Vol 27.06 - Tzav 2                       Spanish French Audio  Video

Hebrew Text:

Page 37   Page38   Page39   Page40   Page41   Page42   Page43

Chumash-Vayikra

Summary:

(5745) Rashi (Lev. 7:15): "he shall not leave any of it over until morning". The decree of the Sages that is cited by Rashi, even though he only explains according to the simple understanding of the verse.

 

Translation:

1. On the verse (Lev. 7:15):

“And the flesh of his thanksgiving peace offering shall be eaten on the day it is offered up; he shall not leave any of it over until morning”

Rashi cites the words, “he shall not leave any of it over until morning” and states:

“He may, however, eat it during the entire night. If so, why did they (our Sages) say that (it may be eaten only) until midnight? In order to distance people from a transgression “.

Plainly, one learns that with the words “why did they say”, Rashi is referring to what is stated in Torat Kohanim on this verse, (and in the Mishnah):

“Why did the Sages say that it may be eaten until Midnight”

(and especially since in many of the hand-written versions of Rashi’s commentary, the text is “why did the Sages say”),

Namely, that the Sages (in the time of the Second Temple) decreed that one should eat the meat of the Korban only “until midnight”.

It is not understood:

Rashi’s commentary on Torah is not a book of Halachot, but rather as Rashi states many times,

“I have come only to give the plain meaning of Scripture“.

According to this, what difference, in the simple meaning of the verse, does the decree of the Sages

(which was a very long time after Matan Torah - Scripture)

make not to eat the meat of the Korban after midnight?!

Moreover:

Rashi states:

“If so, why did they say”.

This means that it is clear, that one previously knows that “they said that (it may be eaten only) until midnight”, which is why the question arises, “why did they say” etc. (and the reason is) “In order to distance people etc.”

It is puzzling:

From where does one know (in the simple meaning of the verse) regarding the decree of the Sages. So much so, that Rashi, due to this, must forewarn this question, “Why did they say until midnight”?

2. This puzzlement in Rashi’s comment is even greater:

This forewarning –

that although from the Torah one can eat the Korban “until morning”, yet the Sages decreed that one may eat it only “until midnight” –

pertains to all the Korbanot whose timeframe is that they are eaten during the day and night. Regarding one of them – Korban Pesach – we already learned in Parshat Bo:

“They shall eat the meat during this night. . You must not leave any of it over until morning”.

The question arises:

Why does Rashi not forewarn this earlier (regarding the Korban Pesach - “If so, why did they say until midnight?”)

Especially since in the Mechilta there, after he explains that the eating of the Korban Pesach is

“until the rising of the morning star” (as one derives from the repetition of the words “until morning” - “To set a bound for "the morning of morning",

Rashi forewarns,

“Why did they say that (it may be eaten only) until midnight? In order to distance people from a transgression etc.”

Moreover, Rashi brings the beginning of the matter,

(that from the “second stating” of “until morning” one derives, “To set a bound for "the morning of morning . . and the verse comes to preface that it is prohibited to eat it after the morning star has risen.”)

yet he omits the continuation, “why did they say etc.”

Seemingly, the opposite is more logical:

There is more of a place to forewarn this regarding the Korban Pesach, before forewarning this in our Parsha (regarding the Todah/Thanksgiving Korban).

For on the night of Pesach, even in our times, one is careful to eat the Afikomen before midnight. For the eating of the Afikomen is a remembrance to the Korban Pesach – which was not eaten except until midnight.

Therefore, there is a place to say that one must explain this before learning how this very conduct is not a contradiction with the verse, “he shall not leave any of it over until morning”.

3. The explanation of this is:

This matter, that the eating of the Korban (אכילת הזבח) is just “until midnight”, is already known according to Rashi’s explanation

(not from Torat Kohanim and the Mishnah, but rather)

from the verse itself, according to the simple meaning of the verse (as will be explained in Par. 4-5).

Whereas, a plain decree of the Sages has no relation to the simple meaning of the verse.

The reason that Rashi states, “why did they say”

(especially according to the version “why did the Sages say”)

can be understood according to what was once explained regarding Rashi’s wording (in Parshat Beshalach) regarding the Shabbat-Limit (Techum Shabbat).

Rashi states:

Every man must remain in his place: From here the Sages supported (סמכו) (the law) that there are four Amot (designated) for someone who has gone out of the (Shabbat) limit”.

“(No man) may go out, etc.: These are the 2,000 Amot of the Shabbat limits. But this is not explicit, for (the laws of) Shabbat-limits are only (enactments) from the words of the Scribes (Divrei Sofrim)”

Rashi precisely states,

“(But) The main thrust of the verse was said regarding the Manna gatherers”.

For according to Rashi, the aspect of “2,000 Amot of the Shabbat limits” is derived from the verse (and therefore - it is a Biblical law (דין תורה)) even if it is not its main thrust (עיקרו).

(The simple meaning of the verse proves this – For if the Torah would have meant just the “Manna gatherers”, the wording of the verse should have been: “do not go out to gather on the Seventh day” (and so forth).

However, since it states in a plain wording.

“Every man must remain in his place. No man may go out of his place”,

this proves that the Torah also wishes to also allude a general law (not just regarding the “Manna gatherers”) but – “These are the 2,000 Amot of the Shabbat limits”).

However, since the main aspect and general theme of the Parsha is regarding the “Manna gatherers”, the aspect of Shabbat limits is not “the main thrust of the verse”.

Therefore, Rashi calls it “Divrei Sofrim”. Rashi does not mean here to say that this is a later decree of the Sages. Rather, that since it is an aspect which is not explicitly stated in the verse

(it is not “The main thrust of the verse”) -

it is an aspect of “Divrei Sofrim”. For “Sofrim”, who are precise in the letters and words of “this Sefer Torah”, have derived it from the precise wording of the verse.

The Sofrim are not specific Sages that existed in a specific time who made Rabbinic decrees.

Rather, they are the “Sofrim” in each generation beginning from the time of Moshe.

(This also pertains to Rashi’s wording on,

“Every man must remain in his place. From here the Sages supported (סמכו) (the law) that there are four Amot (designated) for someone who has gone out of the (Shabbat) limit”.

This very law (is not a later decree, but it is different, since) it is derived from the manner of juxtaposition (Semach/ סמך) (through the “Sages”) from the verse itself.

Whereas, with the word “Sages”, Rashi means – the Sages of Yisroel in each generation beginning with the generation of Moshe).

4. Similarly, this is the explanation of Rashi’s comment here:

On learning the verse,

“on the day it is offered up; he shall not leave any of it over until morning”,

there arises the question:

Since the Torah is coming here, to establish (באשטימען) the time for the eating of the Korban, it should have stated clearly,

“on the day it is offered up; he shall eat it until morning”, (Namely, that the time of the eating is “until morning”)

Why does the verse interrupt (מפסיק) with another aspect, “he shall not leave any of it over”?

(If the verse wishes to warn regarding the prohibition of “he shall not leave any of it over” (after the time of the eating) – the verse should have said it at the end, after the conclusion of the first aspect:

“on the day it is offered up; he shall eat it until morning; he shall not leave any of it over”).

Therefore, it is understood, seemingly, that the time of the eating, indeed, does not extend, “until morning”.

Therefore, it does not state,

“he shall eat it until morning”,

rather

“he shall not leave any of it over until morning”

For the time of “eating” does not end “until morning”, but rather at an earlier time (until midnight).

The limitation “until morning” is just with regard to, “he shall not leave any of it over”. Leaving any of it over may also be later than midnight (one may hold it in one’s possession even after midnight).

Therefore, on this the Torah says, “he shall not leave any of it over until morning”. Namely, that the “leaving over” must not be “until morning”.

(Therefore, one must finish the “eating” at a time that is furthest from the transgression – until midnight – in order that the “leaving over” should not extend “until morning”).

However, according to this, the question arises, from the other perspective:

If the Torah meant to prohibit the eating even in the time that is before morning – the Torah should have established the time until when one may indeed eat the meat of the Korban.

Why does the verse plainly state,

“on the day it is offered up; he shall eat it”,

(which plainly means the entire day, a twenty-four hour period (מעת־לעת))

from which one would understand that this may be eaten “until morning”?

5. On this Rashi states that indeed this is so –

“He shall not leave any of it over until morning. He may, however, eat it during the entire night. If so, why did they say that (it may be eaten only) until midnight? In order to distance people from a transgression“.

The reason that the Torah states, “he shall not leave any of it over until morning” (not “he may eat it until morning”) which implies that the “eating“ is not “until morning”,

yet, on the other hand, the Torah does not limit any time for the eating of the Korban,

(and therefore, “he shall not leave any of it over until morning” means that one may eat it “until morning”) –

is because the Torah states here two things:

  1. The main intent. “He shall not leave any of it over until morning” (“The main thrust”) which comes to teach, “He may, however, eat it during the entire night”. For, from the essence of the (verse and) law, there is no prohibition to eat it the entire night – as long as it is before morning.
  1. “If so, why did they say that (it may be eaten only) until midnight? In order to distance people from a transgression” – in the precise wording of the verse “he shall not leave any of it over until morning”, the Torah is alluding that there must be a pause (הפסק)- a distance in time- between “leaving it over”, and the time of eating – “In order to distance people from a transgression”.

For this reason, “the (Sages) said until midnight”. Since Torah states that there must be a time-distance of “leaving it over”, the Sages of Yisroel (חכמי ישראל),

(through evaluating (אפשאצן), through their wisdom, the nature of people)

evaluated that the Torah means this distance to be “until midnight”.

(However, since this is not a prohibition from the primary law (מעיקר הדין), but rather just for the purpose of distancing – the Torah did not state this explicitly, but rather through a hint in the precise wording of the verse which is explained by the Sages).

According to this, it is understood why Rashi does not bring the matter earlier in Parsha Bo. For there, there is no allusion, in the simple meaning of the verse, regarding the obligation to distance the eating.

In the verse,

“You must not leave any of it over until morning“

it does not mention, at all, the conditions of eating the Korban Pesach.

(This is stated in a previous verse, “They shall eat the meat during this night etc.”)

6. In the aforementioned aspect, one also sees the thorough precise wording in Rashi’s commentary on Torah:

  • In Parshat Beshalach, regarding the prohibition of Shabbat-limits, Rashi states,

“for (the laws of) Shabbat-limits are only (enactments) from the words of the Scribes (Divrei Sofrim/דברי סופרים)”.

  • Whereas regarding the aspect of,

“four Amot (designated) for someone who has gone out of the Shabbat-limit”,

Rashi’s wording is,

“From here the Sages (חכמים) supported (סמכו) (the law) that there are four Amot (designated) for someone who has gone out of the Shabbat-limit”.

  • Similarly, in our Parsha, Rashi states, (according to the text of many of the hand-written versions, as aforementioned), “the Sages (חכמים) said”.

One could say that the explanation of this is:

The difference between “Sofrim” and “Sages” is,

  • The title “Sofrim” mainly emphasizes knowledge of “this Sefer Torah” – the learning and precision of Scripture etc.
  • The title “Sages” carries within it (as it plainly implies) the aspect of general wisdom.

In our case:

The derived (ארויסגעלערנטע) aspects and laws of the verse, which are connected with “a fence to Torah “ (סייג לתורה), “to distance people from a transgression”, have a connection to the property of “Sages”, who evaluate, with their wisdom, the nature of people, and accordingly, establish the fences and boundaries as a distancing from sin.

However, the Halachot and aspects which are derived from the precise language of the verse in the Sefer (Torah) (and so forth), which are not an aspect of a fence to Torah – they are related to “Sofrim”, who delve into the precise wording of “this Sefer Torah“.

Therefore, regarding the prohibition of Shabbat-limits – “2,000 Amot of the Shabbat-limit”, Rashi states that this is from “the words of the Sofrim” since the prohibition is, according to Rashi, not due to an aspect of fence and boundary. For even when one travels a great distance on Shabbat, there is no explicit prohibition (according to Pshat) from the Torah. This is just a Halacha which is derived from the precise wording of the verses.

Whereas, regarding the aspect of the “four Amot (designated) for someone who has gone out of the Shabbat-limit”, Rashi states,

“From here the Sages (חכמים) supported”.

For the exemption of the “four Amot (designated) for someone who has gone out of the Shabbat-limit” is dependent upon the evaluation of the nature of a person. That the person cannot limit himself from remaining in this very place.

(Therefore, they gave him four Amot - three for his body and one more to stretch his arms and legs

The same is in our Parsha, where it speaks regarding a boundary and fence,

“to distance people from a transgression”

which requires an evaluation of the nature of a person (as aforementioned Par. 5).

Therefore, Rashi states (according to many hand-written versions), “the Sages state”.

M’Sichas Shabbat Parshat Tzav 5744

 

Links:
http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/70770/jewish/Lekutei-Sichot-Tzav.htm(external link)

 

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