Follow ChabadInfo & Never Miss an Update!

Follow us on Instagram Subscribe to our WhatsApp status and broadcast Follow us on Tiktok Follow us on Facebook Follow us on X Follow us on Google News Subscribe on YouTube

BEGIN WITH A GRIN

When it comes to food, the heart says: go to a restaurant, the mind says: have it delivered to your home, and the pocket says: make toast…

HOLY BROTHERS ‘DEBATE’

In Parshas Shemini, we read about an interesting halachic dialogue between Moshe and his older brother, Aharon the Kohen Gadol. After the death of Aharon’s two sons, Nadav and Avihu, who “offered a strange fire before the L-rd,” Moshe commands the remaining brothers to “eat the sin-offering in a holy place” – that they should eat the sin-offering (Korban Chatas) brought that day, even though they are in mourning (onen), and usually a mourner is forbidden to eat sacred foods.

Later in the parsha, Moshe discovers that the additional sin-offering of the new month (Rosh Chodesh) was not eaten but burned. After the great scandal and following the opening of the state commission of inquiry into the events of “the eighth day” – the first of Nissan, a halachic debate takes place between two great leaders of Israel, Moshe and Aharon.

The main halachic discussion does not appear explicitly in the text but is discussed at length in Gemara Zevachim 101a and brought in Rashi’s commentary on the Torah. Regarding Aharon’s response, “Behold, today they have offered their sin-offering and their burnt-offering before Hashem, and such things have befallen me, and if I had eaten the sin-offering today, would it have been good in the eyes of Hashem?” (Vayikra 10:19), the Gemara derives that Aharon’s claim was – “Perhaps you only heard about temporary sacred offerings [kodshei sha’ah – one-time sin-offering for the dedication of the Mishkan], for if regarding permanent sacred offerings [kodshei doros – Rosh Chodesh sin-offering offered on every Rosh Chodesh as long there is a Mishkan or Mikdash], there is a kal v’chomer (‘a fortiori’ argument) from the lighter case of maaser (tithed grain). If regarding maaser, the Torah says (Devarim 26:14) ‘I have not eaten of it in my mourning,’ then with permanent sacred offerings, all the more so.”

In other words, G-d’s command to Moshe that Aharon’s sons should eat the offerings brought that day was specifically about the special offerings brought only on that day, namely: the sin-offering of Nachshon ben Aminadav and the goat sin-offering, but the new month sin-offering, a permanent and sanctified offering for generations, has a special, higher sanctity, and therefore G-d’s command may not apply to this offering. In the end, Moshe agreed with Aharon’s distinction and “acknowledged without shame” that Aharon was right.

Rashi in his commentary on the Torah also brings Aharon’s claim that there is a big and clear difference between “temporary sacred offerings” (Nachshon’s offering and the goat sin-offering) and “permanent sacred offerings” (the Rosh Chodesh goat sin-offering), but when carefully examining Rashi’s language, there is a striking and significant difference between Rashi’s wording and the Gemara’s language.

Rashi copies only a small part of the Gemara’s wording, and even this quote is presented with a change: “If you heard about temporary sacred offerings, you should not be lenient regarding permanent sacred offerings.” At first glance, it seems that Rashi is just abbreviating the Gemara’s language, but upon closer examination, there is a significant difference between the two phrasings.

According to Rashi, it appears that “temporary sacred offerings” are inherently of lesser standing than “permanent sacred offerings,” and therefore the permission given for eating “temporary sacred offerings” cannot be applied to the more stringent “permanent sacred offerings.” But from the Gemara’s language, it appears exactly the opposite – that “temporary sacred offerings” are more stringent than “permanent sacred offerings,” except that there is a special ‘kal v’chomer’ that we learn from maaser, which determines that “permanent sacred offerings” not be eaten in mourning.

According to the above, not only does Rashi not quote the Gemara’s words in full, but on the contrary, Rashi (in the simple meaning of the text) completely disagrees with the Gemara’s reasoning! According to Rashi, “permanent sacred offerings” are more stringent than “temporary sacred offerings,” while according to the Gemara, the opposite is true – “temporary sacred offerings” are more stringent than “permanent sacred offerings.”

What is the reasoning behind the dispute between Rashi and the Gemara? And what instruction can we learn from this conceptual dispute?

FOREVER HOLY

In a wonderful sicha, the Rebbe explains the depth of the matter and the lesson learned from it regarding bringing the Geula. The Rebbe explains that Rashi and the Sages are not arguing about what is more stringent, “kodshei sha’ah” or “kodshei doros,” but rather about what type of “kodshei sha’ah” is being discussed in our parsha. According to the Rebbe’s explanation, there are two types of “temporary sacred offerings,” and they are very different from each other.

The first type is a one-time offering that had no future results or implications. An example of this: Eliyahu HaNavi’s offerings on Mount Carmel. These are offerings that were (and will be) only once in history, and they did not cause any continuing sanctity in the place where they were offered. In contrast, there is a second type of “kodshei sha’ah,” korbanos that were indeed brought only once, but they caused “permanent sanctity,” similar to the offerings for the inauguration of the Mishkan or the offerings of the days of consecration, through which divine sanctity descended to the Mishkan for many generations. These two types can be defined as “ordinary temporary sacred offerings” and “temporary sacred offerings (whose effect is) permanent.”

According to all opinions, the first type of “kodshei sha’ah” “ordinary kodshei sha’ah” is lighter than “kodshei doros,” and therefore permission given to such “temporary sacred offerings” would not apply to “permanent sacred offerings.” In contrast, “kodshei sha’ah [with kedusha] l’doros” are more stringent than ordinary “kodshei doros,” since it is precisely through the offering of these sacrifices that the sanctity [kedusha] applies “permanently” [l’doros], and it seems obvious to say that something that causes sanctity is more weighty, more stringent, and of greater sanctity than something caused by it, therefore such “temporary sacred offerings” are more stringent than “permanent sacred offerings.”

According to this explanation, the Gemara’s words are understood that without the special ‘kal v’chomer’ from maaser, we would have thought that the permission given for eating “temporary sacred offerings” would also apply to “permanent sacred offerings,” because these temporary sacred offerings are more stringent.

Rashi, on the other hand, fundamentally agrees with the above, such “temporary sacred offerings” are indeed more stringent than “permanent sacred offerings,” but he disagrees regarding the eating of the sacred offerings. According to Rashi, the special importance of “temporary sacred offerings” is in their actual being offered up on the Altar, because this offering led to the inauguration of the Mishkan and the dwelling of the Divine Presence within it. This is not the case regarding the eating of the temporary sacred offerings, which has no special importance as it did not cause any sanctity to apply, since the eating of the offerings was done after the Mishkan had already been inaugurated and the sanctity had already dwelt in it. Therefore, regarding eating “kodshei sha’ah,” Rashi holds that it is lighter than eating “kodshei doros” and does not override mourning.

In contrast, according to the Gemara, even the eating of “kodshei sha’ah” has importance in terms of the inauguration of the Mishkan, just as in a regular offering, the law is that “the Kohanim eat and the owners are atoned for,” so too regarding eating these “kodshei sha’ah,” there is special sanctity and it should override mourning if not for the special ‘kal v’chomer’ from maaser.

In light of the above, it comes out that according to all opinions, the offering of “temporary sacred offerings with permanent effect” is more stringent than any other type of sanctity or offering, and the dispute between Rashi and the Gemara is only regarding their eating.

On the spiritual level, “permanent sacred offerings” represent the eternal instructions of the Torah, fixed matters that exist from generation to generation without change. In contrast, “temporary sacred offerings” symbolize the special instructions that are renewed each generation – regulations and instructions from the Gedolei and Chachmei Yisrael that are called for due to the “call of the hour.”

With “kodshei doros” – the mitzvos of the Torah and the halachos in Shulchan Aruch, it is easier to fulfill because we are already accustomed to them. In contrast, with “kodshei sha’ah” – the Rebbe’s special instructions for our generation, the “evil inclination” stands up to full height and claims: “Who said?!” “What is different about today?!” “Until now life was fine without this, so why the addition?!”

And this is the lesson learned from the above explanation, both according to Rashi and the Gemara, there is special importance specifically to “temporary sacred offerings,” even more than “permanent sacred offerings,” and one must be careful to fulfill “temporary sacred offerings” in a more stringent manner than the care for “permanent sacred offerings.”

As far as bringing the Geula, according to all signs we are in the ikvesa d’Meshicha (“footsteps of Moshiach”), to such an extent that Moshiach himself “looks through the windows, peeks through the cracks,” and the demand of the hour is to prepare oneself, one’s family, one’s surroundings, and the entire world to greet Moshiach, and this needs to be done with complete self-sacrifice, even more than the usual dedication to the regular instructions of the Torah (“permanent sacred offerings”). This work needs to be done “with all your might/money,” because this is a timely matter and it overrides in its importance other matters and works, to the point of self-sacrifice, without any calculations, with complete nullification, similar to the “burning of the Korban” and the nullification of its existence.

And precisely such work, without any calculations, brings about the revelation of Moshiach, who comes specifically “when the mind is distracted,” through work that is above reason!

TO CONCLUDE WITH A STORY

And we’ll end with a story about the special importance that the Rebbe gave to “temporary sacred offerings” and to the “call of the hour” of our generation – to encourage and strengthen the Jewish people to bring the Geula, a story that I heard at the time from Rabbi Yosef Yeshaya Braun, the Mara d’Asra of Crown Heights.

“Rabbi Binyamin Williger, one of the elder Chassidim of Sanz-Klausenburg and also close to the Rebbe, was an eid (witness) at my wedding, and also one of the members in my grandfather’s shul. Rabbi Williger told that one night, in the year 5751, at a quarter to one, after he had finally managed to fall asleep, the phone at home rings. He picks up the receiver in wonder about the ringing in the middle of the night, and asks who is it? And they answer that they are calling from Lubavitch; it was Rabbi Groner.

“He asked, who is responsible for the publication called Sanz? (Rabbi Williger thought to himself – for this you’re calling me now?! We can talk about this tomorrow morning…). Rabbi Williger answered him that he is not the publisher, but one of the Admor’s family members is responsible for it. The secretary continued: The Rebbe said to me that if you are responsible then the Rebbe ‘commands’ you, and if not then he only requests… In the aforementioned publication, one of the regular sections is Torah teachings of the Admor of Sanz (they printed his teachings from previous years) and in the last issue they chose a teaching that the Rebbe of Klausenburg expounded in 1957, which was full of ‘shvere verter’ (harsh words), strong words of rebuke. The secretary asked in the Rebbe’s name, since there are other teachings of his, why must they print specifically such teachings? At such a time, they need to strengthen the Jewish people, and the Chassidim of Klausenburg in particular. And all this at a quarter to one in the morning!”

Good Shabbos!

5