פרשת שמיני - הליכות עולם

(3) Thus is completed the Book of Redemption,In which the Eternal, the G-d of Israel, hath entered¹¹⁸Ezekiel 44:2. In the Book of Exodus Israel first appears as a people. Hence Ramban uses this expression: The Eternal the G-d of Israel hath entered.

(1) ויהי ביום השמיני AND IT CAME TO PASS ON THE EIGHTH DAY of the installation of the priests into their sacred office (cf. Sifra); this was the New Moon of Nisan on which the Tabernacle was finally erected (cf. Rashi on Exodus 40:29) and it (that day) received ten crowns (it was distinguished in ten different ways) which are enumerated in Seder Olam 7 (Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 1; Shabbat 87b).

(4) And on the day his heart rejoiced. This is the eighth day of the installation,¹⁸See Vayikra 9:1. on which the Tabernacle was dedicated in the wilderness.

(1) ויהי ביום השמיני, it was on the eighth day; We need to analyse why the Torah had to introduce this chapter with the word ויהי. We are told in Megillah 10 that Rabbi Levi claimed there was an ancient tradition that every time the word ויהי appears it has a connotation of something painful having occurred. This view was challenged by the questioner pointing to the word ויהי in our portion which introduces the joyous event of Aaron performing the rites in the Tabernacle; furthermore, we have a Baraitha according to which this day was as joyous an occasion as the day on which G'd created Heaven and Earth, a day which is also introduced in the Torah by the words ויהי ערב ויהי בקר, "it was evening it was morning, etc." The Talmud answers that the saddening event in our portion was the death of Nadav and Avihu. The questioner in the Talmud continues, wanting to know why the word ויהי is used in Kings I 6,1 when the building of Solomon's Temple is reported. He also points to Genesis 29,10 where Jacob's encounter with his bride-to-be Rachel is introduced by the word ויהי. The questioner mentions a further occurrence of that word every time G'd completed part of the creation of the universe and the Torah describes the completion of that portion with the words ויהי ערב ויהי בקר. What were the negative elements on those occasions which prompted the Bible to draw our attention to them by means of the word ויהי? Rav Ashi answers that the word ויהי by itself may have either positive or negative connotations. When the word ויהי is followed by the word בימי, "during the lifetime of, etc." it invariably has a negative connotation. The Talmud added that there are five occasions when the expression ויהי בימי occurs in the Bible. Thus far the discussion in Megillah 10. (2) Why did the questioner address his question to what is written in our verse, when the real question is what is written in Genesis over and over again, i.e. ויהי ערב ויהי בקר, which enabled the query about our verse not having a negative connotation? I must assume that the questioner obviously had all these verses in mind when he challenged Rabbi Levi's tradition. The only reason he introduced our verse was to make his question even more powerful by suggesting there are many such verses which clearly point to a joyous event. Alternatively, the questioner wanted to draw the opposite conclusion of the one Rabbi Levi reported as originating with the men of the great assembly. He wanted to argue that the word ויהי always introduces something joyous. He reasoned that just as the Tanna had compared our verse to the verse in Genesis in which the expression occurs for the first time and which certainly spoke about a positive event, so every time that expression occurs it denotes something positive, a joyous occasion. Using the verse ויהי ערב ויהי בקר in Genesis makes it much harder to refute the questioner's argument seeing no specific event is mentioned in that verse the nature of which could be disputed. Rabbi Levi's answer that our verse describes a day on which Nadav and Avihu died is somewhat astounding. This answer is applicable to our verse, but certainly not to the verses commencing with ויהי ערב in Genesis? It would not do to say that Rabbi Levi felt that the words ויהי ערב in Genesis also referred to something negative [after all they were preceded by G'd saying that He approved of how His instructions had been carried out, וירא אלוקים כי טוב, Ed.]. More to the point, why did not Rabbi Levi himself address those verses which begin with the word ויהי and which clearly speak of joyful events? He himself should have known the answer given by Rav Ashi! (3) I believe that Rabbi Levi did not mean to teach us anything other than Rav Ashi. The Talmud alludes to this by not introducing Rav Ashi's words with the introductory: אלא אמר רב אשי, "however, Rav Ashi said, etc." Had the Talmud used that formula we would have been justified in understanding him as refuting Rabbi Levi. What Rav Ashi said is compatible with what Rabbi Levi said, i.e. that the word ויהי contains a negative connotation. There are indeed many verses when that word alludes to something saddening. He only answered the person who had challenged Rabbi Levi believing that Rabbi Levi had meant that the word ויהי without the addition בימי is employed by the Bible exclusively in a negative context. This is why the questioner chose our verse out of the many other verses he could have chosen. He wanted to show that the events described in our verse were exceptionally joyous. After all, what conceptual difference is there between ויהי ביום, and ויהי בימי? The answer given was that the reason the Torah wrote ויהי ביום instead of a formula which would have reflected the purely joyous nature of the occasion was that the two sons of Aaron died on that very day. [With all due respect to the author, if he had introduced the subject as it is introduced in the Talmud namely: ויהי בימי אחשורוש, followed by Rabbi Levi's statement that every place where the expression ויהי occurs it carries a negative connotation, his remarks would have been easier to follow. No doubt the author had his reasons and that is why I did not see fit to amend his quotation above. Ed.] (4) Subsequently the question about the meaning of the word ויהי when it is not followed by either the word בימי or ביום is dealt with. In that context Rav Ashi said that the word itself is neutral and that its meaning is modified by what follows, such as the word בימי, for instance. The questioner who quoted a number of verses in which the word ויהי is not modified by either the word ביום or בימי, refers to very joyous events and gave Rav Ashi cause to say that this need not lead us to the assumption that only the words בימי or ביום modify the meaning of the word ויהי to signal that something sad is being reported. There are other occasions when the word by itself may also introduce something sad. When we have the words בימי, however, what follows invariably contains a negative element. Incidentally, the negative element in Exodus 19,16 where the Torah states ויהי ביום השלישי and introduces the happy event of מתן תורה, was that all the Israelites died for a brief space of time when they found themselves unable to absorb G'd's revelation. According to Shabbat 88, G'd brought them back to life immediately. (5) Perhaps another element of pain asscociated with the words ויהי ביום השמיני is that Moses realised on that day that it had become Aaron and his sons who were the "heirs" of his own spiritual stature and not his own sons. The Talmud (Menachot 109) tells about the High Priest Shimon Ha-tzaddik who had appointed one of his sons Chonov to be his successor, something which aroused the jealousy of Chonov's brother Shimi. The results were terrible. At any rate, we see from there that aspiring to something noble may cause the finest person anguish if one's desire goes unfulfilled. At the time G'd had repeatedly urged Moses to accept the role of leader of the Jewish people and Moses had repeatedly declined, G'd had become angry, deciding to deny Moses the position of High Priest [a hereditary position provided the son was suitable. Ed.] Up until now Moses had not felt saddened by not having been accorded the rank of High Priest. Now when he saw that Aaron had been given this honour, he was saddened by having forfeited the chance to be the High Priest. Although we know that Moses was the most humble and fair person his heart was not made of stone, and he suffered some emotional distress about this, especially as the position denied him involved being the instrument of atonement for his people, etc. Perhaps the Torah alluded to Moses' feelings in the matter in Numbers 7,1 where we read ויהי ביום כלות משה להקים את המשכן, "it was on the day Moses completed erecting the Tabernacle;" this was the same date as the day which is described in our portion as "the eighth day," i. e. the first of Nissan. Our suggestion would account for the fact that the Torah introduced both paragraphs with the words ויהי ביום, seeing that in our verse the sad event was the death of Nadav and Avihu whereas in Numbers the sadness the Torah alluded to was Moses' distress at having forfeited the chance to be the High Priest. (6) ביום …קרא משה לאהרון, on that day Moses called Aaron, etc. Any psychologist realises that a person who is forced to give up a position of honour originally intended for himself to someone else, even if that someone is his own brother, may be expected to display his distress in three ways. 1) He is unlikely to carry out the command with dispatch; 2) he is unlikely to perform the command in the most effective manner; 3) he will try to avoid fulfilling this command publicly. The Torah here describes that Moses mastered all the inhibitions an ordinary individual would have displayed in carrying out this command. 1) He carried out the command on the first day it was possible, i.e. the eighth day. 2) He carried out the command with all its attendant subsidiary commands, i.e. he appointed Aaron's sons at the same time although there was no immediate need for Aaron's sons to substitute for their father and this was perhaps the hardest part for him to fulfil. 3) He called in the elders of the people and performed the command in public. Moses displayed an example of suppressing his personal feelings in order to fulfil G'd's command.

(1) ‎‎ '‏וגו‎‎‎ 'הוא אשר דבר ה‎ THIS IS WHAT THE LORD SPOKE, etc. — Where had He spoken this? In the statement (Exodus 29:43), “And there I will be met by the children of Israel and it (the Tabernacle) shall be sanctified by My glory (בכבודי).” Read not here בִכְבוֹדִי, “by My Glory” but בִּמְכֻבָּדַי, “through My honoured ones” (Zevachim 115b). Moses here said to Aaron: “My brother, Aaron! I knew that this House was to be sanctified by those who are beloved of the Omnipresent God and I thought it would be either through me or through thee; now I see that these (thy sons who have died) are greater than me and than thee!” (Leviticus Rabbah 12 2).

(1) Silence is praise to You Silence is praise to You; because there is no end to Your praise, the more one praises, the more one detracts.

(95) 95 And indeed it is necessary for you to know that all acts of haShem are awesome, and wide and deep without limit, as the matter that is said (Psalms 92:6) "How great are your actions haShem..."; and the smallest of his actions has within it so much of the plentiful wisdom and depth, that it is impossible to descend to its depth ever, and this is the matter that is written (Psalms ibid), "...how deep are your thoughts". And behold now the acts of haShem are not comprehensible to us at all, rather their coverage is apparent, but their true internal essence is hidden, for this inside is equivalent in all of them - for all of them are only good and not negative at all, and this is not evident and understood now for certain. But in the future this will at least be seen and grasped - how all the revolutions of His strategies may He be blessed are deep for the purpose of bringing us goodness in our end. But it does not appear because of this that we shall grasp the end of the great wisdom which is encompassed in these actions, for all that which man will grasp every from the actions of the Creator is none other than a drop from the great sea. And therefore we know that when it is that the Master wanted to observe his creations through the rule of His goodness that we mentioned, behold all the actions which reach us now are through the way of reward and punishment, have within them that which is certainly not dissociated - that which revolves and progresses through His goodness always to complete our rectification And there is in this internal that which will be revealed in the future immediately, as it says (Isaiah 35:5) "Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened...", this is the intent, the thought that is seen and recognized from within the actions themselves, for immediately when our eyes are enlightened with the light of knowledge we will understand from the action itself that was done. Indeed, there is certainly from the deep wisdom in these actions, that which is not recognized and grasped from the power of the actions themselves; for the heavenly wisdom is lofty, in that it is not recognized even from it actions. And these are not other than the actions of His goodness may he be blessed which oversees us for the good, but always according to our value and not according to his value, like we explained; that this is none other than that which extends from the rule of his perfection, but when he acts through his actions it is only according to that which is relevant for us:

“And if a woman has a discharge of her ziva blood for many days not in the time of her menstruation, or if she has a discharge beyond the time of her menstruation, all the days of the issue of her ziva she shall be as in the days of her menstruation: She is impure” (Leviticus 15:25). This verse teaches that a woman becomes a zava only if she experiences bleeding close to her days of menstruation, i.e., on the day following her days of menstruation, but not during her days of menstruation. The baraita continues: And I have derived only that she is a zava in a case where she experiences bleeding close to her time of menstruation. From where do I derive that if she experiences bleeding one day separated from her days of menstruation she is also a zava? The verse states: “Or if she has a discharge beyond the time of her menstruation” (Leviticus 15:25). The baraita further states: I have derived only that she is a zava in a case where she experiences bleeding one day away from her time of menstruation. From where is it derived to include a case when she experiences bleeding two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, or ten days separated from her days of menstruation that she is also a zava? From where is this derived? You say as follows: Just as we find with regard to a woman who experiences bleeding on the fourth day of her days of ziva, that it is fit for counting, i.e., if she experiences bleeding for the first time on that day she must count one clean day for the one day that she experienced bleeding, and it is fit for ziva, i.e., if it is the last of three consecutive days of sightings that she becomes a greater zava, so too I will bring and include the tenth day, as it is fit for counting if she experiences bleeding for the first time on that day, and fit for ziva if she experiences bleeding for the third consecutive day on the tenth day. The baraita continues: And from where is it derived to include a case where she experiences bleeding on the eleventh day after her days of menstruation? The verse states: “Not in the time of her menstruation” (Leviticus 15:25). One might have thought that I include even the twelfth day after her period of menstruation. You must say: No, as that is no longer within her days of ziva. The baraita further states: And what did you see to include the eleventh day and to exclude the twelfth day? I include the eleventh day as it is fit for counting the seven clean days that follow sightings on three consecutive days which ended on the fourth day, as derived from the verse: “Or if she has a discharge beyond the time of her menstruation” (Leviticus 15:25), as explained; and I exclude the twelfth day as it is not fit for counting the seven clean days after the fourth day, a requirement derived from the same verse: “Or if she has a discharge beyond the time of her menstruation.” The baraita continues: And I have derived only that a woman is impure as a zava if she experiences bleeding for three consecutive days. From where do I derive that she is impure if she experiences bleeding for two consecutive days? The continuation of the verse states: “All the days of the issue of her ziva she shall be as in the days of her menstruation: She is impure” (Leviticus 15:25). The plural “days” indicates two days. From where is it derived that she is impure if she experiences bleeding on only one day? The verse states: “All the days of the issue of her ziva she shall be as in the days of her menstruation: She is impure.” The baraita further explains that the word “impure” in that verse teaches that a zava renders one who engages in intercourse with her impure, just like a menstruating woman does. The term: “She is impure,” indicates that she, a zava, renders a man who engages in intercourse with her impure, but a zav does not render a woman whom he engages in intercourse with ritually impure. One might have thought that one who engages in intercourse with a zav has the same status as one who engages in intercourse with a zava. Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference? And if a zava, who does not become impure through three sightings like she becomes impure if she experiences bleeding for three consecutive days, and yet she renders a man who engages in intercourse with her impure, then with regard to a zav, who becomes impure through three sightings even on a single day like he becomes impure by seeing a discharge for three consecutive days, isn’t it logical that he should render a women whom he engages in intercourse with ritually impure? Therefore, the verse states: “She shall be impure.” This teaches that a zava renders a man who engages in intercourse with her impure, but a zav does not render a woman whom he engages in intercourse with ritually impure. And from where is it derived that a zava transmits impurity to items designated for lying or sitting? The verse states: “Every bed which she lies on all the days of her discharge shall be for her like the bed of her menstruation; and everything that she sits on shall be impure, as the impurity of her menstruation” (Leviticus 15:26). And I have derived only that she transmits impurity to items designated for lying or sitting if she experiences bleeding for three consecutive days and is a greater zava. From where do I derive that she transmits impurity to items designated for lying or sitting if she experiences bleeding for two consecutive days and is only a lesser zava? The verse states “days.” And from where do I derive that she transmits impurity to items designated for lying or sitting even if she experiences bleeding on only one day? The verse states: “All the days of her discharge.” The baraita continues: And from where is it derived that she counts one clean day for experiencing bleeding on one day? The verse states: “All the days of her discharge shall be for her.” One might have thought that she must count seven clean days for experiencing bleeding on two consecutive days. And this is a logical inference: Just as a zav, who does not count one clean day if he sees a discharge on one day, nevertheless must count seven clean days if he sees a discharge on two days, then with regard to a zava, who counts one clean day if she experiences bleeding on one day, isn’t it logical that she should count seven clean days if she experiences bleeding on two consecutive days? The verse states: “All the days of her discharge shall be for her,” which teaches that she counts only her one day even if she experiences bleeding for two consecutive days. The Gemara explains the difficulty from this baraita: Evidently, the halakhot of the eleven days of ziva are derived from verses and are not a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva these halakhot are derived from verses. According to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya they are a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. With regard to the verse discussing the days of ziva, Rav Shemaya said to Rabbi Abba: But one can say that if she experiences bleeding during the daytime she shall be a zava, but if she experiences bleeding at night she shall be a menstruating woman, as the verse specifies “days.” Rabbi Abba said to him: With regard to your claim, the verse states: “Beyond the time of her menstruation” (Leviticus 15:25), which teaches that she becomes a zava if she experiences bleeding close to her days of menstruation. When is the time close to her days of menstruation? At night. And with regard to an emission during this time the verse calls her a zava. The Gemara concludes the tractate with a general statement with regard to Torah study. The school of Elijah taught: Anyone who studies halakhot every day is guaranteed that he is destined for the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “His ways [halikhot] are eternal” (Habakkuk 3:6). Do not read the verse as halikhot; rather, read it as halakhot. The verse indicates that the study of halakhot brings one to eternal life in the future world.