Pure
BS”D
Volume 39, No. 24
7 Nissan 5785
April 5, 2025
Sponsored by Nathan and Rikki Lewin in memory of her father Rabbi Morris E. Gordon (Harav Eliyahu Moshe ben R’ Yitzchak Dov a”h)
This week we begin reading the Book of Vayikra, which our Sages call “Torat Kohanim” / “The Law of the Priests.” R’ Shaul Yisraeli z”l (1909-1995; rabbi of Kfar Ha’roeh, Israel, member of Israel’s Supreme Rabbinical Court, and Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Mercaz Harav) writes: Vayikra holds a special place among the Five Books of the Torah in that generations of Jewish children began their study of Chumash with this Book. “Why did they not start at the beginning, with Bereishit?” asks the Midrash Yalkut Shimoni, and it answers, “Since children are pure, and Korbanot / sacrificial offerings require purity, let the pure ones come and occupy themselves with matters of purity.” R’ Yisraeli elaborates: Torat Kohanim is not merely a book that teaches us how to fulfill our obligation to offer Korbanot. It is, by its nature, the Torah of the “Kingdom of Priests,” the Torah of the “Holy Nation” (see Shmot 19:6). There is no time more appropriate to imbue its values in the Jewish soul than when the student is very young–”Let the pure ones come and occupy themselves with matters of purity.”
What particular values does this Book teach? R’ Yisraeli explains: Pirkei Avot (1:2) teaches that the world stands on three things: Torah, Avodah / service, and Gemilut Chassadim / acts of kindness. “Avodah” refers to Korbanot, the Divine service par excellence. Torah is the intellectual part of Judaism, and Gemilut Chassadim is the interpersonal side. However, those two aspects are insufficient; they must be accompanied by the Avodah of the Korbanot. The only solid foundation for interpersonal relationships is a solid relationship with the Creator, built on Torah and Divine service. (Si’ach Shaul)
********
“He called to Moshe, and Hashem spoke to him from the Ohel Mo’ed / Tent of Meeting, saying.” (1:1)
Rashi z”l writes, based on a Midrash: “To him” is meant to exclude Aharon. Thirteen times, the Torah says that Hashem spoke to Moshe and Aharon together, and thirteen times the Torah implies the opposite. This teaches that the words were not spoken to Aharon, but only to Moshe, with the instruction that he communicate them to Aharon. [Until here from Rashi]
For example, writes R’ Tzvi Abba Gorelick z”l (Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva Gedolah Zichron Moshe in South Fallsburg, N.Y.; died 2010) based on the Midrash Mechilta: We read (Shmot 12:1), “Hashem said to Moshe and Aharon in the land of Egypt, saying.” Paralleling this we read (Shmot 6:28), “It was on the day when Hashem spoke to Moshe in the land of Egypt.” Only Moshe is mentioned as being spoken to in Egypt, not Aharon.
But why would the Torah say that Hashem spoke to Aharon if He did not? R’ Gorelick asks. He explains: In reality, Aharon did hear Hashem’s words in the thirteen instances at issues. What Rashi and the various Midrashim on which his comment is based mean is that even though Aharon heard the Mitzvot in question from Hashem, he had to hear them again from Moshe. Moshe–and only Moshe–was the prophet appointed to transmit the Torah to Bnei Yisrael. Therefore, even if Aharon heard a commandment directly from Hashem, it did not become part of the Torah until Aharon heard it again from Moshe. (Pirkei Mikra)
To whom are the above Midrashim speaking? asks R’ Chaim Zaichyk z”l (1906-1989; Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Bet Yosef-Novardok in Buchach, Poland; later in Haifa, Israel). Who would want to equate Moshe and Aharon, and who needs to be reminded not to do so?
He answers: There are two such parties–one praiseworthy, and the other not. The first is Moshe himself, who always tried to avoid the spotlight–beginning at the Burning Bush, when he asked Hashem to appoint Aharon in his place. Moshe would want to downplay his superiority over Aharon as a prophet. The other is Bnei Yisrael, who always had a higher regard for Aharon than for Moshe, as the Midrash Yalkut Shimoni relates: Bnei Yisrael cried more when Aharon died than when Moshe died, because Moshe used to rebuke them. They, too, would want to downplay Moshe’s superiority.
Our verse highlights Moshe’s humility, R’ Zaichyk adds. A Midrash relates that Moshe was afraid to enter the newly completed Mishkan because the “Cloud” of the Shechinah rested on it. Hashem said, “It is not proper that Moshe, who made the Mishkan, should stand outside while I am inside.” Immediately, says our verse, “He called to Moshe.” [Until here from the Midrash]. Can we imagine, asks R’ Zaichyk, a person who led the building campaign for a Shul or Yeshiva–raising the money, supervising the architects and contractors, and so on–who would hesitate to enter the completed building without permission? That, however, is exactly what Moshe did. (Ohr Chadash)
********
“. . . Hashem spoke to him from the Ohel Mo’ed / Tent of Meeting, saying.” (1:1)
Rashi z”l writes: Another explanation of “Saying” is, “To reply to G-d.” The verse means: “Go and tell them My commands and bring Me back word whether they will accept them, as it is written (Shmot 19:8), ‘And Moshe returned the words of the people to Hashem’.” [Until here from Rashi]
R’ Shlomo Kluger z”l (1785-1869; rabbi of Brody, Galicia) asks: Why now, all of sudden, does Hashem want Moshe to tell Him whether Bnei Yisrael accept His commandments?
He explains: We read (Vayikra 1:3), “If one’s offering is an Olah-offering from the cattle, he shall offer an unblemished male; he shall bring it to the entrance of the Ohel Mo’ed, voluntarily, before Hashem.” The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 6a) derives from this verse that all sacrificial offerings must be brought voluntarily. But, the Gemara (Shabbat 88a) derives from the verse (Shmot 19:17), “They stood at the bottom of the mountain,” that there was an element of coercion involved in getting Bnei Yisrael to accept the Torah. (The Gemara interprets: “He held the mountain over them like a barrel,” etc.) It follows, writes R’ Kluger, that a new, truly voluntary, acceptance of the Torah was required in order that any sacrifices would be brought with no element of coercion, and whether there was such an acceptance is what Hashem was asking Moshe to report back to Him.
Alternatively, R’ Kluger writes, before the sin of the Golden Calf, there was no possibility of bringing a Korban for atonement because, at that point, Bnei Yisrael were on such a lofty level that, like all Tzaddikim, they would have been held strictly accountable for any failings. (Korbanot, in contrast, are possible because Hashem shows Rachamim / mercy to those who cannot withstand His Midat Ha’din / Attribute of Strict Justice.) It follows that the original acceptance of the Torah, which was before the Golden Calf, did not include accepting the laws of the Korbanot, so Moshe had to ask Bnei Yisrael now whether they would accept those laws. (Imrei Shefer)
********
Pesach
We read in Pirkei Avot (4:2), “Run to perform [even] an easy Mitzvah . . . For the consequence of a Mitzvah is a Mitzvah.” R’ Menachem Ha’meiri z”l (1249-1306; Provence; author of widely-used Talmud commentaries and other works) comments: To me, this means that no Mitzvah should be light in your eyes, for the consequence of the Mitzvah is its essence. In other words, what results from a Mitzvah, i.e., the understanding that one gains by doing it, is the essence of the Mitzvah. It follows that even if a Mitzvah appears to you to be “light,” know that what comes from it may be very weighty. Therefore, do not judge the importance of any Mitzvah by whether it is easy to perform.
R’ Ha’meiri continues: Take, for example, the affirmative commandment to tell the story of the Exodus on the night of the fifteenth of Nissan, as we read (Shmot 13:8), “You shall tell to your son on that day . . .” We fulfill that commandment by reading the text of the Haggadah, which is a very easy Mitzvah. However, what results from that Mitzvah is very weighty–it implants in our hearts knowledge of the truth, including belief in Hashem’s wonders and in His ability to alter nature at will. That is the “fruit” of the Mitzvah, its essence, and its purpose, though the Mitzvah itself is an easy one. (Chibbur Ha’Teshuvah 1:12)
R’ Ha’meiri writes similarly elsewhere: We read (Mishlei 13:13), “He who scorns a word will cause himself injury, but he who reveres a commandment will be repaid.” It appears to me, R’ Ha’meiri writes, that the verse is teaching that one who treats a Mitzvah lightly and is not concerned with observing it harms himself in two ways: He will be punished for neglecting the Mitzvah and he also will miss out on the understanding he would have gained by performing the Mitzvah, which may be significant. In contrast, one who reveres a Mitzvah will gain that understanding.
One example of this, perhaps (R’ Ha’meiri writes), is reciting Kiddush on Shabbat. One might take this Mitzvah lightly, thinking that it is enough to refrain from work on Shabbat. However, what results from reciting Kiddush is belief in Creation, for one recalls in Kiddush that (Shmot 20:11), “In six days Hashem made the heavens and the earth.”
Another example [as noted] is reading the Haggadah on Pesach, which is the fulfillment of the Mitzvah to relate the story of the Exodus to one’s child: By observing it, one gains belief in Hashem’s ability to perform wonders and change nature. (Peirush Ha’meiri Le’Mishlei)
Go to Torah.org
Date: April 4, 2025
