English translation — צו

To<pg>28</pg>

A.

In our parshah on the verse¹

"And he burned incense on the altar" writes Rashi: "Moshe served all seven days of the consecration in a white garment."

And behold, according to its simple meaning, Rashi's intention is to explain the matter of Moses performing all these services,

and he explains,

that this is because all seven days of the consecration he served in the priesthood,

and as it is stated in the commentaries<sup>2</sup>.

But according to this, an explanation is needed why Rashi explains only the detail

(the secondary matter)

in which garments he served,

and he does not mention the essence and general principle of the matter that all seven days he served in the priesthood,

and as it is stated in the Torat Kohanim<sup>3</sup>

"All seven days of the consecration, Moses served in the high priesthood."

[This detail that he served "in a white robe" is brought in the Gemara<sup>4</sup>

to resolve another question — "In what did Moses serve during the seven days of consecration?"<sup>5</sup>,

but at first glance, Rashi's main intention is to explain the very thing that he performed all the services during all seven days of the consecration].

At first glance, one must say,

that the reason Rashi changed from the language of the Torat Kohanim "all seven days of the consecrations Moses served in the priesthood

(great)

",

and wrote "served in a white garment",

is because according to Rashi in his commentary on the Torah Moses did not serve as a priest

(even during the seven days of the consecrations),

and all his service was as a hora'at sha'ah according to a command.

For behold, that Moses served during the seven days of the consecrations can be explained in two ways: a)

that during the seven days of the consecrations Moses was a priest

(great),

except that by God's command he did not serve in garments of the high priesthood but in a special garment

(white)⁶.

b)

that there was no category of priesthood in this

(great)

at all,

and this is nothing but a hora'at sha'ah.

And according to Rashi's explanation in his commentary on the Torah — that Moshe served as a priest in general — behold, in his commentary on the Torah he brought

(in Parshat Shemot on the verse⁷

"And the anger burned")

— "Rabbi Yose ben Karcha says: Every instance of burning anger in the Torah has a mark left by it, but this one has no mark left by it, etc. Rabbi Yose said to him: Even this one has a mark left by it: 'Is not Aharon your brother the Levite,' who was destined to be a Levite and not a priest, and the priesthood I would have said would go out from you; now it will not be so, but he will be a priest and you the Levite, as it is said⁸

"And Moshe, the man of God, his sons are called upon the tribe of Levi."

And accordingly, according to the two opinions, Moshe was not a priest — according to Rabbi Yose ben Karcha, from the outset he was not destined<pg>29</pg>

To be a priest⁹

(And therefore one cannot say that "and the anger flared" made an impression),

And according to Rashi, if the priesthood was supposed to come from Moses,

But it was taken from him¹⁰.

And therefore Rashi did not write here that during all seven days of the consecration Moses served in the priesthood

(Great [priesthood]),

Because according to Rashi, his service was not in the category of priesthood

(Great),

But rather a temporary directive as a messenger of God to initiate Aaron and his sons into the service of the Tabernacle.

2.

Based on this, it will be understood simply what is in Parsha Emor on the verse¹¹

"The bread of his God, from the holiest of holies and from the holy things he shall eat" Rashi explains "and from the holy things he shall eat" — "These are lesser holy things. And if the holiest of holies were stated, why were lesser holy things stated? If they were not stated, I would say: Of the holiest of holies a blemished [priest] may eat, for we find that they were permitted to a non-priest, that Moses ate the flesh of the consecration offerings, etc.

(And concludes)

Thus it is explained in Zevachim"¹².

And the commentators asked¹³,

Why did Rashi specify that the permission of the holiest of holies to a non-priest was in Moses' eating during the seven days of consecration,

Behold, what "thus it is explained in Zevachim" is only according to the assumption there in the Gemara,

Which explains the baraita thus,

And raises a difficulty from this against the opinion of Rav who holds that "Moses our teacher was a High Priest and he received a portion of the holy things of heaven, as it is said¹⁴

From the ram of consecration it was for Moses as a portion"; but Rav Sheshet answered that the intent of "the holiest of holies...

were permitted to a non-priest" is for what was permitted "on a private altar to a non-priest".

However¹⁵

that Rashi's opinion is that this service of Moses during the seven days of the consecration was not due to the law of priesthood, but rather a matter of "service" alone,

and therefore what he ate from the meat of the ram of consecration is considered a non-priest eating.

And it can be said that he follows his own system,

for also in his commentary on the Talmud, Rashi holds that Moses' service during the seven days of the consecration is not considered service "in the priesthood":

In the Gemara Zevachim there it concludes&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;

"It is a dispute among Tannaim

(If Moses was a priest&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;)

And the anger of the Lord burned against Moses. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha says: Every instance of anger in the Torah has a mark, but this one has no mark. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says: This one too has a mark, as it is said: "Is not Aaron your brother the Levite?" But was he not a priest? This is what it means: I said you would be a priest and he a Levite; now he is a priest and you are a Levite. And the Sages say: Moses served as a priest only during the seven days of consecration. And some say: The priesthood ceased only from the seed of Moses, as it is said&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;

And Moses, the man of God, his sons are called upon the tribe of Levi, and it says&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;

"Moses and Aaron among His priests, and Samuel among those who call upon His name."

And Rashi explains in the entry "And some say": "The priesthood ceased only from his seed, but he himself was a priest all his days. And Rav said like 'some say'."

And it requires explanation,

behold the proof of Rav that "Moshe Rabbeinu was a High Priest and took a portion in the holy things of heaven" is from the verse¹⁴

"from the ram of the ordinations for Moshe was a portion" that is said regarding the seven days of ordination,

and if so, why was it necessary for Rashi¹⁹

to say "Rav d­<pg>30</pg>

said 'some say'"

(for he holds that all his days Moshe was a priest),

behold he could also establish that he holds like the Sages that "he was not a priest..

except for the seven days of ordination",

namely that during those seven days he was a High Priest and therefore he took a portion in the holy things of heaven from the ram of the ordinations

(and this is the intention of Rav that Moshe Rabbeinu was a priest)²⁰.

But according to the above, it can be said,

that according to Rashi,

if you say that Moses served as priest only for the seven days of inauguration, like the Sages,

then this is not a category of priesthood,

but rather a matter of service that was only a temporary directive

(and the term "served as priest" is a borrowed name.

And it is a bit forced),

and therefore it cannot be established that Rav holds like the Sages²¹,

because Rav clearly says that "Moses our teacher is a High Priest" and not that he only served in the priesthood

(and the like).

And it must be said that he holds like the one who says that "the priesthood did not cease except from his descendants

(of Moses)

but he himself was a priest all his days."

And similarly it can be inferred from the language of Rashi in tractate Avodah Zarah²²

: In the question of the Gemara there, "In what did Moses serve all the seven days of inauguration,"

Rashi wrote, "He did not use the priestly garments, as it is written²³

And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, and he was a stranger to them, and by the word [of God] he served, and garments were not mentioned."

For from the language of Rashi

("and garments were not mentioned",

and not "without garments" and the like)

it implies that the fact that he served by the word [of God] is not

(only)

to explain that for this reason he was able to serve without priestly garments,

but rather²⁴

to infer,

that the service itself was by the word [of God],

that there was no category of priesthood in this²⁵.

3.

But it is forced to explain thus Rashi's method in his commentary on the Torah,

because:

a)

In Parshat Tetzaveh, regarding the command about the waving of the ram of ordination, Rashi explains²⁶

"Both of them are engaged in the waving, the owner and the kohen,

How so?

The kohen places his hand under the hand of the owner and waves, and in this [case] Aaron and his sons were the owners and Moses was the kohen"²⁷,

behold, according to Rashi, Moses was the kohen²⁸.

b)

In parshas Pekudei²⁹

Rashi wrote "the eighth day of the consecration they were all equal to the priesthood and its Targum<pg>31</pg>

and they sanctified from it on that day, Moses sanctified them with them",

and it implies that the priesthood of Moses was equal to the priesthood of Aaron

(at least on the eighth day of the consecration).

3)

In Rashi's above-mentioned [commentary] on Parshat Shemot regarding the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael ben Kappara and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi whether that wrath made an impression — from this that Rashi brought in the words of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi the proof from the verse "His sons will be called upon the tribe of Levi" it implies that his intention [is] that Moses himself was a priest all the days of his life and only from the seed of Moses did the priesthood cease&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;,

And this is the impression of the wrath

[And perhaps also in the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael ben Kappara it can be explained that from the outset priesthood was given only to him alone and not to his seed

(But it is a great novelty — and he would have needed to explain),

Therefore this is not considered an impression of wrath.

And furthermore, it is explicit in many places in the Midrashim&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;

In the name of Rabbi Yishmael ben Kappara that Moses served in the high priesthood all forty years&lt;sup&gt;*31&lt;/sup&gt;

And there is no contradiction to the plain meaning of the verse].

And therefore it seems more,

that according to Rashi's view in the simple interpretation of Scripture it was "a priest"³²,

and what Rashi wrote "Moses served all seven days of the consecration in a white garment"

(and also he did not write "in the high priesthood"),

because in his opinion all thirty-nine years Moses was high priest,

except that during the seven days of the consecration,

he served in a white garment,

and not like Aaron and his sons who served in priestly garments.

D.

But according to this it is necessary to understand on the other hand: Behold, priestly garments are not an additional thing in the priest,

but rather as Rashi's commentary on the verse³³

"to sanctify him to minister to Me as a priest" — "to sanctify him to bring him into the priesthood through the garments so that he should be a priest to Me"³⁴,

and according to the law³⁵

"When their garments are upon them, their priesthood is upon them; their garments are not upon them, their priesthood is not upon them, and they are considered as non-priests."

And during the seven days of the consecration,

when the Tabernacle was not yet complete,

that the main establishment of it and the service in it were from the eighth day of the consecration

(Rosh Chodesh Nissan)

and onward³⁶,

it is possible to press at least,

that then also the white linen garment, it is possible that it is a garment suitable for the Tabernacle of that time³⁷,

but how can it be said that all the 39 years,

that Moses was High Priest, was this without the priestly garments?

!

And indeed in Tosafot³⁸

they wrote that "according to the one who says..

Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, was High Priest and served in the high priesthood for 40³⁹

years..

the term 'high priesthood' implies with eight garments like the High Priest".

5.

And this is to be explained by prefacing the words of the Toras Kohanim on Parshas Acharei on the verse⁴⁰

"Speak to Aharon your brother, and let him not come at all times into the Holy [of Holies]" — "<pg>32</pg>

your brother, 'let him not come,' and not Moshe, 'let him not come,'"

And the Ra'avad explains⁴¹

"And not Moshe, 'let him not come at all times,' for Moshe always entered before and within to hear the speech from between the two cherubim"⁴²,

And we do not find that Moshe needed to wear priestly garments in order to enter before and within "to hear the speech"⁴³.

And the explanation of this:

In the Mishkan we find two matters: a)

the Mikdash — "a house for G‑d prepared to offer in it the sacrifices"⁴⁴,

place of the service⁴⁵

of the kohanim.

b)

"And I will meet with you there and I will speak with you from above the ark-cover from between the two cherubim that are upon the Ark of the Testimony, all that I will command you for the children of Israel"⁴⁶,

and this is "Ohel Moed",

a place designated for speaking with Moses⁴⁷.

And behold, the first matter was innovated in the Mishkan,

that then they were commanded⁴⁸

"And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary",

to make a Mishkan and a Mikdash — a house for G-d,

not as it was before this, that they would offer on a bamah in any place; and the second matter,

that "I will meet with you there"

(a designated place for the speech of G-d),

already existed before the establishment of the Mishkan,

in the tent of Moses,

as it is written⁴⁹

"And Moses would take the tent and pitch it for himself outside the camp, far from the camp, and he called it the Tent of Meeting, and it was that everyone who sought G-d would go out to the Tent of Meeting",

"And it was, when Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the entrance of the tent, and He would speak with Moses",

"And G-d spoke to Moses face to face, etc., and he would return to the camp".

That is, that the "Tent of Meeting" existed before the establishment of the Mishkan,

in the "tent of Moses",

in which the Holy One, blessed be He, would speak with Moses and teach him Torah⁵⁰.

Except that "this matter was practiced from Yom Kippur until the Mishkan was established, and not more..

And once it was established

(the Mishkan)

He no longer spoke with him except from the Tent of Meeting"⁵¹.

And behold, the essence of Moses is that through him is the transmission of the word of G-d

(the Torah)

to Israel,

and he is always ready for the speech of G-d⁵²,

and if so, the main aspect of the Mishkan in relation to Moses is that it is a "Tent of Meeting",

"And I will meet with you there",

and therefore it can be said that just as it was in the tent of Moses,

that he did not need special garments to hear "all that I will command you",

so too in the Tent of Meeting that is in the Mishkan,

that entering in order to hear the word of G-d,

does not require special garments,

the garments of a kohen

(the Kohen Gadol)⁵³,

for this is its essence<pg>33</pg>

of Moses that he is ready for this always^*53.

But,

from this that Moses is the one who trained the priests for their service in the Mishkan,

and also Moses trained the Mishkan that it should be ready and fit for offering sacrifices in it,

it implies,

that also the second aspect of the Mishkan

(which is the place of the service)

belongs to Moses,

but because he was "occupied with the Shechinah"⁵⁴

he was not occupied with the service of the priesthood.

6.

And behold, there is room for examination,

if the definition of the service

(the service of the priesthood)

of Moses in the Mishkan is a matter in itself,

or it is a part of the matter of "And I will meet" that was with Moses,

and it is not a matter in itself.

And one could say that it depends if "And I will meet" became an inseparable part of the body of the Mishkan,

or — since the definition of "Tent of Meeting" named for "And I will meet with you there" was also before the establishment of the Mishkan

(in the tent of Moses),

and on the other hand, in the Holy Temples

(First and Second Temple)

it is not said that their matter is "And I will meet with you there"^*54

that through them the word of God comes to the prophet⁵⁵

[For in the conditions of prophecy we find only that it is specifically in the Land of Israel⁵⁶,

but not that it is limited to the Temple

(courtyard and Holy of Holies)

— and it is explicit in several prophets that prophecy rested upon them outside the Temple],

therefore also in the Mishkan they are different definitions⁵⁷

: a)

Mishkan that is for the service of God in it,

b)

as "Tent of Meeting" — in which Moses hears the word of God to Israel⁵⁸.

And based on this, one could say that according to all opinions, Moses was in the holiness of the High Priest throughout all forty years,

and the give-and-take<pg>34</pg>

If Moses was High Priest all forty years, it is only if this was as a matter in itself or it is a part of his role as receiver of the Torah from the Holy One, blessed be He:

According to the opinion⁵⁹

that the priesthood never ceased except from the seed of Moses,

there was in him the sanctity of High Priest as a matter in itself,

and therefore Rav who said "Moses our teacher was High Priest and would receive a portion from the sacred offerings of heaven" must hold like the opinion that there was in him the sanctity of High Priest in itself,

and consequently if Moses wanted to enter to serve and perform the service of

(High Priest)

he would have to wear the priestly garments⁶⁰,

and as it is written in the aforementioned Tosafot,

that according to this opinion in Zevachim that Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, was High Priest and served in the High Priesthood for forty years, this was with the eight garments of the High Priest,

and as above.

But the view that he holds that Moses served as priest only during the seven days of inauguration,

the intention is that only then he served as priest in actual practice,

but all forty years the priesthood within him was part of his essence as receiver of the Torah from the mouth of G-d⁶¹,

and consequently even if he entered for the purpose of service he would not need to wear priestly garments,

for he was always ready to hear the word of G-d and therefore his service as priest is not a matter in itself,

but part of "and I will meet" in the Tabernacle.

And based on this it may be said,

that according to Rashi in his commentary on the Torah, Moses was not separated from his level that he is the receiver of the Torah from the time of the Giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai,

and also during the seven days of inauguration that Moses served,

this was a detail within the generality of his essence,

receiver of the word of G-d from the Holy One, blessed be He,

and therefore Rashi wrote that "Moses served all seven days of inauguration in a white tunic",

and not as in the Torat Kohanim that he served in the high priesthood

(even though he already mentioned before this that regarding the service during the seven days of inauguration, Aaron and his sons were the owners and Moses was the priest),

for in Moses this was only in the category of service,

and not a matter in itself — high priest^*61.

And based on this, we can explain that which Rashi wrote in Parsha Emor, that Moshe's eating of the holy of holies is considered the eating of a non-priest,

because since his service also during the seven days of the consecration was from the aspect of his receiving of the Torah,

which is separate

(and higher)

from the matter of the priesthood

(the high priesthood)⁶²,

therefore his eating is considered as that of a non-priest⁶³.

7.

The lesson from this in the service of each and every one:

All matters of the Torah are eternal — as a directive⁶⁴.

And from this it is understood,

that also the above regarding Moshe,

that his main virtue is in the matter of Torah and to hear the word of G-d,

pertains to Bnei Yisrael

[for "although who is he and which is he who would dare in his heart to approach to attain even one part in a thousand of the level of..

the Faithful Shepherd, nevertheless, indeed, there is<pg>35</pg>

a bit and a trace of it from His great goodness and His light shines to all of Yisrael in every generation and generation"⁶⁵],

The seven fitting ones must be in every Jew — by means of the Moses that is within him&lt;sup&gt;66&lt;/sup&gt;

— a state that he will elevate himself above even the matter of work and service in the likeness of the priesthood,

but rather all of him will be connected and attached to the word of G‑d,

Torah,

in the manner of "his Torah is his craft",

and to such an extent,

that all other matters,

even matters of holiness,

will be

(in the manner of the service of the Levites on their platform and Israel in their standing)

in the category of "strangeness" for him.

And nevertheless they hasten the coming of our righteous Messiah,

and priests in their service and Levites on their platform and Israel in their standing and "a new Torah from Me will go forth"&lt;sup&gt;67&lt;/sup&gt;,

and the Messiah will teach Torah to the entire people, all of them&lt;sup&gt;68&lt;/sup&gt;,

and "not&lt;sup&gt;69&lt;/sup&gt;

will the occupation of the entire world be except to know G‑d alone, and therefore Israel will be great sages and know hidden things and will attain knowledge of their Creator according to the capacity of man, as it is said&lt;sup&gt;70&lt;/sup&gt;

for the earth will be filled with knowledge of G‑d as the waters cover the sea".

(From sichos of Shabbos Parshas Tazria-Metzora and Shabbos Parshas Behar-Bechukosai 5747)