English translation — צו ב

1.

In the verse¹

"And the flesh of the sacrifice of his thanksgiving peace-offerings shall be eaten on the day of his offering, he shall not leave any of it until morning" — Rashi quotes the words "he shall not leave any of it until morning" and explains: But²

he may eat it all night; if so, why did they say until midnight? In order to distance a person from transgression.

Simply, one learns³,

that with "why did they say" Rashi means — that which is stated in Torat Kohanim ad loc.⁴

(and in the Mishnah⁵)

"Why did the <b>Sages</b> say until midnight"

(and especially since in several manuscripts of Rashi's commentary⁶

the reading is "why did the Sages say"),

that the Sages

(in the time of the Second Temple⁷)

decreed that one should eat the flesh of the sacrifice only "until midnight"^*7.

Is not understandable: Rashi's commentary on the Torah is not a book of halachos,

but,

as Rashi says several times⁸

— "I have come only for the <b>plain meaning</b> of the verse" — and based on this: what difference does it make in the <b>plain meaning</b> of the <b>verse</b> the decree of the <b>Sages</b>

(a time <b>long</b> after the Giving of the Torah — <b>verse</b>)

not to eat the meat of the sacrifice after midnight?

Even more: Rashi says — "If so, <b>why</b> did <b>they say</b>" — that is,

i.e.,

that it is clear that one knows from before that "they said until midnight",

because of which the question arises "why did they say etc.

(and the reason is)

in order to distance etc.".

Is puzzling: from where does one know

(in the plain meaning of Scripture)

about the decree of the Sages,

that Rashi should because of this need to answer the question "&lt;b&gt;why&lt;/b&gt; did they say until midnight"?

B.

The wonder in Rashi's commentary is even greater:

The precaution — that although from the Torah one may eat the sacrifice "until morning",

but the sages decreed that one should be allowed to eat it only "until midnight" — applies to all sacrifices that are eaten for one day and one night,

regarding one of them — the Paschal sacrifice — it was already taught in P. Ba⁹

: "And they shall eat the flesh on this night etc. and you shall not leave any of it until morning".

The question arises: why does Rashi not warn <b>earlier</b>

(regarding the Paschal sacrifice)

— "If so, why did they say until midnight etc."?

And in particular, in the Mechilta there¹⁰,

after he explains that the eating of the Passover offering is "until the dawn rises"

(as we learn from the double "until morning"¹¹

— "to give a limit to the morning of the morning"),

<b>he</b><b>warns</b>: "And why did they say until midnight? To distance a person from transgression, etc.";

And Rashi¹¹

brings the beginning of the matter

(that from "until morning" which is stated "a second time" we learn "to give a morning ...

and the verse comes to precede that it is forbidden to eat from dawn")

— and <b>omits</b> the continuation "And why did they say etc."!

And at first glance it is the opposite that is logical — it has <b>more</b> reason to apply this regarding the Paschal sacrifice than to do this in our parshah

(In gratitude).

Because on Passover night,

even in the present time,

one is precise in eating the afikoman before midnight,

due to the reason that eating the afikoman is a remembrance of the Paschal sacrifice "which was eaten only until midnight"¹²

— and consequently it has a place to say¹³

that one must explain to the student how this practice is not in contradiction with the verse "And you shall not leave any of it <b>until</b> <b>morning</b>".

3.

The explanation of this:

The concept,

that eating of the sacrifice is only "until midnight",

one knows according to Rashi's commentary

(not from Torat Kohanim and Mishnah,

but)

from <b>the verse</b> <b>itself*¹³</b>

according to the plain meaning of Scripture

(as below section 4-5)

— unlike a mere Rabbinic decree has no connection with the plain meaning of Scripture.

And that which Rashi says about it "why did they say"

(and especially according to the version "why did the <b>Sages</b> say")

— will be understandable according to what was already explained¹⁴

Rashi's language

(in Parshat Beshalach)

regarding the Shabbat boundary,

and this is his language: "Let each man remain in his place — from here the Sages derived support¹⁶

four cubits for one who goes out beyond the boundary etc.; Let no one go out etc. — these are the two thousand cubits of the Shabbat boundary¹⁷,

and not explicitly that boundaries are only from the words of the Scribes,

and the essence of the verse was said about the gatherers of the manna" —

So Rashi is precise in his language "

(only)

&lt;b&gt;the main point&lt;/b&gt; of the verse is said about the gatherers of the manna",

because according to Rashi the matter of "two thousand cubits of the Shabbat boundary" is &lt;b&gt;derived&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;from&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;the verse&lt;/b&gt;

(and consequently — it is a &lt;b&gt;Torah&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; law

even though it is not &lt;b&gt;the main point&lt;/b&gt;.

the language of the verse should have been: "Let them not go out &lt;b&gt;to gather&lt;/b&gt; on the seventh day"

(and the like).

Since it states in a general language "Let each man remain in his place, let no man go out from his place" it is proven from this,

that the Torah intends &lt;b&gt;also&lt;/b&gt; to hint at a &lt;b&gt;general&lt;/b&gt; law

(not only in connection with "the gatherers of the manna")

— "these are the two thousand cubits of the Shabbat boundary"],

But since the main and general content of the parshah is about "the gathering of the manna,"

the matter of the Shabbat boundary is not "the <b>essence</b> of the Scriptural text"¹⁹.

And therefore Rashi calls it "words of the scribes": Rashi does not mean here to say that this is a later enactment of the sages,

but being a matter that is not stated <b>explicitly</b> in the verse

(it is not "the essence of the Scriptural text"),

it is a matter of "words of the <b>scribes</b>"²⁰

— which "scribes,"

who are precise in the letters and words²¹

of "this <b>book</b> of the Torah,"

have thus derived from the precision of the language of Scripture²².

— and the scribes are not designated sages in a designated period who made the rabbinic decrees,

but the "scribes" that are in every generation beginning from the <b>time</b> <b>of Moses²³</b>

that this law

(is not a <b>later</b> enactment,

but it is inherent in it,

that it)

is derived by way of "support"

(by "sages")

from the <b>verse</b> <b>itself²⁴</b>

; and by "sages" Rashi means²⁵

— the sages of Israel in every generation,

beginning from the generation of Moses].

4.

And along these lines is the explanation in our Rashi commentary:

When learning the verse "On the day of its offering it shall be eaten, do not leave any of it until morning," the question arises: Since the Torah comes here to determine the time of eating the sacrifice — it should have stated clearly "On the day of its offering it shall be eaten until morning"

(that the time of eating is "until morning")

; why does the verse interrupt with another matter "do not leave any of it"?

(after the time of eating)

— then the verse should have said it at the end,

after the <b>conclusion</b> of the first matter: "On the day of its offering it shall be eaten until morning,"

"lo yaniach mimenu"].

From this it is understood,

apparently,

that the time of eating indeed does <b>not</b> extend "until morning,"

and therefore it does not say "it shall be eaten until morning,"

but rather "lo <b>yaniach</b> mimenu ad boker" — because the time of "it shall be eaten" ends <b>not</b> "until morning" but a time earlier

(at midnight),

and the limitation "until morning" is only regarding "yaniach mimenu,"

yaniach may also be later

(one may keep it with oneself also after midnight)

— and about this the Torah says "<b>lo</b> yaniach mimenu ad boker,"

that the "yaniach mimenu" may not be "until morning"²⁶

But based on this, the question arises,

On the other hand: if the Torah intends to prohibit the eating also during the time before morning — the Torah should have fixed the time until when one may eat the flesh of the sacrifice.

Why does the verse say simply "on the day of his offering it shall be eaten"

(which simply means the entire day,

from evening to evening²⁷),

from which it is understood that one may eat "until morning"?

H.

On this Rashi says,

that indeed — "He shall not leave any of it until morning,

but he may eat it all night; if so, why did they say until midnight? To distance a person from transgression":

That which the Torah says "lo yaniah mimenu ad boker"

(not "yochal ad boker")

from which it is implied that the "yochal" is &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; "ad boker" — and on the other hand the Torah does not limit any time for eating the sacrifice

(and consequently that "lo yaniah mimenu ad boker" means that one may eat it "ad boker")

— is because the Torah says here two things:

(a)

the primary intent — "lo yaniah mimenu ad boker"

("ikaro shel mikra"),

which comes to teach — "aval ochel hu kol halailah",

because fundamentally

(hamikra v)

the law there is no prohibition to eat all night — as long as it is before morning.

(b)

"If so, why did they say until midnight in order to distance a person from transgression" — in this precise wording of the verse "he shall not <b>leave</b> any of it until morning" the Torah hints,

that there must be an interruption,

a distance in time between "he shall leave of it" and the time of eating²⁸

— "in order to <b>distance</b> a person from transgression".

And for this reason "they said

(the Sages)

until midnight" — because the Torah says that there must be a distancing of time from "he shall leave of it",

the Sages of Israel²⁹

(by estimating in their wisdom the nature of people)

estimated that by this distancing the Torah means³⁰

"until midnight".

but only for the sake of distancing&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;

— says it the Torah not explicitly,

but through a hint in the precision of the language which is explained from the "Sages"&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;].

And based on this it is understood why Rashi brings not this matter &lt;b&gt;earlier&lt;/b&gt; in parshas Bo — because there is not any hint in the plain meaning of the verse regarding this obligation of distancing the eating: in the verse "And you shall not leave over from it until morning" is not at all mentioned about the conditions of eating the Passover-offering

(that stands in an earlier verse "And they shall eat the flesh etc.").

6.

In this aforementioned matter, one also sees the <b>precise</b> wording to the utmost in Rashi's commentary on the Torah: In Parshas Beshalach, regarding the prohibition of techumim, Rashi says "that techumim are only <b>from the words of the Scribes</b>"; but regarding the matter of "four cubits for one who goes out beyond the techum," Rashi's wording is "from here the <b>Sages</b> derived a support."

And similarly in our portion, Rashi says

(according to the version in several manuscripts as above)

"the Sages said."

And one can explain the interpretation in this: The difference between "Scribes" and "Sages" is — the title "Scribes" primarily emphasizes the knowledge in "<b>the book</b> of this Torah,"

study and exact derivation from Scripture etc.; the title "Sages" carries within it

(its simple meaning as it is)

the matter of wisdom <b>in general</b>.

And in our case: the learned-out matters and halachos from the verse,

which are connected with "a fence for the Torah",

"to distance a person from transgression",

have a relevance to the quality of "&lt;b&gt;Chachamim&lt;/b&gt;",

who estimate with their wisdom the nature of people&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;

and are based on this the establishers of the fences and boundaries as a distancing from transgression; but the halachos and matters that one learns from the precision of the language of &lt;b&gt;the Scriptural text&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;in the Book&lt;/b&gt;

(and the like),

which are not a matter of &lt;b&gt;fence&lt;/b&gt; for the Torah — they are related to "Sofrim",

who are precise in the study of "this Book of the Torah".

And therefore: regarding the prohibition of techumin — "two thousand cubits of the Shabbos boundary" — Rashi says that this is "from the words of the Sofrim",

because the prohibition is according to Rashi not from the aspect of a matter of fence and boundary — even when one goes a journey of length on the Shabbos day there is not thereby

(according to the simple meaning&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;)

an explicit prohibition from the Torah.

This is only an &lt;b&gt;additional&lt;/b&gt; halacha that one learns from the precision of the language of the Scriptural texts&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;.

Not so regarding the matter of "four cubits for one who went out beyond the boundary" Rashi says "from here the Sages derived a support" — because³⁶

the permission of "four cubits for one who went out beyond the boundary" depends on the assessment of human nature,

that a person cannot constrict himself and remain exactly in his place

(and therefore they gave him four cubits — three for his body and one for the stretching of hands and feet³⁷).

And likewise in our parshah,

where it speaks about a fence and barrier "to distance a person from transgression" — which requires an assessment of human nature

(as above section 5)

— Rashi says

(according to several manuscripts)

"the Sages said"³⁸

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Tzav, 5744)