Vol 7.15 - Acharei 2                                     Spanish French Audio  Video

Hebrew Text:

Page 128   Page129   Page130   Page131   Page132   Page133   

Chumash
 

Translation:

1. In this week’s Sidra, after Scripture tells of all the details of the commands regarding the order of service of Yom Kippur, which G-d told Moshe to convey to Aharon, it concludes:

“And he did as the L-rd had commanded Moshe”

Rashi notes the words,

“And he did as the L-rd had commanded etc.”

And states:

“When Yom Kippur arrived, (Aharon) performed (the service) according to this order, and (this verse is written) to tell Aharon’s praise, namely, that he did not don them (the High Priest’s garments) for his self-aggrandizement, but rather, as one who is fulfill the King’s decree“

The commentators state that Rashi is expressing two different things:

• With the words, “When Yom Kippur arrived, he performed (the service) according to this order”, Rashi explains that, “And he did as the L-rd had commanded etc.” was not immediately after that which he was commanded.

(For the command was, “after the death of two sons of Aharon”, namely on Rosh Chodesh Nisan or at least in proximity to Rosh Chodesh Nisan. Therefore, fulfilling the command could not be done before Yom Kippur).

• Whereas with, “to tell Aharon’s praise etc.” Rashi explains what the verse, in general, is coming to inform us with the words “And he did” etc.

According to this, it is not understood:

1. In general, when Rashi explains a certain word, in two different aspects, he usually divides his explanation into two statements (by citing the words of the verse again, before the second aspect).

Why then, in our verse, does Rashi combine the two different aspects, the time of the “And he did” and the innovation of “And he did” – in the very same heading?

2. Furthermore: the first aspect (the time) applies to the word, “And he did”. Whereas, the second aspect (the innovation) applies to the entire conclusion of the verse. Certainly, therefore, there should have been two separate headings.
3. Beforehand, there is an express verse regarding all the aspects which are stated in the Parsha. Namely, that they must be performed in “in the seventh month, on the tenth of the month”. Thus, it is self-understood that Aharon did this on Yom Kippur. Therefore, what is Rashi innovating with his explanation, “when Yom Kippur arrived”?
4. According to the aforementioned, that in the beginning of his comment, Rashi just explains the time when Aharon performed it, he should have just stated, “When Yom Kippur arrived”. Why does he add the words, “he performed (the service) according to this order”?

One must say that even with these words, he is explaining the innovation of “And he did”.

(For even that which “he performed (the service) according to this order” is an innovation).

 However, this itself requires explanation:

From where is the supposition that one should think that Aharon performed a different order of Avodah– not, “as the L-rd had commanded Moshe”. So much so, that Scripture must innovate “he performed (the service) according to this order”?

Moreover:

Since Rashi accepts that “he performed (the service) according to this order” is indeed an innovation, he can, seemingly, learn that the entire innovation in the verse only refers to that which “he performed (the service) according to this order”. Therefore, what is Rashi adding – and from where does he know – that the verse is also coming, “to tell Aharon’s praise, namely, that he did not don them (the High Priest’s garments) for his self-aggrandizement etc.”?

Indeed, one can also ask from the other perspective:

Since Rashi learns that the verse, “And he did” comes “to tell Aharon’s praise etc.” – why must he also say (or where is the proof, that) “he performed (the service) according to this order”?

2. The explanation of all this is:

The entire Parsha (starting with the beginning of the Sidra) even including, “This shall be as an eternal statute for you etc.” – the beginning of our verse, was said (as aforementioned Par. 1) close to Rosh Chodesh Nisan.

Therefore, there is a place to say that even, “And he did”,

which is stated in the same verse with “This shall be . . once each year”,

was (done) immediately after the command on this.

(and not on Yom Kippur – which would occur a half-year later. Especially since even the Parshiot that follow, “And the L-rd spoke . .Any man etc.” until the beginning of Parshat Bamidbar, were said at that time until the first day of the second month - a long period before Yom Kippur).

And although, it is not applicable to say that Aharon should, in actuality, fulfill the command before Yom Kippur. One could, however, learn that with the word, “And he did”, here, Aharon accepted upon himself to perform the service.

This is similar to the words, “(Bnei Yisroel) went and did” which is stated in Parshat Bo. (Note: where once they accepted upon themselves, the Torah considers it just as if they had done it)

This acceptance was indeed, immediately when he heard the command.

Therefore, (in order to negate this) Rashi explains that Aharon did this “when Yom Kippur arrived”. With this, he innovates that the explanation of, “And he did” here is literal (כפשוטו), and not like it is in Parshat Bo.

Rashi’s necessity for this (even though, according to this, it comes out that the same verse speaks of two different times) is understood plainly:

In Parshat Bo, the verse innovates with the word “they did” – that “Once they accepted upon themselves, the Torah considers it just as if they had done it”.

However, once Scripture states this concept in Parshat Bo, one immediately understands that even Aharon – since he accepted it upon himself - it is considered as if he did it. Therefore, why must it tell us so, in our verse?

Therefore, Rashi learns that Aharon did this, “When Yom Kippur arrived” and the explanation of “And he did” here is literal.

 However, a student may ask:

Even according to the literal explanation of “And he did”, it is problematic:

For what is the innovation in that which Aharon did “as the L-rd had commanded etc.”?

Therefore, Rashi continues “he performed (the service) according to this order and to tell Aharon’s praise etc.”. Namely that according to this explanation, the innovation is indeed understood. For the verse here is expressing two things:

1. “He performed (the service) according to this order” and
2. “To tell Aharon’s praise that he did not don them for his self-aggrandizement, but rather, as one who is fulfill the King’s decree“.

The explanation of this is:

3. On the verse,

“And Aaron shall enter the Tent of Meeting”,

Rashi states,

“Our Rabbis stated that this is not the (correct chronological) place for this verse. (they said:) “This whole passage is stated in correct chronological order, except for this entering”.

Indeed this is what the verse here, in our Parsha, is innovating with, “And he did as the L-rd had commanded etc.” – namely that “he performed (the service) according to this order”.

In other words, Aharon performed with this very order which

(I – Rashi told you, that)

has already been explained in Rashi’s commentary.

This is so, even though Moshe Rabbeinu said the commands to him in another order - in the order in which they are stated in the Torah.

However, Rashi cannot end his comment with this. For it is, seemingly, contrary to the simple meaning of the verse.

The innovation of “he performed (the service) according to this order” according to this is, that Aharon did not perform the service according to the order that G-d told Moshe. Therefore, how can one say on this “And he did as the L-rd had commanded Moshe”?

Therefore, Rashi states, “And to tell Aharon’s praise . . as one who is fulfilling the King’s decree”.

In other words, the reason it states in the verse, “And he did”,

whose innovation is “he performed (the service) according to this order”,

“As the L-rd had commanded Moshe”

is because the main aspect and emphasis is not in the word “as” (כאשר) (G-d commanded) but rather in the word “commanded”.

For with this, he wishes to convey that Aharon performed the service, solely because “G-d commanded” – “as one who is fulfill the King’s decree”.

4. However, Rashi also does not want to learn that with the words, “And he did”, Scripture only means to inform us that, “he did not don them for his self-aggrandizement”.

For this praise applies (according to Rashi’s view) solely on the aspect of the wearing of the priestly garments – as Rashi states,

“he did not don them for his self-aggrandizement”.

since the Priestly garments are “for honor and splendor”.

However, it does not apply to the other commands in the Parsha.

However, since the words “And he did”, refer to all the commands of the Parshat, Therefore, Rashi learns that the main explanation of “And he did” is that he performed (all the commands) “according to this order”.

However, regarding the concluding words, “as the L-rd had commanded”, Rashi states that they come,

“to tell Aharon’s praise. . as one who is fulfill the King’s decree“.

5. Another reason why one cannot learn that “And he did etc.” solely means “to tell Aharon’s praise etc.”- can be understood by the following preface:

When Rashi explains Aharon‘s praise that he did not were the Priestly garments for his self-aggrandizement, Rashi uses the expression,

“he did not don them for his self-aggrandizement” (״שלא הי׳ לובשן לגדולתו״)

and not the expression as it states in Torat Kohanim,

“He did not don garments” (שלא הי׳ לובש בגדים)

In other words, he did not wear “them”, namely those garments which are stated in the Parsha, for his self-aggrandizement.

With this, Rashi wants to convey that,

(Aharon’s wearing the eight Priestly garments

(which

1. He wore the entire year and
2. also includes the golden Priestly garments)

not for his self-aggrandizement, is not an innovation and this does not convey Aharon’s greatness, Rather)

Aharon’s praise consists of his not wearing those white Priestly garments (of Yom Kippur) for his self-aggrandizement. This is his praise.

One must understand:

Golden garments (Bigdei Zahav) are seemingly more dear than (white) linen garments (Bigdei Lavan)

(As we see this also from that which regarding the command over the Priestly garments, which are “for honor and splendor” the verse delineates the Bigdei Zahav before the linen garments (Bigdei Lavan))

Why then should the innovation and praise, “he did not don them for his self-aggrandizement” refer more to the Bigdei Lavan than that of the Bigdei Zahav? And why only on the Bigdei Lavan of Yom Kippur?

The explanation of this is:

Regarding the Bigdei Zahav, at the very onset there could not be any supposition that Aharon should don them for his self-aggrandizement.

(For his own self-aggrandizement, not for the greatness – the honor and splendor – of the high priesthood, in general)

For

(he himself, when he would be in a different level, or)

the Kohen Gadol that came after him (even though he stands in a lower level) could have worn the same garments.

Therefore, it is clear that this was not for his (Aharon‘s) self-aggrandizement. The same applies to the Bigdei Lavan of the entire year.

This is not so with the Bigdei Lavan which he wore on Yom Kippur. Since (as Rashi explains previously) “he shall not use those four garments for any other Yom Kippur.” (Note: they were stored away forever).

For he could think that if these garments are related to the aspect of the high priesthood, in general,

(or in general to the Avodah of Yom Kippur, and so forth)

why should he not wear the same garments in the following year, that he wore the previous year?

Therefore, it is seemingly proven (געדרונגען) that these garments are for his self-aggrandizement. And the reason that he must have other (new) linen garments for Yom Kippur is because a person changes from time to time (from year to year).

On this, the verse tells of Aharon’s praise, that even these Bigdei Lavan which he exchanged from year to year – “were not worn for his self-aggrandizement etc.”

6. According to all the aforementioned, it is plainly understood why Rashi does not want to learn that with the word, “And he did”, Scripture solely means the innovation that “he did not don them for his self-aggrandizement”:

The praise “he did not don them etc.” is mainly (apparent) at the following (second) Yom Kippur, when we would see that he wears new garments.

However, the simple explanation of “And he did” is, that this

(with all the aspects that are within this)

was “when Yom Kippur arrived”, immediately at the first Yom Kippur.

Therefore, Rashi learns that the main explanation of “And he did” is “when (the first) Yom Kippur arrived he performed (the service) according to this order”.

However, that which it states, “as the L-rd had commanded” is – to tell the Aharon’s praise, that he did not don those garments for his self-aggrandizement, but rather, as one who is fulfilling the King’s decree”

M’Sichas Shabbat Parshat Acharei 5730