Vol 28.09 - Behaalotecha 2                   Spanish French Audio  Video

Page 68   Page69   Page70   Page71   Page72   Page73   Page74   Page75  
Chumash

Translation:

1. In our Sidra, after the Torah tells us regarding the Pesach that Yisroel made in the desert (in the second year, after leaving the land of Egypt) it states:

“There were men who were ritually unclean (because of contact with) a corpse, and therefore could not make the Pesach sacrifice on that day . . they said ‘We are ritually unclean (Tamei -because of contact) with a dead person; (but) why should we be excluded from bringing the offering of the L-rd in its appointed time etc.?’”             

One must understand:

What is the basis of their claim, “why should we be excluded”?

They themselves emphasized (and as a preface to the claim itself) “We are unclean, having had contact with a corpse”.

In other words, they knew that this is a reason why they could not offer the Korban Pesach (“they were not able to perform the Pesach-offering”).

And as it already states before this:

“Command Bnei Yisroel that they must expel from the camp . . anyone who became defiled by a (departed) soul”.

Therefore, why did they claim (“We are unclean etc.” -) “why should we be excluded”?!

Rashi explains:

“Why should we be excluded (למה נגרע): He (Moshe) told them, “Sacrifices cannot be offered in a state of ritual uncleanness.” They replied, “Let ritually clean Kohanim sprinkle the blood for us, and let ritually unclean people eat the flesh. (ויאכל הבשר לטמאים)”

(Note: In our versions of Rashi the text is amended to: “let ritually clean people eat the flesh” (ויאכל הבשר לטהורים). This Sicha explains the discrepancy)

The commentators state that the Rashi’s words “let ritually unclean people eat the flesh” is an error. For a Tamei (a ritually unclean person) may not eat Kodashim (consecrated sacrifices), and it should state, as it states in the Sifri (the source of Rashi’s comment):

“let ritually clean people eat the flesh” (ויאכל הבשר לטהורים)).

They explain that Rashi’s intent with “let ritually clean people eat the flesh” is (similar to what is learnt in the Sifrei) according to the one who maintains that:

“Their seventh (and final) day of uncleanliness (of the men that were unclean from a corpse) fell of Erev Pesach”.

Therefore, they could have eaten the Korban Pesach on the night of Pesach, for they would be ritually clean - “Tahor”.

This was their claim:

“Let them sprinkle the blood for us etc. and let ritually clean people eat the flesh”.

For although on the day of the 14^th they were still Tamei, nevertheless, the blood could be sprinkled for them since at the time of the eating of the Pesach (on the night of the 15^th of Nisan) they will be Tahor.

However, this explanation requires great examination, for:

1. Rashi does not mention, even in a hint that “Their seventh (and final) day of uncleanliness fell of Erev Pesach”.
2. Their claim was,

“We are unclean, having had contact with a corpse . . why should we be excluded etc.“?

not that they will become Tahor at the time of the eating of the Korban Pesach. On the contrary, it is the opposite – that even though, “We are unclean . . (nevertheless) why should we be excluded etc.”.

2. Others learn the understanding (Pshat) of the words of the Sifrei,

“let ritually clean people eat the flesh” – “That they should appoint other men with them for the Pesach and the other men would eat it“.

In other words, the sprinkling will also be for them,

(for the unclean persons, and therefore they will have offered,

“the offering of the L-rd in its appointed time”.

However, the eating of the Korban Pesach will be through others.

(On this the Sifrei brings a Kal v’Chomer from a Sin-Offering where,

“Its blood is sprinkled for the Tamei (the unclean ones), and its flesh is eaten by the clean ones”.

Thus, even though the owners (For example, one who has given birth, or a Metzora) are still Tamei, nevertheless, “its blood is sprinkled for the unclean ones, and its flesh is eaten by the clean ones (the Tahor Kohanim)”).

According to this, one could say that this is also Rashi’s intent of “let ritually clean people eat the flesh” – that others (who are not like “those who were ritually unclean”, but rather those who are) Tahor would eat the Pesach.

However, seemingly, it is difficult to learn so, in Rashi’s comment. For the main aspect of the Pesach (even according to Pshat) is – eating the Korban Pesach. This is why there must be a group (מינוי) – as it states, “According to what the person eats shall you make your count regarding the lamb”.

Therefore, what is the innovation of “let them sprinkle the blood for us” when the primary aspect of the Mitzvah is missing – eating the Korban Pesach?

Moreover:

Since one must be part of a group for the Korban Pesach (even before it is offered) it is simple to say that whoever is not included in the group - “according to what the person eats”, since he is not fitting to eat the Pesach, cannot be counted as a member of the group. Therefore, one cannot sprinkle blood for him.

(This is as the commentators explain, that this is why Moshe Rabbeinu did not accept their Kal v’Chomer from the Sin-offering (and stated: “Stand by, and I will hear (what the L-rd will command concerning you").

For regarding a Sin-Offering, the Kohanim eat it – not the Tamei owners.

(and even regarding Kodashim Kalim - lower-order offerings – where the owners do indeed eat – the eating is an aspect which does not preclude (ניט מעכב) the sprinkling of the blood).

Therefore, there is no proof from this regarding the Korban Pesach - whose primary Mitzvah is the owners’ eating it – that one could sprinkle for the owners, who are not fitting to eat the Korban Pesach).

Moreover, and this is also the primary aspect:

In Rashi’s comment there is no hint, even on any of the aforementioned.

3. One can understand this by prefacing an explanation of the precise wording of Rashi:

1. Rashi states in the heading just the words “why should we be excluded” (למה נגרע), and does not even add “v’Gomer” (“etc.”).

Seemingly, with his comment,

“let them sprinkle the blood for us”

Rashi is explaining the following words,

“from bringing the offering of the L-rd”

of which Rashi, as aforementioned, does not even allude to?

2. Why does Rashi state,

“He said to them: ‘Sacrifices cannot be offered in a state of ritual uncleanness’”.

This is a simple thing which even they certainly knew (as aforementioned Par. 1). Rashi should have begun his comment immediately with their claim,

“They said to him, ‘Let ritually clean Kohanim sprinkle the blood for us’ etc.?

The commentators learn that this is what Moshe previously told them, when he did not allow them to bring the Pesach,

(which is why they came back with the claim, “why should we be excluded”).

Their claim “why should we be excluded” came afterwards – “‘Let them sprinkle the blood for us etc.”.

However, from the simple flow of Rashi’s words, it implies that,

“He said to them: ’Sacrifices cannot be offered etc.”

came as an answer to “why should we be excluded”.

And only afterward did the question, “let them sprinkle the blood for us etc.” follow.

It is not understood:

1. What is the nature of the question, “why should we be excluded”?

(before one says the reasoning of “Let them sprinkle the blood for us” etc.)?

Similarly, as aforementioned – what did Moshe Rabbeinu innovate with his answer, “Sacrifices cannot be offered etc. “?

2. Where does Rashi get (from the simple meaning of the verse) that here it was,

(not one question – “why should we be excluded from bringing the offering etc.” – but rather)

a debate between them and Moshe.

First, the question “why should we be excluded”. After this Moshe’s reply,

“Sacrifices cannot be offered etc.”,

And after this, a second question, “Let them sprinkle the blood for us etc.”

3. What is

“Let ritually clean Kohanim (sprinkle the blood for us)”

coming to teach us?

Even if they maintained that they are allowed to offer the Pesach while Tamei,

(not just “Let them sprinkle the blood for us”),

it is simple that the sprinkling of the blood on the Altar is specifically performed though the Kohanim (and of course – ritually clean Kohanim). Therefore, what is Rashi adding with, “ritually clean Kohanim”?

An even greater wonder:

These words are not stated in the Sifrei, but rather are an addition in Rashi’s explanation.

It is puzzling:

What is lacking in the aspect of “Let them sprinkle the blood for us” that Rashi must add “from ritually clean Kohanim”?

4. The explanation of all this is:

In learning the verse,

“Why should we be excluded from bringing, the offering of the L-rd in its appointed time”,

the question immediately arises:

Beforehand the Torah regularly uses the wording “making the Pesach” (עשיית הפסח).

(As it states:

• Bnei Yisroel made the Pesach
• You shall make it
• To make the Pesach
• They were not able to make the Pesach)

Why did those who were unclean change from this and state,

(not “why should we be excluded from making the Pesach”, but rather)

“why should we be excluded from bringing the offering of the L-rd”?

From this it implies that this is an aspect which they first innovated here.

Before this, one just knew that there is the making of the Pesach. Yet now, they realized an innovation, that the Korban Pesach is an aspect of, “bringing the offering of the L-rd”, as will be explained, at length, in Par. 5.

What aspect came, in the interim, from which they learned this innovation?

Rashi cites from the verse “why should we be excluded” and states:

“He said to them: ‘Sacrifices cannot be offered in a state of ritual uncleanness’ They replied, ‘Let ritually clean Kohanim sprinkle the blood for us, and let . . eat the flesh etc.’”.

By citing the words in the heading: “why should we be excluded” and not adding “v’Gomer” (“etc.”) Rashi is making clear that “why should we be excluded” was a separate independent question. On this question Moshe answered, “Sacrifices cannot be offered in a state of ritual uncleanness”.

When Moshe said this answer,

(that “Sacrifices cannot be offered in a state of ritual uncleanness”)

they now grasped that Pesach is an aspect of offering Kodashim (the offering of the L-rd).

This realization caused them to innovate the (second) question:

Since “we are excluded from bringing the offering of the L-rd”, then “Let them sprinkle the blood for us etc.”

According to this, it is resolved why Rashi adds the words, (let) “ritually clean Kohanim” (sprinkle etc.”)

With this Rashi is emphasizing that just now, they grasped that Pesach is an “offering of the L-rd” (Kodashim) which requires the sprinkling from “ritually clean Kohanim”.

Whereas, before this, at the time of the claim “why should we be excluded” they thought that the Korban Pesach is not an “offering of the L-rd” ,

(which therefore does not require sprinkling on the Altar through ritually clean Kohanim)

and therefore, they maintained that they may bring it while being Tamei.

5. This reasoning of this is can be explained, by prefacing:

According to Pshat, the Pesach that they made in Egypt (“Pesach Mitzrayim”) did not have the definition of a Korban.

According to the simple meaning of the verse, Pesach Mitzrayim was a unique Mitzvah - to slaughter a lamb and eat it (roasted) on the night of Pesach, together with Matzot and bitter herbs, and no more.

Therefore, there is no aspect of a command of offering a Korban to G-d.

(Although they had to,

“take its blood and place it on the side of the doorposts etc.”,

this was not similar to the sprinkling of the blood on the Altar. Rather as is expressly stated in Scripture, it was in order to make a sign on the house, that when,

“I will pass through the land of Egypt . . and I will strike . . I will see the blood and I will pass over you etc.”)

Therefore, we do not find regarding Pesach Mitzrayim that it is called by the term “Korban”. Rather, it is termed a “Zevach” (slaughtering/זבח),

(as it states: “It is a Pesach slaughtering” (ואמרתם זבח פסח)).

The word “Zevach” does not specifically mean a “Korban to G-d”, but rather, any slaughtering for the purpose of eating is termed “Zevach”.

This was the claim of those who were ritually unclean:

At this point, it is speaking of the,

“Second year of their exodus from the land of Egypt”

Before this, there was only one Pesach, the Pesach Mitzrayim. Therefore, it is understood that when they were commanded,

“Bnei Yisroel shall make the Pesach sacrifice in its appointed time . . in accordance with all its statutes and all its ordinances you shall make it”,

it meant that the Pesach in the desert, should be done in the same manner and scope as that of Pesach Mitzrayim.

(This is especially so according to a previous Rashi,

“Scripture makes this Mitzvah dependent upon their coming into the Land. They had no obligation to do so in the wilderness except for the one (Korban) Pesach which they fulfilled in the second year based on a Divine command”.

Therefore, it is probable to say that the Pesach, that was made in the desert, did not have the scope of Pesach that is for all generations,

(which is connected with “coming into the Land”).

Rather, it was a continuation of Pesach Mitzrayim (and of those who made the Pesach Mitzrayim)).

According to this – the aforementioned men claimed:

One must say that the command,

“Bnei Yisroel shall make the Pesach sacrifice in its appointed time”

means making the Pesach just as Pesach Mitzrayim, which is not a Korban that is brought on the Altar.

Rather, on the contrary, everyone – even those who are Tamei – can slaughter a lamb (in his home – by his lintel and door-posts) and eat it specifically in his home, on the night of the 15^th of Nisan

(together with others, and just like he eats Matzah and Maror – which are not consecrated at all).

Therefore, when Moshe did not allow them to join in the making of the Pesach, they came to him with the claim “why should we be excluded”.

Moshe innovated them that, “Sacrifices cannot be offered in a state of ritual uncleanness.”

Pesach is not just a “slaughtering/Zevach”. Rather, it is Kodashim (a consecrated sacrifice) which is offered on the Altar. Therefore, the question is related to the what the answer is: Sacrifices cannot be offered in a state of ritual uncleanness.

6. According to this, one can also understand their (second) question:

“Let them sprinkle the blood for us. . and let ritually clean people eat the flesh”.

(Since they were “ritually unclean”, one must say that Rashi means with this other ritually clean people, as aforementioned in Par. 2)

Since Pesach Mitzrayim was not an aspect of a “Korban to G-d” (on the Altar) but just an independent Mitzvah of (slaughtering and) eating the Pesach. Those who were ritually unclean maintained that the reason that it now (after the erecting of the Mishkan) has the scope of a Korban, is because this is a separate, recent (צוגעקומענער) aspect, which does not detract (גורע), and plainly does not negate, the Mitzvah of eating the Pesach, as it was with the Pesach until now.

Therefore, why should there be a change (and especially an impediment) in the Mitzvah of eating the Pesach?!

It comes out that in Pesach there are two separate aspects (which are not dependent upon one another):

1. One brings a “Korban to G-d” (on the Altar) as a remembrance (and thanks) for the aspect of the redemption from Egypt, as it states, “G-d passed over”.
2. There is the Mitzvah of eating the Pesach on the night of the 15^th - (not as eating a Korban specifically, but rather) similar the Mitzvah of eating Matzah and Maror.

This is what they claimed:

“(why should we be excluded) from bringing the offering of the L-rd in its appointed time”.

Since the aspect - that Pesach is an “offering of the L-rd” - is a separate aspect from eating the Pesach. Therefore, “Let them sprinkle the blood for us, and let ritually clean people eat the flesh”.

Even though since it is a “Korban to G-d” (Kodashim) one must not eat the Pesach (since one who is Tamei must not eat Kodashim)- Therefore “let ritually clean people eat the flesh” (others).

Why, however, must they miss out on the new recent aspect in Pesach “to bring the offering of the L-rd in its appointed time”, which can be done without their entering the Mishkan? Therefore, “Let them sprinkle the blood for us, and let ritually clean people eat the flesh”.

7. According to this explanation in Rashi’s comment, one can also uphold the version of the books that state, “let ritually unclean people eat the flesh”.

(Which since many of the commentators of Rashi correct this version, proves, that even in their time, the published version was “ritually unclean people”).

Especially, according to what has been said many times, that when one wishes to clarify the true version, one must investigate from where, and how, the error came about. One does not make an error willfully.

In our case:

If one says that in Rashi’s comment it stated “ritually unclean people”, it is understood why an editor (or publisher) changed it to “ritually clean people”.

 However, if it originally stated “ritually clean people” – why should someone change it and write “ritually unclean people, which is:

1. The opposite of the version in the Sifrei, and
2. Mainly, the opposite of the express and well-known law, that everyone knows, that one who is Tamei may not eat Kodashim?!

The explanation of this is:

Since the Mitzvah of eating the Pesach is (according to the reasoning of those men) is not in the scope of eating a Korban but rather an independent Mitzvah,

(which is not connected with offering a Korban),

there is a place to say that (according to study according to Pshat) that the meat of the Pesach can be eaten even while one is Tamei.

The reason that the Torah prohibited one who is Tamei from eating Kodashim, is specifically when he eats it in the context of eating Kodashim.

This is like the precise wording of the verse:

“A person who eats the flesh of a peace offering of the L-rd while his uncleaness is yet on him (shall be etc.)”.

Whereas eating the Pesach is (not in the context of eating Kodashim, but rather) as an Independent Mitzvah (which the Torah commanded, when there was no concept of Kodashim).

Therefore, there is a place to say that in this case one can eat it, even while Tamei.

8. According to this explanation, the version that states, “let ritually unclean people eat the flesh” – is however not straightforward:

Since they maintained that they will also have the Mitzvah of eating the Pesach, why did they just mention,

“(Why should we be excluded) from bringing the offering of the L-rd in its appointed time”

not mentioning the aspect of eating?

However, the aspect in this is:

When they heard that the aspect of Pesach is an “offering of the L-rd”, this became for them the primary aspect of Pesach.

The aspect of bringing an “offering of the L-rd in its appointed time” had incomparably more significance for them (even though it would be done by others), than the Mitzvah which is connected with their eating – eating the Pesach.

For the great pleasure (תענוג) of them (for a Yid) is when he performs the,

(“My food of My fires”, which causes “a fire-offering of pleasing fragrance to the L-rd”)

The “satisfaction before Me, for I commanded (that this be done), and My will was carried out”.

9. In Avodah, and in Pnimiyut:

This aspect, that they mentioned just “bringing the offering of the L-rd”, is the way it is from the perspective of the Yidden.

However, when G-d commanded the Yidden regarding Pesach Sheni, that one can complete the aspect of Pesach – the main emphasis is (not so much on the aspect of the Korban – “Pesach to the L-rd” – but rather) on the making of the Pesach and eating the Pesach.

For the main intent of the Pesach is not so much the offering on the Altar, ascending from below to above (העלאה ממטה למעלה) – elevating the fat and blood on the Altar, as a Korban to G-d. Rather, it is specifically the drawing down to below, in a physical body – a person eating. Specifically, through this, does one fulfill the intent of Creation, to make an abode for G-d in the lower realms.

M’Sichas Shabbat Parshat Shlach and Shabbat Parshat Pinchas 5726