English translation — בהעלותך ב

A.

In the current Torah portion,

after the Torah tells¹

about the Passover that Israel performed in the desert

(in the second year of their going out from the land of Egypt),

it stands²

: And there were men who were impure by a human soul and could not make the Passover etc. and they said etc. We are impure by a human soul; why should we be diminished so as not to bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed time etc.

We need to understand in what consisted their claim "why should we be diminished"³

: They themselves indeed emphasized

(and in the introduction to the claim itself)

"We are impure by a human soul",

i.e.,

i.e.,

they knew that this is the reason because of which they cannot make the Passover

("and could not make the Passover")

— and as it was already earlier⁴

stated

"And they sent out from the camp etc. and everyone impure for a soul" — so what is the claim "

(We are impure etc. —)

Rashi explains⁵

Why should we be diminished"?

: "Why should we be diminished,

He said to them: No holy offerings are brought in impurity,

They said to him: Let the blood be sprinkled on us by pure priests and let the flesh be eaten by the impure."

Commentators say⁶

that what stands in Rashi "and the meat shall be eaten by the impure" is a scribal error — because an impure person may not eat any sacred offerings⁷

"— and it must stand as in the Sifri⁵

(the source of this commentary of Rashi)

"and the meat shall be eaten by the pure"⁸.

And they explain⁹,

that Rashi's intention with "and the meat shall be eaten by the pure" is

(in the manner that we learn¹⁰

one in the Sifri)

— according to the opinion that "the seventh day of theirs fell

(of

Those who were impure through contact with a human corpse)

to be on the eve of Passover",

and consequently,

they can already eat on the night of Passover,

because they are "pure".

And this was their claim: "Let the blood be thrown upon us etc. and let the meat be eaten by the pure" — even though on the day of the fourteenth they are only impure,

but one can throw the blood upon them, since at the time of eating the Passover offering

(on the night of the fifteenth of Nissan)

they will already be pure¹².

But the explanation is difficult,

because: a)

Rashi does not mention,

not even by a hint,

that "their seventh day fell on the eve of Passover"¹³.

Their claim was indeed "We are impure etc. why should we be diminished etc." — not that they will be pure at the time of eating the Passover offering,

but rather the opposite — that even though "we are impure etc.

(nevertheless)

why should we be diminished from bringing the offering etc."¹⁴.

b)

B.

Others learn¹⁵

the plain meaning in the words of the Sifri "And the meat shall be eaten

(shall be eaten¹⁶)

by pure ones" — "that they shall include¹⁷

other people with them regarding the paschal offering and other people shall eat it".

D.

E.

The sprinkling will also be upon them

(the impure ones,

and consequently they would have offered "the offering of the Lord in its appointed time")

and the eating of the paschal offering will be by others.

(the impure ones¹⁶)

and its flesh is eaten by pure ones" — although the owners

(a woman after childbirth and a leper¹⁸)

are still impure,

nevertheless "its blood is sprinkled upon the impurity and its flesh is eaten by pure ones

(pure priests¹⁸)

And based on this one could say that this is also the intention of Rashi<sup>19</sup>

"And the meat shall be eaten by the pure" — that others

(who are not like "we are impure",

but)

pure ones will eat the Passover offering.

But at first glance it is difficult to learn thus in Rashi's commentary,

because the main essence of the Passover offering

(also according to the simple interpretation<sup>20</sup>)

is — the eating of the Passover offering<sup>21</sup>,

and therefore there must be an appointment — "a man<sup>22</sup>

according to his eating you shall count yourselves for the lamb".

And consequently: what is the purpose of "he shall sprinkle the blood on us,"

when the main commandment is lacking — the eating of the Paschal sacrifice?

Even more: since one must be appointed for the Paschal sacrifice

(even before one brings it),

it is simple to say,

that one who is not included in "according to his eating,"

not fit for eating the Paschal sacrifice cannot be appointed for the Paschal sacrifice,

and consequently one cannot sprinkle the blood on him²³.

explain,

that therefore Moses our teacher did not accept their kal vachomer from the sin-offering

(and said "Stand and I will hear etc."<sup>25

— because by the sin-offering the priests are the eaters — not the owners are impure

(and even by

lesser holy offerings where there is eating by the owners — the eating is a matter that does not impede the sprinkling of the blood<sup>26),

So consequently there is no proof from this regarding the Paschal sacrifice,

whose main commandment is the eating by the owners,

that one can sprinkle on owners who are not fit to eat the Paschal sacrifice].

Furthermore — and this is also essential: in Rashi here there is no hint even to all the above.

3.

One will understand this with an introduction of several precise points in the language of Rashi:

a)

Rashi quotes only the words "lama nigra" and does not even add "v'go" — and at first glance,

with his explanation "yizarek hadam etc." Rashi explains the subsequent words "levilti hakriv

The offering of HaShem,

which Rashi is,

as above,

even not hinted?

b)

What does Rashi say "He said to them: No sacred offerings are brought in a state of impurity" — this is indeed a simple thing that they certainly also knew

(as above section a)

; should Rashi have begun his commentary immediately with their claim "They said to him: Let the blood be sprinkled etc."²⁷?

Commentators

learn that Moses had told them this earlier,

when he did not let them bring the Passover offering

(for which they came with the claim "Why should we be diminished"),

and their claim "Why should we be diminished" came afterwards — "the blood was thrown etc."

But from the plain sense of the continuation of Rashi's language it is implied,

that "He said to them: There are no sacrifices etc." came as an answer to "Why should we be diminished",

and only afterwards came a second question "Let the blood be thrown upon us etc."

Is not understood:

(a)

In what does the question "Why should we be diminished" consist

(before one says the reasoning of "let the blood be thrown etc.")?

And likewise,

as above — what did Moshe Rabbeinu innovate for them in his answer "There are no sacrifices offered etc."²⁹?

And further

(b)

From where

Does Rashi take

(from the plain meaning of Scripture)

that here there was

(not one question — "Why should we be diminished so as not to offer etc." — but)

a give-and-take between them and Moshe — first the question "Why should we be diminished",

then Moshe's answer "There are no sacrifices etc." / and then a second question "Let the blood be thrown etc."?

3)

(He shall sprinkle the blood upon us)

"with pure priests" — What does this come to teach us?

Even if they were enemies, they would have held that they may offer the Paschal lamb in impurity

(not only "He shall sprinkle the blood upon us"),

it is then simple that the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar is done specifically by priests

(and consequently — pure priests)

— what does Rashi add "with pure priests"?

Even more puzzling: the words do not appear in the Sifri³⁰,

rather they are an added explanation of Rashi,

It is puzzling: what is lacking in the matter "he shall sprinkle the blood upon us" that Rashi needs to add "with pure priests"?

4.

The explanation of all this:

Learning the verse "Why should we be diminished so as not to bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed time" immediately raises the question: Earlier the Torah uses consistently the language of making the Passover offering

(And the children of Israel made the Passover offering; you shall make it; to make the Passover offering; and they made the Passover offering; and they could not make the Passover offering)

; why did those impure from a human soul change and say

(not "so as not to make the Passover offering",

but)

"so as not to bring the offering of the Lord"?

From this it is implied,

that this is a matter that was newly revealed to them; previously they only knew that there is making the Passover offering,

and now a novelty became known to them,

that the Passover offering is a matter of "bringing the offering of the Lord".

As follows in section 5 at length.

Which matter came in between — from which they derived this novelty?

Rashi quotes from the verse "Why should we be diminished" and says "He said to them: No sacred offerings are brought in impurity,

They said to him: Let the blood be sprinkled on us by pure priests and the flesh be eaten etc.":

By quoting the words "Why should we be diminished" and not adding "etc." Rashi makes clear,

That "Why should we be diminished" was a question in itself,

And to the question Moses answered them "No sacred offerings are brought in impurity"; and when Moses told them the answer

(That "No sacred offerings are brought in impurity")

It was newly derived by them that Pesach is a matter of bringing sacred offerings

— The novelty newly derived in them the

(Second)

Question — because "so as not to³⁰

bring the offering of the Lord,

Is "Let the blood be sprinkled on us etc.".

And based on this, it is answered why Rashi adds the words "

(he shall throw etc.)

in pure priests": with this Rashi emphasizes,

that only now was it newly understood by them that the Paschal offering is a

(Offering of the Lord)

sacrifice of the Lord"

(holy things)

which requires throwing in pure priests; unlike before,

at the time of their claim "why should we be diminished",

they considered that the Paschal sacrifice is not a sacrifice of the Lord

(which consequently does not require any throwing upon the altar in pure priests),

and therefore they held that they may bring it in impurity.

5.

The reasoning in this,

and with an introduction:

According to the simple explanation, the Passover of Egypt did not have any definition of a sacrifice: according to the simple meaning of the verse,

the Passover of Egypt was a unique commandment: to slaughter a lamb and eat it on the night of Passover

(roasted over fire)

together with matzot and bitter herbs — and nothing more.

Along with this there was no matter and command of offering a sacrifice to Hashem³²

(And that which it had to be "And they shall take³³

from the blood and place it on the two doorposts etc." was not in the manner of the sprinkling of the blood on the altar³⁴,

but as explained in the verse to

Making a sign on the house,

that at the time of "And I will pass through the land of Egypt ...

and I will smite etc. and I will see the blood etc.' and I will pass over you etc."³⁵).

And therefore one does not find by the Passover of Egypt that it should be called by the name "offering"³⁶,

but only by the name "sacrifice"

("And you shall say, 'It is the Passover sacrifice'"³⁷)

— that the word "sacrifice" does not specifically mean an offering to G‑d,

but any slaughter for eating is called a sacrifice³⁸.

And this was the claim of those who were impure from a human corpse:

Here it is speaking, after all, about the "second year of their going out from the land of Egypt"³⁹,

before which there was only one Passover,

the Passover of Egypt.

So it is understandable from this,

that when it was said "And the children of Israel performed the Passover in its appointed time...

according to all its statutes and according to all its ordinances you shall perform it"⁴⁰

— it meant,

that the Passover of the desert should be in the same manner and category as the Passover of Egypt.

"the Scripture linked this commandment to their coming to the Land and they were not obligated in the desert except for one Passover that they performed

in the second year according to the word",

implies that the Passover of the desert did not have the status of the Passover of generations

(for it is connected with "their coming to the Land"),

but it was a continuation of the Passover of Egypt

(and by those who made⁴²

the Passover of Egypt)].

And based on this — the aforementioned men argued — one must say,

that the command "And the children of Israel shall make the Passover in its appointed time" means the making of the Passover exactly like the Passover of Egypt⁴³,

which is not a sacrifice that is brought upon the altar,

but rather each one — even the impure⁴⁴

— slaughters a lamb

(in his house — near his doorpost and the doorposts⁴⁵)

and eats it specifically in his house,

on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan

(together and exactly as he eats matzah and bitter herbs — which are not holy things at all).

And therefore,

When Moses did not allow them to participate in the making of the Passover⁴⁶,

they came with the claim "Why should we be diminished?"⁴⁷.

And this Moshe renewed for them — "No sacred offerings are brought in a state of impurity": Pesach is not merely a sacrifice,

but sacred offerings that are brought upon the altar,

and consequently — your question regarding the matter, the answer is: No sacred offerings are brought in a state of impurity.

6.

Based on this, one will also understand their

(second)

question — "Let the blood be sprinkled on us etc. and let the meat be eaten by the pure"

(and since they were "impure through contact with a human corpse",

one must say,

that Rashi means by this other pure people,

as above section b)

Since at the time of the Passover of Egypt there was no matter of offering to Hashem

(on the altar)

only the commandment in itself of

(the Paschal sacrifice and)

eating the Paschal offering — the impure from a human corpse held,

that what now

(after the establishment of the Tabernacle)

has a category of sacrifice,

is an additional separate matter,

which does not affect,

and certainly does not negate,

the commandment of eating the Paschal offering as it was at the Passover until now.

And why should there be a

change

(and especially a negation)

in the commandment of eating the Paschal offering?

It comes out,

that on Passover there are two separate matters

(which are not dependent on each other)⁴⁸

: a)

one brings a sacrifice to God

(on the altar)

as a remembrance

(and thanksgiving)

on the matter of the exodus from Egypt,,

and the Passover of God.

b)

there is the commandment of eating the Passover on the night of the fifteenth —

(not specifically as eating a sacrifice,

but)

in the manner of the commandment of eating matzah and bitter herbs.

And this they argued "so as not to offer the sacrifice of God at its appointed time": since the matter that Passover is "the sacrifice of God" is a separate matter from eating the Passover; therefore — "let the blood be thrown upon us etc. and let the flesh be eaten by the pure":

Even though being a "offering to G-d"

(holy things)

they may not eat from the Passover offering

(because an impure person may not eat holy things)

- and consequently "the meat shall be eaten by the pure

(others)

" — why should they, however, have to miss the new additional matter in the Passover — "to offer the offering of G-d in its appointed time",

which can be done without their entering the Mishkan*⁴⁸,

and consequently — "the blood shall be sprinkled on us by pure priests"⁴⁹.

7.

According to this explanation in Rashi's commentary, one can also fulfill the version of the books "and the meat shall be eaten by the impure"⁵⁰

(that from the very fact that so many commentators of Rashi correct the version⁵¹,

it is proven,

that already in their times the widespread version was "by the impure")

— and specifically according to what has been discussed several times, that when one wants to clarify what the true text is,

one must investigate from where

how can an error come — one does not make an error intentionally.

And in our case: if one were to say that in Rashi it stood "to the impure ones",

it is understandable why a copyist

(or printers)

changed it to "to the pure ones"; but if it stood "to the pure ones" — why would anyone change it and write "to the impure ones",

which is

(a)

contrary to the text of the Sifri,

and

(b)

and mainly: contrary to the law explicit and well-known to all,

that an impure person may not eat any sacred foods⁵²?

is the explanation in this: because the mitzvah of eating the paschal lamb is

(according to the opinion of those people)

not a category of eating a sacrifice but a mitzvah in its own right

(not connected with the offering of the sacrifice)

— there is a place to say

(according to the study in the simple sense)

that the

meat of the paschal lamb can be eaten even in impurity.

The fact that the Torah prohibits a tamei from eating kodashim,

is specifically when he eats it as an eating of kodashim.

And precisely the language of the verse⁵³

"And the soul that eats meat of the feast peace-offerings which are for Hashem, and his impurity is upon him."

But not so the eating of the paschal offering is

(not as an eating of kodashim,

but)

as a mitzvah in its own right

(which the Torah commanded when there were no kodashim),

therefore has a place to say,

that in this case it can be eaten even in tumah.

8.

According to this explanation — for the version "and the flesh shall be eaten by the unclean" — it is, however, seemingly not smooth: since they held that they would also have the mitzvah of eating the paschal offering — why did they mention only "to be unable to offer the offering of the Lord at its appointed time,"

not mentioning the matter of eating⁵⁴?

So the matter in this⁵⁵

: At the time they heard that the matter of Passover is an offering of the Lord — this became for them the main matter of Passover; for them, incomparably more place was taken by that which they have the ability to offer "the offering of the Lord at its appointed time"

(although this will be done through others),

Like the mitzvah that is connected with their eating,

eating of the Passover offering.

Because the greatest pleasure for them

(of a Jew)

is,

at the time that he does on this

("My bread for My fire"⁵⁶,

which causes the "a fire, a pleasing aroma to the Lord"⁵⁷)

— "satisfaction before Me that I spoke and My will was done"⁵⁸.

9.

And in avodah and in pnimiyus:

The matter — that one intended only the "He offered the offering of Hashem" — is as it is from the side of the Jew.

When however the Above commanded Jews regarding Pesach Sheni,

that one can complete⁵⁹

the matter of the Pesach — is the main emphasis

(not so on the matter of the offering — "Pesach to Hashem"⁶⁰

— but)

on the making of the Pesach and the eating of the Pesach⁶¹

— because the main intention of the Pesach is not so much the offering upon the altar,

elevation from below to above — raising up the fat and blood upon the altar,

as a sacrifice to God,

but specifically the drawing down below,

into the physical body,

the eating of the person.

Specifically through this is fulfilled the purpose of creation,

to make for Him, blessed be He, a dwelling place in the lower realms.

(From the talks of Shabbos Parshas Shelach and Shabbos Parshas Pinchas 5726)