English translation — אמור א

Talk 1<pg>61</pg>

A.

In the beginning of our parshah on the verse "Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them etc.",

Rashi quotes from the verse "Speak to the priests" and explains<sup>1</sup>

: "Speak and say,

to warn adults about minors".

And behold it has been explained many times that also the opening words of Rashi are precise

(And as we find in the commentators of Rashi in many places who stood on this).

And based on this it is difficult in our case — for in this explanation Rashi's intention is ostensibly only to explain the duplication of "Emor v'Amarta",

And as he quotes in the body of his explanation "Emor v'Amarta",

And if so, why did he quote

(in the opening words)

from the verse also the words "El HaKohanim",

ostensibly he should have quoted in the opening words only the words "Emor v'Amarta",

and begun his explanation "to warn etc.".

[And one cannot say that Rashi's intention in this is only to indicate the beginning of the portion,

because it has already been explained elsewhere,

that from the fact that we find in several portions that Rashi does not indicate their beginning<sup>2</sup>,

it is understood,

that in the portions where in his explanation he quotes the beginning of the portion,

Rashi's intention in quoting the opening words is not to indicate the beginning of a portion, but these words are connected to the content of the explanation].

2.

And one must say,

that in this Rashi hints the reason that he did not bring another explanation for the double language "Emor ve'amarta",

which seemingly is more fitting in the plain sense of Scripture than the explanation "to warn adults concerning minors".

For behold, later in the portion it is said³

"And Moses spoke to Aaron and to his sons and to all the children of Israel",

And in Rashi there: "to Aaron etc. and to all the children of Israel" — "to warn the court concerning the priests"⁴,

And this is,

that this that Moses spoke "to all the children of Israel" about the laws of the priesthood⁵

is in order "to warn the court

(of Israel)

concerning the priests",

that the court⁶

of Israel must urge the priests regarding the commandments of the priesthood.

And based on this, it is questionable,

From where does Rashi derive that "And you shall say to them" comes to include a new law,

"to warn adults regarding minors"

(And to note that according to the simple meaning of Rashi's language it implies that this is a novel law only regarding impurity of a priest⁷,

and not in all<pg>62</pg>

commandments of the Torah⁸)

— it is possible to explain,

that this second statement is a statement to the court,

"to warn the court regarding the priests"⁹.

[And according to the explanation of the Or HaChayim here&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;,

that "Emor" is opposite the priests, "Emor el haKohanim",

and opposite the warning of others that they should not become impure, "v'Amarta aleihem",

And he brings what is said at the end of this matter, "Vayidaber Moshe el..

all the children of Israel",

"And this will justify for you our explanation that a warning comes here also for Israel that the priests should not become impure"&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;].

And the difficulty is even greater: In the continuation of the verses here we find several commands to the court regarding the priests: After the warning of impurity it is said&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;

"They shall be holy to their God etc.",

And in Rashi's commentary "They shall be holy — against their will the court shall sanctify them&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;

in this"

(to separate the priests from impurity),

and likewise afterwards

(regarding women forbidden to a priest)

it is said&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;

"And you shall sanctify him" and Rashi explains "against his will,

that if he did not want to divorce, beat him and chastise him until he divorces"

(which is simple that the intention in this is to the court&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;)

— behold, that in this portion are included commands to the court,

and based on this the difficulty grows,

from where did Rashi, in the plain sense of Scripture, innovate that the intention in the second statement

("And you shall say to them")

is "to warn

(the priests)

the adults regarding the minors",

and not — "to warn the court regarding the priests"?

And therefore Rashi copies the words "

(Say)

to the priests",

for by this he negates the above explanation that there was here a statement to the court

(of Israel)

to warn them about the priests,

since it is explicit in the verse "Say to the priests",

and thus also the second statement

(and you shall say to them)

comes in continuation of this, namely to the priests,

and therefore Rashi explains "to warn the adults concerning the minors",

that according to Rashi's explanation in the plain sense of Scripture&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;,

there is not at all&lt;pg&gt;63&lt;/pg&gt;

this commandment a warning to the court

(of Israel)

to guard the minors from impurity,

but rather an obligation upon

(all)

the priests to guard the minor priests.

3.

But still the matter is not entirely settled,

for even though from the language of the verse it is proven that the intention of "And you shall say to them" is not to warn the court about the priests,

but¹⁷

in the verse itself there is to understand,

why was Moses not explicitly commanded to warn the court about the priests?

Moreover: Granted, if we interpret that "And you shall say to them" means "to warn the court about the priests",

it is understood what is said at the end of the matter "And Moses spoke etc. and to all the children of Israel",

that Moses warned the court

(of Israel)

about the priests,

since indeed he was commanded from the outset from the mouth of the Almighty.

And even though this is said after the section regarding the laws of a blemished priest

(that he should not perform the service, etc.),

And about this there was a separate speech&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;

— one can say,

that what is written at the beginning of the section "And you shall say to them"

(to warn the court concerning the priests)

also applies to the subsequent section about the laws of a blemished priest

(and therefore in the second speech&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;

(regarding the laws of a blemished priest)

the verse abbreviates and specifies only "Speak to Aaron"&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;),

And at the conclusion of these sections it is recounted how Moshe Rabbeinu fulfilled the command — "And Moshe spoke to Aaron and to his sons and to all the children of Israel",

that he warned the court concerning the priests

(regarding all that was said previously&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;)

;

But according to Rashi's explanation of "Emor ve'AMarta" meaning "to warn the adults concerning the minors",

one must say,

that this that Moshe warned the court

(of Israel)

concerning the priests

(also regarding the laws of a blemished priest&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;),

he did this on his own accord.

[And although we find in many places that the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moses is not mentioned in the verse, but only the speech of Moses to Israel,

for according to the simple meaning of the verse there is no necessity that the text explain this explicitly,

since it is self-evident that Moses' speech to Israel was because he was thus commanded by the Almighty&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;

— it is somewhat forced,

at first glance,

to explain thus in our case

(where the text details only Moses' speech to the court and not the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, to him about this),

since only by adding a few words in the command of the L-rd&lt;pg&gt;64&lt;/pg&gt;

to Moses

("Say etc. and to all the children of Israel")

it would have been possible to include also this detail.

And it implies from this,

that in our case Moses did this on his own accord].

4.

And we must explain the reason for the matter according to the principle²³

that "Kohanim are zealous",

and if so, there is no need to warn the court about them,

therefore it explains that the need for an additional warning

(saying)

is only for minor Kohanim who do not guard themselves from impurity.

[And what Rashi says on "They shall be holy" "against their will the court shall sanctify them in this"

(and also on "And you shall sanctify him" he explained "that if he did not want to divorce, beat him etc.")

— this is not the content of the matter of "to warn the court about the Kohanim",

for "to warn etc." is a general law,

that the court must endeavor that the Kohanim know and be careful in this

[in the manner of "to warn adults about minors",

that the explanation of this is²⁴,

that it is an obligation on the adults to ensure that the minors do not defile themselves],

but not so that of "against their will the court shall sanctify them in this" is a specific law,

that a Kohen who wants to defile himself,

the court forces him against his will and separates him from the impurity,

and likewise if he married an invalid woman,

they punish and afflict him].

But according to this, it is difficult on the other side,

since there is no need for it,

why did Moshe warn the court of Israel about the priests?

And this will be understood by prefacing an explanation of the principle that priests are zealous,

which can be explained in two ways: 1)

This is due to the service of the priesthood²⁵,

for since they engage in the holy service

(or they are in the Temple)

this causes in them the quality of zeal.

2)

This is due to the essence of the priesthood²⁶,

for such is the nature and quality of the soul of a priest in matters of priesthood

(and as Rashi's language²⁷

"that all of them were sons of Torah and scrupulous and reminded etc.",

and in another place²⁸

"they are expert in all...

for it is written about them²⁹

they shall teach Your judgments to Jacob").

And the practical difference — in matters that are not related to the priestly service,

whether also in them we say that priests are zealous.

[For although in laws in which all Israel are equal we do not find a distinction between priests and the rest of Israel

(for example — we do not find in rabbinic decrees that they decreed a decree only on Israelites and not on priests — because they are zealous)

— this is because the matter that priests are zealous we say only in matters related to their priesthood; but still there is room for consideration in matters that are not related to the priestly service,

whether also in this we say that priests are zealous²⁵].

And so in our matter — the separation from impurity

(and prohibitions of marriage etc.),

this caution must be in every place

(even outside the Land)

and in every time

(even when the Holy Temple is not extant),

and there is no alacrity here that comes from the service of the priesthood,

rather this is one of the matters of priesthood.

&lt;pg&gt;65&lt;/pg&gt;

And it may be said,

that this is the difference between the command of the Holy One, blessed be He,

and the speech of Moses our teacher to Israel: From the aspect of the soul-natures of the priests,

it would be fitting that they be zealous in all that pertains to matters of priesthood,

and therefore from the aspect of the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, there is no need to warn the court concerning the priests; but since we are commanded&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;

"and make a fence for the Torah",

therefore,

Moses our teacher added from his own understanding a "fence"&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;,

for even though when the priests are occupied with the service of the priesthood we say that they are zealous because the awe of the holy service is upon them,

nevertheless when they are not occupied with their service,

it is possible that there will be a weakening in their zeal,

and therefore there is a need to urge them concerning this&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;.

5.

And this is to be explained in the way of mussar and avodah:

The essence of the kohanim is — in the language of the Rambam³³

— "to be separated to stand before Hashem to serve Him and to worship Him etc. and to cast off from his neck the yoke of the many calculations etc., behold this one is sanctified as holy of holies and Hashem will be his portion and inheritance forever and for all eternities etc.",

From this it is understood,

that one who stands on the level of kehunah according to its essence,

behold in every place and at every time he feels that he stands "before Hashem" and consequently there is no need to urge him; and only a kohen who is not on this level,

needs alacrity in his matters of kehunah when he is not occupied with the avodah of the Beis HaMikdash.

And one should add explanation according to the inwardness of the matters:

It is explained in Tanya³⁴

that "the Ein Sof, blessed be He, is clothed in the aspect of wisdom in the soul of a person, whoever he may be from Israel,"

that in this aspect,

even though the matter of exile does not apply to it³⁵,

that the animal soul from the kelipah could rule over it etc.,

nevertheless, the matter of "sleep" is possible regarding it,

"it is in the aspect of sleep among the wicked and does not perform its function"³⁵.

However, there is in the soul of man a deeper level,

to which even the category of "sleep" does not apply,

that is the essence of the soul

(as explained in books of Kabbalah³⁶

"there is a very tiny spark that is a level of G-dliness etc. and this spark is clothed in the power of one created spark etc. called yechidah"),

about which it is said³⁷

"I am asleep but my heart is awake",

the essence and innerness of the heart that is always awake for each and every Jew and even sleep does not apply to it³⁸.

And these are the two aspects in each and every Jew: from the aspect of the spark of the Creator clothed in his yechidah there is no need for any arousal,

for it is always in perfection in every place and at every time,

<pg>66</pg>

In the language of the verse³⁹

"Who dwells with them amidst their impurity,"

also in the diaspora and in the time of exile there is no need to warn the priest about separation from impurity;

And only from the aspect of the level of wisdom in the soul — where the matter of sleep applies as above,

there is a need to warn the court concerning the priests.

6.

But nevertheless,

even in this aspect it is only "sleep" alone and not exile, G-d forbid,

and therefore,

the awakening of the wisdom in the soul is not connected with an action in a manner of complete innovation

(nullification of evil etc.),

but rather this is a matter of awakening from sleep alone.

And based on this we can explain the precise wording of my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe, in one of his talks⁴⁰

:

"It is the time that one is near the top of the mountain.

Truly one sees indeed that Mashiach is already close,

he is behind the wall&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;

and the one who has a good sense of hearing and a sense of sight hears his voice and sees..

Before the light of day&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;

sleep overcomes..

One must overcome not to oversleep the time..

And then one will also be a vessel to receive the light of day.

This is obligated every Jew to know and also that when he meets a Jew he must say to him: Hear brother,

you should not oversleep before the light of day",

end of his holy words.

And from this,

that there is no need to renew in him the desire to overcome and to do actions to hasten the morning light of the redemption,

rather only need to awaken him from his sleep,

and consequently certainly each one of Israel will do his part to bring the redemption,

and immediately and instantly.

(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Emor 5725)