Vol 16.26 - Yitro 5 Spanish French Audio Video
1. On the verse (Ex. 20:8):
“Remember the Shabbat day to sanctify it”.
The Mechilta states:
— something beyond the powers of a person to say.
Further, the Mechilta states,
"Remember" and "Keep"— Remember it beforehand and Keep it afterwards — From here they ruled: We are to add from the mundane to the holy (Tosfot) — as in the analogy (משל) of a wolf that tears what is before him and what is behind him”.
One must understand:
It is known that all explanations on a single verse or aspect have a connection between them. Especially in our case, where the two homilies come in one section.
What therefore, is the connection between the first manner of the Mechilta (regarding the things that were said in one pronouncement) and the statement regarding a wolf that tears what is before him and what is behind him etc.?
2. One can understand this by prefacing an explanation in the homily of the Mechilta,
“A wolf that tears what is before him and what is behind him etc.”:
From that which the Mechilta derives the law of “adding from the mundane to the holy” from the verse,
“Remember the Shabbat day to sanctify it”,
it implies that this is a law (mainly) regarding Shabbat.
One must understand:
The law of “adding from the mundane to the holy” is also stated regarding Yom Kippur and Yom Tov.
In the words of the Beraita in the Talmud,
“Wherever it states the Mitzvah of resting (שבות), one adds from the mundane to the sacred, (extending the sacred time, before and after) “.
One cannot say that this derivation is merely an Asmachta (laws derived from the correlation) of the verse. For this homily in the Mechilta is cited among other homilies which are not an Asmachta, but rather from which we derive Biblical laws.
(Since it states, "’Remember’ and ‘Keep’ were both stated in one pronouncement”, one learns that women are Biblically obligated in sanctifying the day (Kiddush)
(for whoever is obligated in “Keeping” is obligated in “Remembering”)
From that which:
were stated in the same pronouncement - one learns:
On the homily after this (in the Mechilta):
"Remember it from the first day of the week, so that if you come upon a tasty portion, ready it for the Shabbat”. (Like the view of Shammai).
And afterward the homily of R’ Yitzchak that:
“Do not count (the days) as others count, but count corresponding to the Shabbat (e.g., "Today is the fourth day of the Shabbat").
Where this law - that the remembrance of Shabbat must be (not just on the day of Shabbat, but) also throughout the entire week - is (according to the view of Rambam) a Positive Command from the Torah).
It is extremely problematic to say that this homily,
“Remember it beforehand and Keep it afterwards etc.”
(which comes in between the aforementioned homilies) should merely be an Asmachta.
3. Seemingly, one could say that regarding this, there is indeed a dispute between the Mechilta and the Beraita – and the Mechilta does not maintain that,
“Wherever it states the Mitzvah of resting (שבות), one adds from the mundane to the sacred”.
However, since it is a maxim that “one does not increase Talmudic disputes” (לאפושי פלוגתא לא מפשינן), it is not reasonable to innovate that the Mechilta disagrees with the Beraita regarding the law. Namely, whether the law of Tosfot (adding from the mundane to the sacred) is just regarding Shabbat or whether it also applies to Yom Tov and Yom Kippur.
Rather one could say that the difference between them is just what is implied by the homily (משמעות דורשין):
“Remember the Shabbat day to sanctify it”.
(Whereas the Beraita does not maintain that there is a unique innovation regarding Shabbat – and this is connected with what is derived from Shabbat and Yom Kippur).
One could say, that this very innovation in Tosfot Shabbat, is alluded to by the Mechilta with,
“the analogy of a wolf that tears what is before him and what is behind him”.
For seemingly, it is not understood (and as the commentators question): How does this analogy lend understanding to the aspect of “adding from the mundane to the holy”? - as will be explained.
4. The explanation of this is:
“Adding from the mundane to the holy” -
can be learned in three ways:
The commonality (צד השווה) in the two manners is that both are the obligation of the person.
It is just that in this itself, there can be two manners:
A third manner is:
3. The addition from the mundane to the holy – Tosfot Shabbat - comes from Shabbat itself.
In the well-known style,
The “object” (חפצא) of Shabbat adds to itself, beforehand and afterwards. The holiness of Shabbat extends (נתפשט) before and after it. Therefore, the person, at that time, is prohibited from doing labor.
5. This is the innovation of the Mechilta:
The law of “adding from the mundane to the holy” according to the view of the Beraita (the Talmud) is just a command on the person –
“Wherever it states the Mitzvah of resting (שבות), one adds from the mundane to the sacred“.
It is a law in the resting of the person (שביתת האדם). The person must abstain from work also in the mundane (weekday) time that is close to the holy (Shabbat).
According to the Mechilta, there is a deeper aspect in the Tosfot. Namely, that Shabbat itself adds time before and after it. This is explained in the analogy that is cited in the Mechilta – “the analogy of a wolf that tears what is before him and what is behind him”.
Just like a wolf, who himself tears what is before him and what is behind him. So too, is also the addition from mundane to holy, in a manner that the Shabbat itself “tears/extends” from what is before it and what is after it.
(One could say that this is emphasized in the homily of the Mechilta, that derives the law of “Remember” and “Keep” – a Positive and Negative Biblical command in Shabbat itself.
Whereas according to the Talmud, which derives it from Yom Kippur, the derivation (that one commences and fasts from while it is day etc.) of
“and you shall afflict yourselves. On the ninth of the month”,
where it emphasizes that this is not the time of the essence of the day (עיצומו של יום).
The reason why the law (according to the view of the Mechilta) is specifically regarding Shabbat and not regarding (Yom Kippur and) Yom Tov, is because this corresponds to the general difference between the holiness of Shabbat and the holiness (of Yom Kippur and) Yom Tov.
6. The difference in the aforementioned derivation between the Mechilta and the Talmud has a ramification in Halacha. Among the ramifications between them, in practice is.
“Wherever it states the Mitzvah of resting“.
There is one command on the person, that, “Wherever it states the Mitzvah of resting“, one must add in the resting - from mundane to holiness.
(Which is why the law of adding from the mundane to the holy - regarding Yom Kippur and Shabbat and Yom Tov, is derived from one verse – since this is the same command).
From this, there comes out a ramification in Halacha:
(whether it is after his acceptance of Tosfot Shabbat, or even without the acceptance – according to the two aforementioned opinions)
one just transgresses a Positive command – the Mitzvah of “resting” (תשבתו), “your Shabbat“ (שבתכם)– “Wherever it states the Mitzvah of resting etc.”
7. According to the aforementioned, that we do not increase in Talmudic disputes, one must seemingly say, that even the Talmud agrees with the Mechilta, that Shabbat itself tears/extends before and after it.
The Talmud just adds another derivation, that in Shabbat, there is also a Mitzvah and obligation on the person to accept upon himself - adding from the mundane to the holy.
Although this is a difficult position (דוחק), for since this is a law in Shabbat itself. Namely, that Shabbat itself “tears” – what then is the person adding?
Nevertheless, one could explain that this similar to what we find regarding Shabbat itself – that although it is “permanently sanctified“, nevertheless, there is a Mitzvah “Remember the Shabbat day to sanctify it”.
The same is in our case:
Although Tosfot Shabbat is a holy time, in and of itself, nevertheless there is also an obligation on the person to sanctify the time.
However, one cannot learn so.
For the Talmud emphasizes, as aforementioned,
“Wherever it states the Mitzvah of resting (שבות)”
(That regarding Shabbat, the Mitzvah is just to sanctify the extended time (Tosfot). Whereas regarding Yom Tov, the whole aspect is just an obligation on the person).
Since the codifiers (including the Shulchan Aruch) rule like the aforementioned Beraita,
“It is a Biblical Positive Command to add from the mundane to the holy“ –
and it does not state that there is here, a prohibition, and Negative Command (Lav) to do labor in the time of Tosfot Shabbat, due to that which this is a holy time, in and of itself – from this, it proves that the Talmud does not maintain like the Mechilta - and the law of Tosfot is
(like the plain wording of the Talmud, “From where is it derived that one must also extend Shabbat? “)
solely a boundary and law of the person.
8. According to this aforementioned reasoning, in the Mechilta, one can also understand the relation between the homily in the Mechilta to the preceding homilies:
were both stated in the same pronouncement — something beyond the powers of a person to say”.
In the explanation of the Mechilta,
(regarding the aspects which were “both stated in one pronouncement”),
the commentators state that the innovation is, that when there is the Positive Command, there does not apply, at the onset (איבערהויפט), the Negative Command.
For example: When one offers the two lambs on Shabbat day, from the very onset, there is no desecration of Shabbat. It is like a condition in the Negative command - that it does not apply in a case when there is a Positive Command.
In other words, offering the lambs on Shabbat day, is not just a fulfillment of the Positive command of offering the Musaf Korbanot (and Temidim) of Shabbat. Moreover, that the Positive Command defers (דוחה) the Negative Command
(or in a manner of exempting it (הותרה)).
Rather this is (also) connected with the Negative Command:
Regarding the offering of the lambs in the Mikdash, the Negative Command is, from the very onset, not stated (ניט געזאגט געווארן).
(Therefore, the two verses were stated in the one pronouncement - the Positive Command is a condition in the Negative Command).
In conjunction with this, the Mechilta brings the homily,
“Remember it beforehand and Keep it afterwards — From here they ruled: We are to add . . as in the analogy of a wolf etc. “
The law of Tosfot Shabbat is not (just) a law of the “person”, but rather in Shabbat itself. Namely, that its holiness extends “beforehand and afterwards”.
9. On a deeper level:
By citing the homily of
“Remember it beforehand and Keep it afterwards etc. “
in conjunction to the aforementioned homily (“were both stated in one pronouncement“), the Mechilta learns another aspect in that which “a wolf that tears etc.”.
Seemingly, the aforementioned explanation, regarding the aspects which were said in one pronouncement, is not a sufficient explanation:
In order to inform us of the aforementioned derivation – that the Positive Command is like a condition in the Negative Command - it would have been sufficient when one states them in proximity, one after the other. Like regarding every condition.
Why must the two commands be specifically said in “one pronouncement” – in a manner that it is “something beyond the powers of a person to say “?
From this (that they were said in one pronouncement) it proves that not only is the Positive Command a condition in the Negative Command,
(that in the place of the Positive Command, the Negative Command is, from the very onset, not stated),
but even more so:
The Negative Command and Positive Command are one context (תוכן).
Just as the holiness of Shabbat is one aspect, which manifests itself in many details,
(also including the negation of, "Its profaners shall be etc.” - not to profane Shabbat in the Mikdash).
So too, through the offering of the lambs, one fulfills (the negative) of “Its profaners shall be etc.”.
When one does not offer the Korbanot on Shabbat, one not only lacks the fulfillment of the Positive Command of offering the Musaf (and Temidim) Korbanot on Shabbat.
But it is also a context of “Its profaners shall be etc.” – profaning Shabbat.
(and from this, one can understand with regard to other aspects).
10. According to this, one could say, that with the proximity of the homilies, the Mechilta wishes to teach us, that it is similarly so regarding that which Shabbat is “a wolf that tears what is before him and what is behind him”:
The meaning is not that Shabbat contains two separate laws:
Rather they are one and the same holiness of Shabbat.
The scope of the holiness of Shabbat, resides in the holiness of the twenty-four hours (מעל״ע) of the day of Shabbat, together with the holiness before and after it.
(One could say that the ramification of the two manners is:
(it possesses the same holiness of Shabbat itself) –
then even the Tosfot Shabbat is included in the “one point/entity” of the twenty-four hour period of the day of Shabbat).
Even this aspect is alluded to in the analogy of the wolf that tears what is before him and what is behind him:
The innovation in this is not just that the wolf is the one who tears what is before him and what is behind him (and not that others give food to it) – and in our case (regarding Shabbat):
That the extension is accomplished (אויפגעטאן) through Shabbat itself.
Rather, that the eating of the wolf is in a manner of “tearing and eating”. Therefore, it also “tears and eats - what is before him and what is behind him”.
It is similarly so regarding Shabbat: The scope of the holiness of Shabbat is also in the Tosfot, “before and after it”, as aforementioned.
11. the Tzemach Tzedek connects the “analogy of a wolf that tears what is before him and what is behind him”, (of the aforementioned Mechilta) regarding Tosfot Shabbat with the verse:
“Binyamin is like a wolf that preys” (בנימין זאב יטרף)
The Talmud states that this alludes to the Altar (which is in the portion of the devourer (Binyamin), and the Altar is called a “wolf” – as the Midrash states,
“Just as this wolf snatches, so too the Altar snatches the Korbanot“.
All aspects are reflected in the revealed part of Torah – Niglah. According to the aforementioned, one could say that the innovation in Tosfot Shabbat, which the Mechilta alludes to with the analogy of the wolf that tears what is before him and what is behind him, also applies to the Altar:
Just as Shabbat extends/tears before and after it – from the weekday time, which of itself, is not holy.
So too, is it regarding that which the Altar, “snatches the Korbanot“. That even an invalid Korban – “if it is brought up on the Altar – it is not taken down”.
One could say that the same is regarding Shabbat. By comparing it to “a wolf that tears what is before him and what is behind him”, the Mechilta is accomplishing, that this is a scope and law in Shabbat itself (as explained above, at length).
So too, the comparison of the “Altar snatching” to “this wolf that tears” emphasizes, that the rule:
“if it is brought up - it is not taken down”
is a law in the Altar itself.
And as the Talmud derives it from the verse,
“(That is the burnt offering which burns) on the Altar”,
that “the Altar sanctifies it“.
As Rashi states,
“This teaches you that the reason that it is not brought down, is because of the holiness of the Altar”.
and like Rashi’s wording,
“the Altar sanctifies it. Even something that is invalid, that was brought up to the Altar – the Altar sanctifies it, to make it its food, and it is not brought down“.
In other words:
“if it is brought up - it is not taken down”
is not a law and obligation in the act of the offering (מעשה ההקטרה) – that since it was brought up (on the Altar) there is an obligation “not to bring it down”. Or even more than this – that one must offer it on the Altar.
Moreover, it is not just that the Altar sanctifies just in the detail of negation (שלילה), that one must not take it down.
But even more than this – that this is a law in the Altar:
The Altar sanctifies with its holiness (“snatching/חוטף“) even somehing which (of itself) has no relation to the Altar. Since it becomes sanctified with the holiness of the Altar, therefore, “it is not brought down” and one offers it on the Altar.
12. This however, is not sufficient, for:
“if it is brought up - it is not taken down”
However, it is not exactly similar to that which was spoken above – that this comes from itself (מעצמו).
But also to the Inner Altar (and all the Service Vessels (כלי שרת). On the contrary, there, it is stated in even stronger terms:
“The inner Altar sanctifies unacceptable entities whether they are fit for it or not fit for it, but the outer Altar only sanctifies unacceptable entities that are fit for it“.
13. One could say that this is connected with what is stated in the verse itself, regarding Binyamin:
“In the morning he will eat a portion, and in the evening he will divide the spoil" (בבקר יאכל עד
ולערב יחלק שלל)
On this, the Midrash states,
(in conjunction to the aforementioned, “Just as this wolf snatches, so too the Altar snatches the Korbanot“).
“In the morning he will eat a portion” – “offer one lamb in the morning”; “and in the evening he will divide the spoil” – “and offer the second lamb in the afternoon“.
The time of the service of offering the Korbanot in the Mikdash, is only during the day. This is derived from the verse,
“on the day He commanded (Bnei Yisroel to offer up their sacrifices)“.
However, one sees that the Mitzvah of offering of the fats and organs (חלבים ואברים) is the entire night –
(as it states, “And he shall . . burn on it (עלי׳) the fat parts of the peace-offerings” (Lev. 6:5))
After the “completion on it” (עלי׳ השלם) of all the offerings of the service of the Alter. In other words, after the Korban Tamid of the evening.
Similarly, the service of the Terumat HaDeshen (removing the ash from the Altar) which is connected, not with the completion of the service of the day, but with the beginning of the service of the – previous – day.
According to this one could say that the comparison of the Altar to the wolf that tears, reveals that the offering of the fats and the organs afterward – the entire night, and the Terumat HaDeshen beforehand – is a boundary in the Altar - the Altar that tears what is before it and after it.
In other words, the completeness in the aspect of the Altar
(The offering of the Korbanot on it during the day) is connected with the Avodah which is on it, in the time, preceding and following it, during the night.
Similarly, as it states in the commentaries,
“We are obligated to leave some of the organs and fats, to offer them in the night, for the honor of the Omnipresent, in order that the Altar not be idle (בטל) either in the day, or night“.
M’Sichas Acharon Shel Pesach, Motzai Shabbat Parshat Acharei 5735
|Date Modified:||Date Reviewed:|