English translation — צו ב

A.

In this week's parshah¹

is told about the law of "the Chavitin of the Kohen Gadol" — that every day

("Tamid")

the Kohen Gadol must bring

(from his own house — from his own funds²)

a meal-offering,

"half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening."

What is the law if "the Kohen Gadol died" and "they did not appoint another in his place"?

There is in this a dispute of the Tannaim "from whose property was it offered"

(the meal-offering of the Kohen Gadol)³

: Rabbi Shimon says,

that "from the community" — they bring it from community funds,

and Rabbi Yehudah holds that "from the heirs" — the heirs of the Kohen Gadol bring the meal-offering,

until they appoint another Kohen Gadol⁴.

In the Gemara⁵

a baraita is brought that explains the reason for the dispute: R. Yehuda expounds the verse⁶

"And the anointed kohen in his place from his sons shall perform it,"

"for thus it implies,

the anointed kohen when he dies,

in his place one of his sons shall perform it"⁷

; and

R. Shimon learns from the verse⁶

"an eternal statute" — "a statute of the world"

(a statute of the public from the chamber funds⁸).

From the language of the Mishnah "Of whom was it offered",

And likewise from the language of both Tannaim in their statements,

it implies that the obligation of the offering

(from the Torah⁹)

when "they did not appoint another in his place" is not a separate-different obligation

(of the offering of the chavitin by the Kohen Gadol himself),

I.e.

that

that the Torah innovated <b>another</b> obligation of offering chavitin

(when the Kohen Gadol died)

— rather this is a continuation and in the same type of obligation of the offering as the Kohen Gadol himself offers it.

According to this one can say,

that the dispute in the exposition of the verses is connected with a dispute in the <b>content</b> of the offering of "chavitin of the Kohen Gadol",

(also)

when the Kohen Gadol himself offers them.

B.

Regarding the definition of “Chavitin of the Kohen Gadol”

(although they come from his own property,

and that means his own offering,

Chavitin of the Kohen Gadol¹⁰),

one can ponder,

whether they are entirely in the category of an individual offering,

or they are akin to a communal offering¹¹.

And one could say,

that this is connected to the reasons for the offering:

The Chinuch¹²

explains,

"From the roots of the commandment,

because the Kohen Gadol is the agent between Israel and their Father in heaven,

that is to say,

for he is the one who bears prayer to Him on their behalf and through his prayers and the act of his offerings they are atoned,

and therefore it is fitting for such a man to have a special offering always like the public tamid offerings ..

and for this purpose it will benefit him and them" — according to the explanation it turns out,

that the griddle-cake offering

(always)

of the Kohen Gadol is for the atonement of the <b>public</b>,

<b>in the manner of </b>the public tamid offerings.

And especially when one offers the griddle-cakes of the Kohen Gadol together with the tamid offering¹³.

But it is implied and understood that several learn,

that the offering is connected

(only)

with the Kohen Gadol <b>himself</b>

(as an individual).

As it is be-

Standing from several of the reasons that the commentators of the reasons of the commandments explain

brings several,

and among them¹⁵

: "In order to enter before God with humility and with signs of poverty like a poor and destitute person standing before the Master of all the earth"¹⁶

; "That God desired that each day there should be offered before Him an individual sacrifice and a communal sacrifice etc. in a general way and in a particular way etc."¹⁷].

And based on this, one can say,

that the dispute mentioned above

(regarding a High Priest who died and "they did not appoint another in his place,

from whose property was the offering brought?")

is dependent on the two types of reasons mentioned above:

If one assumes,

that the offering of the High Priest is in the manner of a communal offering,

it must follow,

that when there is no High Priest to bring the offering,

it must be brought from the community itself,

from the community funds¹⁸

But if we accept that the korban of the Kohen Gadol has no connection to the public,

rather it is connected with the Kohen Gadol as an <b>individual</b> — then consequently

(in the case

when the Kohen Gadol dies)

the korban must be brought from the heirs¹⁹.

3.

Based on the above — that according to the opinion of R. Yishmael the offering must be brought "from the heirs" because the offering is connected with the High Priest himself — the wording of the Rambam in the aforementioned halachah will be understood:

The Rambam²⁰

rules: "If the High Priest died in the morning after he had offered half of the tenth [of an ephah] and they did not appoint another priest,

the heirs bring a full tenth [of an ephah] <b>for his atonement</b>."

It is seemingly not understood: What is the content of the addition,

that the heirs bring the sacrifice "for his atonement"?

And from where does the Rambam take it?

But the explanation in this: With this the Rambam intends to indicate the <b>reason</b>,

<b>Why </b>is the law that "the heirs bring" — and an additional matter in this,

For seemingly: From that which Rabbi Yehuda is <b>deriving </b>from the wording of the verse "<b>from his sons </b>he shall make it",

and says "<b>heirs</b>",

it is understandable,

that this means not specifically male sons

(which are in the category of bringing a Minchas Chavitin: not only if one of his sons is fit to fill his place

(and consequently he is already now &lt;b&gt;in potential &lt;/b&gt;and)

becomes later the Kohen Gadol,

but even his sons in general,

who are Kohanim

(and will remain)

in general,

bring nevertheless the Minchas Chavitin on the day they are initiated)

But even if the Kohen Gadol has no male sons,

and his heirs are &lt;b&gt;daughters&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

— &lt;b&gt;they &lt;/b&gt;must bring the Minchas Chavitin&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;.

So it is difficult: from where does R. Yehuda take the novelty,

that also <b>the </b>heirs

(plainly — also daughters)

must bring the offering,

and not only

(as explained in the verse)

"his sons"?

The Rambam answers this,

that the offering is

(not from and as the heirs themselves,

but)

"for the sake of <b>his atonement</b>",

that which the heirs bring the offering is because of the atonement of the <b>bequeather</b>²³

(because the chavitei of the Kohen Gadol is a matter of atonement for the Kohen Gadol)

*²³,

it is not a category of <b>their </b>offering,

but an offering of the

<b>Morish</b>,

they bring

(as <b>heirs</b>)

the “offering of their <b>father</b>”²⁴.

D.

According to the above explanation in Chavitai Kohen Gadol — that they are in the category of

(similar to)

a communal offering and one can also say that this is an individual offering

(of the Kohen Gadol)

— will also become understood Rashi’s commentary on the verse²⁵

“And the anointed kohen who will succeed him from his sons shall perform it ..

it shall be entirely burnt.”

Rashi quotes the words "the anointed one in his place from his sons" and explains "the anointed one from his sons in his place",

and afterwards he quotes the words "entirely it shall be burned" and explains: "it is not gathered to be the remainder eaten but entirely it is wholly burnt".

So in the first statement it is not understood

(as commentators are precise)²⁶

: what does Rashi intend in his commentary which —

It stands in ..

Reverse order of the words in the verse?

— What is thereby changed or added in the understanding of the verse²⁷?

Also in the second statement it is difficult: What is Rashi <b>innovating</b> here?

The simple meaning of “<b>entirely</b> burn” has only one interpretation that one <b>entirely burns</b> it

(on the altar),

Nothing remains for eating?

Further: Rashi himself already earlier&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;

said the wording "I have no ..

except the meal-offering of Israel which is taken by the handful,

the meal-offering of a priest which is &lt;b&gt;entirely &lt;/b&gt;burnt etc." — and thereby &lt;b&gt;does not add &lt;/b&gt;explanation.

It means,

that one understands simply what "entirely burnt" means

(that one burns the entire offering&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;)

— then why does Rashi &lt;b&gt;here &lt;/b&gt;need to explain and with such length — "it is not taken by the handful to have its remnants eaten, but rather it is entirely burnt"?

Further,

on the verse after this&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;

— "And every meal-offering of a priest shall be entirely burnt, it shall not be eaten" — Rashi explains the word "entirely burnt" — "entirely equal for the Most High".

It is most perplexing: Earlier Rashi uses the word "entirely burnt" without any explanation of it; afterwards he explains that it means "it is not taken by the handful etc." and after all this he then translates the word "entirely burnt"?

5.

And one could say the explanation of all this:

The question in the verse,

which Rashi warns about,

is — the change of language in the

Two verses: in the first verse

(where it speaks about the meal-offering of the anointed priest)

it says "entirely &lt;b&gt;shall be burned&lt;/b&gt;"; in the second verse

(where it speaks about "and every meal-offering of a priest"),

it says "entirely &lt;b&gt;shall be&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;.

From this variation in the verses Rashi infers that these are two separate matters and modes in "entirely" — and this is emphasized and explained in the lengthy language of Rashi:

"Allil taktir" Rashi explains "it is not scooped so that its remnants may be eaten, but rather it is entirely burnt",

with the lengthy language Rashi clarifies his intention,

that "allil taktir" does not mean to negate the matter of &lt;b&gt;scooping&lt;/b&gt;; scooping must be,

but it is such a scooping that "its remnants are not eaten",

rather they also burn them on the altar&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;

— "the handful burns by itself and the remnants burn by themselves"&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;.

And this is the explanation of "allil taktir"&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;

— that everything

(both the handful and the remnants)

is burned on the altar&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;

The second "allil

(shall be)

" — which stands by "every meal offering of a priest" — its explanation is "entirely &lt;b&gt;equal &lt;/b&gt;for the Most High" — in this meal offering there is no division

(into a handful and into remnants)

rather it is entirely burned &lt;b&gt;equally &lt;/b&gt;for the Most High,

there is altogether no scooping.

"Allil tihyeh" — that it remains entirely &lt;b&gt;in its state&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;.

6.

What is the reason for this difference between the meal-offering of the High Priest and the meal-offering of an ordinary priest?

It is based on the above

(section 2)

understandable simply: Rashi assumes

(<b>in the plain sense</b> of Scripture)

that the High Priest's griddle-cakes which come <b>continually</b> every day are not in the category of a sacrifice

(which the High Priest brings as)

an individual

(in the same type as an ordinary priest's meal-offering,

only with an addition that this is connected with the High Priesthood),

but this is

(a sacrifice that he brings as an agent of the entire Jewish people)

— similar to the <b>continual</b> offering,

like a communal sacrifice.

Based on this it is understood why Rashi teaches that the chavitin of the Kohen Gadol must have kemitzah — because this is not a category of a minchat kohen,

but in the manner of a minchat tzibbur,

and consequently it must have kemitzah³⁷,

like all other minchot that are brought on the altar³⁸.

But since in practice

the minchah is brought by the Kohen Gadol,

it therefore also has a resemblance and equivalence to a minchat kohen³⁹,

that its remnants are eaten⁴⁰.

And for this reason Rashi also precedes in his commentary at the beginning of the verse "And the anointed priest from his sons in his place",

and is

(Mishnah)

explains: "the anointed from his sons in his place":

With this Rashi intends to negate

(in the simple meaning of the Mishnah)

the explanation of Rabbi Yehudah: according to Rabbi Yishmael's explanation it comes out,

that the word "from his sons"

(and consequently also the word "in his place")

is not connected to the word "anointed",

but to "he shall do etc." - and the explanation in the verse is

(as above)

: "And the anointed priest"

(if he dies,

then)

"in his place from his sons he shall do it",

his sons must bring the meal-offering in his place.

that by this that the verse states the order

(instead of "from his sons under him" — "under him from his sons")

the verse hints <b>to</b> a law

(<b>in addition</b> to the simple explanation of the verse,

that the succeeding anointed priest must bring the chavitei kohen gadol)

— that a kohen gadol who died, his sons should bring his offering,

like the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda⁴¹].

So Rashi rejects this explanation in the plain meaning of Scripture,

and teaches,

that it is as if it had originally stood in the verse "the anointed one from his sons under him"

(One does not interrupt between "anointed one" and "from his sons" — the priest <b>the anointed one</b> who is "from his sons under him")⁴².

But not sons in general,

because Rashi assumes,

as above,

that the chavitei kohen gadol come as atonement for the entirety of Israel,

and the kohen gadol brings them as an agent of the entirety of Israel,

and consequently there is no place that

(a kohen gadol who died is)

his sons

(who are not a kohen gadol,

not agents of the entirety of Israel)

should bring the offering.

7.

Based on the above,

that the difference between R. Y. and R. Sh. is a dispute in the definition of the minchat chavitin — also when the Kohen Gadol himself brings the minchah — one should explain another difference in the offering of the chavitin:

The Gemara⁴¹

asks: "And R. Yehudah, this 'chukat olam' — what does he do with it?

A statute forever it shall be."

is Tosafos⁴³

explains: "The verse says: Aharon offers the chavitin every day, and his sons when they become high priests, even though they have already been inaugurated into the priesthood of the ordinary [priesthood]"

(Therefore one must have a teaching: "A statute forever, that every day he shall offer it"⁴⁴),

and Tosafos

continues: "And Rabbi Shimon does not hold this reasoning."

And seemingly: In what reasoning do they disagree — whether one understands on one's own that one must offer every day

(also for generations),

or one needs for this a special teaching?

Then this is understood according to the above: The &lt;b&gt;daily &lt;/b&gt;services in the Temple are connected with the public.

For the public is a &lt;b&gt;permanent &lt;/b&gt;and eternal reality&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;,

like the law that the public does not die&lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt;.

And therefore,

according to the view of Rabbi Shimon that the griddle-cake of the High Priest is in the manner of a public offering&lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt;

one does not need any special teaching that the command "meal-offering &lt;b&gt;continually&lt;/b&gt;" is

(also)

for generations.

This is similar to the daily offering which is offered every day.

According to R' Yehuda, however,

since this is an individual offering,

the offering of the Kohen Gadol himself,

regarding an individual offering we do not find that it should come "continually" every day,

therefore we need to have a teaching that the mitzvah of offering of <b>this</b> individual offering is "an eternal statute it shall be,

that every day he shall offer it."

8.

Based on this we can say,

that the difference is not only in this,

whether we need for this a special teaching,

but it is also a

A difference in the manner and definition of the constancy of the offering:

One can say that the constant obligations upon a community are not in a manner that each day there is <b>another</b>

(— new)

obligation,

but that there is <b>one</b> constant obligation

(which is continuous),

just as the community itself is <b>one</b> entity

(continuous and constant),

as above.

And likewise regarding the Chavitin of the High Priest: if one learns that they are like a communal offering,

then the obligation of its offering

(in a manner of "a meal-offering &lt;b&gt;perpetual&lt;/b&gt;")

— &lt;b&gt;one &lt;/b&gt;perpetual obligation,

which applies to him &lt;b&gt;on the day &lt;/b&gt;he was anointed and inaugurated for service

(to offer &lt;b&gt;every &lt;/b&gt;single day),

&lt;b&gt;like &lt;/b&gt;the obligation of the perpetual offering&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;

upon the community.

If one learns, however, that this is an individual offering,

since by an individual there is not &lt;b&gt;the &lt;/b&gt;concept of perpetuity

(as by the community — which is "does not cease"),

one must say,

that the obligation of offering of "a meal-offering &lt;b&gt;perpetual&lt;/b&gt;" means*&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;

— that every single day there is upon the High Priest a

(separate)

new obligation to offer Chavitin&lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;.

Based on this, the drashah of the Toras Kohanim on the verse "This is the offering of Aharon on the day of his anointing etc., a continual meal-offering" will also be understood.

And his language: From the day he was anointed, he brings a tenth of an ephah forever,

Or perhaps it does not say "on the day of his anointing"

On the day he was anointed, he brings a tenth of an ephah and ceases,

The verse states "a continual meal-offering."

How then do I fulfill "on the day of his anointing"? On the day of his anointing, he brings a tenth of an ephah forever.

It is seemingly not understood: What does the Toras Kohanim answer that the words "on the day of his anointing" teach that "on the day of his anointing he brings etc. until forever"; that if it had only stated "a continual meal-offering" one would also have known that one must always bring the offering from the day when he became a High Priest

("on the day of his anointing")⁵⁰?

Based on the above one can say,

that the Toras Kohanim explains,

that every day "until forever" is called a "<b>day of his anointing</b>" — the "<b>very</b> day of his anointing" is <b>extended</b>; that this gives an explanation in the category of "a continual meal-offering" — that the perpetuity consists in this,

that every day the obligation to bring the meal-offering offering is,

as if it were the "day of his anointing".

And it can be said that this is also a practical difference in halacha: according to the reasoning in the category of "a continual meal-offering" it turns out,

that the chavitin of the High Priest which one offers every day is a category of a meal-offering of initiation

("on the day of his anointing")⁵¹,

and consequently there is room to say,

that just as a High Priest may not initially perform any

service until he brings his meal-offering of initiation⁵²

— so it is every single day,

that he may not perform

(at least — initially)⁵³

any service before he brings the chavitin⁵⁴.

9.

The above explanation in the definition of "continual meal-offering"

(According to the reasoning that this is an individual offering)

— That the "day of his anointing" is a continuous matter,

So that on each and every day a new obligation of bringing the inauguration offering comes about —

Is also consistent with the explanation in Likkutei Torah⁵⁵

— The "Chassidic portion"

— from this week: he asks there on the language of the verse "on the day of his anointing" — "that prima facie it should have said 'from the day of his anointing' since it is said afterwards 'a continual meal-offering',"

and answers that this is "so that through this there will be every day until eternity a revelation of the aspect and level of the day of his anointing."

and explains that this is what it says "in the offering of Aaron a continual meal-offering, i.e. until

eternity,

and nevertheless it is the aspect of 'on the day of his anointing'."

That this corresponds to what was explained above regarding the revealed aspect — that each and every day there is the "day of his anointing."

Motzaei Shabbos Parshas Tavo 5738)