fear from the Temple, but rather from Him whose Shechinah rests in this place”.

And in the words of the Chinuch, that this is “in order to establish in our souls fear of the Omnipresent, blessed be He and His importance. Therefore we were warned not to conduct ourselves there, frivolously, in any manner“(לקבוע בנפשותינו יראת המקום וחשיבותו, ועל כן הזהרנו שלא לנהג שם קלות ראש בשום ענין).

Therefore, how can one learn a Kal v’chomer, from these “stones” regarding “your friend”, since by the “stones” there is a holiness which does not exist by “your friend”?

However, since it was previously explained that “Upon it (the altar) you may not take broad strides, but you may in the sanctuary and in the holy of holies“.

(Which according to the aforementioned supposition, that this is connected with the honor of the Temple etc., the prohibition of “broad strides“ should have also been in effect (חל) in the Heichal and the holy of holies. And on the contrary it is much stronger, with a kol shekein and Kal v’chomer, (א כל־שכן וק״ו), since they are more stringent that the Altar)

therefore it is understood that the prohibition of “you shall not ascend etc.“ is not (just) because it is a part of the Temple, but rather (mainly) because of the stones of the Altar themselves:

Therefore, one can learn from them a Kal v’chomer: “If concerning these stones-which have no intelligence either for bad or good, the Holy One Blessed be He said: ‘you shall not behave toward them (toward the stones themselves) in a humiliating manner’. (How much more so regarding) your friend .  . must you be careful not to embarrass him!“.

3. According to this one can also understand why Rashi adds, in his commentary, the words “because they are necessary, you shall not behave toward them in a humiliating manner.“

Since Rashi does not cite the restriction (מיעוט): “Upon it (the altar) you may not take broad strides, but you may in the sanctuary and the holy of holies“ from which one knows, that the prohibition of “you shall not ascend with steps upon My altar” is connected with the stones of the Altar, of their own accord, as aforementioned – Rashi must therefore emphasize this aspect in the Kal v’chomer, itself: “because they are necessary“:

Since in “these stones” (of the Altar) there is a special aspect – “they are necessary“. This is what causes the prohibition of “your nakedness shall not be exposed upon it”. (in other words) On the stones of the Altar, of their own accord (not because they are a part of the general Temple, but) “because they are necessary“.

According to this it is plainly understood why we do not find a prohibition to make “steps” in (other parts of) the Temple (even though that through this “your nakedness would be exposed”). And on the contrary, there were “steps” going to the Ulam (hall) of the Heichal - because the stones of these steps do not contain the concept of “They have a necessity”.

4. The explanation of this is:

The reason that we learn from the “stones of the Altar” that one must not embarrass another Yid –

For seemingly this is puzzling: must we need a Kal v’chomer, from the stones of the Altar to know this? -

is because, here, by the stones of the Altar, it does not speak of a normal embarrassment, but rather (like in the words of the Mechilta and Rashi) an “embarrassing manner” (Minhag bizayon/מנהג בזיון”.

Both because of the stones –

which do not feel any embarrassment (since the feeling of embarrassment is a critical part of the humiliation, so much so that according to one opinion in the Talmud, the entire obligation of shame (בושת) is specifically when there is an element of “offense” (כיסופא). However if, “he humiliated a person who was asleep but who died (before waking) “, meaning that the other person did not ever feel the embarrassment, one is exempt).

And also because of the act of the humiliation.

It does not speak here regarding a conduct of frivolity (קלות ראש), for actual frivolity and humiliation is prohibition in the entire environs of the Mishkan and the Temple. But rather here it is speaking just of the “humiliating manner” – a deed which can be interpreted (אויסגעטייטשט) as an aspect of humiliation. And as Rashi states that concerning the “ascending with steps“ here there is no “actual exposure of nakedness“, but rather “close to exposing the nakedness“.

And therefore one learns from this regarding his friend, that there must not be a deed which is just a “humiliating manner”, even when the other person does not feel any embarrassment or humiliation.

5. And this is the difference between the Mechilta and Rashi, namely what is the nature of the prohibition:

According to the Mechilta, the prohibition is in the deed of the person. One must not in the slightest, do a deed which is

(not an act of embarrassing another, but)

just a “humiliating manner”.

However, Rashi – who explains Pshat – cannot learn so. For if so, there is no reason to differentiate between the stones of the Altar and stones of the Heichal. The reason that the prohibition is specifically by the stones of the Altar is understood, namely that due to the deed of the person himself, no prohibition can occur (for here, there is no real act of embarrassment).

Whereas, by the stones of the Altar there is a special aspect – “because they are necessary“ - because of which the “humiliating manner” causes a glimmer (מעין) of the “insult” (כיסופא) by those who need to rely on the stones ( as will be explained). Therefore it is prohibited.

6. The explanation of this is:

With “because they are necessary“, Rashi means to say that the Kohanim cannot perform their Avodah on the Altar, without their ascending upright (ארויפשטייגן) on the stones. And this is the reason for “you shall not behave toward them in a humiliating manner“. Since by conducting a humiliating manner with regard to the stones of the Altar, one automatically embarrasses the Kohanim who must rely on the stones.

This is similar (albeit not completely) to that which is stated in the Rishonim (regarding the obligation of recompense for shame (בושת)) that the law of “spitting on one’s garment is exempt“ is specifically when the one who is embarrassed had, at the time, not worn the garment. If however, he was wearing the garment at the time (at the time of the spitting), the spitter is liable – since through the spitting on the garment, he embarrassed the person who was wearing the garment.

(However, the steps in front of the Heichal- “do not have a necessity” since:

  1. One can enter the Heichal without using these steps.
  2. These steps are not in front of the Heichal where the Avodah was performed, but before the Ulam. It therefore comes out that the walking of the Kohanim to the Heichal utilizing the steps in from of the Ulam, is not a part of the “necessity” of their Avodah in the Heichal ( whereas regarding the Altar, the ramp of the Altar is a part of the Altar itself, so much so that the verse states “you shall not ascend with steps upon My altar, so that your nakedness shall not be exposed upon it“ – meaning that ascending on the steps (or the ramp) to the Altar, is considered as if he is on the Altar itself)

Therefore one can also learn from this regarding the embarrassment of one’s friend:

Even when this is just an aspect of a “humiliating manner”, which did not cause “your friend” any real embarrassment or shame – nevertheless, since he is “in the likeness of your Creator“, it comes out that with the “humiliating manner” towards his friend is an aspect of embarrassment towards “your Creator” (similar to the prohibition of “you shall not ascend with steps upon My altar” where the “humiliating manner” regarding the stones causes an embarrassment to the Kohanim).

7. According to his one can also understand the wording of Rashi, in stating the Kal v’chomer, –

“If (concerning) these stones-which have no intelligence to object to their humiliation-the Torah said that because they are necessary, you shall not behave toward them in a humiliating manner. (In contrast,) your friend, who is in the likeness of your Creator and who does object to being humiliated, how much more (must you be careful not to embarrass him) “

Which is not like the Mechilta, where it does not state the words “to object to their humiliation“ and “who does object to being humiliated“).

With this Rashi is explaining that just as (מה־דאך) by “these stones-which have no intelligence to object to their humiliation“

– and therefore, they do not possess, at the very onset (איבערהויפט), the (main) scope of embarrassment (for if there is no objection to the embarrassment, one has not been humiliated), nevertheless, since there is “a necessity in them” namely to the Kohanim, it is considered a humiliating manner,

how much more so is it (על אחת כמה וכמה), that one must not conduct a humiliating manner towards “your friend” who is:

  1. “in the likeness of your Creator“ meaning that the connection between him and “your Creator” is straightforward and recognizable (ישיר וניכר) (not like the stones of the Altar and Kohanim who have among them, no relationship in their appearance etc.) and
  2. “objects to being humiliated“ – where even from him can be an aspect of embarrassment ( as opposed to the stones of the Altar which, at the very onset, have no embarrassment due to the stones themselves)

8. Rashi’s commentary on Torah is the “wine of Torah” (יינה של תורה). Therefore one could say that in Rashi’s commentary at the conclusion of the Parsha –

where the maxim applies: “everything follows the conclusion” (הכל הולך אחר החיתום) –

it alludes to the primary matter and subject of the entire Parsha (סדרה) – the aspect of Matan Torah – the Ten Commandments.

Just as the Ten Commandments include, not just the commandments of “I am the Lord, your G-d” and “You shall not have” (the highest aspects in G-d’s unity) but also the latter commandments which are simple things, so much so to the most simple matters between man and his fellow ( “You shall not murder etc. You shall not commit adultery etc. (covet) whatever belongs to your neighbor“)

The same in in Rashi’s commentary – Oral Torah (תורה שבע״פ) - in the conclusion to Parshat Yitro, namely that one must have utmost scrupulousness in the simple aspects of conduct between man and his fellow, so much so to his avoidance from even a “humiliating manner”.

And just as the simple matters in the Ten Commandments, are not separate from the first commandments, but rather it is like what is clarified in many places, that the reason that these commandments were placed in the Ten Commandments, is to also learn that even these things are one aspect with “I am the Lord, your G-d“. Even the matters that are “between man and his fellow” are in truth “between man and G-d” – one must be scrupulous in them since this is G-d’s will.

Rashi also adds that the scrupulousness towards your friend is because he is “in the likeness of your Creator“. The connection of the prohibition of “between man and G-d“ is not just because of the command ( that one must be careful in these aspects, due to G-d’s command) but also since “your friend” and “G-d“ (״מקום״) are one likeness (איין דמות), as it were. Therefore, not being careful in the honor of your friend, is a lacking of scrupulousness (א ניט־זהירות) in G-d’s honor.

The maxim states: “the measure of reward for good deeds is greater etc.“ Therefore Ahavat Yisroel, so much so that it is an unbounded love, which brings one to honor one’s friend”, with the greatest care, is (in Pnimiyut) an aspect of Ahavat HaShem and the honor of Heaven (כבוד שמים).

And as waters reflect (וכמים הפנים לפנים), this reveals G-d’s love to Yidden, which ultimately causes the raising of the honor of Yisroel (כבוד ישראל), even in the eyes of all the nations of the earth.

So much so that it leads to true honor which will be revealed in the true and complete Geulah through our righteous Moshiach, speedily in our days, mamosh.

MSichas Shabbat Parshat Yitro 5725

Links:
 
Date Delivered:   Reviewer:       
Date Modified:    Date Reviewed:  
Contributor: