This week’s Parsha has two unique elements. Firstly, it contains one of the largest number of Mitzvot in the Torah: 63 commandments, of which 24 are positive and 39 negative. Secondly, it is referred to as פָּרָ שׁ ַת הַמּ וֹעֲדוֹת בְּתוֹרַ ת כֹּהֲנִים because it is the first time the Torah deals with the holiday of Succot. While the Torah had previously discussed the holidays in Parshat Mishpatim, as well as in Ki Tisa, previous mentions were in the context of the seasons and harvest. Succot was simply referred to as חַ ג הָ אָ סִ יף. This time around, however, focus is placed on the particular Mitzvot of the holiday – for example, dwelling in the Succah and taking the Arba Minim.
I’d like to focus on a topic, but first provide an introduction to it. Rashi deals with the words of Chazal found in the Gemara (Yevamot 114a), where the repetitive words from the first pasuk are explained – אֱמֹר and וְ אָ מַ רְ תָּ :
וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל־מֹשֶׁה אֱמֹר אֶל־הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם לְנֶפֶשׁ לֹא־יִטַּמָּא בְּעַמָּיו׃
Hashem said to Moshe; speak, to the kohanim, the sons of Aharon, and you shall say to them, let him not defile himself with the dead among his people.
Rashi says: לְהַזְהִיר גְדוֹלִים עַל הַקְטַנִּים – this repetition is intended to admonish the adults about their children, that they should teach them to avoid defilement and impurity. I found an interesting addendum in Oznaim Latorah. We typically understand this line to mean the older kohen should instruct the younger one not to attend a funeral procession, in order to remain pure. But why is this principle mentioned here and not where we speak about the prohibition of eating treif animals or other prohibitions that result in impurity? A reason for the unique mention here is because when a general prohibition is present, there’s no need to warn parent and child – everyone observes the same commandment. For example, nobody eats pig, and nobody lights a fire on Shabbat. But where do problems start? When there’s a difference between parent and child. As an example, take a kohen who lives in a building next door to an older lady aged 114. One day, the kohen’s child informs him that the woman has died, and everyone in the family immediately leaves the building and waits in the shul until after the kevura. But what happens a month later when that kohen’s own elderly mother is the one who dies? Everyone leaves but he stays, and the child asks why. Why does the son remain behind but not the grandson? There’s a difference in status between them and in applicable laws too. The kohen has an exception for his parent but the grandchild does not have the same for his grandparent. Therefore, the explicit warning is provided here because the details are different for the elders and the youngsters.
Another answer given in the realm of לְהַזְהִיר גְדוֹלִים עַל הַקְטַנִּים, is one must know that their actions influence the children. If you read a certain publication, they will too. If you attend certain venues and events, they will too. There is no such thing as “I can, but you cannot.”
Another explanation: Elevation and Responsibility
Another explanation, from sefer Oz L'Amo, treats the word לְהַזְהִיר differently, understanding it as the word זהר– to elevate. Moshe was about to give them a whole bunch of unique laws that don’t apply to anyone else, so he had to first ensure they understood and appreciated their elevated status, before handing them all the associated laws. People are more willing to accept and follow special rules when they are first convinced that they themselves are special.
Oznaim Latorah points out that it doesn’t say parents and children, but rather larger and smaller. This is because there is a need to warn the elders regarding “smaller things”. Things that tend to get overlooked or disregarded – these too must be emphasized to the elders and not just the major items which they must follow. There is no such thing as a מַעֲשֶׂה קָטָן – Hakadosh Baruch Hu takes everything into consideration.
The Kohen’s Unique Status and Double Language
Our Parsha states, a kohen may not attend any funeral, except for his direct family: כִּי אִם־לִשְׁאֵרוֹ הַקָרוֹב אֵלָיו. For the Kohen Gadol, however, the rules are even stricter. He may not become impure even for his own parents and must remain in the Mikdash. The Sefer HaChinuch presents, the Kohen Gadol separates from his family on the day he is anointed, and all matters of this world are then distanced from him.
There is one more Pasuk to highlight before we arrive at our main topic. We are told that a regular kohen is only permitted to marry a previously unmarried woman, and וְקִדַּשְׁתּוֹ – this rule is enforced upon him even if he wishes to renounce his purity and marry another woman. Why? Because the kohen occupies a holy position and has a holy job to perform, just as Hakadosh Baruch Hu is holy. Just prior to this commandment, we’re told קְדֹשִׁים יִהְיוּ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ שֵׁם אֱלֹהֵיהֶם – They shall be holy to their G-d and they shall not profane the Name of their G-d. Sefer Shemen Rosh asks the following question: If they are to be holy, then naturally, they will not profane the name of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Why is there a need to repeat that commandment, including a repetition of the name of Hakadosh Baruch Hu? When we are commanded to observe Shabbat, we are not told in parallel not to desecrate Shabbat. It is crystal clear based on the first portion of the commandment. Shemen Rosh notes that the commandment regarding marriage also repeats itself. In the reasoning for the Mitzvah, we’re told the kohen must be holy because he offers both אִשֵּי ה', and לֶחֶם אֱלֹהֵיהֶם. Why do we find double language, specifically in the context of Hakadosh Baruch Hu’s names, in both commandments pertaining to the kohen maintaining his purity?
He provides a very interesting answer based on the kohen’s primary job of offering korbanot. As a reminder, a priest is referred to as כהן because the name כהן represents connecting man below to Hakadosh Baruch Hu above. Sefer Ori V’Yishi explains, based on the Maharal, that in Yaacov Avinu’s dream of a ladder extending from the ground to heaven, the base of the ladder was in Beersheva, its middle in Yerushalayim, and its top in the heavens. At the time, Yaacov left Beersheva en route to Charan, and the midpoint of his journey was Yerushalayim, where he lay down. Ori V’Yishi notes that there are fifty steps – חֲמִשִּים שְׁעָרִים – between heaven and earth, and the Beit Hamikdash is considered the 25th step or midpoint. Yaacov left Beersheva with a korban to offer, just as we, very soon, will leave Bnei Brak, Haifa, or any other city with a korban of our own to offer, and the home city we depart from will be considered ground zero of the 50-step journey. We will reach Yerushalayim, the 25th step, which is not merely a midpoint or a coincidental step along the journey. This step is the same one reached by Avraham Avinu and Yitzchak Avinu during Akeidat Yitzchak: וַאֲנִי וְהַנַּעַר נֵלְכָה עַד כֹּה. What is כֹּה? It is 25! This is also the same number found in the bracha Hakadosh Baruch Hu passes down to Bnei Yisrael through the kohanim, in Parshat Naso: כֹּה תְבָרֲכוּ אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. Both כֹּה and 25 represent the midway point for anything passing from Hakadosh Baruch Hu to us – such as a bracha – and anything passing from us to Hakadosh Baruch Hu – such as a korban. And what is the kohen’s job? To take the korban those final 25 steps. The kohen is responsible for taking our korban in Yerushalayim, slaughtering it, and placing it on the Mizbe’ach from where it ascends up to heaven – the 50th step. The kohen serves a conduit between man at the 25th step (כה) and heaven at the 50th step (ן). Thus, the kohen is referred to as כהן. (Similarly, the kohen is responsible for taking the bracha of Hakadosh Baruch Hu and relaying it down to us.) If you ask any kohen why he’s called כהן, he'll tell you it is because his father was called Cohen or Katz, but this is the real reason – it is because he acts as an elevator that takes the korban from the 25th floor all the way up to the 50th floor.
The Mizbe’ach and the Power of Korbanot
Another element in offering korbanot is the מִזְבֵּחַ – the altar. The Gemara (Ketubot 10b) highlights four qualities of the Mizbe’ach based on the name מזב'ח serving as an acrostic: מֵזִיחַ, וּמֵזִין, מְחַבֵּב, מְכַפֵּר – it moves, sustains, endears, and atones. The altar removes sins and evil decrees from Bnei Yisrael, atones for sins, brings Bnei Yisrael closer to Hakadosh Baruch Hu, and brings them sustenance as a result. The kohanim are the messengers of Hakadosh Baruch Hu, and their job is to bring about these four elements through their handling of the korbanot. In our days, and particularly now in the difficult state we’re in, it is important for everyone to understand the power of korbanot. While we cannot physically offer them in Yerushalayim yet, our words, through the recitation of korbanot, take the place of our physical actions: וּנְשַׁלְּמָה פָּרִים שְׂפָתֵינוּ. Our words at the start of Tefilla – both Korbanot and Ketoret – are what will connect us closer to Hakadosh Baruch Hu and lead to the removal of all evil decrees and the deliverance of goodness and sustenance.
The Ramban (Vayikra 1:9), based on the Gemara (Menachot 110a), says we don’t find other names of Hakadosh Baruch Hu tied to korbanot: לֹא קֵל וְלֹא אֱלוֹקִים וְלֹא שַׁדַּי וְלֹא צְבָקוֹת. When it comes to the מִזְבֵּחַ, we find only one name: Shem Havay”a – the name spelled yud and heh and vav and heh.
Thus, we are told: זֹבֵחַ לָאֱלֹהִים יָחֳרָם בִּלְתִּי לַה' לְבַדּוֹ – sacrifices may not be brought to any gods, but only to Shem Havay”a. What does this name symbolize? Rachamim – mercy.
Names of Mercy and Judgement
Coming back to the Shemen Rosh’s answer as to why double language, and double names, are used in commanding a kohen to remain pure, there are two names of Hakadosh Baruch Hu that represent Din – judgement, and two that represent Rachamim – mercy. Rachamim is represented by the Shem Havay”a, whose numerical value is 26. The second name is אֵ-ל (31), based on the pasuk: חֶסֶד אֵ-ל כָּל־הַיּוֹם (Tehillim 52:3). These two names together bring mercy upon Bnei Yisrael:
אֵ-ל י-ה-ו-ה וַיָּאֶר לָנוּ אִסְרוּ־חַג בַּעֲבֹתִים עַד־קַרְנוֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ׃
G-d is the Lord, who has shown us light: bind the sacrifice with cords, to the horns of the altar.
Similarly, the two names that bring Din upon Bnei Yisrael are: אֱ-לֹהִים (86) and cutting the Shem Havay”a into just יָ-הּ (15):
יַסֹּר יִסְּרַנִּי י-הּ וְלַמָּוֶת לֹא נְתָנָנִי׃
The Lord has chastised me severely: but he has not given me up to death.
The names of Rachamim total 57 and the names of Din total 101. When Bilaam attempted to curse Bnei Yisrael, his efforts were futile. He was unsuccessful in uttering words of curse using either the name אֱ-לֹהִים or יָ-הּ, because Hakadosh Baruch Hu prevented him. He explained to Balak:
לֹא אוּכַל לַעֲבֹר אֶת־פִּי ה' אֱ-לֹהָי לַעֲשׂוֹת קְטַנָּה אוֹ גְדוֹלָה׃
I cannot transgress the word of Hashem my G-d, by doing anything small or great.
Bilaam wanted to invoke the name אֱ-לֹהִים in its complete form, but Hakadosh Baruch Hu allowed him to utter only the portion of אֵ-ל. Bilaam wanted to invoke the name יָ-הּ, but Hakadosh Baruch Hu allowed him to utter only י-ה-ו-ה. Bilaam wanted to invoke the two names of Hakadosh Baruch Hu representing Din, yet Hakadosh Baruch Hu only allowed him to invoke the two names representing Rachamim. When Bilaam said לֹא אוּכַל לַעֲבֹר אֶת־פִּי ה' אֱ-לֹהָי לַעֲשׂוֹת קְטַנָּה אוֹ גְדוֹלָה, it was in reference to these names of Hakadosh Baruch Hu and their transformations. He wished to invoke the smaller form of י-ה-ו-ה but was prevented from doing so, and he wished to invoke the larger form of אֱ-לֹהִים but was blocked. Where he wanted to invoke the smaller name (י-הּ), he ended up uttering the larger one representing mercy, and likewise, where he wanted to invoke the larger name representing Din, he uttered the smaller one (אֱ-לֹ). And what was the result?
מָה אֶקֹּב לֹא קַבֹּה וּמָה אֶזְעֹם לֹא זָעַם י-ה-ו-ה׃
How can I curse when G-d has not cursed? What Divine wrath can I evoke if Hashem has not been angry?
Only what was placed into Bilaam’s mouth could he speak, and those were the two names of Hakadosh Baruch Hu that represent Rachamim, names that have a numerical value of 57. The numerical value of מִזְבֵּחַ is also 57, as the names of mercy lead us to the altar. On the flip side, the two names representing Din total 101, and we have an angel that advocates for us and protects us against harsh judgement – מִיכָאֵל, whose numerical value is also 101. Shemen Rosh says, the difference between these two sets (101-57) is 44, the same numerical value as דָּם – blood. If there is ever a time when Bnei Yisrael are subject to Dinim, the way to overcome them is by placing blood on the Mizbe’ach – i.e., offering a korban. Offering a korban will remove 44 from the Dinim and leave us with 57 – the names of Rachamim. This is how the מִזְבֵּחַ moves, sustains, endears, and atones.
What happens when someone performs that same step – i.e., offering a korban – but does so outside of the Mikdash?
וְאֶל־פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא הֱבִיאוֹ לְהַקְרִיב קָרְבָּן לַה' לִפְנֵי מִשְׁכַּן ה' דָּם יֵחָשֵׁב לָאִישׁ הַהוּא דָּם שָׁפָךְ וְנִכְרַת הָאִישׁ הַהוּא מִקֶּרֶב עַמּוֹ׃
And to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it so that it may be brought as an offering to Hashem, before the Mishkan of Hashem; it shall be considered for that person as blood, he has spilled blood, and that person shall be cut off from among his people.
It is considered as if the blood was poured out and wasted. Instead of the blood ascending and transforming the Dinim into Rachamim, it was spilled out in vain, and such a person is cut off from the people.
Let’s add one more nugget from Shemen Rosh before diving into our main topic. The Gemara (Berachot 10b) teaches, the meaning of the Pasuk לֹא תֹאכְלוּ עַל הַדָּם – You shall not eat before the blood, is that you may not eat before you pray for your blood. In other words, one may not eat before he davens. There are many who eat a bit before davening, especially on Shabbat when they start a bit later than usual, based on various answers and allowances that sometimes lead to a small bite and taste tuning into a full plate and meal. It is important to note that according to Halacha, one is not permitted to eat before davening. Without a Beit Hamikdash present, our tefillot are our korbanot, and the words we recite equal to the blood that would be sprinkled onto the Mizbe’ach. When we have judgement imposed on us, the first thing we must do upon waking is to offer up the blood (44) so that we merit the angel Michael protecting us by transforming Dinim (101) into Rachamim (57).
The Ishbitzer’s Approach: Structure and Grievance
We can now jump into a topic from the Ishbitzer, taken from his sefer, Mei HaShiloach (Emor). His words are tremendous and not easy to cover in one shiur, but we can at least bring forth the main ideas and share something truly incredible.
The structure of our Parsha is quite odd. It begins with the laws of kohanim, specifically related to the laws when someone passes away. The next topic is that of the blemishes of kohanim (מוּמֵי כֹּהֲנִים). Following that, we find the topic of kohanim who come into contact with various forms of impurity. Then we find the topic of blemished animals and their laws vis a vis korbanot. The next topic is that of the Korban Todah, followed by a lengthy section pertaining to the Mo’adim: Pesach, Shavuot, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and Succot. The topics related to kohanim are mixed together with those touching on our festivals. Shemen (oil) and Lechem Hapanim (showbread) follow the festivals, and the Rokeach says, oil represents Chanukah, and the showbread represents Purim, both added to the yearly cycle of holidays. What follows? The chapter of מְגַדֵּף – the blasphemer, who came into this world in the year 2449 and was the first to utter words of blasphemy against the King of Kings. What he said and why is a full topic of its own, but you can glance at Rashi to get an idea.
Mei HaShiloach asks, and we’ll soon expand on his question, what the connection between all these sections is. It’s an odd compilation and sequence, especially considering Chazal say the incidents of the blasphemer and the one who cut down trees on Shabbat (מְקֹשֵׁשׁ עֵצִים) occurred at the same time, yet the latter is only relayed to us in Parshat Shelach. And the final topic of our Parsha, involving damage caused by an animal and the corresponding punishments and repayments, already appeared in Parshat Mishpatim. What is going on here with the entire structure of this Parsha? I would classify the structure as דּוֹרֵשׁ דְּרָשָׁה – demanding a lecture.
Let’s begin, Besiyata Dishmaya, with something דָּבוּר עַל אָפְנָיו – clear and concise. The first section, related to the laws for kohanim when a relative passes away, is one of the times in which one can have a serious claim against Hakadosh Baruch Hu, and perhaps even resentment. A person may respond to such an event with questions about why their beloved family member was taken away, especially when involving a young sibling or a parent who has not yet reached 100 years of age. This question is multiplied exponentially when, Rachmana litzlan, a parent is forced to bury their child. Look at how many parents buried their children here this last week alone, Hashem yerachem. The question gets asked, and it gets asked in a difficult and harsh manner. Why? We’re all asking why! The Ishbitzer says, our Parsha opens with this topic because it is one that generates grievance and indignation.
The Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 62) brings three opinions as to which people sat and learned under a fig tree, benefitting from its heavy foliage and shade. One opinion says it was Rabbi Chia and his students, another says Rabbi Akiva and his students, and a final opinion says it was Rabbi Yossi bar Chalafta and his students. It doesn’t really matter to us which one it was, but the Midrash goes on to say that the owner of the tree came before sunrise to cut off its fruit. When the students arrived, they noticed there were no figs and assumed the owner suspected his produce would be stolen by them, so he removed them first. How did they respond? Quite simple. They moved over to a different tree, not wanting to sit under the tree of someone who suspected them of being thieves. The next day, the owner noticed the students were no longer sitting under his tree, so he asked them why they had moved and caused him to lose out on the merit of hosting them and their learning. They replied, “We moved over because we noticed you cut off the figs in fear we’d steal them.” The owner was taken aback and explained that he only cut them down to prevent the rising sun from drying out the figs, which would cause honey to drip and many flies and bees to arrive on the scene. He figured he was saving them a battle against all sorts of insects and jukim. With a newfound understanding of the owner’s actions and intent, the students moved back to his tree the next day. But the owner also made an adjustment – he left the figs exactly where they were on the tree, wanting to prove to the students that he did not fear them stealing his produce. Chazal say, the sun rose, and within no time the tree was full of insects of every shape and size, resulting in the students recognizing just how correct the owner was in coming early in the day to cut them down. What was their learning from this incident? When Hakadosh Baruch Hu takes someone before their time, don’t ask why. Just like the tree owner knew when to pluck his fruit, Hakadosh Baruch Hu knows when to take back His. There is no reason to ask, “Why did you take them from me?”
The next cause for grievance, says the Ishbitzer, is from one who, lo aleinu, is born with a defect, such as a missing limb. The Torah speaks about blemishes found on kohanim, to which the Rambam says (Hilchot Biat Hamikdash 6:5) there are three types of blemishes that can be present: those that disqualify a kohen from serving and an animal from being offered; those that disqualify just the kohen; and those that don’t disqualify but due to the impression they’d cause, Chazal ruled such a kohen should not serve (although if they did, their korbanot would not be invalidated). That last category consists of a kohen without eyelashes or teeth. The Rambam adds (8:17), there are 50 types of blemishes that disqualify both kohen and animal, and 90 that disqualify only a kohen, resulting in a total of 140 blemishes that would disqualify a kohen. The Vilna Gaon disagrees, and says there are only 86 such blemishes, the numerical value of מוּם. A kohen who is born with such a blemish has a grievance against Hakadosh Baruch Hu. They may ask, “Why can my brothers serve in the Mikdash, yet I cannot?”
The third cause for grievance, says the Ishbitzer, is impurity of a kohen, or more specifically, a kohen who prepared himself for service but was then unable to serve due to unexpectedly coming into contact with impurity. An example is brought based on the calculation that a kohen worked a total of two days each year. This is based on there being 24 one-week shifts each year, with each shift consisting of multiple families of kohanim. The first day of the week was the Cohen family, followed by the Katz family the next day, then the Kagan family, then the Azoulay family. (I was told that Azoulay, or אזולי, stood for אִשָּה זֹנָה וַחֲלָלָה לֹא יִקָּחוּ.) After the Azoulay’s were done, the Kahana’s arrived, followed by the Cohen’s again, as there are a lot of them. The net result was a kohen who lived in Tzefat prepared and travelled for a couple of weeks to arrive at the Beit Hamikdash in time for his two-day shift. In the wee hours of the morning, just before he...
