RITSS HIGH SCHOOL
PRESENTS A D`VAR TORAH
ON SHMINI
By Rabbi Moshe Heigh
WHAT DO MILUIM, MOURNING FOR MOSHE,
KOHEN GADOL IN THE MIKDASH, AND SUCCAH HAVE IN COMMON?
Today's parsha concludes the Miluim ritual, the process through which Aharon and his sons were installed as kohanim to serve in the Mishkan. The famous "Yom Hashmini", eighth day of Miluim, was Rosh Chodesh Nissan, 2449. Last week, we planned that this week's would be a continuation. We already established that the Talmud Bavli and Talmud Yerushalmi differ regarding an aspect of Miluim, the week-long inauguration of the kohanim to serve in the Mishkan. The Bavli in Succah 43A holds that Moshe, Aharon, and his sons were not to leave the Mishkan area for the entire time. The Yerushalmi in Yoma 1:1 proves that they were only obligated to stay there and learn the priestly functions while the Mishkan was erect. Since Moshe would build it at the end of each day and leave it constructed into the night, that was the only time period they had to be present. Another opinion in the Yerushalmi is that the end of the night and into the day had the same din. For those source locations, commentary, and detail, please consult last week's d'var Torah.
Now we will approach the matter again, but from a different angle. Remember, there are multiple interpretations for Torah. The rishonim, early commentators, sometimes provide explanations which apparently disagree with the Gemara. Their objective is to focus on the pasuk using a different emphasis, based on textual consistency or other foundations. Of course, they knew the Gemaros and totally respected the words of our Talmudic sages, agreeing with their conclusions as well. These rishonim only sought to uncover additional insights into Torah. Often, their remarks elucidate the Gemara's pshat, and they can be easily synthesized with it. An in-depth analysis of today's rishonim, working them into the Talmud Bavli (and Yerushalmi), is not within the scope of this d'var Torah.
The pasuk we saw last week was in Parshas Tzav, 8:33. "Do not leave the entrance of the Tent of Meeting for seven days..." Ibn Ezra first cites an opinion (the Chizkuni maintains this) that the prohibition was just for the DAYS, the "yamim" of Miluim. At night, they were allowed to depart to take care of their needs. Ibn Ezra himself, however, learns that they were allowed to go away from there day OR night to tend to their needs.
The Ibn Ezra proves his point from Moshe's death, which occurred almost forty years after this induction of the kohanim into their avodah. What could the connection possibly be? The comparison is in the words used by the Torah to describe events which spanned many days. When a pasuk says that something happened for a certain number of days, does that mean the matter was UNCEASING for that time period? It says that Bnai Yisroel cried for Moshe "for thirty days" (Devarim 34:8). Does this imply that their only activity for a full month, twenty four hours a day, was to mourn for Moshe? As the Ibn Ezra puts it, was it "as if there was not a moment that they were not crying?" This is clearly not the intention. The same is true by Miluim. Did they not budge from the Ohel Moed entrance for a full week? No, says the Ibn Ezra, this is never the message when the Torah discusses events which took time. Thus, the Torah means that they should be present at the door of the Communion Tent DURING the days and nights of the consecration ceremony, but not necessarily every minute. What restriction was imposed on them with the words "do not leave...for seven days"? "The explanation is", declares the Ibn Ezra, "that they should not become occupied with anything else." Recall that we quoted him in the preceding paragraph, that they were allowed to be away day or night to take care of important matters. Of course, they were generally not to go away from the Mishkan area.The Ramban defines this restriction in a similar fashion. Based on a Braisa (Tanaic statement) in Toras Kohanim, they were not allowed to depart from the Ohel Moed entrance day and night for seven days, AT THE TIME OF AVODAH - while the divine service was being carried out or demonstrated for them by Moshe. In other words, they needed to first complete the entire avodah which was incumbent upon them at that particular moment. After this, there was no prohibition. Do you remember the Yerushalmi from last week? Today's Toras Kohanim, quoted by the Ramban, seems to have a similar attitude. At the time of any avodah during these seven days, the kohanim had to be present. True, the Yerushalmi was saying that there was one definite time for this each day (end of day and into night), when the Mishkan was erected, or two specific times, according to the opinion that the Mishkan was erected at the end of the night and into the day also. The Toras Kohanim brought by Ramban is not as exact, but the concept is certainly the same: only during avodah they were obligated to stay in the vicinity. Ramban adds that this mitzvah is binding for generations - a kohen is never allowed to leave the Mishkan or Bais Hamikdosh in the middle of an avodah. This transgression can result in death.
Please be reminded of the title, where we hoped to connect four topics. Two are taken care of already. Miluim and mourning after Moshe's death were both for extended time periods, and the Ibn Ezra proved that the activities were not constant during those days. The kohen gadol's regulations, plus the law of succah, will be similar. Concerning the kohen gadol who has lost even a close relative, the Torah forbids him to leave the Mikdash. "From the Mikdash he shall not go out, and he shall not profane the Mikdash of his G-d..." (Emor 21:12). Rashi comments that even if one of his parents passes away, he continues performing the avodah. He ALWAYS stays in the sacred place. Does this mean he does not depart AT ALL from the Mishkan or Bais Hamikdosh? Is the kohen gadol forever bound to the holy area of the residence of Hashem's glory? The Ibn Ezra on that pasuk (21:12) explains that the Torah does not mean this. "He should not leave the Mikdash EXCEPT FOR A MITZVAH MATTER." Again, the Torah's words are not to be taken literally. He does not go out to escort the deceased to burial, surely he does not leave for trivial matters, but he may likely be absent if needed for other mitzvah functions. In addition, the Ramban from before shows that the kohen for generations is like the kohanim during Miluim - they may not leave WHILE AN AVODAH IS BEING PERFORMED.
The Chizkuni connects succah to our discussion. "Dwell in succos (booths, huts) for seven days" (Emor 23:42). Does this denote seven days STRAIGHT, without leaving the succah at all? The Chizkuni on our pasuk in the end of Tzav proclaims that the same rule applies here. The Karnai Ohr on this pasuk, a commentary on the Ibn Ezra, brings this comparison of the Chizkuni and clarifies it. There is no requirement to dwell in the succah constantly. Rather, the succah is supposed to be the principle residence during Succos. The same is with Miluim: they were to dwell at the Mishkan area so they could constantly occupy themselves with holy matters. However, Hashem never never forbade them from leaving for important reasons.
Miluim, mourning for Moshe, a kohen gadol staying in the Mikdash, and succah share the same rule. Time-bound procedures are subject to reasonable intermissions.
If you wish to sponsor the weekly D`var Torah please e-mail Rabbi Kibel
Edited by Dovid Lustig
Comments? Suggestions? e-mail webmaster
reach us on the web at http://www.kicc.org