English translation — אחרי ב

1.

In this week's Torah portion,

after the verse tells all the details of the commandments — about the order of the service of Yom Kippur — which the Almighty said to Moses that he should convey them to Aaron,

he concludes¹

: "And he did as the Lord commanded Moses."

Rashi comments on "And he did as the Lord commanded etc.,"

and explains: When Yom Kippur arrived, he did according to this order,

and to tell the praise of Aaron that he did not wear them²

for his own greatness but rather as one fulfilling the decree of the King.

say commentators<sup>3</sup>,

that Rashi is here explaining two separate things: with the words "when Yom Kippur arrived he did according to this order" he explains,

that "and he did as the Lord commanded etc." was not immediately after he was commanded —

(for the command was "after the death of Aaron's two sons")

i.

e.

Rosh Chodesh Nisan or at least close<sup>4</sup>

to Rosh Chodesh Nisan,

and the doing could not be before Yom Kippur; and with "and to tell His praise etc." Rashi explains why the verse at all lets us hear with "and he did etc."<sup>5</sup>.

Based on this, however, it is not understood<sup>8</sup>

a)

In general,

when Rashi explains in a certain word two <b>separate</b> matters,

he divides his commentary into <b>two</b> utterances

(by repeating the wording of the verse before the second matter).

Now why in our verse does Rashi include two separate matters — the <b>time</b> of "vayaas" and the <b>novelty</b> of "vayaas" — in one and the same utterance beginning?

b)

Moreover: the first matter

(the time)

relates to the <b>word</b> <b>vayaas</b>,

the second matter

(the novelty)

— relates to the entire conclusion of the <b>verse</b> — should certainly have been two separate utterances.

3)

Earlier there is an explicit verse about all these matters that are in the portion,

that they must be done "in the seventh month, on the tenth of the month"⁸.

So it is <b>self-understood</b>,

that Aaron did it on Yom Kippur.

What then does Rashi <b>innovate</b> with his commentary "when Yom Kippur arrived"?

4)

According to the above, that at the beginning of his commentary Rashi explains only the <b>time</b> of the doing — he should have said only "when Yom Kippur arrived".

Why does he add the words "he did in this order"?

One must say,

that also with <b>these</b> words he explains what is the content in "vayaas"

But this itself requires explanation: from where would it enter one's mind that Aharon performed a <b>different</b> order of service — <b>not</b> "as <b>Hashem commanded</b> Moshe",

so that the verse would need to <b>renew</b> "asah kaseder hazeh"⁹?

And furthermore: since Rashi assumes that "he did according to this order" is indeed a novelty,

he could seemingly learn that the entire novelty in the verse consists <b>only</b> in that "he did according to this order".

What does Rashi add — and from where does he take it — that the verse also comes "to tell His praise etc. that he did not wear them for his greatness etc."?

And so one can also ask conversely: since Rashi learns that the verse "And he made etc." comes "to tell His praise etc." — why does he also need to say

(or from where is the proof that)

"he did according to this order"?

2.

So the explanation of all this is:

The entire portion

(beginning from the start of the sedra),

including also "And this shall be to you for a statute forever etc." — the beginning of <b>our</b> verse,

was said

(as above section 1)

in proximity to Rosh Chodesh Nissan.

and consequently there would be a place to say,

that also the "and he did G‑d" that stands in the same verse with "and it was this G‑d one time in a year",

was immediately after the command about this

(and <b>not</b> on Yom Kippur — a half year later.

and especially that also the portions <b>after</b>,

"and G‑d spoke a man a man G‑d" until the beginning of Bamidbar,

were said in the time until the first of the second month — a <b>duration of time before</b> Yom Kippur)

and although it is not possible to say that Aaron should <b>actually</b> do the command before Yom Kippur — but we will learn,

that with "and he did" here it means that Aaron <b>accepted</b> upon himself to do the service — analogous to "and they went and they did" that stands in parshas Bo¹⁰

— and <b>this</b> indeed was immediately when he heard the command

— Therefore Rashi explains "when Yom Kippur arrived",

with which he innovates that the interpretation of "vayaas" here is according to its simple meaning,

and not as in Parsha Bo.

And Rashi's compulsion to this

(although according to this it turns out that the same verse speaks about two separate times),

is understood <b>simply</b>: in Parsha Bo¹⁰

the verse <b>innovates</b> with the language "vayaasu" — "since they accepted upon themselves, Scripture credits them as if they did".

But after the verse already says it in Parsha Bo,

it is already understood automatically that also Aharon — since he accepted upon himself, it is as if he did.

So what does the verse need to tell us¹¹?

Therefore Rashi teaches "when Yom Kippur arrived",

and the interpretation of "vayaas" here is <b>according to its simple meaning*</b><b>¹¹</b>

But the student asks: also according to the interpretation of "vayaas" in its simple sense, it is also difficult: — what is the novelty in that Aharon did "as Hashem commanded etc."?

Therefore Rashi continues "he did in this order and to tell his praise etc.",

that according to this interpretation, the novelty is indeed understandable,

because the verse is here to teach two things:

(a)

"he did in this order",

and

(b)

"to tell his praise etc. that he did not wear them for his own greatness but as one fulfilling the decree of the King".

And the explanation of this:

3.

On the verse "And Aharon came to the Tent of Meeting",

Rashi says "Our Sages said that this is not the place of this verse ..

The entire section was said in order except for this matter etc."

And this is indeed the verse here by us that innovates with "and he did as the Lord commanded etc. — he did in the order of this",

that Aharon did it with the order that

(I — Rashi told you,

that)

already stands earlier in the commentary of Rashi — even though Moshe Rabbeinu told him

the commands in a different order,

not in the order that they stand in the Torah.

But with this Rashi cannot finish his commentary,

because it is,

at first glance,

the opposite of the plain meaning of Scripture: the innovation in "he did in the order of this" according to this is,

that Aharon did not in the order that the Omnipresent said to Moshe.

Now how can one say about this "and he did as the Lord commanded Moshe"?

Therefore Rashi says "and to tell His praise etc. like one who fulfills the king's decree",

that that which by "vayaas" — whose function is "he did according to the order of &lt;b&gt;this&lt;/b&gt;" — the verse says the expression "as the L-rd commanded etc.",

the main point and emphasis is not in "as" but in "commanded",

with this he intends to say that Aharon did it only because of that which "the L-rd commanded" — "like one who fulfills the king's decree".

D.

But Rashi also does not intend to teach that with "vayaas etc." the verse intends to relate &lt;b&gt;only&lt;/b&gt; "that he did not wear them for his own greatness etc.",

because the praise fits

only regarding the matter of wearing the garments — as Rashi says "that he did not &lt;b&gt;wear them&lt;/b&gt; for his own greatness" — because of that which the priestly garments are "for honor and for glory"&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;,

but not regarding the other commandments in the portion.

And since by "vayaas" are indeed meant &lt;b&gt;all&lt;/b&gt; the commandments&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;

of the portion,

therefore Rashi teaches that the main explanation of vayaas is he did —

(all the commandments)

in this order&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;.

Only the expression "as the L-rd commanded" comes — "to tell&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;

His praise etc. like one who fulfills the king's decree".

Another reason why one cannot learn that "vayaas Hashem" means <b>only</b> "to praise Him etc.",

will be understood by way of introduction:

When Rashi explains the praise of Aharon, that he put on the garments not for his own greatness,

he uses the wording "she'lo haya <b>lovshan</b> l'gedulato"

(and not as in Toras Kohanim — "she'lo haya lovesh begadim"²¹).

4.

5.

5.

That he <b>them</b> — <b>the</b> garments that are in the parshah²²

— did not put on for his own greatness.

What by this he means to bring out,

that

(That the eight garments

(which: a)

he wore a whole year and b)

they include also the golden garments)

he wore not for his greatness — there is in this no novelty and <b>not</b> in this consists the praise of Aaron.

But)

That which <b>the</b> white linen garments

(of Yom Kippur)

he wore not for his greatness — <b>th</b><b>at</b> is the praise of Aaron.

One must understand: The golden garments are seemingly more precious than the garments

(of linen)

linen²³

the golden garments <b>before</b> the linen garments

(linen)].

Then why should the novelty and praise "that he did not wear them for his greatness" be in the white linen garments more than in the golden garments²⁵?

And why only the white linen garments of Yom Kippur?

Is the explanation in this:

Regarding the golden garments,

had Malchus initially not been able to have any thought that Aharon puts them on for his own greatness

(because of <b>his</b> greatness,

not because of greatness — honor and glory — of the high priesthood in general)

— because the same garments could afterwards put on

(he himself — when he stands in a different level,

or)

the High Priest who is after him

(although he stands in a lower level).

Is therefore clear,

that this is not for his own greatness

(of Aharon)

; the same — regarding the white garments of the entire year;

But not so the white garments that he put on on Yom Kippur,

because

(as Rashi says <b>earlier</b><b>²⁶</b>

"he shall not use those four garments for another Yom Kippur",

he can therefore think: if the garments are related to the matter of the high priesthood <b>in general</b>

(or <b>in general</b> to the service of Yom Kippur and the like)

why may he not put on in the next year the same garments that he wore the previous year?

So from this it is seemingly forced,

that the garments are for his grandeur,

and since a person changes from time to time

(from year to year),

he must therefore have each year different linen garments on Yom Kippur²⁷

— and about this the verse tells the praise of Aaron,

that also the white garments that he changed from year to year — "he did not wear them for his grandeur etc."

6.

And based on all the above, it is simply understood what Rashi does not want to teach, that with "vayaas" the verse means <b>only</b> the novel point "that he did not wear them for his own grandeur":

The praise "that he did not wear them etc.",

is primarily at the <b>second</b> Yom Kippur,

when one will see²⁸

that he puts on <b>new</b> garments.

But the simple interpretation of "vayaas etc." is,

that this

(with all the matters that are in it)

was "when the Day of Atonement arrived" — immediately at the <b>first</b> Yom Kippur.

Therefore Rashi teaches that the <b>main</b> interpretation of "vayaas" is "when arrived

(the first)

Yom Kippur he did according to this order".

Only that which it says the wording "as the Lord commanded etc." is — to tell the praise of Aaron that he did not wear them for his own grandeur but rather as one fulfilling the decree of the King".

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Acharei, 5730)