Vol 26.29 - Tisa 2Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Spanish French AudioÂ Video
|Hebrew Text: Chumash-Shmot Â Â Â Talmud-Menachot Â Â Â Tamud-Horayoth Â Â Â 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.Â (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"Â 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: â€˜And he pouredâ€™, and then, â€˜and anointedâ€™? â€” This is what it means: â€˜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 Î§, lowercase Ï‡; Greek: Ï‡) is the 22nd letter of the Greek alphabet, pronounced as /ka/ in English. Â
1. On the verse (Ex. 30:15)
â€œAnd you shall anoint with it the Tent of Meeting and the Ark of Testimony etc.â€
Rashi cites the words, â€œAnd you shall anoint with itâ€ and explains:
â€œAll anointments were in the shape of the Greek (letter) â€œKafâ€ except those of the kings, which were like a sort of crown. â€œ(×•×ž×©×—×ª ×‘×•: ×›×œ ×”×ž×©×™×—×•×ª ×›×ž×™×Ÿ ×›×™ ×™×•× ×™×ª, ×—×•×¥ ×ž×©×œ ×ž×œ×›×™× ×©×”×Ÿ ×›×ž×™×Ÿ × ×–×¨)
The source of Rashiâ€™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:
â€œHow 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.
×ª"×¨ ×›×™×¦×“ ×ž×•×©×—×™×Ÿ ××ª ×”×ž×œ×›×™× ×›×ž×™×Ÿ × ×–×¨ ×•××ª ×”×›×”× ×™× ×›×ž×™×Ÿ ×›×™ ×ž××™ ×›×ž×™×Ÿ ×›×™ ××ž×¨ ×¨×‘ ×ž× ×©×™× ×‘×¨ ×’×“× ×›×ž×™×Ÿ ×›×£ ×™×•× ×™
Â 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:
â€œAll anointments were in the shape of the Greek (letter) â€œKafâ€ â€“ namely regarding those which are mentioned in the verse â€“ they are like a â€œGreek Kafâ€ â€“ except that of kings (which is not stated in these verses) which are â€œlike a sort of crownâ€.
However, according to this it is not straightforward:
Rashiâ€™s principle in his commentary on Torah is, that (it is not a Sefer of Halachot, but rather)
â€œI have come only to give the plain meaning of Scriptureâ€
Therefore, why must Rashi add here, at all, â€œexcept those of the kingsâ€, since in this Parsha â€“ and even in the verses and Parshiot, before this â€“ 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):
â€œAfter they were baked he anointed them in the form of the Greek letter Chi which is formed like our Nun" (Menachos 74b) ×ž×©×—×™× ×‘×©×ž×Ÿ: ××—×¨ ××¤×™×™×ª×Ÿ ×ž×•×©×—×Ÿ ×›×ž×™×Ÿ ×›×™ ×™×•× ×™×ª, ×©×”×™× ×¢×©×•×™×” ×›× ×•"×Ÿ ×©×œ× ×•:
â€œEven this anointment was in the form of the Greek letterÂ Chi. He puts oil on his head and between his eyebrows and connects them with his finger.â€
×•×ž×©×—×ª ××•×ª×•: ××£ ×ž×©×™×—×” ×–×• ×›×ž×™×Ÿ ×›×™ ×™×•× ×™×ª, × ×•×ª×Ÿ ×©×ž×Ÿ ×¢×œ ×¨××©×• ×•×‘×™×Ÿ ×¨×™×¡×™ ×¢×™× ×™×• ×•×ž×—×‘×¨×Ÿ ×‘××¦×‘×¢×•:
â€œAll anointings were made in the form of the Greek letter Chiâ€
×•×ž×©×—×ª ××•×ª×•: ×‘×©×ž×Ÿ ×”×ž×©×—×” ×•×›×œ ×”×ž×©×™×—×•×ª ×›×ž×™×Ÿ ×›×™ ×™×•× ×™×ª
Plainly, the reason (and source) why Rashi states by the (second) verse regarding Aharon, â€œEven this anointment was in the form of the Greek letter Chiâ€, is because this comes subsequent to the previous verse regarding the â€œunleavened wafersâ€ 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, â€œAll anointments were in the shape of the Greek Kafâ€ and not explain the â€œEven this anointment (was in the form of the Greek Chi)â€, similar to the anointing of Aharon and his sons.
Seemingly, one could say that the difference is:
The anointing of the â€œunleavened wafersâ€ and the anointing of Aharon are two completely separate aspects of anointing:
The essential understanding of â€œanointingâ€ is with the â€œanointing of the Mishkan and the Kohanim and kingsâ€, which is different that the anointing of the â€œunleavened wafersâ€, as Rashi explains in our Parsha. Namely, that by â€œanointing of the Mishkan and the Kohanim and kingsâ€, the anointing is â€œtranslated (by Onkelos) as an expression of greatness Â . .greatnessâ€. Whereas by â€œunleavened wafers anointed with oilâ€ (and so forth), â€œtheir Aramaic (translation) is the same as the Hebrewâ€
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 â€œsanctify himâ€.
Therefore, Rashi forewarns specifically by anointing of Aharon â€œEven this anointment (was in the form of the Greek Chi)â€ etc. This emphasis, signified by the addition (×¨×™×‘×•×™) â€œEvenâ€ is mainly
(not because, here it is speaking regarding anointing a different entity â€“ Aharon and not wafers, but rather)
since this a different type of anointing (â€œfor greatnessâ€). Notwithstanding this (that it is a different type of anointing), â€œeven this anointment (was in the form of the Greek Chi)â€.
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, â€œEven this anointment (was in the form of the Greek Chi)â€.
3. One must however understand:
Seemingly, Rashiâ€˜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 wafersâ€, 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 â€œunleavened wafersâ€ (as he states, â€œEven this anointmentâ€). Similarly, afterward, he plainly states (×¡×•×ª×) â€œAll anointments were in the shape of the Greek Kafâ€.
From Rashiâ€™s plain wording it appears that with the words, â€œAll the anointmentsâ€, he (plainly) means â€“ all the anointings; at least concerning that which we have learned until now, including, the anointing of unleavened wafers.)
Â However, in Parshat Vayikra, regarding the verse, â€œunleavened wafers anointed with oilâ€ of the Meal offering (Korban Mincha), Rashi brings two opinions in the manner of the anointing:
Â â€œSome 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 Kafâ€.
This means that according to one opinion (the first) in Rashi, the manner of the anointing of the â€œunleavened wafersâ€ (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 (×¡×•×ª×) that it is like one view.
4. One can understand this by prefacing the aforementioned question â€“ with regard to all the aforementioned explanations of Rashi:
Rashi on Torah, is not a Sefer Halachot. Therefore, it is not straightforward â€“ 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 â€œlike the form of a Greek Kafâ€? and not state concisely that the anointing is like â€œour Nunâ€!
Â In the latter comments, when Rashi repeats the form of the anointing, he always uses the wording â€œin the shape of the Greek Kafâ€, without mentioning that this is like â€œour Nunâ€.
It is puzzling:
If granting (× × ×™×—) that Rashi must inform us that this is â€œin the shape of the Greek Kafâ€ â€“ 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 â€œNunâ€. 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 â€œour Nunâ€ and afterward, each time, just states â€œin the shape of the Greek Kafâ€!
5. This can be understood after the explanation and clarification of the true text of the words (regarding â€œGreek Kafâ€) in Rashiâ€™s comments.
(Note: The following relies heavily on the Hebrew versions of the words â€œGreek Kafâ€)
â€œin the shape similar to chi . . a shape similar to the Greek chiâ€
×›×ž×™×Ÿ ×›×™ ××ž×¨ ×¨×‘ ×ž× ×©×™×” ×›×ž×™×Ÿ ×›×™ ×™×•× ×™
â€œLike the Greek kafâ€.
Â ×›×ž×™×• ×›×´×£ ×™×•× ×™
And in handwritten versions (of tractate Horayot) the text is:
×›×™ ×™×•× ×™ Â (like tractate Keritot)
â€œlike the form of chiâ€
Â ×›×ž×™×Ÿ ×›×™
and the Talmud explains there â€œlike the form of Greek chi
×›×ž×™×Ÿ ×›×™ ×™×•×•× ×™
Â In Rashiâ€™s commentary on Torah, one finds many different versions:
In Rashiâ€™s commentary in the printed Chumashim:
â€œLike the Greek kafâ€. ×›×ž×™×Ÿ ×›×´×£ ×™×•× ×™×ª
Â 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 :
Â ×›×ž×™×Ÿ ×›×™ ×™×•× ×™×ª
(However, in many of handwritten versions, it later translates it as
×¤×™×³ ×›×ž×™×Ÿ ×›×´×£ ×™×•× ×™×ª
As one plainly learns, Rashiâ€˜s intent of ×›×ž×™×Ÿ ×›"×™ is exactly like that of the Talmud. Namely, that this means (as the Talmud itself later translates it)
â€œlike the form of chiâ€ - Â ×›×ž×™×Ÿ ×›×™ ×™×•× ×™
and the Talmud explains there â€œlike the form of Greek chiâ€œ
(like the letter Châ€i Â - ×›×™ Â in the Greek language).
However, according to this, one must greatly examine this (according to most of the aforementioned handwritten versions - Â ×›×ž×™×Ÿ ×›×™ ).
If the Talmud does not suffice with plainly stating
â€œlike the form of chiâ€ - Â ×›×ž×™×Ÿ ×›×™
and translates it, in all places, what â€œlike the form of chiâ€ -Â ×›×ž×™×Ÿ ×›×™ 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, â€œlike the form of chiâ€ -Â ×›×ž×™×Ÿ ×›×™ !
It is problematic to say that Rashi relies in all these places (where he says â€œlike the form of chiâ€ -Â ×›×ž×™×Ÿ ×›×™ ) on his first comment (â€œmade in the shape of the Greek Chi like â€œour Nunâ€, and so forth)
Rather he wishes, in each place, to place the (one) word Greek (Chi Yavanit) (×›×™ ×™×•× ×™×ª) to clarify that this is a letter in the Greek language.
Therefore, it appears that in the places where one finds in Rashiâ€™s comment on the Torah, the text â€œlike the form of chiâ€ -Â ×›×ž×™×Ÿ ×›×™ Â - that the word chi (×›×™)
(is not a citing (×”×¢×ª×§) from the words of the Talmud, and this means a letter that is named â€œchiâ€ (×›×™), but rather that this)
is an acronym (×¨××©×™ ×ª×™×‘×•×ª) and it should state in our printed versions,
â€œlike the form of Kâ€Y â€ -Â ×›×ž×™×Ÿ ×›"×™ (with the mark â€œgeresheimâ€ (×’×¨×©×™×™×) - a double apostrophe that signifies a Roshei Teivot/acronym.
in other words, â€œGreek Kafâ€ ×›×´×£ ×™×•× ×™×ª (like he explains in the first comment in Parshat Tetzaveh)
(Plainly, one accepts that the apostrophe on the word Kâ€Y -Â ×›"×™ 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 â€œprofitsâ€ (×¤××¨×“×™× ×˜), 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 â€œYavani/Greekâ€ (×™×•× ×™), or that instead of a final Peh (×¤×´×) - a long Peh â€“ they placed a Yud â€“ Ky/ ×›"×™ in place of Kaf/×›×£ ).
6. According to this (that Rashi states at all times, â€œGreek Kafâ€ â€œ×›×£ ×™×•× ×™×ªâ€, one could say that Rashiâ€™s intent with
â€œlike the form ofÂ Kâ€Y Â (×›×ž×™×Ÿ ×›"×™ - ×›×£ ×™×•× ×™×ª)
is not to describe the form of the letter
(For the majority of the world does not know the Greek language) â€“
that the form and manner of the anointing has a connection with our letter Kaf (××•×ª ×›×™×£ ×©×œ× ×•)
The explanation of this is:
The Abarbanel explains that reason why the anointing of Aharon is â€œin the shape of the Greek Kafâ€, is because this alludes that â€œHe (the kohen) is the who HaShem chose to serve (×œ×›×”×Ÿ) for the Kaf is the first of the letters Kohen (×›×”×Ÿ)â€.
One could say that:
Even Rashi accepts (and on the contrary â€“ prior (to Abarbanelâ€™s time) that the reason why the anointing is â€œin the shape of the Greek Kafâ€, is because Kaf is the first letter of the word â€œkohenâ€.
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 (×©×ž×™×) with many different Roshei Teivot: (×©× ×ž×™×, ×©× ×ž×™×, ××© ×•×ž×™× ).
And he explains this according to the simple meaning of the verse (not prefacing that this is â€œMidrashei Aggadaâ€). 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 â€“ 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 (×•×œ×˜×•×˜×¤×•×ª) is : â€œTot/ ×˜×˜ In the Kathphi language is two ; For/ ×¤×ª in the Afriki language is twoâ€. (four compartments).
In other words, Torah calls Tefillin with a terminology (× ××ž×¢×ŸÖ¾ ×•×•××¨×˜) 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 â€œin the shape of the Greek Kafâ€, not just regarding the Aharon â€“ kohen/ ×›×”×Ÿ. 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 â€œunleavened wafersâ€ (as aforementioned).
(And regarding the anointing of Aharon, Rashi states the wording (as aforementioned), â€œEven this anointment was in the form of Kâ€Y â€).
Therefore, how can one learn in Rashiâ€™s comment that by saying that the anointing is â€œin the shape of the Greek Kafâ€, that his intent is that it is a Roshei Teivot of the word â€œkohenâ€, 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 â€œin the shape of the Greek Kafâ€
(and as he also emphasizes in his comment in Parshat Tetzaveh (and also in our Parsha) â€œAll anointments were in the shape of the Greek Kafâ€) -
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 â€œunleavened wafersâ€ (in Parshat Tetzaveh) are from the Inaugural Offerings (â€œKorbanot Miluimâ€), whose aspect is (as the verse states there),
â€œThis is what you must do for them to consecrate them to serve Me (as kohanim). . Â bread, unleavened loaves mixed with oil etc.â€
Namely, that through these Inaugural Offerings, â€œthey (Aharon and his sons) were fully initiated into and sanctified for the Kehunaâ€ Therefore, Rashi emphasizes that the anointing of the unleavened wafers was â€œin the shape of the Greek Kafâ€. For the scope of this anointing is â€“ as an aspect of inauguration which effects â€œto consecrate them to serve Meâ€.
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 â€œto consecrate them to serve Meâ€.
With this, it is plainly understood why Rashi, in Parshat Tetzaveh, succinctly state like the view that the unleavened wafers were anointed â€œin the shape of the Greek Kafâ€. 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 â€œGreek Kafâ€, as aforementioned)
have with â€œkohenâ€?
One can explain this:
According to Rashi, the â€œGreek Kafâ€ is not (specifically) the Roshei Teivot of the word â€œkohenâ€
(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 â€“ kohanim. Rather (in the words of the verse) it is
â€œto consecrate them to serve Meâ€.
Namely, that the anointing effects the sanctification which brings them into the â€œoffice and serviceâ€ (×©×¨×¨×” ×•×©×™×¨×•×ª) (and Avodah) of the priesthood.
According to this, the relation of the anointing of the Mishkan and its vessels to â€œGreek Kafâ€ â€“ 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, Rashiâ€™s wording in our Parsha, â€œAll anointments were in the shape of the Greek Kafâ€, is also resolved:
The reason that Rashi states, â€œAll anointments were in the shape of the Greek Kafâ€, even though Rashiâ€™s commentary on Torah is not a Sefer of Halachot â€“ is because, with this, it is emphasized and understood, how the anointing oil is â€œshall be an oil of holy anointmentâ€ (×©×ž×Ÿ ×ž×©×—×ª ×§×“×©). Namely, that the anointing effects the aspect of holiness. Where does one find that this is the scope of the anointing oil? Rashi states, â€œAll anointments (of the anointing oil) were in the shape of the Greek Kafâ€. 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 (â€œin the shape of the Greek Kafâ€) is connected with the intent and innovation of the anointing â€“ Priesthood, Rashi adds a proof:Â For something that is not the Priesthood, there is not this anointing â€“ â€œexcept those of the kings, which were like a sort of crown.â€
The anointing of kings, which this anointing, is not connected with the priesthood â€“ this anointing is not â€œin the shape of the Greek Kafâ€ (rather in a manner that is fitting to the scope of kingship â€“ â€œlike a crownâ€).
More simply, one could say:
In Rashiâ€™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 â€œyour generationsâ€ and â€œfor generationsâ€ (×´×œ×“×•×¨×•×ª×™×›×¡×´×´, ××•×Ÿ ×´×œ×“×•×¨×•×ª×´) 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, â€œAll anointments were in the shape of the Greek Kafâ€ in order to convey that the manner of the anointing is fitting to the effect (×¤×¢×•×œ×ª) of the anointing â€“ he already forewarns with this, that also the anointing of kings is in a manner that is fitting the scope of kingship, â€œexcept those of the kings which were like a crownâ€, 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 â€œGreeks . . defiled all the oils that were in the Sanctuaryâ€ is known. Namely, that the oils in the Heichal/Sanctuary refer to the Wisdom of Holiness (×—×›×ž×” ×“×§×“×•×©×”) (for oil is the level of Chochmah). The Greeks â€“ who represent Wisdom of the opposing force (×—×›×ž×” ×“×œ×¢×•×´×–) â€“ brought a defilement (×˜×•×ž××”), G-d forbid into the oil of the Heichal.
The nullification of the Kelipah of Greece, is through the â€œcruse of oilâ€ (×¤×š ×©×ž×Ÿ) which is sealed with â€œthe seal of the kohen Gadolâ€. The â€œcruse of oilâ€ is the level of the â€œholy anointing oilâ€, which is the level of Holy/Kodesh (×´×§×“×©×´) 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 â€œholy anointing oilâ€ is victorious and nullifies the Kelipah of Greece, completely.
This is also the reason why the anointing with the anointing oil is â€œin the shape of the Greek Kafâ€ â€“ 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 â€œGreek Kafâ€ 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).
â€œMay G-d expand Japheth . . and may He dwell in the tents of Shemâ€
Writing the Greek language (and letters) which is elegant (×ž×•×‘×—×¨) 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 â€œin the shape of the Greek Kafâ€. 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 â€œholy anointing oilâ€ refines the Greek language â€“ will be completely revealed in the Future. At that time, also the levels of Keter, Chochmah and Bina (×›×—×²×‘) of Kelipah will be refined.
This is also alluded to in that which the anointing oil was made for â€œyour generationsâ€ including â€œthe Futureâ€, â€œworldsâ€ (×œ×¢×ª×™×“ ×œ×‘×•× - ×¢×•×œ×ž×•×ª). Moreover â€“ in a manner that it â€œwill all remain in existence in the futureâ€. For the essence of the aspect of the anointing oil will be accomplished in its completeness and entirety â€œin the Futureâ€.
Mâ€™sichas Shabbat Parshat Tisa 5741
|Date Delivered:||Â||Reviewer:Â Â Â Â||Â|
|Date Modified:Â||Â||Date Reviewed:||Â|