English translation — אחרי א

A.

At the beginning of the section Rashi stands on "And God spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron etc." and asks: "What does it come to teach" ¹

— Why does the verse need to relate that the speech was "after the death of the two sons of Aaron" ²

; What is relevant to know when the speech came ³

— And he answers: "It is taught: Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah gave a parable: To a sick person whom a doctor visited,

He said to him: Do not eat cold food and do not lie in a damp place.

Another came and said to him: Do not eat cold food and do not lie in a damp place, lest you die as so-and-so died,

This one,

urged him more than the first,

Therefore it is said 'after the death of the two sons of Aaron' — so the words "after the death of the two sons of Aaron" are

(Not merely a narration of <b>when</b> the speech was,

but also)

A <b>part</b> ⁴

of the speech itself ⁵

: The Almighty said to Moses,

That in his words to Aaron "And he shall not come etc.",

He should remind him about the death of his sons

(As Rashi explains in the second verse: "And God said to Moses: Speak to Aaron your brother and he shall not come — lest he die as his sons died")

— In the manner of the second doctor,

Who by adding "lest you die as so-and-so died" he urges the sick person more than the first doctor who says only "Do not eat etc."

One must understand: Why does Rashi need to give a parable of <b>two</b> doctors

(That the first said only "Do not eat etc." and the second added "lest you die as so-and-so died")

— He could have said only,

That when a doctor adds "lest you die as so-and-so died" he thereby urges the sick person more than when he tells him the command alone?

B.

Commentators say⁶,

that with the question "What does the verse come to teach?",

Rashi intends to ask

(only ⁷)

because the verse tells that the speech was said "after the death of Aaron's two sons",

but

(also ⁷)]

— why does the verse "And the Lord spoke to Moses etc." appear here at all: after the verse tells the time of the speech, does it not <b>again</b> state "And the Lord said to Moses"?

And to this Rashi answers "A parable of a sick person etc.",

that the two speeches — "And the Lord spoke to Moses" and "And the Lord said to Moses" — were two separate commands analogous to the two doctors: "And the Lord said to Moses etc. 'And let him not come etc.'",

is like the first doctor who only warned "Do not eat cold and do not lie on damp ground"; and "And the Lord spoke to Moses <b>after the death</b> <b>of Aaron's two sons etc.</b>" — analogous to the second doctor who added "that you should not die as so-and-so died" — and was said after "And the Lord said".

But this explanation is very difficult: a)

According to the above,

the question "What does the verse come to teach"

(not only because the verse <b>must</b> stand,

but also)

that the verse has no meaning: it says "And the Lord spoke to Moses" and it does not say <b>what</b> He spoke to him.

But from Rashi's wording "What does it come to teach"

and Rashi <b>changes</b> from the wording of Torat Kohanim ⁸

and writes "What does it come to teach"],

it is evident⁹

that he is troubled only by the <b>superfluity</b> of the verse — but the <b>meaning</b> of the verse is correct to him¹⁰.

Because according to the plain meaning,

this is repeating again "vayomer"

but],

because since after "vayedaber Hashem el Moshe" the verse interrupts with "acharei mot shnei bnei Aharon etc." — he repeats again "vayomer Hashem el Moshe"¹¹,

but it is "it is the same speech itself stated above"¹².

b)

The explanation that earlier was "vayomer Hashem etc. ve'al yavo etc." and afterwards "vayedaber etc. acharei mot etc."

(which stands earlier than "vayomer")

— is far from the plain meaning,

and consequently it is difficult to say that Rashi

(who explains the plain meaning of Scripture)

should learn it thus — not stating this explicitly¹³.

According to the above explanation of the verse, it turns out,

that "And He said etc." is analogous to the first doctor who said "Do not eat cold etc." <b>plainly</b>.

But Rashi explains in the verse "And He said etc." "<b>that he should not die in the way that his sons died</b> ¹⁴

3)

3.

In addition to the question why Rashi brings an example of <b>two</b> doctors

(and as above that according to the simple explanation there was only <b>one</b> statement,

and "And He said" is "the same statement itself that was said above"),

it is also not understood:

A)

The essence of the matter is that adding "that you should not die in the way that so-and-so died" gives more encouragement,

is a matter understood <b>simply</b>,

and it seemingly does not require a parable for this.

Now what is there

(Ibn Ezra and)

Rashi <b>innovates</b> with the "parable of a sick person etc."?

B)

When one already wants to bring a parable,

the parable does not necessarily have to be from a sick person: also a healthy person, when one tells him that he should a certain thing

(which, i.e., endangers the person)

not do,

and one adds to him "that you should not die in the way that so-and-so died" — he will guard himself much more strongly,

than when one would tell him the command <b>without</b> the addition*¹⁴.

What necessitates Rashi to emphasize "parable of a <b>sick person</b>"?

The question is even stronger: when one gives a parable for a certain matter,

even if the parable is necessary only to explain one detail of the allegory

(because the other details are understood by themselves — also without the parable),

one endeavors to give a parable in which also the other details correspond to the allegory

(all the more so a parable from <b>Torah</b>,

in which all details correspond to the allegory).

So from this it is understood,

that what

Rashi gives a parable of a command to a sick person

(one who is sick from before — not like the aforementioned parable of a command to a healthy person,

where the entire concern "lest he die" is only if he will <b>not</b> fulfill the command),

he means thereby to hint that also in the allegory it is likewise: that Aharon possessed a sickness and deficiency,

so to speak,

before they told him "And he shall not come at all times into the Holy [Place], etc."

Is entirely not understood: what kind of deficiency and illness did Aharon have?

g)

There are indeed a <b>great many</b> things which can, heaven forbid, harm and bring to death, may the Merciful One protect us.

Why does it choose

(Ramban and)

(Ibn Ezra and)

Rashi "Do not eat cold food and do not sleep on damp ground"?

What is the reason that Rashi brings specifically here also the name of the author of the maamar?

d)

4.

The explanation of all the above,

will become understandable by prefacing a difficulty in the entirety of the matter:

By &lt;b&gt;several &lt;/b&gt;commandments in the Torah,

stands only the commandment itself and it is thereby not at all mentioned any punishment for not fulfilling the commandment.

Even the commandments by which there is indeed the punishment — but it is thereby not mentioned "in the manner that so-and-so died".

Even by the commandment "wine and intoxicating drink do not drink" &lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;

which was also said after the death of the two sons of Aaron and that their death came about because "those who were intoxicated with wine entered the Sanctuary"&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;

-stands only "and you shall not die",

it stands however not "in the manner that Nadav and Avihu died".

Thus the question becomes: why by this command "ואל יבא בכל עת אל הקדש" is a special urging required — that one should say to Aharon "שלא ימות &lt;b&gt;כדרך שמתו בניו&lt;/b&gt;",

more than by &lt;b&gt;all&lt;/b&gt; other commands?

And especially like "יין ושכר אל תשת" which comes &lt;b&gt;before&lt;/b&gt;?

So this question is answered by Rashi with "משל &lt;b&gt;לחולה&lt;/b&gt; etc.": from the parable it is understood,

that if one had said to Aharon the command "ואל יבא בכל עת" — without adding to it "שלא ימות כדרך שמתו בניו",

there would be a place for him not to fulfill the command — analogous to a sick person,

for whom the command of the first doctor "אל תאכל צונן ואל תשכב בטחב" alone is not enough for him,

and he must come to the addition "שלא ימות כדרך שמת פלוני"

(as below section 5).

And therefore Rashi brings a parable of <b>two</b> doctors — because through the parable of the first doctor,

Rashi intends to bring out that the command of the first doctor — is indeed for the patient <b>not</b> sufficient.

H.

A patient, may he be spared,

has much fever,

much more than usual

(a high temperature).

And the fever is in him so great,

that he nourishes himself from the fever.

Because of this,

is a patient who cannot eat until "all food their soul abhors" ¹⁷,

he can live from that which "the fire sustains" ¹⁸

— the fever nourishes him.

And-the strong heat brings him to this, that he should have a great desire to quench the heat — by eating cold things or by being in a cold place.

And his desire is so great,

that even when a doctor tells him "do not eat cold and do not lie on damp ground",

it is right that he should not obey him

(although in all other commands he does obey the doctor — he wants, after all, to become healthy).

Only when the doctor frightens him "lest you die in the way that so-and-so died",

does it spur him to obey the doctor's command — despite his great thirst for eating cold and lying on damp ground.

And the same is in connection with Aaron: Aaron had a great desire and thirst for the Above — <b>sick</b> with love¹⁹

(and especially after his opening of the Tent of Meeting repeatedly day and night for seven days²⁰),

and consequently,

it drew him to enter into the Holy of Holies.

And from the side of his great thirst for Godliness,

it was right that without the addition "lest he die in the way that his sons died",

he would not have been able to effect within himself to refrain from going into the Holy of Holies — despite the command "and let him not come, etc.".

And therefore they <b>had to</b> add "after the death of the two sons of Aaron".

6.

Why does Rashi give <b>two</b> examples — "Do not eat cold" and "Do not sleep on dampness"?

In this command "And he shall not come into the Sanctuary",

there are two details: a)

"And he shall not come <b>at all times</b>" — that even by offering "a young bull for a sin-offering etc.",

he should not enter the Sanctuary at all times

(except on Yom Kippur)²¹.

b)

"With this shall he come etc." — that also on Yom Kippur he cannot enter the Sanctuary unless "with a young bull for a sin-offering etc.",

as explained in the portion²².

And on the two commandments,

come in the parable the examples "Do not eat cold food" and "Do not lie on damp ground":

Eating cold food,

has a much greater effect on the patient than lying on damp ground, because through eating cold food he takes into himself the cold,

in his inwardness

(and the cold food becomes indeed blood and flesh like his own flesh).

But not so by lying on damp ground — the cold is indeed outside of him.

And the greater effect through eating cold [food] regarding lying on damp [ground],

is in both matters: both in its temporary alleviation,

that eating cold [food] extinguishes his heat more than lying on damp [ground]; and in the danger that comes, may G-d forbid, through this.

And therefore the <b>first</b> warning that the doctor tells him is — "Do not eat cold [food]" and only afterwards does he tell him "Do not lie on damp [ground]",

because

(a)

eating cold [food] is more dangerous,

and

(b)

the desire of the sick person for it is greater.

These two matters,

are a parable for the two commands "And he shall not come <b>at all</b> times" and "<b>With this</b> he shall come": the command not to enter the Holy of Holies "at all times"

(even)

to offer sacrifices — is analogous to <b>eating</b> cold [food],

because sacrifices are indeed compared and called "bread" ³³

and "eating" ²⁴

; and the command "<b>With this</b> he shall come" that he should not <b>enter</b> the Holy of Holies without sacrifices

(even on Yom Kippur)

— is analogous to lying on mold,

because the entry into the Holy of Holies

(not <b>performing</b> thereby any service)

its essence is — being in a specific place,

a holy place,

analogous to lying on mold whose essence is merely to be in a cold place,

but not to internalize the cold into an inwardness ²³.

7.

After all the above,

there still remains a question: where do we find that by Aaron there was such a great thirst,

so that if not for the addition "that he should not die in the way that his sons died" it would be correct that he should transgress the command of the Holy One, blessed be He?

By Nadav and Avihu — we find it indeed,

but not by Aaron!

So a strong difficulty it is indeed not.

For from the very fact that they had to add to him "that you should not die <b>in the way</b> etc." it is proven that by him there was a great thirst.

In addition: because by Nadav and Avihu,

whose closeness came about through "Bring near to you Aaron your brother"

(and afterwards)

and his sons <b>with him</b>²⁶,

there was a very great thirst for Godliness,

it is logical that by Aaron it was even more²⁷.

But nevertheless it is not entirely simple²⁸

— therefore Rashi says "Ibn Ezra <b>Ibn Ezra</b> told a parable etc.",

that by saying that the "parable of the sick person" was given by Ibn Ezra,

he hints at the answer to the aforementioned question,

as follows.

8.

About R. Abba,

the Gemara relates²⁰

that when he was still very young — eighteen years

(or sixteen years ³⁰)

— they appointed him as a "Rosh Metivta",

because of all the virtues that he possessed: a wise man,

a rich man,

and a man of lineage

(tenth generation from Ezra).

When they wanted to appoint him,

he consulted with his wife.

She dissuaded him from it,

saying "Lit lakh chivarta"

(You do not have white hair).

A miracle occurred,

and "Ahdru lei tmanei srei dari chivarta".

The question arises: with the claim "you have no white hair" she meant that he is still very young and is therefore not fit to be a rosh yeshiva,

— the advantage of an elder in <b>years</b> — which is proven by three white hairs

(and especially in connection with a rosh yeshiva³¹)

is,

as it is written³²

and many years will teach wisdom³³.

And <b>this</b> matter of wisdom — which comes through "many years",

cannot be obtained through another manner.

Because even a person of the most elevated talents and the greatest diligence,

he lacks the abundance of wisdom that comes through many years

(because it is indeed "much have I received from my teachers, much have I received from my colleagues, and from my students more than all of them"³⁴

— and being young,

all these matters cannot yet be),

— Today, what helped that "Achdaru li tmanei srei d'ri chivarta" and he looked like an old man?

The question is even greater: the Gemara

relates the order that was then

(before Rabban Gamliel was appointed),

that "any student whose inside is not like his outside shall not enter the study hall."

Today, if regarding the students they were particular that it should be their inside like their outside,

then certainly regarding the head of the yeshivah it will not help that he looks like an old man,

when in truth he is quite young.

And another great wonder: all those who wanted to appoint him, why did it not bother them that "you have no white hair"?

And why did it not bother Rabbi Akiva — before his wife told him?

One must say,

that what "a miracle occurred for him and eighteen years of white hair returned to him",

did

(also)

show everyone that <b>his inside</b> — <b></b>

(in his inwardness)

he has the quality of an elder.

And this is the explanation of what "she said to him, 'You have no white hair, etc.' a miracle occurred for him, etc.": his wife argued to him that he lacked the quality of wisdom that comes through many years; and the "a miracle occurred for him" showed to everyone — what the appointees knew from before — that he also possesses that quality of wisdom — even though he was still very young.

Also Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah knew it

(according to the honor and his row³⁶

in the study hall,

and the like)

— but when the woman said to him "you have no, etc." — it is understandable that

(out of his humility)

a doubt etc. arose in him.

So the question is: how was it indeed with him the matter of wisdom that comes specifically through "many years"?

One must say,

that his wisdom was connected with his lineage that he is "tenth to Ezra"; the wisdom of his parents

came also to him ³⁷

— by inheritance.

In a somewhat different manner: since he merited a son in wisdom — whether because the nature of the son is similar to the nature of the father ³⁸

or because of the righteousness and merit of the father ³⁹

— he had an extraordinary <b>power</b> of wisdom and in a short time of toil he arrived at the "make known wisdom" more ⁴⁰

than others arrive during "many years"⁴¹.

9.

And this Rashi emphasizes that the "parable of the sick person" which brings out that by Aharon there was the matter of "sick with love" — said <b>Ibn Ezra</b>:

Ibn Ezra saw,

from his own life,

how lineage helps

(not only to traits of the soul and body,

like talents and heroism,

but also)

even to wisdom <b>in actuality</b>,

although this is a thing that comes through one's own effort,

and as our Rabbis of blessed memory said ⁴²

If you have not toiled and found, do not believe, and Torah is indeed not an inheritance to you.⁴³

And from this he took,

that so is this also regarding love of G‑d,

that although the person must himself toil &lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;,

nevertheless,

has a great effect also the inheritance from fathers,

the family from which he descends.

And therefore he held that the great thirst for the Above by Nadav and Avihu

(which was so great,

until that they went out from this in utter self-nullification — "in their approaching before G‑d and they died" &lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;)

— it was connected with that they were — as the verse interprets here — "&lt;b&gt;sons of Aharon&lt;/b&gt;"; and since so,

it is thus understandable,

that also Aharon — &lt;b&gt;their father&lt;/b&gt; — had such a thirst,

and perhaps an even greater one.

Yud.

Like all stories of Torah

(from the word teaching &lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt;),

so also the story "And G‑d spoke to Moshe after the death of the two sons of Aharon etc." — is an eternal teaching for every Jew,

in every time and in every place &lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt;

Although one demands of a Jew that he be <b>in</b> the world and carry out the intention of "The Holy One, blessed be He, desired

to have for Himself

a dwelling place <b>in the lower realms</b>",

it must however by him always be in a manner of "<b>And against your will</b> you are alive"

: his thirst and desire must be — to go out from everyday life and go into the Holy of Holies; and his holding himself back from doing this in practice — must be only because of the command

(and urging)

that one must make a dwelling place for Him, blessed be He, <b>in the lower realms.</b>

Yes.

But the question arises: A Jew must be "his inside like his outside",

and when he does a certain service — he must do it <b>with inwardness</b>.

So it is therefore understandable,

that also the service "<b>And</b> he shall not come at all times into the sanctuary",

he must do not in a perfunctory manner but indeed truly want,

in the inwardness of his soul,

to carry out the intention of making a dwelling place for Him, blessed be He, in the lower realms.

So if one would demand from a Jew that he should effect in himself,

that the longing to come to the holy should be <b>not</b> in him — there would be no question: a Jew is nullified to the Above,

and if the Above tells him “<b>do not</b> come” — he does not want to go;

But when one tells him that he should <b>yes</b> have the longing

(and the longing must be in him with truth⁵²),

and nevertheless it is “do not come”

(and also the fulfillment of the command “do not come” should be in him in inwardness),

so how can he effect in himself that both wills — to go to the holy and not to go to the holy — should be in him with truth?

On this the verse says "And God spoke to Moses etc. Speak to Aaron your brother etc.": so that among a Jew

(since every Jew has the command "Be of the disciples of Aaron" ⁵³)

should be both the aforementioned movements

("ratzo" and "shov"),

and both <b>inwardly</b> — he must listen to the speech of Moses:

While he stands in <b>his</b> own existence,

it is indeed not possible that he should want — with <b>truth</b> — two opposites.

When however⁵⁴

he gives himself over to Moses our teacher,

and the extension of Moses that is in every generation⁵⁵,

then he has no will of his own at all,

and his entire will is — the supernal will,

And consequently,

since the Almighty desires that with Him there should be both movements

(and by the Almighty, two opposite movements are indeed no contradiction,

for He is indeed the bearer of opposites),

it consequently becomes opened also by the Jew,

that the desire for both movements should be <b>in the inwardness of his soul</b>,

and he should not be confused at all that the two movements are opposites — since his entire desire is solely the supernal desire.

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Acharei 5725)