פרשת צו תשי"ח - שינוי הבגדים

And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh; and he shall take up the ashes whereto the fire hath consumed the burnt-offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar.

And he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes without the camp unto a clean place.

From where is it derived that changing clothes is a display of honor? As it is stated: “And he will remove his garments and will don other garments, and he will bring the ashes outside of the camp to a pure location” (Leviticus 6:4). The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The Torah taught you etiquette. The clothes in which one prepared food for his master, one does not wear to pour his master wine. Since cooking makes one’s clothes dirty, he should wear fresh clothes when serving his master.

Since the verse: “Prepare to greet your God, Israel,” was cited with regard to the obligation to prepare and adorn oneself before prayer, the Gemara cites that indeed Rava bar Rav Huna would don expensive socks and pray and he said he would do this as it is written: “Prepare to greet your God, Israel.” On the other hand, Rava would not do so; rather, in his prayer he would remove his cloak and clasp his hands and pray. He said that he would do so as a slave before his master, who appears before him with extreme submission. Rav Ashi said: I saw that Rav Kahana, when there is suffering in the world, would remove his cloak and clasp his hands and pray. And he said that he did so as a slave before his master. When there is peace in the world, he would dress, and cover himself, and wrap himself in a significant garment, and pray, and he said that he did so in fulfillment of the verse: “Prepare to greet your God, Israel.”

GEMARA: The Sages in the school of Rabbi Yanai said: They only taught that it is permitted when one person is folding the garments alone on Shabbat; however, when two people are folding the garments together, no, they may not do so, because when two people fold garments it is tantamount to repairing the garment. And with regard to when a single person is folding the garments, we only said it is permitted when he is folding a new garment, which is suitable to be worn even if it were not folded; however, with regard to old garments, no, he may not do so. And with regard to new garments, we only said that one may fold the garments when they are white; however, when they are colored, no, one may not do so. And with regard to white garments, we only said it is permitted to fold them on Shabbat when one does not have garments into which one could change; however, if one has other garments into which he could change, he may not fold them.

And it was taught in the Tosefta: The members of Rabban Gamliel’s household did not even fold their white garments because they had others into which they could change. Rav Huna said: If one has new garments into which he could change on Shabbat, he will change into those garments; and if one does not have garments into which he could change, he lets his garments hang down before Shabbat to beautify himself in deference to Shabbat as it used to be the custom of wealthy people to wear their clothes loosely. Rav Safra strongly objects to this: Doesn’t this appear as haughtiness? The Gemara answers: Since every day he does not do so, and now in honor of Shabbat he is doing so, it does not appear as haughtiness. Rather it is apparent that he is acting in deference to Shabbat.

And it was taught in the Tosefta: The members of Rabban Gamliel’s household did not even fold their white garments because they had others into which they could change. Rav Huna said: If one has new garments into which he could change on Shabbat, he will change into those garments; and if one does not have garments into which he could change, he lets his garments hang down before Shabbat to beautify himself in deference to Shabbat as it used to be the custom of wealthy people to wear their clothes loosely. Rav Safra strongly objects to this: Doesn’t this appear as haughtiness? The Gemara answers: Since every day he does not do so, and now in honor of Shabbat he is doing so, it does not appear as haughtiness. Rather it is apparent that he is acting in deference to Shabbat.

צו את אהרן COMMAND AARON — The expression “Command …!” always implies urging on to carry out a command, implying too, that it comes into force at once, and is binding upon future generations (cf. Rashi on this passage in Kiddushin 29a). R. Simeon said: Especially must Scripture urge on the fulfilment of the commands in a case where monetary loss is involved (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 1 1; Kiddushin 29a).

והרים את הדשן AND HE SHALL TAKE UP THE ASHES — He raked a full pan of ashes from the innermost consumed mass of ashes and deposited them at the cast side of the כבש (the inclined plane leading up to the altar) (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 1 4 Yoma 20a; cf. Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 2:1).

העולה‎ את ‎‏ אשר תאכל האש‎הדשן ‎ [HE SHALL TAKE OUT] THOSE ASHES INTO WHICH THE FIRE HATH CONSUMED THE BURNT OFFERING — and thus has made it into ashes; from those ashes he shall take out a תרומה, a portion, ושמו אצל המזבח AND PUT IT BESIDE THE ALTAR.

אש תמיד — The redundant word תמיד (because it could have written לא תכבה המזבח ‎אש תוקד על‎ ; for this, too, would imply that it must be continually burning since it states that it must never go out) intimates: The fire about the use of which the expression תמיד is used, viz., that by which the lamps of the Candelabrum were kindled, with reference to which it is said, (Exodus 27:20) “to light the lamps continually (תמיד), this, too) should be ignited from the fire on the outer altar Yoma 45b).

ונתן פדיון נפשו HE SHALL GIVE THE RANSOM OF HIS SOUL — the value of the injured person; this is the view of R. Ishmael, R. Akiba, however, says that it means the value of the person who caused the injury (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 21:30).

חמשה בקר וגו׳ [HE SHALL PAY] FIVE OF THE HERD etc. — Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai said, “The Omnipresent has much consideration for the honour of His creatures: when an ox — an animal that can walk by itself — has been stolen and sold or slaughtered, in which case the thief had not to degrade himself by carrying it on his shoulder, he has to pay fivefold restitution. In the case of a lamb, however, which he had to carry on his shoulder, he has to pay only the fourfold, because he was forced to degrade himself by carrying it”. Rabbi Meir said, “Come and see how great is the virtue of labour: In the case of the theft of an ox which he (the thief) withdrew from its labour, thereby causing a loss to its owner, he has to repay five oxen, in the case of a lamb which he has not withdrawn from its labour — only four (Bava Kamma 79b).

אם שכיר הוא IF IT BE HIRED — i. e. if the ox has not been borrowed but hired, בא בשכרו THEN IT CAME FOR ITS HIRE into the hand of this hirer and not by way of loan. For he does not get the entire benefit of the transaction since he is using it only because he has paid hire for it and consequently the owner benefits also; therefore the law applicable to a borrower does not apply in his case — that he should be held liable for loss by accident. Scripture, however, does not state explicity what his (the hirer’s) law actually is — whether he has to be treated as the gratuitous bailee (שומר חנם) or as the bailee for payment (שומר שכר), and therefore the Sages in Israel differ in their opinion as to how the hirer (שוכר) has to make restitution. R. Meir says he is responsible only as a gratuitous bailee, whilst R. Judah says, even as a bailee for payment (Bava Metzia 80b).

וירא אליו AND THE LORD APPEARED UNTO HIM to visit the sick man. R. Hama the son of Hanina said: it was the third day after his circumcision and the Holy One, blessed be He, came and enquired after the state of his health (Bava Metzia 86b)

כי עתה ידעתי FOR NOW I KNOW—R. Aba said: Abraham said to God, “I will lay my complaint before you. Yesterday (on an earlier occasion) you told me, (Genesis 21:12) “In Isaac shall seed be called to thee”, and then again you said, (Genesis 21:2) “Take now thy son”. Now you tell me, “Lay not thy hand upon the lad”! The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, in the words of Psalms 99:35, “My covenant will I not profane, nor alter that which is gone out of My lips”. When I told you, “Take thy son”, I was not altering that which went out from My lips, namely, My promise that you would have descendants through Isaac. I did not tell you “Slay him” but bring him up to the mountain. You have brought him up — take him down again” (Genesis Rabbah 56:8).

If flocks and herds be slain for them, will they suffice them? or if all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, will they suffice them?’