Vol 26.29 - Tisa 2 Spanish French Audio Video
|Hebrew Text: Chumash-Shmot Talmud-Menachot Tamud-Horayoth Talmud-Kerisus|
(5744) Rashi (Ex.30:26): "Anoint with it" and the differences with Rashi Tetzaveh (29:2) and Rashi Vayikra (2:4).
Anointings were done in the form of the Kaf Yavonit according to Pshat
Rashi (Ex.30:26): All anointings were done in the form of the Kaf Yavonit (Greek chi) except those of kings which are done in the form of a crown.
Rashi Tetzaveh (29:2): "After they were baked he anointed them in the form of the Greek letter chi which is formed like our nun" (Menachos 74b)
Rashi Vayikra (2:4): "and some say he smears the oil in the shape like that of the Greek letter "chi" c
Menachos 74b Mishnah: . . .The cakes required mingling and the wafers anointing. how were they anointed? in the form of chi. and the residue of the oil was consumed by the priests. (i.e In the form of a cross like the Greek letter . V. Tosaf. infra 75a, s.v. k'min, where various other suggestions are made)
Tosfot Menachot 75a, s.v. k'min ki:
Rashi drawed it his Kuntras (pamphlet) like a Tes and in the commentary on Chumash it is explained as a Gimmel. And some explain that it is like a Nun or like a Chaf. And in the Aruch (Aruch Ki, 1), it is explained that we learnt in tractate Kerisus (5b) that the kings annointed like a crown and the kohanim like "ki yavanit" meaning that oil was poured and the head of aaron and it flowed down here and there like two pearls and this was its form.
Musaf Rashi - Menachot 75a
k'min ki Yavani: For he begins to annoint with his finger between the eyelids of his eyes risei einav and he draws his finger on the head and continues until he reaches the back of the neck with a "kaf yavani" like this X (Tal Horios 12a), a Greek letter, and it is made like this, for he pours oil on his head and afterwards between the eyelids of the eye and he connects them with his finger by way of the forehead.
Kerisus 5b: Our Rabbis have taught: In anointing kings one draws the figure of a crown, and with priests in the shape of the letter chi. Said R. Menashia: The Greek-letter chi is meant. One Tanna teaches: The oil was first poured over the head and then smeared between the eye-lids; whereas another Tanna teaches: The oil was first smeared between the eye-lids and then poured over the head.(These two centers of oil are joined with one another and extended to the neck, Rashi) On this point there is a dispute of Tannaim: One holds that the anointing has preference; the other holds that the pouring has preference. What is the reason of him who holds that the pouring has preference? He derives it from: And he poured from the anointing oil upon Aaron's head and anointed him to sanctify him. And he who maintains anointing has preference holds his view because this was the method employed in connection with the vessels of ministry. But is it not written first: ‘And he poured’, and then, ‘and anointed’? — This is what it means: ‘Wherefore did he pour the oil, because he had already anointed him to sanctify him. Our Rabbis have taught: It is like the precious oil upon the head coming down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard. Two drops of the oil were hanging down like pearls from Aaron's beard.
Chi (uppercase Χ, lowercase χ; Greek: χ) is the 22nd letter of the Greek alphabet, pronounced as /ka/ in English.
1. On the verse (Ex. 30:15)
“And you shall anoint with it the Tent of Meeting and the Ark of Testimony etc.”
Rashi cites the words, “And you shall anoint with it” and explains:
“All anointments were in the shape of the Greek (letter) “Kaf” except those of the kings, which were like a sort of crown. “(ומשחת בו: כל המשיחות כמין כי יונית, חוץ משל מלכים שהן כמין נזר)
The source of Rashi’s explanation concerning the manners of the Aharon is in the Talmud, tractates Horayot and Keritot.
The wording of the Talmud (in tractate Horayot) is:
“How does one anoint the kings? One smears the oil in a manner that is similar to the form of a crown around his head. And how does one anoint the priests? One smears the oil in a shape like the Greek letter chi. What is the meaning of: Like the Greek letter chi? Rav Menashya bar Gadda said: Like the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew letter kaf.
ת"ר כיצד מושחין את המלכים כמין נזר ואת הכהנים כמין כי מאי כמין כי אמר רב מנשיא בר גדא כמין כף יוני
However, together with this, Rashi changes from the wording of the Talmud, in many details:
The reason for the changes is understood plainly:
Rashi here - in his commentary on Torah, explains the simple meaning of the verse. These verses speak of many anointings:
The anointing of the Mishkan and the Ark, and the vessels, as well as the anointing of Aharon and his sons. However, it does not mention the anointing of kings.
Therefore, Rashi explains:
“All anointments were in the shape of the Greek (letter) “Kaf” – namely regarding those which are mentioned in the verse – they are like a “Greek Kaf” – except that of kings (which is not stated in these verses) which are “like a sort of crown”.
However, according to this it is not straightforward:
Rashi’s principle in his commentary on Torah is, that (it is not a Sefer of Halachot, but rather)
“I have come only to give the plain meaning of Scripture”
Therefore, why must Rashi add here, at all, “except those of the kings”, since in this Parsha – and even in the verses and Parshiot, before this – the anointing of kings is not mentioned at all?
2. Regarding the manner of the anointing, Rashi already explains this, many times in the previous Parsha (Parshat Tetzaveh):
“After they were baked he anointed them in the form of the Greek letter Chi which is formed like our Nun" (Menachos 74b) משחים בשמן: אחר אפייתן מושחן כמין כי יונית, שהיא עשויה כנו"ן שלנו:
“Even this anointment was in the form of the Greek letter Chi. He puts oil on his head and between his eyebrows and connects them with his finger.”
ומשחת אותו: אף משיחה זו כמין כי יונית, נותן שמן על ראשו ובין ריסי עיניו ומחברן באצבעו:
“All anointings were made in the form of the Greek letter Chi”
ומשחת אותו: בשמן המשחה וכל המשיחות כמין כי יונית
Plainly, the reason (and source) why Rashi states by the (second) verse regarding Aharon, “Even this anointment was in the form of the Greek letter Chi”, is because this comes subsequent to the previous verse regarding the “unleavened wafers” which was done in that form.
However, according to this one must understand:
Why does Rashi change by the (third) verse regarding the anointing of the altar and state a principle, “All anointments were in the shape of the Greek Kaf” and not explain the “Even this anointment (was in the form of the Greek Chi)”, similar to the anointing of Aharon and his sons.
Seemingly, one could say that the difference is:
The anointing of the “unleavened wafers” and the anointing of Aharon are two completely separate aspects of anointing:
The essential understanding of “anointing” is with the “anointing of the Mishkan and the Kohanim and kings”, which is different that the anointing of the “unleavened wafers”, as Rashi explains in our Parsha. Namely, that by “anointing of the Mishkan and the Kohanim and kings”, the anointing is “translated (by Onkelos) as an expression of greatness . .greatness”. Whereas by “unleavened wafers anointed with oil” (and so forth), “their Aramaic (translation) is the same as the Hebrew”
Whereas the third anointing in the verse, the anointing of the altar is not a different type of anointing than the anointing of Aharon, stated before this. For even this anointing is (as Rashi prefaces) with anointing oil and in in order to “sanctify him”.
Therefore, Rashi forewarns specifically by anointing of Aharon “Even this anointment (was in the form of the Greek Chi)” etc. This emphasis, signified by the addition (ריבוי) “Even” is mainly
(not because, here it is speaking regarding anointing a different entity – Aharon and not wafers, but rather)
since this a different type of anointing (“for greatness”). Notwithstanding this (that it is a different type of anointing), “even this anointment (was in the form of the Greek Chi)”.
Whereas regarding the anointing of the Altar with anointing oil, which is from the same type of anointing like the anointing of Aharon, Rashi does not need to add the forewarning, “Even this anointment (was in the form of the Greek Chi)”.
3. One must however understand:
Seemingly, Rashi‘s comment regarding anointing unleavened wafers, in Parshat Tetzaveh contradicts his comment in Parshat Vayikra:
In Parshat Tetzaveh, Rashi says plainly that the anointing of unleavened wafers”, although being a different sort of anointing, nevertheless is in the same manner of anointing as is with done with anointing oil.
(So much so, that Rashi even compares the manner of anointing Aharon, to the anointing of the “unleavened wafers” (as he states, “Even this anointment”). Similarly, afterward, he plainly states (סותם) “All anointments were in the shape of the Greek Kaf”.
From Rashi’s plain wording it appears that with the words, “All the anointments”, he (plainly) means – all the anointings; at least concerning that which we have learned until now, including, the anointing of unleavened wafers.)
However, in Parshat Vayikra, regarding the verse, “unleavened wafers anointed with oil” of the Meal offering (Korban Mincha), Rashi brings two opinions in the manner of the anointing:
“Some say that one must anoint them and again anoint them until all the oil in the log (a volume of liquid) has been used up . . Others say that (some of) the oil was smeared (on the wafer) in the form of a Greek Kaf”.
This means that according to one opinion (the first) in Rashi, the manner of the anointing of the “unleavened wafers” (are a different type of anointing). Indeed not like the other anointings (with anointing oil). This is not like in Parshat Tetzaveh where Rashi states plainly (סותם) that it is like one view.
4. One can understand this by prefacing the aforementioned question – with regard to all the aforementioned explanations of Rashi:
Rashi on Torah, is not a Sefer Halachot. Therefore, it is not straightforward – what difference does it make, in the simple meaning of the verse, what the manner of the anointing was like?
Even if one would find a reason why Rashi must explain the manner of the anointing to a five-year old student of Scripture, it is entirely not understood, why must Rashi elaborate and write that this is “like the form of a Greek Kaf”? and not state concisely that the anointing is like “our Nun”!
In the latter comments, when Rashi repeats the form of the anointing, he always uses the wording “in the shape of the Greek Kaf”, without mentioning that this is like “our Nun”.
It is puzzling:
If granting (נניח) that Rashi must inform us that this is “in the shape of the Greek Kaf” – however after Rashi has already informed us once, it is fitting and logical that when again describing the manner of the anointing that he just state the conclusion, namely that it is like the form of a “Nun”. Especially so since this is clear and understood by a five-year-old student of Scripture. Yet in actuality, Rashi adds just the first time that it is like “our Nun” and afterward, each time, just states “in the shape of the Greek Kaf”!
5. This can be understood after the explanation and clarification of the true text of the words (regarding “Greek Kaf”) in Rashi’s comments.
(Note: The following relies heavily on the Hebrew versions of the words “Greek Kaf”)
“in the shape similar to chi . . a shape similar to the Greek chi”
כמין כי אמר רב מנשיה כמין כי יוני
“Like the Greek kaf”.
כמיו כ״ף יוני
And in handwritten versions (of tractate Horayot) the text is:
כי יוני (like tractate Keritot)
“like the form of chi”
and the Talmud explains there “like the form of Greek chi
כמין כי יווני
In Rashi’s commentary on Torah, one finds many different versions:
In Rashi’s commentary in the printed Chumashim:
“Like the Greek kaf”. כמין כ״ף יונית
However, in the hand-written versions of Rashi, and similarly in the first and second printing, there are many differences. In most of those that I have seen, the text in our Parsha,
(and in the last two aforementioned comments in Parshat Tetzaveh and Parshat Vayikra),
Whereas in the first aforementioned comment in Parshat Tetzaveh, it is :
כמין כי יונית
(However, in many of handwritten versions, it later translates it as
פי׳ כמין כ״ף יונית
As one plainly learns, Rashi‘s intent of כמין כ"י is exactly like that of the Talmud. Namely, that this means (as the Talmud itself later translates it)
“like the form of chi” - כמין כי יוני
and the Talmud explains there “like the form of Greek chi“
(like the letter Ch”i - כי in the Greek language).
However, according to this, one must greatly examine this (according to most of the aforementioned handwritten versions - כמין כי ).
If the Talmud does not suffice with plainly stating
“like the form of chi” - כמין כי
and translates it, in all places, what “like the form of chi” - כמין כי means.
How much more so should Rashi, in his commentary on Torah, which is written for a five-year-old student of Scripture, not just plainly write, “like the form of chi” - כמין כי !
It is problematic to say that Rashi relies in all these places (where he says “like the form of chi” - כמין כי ) on his first comment (“made in the shape of the Greek Chi like “our Nun”, and so forth)
Rather he wishes, in each place, to place the (one) word Greek (Chi Yavanit) (כי יונית) to clarify that this is a letter in the Greek language.
Therefore, it appears that in the places where one finds in Rashi’s comment on the Torah, the text “like the form of chi” - כמין כי - that the word chi (כי)
(is not a citing (העתק) from the words of the Talmud, and this means a letter that is named “chi” (כי), but rather that this)
is an acronym (ראשי תיבות) and it should state in our printed versions,
“like the form of K”Y ” - כמין כ"י (with the mark “geresheim” (גרשיים) - a double apostrophe that signifies a Roshei Teivot/acronym.
in other words, “Greek Kaf” כ״ף יונית (like he explains in the first comment in Parshat Tetzaveh)
(Plainly, one accepts that the apostrophe on the word K”Y - כ"י is to signify that this is a name of a letter. However, according to the aforementioned, and to preface that Rashi is not coming to obscure but rather to explain, it appears that the apostrophe is literally - a symbol of a Roshei Teivot, as aforementioned)
According to this, one also “profits” (פארדינט), that one does not need to indulge in the different textual versions (and errors) of those publishers etc.
(that they either omitted or placed the word “Yavani/Greek” (יוני), or that instead of a final Peh (פ״א) - a long Peh – they placed a Yud – Ky/ כ"י in place of Kaf/כף ).
6. According to this (that Rashi states at all times, “Greek Kaf” “כף יונית”, one could say that Rashi’s intent with
“like the form of K”Y (כמין כ"י - כף יונית)
is not to describe the form of the letter
(For the majority of the world does not know the Greek language) –
that the form and manner of the anointing has a connection with our letter Kaf (אות כיף שלנו)
The explanation of this is:
The Abarbanel explains that reason why the anointing of Aharon is “in the shape of the Greek Kaf”, is because this alludes that “He (the kohen) is the who HaShem chose to serve (לכהן) for the Kaf is the first of the letters Kohen (כהן)”.
One could say that:
Even Rashi accepts (and on the contrary – prior (to Abarbanel’s time) that the reason why the anointing is “in the shape of the Greek Kaf”, is because Kaf is the first letter of the word “kohen”.
Moreover, it is not a question how it is possible to say that (in the simple meaning of the verse) that
For Rashi already beforehand, in his commentary (in Parshat Bereshit), informed us that (even in the simple meaning of the verse) the Torah uses Roshei Teivot. Rashi translates the word Shamayim/Heaven (שמים) with many different Roshei Teivot: (שא מים, שם מים, אש ומים ).
And he explains this according to the simple meaning of the verse (not prefacing that this is “Midrashei Aggada”). Therefore, one already knows that a letter can mean a Roshei Teivot. Therefore, when Rashi states an aspect which is connected with a letter, one understands that this can be – this is connected with a Roshei Teivot.
It is also entirely not difficult to understand, that Torah should refer to a letter that is not in the Holy Tongue (Hebrew). For even regarding this Rashi taught:
Rashi explains that the word Totafot (ולטוטפות) is : “Tot/ טט In the Kathphi language is two ; For/ פת in the Afriki language is two”. (four compartments).
In other words, Torah calls Tefillin with a terminology (נאמען־ ווארט) which is comprised of words from two different languages.
7. However, this explanation does not hold up. For Rashi states that the explanation of anointing is “in the shape of the Greek Kaf”, not just regarding the Aharon – kohen/ כהן. Rather also by the anointing of the Mishkan and its vessels.
The first time where Rashi states it, is very early, by the anointing of “unleavened wafers” (as aforementioned).
(And regarding the anointing of Aharon, Rashi states the wording (as aforementioned), “Even this anointment was in the form of K”Y ”).
Therefore, how can one learn in Rashi’s comment that by saying that the anointing is “in the shape of the Greek Kaf”, that his intent is that it is a Roshei Teivot of the word “kohen”, since in these places it does not speak of a kohen!
One could say that since Rashi states by all these anointings that they are “in the shape of the Greek Kaf”
(and as he also emphasizes in his comment in Parshat Tetzaveh (and also in our Parsha) “All anointments were in the shape of the Greek Kaf”) -
his intent is to inform us, that the scope of anointing, in all these cases, is connected with the aspect of the priesthood/Kehuna (not with a kohen).
8. The explanation of this is:
The “unleavened wafers” (in Parshat Tetzaveh) are from the Inaugural Offerings (“Korbanot Miluim”), whose aspect is (as the verse states there),
“This is what you must do for them to consecrate them to serve Me (as kohanim). . bread, unleavened loaves mixed with oil etc.”
Namely, that through these Inaugural Offerings, “they (Aharon and his sons) were fully initiated into and sanctified for the Kehuna” Therefore, Rashi emphasizes that the anointing of the unleavened wafers was “in the shape of the Greek Kaf”. For the scope of this anointing is – as an aspect of inauguration which effects “to consecrate them to serve Me”.
In other words:
The anointing of the unleavened wafers of the Inaugural Offerings, is not just one of the deeds which prepare the unleavened wafers to be fitting for a korban (as aforementioned Par. 2). Rather, the anointing itself is a part of the aspect of the Inauguration which effects the “to consecrate them to serve Me”.
With this, it is plainly understood why Rashi, in Parshat Tetzaveh, succinctly state like the view that the unleavened wafers were anointed “in the shape of the Greek Kaf”. Whereas in Parshat Vayikra, he brings two views.
For according to the simple meaning of the verse, these are two difference aspects:
9. It remains, however, not straightforward, with regard to the anointing of the Mishkan and its vessels. What special relationship do these anointings
(through the Roshei Teivot “Greek Kaf”, as aforementioned)
have with “kohen”?
One can explain this:
According to Rashi, the “Greek Kaf” is not (specifically) the Roshei Teivot of the word “kohen”
(as a description which solely refers to Aharon and his sons, as it appears from the plain wording of the Abarbanel).
Rather, as aforementioned, it refers to the general word - priesthood - the service of the priesthood.
This means that also the aspect of the anointing of Aharon and his sons is not (just) that they become though this – kohanim. Rather (in the words of the verse) it is
“to consecrate them to serve Me”.
Namely, that the anointing effects the sanctification which brings them into the “office and service” (שררה ושירות) (and Avodah) of the priesthood.
According to this, the relation of the anointing of the Mishkan and its vessels to “Greek Kaf” – the Roshei Teivot - (kohen) Kehuna/ priesthood is understood:
Just as the anointing of Aharon and his sons sanctify them to be fitting for service and Avodah, so too is it with the Mishkan and its vessels. The anointing of the Mishkan and its vessels effects in them a sanctity which makes them fitting to do the Avodah and service, in (and with) them.
10. According to all the aforementioned, Rashi’s wording in our Parsha, “All anointments were in the shape of the Greek Kaf”, is also resolved:
The reason that Rashi states, “All anointments were in the shape of the Greek Kaf”, even though Rashi’s commentary on Torah is not a Sefer of Halachot – is because, with this, it is emphasized and understood, how the anointing oil is “shall be an oil of holy anointment” (שמן משחת קדש). Namely, that the anointing effects the aspect of holiness. Where does one find that this is the scope of the anointing oil? Rashi states, “All anointments (of the anointing oil) were in the shape of the Greek Kaf”. This shows, as aforementioned, that it effects the holiness to be fitting for service (of the priesthood).
Moreover, as proof and evidence of the aforementioned aspect, namely, that the manner of the anointing (“in the shape of the Greek Kaf”) is connected with the intent and innovation of the anointing – Priesthood, Rashi adds a proof: For something that is not the Priesthood, there is not this anointing – “except those of the kings, which were like a sort of crown.”
The anointing of kings, which this anointing, is not connected with the priesthood – this anointing is not “in the shape of the Greek Kaf” (rather in a manner that is fitting to the scope of kingship – “like a crown”).
More simply, one could say:
In Rashi’s comments on the verses in our Parsha, it mentions a few times (in addition to the aforementioned) the anointing of kings, even though these verses do not speak, at all, regarding kings.
The reason of the matter is:
Since here, this Parsha regarding the making of the anointing oil, is for “your generations” and “for generations” (״לדורותיכס״״, און ״לדורות״) the anointing oil was also used for the anointing of kings. Therefore, one must say that in these verses, here, the aspect of the anointing of kings is also (or at least) alluded to in these verses.
Therefore, Rashi mentions the aspect of the anointing of kings, here, many times.
Similarly, it is in this comment of Rashi:
When Rashi states, “All anointments were in the shape of the Greek Kaf” in order to convey that the manner of the anointing is fitting to the effect (פעולת) of the anointing – he already forewarns with this, that also the anointing of kings is in a manner that is fitting the scope of kingship, “except those of the kings which were like a crown”, as aforementioned.
11. From the homiletic style of Torah in Rashi's commentary (Yayina shel Torah):
Seemingly it is not straightforward:
It is indeed true, that even a letter of the Greek language can be used, in Torah, as a Roshei Teivot of a Hebrew word, as aforementioned. However, why is the Greek language used specifically for this aspect?
The (inner)reason of this is:
The inner explanation of the statement of the Sages, that the “Greeks . . defiled all the oils that were in the Sanctuary” is known. Namely, that the oils in the Heichal/Sanctuary refer to the Wisdom of Holiness (חכמה דקדושה) (for oil is the level of Chochmah). The Greeks – who represent Wisdom of the opposing force (חכמה דלעו״ז) – brought a defilement (טומאה), G-d forbid into the oil of the Heichal.
The nullification of the Kelipah of Greece, is through the “cruse of oil” (פך שמן) which is sealed with “the seal of the kohen Gadol”. The “cruse of oil” is the level of the “holy anointing oil”, which is the level of Holy/Kodesh (״קדש״) which is higher than (Chochmah and higher than the) world of Seder Hishtalshelut. Therefore, not only can the Kelipah of Greece, not be victorious over the oil, but on the contrary, the “holy anointing oil” is victorious and nullifies the Kelipah of Greece, completely.
This is also the reason why the anointing with the anointing oil is “in the shape of the Greek Kaf” – to allude that the anointing oil gives the power to nullify the Kelipah of Greece. So much so, that not only is Greece not opposed to holiness, but on the contrary- the Greek language itself is used and transformed to holiness. The “Greek Kaf” describes and establishes the manner of the anointing, the drawing down of holiness, as aforementioned. Moreover, the cure (the anointing) precedes the illness (the decree of the evil Greek kingdom).
“May G-d expand Japheth . . and may He dwell in the tents of Shem”
Writing the Greek language (and letters) which is elegant (מובחר) must be in the holy books of Yidden.
12. According to this explanation, one can also understand the (inner) reason why it is specifically like “in the shape of the Greek Kaf”. For the letter Kaf alludes to the Sefira of Keter/Crown (as is known). The power to refine the Greek language and to transform it, is taken (as aforementioned) from the level (of Keter) which is above Hishtalshelut.
Even this aspect, as the “holy anointing oil” refines the Greek language – will be completely revealed in the Future. At that time, also the levels of Keter, Chochmah and Bina (כחײב) of Kelipah will be refined.
This is also alluded to in that which the anointing oil was made for “your generations” including “the Future”, “worlds” (לעתיד לבוא - עולמות). Moreover – in a manner that it “will all remain in existence in the future”. For the essence of the aspect of the anointing oil will be accomplished in its completeness and entirety “in the Future”.
M’sichas Shabbat Parshat Tisa 5741
|Date Modified:||Date Reviewed:|