Vol 16.37 - Tetzaveh 1                 Spanish French Audio  Video

Page 328   Page329   Page330   Page331   Page332   Page333   Page334   Page335  

Translation:

1. regarding the verse in our Parsha (Ex. 28:32):

“And you shall make the robe of the ephod completely of blue wool”

The verse states:

“Its opening shall have a border around it, the work of a weaver. It shall have (an opening) like the opening of a coat of armor; it shall not be torn”.

Rashi comments on the words “it shall not be torn” and states:

“In order that it will not be torn, and the one who tears it transgresses a Negative commandment, etc.” (as will be explained in Par. 2).

It is not understood:

From Rashi’s statement (in the beginning of his comment) that, “it shall not be torn” means “in order that it will not be torn”, it is clear that Rashi maintains that, “it shall not be torn” is not an independent aspect (and command), but rather it is a reason for what is stated previously in the verse – “its opening shall have a border around it, the work of a weaver . . (in order that) it not be torn”.

Therefore, why does Rashi add subsequent to this,

(and with the letter “Vav”, signifying that is adding)

“And one who tears it transgresses a Negative commandment” (והקורעו עובר בלאו), which according to this, the words, “it shall not be torn” (are not a reason, but rather) a command, an independent Negative command (Lav).

This puzzlement is even greater:

In the Talmud, it indeed states:

“Rachava said that R’ Yehuda said: One who tears any of the priestly vestments transgresses a prohibition and is flogged, as it states (concerning the robe): “it shall not be torn”. R’ Acha bar Yaakov objected, perhaps this is what the Merciful One is saying in the Torah: An opening should be made in order that it not tear. The Talmud rejects this: Is it written: In order that it not be torn? (שלא יקרע)”.

This means that translating, “it shall not be torn” as “in order that it not be torn” is contradictory to saying that it is a prohibition.

(Therefore, we indeed find, in the commentators on the Torah, two opinions:

• Some say that “it shall not be torn” is just a reason for the previous (words of the verse),
• While others translate that it is an independent prohibition.)

It is puzzling:

How is it that Rashi combines two contradictory explanations in the very same comment?

2. After this Rashi comments:

“For this is (counted) in the number of the Negative commandments in the Torah. Likewise, ‘and the Choshen will not move’ (v. 28), and likewise, ‘they shall not be removed from it’ (Ex. 25:15), which is mentioned regarding the poles of the Ark”.

Plainly, it comes out that with the addition, “For this is (counted) in the number of the Negative commandments in the Torah”, Rashi wants to bring a proof that “it shall not be torn” is a prohibition – even though the implication of the verse (as Rashi cites in the beginning of his comment) is “in order that it not be torn”.

It is not understood:

Rashi’s explanation is based on the simple meaning of the verse. Therefore, where does Rashi infer from the simple meaning of the verses that “it shall not be torn” is “counted in the number of the Negative commandments in the Torah”?

(It is indeed true, that the aspect of the number of Mitzvot, in general, is already cited in Rashi’s commentary on Torah. Therefore, there is a place for this in the simple meaning of the verse. However, there is, seemingly, no necessity, in the simple meaning of the verses, that the prohibition, “it shall not be torn”, is included in the count).

3. Even more problematic is the conclusion of Rashi’s explanation,

“Likewise, ‘and the Choshen will not move’ and likewise, ‘they shall not be removed from it’ which is mentioned regarding the poles of the Ark”.

The commentators state that by citing the two verses, Rashi wants to bring an example to his explanation, that “it shall not be torn” is both an independent prohibition as well as a reason (“in order that it not be torn”). For even in those verses, the simple explanation of “will not move” and “they shall not be removed from it” is – “in order that it not be moved“, and “in order that they not be removed”. And these are two independent prohibitions which are included in the count of the prohibitions.

It is not understood:

(in addition to the question (cited above in Par. 2):

Even there (in those places), where does Rashi infer, from the simple meaning of the verses, that they are “counted in the number of the Negative commandments in the Torah”?)

On the verses, “will not move” and “they shall not be removed”, Rashi does not comment that they are a reason and an independent prohibition.

Therefore, it is questionable, no matter which option you choose (ממ״נ):

• If there is a difficulty in explaining that, “it shall not be torn”, both as a reason as well as a prohibition, Rashi should have commented on the words, “they shall not be removed from it” and “will not move” which are stated beforehand in the Chumash.

• And if Rashi maintains that there is no difficulty in this very comment

(On the contrary: it is so simple, that Rashi does not have to explain it, at all, for a “five-year old student” will himself, grasp the meaning),

why must Rashi explain it in our verse (and in addition, cite proofs to his explanation)?

4. Regarding the first question (above in par. 1), the commentators explain:

According to the simple meaning of the verse, it must come out that “it shall not be torn”

(and also, “will not move” and “they shall not be removed”)

is not a command, but a reason for the previous words of the verse.

However, if this would just mean a reason, it should have stated, “so that it not tear” (שלא יקרע) (as the Talmud indeed asks).

Since it states, “it shall not (לא) be torn” (and also “will not (ולא) move” and “they shall not (לא) be removed from it”) it proves (געדרונגען) that the Torah is alluding, with this, two-fold meaning (צווייענדיקן באדייט):

1. The simple implication of the verse - a reason for what is stated previously in the verse.
2. A command – “it shall not be torn”.

However, it remains problematic (as aforementioned Par. 3):

Why does Rashi not explain this very issue previously on the verse, “they shall not be removed from it” and “will not move”?

5. The explanation of this is:

According to the manner of the simple meaning (Derech HaPshat), it must come out that “they shall not be removed from it” and “will not move” are not a reason but solely a command and independent prohibition. For, as mentioned above, if it is a reason, it should have stated,

• “So that they shall not (שלא) be removed from it”
• “So that it will not (שלא) move”

(like the Talmud’s question)

And although it does not state using the wording,

“You shall not remove them from it” (לא תסירם), (or “You shall not move it” (ולא תזיח))

which would have meant a command on the person – “You shall not remove them”.

Rather it states, “they shall not be removed from it” (לא יסורו) – that the poles (Badim) should not be removed from the rings (and also “will not move” (ולא יזח)).

It nevertheless, can be translated as a command:

The person must endeavor that the poles should not be removed from the rings (and similarly regarding “will not move”).

The same can apply to the command in the beginning of the verse,

“In the rings of the Ark, must the poles remain”,

which is a command, even though the verse, does not speak regarding a person’s deed (פעולת האדם), rather regarding the poles (“In the rings of the Ark, must the poles remain”).

 However, there is a difference in our verse, which states, “it shall not be torn”

(a Kuf with a Kometz vowel, and a Reish with a Tzeirei vowel (לֹא יִקָּרֵעַ) –

which has the Hebrew construct of a Binyan Nifal (בנין נפעל - an intransitive and passive verb), which then –

if this is a command like “will not move” and “they shall not be removed from it” – must be a change and an addition, more than as is with the command “it shall not be torn”.

As Rashi explains,

(on the verse, “(No work) shall be done on them”)

“Even by others”.

This means that “will not move” and “they shall not be removed from it”

(and also other warnings (אזהרות) regarding the Mishkan and its vessels) –

‘even by others’ does not matter (מאכט ניט אויס)! – according to Pshat, it does not apply (לייגט זיך)

Therefore, Rashi explains, “in order that it would not be torn”:

The change in the wording of the verse here is a reason. For this is not like “they shall not be removed from it” and “will not move”.

However, since it does not state,

“so that it not tear” (שלא יקרע),

but rather “it shall not be torn” (לא יקרע), – it therefore proves that there is both here, a command and independent prohibition (as aforementioned Par. 4).

6. However, it is still not completely understood:

If the Torah indeed wants to convey a command, why is this stated, just as an allusion

(through not stating, “so that it not tear” (שלא יקרע))?

A command must be clearly and explicitly stated!

Therefore, Rashi continues “for this is counted in the number of the Negative commandments in the Torah”:

The reason that “it shall not be torn” also has the meaning of a prohibition, is not in order to inform us regarding the essential prohibition - that one must not tear the robe. This is already known from another place, as will be explained. Rather it is in order that it should be “included in the count of Negative commandments”.

The verse here wishes to include the known prohibition, in the count of the Three hundred and sixty-five Negative Commandments. Therefore, it must have the connotation of a prohibition. This aspect – can be also be stated, just as an allusion.

Where does one know the actual prohibition of not tearing the Robe?

This is understood plainly from a previous verse,

“You shall make holy garments for your brother Aaron, for honor and glory”.

A torn garment is not “for honor and glory”.

7. Seemingly, one could question this:

We find in many places, that the Torah adds a prohibition, “to prohibit multiple times, in order to make one “doubly liable” if transgressed” (לעבור עליו בשני לאוין) and so forth.

Yet nevertheless, they are all stated in the form of a command. Therefore, seemingly also here, an explicit command should have been stated, that one must not tear the Robe (even though the verse wishes to also say that the prohibition is also a Lav)?

Therefore, Rashi forewarns this, by writing,

“one who tears it transgresses a Negative commandment. For this is counted in the number of the Negative commandments in the Torah”.

(and not “And this is counted in the number of the Negative commandments”).

In other words, “For this is counted in the number of the Negative commandments in the Torah” is a reason why “one who tears it transgresses a Negative commandment”.

The reason that one transgresses the Lav is solely because it is “counted in the number of the Negative commandments in the Torah”.

In other places where the Torah adds prohibitions, it is in order to make the prohibition more severe (הארבער) in the person’s feelings. This is with the intent to make it easier for the person to refrain from transgressing the prohibition.

However, the reason that “one who tears it transgresses a Negative commandment” is not in order to make the prohibition more stringent for people. Rather it is because the Torah wishes to count the prohibition of tearing the Robe, among the “count of the number of the Negative commandments”.

And solely as an outcome of this, is it that “one who tears it transgresses a Negative commandment”.

And since the prohibition is not in order to make the prohibition more stringent for people, it is sufficient that the prohibition should be stated in a manner of a hint.

With this, it is also understood why Rashi changes from the words of the Talmud,

“One who tears (any of the priestly vestments) is flogged”,

and writes,

“one who tears it transgresses a Negative commandment”

This emphasis in Rashi is not to convey the severity of the sin of tearing the Robe (so much so that one receives lashes). Rather, on the contrary, the reason that “it shall not be torn” also has the meaning of a Lav, is just an outcome of the prohibition being “(For this is) counted in the number of the Negative commandments in the Torah”.

8. However, it still is not completely straightforward:

Why, specifically here, does the Torah add a Lav solely in order that it be included in the “count of the number of the Negative commandments”?

Therefore, Rashi brings the words,

“Likewise, ‘and the Choshen will not move’, and likewise, ‘they shall not be removed from it’ etc.”

For in these prohibitions, there is no novel concept in the essence of the prohibition. Therefore, one sees that in the work of the Mishkan etc. Scripture wishes to add to the number of prohibitions.

Regarding the Choshen it states:

“And they shall fasten the Choshen . . with a blue cord, so that it may be upon the band of the ephod”

Rashi writes:

“So that the Choshen would be attached to the band of the ephod”.

Thus, one already knows that the Choshen must be attached to the ephod.

So too, regarding the poles of the Ark, it states,

“In the rings of the Ark, must the poles remain”,

Thus, there is already a clear command that the poles must be in the rings of the Ark.

Since the Torah adds the prohibitions, “they shall not be removed from it” and “will not move”, it is a proof that regarding the Mishkan and the Priestly garments, Scripture wishes to add prohibitions.

Therefore, it is already easier to understand, in our case, why the Torah writes,

”it shall not be torn” (and not “so that it not tear” (שלא יקרע))

solely in order to add a prohibition.

9. From the “wondrous aspects” regarding the Halacha, in Rashi’s comment:

Rambam rules that,

“One who tears the border of the opening of the cloak is liable for lashes, as it states: "It shall not be torn." This applies to all the priestly garments. One who tears them with a destructive intent is liable for lashes”.

From the plain wording of Rambam, it comes out that there is a difference between all the other Priestly garments and the Robe:

Regarding all the Priestly garments, one is given lashes, only if one “tears it in the manner of destroying it”. Whereas “One who tears the border of the opening of the cloak is liable for lashes”, in any manner.

There are Acharonim who explain this Rambam:

The reason that one who tears any of the priestly garments receives lashes is because of the prohibition of,

“You shall not do so to the L-rd, your G-d etc.” (and this prohibition is liable solely when done with a “destructive intent”).

Whereas regarding the Robe, the punishment of lashes, is due to the Lav of “it shall not be torn”. Regarding this Lav, one is guilty of lashes, in any manner.

However, as Rashi learns, according to the simple meaning of the verses, the verse adds the prohibition “it shall not be torn”, not in order to add a new prohibition, but rather in order to include this in the “count of the Negative commandments in the Torah”.

According to this, it must come out, that according to Rashi’s view (in his commentary on Torah) there is no difference in the manner of tearing, between the Robe and the other Priestly garments.

10. From the homiletic style of Torah in Rashi's commentary (Yayina shel Torah) one could say:

It is seemingly not understood (according to the inner aspects/ בפנימיות הענינים) why Rashi cites the proof from, “will not move” which is states in our Sidra, before the proof of “they shall not be removed from it” which is stated in the previous Sidra?

Moreover:

Why does Rashi add, a second time, the word “likewise, ‘they shall not be removed from it’ etc. “?

From this it is understood, that the Lav of “they shall not be removed from it” is an additional innovation and one that is a greater innovation than the Lav of “will not move”, which is why Rashi cites it after “will not move” and which is why he repeats the word “and likewise”( וכן).

The explanation of this is:

• (Rashi first states, “it shall not be torn”)

The prohibition of “it shall not be torn” is not a great innovation. It is an understandable thing that one must not damage the Priestly garments.

• Afterward Rashi states,

“Likewise, ‘and the Choshen will not move’”:

Thus, even moving (אפרוקן) the Choshen from the Ephod - even though it does not involve damaging it – is also a prohibition.

 However, one can also understand this, as the verse itself, continues there:

“Thus shall Aaron carry the names of the sons of Israel in the Choshen of judgment over his heart . . as a remembrance before the L-rd at all times.”

• However, the reason for “The poles of the Ark shall be in the rings; they shall not be removed from it” is seemingly not completely understood:

The poles of the Ark were made in order to carry the Ark from place to place. Why therefore, must the poles be in the rings of the Ark, constantly?

On the contrary, plainly, the order should have been that the poles should be inserted into the rings, when the Ark needed to be transported?

Therefore, Rashi (again) states,

“likewise, ‘they shall not be removed from it’, mentioned regarding the poles of the Ark.”

Even removing the poles of the Ark from the rings is a Lav. Moreover, it is a Lav that is exactly like the Lav of tearing and damaging the Priestly garments.

11. What, indeed, is the reason why “they shall not be removed from it”?

The Sefer HaChinuch writes:

“We were commanded not to remove the poles of the Ark from it, lest we need to go out with the Ark to any place quickly, and maybe due to the preoccupation and the rush, we will not check well that its poles are strong enough. . But with their always being ready and not being removed from it, we will make them very strong etc.”

From this, a wondrous lesson comes out in the Avodah of each and every person:

The Luchot resided in the Ark, which is the aspect of Torah, as the Chinuch states, “the Ark is the resting place of the Torah“.

A Yid who learns Torah is comparable to “the Ark”. He is a place and “resting place of the Torah“ (אן ארט און ״משכן התורה״).

Therefore, a Yid could think to himself:

During the time that one must dedicate to Torah study, and especially if “Torah is his occupation” (תורתו אומנתו), one must be completely immersed in study and separated from all that is around him. Therefore, what place is there, at that time, to think about another Yid?

To address this comes the lesson of the poles of the Ark:

Even when the Ark was in the Holy of Holies – the holiest place in the world (which is why only the High Priest could go there, and only on Yom Kippur) – even then the poles must “always be ready” (מוכנים לעולם) in order that one may “quickly” bring the Ark to the place where one must have it.

Moreover:

Removing the poles from the rings contains (פארמאגט) the same severity as tearing and damaging the Priestly garments!

So too, is this also in the aspect of Torah:

However much a Yid is immersed (אריינגעטאנקייט) in Torah study, he must always be “ready” to bring Torah whenever and wherever it must be. And specifically, in a manner of “quickly” to another and another Yid.

M’sichas shabbat Parshat Tetzaveh 5732