| א. להדגשת "אחרי מות" (1) - שאלות ברש"י |
| A. About the Emphasis on "After the Death" I - Questions in Rashi |
הנה בביאור דברי הברייתא הזו נדחקו המפרשים ז"ל ומה שנראה לי בביאורה, כי קשה לחז"ל, שאם בא מאמר אחרי מות להודיענו זמן הדיבור, לאיזה צורך הזכיר כאן זמן הדיבור יותר מבמקום אחר בשאר הדיבורים. ועוד שנית יקשה, דמנהג הכתוב לומר בכל מקום "ויהי אחרי מות שני בני אהרן, ויאמר ה'". כמו (יהושע א' א') "ויהי אחרי מות משה ויאמר ה' אל יהושע". שלישית, והוא הנראה לי מוקשה יותר, שאם להודיע זמן הדיבור בלבד – יספיק לנו באמרו "אחרי מות שני בני אהרן" בלבד, ולמה היה צריך להזכיר עוד סיבת מיתתם "בקרבתם לפני ה' וימותו"?
1. Beer Yitzchak on the above Rashi:
Behold, the commentators, may their memory be blessed, gave forced explanations about the words of this bereita (in Sifra, cited by Rashi). And what appears to me to be its explanation is that the Sages, may their memory be blessed, found difficult why there was a need to inform us about the time of the speech here more than in other places in other speeches. And it was also difficult, since it is the custom of Scripture in every place to say [it in the following way], "And it was after the death of the two sons of Aaron, and the Lord said," as [in] "And it was after the death of Moses..., and the Lord said to Joshua" (Joshua 1:1). Thirdly - and this seems to me to be the most difficult - if it only wanted to inform us of the time of the speech, we could suffice with its saying, "after the death of the two son of Aaron." So why did it also have to mention the reason for their death, "in their approaching in front of the Lord, and they died?"
ואולם לדעת כמה ממפרשי רש"י הוקשתה לו קושיה אחרת ואותה תירץ בדבריו. מהי הקושיה?
However according to many Rashi commentators, Rashi was bothered by, and answered, another difficulty. What is that difficulty?
2. How does Rashi explain the words, "after the death," in his words above?
3. בעל גור אריה, מקשה לדברי רש"י הנ"ל:
3. The author of Gur Aryeh raises the following difficulty on Rashi's words above:
קשה, לא היה לר' אליעזר בן עזריה לומר "משל לשני רופאים" אלא היה לו לומר: המזהיר את החולה שלא ימות כדרך שמת פלוני, הוא יותר אזהרה משאם הזהירו אל יבוא ואל ימות בלבד.
It is difficult: Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah should not have said, "There is a parable about two physicians." Rather, he should have [just] said, "It is a greater warning when someone warns a sick person that he should not die like x, than if he just says not to [do x] and die."
ישב קושיתו!
Resolve his difficulty!
| ב. משל הרופאים בדברי רש"י |
| B. The Parable of the Physicians in Rashi |
פסוקים א'-ב'
Leviticus 16:1-2
(ג) [ג] "ויאמר ה' אל משה דבר אל אהרן אחיך ואל יבא בכל עת" – ואין אנו יודעים מה נאמר לו בדיבור הראשון! היה ר' אלעזר בן עזריה משלו משל למה הדבר דומה, לחולה שנכנס אצל רופא. אומר לו "על תשתה צונן ואל תשכב בטחב". בא אחר ואומר לו "אל תשתה צונן ואל תשכב בטחב שלא תמות". בא אחר ואומר לו "אל תשתה צונן ואל תשכב בטחב שלא תמות כדרך שמת פלוני", וזה זרזו יותר מכולם. לכך נאמר "ויאמר ה' אל משה דבר אל אהרן אחיך ואל יבא בכל עת".
(3) 3) (16:2) ("And the L–rd said to Moses: Speak to Aaron your brother, and let him not come at all times to the holy place within the curtain before the ark-cover which is on the ark, that he not die. For in the cloud I shall appear upon the ark cover.") "And the L–rd said to Moses: Speak to Aaron your brother, and let him not come at all times": — But we do not know what was said to him the first time (i.e., after 16:1 "And the L–rd spoke to Moses, etc.")! R. Elazar b. Azaryah was wont to say: To what may this be compared? To a patient who visited a doctor and was told by him: "Do not drink cold and do not lie in wet," after which a different doctor said to him: "Do not drink cold and do not lie in wet, so that you do not die as so and so died." The latter directive is the most effective. This is the thrust of "after the death of the two sons of Aaron… And the L–rd said to Moses: 'Speak to Aaron your brother and let him not come at all times,'"
רש"י: ד"ה וידבר ה' אל משה אחרי מות שני בני אהרן וגו': עיין שאלה א'.
See Rashi in Section A
Why did Rashi see fit to deviate from the words of his source (in Sifra above), and speak about two physicians, and not three physicians?
| ג. להדגשת "אחרי מות" (2) |
| B. About the Emphasis on "After the Death" II |
וטעם "אחרי מות שני בני אהרן", כי מיד כאשר מתו בניו הזהיר את אהרן מן היין ומן השכר, שלא ימות. ואמר עוד למשה שיזהיר אותו שלא ימות בקרבתו לפני ה'. והקרוב, שהיו שתי המצוות האלה ביום המחרת למיתתם, כי ביום אונן היה ואין רוח הקודש שורה מתוך עצבות... אבל הקדים הכתוב האזהרות שהזהיר את ישראל "שלא ימותו בטומאתם בטמאם את משכני אשר בתוכם" (ויקרא ט"ו ל"א) ואחר כך כתב אזהרת היחיד. ועל דעתי כל התורה כסדר, שכל המקומות אשר בהם יאמר המוקדם יפרש בו, כגון (ויקרא כ"ה א') "וידבר ה' אל משה בהר סיני" וכגון (במדבר ז' א') "ויהי ביום כלות משה להקים את המשכן" וכיוצא בהן. ולכך אמר בכאן "אחרי מות" להודיע כי היה זה אחרי מותם מיד. ועל דברי רבותינו שאמרו "שלא תמות כדרך שמת פלוני, זה זירזו יותר מן הראשון", יהיה טעם הכתוב, שאמר ה' למשה בלשון הזה: "אחרי שמתו שני בני אהרן בקרבתם לפני ה' אמור אליו שלא יבוא בכל עת אל הקודש ולא ימות".
And the explanation of "after the death of the two sons of Aaron" is that immediately after his sons died, [God] cautioned him about wine and strong drink, that he not die. And he also said to Moses that he should caution him not to die by coming close in front of God (when inappropriate). And what is more likely is that these two commandments were [given] the day after their death; as in the day [of their death], he was bereaving (onen) - and the holy spirit does not descend upon sadness... However Scripture had the prohibition - so "they not die through their uncleanness by defiling My Tabernacle which is among them" (Leviticus 15:31) - wherein he warned all of Israel, precede, and it wrote the prohibition for the individual afterward. And in my opinion, the whole Torah is in [chronological] order. For in all the places in which it recounts that which is earlier, it is explicitly mentioned - such as (Leviticus 25:1), "And the Lord spoke to Moses at Mount Sinai"; and such as (Numbers 7:1), "And it was on the day that Moses finished setting up the Tabernacle"; and similar to them. And that is why it mentions, "after the death," here - to make known that [these laws were given] immediately after their death. And according to the words of our Rabbis who say that it is "so that you should not die the way x died, [since] that this is a greater warning than the first," the wording of the verse that the Lord said to Moses should [have been], "After the two sons of Aaron died when they approached in front of the Lord, tell him not to come at any time to the Holy, so that he not die."
1. Explain the underlined sections.
2. What is the difference in the resolution of the difficulty in our verse according to Ramban's opinion ("And in my opinion"), as opposed to the opinion of the Sages, may their memory be blessed ("And according to the words of our Rabbis")?
* 3. What is Ramban's opinion about usage of the principle, "there is no earlier and later (chronological sequence) in the Torah?"
* 4. For what reason does Ramban bring the verses in Leviticus 25:1 and Numbers 7:1 here?
| ד. חטאם של בני אהרן |
| D. The Sin of the Sons of Aaron |
"after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they drew near before the Lord, and died"
The Torah stressed the word וימותו, "they died," so that we should not think that Nadav and Avihu succeeded to carry out their intention to enter the Holy of Holies. They died before they could carry out their intention. The Torah is at pains to let us know this in the event a person would be willing to enter the Holy of Holies even at the cost of his life. We are warned here that the effort would be futile as G'd would not allow such a person to realise his intention. The Torah does not warn us about this because it presumes a criminal intent by someone who insists on entering the Holy of Holies. On the contrary, the assumption is that such an attempt would be prompted by the religious fervor of the individual, an overpowering desire to come close to the source of the שכינה on earth which makes such a person ignore the danger to which he exposes himself.
1. How does the author of Ohr HaChaim explain the sin of the sons of Aaron, "for their closeness?"
2. What stylistic difficulty does the author of Ohr HaChaim resolve with this explanation?
| ה. קשר ההפטרה לפרשה |
| E. The Connection of the Haftarah to the Parsha |
Explain the connection between this Haftarah (Ezekiel 22:1-19) and Parshat Achrei Mot.
| ו. "בתוכה", "עליה" |
| F. "Within it," Upon it" |
"O city that sheddest blood within it, that its time may come; and that makest idols upon it to be defiled"
Explain why it says, "within it," about shedding blood; whereas it says, "upon it," about idolatry.
| ז. מהו חטא "איש לזרועו" |
| G. What is the Sin of "each according to his might?" |
"Behold, the princes of Israel, every one according to his might, have been in thee to shed blood."
(א) לֹא תִּקַּח שֹׁחַד וְגוֹ'. כֵּיוָן שֶׁנּוֹתֵן הַדַּיָּן אֶת לִבּוֹ עַל הַשֹּׁחַד, נַעֲשֶׂה עִוֵּר בַּדִּין וְאֵינוֹ יָכֹל לָדוּן אוֹתוֹ בֶּאֱמֶת. אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר, הִנֵּה נְשִׂיאֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ לִזְרֹעוֹ הָיוּ בָךְ לְמַעַן שְׁפָךְ דָּם (יחזקאל כב, ו), שֶׁהָיוּ פּוֹשְׁטִין זְרוֹעוֹתֵיהֶן תַּחַת כַּנְפֵי בִּגְדֵיהֶם וְנוֹטְלִין אֶת הַשֹּׁחַד.
(1) (Deut. 16:19, cont.:) “You shall not take a bribe.” When the judge sets his heart on a bribe, he becomes blind to justice and he is unable to judge [a case] honestly. R. Eliezer said, “It says here (in Ezek. 22:6), ‘Behold, the princes of Israel, each one according to his strength (literally, arm), have existed among you for the shedding of blood.’ Thus they stretched out their arms under their robes to take a bribe.”
S.v. Each according to his might: Whoever is strongest prevails.
ד"ה איש לזרועו: כלומר, כל איש ואיש לפי חזקו היו להרע ולשפוך דם, זהו שאמר "לזרועו" – לפי זרועו והתגברותו, מפני עשרו או קרוביו, וכן (איוב) "ואיש זרוע לו הארץ".
S.v. Each according to his might: [This] means to say, each and every man did evil and shed blood according to his strength. This is why it stated, "to his might" - according to his might, and his leverage due to his wealth or his relatives. And so too (Job 22:8), "And is the earth, a mighty man's?"
מה ההבדל בין פירושיהם, ומה הניע את המדרש לפרש שהמדובר בלקח-שוחד?
What is the difference between the explanations; and what motivated the midrash to explain that it is speaking about the taking of bribes?
| ח. השוואת פסוקים |
| H. Comparison of Verses |
השווה:
Compare the following two texts:
(27) I have made you an assayer of My people —A refiner— You are to note and assay their ways. (28) They are copper and iron: They are all stubbornly defiant; They deal basely All of them act corruptly. (29) The bellows puff; The lead is consumed by fire. Yet the smelter smelts to no purpose— The dross is not separated out. (30) They are called “rejected silver,” For the LORD has rejected them.
(18) O mortal, the House of Israel has become dross to Me; they are all copper, tin, iron, and lead. But in a crucible, the dross shall turn into silver. (19) Assuredly, thus said the Lord GOD: Because you have all become dross, I will gather you into Jerusalem. (20) As silver, copper, iron, lead, and tin are gathered into a crucible to blow the fire upon them, so as to melt them, so will I gather you in My fierce anger and cast you [into the fire] and melt you. (21) I will gather you and I will blow upon you the fire of My fury, and you shall be melted in it. (22) As silver is melted in a crucible, so shall you be melted in it. And you shall know that I the LORD have poured out My fury upon you.