English translation — תשא ב

A.

From the verse¹

"And you shall anoint with it the Tent of Meeting, etc." Rashi cites the words "And you shall anoint with it" and explains: All anointings are in the shape of a Greek kaf²

Except for those of kings, which are in the shape of a crown.

The source of Rashi's explanation regarding the forms of anointing is in the Gemara Horayot³

and Keritot⁴,

and the language of the Gemara

(in Horayot)

is: "They anoint kings in the shape of a crown and priests in the shape of a kaf,

What is 'in the shape of a kaf'? Rav Menashia bar Gada said: Like a Greek kaf"⁵.

But together with this, Rashi in his commentary differs from the Gemara in several details: a)

Rashi says “<b>all </b>anointings” — not only anointing of priests,

as it stands in the Gemara.

b)

He precedes “all anointings” before anointing of kings.

c)

Furthermore: even afterward — Rashi brings anointing of kings not as a section

(law)

by itself,

as in the Gemara,

but as a detail that is an exception to the rule of “all anointings” — “<b>except </b>for that of kings.”

The reason for the changes is understood simply: Rashi here — on the Torah is indeed explaining the plain meaning of <b>Scripture</b>,

and in <b>the </b>verses it speaks about <b>several </b>anointings: anointing of the Tabernacle and the Ark and the vessels⁶,

and also anointing of Aaron and his sons⁷

But regarding anointing of kings, it is not mentioned here.

And therefore Rashi explains: "All anointings — about which it speaks in these verses — are like a Greek kaf — except for that of kings

(which is not stated in the verses)

that they are like a crown."

According to this, however, it is not smooth: the rule of Rashi on the Torah is indeed,

that

(he is not a book of halachot,

but)

"I⁸

have come only for the plain meaning of the verse" — why does Rashi need to add here "except for that of kings etc.",

since in the portion — and also in the verses and sections before it — is generally⁹

not mentioned about anointing of kings?

2.

Regarding the manner of the anointing,

Rashi already explained in the previous parshah

(Parshas Tetzaveh)

several times:

On the verse¹⁰

"And unleavened wafers anointed with oil" Rashi says "After their baking they are anointed in the shape of a Greek kaf which is made like our nun"; a few verses after that¹¹,

regarding the matter of the anointing of Aharon,

Rashi says "Also this anointing is in the shape of a kaf yud

(placing oil on his head and between his eyebrows and joining them with his finger)

"; and afterwards,

on the verse about the anointing of the altar¹²,

Rashi says "And all the anointings are in the shape of a Greek kaf".

The reason

(and source)

in plainness that

Rashi says by the

(second)

verse regarding the anointing of Aharon "Also this anointing is like a Greek 'kaf'."

is because this comes <b>in continuation </b>to the previous verse regarding the anointing of the wafers of matzah which was thus.

But according to this one must understand: why is Rashi changing by the

(third)

verse regarding the anointing of the altar and says a <b>general rule </b>"And all the anointings" and does not explain the verse "Also this anointing <b>this </b>

(like a Greek 'kaf')

similar to the anointing of Aharon before this?

At first glance, one must say the distinction: the anointing of the wafers and the anointing of Aaron are two entirely separate matters of anointing: the anointing of the wafers of matzot is with olive oil,

and is a detail of the making of the offering¹³.

But not so the anointing of Aaron is with the anointing oil¹⁴

and is one of the actions to fulfill the "And you shall sanctify ...

the priest"¹⁵.

Even more: the very concept of "anointing" regarding "anointing of the Tabernacle and priests and kings" is different than regarding anointing of wafers,

as <b>Rashi</b> explains

(in our portion)¹⁶

that regarding "anointing of the Tabernacle and priests and kings" anointing is "translated as an expression of abundance ...

greatness",

but not so regarding "anointed wafers"

(and the like)

it is "Aramaic language in them like Hebrew language"¹⁷.

But the third anointing in the verse,

anointing of the altar,

is not a different type of anointing than the anointing of Aaron before this — also <b>the </b>anointing is

(as Rashi is

precedes)¹⁸

with the anointing oil and it is in order to "<b>sanctify him</b>"¹⁹.

And therefore Rashi specifically guards regarding the anointing of Aharon "&lt;b&gt;Even this anointing &lt;/b&gt;etc.": the emphasis in the addition "even" is primarily

(Not because here it is about being anointed a different reality — Aharon and not vessels,

but)

because this is a different &lt;b&gt;type &lt;/b&gt;of anointing

(for greatness),

that regardless of this

(that it is a different type of anointing)

"Even this anointing is like a kind of K"Y".

But not so regarding the anointing of the altar with the anointing oil which is of the same type of anointing as the anointing of Aharon,

Rashi does not need to add the safeguard "&lt;b&gt;Even &lt;/b&gt;this anointing".

3.

One must, however, understand — at first glance, Rashi's commentary regarding the anointing of the wafer-matzo in Parshat Tetzaveh is not a contradiction to Rashi in Parshat Vayikra²⁰

In Parshat Tetzaveh Rashi says <b>simply</b> that the anointing of the wafer-matzo,

although it is a different type of anointing,

is, however, in the <b>same</b> manner as the anointing with the anointing oil,

compares to the anointing of the wafers

("also this anointing")

; and likewise he afterwards&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;

states categorically "&lt;b&gt;all&lt;/b&gt; the anointings are like a Greek letter gamma",

which from the categorical language of Rashi it is implied&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;,

that by "all the anointings" he means

(literally)

— &lt;b&gt;all&lt;/b&gt; anointings,

at least regarding those that one had learned until here,

including the anointing of the wafers of matzahs].

But in Parshat Vayikra,

regarding "wafers of matzahs anointed with oil" of the meal-offering,

Rashi brings two opinions in the manner of the anointing&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;

— "some say he anoints and anoints again until all the oil in the log is consumed ..

and some say he anoints them like a Greek letter gamma" — i.e.

that

that according to one opinion

(the first&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;)

in Rashi's commentary,

the manner of the anointing of the wafers

(being a different type of anointing)

is indeed &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; like the other anointings

(with the anointing oil)&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;,

not like in Parshat Tetzaveh where Rashi is &lt;b&gt;categorical&lt;/b&gt; like one&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;

opinion&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;.

4.

Will one understand this with an introduction of the above question — regarding <b>all</b> the above Rashi commentaries: Rashi on the Torah

Is indeed not a book of halachos; is not smooth — what is the practical difference in the plain sense of the verse in which manner the anointing was?

And if even one would find a reason why Rashi needs to explain to the ben chamesh lamikra the &lt;b&gt;manner &lt;/b&gt;of the anointing — it is entirely not understood why Rashi needs to elaborate and write that this is „&lt;b&gt;like a Greek kaf &lt;/b&gt;which is made like our nun" and does not say briefly that the anointing is like a „our nun"&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;

Further: in the subsequent commentaries,

when Rashi repeats the depiction of the anointing,

he always uses the wording „like a Greek kaf" not mentioning that this is „like our nun".

It is perplexing: let us assume that Rashi needs to inform that this is „like a Greek kaf" — but after he has already let this be known one time,

it is indeed fitting and logical that in the subsequent depicting of the manner of the anointing he should use the conclusion — like the form of „nun",

and especially since specifically it is understandable and clear to the ben chamesh lamikra.

And in practice Rashi adds only the first time that it is „like our nun" and afterwards,

each time,

he says only „like a Greek kaf"!

5.

this will be understandable after the explanation and clarification in the correct version of the words

(regarding "kaf yevanit")

in Rashi's commentary:

In tractate Keritot&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;

(regarding anointing of priests)

the language of the Gemara is: "like a chi ...

like a chi yevani"; in tractate Horayot&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;

the version in the Gemaras that are in our possession

(as above sec. 1)

: "like a &lt;b&gt;kaf &lt;/b&gt;yevani",

in a manuscript&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;

(of tractate Horayot)

the version is "chi yevani",

as in tractate Keritot,

and in tractate Menachot

(regarding anointing of the wafers)

: in the Mishnah it stands&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;

"like a chi" and the Gemara&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;

explains on it "like a chi yevani"&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;.

In Rashi's commentary on the Torah one finds many and various versions.

In the Rashi commentaries of the printed Chumashim — at the first and third commentary mentioned above in Parshas Tetzaveh and also in our parshah and in Parshas Vayikra,

it says "like a kind of Greek kaf",

and in the second commentary

(by anointing another)

the wording is "like a kind of kaf yud".

But in the manuscripts of Rashi,

and likewise in the first and second printings — there are many &lt;b&gt;variants&lt;/b&gt;,

and in most of them that I saw the reading in our parshah is

(and in the last two commentaries mentioned above in Parshas Tetzaveh and in Parshas Vayikra)

— "like a kind of kaf yud"&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;

And in this first explanation mentioned above in Parshat Tetzaveh "like a &lt;b&gt;ki &lt;/b&gt;yunit"

(But in several manuscripts it is later interpreted "explanation like a kaf yunit")&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;.

As one learns simply,

is the intention in Rashi's explanation "like a ki" exactly as in the Gemara,

that this means

(As the Gemara itself interprets it afterwards)

"like a ki yuni"&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;

(Like the letter "ki" in the Greek language)&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;.

But according to this it is difficult

(according to the majority of versions in the aforementioned manuscripts — "like a kaf")

: That the Gemara is not satisfied with simply saying "like a kaf" and explains in every place what "like a kaf" means — is then all the more so,

that Rashi in his commentary on the Torah,

which is for a five-year-old studying Scripture,

will not be ambiguous and say only "like a kaf"!

And it is forced to say,

that Rashi relies in all the places

(where he says "like a kaf")

on what he explained the first time

(that this means "like a kaf, Greek made like our nun",

and the like),

rather he would in each place add the

(one)

word "Greek"

("ki yonit")

to clarify that this is a letter in Greek.

And therefore it seems to me,

that in the places where one finds in Rashi on the Torah the version "kemin ki" — the word "ki"

(is not a copy of the language of the Gemara,

and it means a letter named "ki",

but it is)

an acronym,

and it should stand as in our printed texts "kemin kaf yud"³⁵

(with a symbol "gershayim" — for acronyms),

namely: "kaf yonit"

(as he explains in the first commentary in Parshat Tetzaveh)³⁶.

But according to the above,

and with the introduction that Rashi came not to obscure but to explain,

it seems to me that the geresh is simply — a sign of an acronym,

as above].

And according to this, one also "deserves",

that one need not multiply in the variant readings

(and errors)

of the copyists etc.

(that they omitted or added the word "Yuni",

or that instead of a final pei they placed a long pei a yud — "k"y" in place of "kaf").

6.

Based on this

(that Rashi says each time "kaf yevanis")

one can say,

that Rashi's intention with "like a kind of kaf yud

( — kaf yevanis)

" is not to describe the <b>form </b>of the letter³⁷

(because most people do not know any Greek language)³⁸,

rather — that the form and manner of writing has a connection to our <b>letter kaf</b>.

The explanation of this: The Abarbanel

explains the reason that the anointing of Aharon was "like a Greek letter kaf",

that this alludes "that he is whom God chose <b>to be a priest</b> because the kaf is the first of the letters of <b>priest</b>".

And one could say: also Rashi assumes

(and moreover — earlier in time),

that the reason that the anointing was "like a Greek letter kaf" is because kaf is the first letter of the word "priest".

And it is not a question how it is possible to say

(in the plain sense of Scripture)

— a)

that Rashi should mean a matter of acronym,

b)

and still in a manner that the acronym

(the first letter of the <b>Holy Tongue</b> word)

comes entirely in the form of a letter in the <b>Greek</b> language! c)

And the entire matter Rashi does not say explicitly,

rather he relies that one will understand it on one's own

(also a five-year-old studying Scripture)

when learning! —

Because Rashi had already <b>earlier</b> in his commentary

(in Parshat Bereishit⁴⁰)

made known that

(Also in the simple meaning of Scripture)

The Torah uses acronyms — Rashi translates there the word "shamayim" with several different acronyms

("sha mayim,

sham mayim,

esh umayim")

And he explains it in the simple meaning of Scripture

(Not in the introduction that these are "aggadic midrashim").

One already knows that a letter can mean an acronym.

Therefore when Rashi says a matter that is connected with a letter,

one understands that it can be,

it is connected with an acronym.

And it is also not at all difficult,

that the Torah should refer to a letter that is not from the Holy Language.

— Because also this Rashi already taught⁴¹

: The word "uletotafot" Rashi explains "tat in K'tafi two, pat in Afriki two",

i.

e.

that the Torah calls tefillin with a noun which is composed of words from two other languages⁴².

7.

But at first glance the explanation is not consistent,

because Rashi says the interpretation that anointing is "like a kind of Greek kaf" not only regarding the anointing of Aharon — &lt;b&gt;Kohen&lt;/b&gt;,

but also regarding the anointing of the Mishkan and its vessels; and moreover: the &lt;b&gt;first &lt;/b&gt;time that Rashi says it is actually regarding the anointing of the &lt;b&gt;wafers &lt;/b&gt;

(as above)

(and regarding the anointing of Aharon Rashi says the wording

(as above)

"&lt;b&gt;Even&lt;/b&gt;

anointing &lt;b&gt;this &lt;/b&gt;like a kind of kaf yod")

— then how can one learn in Rashi's commentary,

that by saying that the anointing is "like a kind of Greek kaf" his intention is as an acronym for &lt;b&gt;Kohen&lt;/b&gt;,

since in these places it does &lt;b&gt;not &lt;/b&gt;concern a Kohen!

And one could say,

that with this that Rashi says by all the anointings that they are "like a Greek kaf"

(and as he further emphasizes in his commentary in parshas Tetzaveh

(and so also in our parshah)

<b>all the anointings </b>like a Greek kaf⁴³)

— his intention is to inform us,

that the definition of anointing in <b>all </b>the cases is connected with the matter of the priesthood

(not — with a kohen).

8.

The explanation in this:

The thin matzahs

(in parshas Tetzaveh)

are from the offerings of the inauguration,

whose significance is

(as the verse says there)

: "And this is the thing that you shall do to them &lt;b&gt;to sanctify them to minister to Me&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;

take etc. and bread etc. and thin matzahs anointed with oil etc.",

that through the offerings of the inauguration "their hands were filled

(of Aaron and his sons)

&lt;b&gt;and they were sanctified to the priesthood&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;.

And therefore Rashi emphasizes that the anointing of the thin cakes was "like the shape of a Greek kaf",

because the definition of the anointing is — as a matter of inauguration which effects "&lt;b&gt;to sanctify &lt;/b&gt;them &lt;b&gt;to minister &lt;/b&gt;to Me".

D.

E.

: The anointing of the thin cakes of the inauguration,

is not merely one of the actions that prepares the thin matzahs to become fit for a sacrifice

(as above sec. 2),

but the anointing itself is a part of the matter of the inauguration which effects the "to sanctify them to minister to Me"&lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt;.

With this is simply answered why Rashi in Parshas Tetzaveh is silent like the opinion that the thin matzos were anointed like a Greek letter kaf,

but not so in Parshas Vayikra he brings two opinions —

because according to the plain meaning of the verse these are two separate matters:

In parshas Tetzaveh,

where it speaks about the miluim,

also the anointing of the wafers is a part of the matter of the miluim,

which effects the sanctity of the priesthood of Aharon

(as above),

and consequently the anointing is "like the shape of a Greek kaf".

But not so in parshas Vayikra,

where it speaks about a meal-offering baked in an oven — this has no connection to the matter of <b>the priesthood</b>,

but merely a detail in the act of the offering,

therefore in the plain sense of Scripture there is here a place given for both opinions,

and moreover they are equally balanced*⁴⁶.

9.

It remains, however, not simple regarding the anointing of the Mishkan and its vessels — what special connection do <b>the</b> anointings have

(through the acronym "kaf yevanit",

to "kohen"⁴⁷?

And one can explain this: According to Rashi, the kaf yevanit is the initial letter not

(specifically)

of the word "kohen"

(as a <b>descriptive</b> name that refers only to Aharon and his sons,

as is implied from the simple meaning of the language of the Abarbanel),

but,

as above)

as above,

of the general word kehunah — the <b>service</b> of kehunah.

That

is,

that also the anointing of Aharon and his sons, its subject is not

(only)

that they become thereby kohanim,

but

(in the language of the verse)

"And you shall sanctify them <b>to minister to Me</b>",

that the anointing brings about the holiness which brings them into the <b>authority</b>⁴⁸

<b>and service</b>

(and work⁴⁹)

of kehunah⁵⁰.

And based on this, the connection of the anointing of the Mishkan and its vessels to "Kaf Yevanis" — initials

(Kohen)

Kehunah: just as the anointing of Aharon and his sons sanctifies them to become fit for service and work,

so too regarding the Mishkan and its vessels: the anointing of the Mishkan and its vessels brought about in them a holiness which makes them fit that one should in

(and with)

them perform the avodah and service⁵¹.

Yud.

According to all the above, Rashi's language in our parshah is also explained: "All anointings are like a Kaf Yevanis except for those of kings, which are like a crown":

That which Rashi says the principle "all anointings are like a Greek letter kaf" — although that Rashi on the Torah is not a book of laws — is because thereby is emphasized and understood how the anointing oil is "oil of anointing holy it shall be"⁵²

— that the anointing effects the matter of holiness.

Where is it seen that this is the definition of the anointing oil?

Rashi says "all anointings

(of the anointing oil)

are like a Greek letter kaf",

which shows,

as above,

that this effects the holiness to become fit for service

(priesthood).

And as a proof and evidence to the above matter,

that the manner of the anointing

("like a Greek letter kaf")

is connected with the intention and effect of the anointing — priesthood,

Rashi adds a proof — but not priesthood

Is not the anointing — "except for the case of kings which is like a crown": the anointing of kings,

which the anointing is not connected with priesthood,

is the anointing not "like a Greek letter kaf"

(but in a manner that is suited to the nature of kingship — "like a crown"⁵³).

And more simply it can be said: In Rashi's commentaries on the verses in our portion it is mentioned several times

(in addition to the above)

about the anointing of kings⁵⁴,

even though in the verses there is no mention at all of a king.

And the reason for the matter: Because this is the portion of the making of the anointing oil "for your generations"⁵⁵,

and "for generations" they indeed used the anointing oil also for the anointing of kings⁵⁶

— therefore one must say,

that in the verses here are also at least hinted matters of the anointing of kings — and therefore Rashi mentions here several times about the anointing of kings⁵⁷.

And likewise in Rashi's commentary: At the time Rashi says "all anointings are like a Greek kaf" in order to bring out that the manner of anointing corresponds to the effect of the anointing — he already safeguards thereby,

that also the anointing of kings is in a manner corresponding to the definition of kingship: "except for that of kings, which is like a crown,"

as above⁵⁸.

Yes.

From the wine of Torah in Rashi's commentary:

At first glance it is not smooth: indeed,

that also a letter of the Greek language can be used in Torah as an acronym of a Holy Tongue word,

as above — but what is the reason that the Greek language is used specifically regarding this matter?

So the explanation

(inner)

in this: It is known⁵⁹

the inner explanation of the statement of our Sages⁶⁰

that the "Greeks ..

defiled all the oils in the Sanctuary",

that the oils in the Sanctuary allude to wisdom of holiness

(because

Oil is in the aspect of chochmah⁶¹),

and the doves — the wisdom of the other side — are opposed to the wisdom of holiness,

they brought an impurity, may it not be said, into the oil that was in the Sanctuary.

And the nullification of the husk of the dove is through the "jug of oil" which is sealed "with the seal of the High Priest": the "jug of oil" is the aspect of "the oil of holy anointment"⁶²,

which is the level of "holy" which is <b>higher</b> than

(chochmah and from)

the world of the order of the chain of descent⁶³,

and therefore not only can the husk of the dove not overcome the oil,

but on the contrary,

the "oil of holy anointment" overcomes and nullifies the husk of the dove completely.

And this is also the reason why the anointing with the anointing oil is "like the letter kaf <b>Yevanis</b>" — as a hint,

that the anointing oil gives the power to nullify the husk of Yavan,

until not only is Yavan not opposed to holiness,

but on the contrary — the Yevanis language itself is used,

it is transformed into holiness — the kaf Yevanis describes and determines the manner of the anointing — the drawing down of holiness,

And moreover — He precedes the remedy

(the anointing)

to the blow

(the decrees of the kingdom

of wicked Yavan).

And moreover: May Yefet Elokim enlarge Yefet ..

he shall dwell in the tents of Shem — they write the language

(and letters)

of Yavan which is choice must be in holy books of Jews⁶⁴.

12.

According to this explanation, one will also understand the reason

(inner)

why it is specifically "like the shape of a <b>kaf</b> of the Greeks" — because the letter kaf alludes to the sefirah of Keter

(as is known⁶⁵).

That the power to refine the Greek language and transform it derives

as above.

(as above)

from the aspect of

(Keter)

which is above the chain of descent.

And the matter — how the "sacred anointing oil" refines the Greek language — will be

Revealed in completeness in the future to come,

which then will be clarified also <b>ChaBa"D</b> of the husk⁶⁶.

And hinted also in that the anointing oil was made "for your generations"⁶⁷

including "for the future to come" "eternally"⁶⁸,

and moreover — in a manner that "<b>all of it</b> exists for the future to come"⁶⁹

— because the content of the matter of the anointing oil will be revealed in its completeness and in its entirety "for the future to come".

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Tisa 5741)