Vol 37.01 - Tzav                         Spanish French Audio  Video

Page1   Page2   Page3   Page4   Page5   Page6

Translation:

1. The verse states:

“He shall remove his garments and dress in other garments. He shall take out the ashes beyond the encampment”

Rashi writes on the words “He shall remove his garments”:

(after he writes that “This is not obligatory, but good manners”)

that the reason is in order “that he not dirty while taking out the ashes the clothes in which he performs (the Temple service) steadily. Clothes in which he cooked the pot for his master, he should not pour the goblet for his master in them. Therefore (the verse continues): "and dress in other garments," of lesser worth than these”

From the simple wording of Rashi, it is understood that there are two aspects and reasons:

1.       This is a law regarding the priestly garments. That the clothing, in which “he performs the service steadily”, not become soiled (while taking out the ashes). (Similar to the aforementioned that the priestly garments must be for “honor and splendor”).

2.       This is a law regarding the Avodah of the kahuna. That one should not perform the Avodah similar to “he should not pour the goblet” in clothes that he performs lesser duties (“cooking the pot for his master”).

One must examine why Rashi,

whose commentary is not a book of Ta’amei Mitzvot (reasons for the Mitzvot), and whose sole purpose is to explain the simple understanding of the verse,

is forced to bring these two reasons?

Regarding the first reason, one could simply say that it is necessary because of the lengthiness of the verse: “He shall remove his garments and dress in other garments”. For this is seemingly puzzling: Why doesn’t the verse suffice by stating: “dress in other garments”. If so, it would be understood that he has to remove the garments that he previously wore. Why therefore do we need: “He shall remove his garments”?

From this it is proof that the reason for wearing other garments, is so that the previous garment not be soiled. Therefore the primary import of the verse here is to emphasize (not dressing in other garments, but) removing the previous garments.

But this is not understood:

Why does Rashi add the second reason that: “Clothes in which he cooked the pot for his master, he should not pour the goblet for his master in them.”?

{And although this reason is cited in the Talmud, nevertheless Rashi‘s commentary on Torah, is only to explain the simple meaning of the verse, and not to cite homilies and sayings of the Sages. Therefore, in order to explain the verses, the first reason is, seemingly, sufficient. Namely the reason “that he not dirty, while taking out the ashes, the clothes in which he always performs the service “).

One could seemingly answer that this reason comes to explain the law (that Rashi cites at the end of his words) "and dress in other garments - of lesser worth than these”. For this statement appears to be because of the second reason - that the type of clothes in which one pours the goblet for his master is not similar to the type of clothes that one cooks the pot.

(Whereas according to the first reason, which is only concerned that they be the same garments, (lest they become soiled), it appears that it is possible for them to be the same type).

However, one cannot say this, because:

1.       Since Rashi combines the second reason and writes it in succession to the first reason, and under the same heading (dibbur haMaschil) “He shall remove his garments”,

(And just at the conclusion writes: “Therefore: ‘and dress in other garments’ - of lesser worth than these”)

                it is apparent that, even the second reason comes to explain

                                (not just that “dress in other garments’ –means “of lesser worth than these”, but )

                (the reason of) “He shall remove his garments”.

2.       Even according to the second reason, why, seemingly, must (Rashi state) that the clothes be “of lesser worth than these”? For since, when removing the ashes the clothes will become soiled, it makes sense that the clothes that he uses for this will be “of lesser worth than these”.

2. Therefore it appears that by adding the second reason, Rashi is coming to answer a question in the simple understanding of the verse here.

This verse concerning the Hotza’at HaDeshen (taking out of the ashes) comes in continuation to the law of Terumat haDeshen (separating the Altar's ashes) in the previous verse (ibid:3):

 “The kohen shall dress in his linen garment and he shall wear linen pants on his (body) skin; and he shall separate the ashes when the fire consumes the burnt-offering on the altar and place it next to the altar”

It appears that the main exhortation in removing the clothing when taking out of the ashes (Hotza’at HaDeshen) is because of the clothing that he was wearing at the time of separating the ashes/Terumat haDeshen (as it states: “dress in his linen garment and he shall wear linen pants”)

This is puzzling:

How is it possible to say that the reason for removing his clothing before taking out of the ashes (Hotza’at HaDeshen) is so that they be clean when he performs the (Temple) service? Even when he is performing the service of Terumat haDeshen (separating the ashes), there exists the concern of soiling the garments?

And even though the concern of soiling the clothing when separating the ashes (Terumat haDeshen) is not similar to the concern of soiling the clothing when taking out/Hotza’at the ashes,

As Rashi explains in the Talmud that: “concerning taking out the ashes (Hotza’at HaDeshen)  . . he clothing become stained and soiled, however concerning the separating the ashes (Terumat haDeshen), where it is just filling a pan once a day . . there is no soiling of the clothes”

Nevertheless, it is understood that, relative to the other Temple services, the Terumat haDeshen is not that “clean”. Therefore why does he not remove his garments (that he uses for the other Temple services) even when he is performing the Terumat haDeshen service?

(And to note: According to the view of Rambam, even the Terumat haDeshen is with clothing of “lesser worth”. As he states: “The priestly garments (worn) when removing the ashes (Terumat haDeshen) should be less valuable than those (worn) when performing the other aspects of Temple service, as it states: "He shall remove his garments and put on other garments and remove the ashes." The term "other" does not imply ordinary garments, but rather (priestly garments) that are less valuable than the first. For it is not proper conduct to serve a cup (of wine) to one's master in the same clothes as one cooked food for one's master”)

3. In order to answer this question, Rashi cites the second reason (the parable) of “Clothes in which he cooked with, he should not pour the goblet in”.

According to the first reason

“that he not dirty while taking out the ashes the clothes in which he performs the Temple service steadily”

there is room to say that even the Terumat haDeshen should be done in the same clothing in which he takes out (Hotza’at haDeshen ) the ashes. And this is stated precisely in Rashi‘s wording: “that he not dirty . . the clothes in which he performs the Temple service steadily”. In other words, the emphasis here is not on the service that the verse is dealing with (Terumat haDeshen). But rather, it is on the other Temple services – the ones that he performs with steadily”.

And the reason that even Terumat haDeshen is included among the other Temple services in this regard, namely that it is not performed with the same garments that he uses to take out the ashes (Hotza’at HaDeshen), can be understood from the parable of “Clothes in which he cooked the pot for his master, he should not pour the goblet for his master in them”.

One of the differences between cooking and serving is that

·         Cooking is not done in the presence of one’s master but rather in a different place.

·         Whereas serving is done in his presence.

And this is the difference between Terumat haDeshen and Hotza’at HaDeshen. For even though with both, one takes ashes off the Altar:

·         With Terumat haDeshen it states: “And he shall place it next to the Altar”

·         Whereas with Hotza’at haDeshen it states: “He shall take out the ashes beyond the encampment, to a pure (undefiled) place.

Therefore since the Terumat haDeshen is “before his Master”, it must be performed in exquisite clothing, similar to “pouring the goblet”

However, for taking the ashes (Hotza’at haDeshen) outside the encampment, even though it begins in the “presence of his Master” – the taking of the ashes off the Altar. Nevertheless, the man purpose of it is similar to cooking – something that is not done in the presence of one’s master. Therefore it is performed in less valuable clothing.

Moreover:

Cooking is a preparation to serving one’s master, whereas pouring the goblet is, in itself, actual serving.

In other words:

The goblet is not just the culmination and completion of the serving, but rather it is a critical part of the serving itself.

(as is understood from Jacob’s serving Yitzchak. as it states “He brought him food (and afterward) he brought him wine and he drank”)

However, the essence of cooking the dish is just a preparation to the preparation of the entirety of serving one’s master.

And this is the difference between the Terumat haDeshen and the Hotza’at haDeshen:

Terumat haDeshen is a Mitzvah in itself. The culmination and completion of the Mitzvah of the korban. Namely, in the service (shimush) of the Avodah of the korban itself it is the culmination and completeness of it. Whereas the Hotza’at haDeshen is just a preparation of a preparation (machshir d’machshir), in order that there be an open space for the ma’aracha/woodpile on the Altar.

Accordingly, it is understood why Rashi added “Clothes in which he cooked the pot for his master, he should not pour the goblet for his master in them.”

For this comes to add that the reason is not just because of soiling the priestly garments,

For in many of the services beginning with the slaughtering of the korban, receiving the blood, sprinkling the blood and offering it etc., there is the possibility that that his clothing becomes soiled, and, how much more so, with regard to the Terumat haDeshen of the previous verse –

but rather, when the Avodah is before one’s Master and its purpose is a component of the actual service to his master, it is not considered dirtiness, and the name dirtiness/lichluch does not apply, for on the contrary, this is the component of his service to his Master.

However, when the Avodah is not before one’s Master and its purpose is just a preparation of a preparation, the name dirtiness does apply.

4. From the aspects of the homiletic style of Torah (yayina shel Torah) which is alluded to in the commentary of Rashi:

The words of Rashi seemingly require explanation:

Since the Hotza’at haDeshen is compared to cooking the pot, why is performed by the same kohen that “pours the goblet for his master”? Normally and simply, this is performed by two different servants. The cook is not the servant and person that pours the cup for his master.

Therefore, not only should it have been in different clothing, but rather, it should have performed by another kohen,

(as we find, according to the view of R’ Eliezer that (the words ‘other’ in ‘other garments’ does not refer to the previous word pf the verse: ‘garments’ but rather to the following part of the verse ‘He shall take out’ indicating that priests afflicted with a blemish are permitted to take out the ashes.).

We, therefore, see from this that even though they are two different services, nevertheless it is fitting for the same kohen to perform both of them.

One could say, that with this, there is a lesson for each Jew, who are: "And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Mamlechet Kohanim vGoy Kadosh), in their service to their Master (G-d).

1.       Concerning oneself: In addition to the general lesson that:

 "One should not sit and weigh the Torah's Mitzvot . . the "Kal Shebakalot" (easiest to perform) . . (versus) . . the "Chamurah Shebachamurot" (most difficult to perform) . . for they are equal",

the Avodah and service to G-d must be not just in the performance of the actual Mitzvot, but also in its preparation, , and in the preparation of the preparation to the Mitzvah.

As it states in Talmud: “How great were the deeds of R’ Chiya”. For he occupied himself not just with actual learning with his students, but he performed all the preparations, , and the preparations of the preparations. As it states in Talmud that he himself:

“sowed the flax seed, and "migadlena nisshbi" ( wove the nets (from the plant)). hunted stags (deer) . . prepared scrolls ( fixed the parchment) and wrote out the five Books of the Torah for five children (respectively) etc.”

And not only that, but he did all this with the same devotion and diligence as with the Mitzvah itself.

And the way he was able to do this was because of his great Bitul to the Supernal Will. For the different levels between the Mitzvah to the preparation of the Mitzvah preparations, and the preparations of the preparations, only exists when one feels that he is an individual entity. For although there is a realm of holiness, nevertheless he feels his own being. And because of this, he does not feel the same importance between the actual fulfilling of the Mitzvah and the preparation. Because the command and attachment with G-d is achieved specifically achieved through the Mitzvah, as (we say in) the blessing of all Mitzvot: “who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us”.

But from the perspective of G-d’s Will there is no difference between the Mitzvah itself (by which we draw down G-dliness) to the preparation of the Mitzvah.

And when one is with complete Bitul to the Supernal Will which is above reason and intellect, there is no difference in what object the Supernal Will is to. And therefore he performs and treats the preparation of the Mitzvah as the Mitzvah itself.

2.       This is also with the Avodah with others:

A person could make an “accounting/cheshbon” that he should just deal with a Jew who is like “his Master”, namely one who is in the “dalet Amot”/environment of the Beit Haknesset and Beit Hamedrash. But to influence a Jew who is “outside the encampment”, (out of his sphere) – that is not his mission.

In other words, even though it is a worthy and pressing endeavor etc., it is relevant to the other kohanim. His place, however, his – Avodah and occupation – is by his Master.

Therefore we learn from the aforementioned Rashi, that the selfsame servant who pours the goblet for his Master must himself go “outside the encampment” and perform his Avodah there.

And the manner of his Avodah is – that he needs to wear “other garments," of lesser worth than these”. Not the same garments that he uses to perform the Avodah in the inner area. In other words, he must dress in garments that refine and to deal and speak with the person, according to that person’s station and level.

And although this is an extremely great descent for him, since he is dealing with one, who, at the present, can only be influenced in,

not the actual aspect of the Torah and Mitzvah, but rather,

just in the preparation and qualification (the turn from evel/sur m’ra) of the Mitzvah. Nevertheless, specifically due to this, he is called the name kohen, in completeness - : "And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation”.

In other words, he performs service to G-d, just as G-d Himself does. Similar to the Exodus from Egypt where it states: “And I will descend to deliver him from the hand of Mitzrayim”. For G-d took us out of Egypt “not through an angel, not through a seraph and not through a messenger, but the Holy One, blessed be He, did it in His glory by Himself! . . I- the L-rd," it is I, and none other!”

And this should be by us, that G-d take the hand of each of us – “each person from his place/ish ish mimekomo” – and take him out of Galut as it states: v'Shav Hashem Elokecha es shevuscha”(Then G-d will return your captivity). In Nisan mamosh for in Nisan we were redeemed and in Nisan we will, in the future, be redeemed.

m’Sichas Shabbat Parshat Tzav 5732

Links:

https://www.meaningfullife.com/torah/do-clothes-make-the-man/

http://projects.sitdevelopers.com/neirotnew/2015/03/22/parshas-tzav-cleaning-the-altar/