English translation — צו

To<pg>1</pg>

A.

"And he shall remove his garments and put on other garments and carry the ash outside the camp<sup>1</sup>

etc.",

And in Rashi on "And he shall remove his garments"

(After he explains "This is not an obligation but a way of respect"<sup>2</sup>)

He explains the reason: "So that he should not soil in the removal of the ash the garments with which he always serves<sup>3</sup>.

Garments in which he cooked a pot for his master, he should not pour a cup for his master with them<sup>4</sup>

Therefore, 'and he shall put on other garments' inferior to them."

And from the simple language of Rashi it is understood,

that they are two matters and reasons⁵

:

(a)

this is a law regarding the garments of<pg>2</pg>

priesthood,

that one must not soil

(in the removal of the ash)

the garments "which he serves in constantly"

(as explained above⁶

that the priestly garments must be "for honor and for glory").

(b)

a law regarding the service of the priesthood,

that one must not perform a service that is analogous to "mixing a cup for his master" in these garments with which he performs a lesser service

("he cooked a pot for his master").

And one must examine why Rashi needed,

which is not a book of reasons for the commandments and came only to explain the plain meaning of the verse,

to bring these two reasons?

Regarding the first reason,

one can say simply⁷,

that it is compelled by the length of the language of the verse "and he shall remove his garments and put on other garments",

for seemingly it is puzzling,

why did the verse not suffice with "and put on other garments" from which one already knows that he must remove his garments that he wore previously — and "and he shall remove his garments" why do I need it?

And from this it is proven,

that the reason for wearing other garments is in order not to soil the previous garments,

and it follows,

that the main emphasis in the verse here is

(not the wearing of other garments,

but rather)

the removal of the previous garments.

But it is not understood — why does Rashi add also a second reason "garments in which one cooked a pot for his master, he should not mix a cup for his master"⁸?

[And even though this reason originates in the Gemara&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;,

behold Rashi on the Torah comes to explain the plain meaning of the verse and not to transcribe the homilies and interpretations of Chazal,

and for the explanation of the verses, ostensibly the first reason suffices "that he should not soil in the removal of the ash the garments that he uses in them always"].

Ostensibly it is possible to answer that this reason comes to explain the law

(that Rashi brought at the end of his words)

"And he shall wear other garments — inferior to them",

that ostensibly this is due to the second reason,

that the type of garments in which he pours a cup for his master is not comparable to the type of garments in which he cooks a pot

(unlike according to the first reason,

which pertains only that they should not be those same garments exactly

(so that they should not become soiled)&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;,

ostensibly it is possible that they could be of the same type etc.).

But one cannot say so¹¹,

because:

a)

From this that Rashi appended the second reason and wrote it in continuation of the first reason,

and in the phrase "and he removed his garments"

[and only at the end of the commentary he writes "therefore he wears other garments inferior to them"],

it implies,

that also the second reason comes to explain

(not this that "and he wears other garments,

inferior to them",

but rather)

this that "and he removed his garments".

b)

At first glance,

also according to the first reason it is understood why he must wear garments "inferior to them",

because when removing the ashes the garments become soiled,

it is logical that the garments he wears then are "inferior to them"¹⁰.

2.

And it seems to me simply,

that with the addition of the second reason Rashi comes to resolve a difficulty in the plain sense of the verse here:<pg>3</pg>

This verse regarding the removal of the ash comes in continuation of the law of the removal of the ash in the preceding verse¹²

— "And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh, and he shall take up the ash which the fire has consumed with the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put it beside the altar."

And it implies,

that the main caution in removing the garments for the removal of the ash is because of the garments

("his linen garment and his linen breeches")

which he was wearing at the time of the removal of the ash.

And it is perplexing: how can one say that the reason for removing his garments before the removal of the ash is so that they should be clean at the time he serves with them,

and behold, also at the time he serves in the work of the removal of the ash there exists the concern of soiling the garments.

And although the concern of soiling in the removal of the ash is not comparable to the soiling of the garments in the taking out of the ash,

and as it is written in Rashi's commentary on the Talmud¹³

that "regarding the taking out of the ash..

the garments become degraded and soiled by them, but the removal of the ash, which is only a full fire-pan per day..

there is no soiling of garments" — nevertheless, it is understood,

that relative to the other services of the Temple,

the removal of the ash is not such a "clean" task,

and if so, why should he not remove his garments

(in which he performs the other services)

also for the removal of the ash.

[And to note that according to the Rambam¹⁴

also the removal of the ash is with inferior garments¹⁵,

and his language is¹⁶

: "And the priestly garments with which he removes the ash shall be inferior to the garments with which he serves in the other services, as it is said 'And he shall remove his garments and put on other garments and remove the ash' — it does not say 'others' that they should be non-sacred garments, but rather that they should be inferior to the first ones, because it is not proper conduct that he should mix a cup for his master in the garments in which he cooked a pot for his master"¹⁷].

3.

And in order to resolve this difficulty, Rashi brought the second reason

(the parable)

"Garments in which he cooked etc. he should not mix a cup in them etc.":

According to the first reason, "so that he should not soil, in the removal of the ash, garments that he uses in them always,"

there would be room to say that also the lifting of the ash should be done in those garments in which he removes the ash.

And it is precisely inferred from the language of Rashi, "so that he should not soil..

garments that he uses in them always,"

that is,

that here the precision is not about the service that the verse here deals with

(the lifting of the ash),

but it refers to the other services of the Temple,

"that he uses in them always."

And the reason that also the removal of the ashes is included in the rest of the services of the Temple in this matter,

that it is not done in the garments in which he takes out the ashes,

is understood by the parable of "garments in which one cooked a pot for his master, he should not mix a cup for his master in them":

One of the distinctions between cooking a pot&lt;pg&gt;4&lt;/pg&gt;

And the mixing of the cup is,

That cooking of a pot is not in the presence of his master but in another place,

Whereas the mixing of a cup for his master is in his presence.

And this is the difference between the removal of the ash and the taking out of the ash,

For even though in both of them they take the ash from upon the altar,

Behold, regarding the removal of the ash it is said "and he shall place it beside the altar",

Whereas the taking out of the ash is "outside the camp to a clean place".

And therefore,

since the removal of the ash is "in the presence of his master,"

it must be done in important garments,

like the mixing of a cup,

whereas the removal of the ash outside the camp, even though its beginning is "in the presence of his master,"

taking ash from upon the altar¹⁸,

its main part is like cooking a pot,

a thing done not in the presence of his master¹⁹,

and therefore it is done in lesser garments.

And furthermore: cooking a pot is preparation for the use of his master,

but mixing a cup is the actual use itself.

That is: mixing a cup is not only the conclusion and completion of the use,

but it is a main part of the use itself

[And it is understood also from the service of Jacob to Isaac,

that "he approached him and he ate

(and afterwards)

he brought him wine and he drank"²⁰],

whereas cooking a pot, its content is only preparation²¹

of preparation for the entirety of the use.

And this is the difference between the removal of the ash and the taking out of the ash: the removal of the ash is a mitzvah in itself,

conclusion²²

and completion of the mitzvah of the offering,

that is, in the service of the actual work of the offering, this is its conclusion and perfection²³,

whereas the taking out of the ash is only a preparatory act of a preparatory act,

in order to have a vacant place for the arrangement on the altar²⁴.

And based on this it is understood,

that in this that Rashi adds "garments in which one cooked a pot for his master, he should not mix with them a cup for his master" comes to add that the reason is not only because of soiling the priestly garments,

for in several services beginning from the slaughter of the offering,

receiving the blood,

sprinkling the blood and burning etc.,

there is place and possibility that his garments become soiled,

and all the more so and a fortiori the removal of the ash that is in the preceding verse —

But that work which is before his master and its content is the category of service to his master,

not<pg>5</pg>

is considered filth,

and the name filth does not apply to this,

for on the contrary,

this is the content of service to his master;

But not so in work that is not in the presence of his master and its content is only the preparation of the preparation,

there applies to it the name of soiling.

4.

The source of the Torah in Rashi's commentary:

At first glance, according to Rashi's words, it requires explanation: Since the removal of the ash is analogous to cooking a pot,

Why is it performed by that same kohen who "pours a cup for his master",

Now, in the usual manner and simply, these are done by two types of servants,

And the one who cooks a pot is not the servant and attendant who pours a cup for his master.

And according to this, not only should it have been in other garments, but it would have been fitting that it be done by another kohen

[And as we find the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer who explains²⁵

"Others and he shall take out, taught regarding blemished kohanim that they are fit to remove the ash"].

And we see from this,

that although they are two different services,

nevertheless it is fitting for that same priest to do both of them.

And it can be said that in this there is a lesson in the service of each and every Jew,

And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation²⁶,

in his service to his Master²⁷

:

a)

Regarding himself,

in addition to the general instruction of "Do not sit and weigh the commandments of the Torah..

the light among the light..

and the severe among the severe..

they are equal"²⁸,

the work and service to the Holy One, blessed be He, must be not only in actual commandments but also in the preparation and preparation of the preparation of the commandment,

and as it is stated in the Gemara²⁹

"How great are the deeds of Chiya",

that he himself engaged not only in the actual study with students but did himself all the preparations and preparations for the preparations,

that he himself sowed flax "and I would grow³⁰

nets

(I weave nets)

and I would hunt deer

(deer)..

and I would prepare parchment

(and I prepare quills)..

and I would write five books

(Torah)

for five children etc.'".

And furthermore,

that he did everything with the same devotion and dedication as for the commandment itself.

And the way that this is possible is from the aspect of the greatness of his self-nullification to the supernal will.

For the distinctions of levels,

between a mitzvah and the preparation for a mitzvah and the preparation for the preparation,

apply when he is in his feeling of existence as an independent entity,

for although it is an existence of holiness,

nevertheless he feels his existence,

and from this aspect,

in the preparation he does not feel importance and purpose like in the actual fulfillment of the mitzvah,

because specifically through the mitzvah there is a command and connection with the Holy One, blessed be He,

as the blessing over all mitzvot: "Who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us";

But from the aspect of the will of the Holy One, blessed be He, there is no difference between the mitzvah itself

(through which one draws down Divinity)

and the preparation for a mitzvah³¹.

And when a person is in complete self-nullification

to the supernal will beyond reason and intellect, it makes no difference in which matter the supernal will is,

and he does and acts with the fitness of a commandment like in the essence of the commandment

b)

And that same thing is also in work with another: a person can make a "calculation" that he will engage only in influencing a Jew who is "in the place of his teacher,"

within the four cubits of the synagogue and study hall,

but to influence a Jew who is "outside the camp" is not his role.

That is, even though this is a necessary and important thing etc.,

it belongs to other priests; his place — his work and his involvement — is by his teacher.

And we learn from Rashi mentioned above,

that that slave who pours a cup for his master, he himself must go outside the camp&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;

and do his work there.

And the manner of his work is — that he must dress himself in "other garments — inferior to them",

and not in the garments in which he does his work inside,

and this means that he must clothe himself in the garments of the one being clarified and occupy himself and speak with him,

according to his level and degree.

And even though this is a very great descent for him,

that he deals with that which for now all that he can affect upon it is not in the matter of Torah and commandments in actuality but only preparation and readiness alone

(the matter of turning away from evil and the like),

nevertheless, specifically because of this he is called a priest in completeness,

"And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation",

And this means that he performs the service to the Holy One, blessed be He, like the Holy One, blessed be He does — and as it was in the Exodus from Egypt,

"And I descended to rescue him from the hand of Egypt"³⁴,

that the Lord took us out of Egypt "not by means of an angel and not by means of a seraph and not by means of a messenger but the Holy One, blessed be He, in His glory and by Himself..

I am the Lord, I am He and no other"³⁵,

And so it will be for us,

that the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself holds the hand of each and every one — "each man from his place" — and takes him out of the exile, as it is written³⁶

"And the Lord your God will return your captivity",

in this Nissan itself,

in Nissan they were redeemed and in Nissan they are destined to be redeemed³⁷.

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Tzav 5732)