English translation — שמיני ב

1.

On the verse¹

"And the goat of the sin-offering Moses diligently inquired, and behold it was burnt" the Sages say²,

that on the eighth day of the consecration they offered "three³

goats for sin-offerings ..

a goat of goats and Nachshon's goat and the New Moon goat and of all of them only this one was burnt" — the New Moon goat.

And therefore "he was angry⁴

(Moses)

etc. 'Why did you not eat the sin-offering etc.'",

and Aaron answered him: "Behold⁵

today they offered their sin-offering etc. and such things happened etc. and I ate the sin-offering today, would it be good in the eyes of the Lord?

And Moses heard and it was good in his eyes."

One of the explanations of the Sages⁶

in the give-and-take between Moses and Aaron — whether they should have eaten the New Moon goat

(according to Moses's understanding)

or burn it

(according to Aaron's opinion)

— is:

Aharon and his sons were indeed onenim

(through the death of Nadav and Avihu)

and an onen is forbidden in kodashim<sup>7</sup>

; only regarding the goat of Azazel and the goat of Nachshon did Moshe say "And you shall eat etc. — for so I commanded"<sup>8</sup>

"In onenut they shall eat it"<sup>9</sup>.

But regarding the goat of Rosh Chodesh, Moshe and Aharon disagreed: Moshe held that also the goat of Rosh Chodesh they should have eaten in onenut,

exactly like the other two goats,

because there was an explicit permission

(regarding the offerings of that day)

"For so I commanded — in onenut they shall eat it"; Aharon held and answered him: Perhaps you did not hear

(the permission)

except regarding temporary sanctities

(goat of Azazel and goat of Nachshon)

but regarding permanent sanctities, a fortiori from the light maaser: And if the light maaser the Torah said<sup>10</sup>

I did not eat from it in my mourning, regarding permanent sanctities, all the more so.

And from "And Moses heard and it was good in his eyes, he thanked and was not ashamed

(Moses¹¹)

to say I did not hear but

(said¹¹)

I heard and I forgot."

B.

One must understand:

Why did Aharon need to say "

(dwell in sacred matters of later generations)

a fortiori from the light tithe etc."?

Aharon was indeed not one to innovate to Moshe the general law that an onen is forbidden in sacred matters¹²

(Moshe already knew this earlier, and in this very event — from what Hashem had to tell him "I commanded" an explicit permission regarding the other goats — "in onen state they shall eat it"¹³)

— in order to emphasize the difference that the special permission during aninus is only regarding the sacrifices of the hour and not regarding the sacrifices of the generations

(goat of Rosh Chodesh)

— and to exclude from the opinion of Moshe that the permission includes all sacrifices of that day

(as if without the kal vachomer one would not be able to distinguish between sacrifices of the hour and sacrifices of the generations)]

Aharon would have had to say briefly: Perhaps you heard regarding temporary sanctities and not regarding eternal sanctities!

The precision is even more prominent through that which one finds,

that also Rashi in his commentary on the Torah¹⁵

brings the content of the give-and-take between Moshe and Aharon

— and Rashi there is indeed brief in his language: Is it right in the eyes of Hashem — if you heard regarding temporary sanctities, you have no [right] to be lenient regarding eternal sanctities

(and does not bring the kal vachomer from the second tithe).

3.

will one understand this with an introduction of the precise language of Rashi above "if you heard regarding sanctified [offerings] of the hour, you have no [right] to be lenient regarding sanctified [offerings] of the generations":

From the language of Rashi "you have no [right] to be lenient"

(and not "to learn" and the like¹⁶

— that one cannot at all learn [by analogy] sanctified [offerings] of the generations from sanctified [offerings] of the hour)

it is proven,

that that which one cannot compare sanctified [offerings] of the generations to sanctified [offerings] of the hour is

(regarding the sanctified [offerings] of the hour)

was a "temporary ruling" from which one cannot at all learn for another place^,16,

but¹⁷]

because sanctified [offerings] of the generations are more stringent than sanctified [offerings] of the hour,

and for this reason — "if you heard regarding sanctified [offerings] of the hour, you have no [right] to be lenient regarding sanctified [offerings] of the generations".

And based on this it is understood why the Gemara adds

(in the words of Aharon)

"a kal vachomer from the lightest tithe" — because according to the method of the Talmud,

it is the opposite: temporary sanctities are more stringent than permanent sanctities, and all the more so than the lightest of permanent sanctities — and the proof of this:

The Gemara¹⁸

brings the dispute between Rabbi Yosi HaGelili and the Sages regarding the source of the law that a sin-offering

(external)

whose blood entered the innermost sanctuary becomes invalid and must be burned: Rabbi Yosi HaGelili learns it from the verse

(in our portion¹⁹)

"Behold, its blood was not brought into the sanctuary within"

(Moshe asked Aharon: Why was the sin-offering burned — its blood was not brought "into the sanctuary

within")

— "implying that if

its blood entered — it is burned".

And from this one learns regarding any external sin-offering whose blood entered the innermost sanctuary that its law is burning.

But the Sages learn this law from another verse,

and as Rashi"²⁰

explains,

that according to their view one cannot learn it from the verse "Behold, it was not brought, etc.",

because "we do not derive permanent matters from temporary ones".

At first glance, even though we do not learn — what is the necessity to change and be stringent

(temporary)

— the answer is proven that according to the Sages, temporary holy things are in general more stringent than permanent holy things²¹,

and therefore,

even though it is stated explicitly by "

(holy)

temporary" that a sin-offering whose blood entered the innermost sanctum is burned,

one could say that permanent holy things are not

(so harsh and not)

burned.

(i.e.

i.e.

offerings that were sacrificed only at that time)

— because the offering that they brought was a goat of Rosh Chodesh

(as above)

— rather

(as Tosafos²²

explains)

"it was a temporary ruling"

(a temporary ruling in permanent holy things).

It turns out,

that according to the Sages²³,

the matters of "temporary" are so much more severe than the matters of "permanent",

that even from "temporary" that is among permanent holy things

(the goat of Rosh Chodesh of the eighth of the consecration)

one cannot learn — because it is more severe than ordinary permanent holy things.

And all the more so that actual temporary holy things

(the goat of the goats and the goat of Nachshon)

are more severe than permanent holy things].

And since "temporary holy things" are

(according to the system of the Talmud)

more severe than "permanent holy things" — it cannot stand in the Gemara "if you heard regarding temporary holy things you have no leniency for permanent holy things",

because,

on the contrary: if regarding temporary holy things

(the more severe ones)

there is the leniency of permission to eat in mourning,

then all the more so that the leniency,

the permission to eat in mourning

("in mourning they shall eat it")

applies to the permanent holy things

(that are in that same setting²⁴).

Therefore Aaron had to add "Dai b'Kodshei Doros kal v'chomer meiMa'aser haKal"*²⁴

: Since one finds that the prohibition of aninus applies even to "Ma'aser haKal" — one cannot be lenient regarding aninus in Kodshei Doros

(by learning from Kodshei Sha'ah),

but it is logical to say,

that the permission of aninus was a hora'as sha'ah only regarding the Kodshei Sha'ah and one cannot learn from it.

D.

It remains however not understood: What is the explanation of the dispute whether Kodshei Doros are more stringent

(according to Rashi's commentary on the Torah),

or Kodshei Sha'ah

(according to the Sh"m)

Z

And one could say,

that the dispute is

(not — what is more severe

(as above),

but)

— what kind of category of "temporary sanctity" existed.

In temporary sanctity there are two manners:

a)

"Kodshei sha'ah" simply,

one-time literally

(which has no effect and common denominator with generations),

like the sacrifices that Eliyahu offered on Mount Carmel.

And it is reasonable that they are

lighter than Kodshei doros

(as in the above example — that regarding the sacrifices of Eliyahu on Mount Carmel they permitted the prohibition of slaughtering outside [the Temple]).

b)

(Kodshei sha'ah)

"Kodshei sha'ah",

which although their actual offering is only at that time,

their content and essence is — an effect for generations.

Like the sacrifices of the days of the inauguration which initiated the Mishkan,

and likewise the sacrifices of the princes for the dedication of the altar.

And the type of Kodshei sha'ah is,

of course,

more stringent than ordinary kodashim

(Kodshei doros),

because through them is accomplished,

in them are dependent matters for generations.

And likewise in this very matter — regarding the goat of Azazel and the goat of Nachshon: the definition of "sanctity of the time" can be for them in two ways,

And with the introduction,

that the discussion here is

(not regarding their offering upon the altar,

but)

about the eating of the priests.

And in this one can consider,

whether also the eating of the priests is a part of the inauguration of the Mishkan and the altar:

On the level of plain meaning it is understood,

that the eating of human beings

(the priests)

has no connection with the inauguration of the Mishkan and the altar:

Not only the goat of Azazel

(from the eighth day of the inauguration)

A sacrifice connected with the inauguration of the days of the inauguration — was then

(at the time of eating the goat)

already after the sacrifices of Aaron had already accomplished

(through the offering upon the altar)

the inauguration and — in its completeness until that "the Shechinah dwell among you"²⁵

and — "and fire came out from before the Lord and consumed upon the altar etc."²⁶,

and consequently the eating of the priests afterwards does not accomplish in the inauguration of the Mishkan and the altar

(for generations)

But even the goat of Nachshon,

with which was the beginning of the twelve days of the dedication of the altar

(through the sacrifices of the princes)

— however according to the simple meaning it is reasonable to say,

that the "dedication of the altar" is connected with the offering upon the altar in the Mishkan,

but not with the eating of the priests.

— it comes out,

that according to Rashi on the Torah, the eating of the kohanim from the "sanctuary-offerings of the time" does not pertain to generations,

but it is a one-time matter,

— D.

i.e.

H.

that is

this is in the first type

(mentioned above)

in sanctuary-offerings of the time,

which are lighter than sanctuary-offerings of the generations; and consequently

(in Rashi's language)

— "if you heard

("in mourning they shall eat it")

in sanctuary-offerings of the time

(the lighter ones)

you have no right to be lenient in sanctuary-offerings of the generations

(the stringent ones)

However, in this study according to the halachah,

it is just as we find regarding the atonement through a sacrifice,

that "the kohanim eat and the owners are atoned"<sup>27</sup>,

so too it is

(according to the halachah)

regarding all actions of a sacrifice — including the actions of the sacrifices in our subject: the inauguration of the Mishkan and the altar — that the eating of the kohanim is thereby connected and effects in this.

It turns out,

that

(also)

the eating of the priests from the goat of the goat-offering and the goat of Nachshon is relevant for generations,

and therefore the view of the Rashbam is that the temporary sanctities are more stringent than the permanent sanctities,

and therefore Aaron had to come to the "kal vachomer from the light tithe"

(as above at length).

4.

According to this explanation stated in the difference between the view of the Rashbam and the view of Rashi in his commentary on the Torah in Aaron's claim — one will also understand the difference between them regarding Moses' admission,

"And Moses heard and it was good in his eyes":

In the Gemara⁶

it says: "He admitted and was not ashamed

(Moses)

to say I have not heard, but

(said)

I heard and forgot" — so by Moses there was forgetfulness there; but Rashi in his commentary on the Torah²⁸

brings

(not the language of the Talmud,

but)

in the language of the Torat Kohanim²⁹

: "He admitted and was not ashamed to say I have not heard" — the plain meaning of Rashi's language is

(as discussed at length elsewhere³⁰)

that Moses was not embarrassed to say that he had not heard the distinction between temporary sanctified items and permanent sanctified items from the Almighty

(but there was no forgetfulness there).

And one can say that "they follow their own reasoning":

According to the method of the Sh”M,

that the foundation of Aharon is only the "kal vachomer from maaser hakal"

(Because from the sevara

(Were it not for this kal vachomer)

Aharon would also have agreed that one must eat the goat of Rosh Chodesh in onenut,

all the more so from the more severe temporary sanctities)

— one must say,

that that which Moshe

(initially)

held differently is because at the time of the act he did not know the teaching of "maaser hakal"³¹,

here there was forgetfulness — Moshe Rabbeinu forgot the law

(and teaching)

of maaser.

However, according to Rashi on the Torah,

the difference between the initial thought of Moshe and the view of Aharon was a matter of sevara: Moshe held that the permission of onenut is connected to the day,

as the eighth day of the consecrations³²,

and consequently there is in this no difference between temporary sanctities and permanent sanctities: and Aharon innovated that the permission of onenut is only for the special offerings

(of that day as the days of the consecrations)

but one cannot therefore be lenient regarding the goat of Rosh Chodesh which is of permanent sanctities.

And therefore Rashi does not say that by Moshe there was forgetfulness — because on a sevara it is not fitting to say: forgetfulness and therefore one says — opposite the sevara! One can forget a din,

in the manner of "a halacha was concealed from him"³³,

but it has no place to say that one forgot a sevara

(one can make a mistake in sevara³⁴,

but not forgetfulness).

Rather,

according to the plain meaning of Scripture,

Moshe said "I have not heard" — he did not hear from the Above the distinction.

6.

From every subject one must take out a lesson in the service of man³⁵.

And one can say the lesson from the aforementioned subject — about how much one must be careful in these matters.

Which are analogous to "sanctities of the hour":

There are matters in the service of man which are analogous to "sanctities of generations" — fixed matters which are there from generation to generation without change; and there are matters analogous to "sanctities of the hour" — new matters which a worthy student will innovate,

enactments of the great ones of Israel which are required due to the demand of.

the hour,

He found a pit and fenced a fence around it³⁶,

and the like.

In the things in which one is accustomed from generation to generation are not present

(so much)

difficulties also to overcome the evil inclination,

since one has already passed the "all beginnings are difficult"³⁷

; moreover — habit becomes nature.

But regarding the services which are of the type "holy things of the hour" the evil inclination stands strongly opposed: what is the difference between this day and other days,

the custom of our fathers without the innovation,

etc. — until he makes himself into a leader and decisor of the generation and what is the demand of the hour.

And therefore an extra caution is required regarding a new service

(and in particular — which is not only a matter for the hour³⁸,

but — also pertains to generations)

more and more than regarding the regular services

(which are of the type — holy things of generations).

And this is learned from the explanation mentioned above

(in the method of the Talmud),

that what one ate of the "temporary sanctities" with enjoyment

(and the permanent sanctities were burned)

— was only a temporary ruling for that day; but the regular order must be in the opposite manner — that the temporary sanctities are

(more severe and consequently —)

more stringent than permanent sanctities; even where the permanent sanctities may be "eaten",

it is still no proof that one may "eat" the temporary sanctities.

And as one finds regarding the offerings of the inauguration,

that the first offering which Aaron brought — a bull for a sin-offering — he did not eat

(like a sin-offering of permanent sanctities),

but — "it shall be burned with fire"³⁹.

Because in kodshei doros,

where the yetzer hara does not oppose itself

(to such an extent),

one can “allow oneself” the delight of eating the korban,

in which there is pleasure,

also the body has from this pleasure and delight;

However, by “kodshei sha’ah,” regarding which the yetzer hara does more to confuse etc., one needs to have an extra caution regarding eating⁴⁰.

When one feels a pleasant taste and especially a physical one, this gives a place where the yetzer hara can have a hold etc. —

But it must be the burning of the sacrifice,

complete nullification.

7.

And this is also the practical directive in our generation:

According to all the signs at the end of tractate Sotah we find ourselves now in the generation of the footsteps of Mashiach literally,

and as the Rebbe my father-in-law said⁴¹

that "Behold He stands behind our wall",

and in which there are windows and lattices — the demand of the hour is,

to understand oneself

(with the entire environment)

for receiving the face of our righteous Mashiach.

— one must know,

that in the service one must have a caution

(including — alacrity)

extra,

and it must be done with complete giving and taking,

with all one's might.

When it comes to holy things of generations — the regular services — there is a place that the service should be an orderly service according to reason and understanding,

in which one does not lose

(completely)

one's own existence — one has pleasure from it,

even bodily pleasure

(— from the commandment,

or in order to serve God etc.⁴²)

But when it comes to the demand of the hour to prepare for Moshiach — holy things of the hour — one must remember that this is a matter that is time-dependent which overrides other matters and one must invest oneself in it in a manner beyond measure and limitation,

until one becomes completely absorbed in it,

until one's own existence is lost

(— analogous to the burning of the sacrifice).

And this itself brings down Moshiach Tzidkeinu,

whose coming is in a manner of "hisach hadaas"⁴³

(above the level of daas⁴⁴)

— Matzasi Dovid Avdi⁴⁵

— in the true and complete redemption speedily in our days, literally.

(From sichos of Acharon shel Pesach,

Shabbos Parshas Shemini and Shabbos Parshas Tazria-Metzora 5742)