English translation — תצוה ב

1.

At the conclusion of the series — when it speaks about the inner altar,

and the verse says "Holy of Holies is it to the Lord" — Rashi stands on "Holy of Holies is it"¹

and explains: "the altar is sanctified for these things alone and not for other service."

In simple terms, one learns this Rashi,

that Rashi wants here to caution: the golden altar stood in the Sanctuary²

and not in the Holy of Holies,

and consequently its holiness was also not the holiness of the Holy of Holies — so why does one say about the altar "Holy of Holies"³?

Therefore Rashi teaches "the altar is sanctified for these things",

that Holy of Holies does not mean that the altar has the holiness of the Holy of Holies,

rather the explanation is: "Holy",

that the holiness of the altar is — for the "holy things" that are enumerated earlier in the portion.

However, since the question arises on this: what is the novelty in this; this is indeed understood by itself that the altar is sanctified to bring upon it the offerings which one must sacrifice upon it?

Therefore Rashi adds "only,

and not for another service",

that with "Holy of Holies" the verse means <b>not</b> to say the <b>obligation</b> that is in it,

rather the <b>negation</b>,

that it is sanctified <b>only</b> for the holy things,

and <b>not</b> for another service.

And although that also in <b>this</b> there is no novelty; also this one finds already earlier⁴

— and <b>explicitly</b>: "Do not offer upon it strange incense etc." — nevertheless the verse repeats it again,

in order to add another positive commandment on the one who will sacrifice on the inner altar other offerings,

that he should transgress not only the prohibition "Do not offer etc.",

but also another command

(on the positive commandment "Holy of holies",

a prohibition derived from a positive commandment⁵

positive commandment).

B.

According to this explanation, however, it is not understood:

A)

From the language of the verse "Holy of holies is it<b> to the L-rd</b>" it is implied,

that also the word "holies" refers to the altar itself

(that the altar is holy of holies to the <b>Most High</b>),

but according to Rashi's interpretation "Holy — of holies",

that the altar is sanctified to "holies",

is then not smooth the conclusion of the verse "<b>to the L-rd</b>"?

B)

Since that with his interpretation "the altar is sanctified etc." Rashi explains the words "Holy <b>of holies</b>",

that the altar is sanctified only for the holy offerings that are mentioned earlier — then Rashi should have written "the altar is sanctified <b>for the holy offerings</b> these etc.",

why does he change and say "<b>for the things</b> these"?

Rashi's innovation is only regarding the explanation of "Kodesh Kodashim",

but that these words refer to the altar — about which the <b>entire</b> section speaks — is obvious,

he seemingly should have explained only the meaning of "Kodesh Kodashim"

("sanctified for these matters, etc.")

— but Rashi says "<b>the altar</b> is sanctified, etc."

What does he add with the word "the altar"?

3.

3)

Regarding the third question,

one could seemingly answer:

There are commentators⁶

who learn that "holy of holies is it to Hashem" does not go on the altar,

but on Aharon: the beginning of the verse is indeed "And Aharon shall atone etc.",

and upon him

(upon Aharon)

he concludes "holy of holies is it to Hashem".

And as it says in Divrei HaYamim⁷

"And Aharon was set apart to sanctify him holy of holies".

One cannot, however, say that Rashi's intention with "the altar",

is to negate this interpretation⁸

— because⁹

A)

According to the simple meaning of Scripture, it is understood even without Rashi's commentary that "holy of holies, etc." refers to the altar and not to Aaron,

because the entire portion¹⁰

speaks here about the altar¹¹,

not about Aaron.

And "and Aaron shall atone, etc.",

is here only a detail in the laws of the altar — it therefore has no place in the simple meaning of Scripture that the Torah should here,

in the portion of the altar,

explain the virtue of Aaron¹².

B)

When Rashi says "consecrated for these matters, etc." — even without the word "the altar",

one already knows automatically that "holy of holies" refers to the altar and not to Aaron,

then the question returns to its place: what is Rashi's point in adding the word "the altar"?

4.

In addition to the above precisions which in Rashi here on the spot,

there is also difficulty from other places:

The phrase "Holy of Holies" already appears earlier in the parshah¹³

in connection with the outer altar

(whose holiness is,

of course,

a lesser one than the holiness of the inner altar),

and yet there Rashi does not set himself to explain the phrase "Holy of Holies".

And even if one will with difficulty learn that Rashi with his commentary there "And what is its holiness — everyone who touches the altar shall be sanctified etc."

means to explain also the phrase "Holy of Holies" — that the "holy"

(holiness)

of the altar is for "holy things",

i.

e.

to sanctify "everyone who touches etc."¹⁴

— But further in parshas Bamidbar^*14,

Rashi says <b>simply</b> that all the vessels of the Mishkan

(which were in the burden of the sons of Kehas),

including also "the altars"

(the inner altar and the outer altar),

are called "Holy of Holies" the most holy of all

(and the reason for this is understandable: because they are holier than the curtains and boards etc. — the burden of the sons of Gershon and the sons of Merari).

It is thus not understood: Why does Rashi press the phrase "Holy of Holies" from our verse that is by the inner altar,

when the phrase is already even by the outer altar?

Also: In both one can indeed interpret sanctified from the curtains etc.¹⁵?

H.

So the explanation in this is:

What Rashi's difficulty is in "Holy of Holies it is" from our verse is

(<b>not</b> how it is possible to say about the altar "Holy of Holies",

but rather the opposite)

: Why does the verse need to say that it is "Holy of Holies" — this is understood by itself,

and all the more so from the altar of the outer [courtyard]?

And to this Rashi answers,

that with the words "Holy of Holies" the verse gives a reason for the prohibition "Do not offer up etc.": because it is "Holy of Holies"

(among "holy things" itself it is "holy" — it is holier than other holy things,

even from the outer altar),

therefore it is sanctified only "for these things"

(incense and placing of blood of the sin-offering of Yom Kippur)

and one may not perform on it any other service,

in order not to lower it from its holiness.

And therefore Rashi says "&lt;b&gt;to these things&lt;/b&gt;" and not "&lt;b&gt;to these holy things&lt;/b&gt;" — because the word "holy things" from the verse refers

(not to the incense and the placing of blood as one might learn at first glance,

to the &lt;b&gt;altar&lt;/b&gt;,

that it is "holy of holies".

And therefore Rashi says "&lt;b&gt;the altar&lt;/b&gt; is sanctified etc.",

in order to emphasize the novelty that the verse does with its giving the reason "holy of holies" for the prohibition "do not offer up etc.": This is not merely a reason,

but the reason is also a &lt;b&gt;boundary&lt;/b&gt; in the prohibition "do not offer up",

that it is connected

(not with the offering up of &lt;b&gt;strange&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;incense&lt;/b&gt;,

&lt;b&gt;burnt offering&lt;/b&gt; etc.

etc.

etc.,

but)

but)

with the sanctity of &lt;b&gt;the altar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;*15&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

: one may not lower the altar from its sanctity.

6.

In Rashi there are also "wondrous matters"¹⁶,

also from other parts of the Torah — one sees it here,

as through Rashi's commentary "the altar is sanctified etc." an question in the halachic part of the Torah is answered.

And with an introduction:

The prohibition "You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil"¹⁷

is counted in the count of commandments as three separate prohibitions¹⁸

: one may not eat outside of Jerusalem — second tithe of grain; second tithe of <b>wine</b>; and second tithe of <b>oil</b>,

and when someone eats second tithe of grain,

wine and oil

(outside of Jerusalem),

he receives three times lashes¹⁹.

Different is the prohibition "Your money you shall not give him for interest, and for interest you shall not give your food"&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;,

which is counted&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

in the count of commandments only as one prohibition

(and if it were not a "prohibition that is subject to restitution" and lashes would apply to it&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;

— there would apply to it only &lt;b&gt;one&lt;/b&gt; set of lashes&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;).

And at first glance,

on the contrary: by "the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil" it says only one time "not": and by interest and increase it says &lt;b&gt;two&lt;/b&gt; times "not"

("Your money you shall &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; give him for interest, and for increase you shall &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; give your food"),

so why is it counted only as one prohibition?

— The reason for this is stated&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;

: because "you do not find interest without increase nor increase without interest" interest and increase are one matter&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;,

and consequently the two warnings

(the two times "not")

are one command,

only the same command is repeated two times for reinforcement of the matter&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;.

And as the rule&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;

by "negative commandments"

(and likewise by positive commandments)

that when one and the same prohibition is stated in the Torah several times,

even though when transgressing it one transgresses "many warnings",

it is counted

(in the count of &lt;b&gt;commandments&lt;/b&gt;)

as &lt;b&gt;one&lt;/b&gt; prohibition,

because it is the &lt;b&gt;same&lt;/b&gt; matter.

7.

One can seemingly ask on this: It is true indeed that "neshekh" and "tarbit",

since they cannot be one without the other,

they are "one matter" — but since the verse also enumerates the details that are forbidden in neshekh and tarbit and they are <b>different</b> — "your silver" and "your food" — regarding silver and food it is <b>not</b> applicable to say "you will not find this without that" — then the prohibition of neshekh and tarbit must be divided into <b>two</b> negative commandments: one negative commandment regarding silver and one negative commandment regarding food — as it is by the prohibition "you may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil" which counts as three negative commandments,

regarding grain,

regarding wine and regarding oil?

The reasoning in this is:

The prohibition "You may not eat within your gates etc." is

(<b>not</b> on the <b>general</b> action of eating second tithe outside the wall,

but)

on eating tithe of <b>grain</b>,

tithe of <b>wine</b> and tithe of <b>oil</b>.

And therefore they are three separate prohibitions²⁹.

In contrast, the prohibition "Your money you shall not give him for interest, and for increase you shall not give your food" is <b>not</b> on the loan of <b>money</b> and <b>food</b>

and by "For increase you shall not give your <b>food</b>" is meant not only food,

but both mean "any thing"³⁰],

but the prohibition is on the general category of lending with interest³¹.

And since in the forbidden action of lending with interest there is no difference whether it comes through money,

through food or through any thing,

it is therefore counted as <b>one</b> prohibition³².

8.

According to all the above, it should seemingly have turned out regarding the prohibition "Do not bring upon it foreign incense, and burnt offering and meal offering and libation you shall not pour upon it,"

that the verse does not state the prohibition in a general manner "Do not bring upon it a foreign offering,"

but it specifies details: incense,

burnt offering,

meal offering and libation — that one should divide them into four³³

separate prohibitions

(like "the tithe of your grain,"

your wine and your oil).

And even if one will already say regarding the first three details,

that since they all are included in "Do not bring upon it,"

the prohibition regarding them is the generality of the action of bringing up on the altar and <b>not</b> the bringing up of incense,

of <b>burnt offering</b> and of <b>meal offering</b>

— But regarding "nesekh" (libation),

which does not enter into "lo <b>ta'alu</b>" but one says about it separately "lo <b>taskhu</b> alav"³⁴,

it must certainly follow apparently that it is a separate prohibition: one prohibition — raising upon the altar and a second prohibition — libation upon the altar

: eating of the altar and drinking of the altar],

And in practice we see,

that all the enumerators of the commandments — the Rambam³⁶,

the Semag³⁷,

(and so it appears from the opinion of the Ramban³⁸)

— count it as one prohibition³⁹?

So the question the Minchas Chinuch asks and remains with a "tzarich iyun".

But according to Rashi's explanation "the altar is sanctified etc." it is answered simply:

As said,

Rashi teaches that the verse itself explains the reason for the prohibition of "do not offer up etc. do not pour etc.",

that this is because the altar is "Holy of Holies".

It is "sanctified for these matters only and not for other service",

so it is understandable,

that the prohibition here consists

or even in the details of eating of the altar and drinking of the altar — but]

that one does upon it a matter for which it is not sanctified.

And since in the forbidden action of doing upon it an "other service" there is no difference whether it is done through incense or through libation,

therefore one counts it as <b>one</b> prohibition⁴⁰

(similar to the prohibition of lending with interest).

And based on this it will be understood that the prohibition "and not for other service" the verse does not say explicitly,

rather it says it in the words "holy of holies" from which one learns — according to Rashi — "and not for other service" in a manner of "from a positive statement⁴¹

you infer a negative":

If the definition of the prohibition were that which one may not perform on it any other services,

there would be room to say,

that each service is a separate prohibition; but since the definition of the prohibition consists in not changing the positive — the altar from that which it is "sanctified for these matters alone",

then there is no difference through which transgression one lowers the altar from its sanctity⁴².

9.

From the matters of "the wine of Torah"¹²

Which is in our Rashi:

The difference between the inner altar and the outer altar is explained in Chassidus⁴⁴.

That the outer altar is the aspect of Malchus of Atzilus as it descends into the worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah,

Therefore it stood not in the Sanctuary but in the Courtyard

(And in the Holy Temple — in the Azarah).

And the inner altar is the aspect of Tiferes of Atzilus which is higher than descending into Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah,

And therefore <b>the</b> altar was in the Sanctuary.

And this is also the reason that on the outer altar they would offer sacrifices and on the inner altar they would only burn incense

(and they were not allowed to offer sacrifices upon it),

because sacrifices are the matter of clarifications,

which applies only in the worlds of BYA

(because there there is the existence of evil — one must thereby clarify the good from the evil),

but in Atzilus there is no applicability of clarifications,

because there "evil shall not sojourn with You"⁴⁵.

In what did the service on the inner altar consist — in incense, whose concept is

(not clarifications,

but)

connection,

from the phrase "in one bond we are bound"⁴⁶

— to increase in the connection to the Above.

And so too is it in the two levels of "outer altar" and "inner altar" within man

: the <b>outer</b> altar is the aspect of the <b>externality</b> of the heart⁴⁸

and there applies

(and there must be)

the service of clarifications.

But the <b>inner</b> altar is the aspect of the <b>internality</b> of the heart⁴⁷,

where the concept of clarifications does not apply,

and the service from the side of the internality of the heart is — to connect oneself more deeply with the Above.

Yud.

In simple letters it means: a Jew,

a soul in a body,

must surely occupy himself not only with the study of Torah and fulfillment of the commandments but also with matters of permission like eating and drinking,

but the matters of permission must be like the Mishnah&lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;

says "and all your deeds shall be for the sake of Heaven" or even higher&lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt;

— "In all&lt;sup&gt;51&lt;/sup&gt;

your ways know Him".

One could think,

that since also the matters of permission he does "for the sake of Heaven"

(that the true meaning of "for the sake of Heaven" is,

that his intention in doing the matters of permission is entirely for the sake of Heaven and in this there are not mixed in for him any other intentions),

and all the more so when in the matters of permission themselves&lt;sup&gt;52&lt;/sup&gt;

there is for him the "know Him"

(knowledge of G‑d)

he may consequently already do the physical matters also in the innerness of the heart — one says about this,

that after all this,

since they are still "deeds of <b>you</b>" and "ways of <b>you</b>"

(deeds

and the ways of <b>man</b>),

they must therefore be done "without heart and heart"⁵³,

not with both levels of the heart — the externality of the heart and the internality of the heart — but only with the externality of the heart: the internality of the heart must be used only for matters of holiness⁵⁴.

And here Rashi adds that the definition of the prohibition of "Do not offer upon it burnt-offering and meal-offering, etc.",

which in the spiritual service in the soul of man means that one may not use the internality of the heart for worldly matters,

is — "the altar is sanctified for these things alone

(and consequently)

and not for other service".

That worldly matters

(even when they are "for the sake of heaven" and even in the manner of "elevation"),

must be so "far" from the internality of the heart,

that one should not need to negate them at all — in the manner that one does not need to negate that a wisdom cannot be touched with the hands⁵⁵

(that the very act of negating a certain thing,

this itself shows that the thing has some connection, only one must negate it⁵⁶),

but that they should be automatically negated from the internality of the heart: through the fact that his internality is "sanctified for these things alone",

he is united with Torah and commandments in the ultimate unity

(in a manner of "alone")

— he is automatically not related to anything else — even not to a thing that is called "service" — because that is an "other service".

11.

According to the above, it is also understandable the reason — in the inner aspect of the matters — that the two warnings "Do not offer upon it etc." and "Do not pour upon it" are counted in the count of the commandments as <b>one</b> prohibition — although

(From the aspect of the severity of the prohibition³⁷)

"<b>Divided</b> the verse to transgress upon it with <b>two</b> prohibitions":

The division into commandments,

That which they are in the count of 613,

Is in the level of commandments as they are drawn in the aspect of revelation,

Then they are "<b>paths</b> of Havayah"⁵⁸

plural language — "613 paths".

Different is when commandments are from the aspect of the Commander,

the Master of the will,

there they are "<b>the path</b> of the righteous"⁵⁹

singular language — "one path"⁶⁰.

There are however commandments that even after they are drawn into the aspect of revelation of the will,

there is felt in them more revealed the power of the commandment.

And one can say that this is the reason that "Do not go up" and "Do not sprinkle" are not divided into two separate commandments — because even as they are drawn into revelation they are connected with the innerness of the heart where the essence of the soul resides,

the aspect of yechidah,

which is unified with the Essence.

Regarding <b>reward and punishment in spirituality</b>,

which spirituality is connected with revelations,

it is indeed "the verse assigned it to be transgressed by two prohibitions"

(which demonstrates <b>even more</b> severity in the prohibition — and consequently more in reward and punishment <b>spiritual</b>)

But in the counting of the commandments

(which pertains to the command itself)

and likewise regarding lashes

(beating a Jewish <b>body</b>,

which a Jewish body is connected with Essence⁶¹)

— it is only one prohibition — beyond division.

12.

Since all matters of the revealed part of the Torah

(not only the laws themselves,

but also the methods of study)

are descended from their essence in the inner dimension of the Torah,

it is therefore understandable that the revelation of the Essential Will — beyond division,

is drawn down specifically during the negation of worldly matters from the innerness of the heart in the service of man,

is in a manner of incidentally.

— so as in nigleh,

that that which "lo ta'alu" and "lo taskhu" count as one lav,

is it from the side of that which the geder ha'issur by them is a result of "mekudash ladvarim ha'ellu bilvad",

as above section 8.

The explanation in this is:

In the innerness of the heart itself there are two levels⁶²

a)

“Illumination of the point of the heart” — and in general,

the level of chayah — which still has a connection to the revealed faculties.

Is in this level,

although it is higher than the service of clarification,

nevertheless the matters of the world

(which one needs to clarify)

have some place of grasp,

and one must negate them

b)

“Essence of the point of the heart” — and in general,

the aspect of Yechidah — which has no connection whatsoever to the revealed faculties.

And consequently, the matters of the world are negated there in a manner of automatically.

And this is the explanation in that which the essential will that is above division is revealed specifically during the time that the matters of the world are negated in a manner of automatically:

As long as the matters of the world still have some place-occupation by him and he must negate them,

it is a proof that by him was revealed only the aspect of chayah which is not yet united in the ultimate union with Atzmus;

Specifically when by him all matters besides Elokus are — in the manner of "avodah acheres" — and negated in a way of automatically,

from the revelation of the aspect of yechidah

(in which there are no inclinations etc.),

then he comes to the revelation of the ratzon atzmi,

because yechidah is united with "Yochid" — "embraced and cleaving to You etc. yechidah to unify You"⁶⁴.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Tetzaveh 5725)