Parashas Shemini 5776

    “Rabbi Levi said, ‘eight sections were said on the day that the Mishkan was put together (i.e. on the “Eighth Day,” see Rashi on Vayikra 9:1): the section regarding Kohanim; the section regarding Levi’im; the section regarding those who are ritually impure; the section regarding sending those who are ritually impure out [of the camps]; the section in Acharay Mos; the section regarding those who drink wine; the section regarding the lights [of the Menorah]; and the section regarding the red heifer.” Which specific sections the Talmud (Gittin 60a-b) is referring to is a matter of discussion, including why they were taught on the first day of the Mishkan’s full operation.

    The Sifre Zuta (7:11, see also Mishnas Rebbe Eliezer 6) says that G-d spoke to Moshe 15 times that day, and lists the 15 communications. Bear in mind, though, that the context of the Talmud is why the Torah is called a “M’gilla” if the entire text was given (in writing) to the nation at one time (at the end of the 40 years in the desert), with Rabbi Levi’s list used to show that some sections were written down earlier. Therefore, some of what’s listed in the Sifre Zuta may not be in Rabbi Levi’s list precisely because they weren’t written down (then). Nevertheless, a closer look at these 15 might shed some light on the eight listed in the Talmud.

    For the 1st, “when a human brings an offering” (Vayikra 1:2), Moshe is told explicitly to “speak” to the nation, so he may not have been allowed to write it down for them, and/or had no need to, especially since the Kohanim took care of the offerings, not the rest of the nation. The 2nd, “command Aharon” (Vayikra 6:2, regarding the offerings) was not taught to the nation either, so was not written down for them. [Rabbi Levi may also be of the opinion that this was taught earlier, on Mt. Sinai (see 7:37-38 and https://rabbidmk.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/parashas-tzav-5772/), rather than in the Mishkan, not on that same day.] It was necessary to teach these two when (or before) the Mishkan became operational so that the offerings could be offered properly. The 3rd, “take for yourself a calf” (9:2), refers to the offerings Aharon brought on the “Eighth Day,” a one-time event, so there was no reason to write it down until it was included with the rest of the Torah. But since these offerings were brought that day, they had to be taught then.

    The 4th (drinking wine) is included in Rabbi Levi’s list, as is the 9th (those ritually impure being sent out), the 13th (lighting the Menorah), the 14th (the Levi’im) and the 15th (the red heifer). Why lighting the Menorah, which only Kohanim could do, and includes the instructions that Moshe “speak” to Aharon (18:2), is included on Rabbi Levi’s list will be discussed below, as well as why each of these were taught that day.

    The 5th, “any man of the House of Israel who slaughters” (Vayikra 17:3), which prohibits slaughtering animals anywhere but the Mishkan, also was to be “spoken” (and “said”), not written down. Obviously, until there was a Mishkan, this prohibition couldn’t have existed, and was enacted as soon as it was up, so it was taught on that first day. The 6th, “doing what the Egyptians do” (18:3) and 7th, “you shall be holy” (19:2) are also prefaced with the instruction to “speak” to the nation, as opposed to writing them down, but it is unclear why these had to be taught that day. Perhaps the intent is that all the laws taught between 17:1 (which is the 5th on this list) and 21:1 (which begins the 8th), were taught together (including the 8th), because they are one unit (see Tanchuma Emor 2/3), so even if not everything within the unit was needed on that first day of the Mishkan, since the beginning and end were, the entire unit was taught. But since there was a new “and G-d spoke to Moshe” for each of these, the Sifre Zuta lists them as separate “communications.”

    The 8th, “say to the Kohanim” (21:1) is on Rabbi Levi’s list as well. Even though Moshe was told to “say it” to them, which I have been suggesting precludes writing it down, it was “said” to the Kohanim, but had to be written down for the nation, so they could know that Kohanim were not allowed to become ritually impure, etc. (21:16), that they could not marry certain women (21:7 and 14) and that a Kohain with a blemish could not serve in the Mishkan (22:17-23, see Rashi in Gittin). The 10th, “so shall you bless” (Bamidbar 6:23), i.e. Birkas Kohanim, was only relevant for the Kohanim to know, and Moshe was told to “speak” to them, as opposed to writing it down. This blessing was made on that first day as well (see Rashi on Vayikra 9:22), so was taught right away.

    The 11th, “take from them” (7:5), referring to the wagons donated by the Tribal Chiefs, and the 12th, “one Tribal Chief per day” (7:11) were only relevant that one time, so didn’t need to be written down.

    With only six “sections” overlapping, we now have another issue to explain; why the other two mentioned by Rabbi Levi (Parashas T’mayim and Parashas Acharay Mos) were excluded by the Sifre Zuta. Let’s try to go through his list, and see what we can find.

    (1) Parashas Kohanim: As previously mentioned, Rashi tells us that this refers to the additional prohibitions that apply to Kohanim, which the nation had to be made aware of now that the Kohanim started functioning in their new role in the Mishkan. It corresponds to the 8th item on Sifre Zuta’s list.

    (2) Parashas Levi’im: Rashi says this refers to Bamidbar 8:6, when the Levi’im were “separated” from the rest of the nation, including the process that gave them their elevated status. He dismisses the opinion that this refers to Bamidbar 18:26, that the Levi’im must give a tithe to the Kohanim from the tithe given to them, because that wasn’t relevant yet, and would be called “Parashas Ma’aser” rather than “Parashas Levi’im.” He then says that the Levi’im being “separated” from the rest of the nation was necessary once the Mishkan was operational because they had to sing during the bringing of the offerings. [Sifre Zuta, which quotes the first few words of each verse, quotes the verse from the section Rashi says Rabbi Levi is referring to.] It should be noted, though, that Bamidbar 18:2-24 is very relevant from the first day the Mishkan was operational, as there the Levi’im were charged with guarding it. Nevertheless, this didn’t need to be written down right away unless the nation needed proof that G-d assigned this role to the Levi’im, nor was it necessary to explain why they were given the nation’s tithes (as compensation for guarding the Mishkan) until there were tithes to give. Besides, these sections were taught in Parashas Korach, in response to the nation’s concern that it was too easy to get too close to the Mishkan (17:27-28), so it’s unlikely that they were written down months earlier.

    As far as why the process of making those from the Tribe of Levi into “Levi’im” had to be written down, the non-Levi’im were involved in the process too (8:20), and written documentation could be referenced if anyone ever doubted their new role. [The same can be said for when the Kohanim took on their new role, but even if this didn’t happen at Sinai (see Z’vachim 115b), it had already occurred before the seven days of training, a week before the “Eighth Day,” so couldn’t be included in what was taught/written that day.]

    (3) Parashas T’mayim: According to Rashi, this refers to those who were “tamay” (ritually impure) and couldn’t bring the Passover offering, so were taught about the “Second Passover” offering, which they could bring a month later (Bamidbar 9:6-14). It was taught then because that’s when they were told to bring a Passover offering (9:1-4), and since they were also taught that those who were “tamay” couldn’t be near the Mishkan (see #4), so couldn’t bring the offering, asked what they could do instead. [The fact that this is included, but the commandment to bring the Passover offering is not, even though Rashi says explicitly that it was taught that same day, supports the theory that only those things that were written down were included in Rabbi Levi’s list; since Passover had already been taught at Sinai (see Rashi on Bamidbar 9:4, see also Sh’mos 23:15 and 34:18), and only the “Second Passover” was added here, this section would not have been written down because of the instructions to bring the regular Passover offering. Nevertheless, why the Second Passover was written down now, as well as why it’s called “Parashas T’mayim” rather than “Parashas Pesach Sheini,” is unclear. It is also unclear why this section is listed before “Parashas Shiluach T’mayim” if that was what led to this one.

    As far as why the Sifre Zuta omits this from its list, there are several possibilities. First of all, not everyone agrees that the “Eighth Day” was Rosh Chodesh Nissan; some are of the opinion that it was on the 8th of Nissan (see Ibn Ezra on Sh’mos 4:2, which is likely Rabbi Akiva’s opinion in Succah 25b). If this is what the Sifre Zuta held, while still considering the “Eighth Day” the day the Mishkan was completed (and the day of the 15 referenced communications, such as the “new” prohibition for Kohanim to drink wine), telling Moshe about the Passover offering on Rosh Chodesh Nissan (a week earlier) couldn’t be included. Nor could the response about the Second Passover offering, if it happened that same day, or if those who were “tamay” didn’t realize that they couldn’t bring the Passover offering until Erev Pesach.

    Another possibility is that the Sifre Zuta is following the opinion (P’sachim 6a-b) that the laws of the Second Passover were taught on Erev Pesach (whereas Rashi Rabbi Levi is following the opinion that laws about a holiday are only taught two weeks before the holiday, which, in this case, resulted in the Second Passover being taught then as well, see Maharsha). If neither the communication regarding Passover or the one about the Second Passover occurred on Rosh Chodesh Nissan, they couldn’t be included in the list of communications that occurred on that day.

    Because Tosfos follows the opinion that the laws of each holiday are taught 30 days prior (so the Second Passover could not have been commanded on Rosh Chodesh Nissan, 45 days prior), they explain “Parashas T’mayim” to be referring to the instructions to the Kohanim not to make anything that is holy “tamay” (Vayikra 22:1-16). However, we still need to explain why this section, which is addressed only to the Kohanim, was taught on that day (and written down), as opposed to any other section that became relevant once the Mishkan was in operation, especially those addressed to the entire nation (i.e. 22:17-32, which prohibits blemished animals from being offered, as well as other limitations).

    Some (see Maharsham, Responsa 2:94) suggest that “Parashas T’mayim” refers to the concept of “tumas ohel” (Bamidbar 19:14) whereby something under the same covering as a corpse becomes “tamay” even without contact. [One of the advantages of this approach is that it can explain why the vessels of the Mishkan did not become “tamay” when Nadav and Avihu died, as this concept wasn’t in play yet, even if ritually impurity via contact was.] The main drawback of this approach is that it seems to be part of “Parashas Para Aduma” (19:1-22), which is why it wasn’t included in the Sifre Zuta. [And if, for some reason, it is considered its own “section,” shouldn’t it have been listed next to that one?]

    Others (see Ran and Rabbeinu Krescas) suggest that it refers to the “tumah” caused by dead animals (Vayikra 11:29-43), and continues through the “tumos” caused by childbirth, “tzora’as,” and bodily emissions (12:1-15:32). This applied to the whole nation, and was more relevant once the Mishkan was up. Additionally, it starts in Parashas Sh’mini and ends before Parashas Emor, a.k.a. “Parashas Kohanim,” making it more likely that they were taught together. And it makes sense to first mention the causes of the “tumah” that leads to having to leave the inner camps, the next section on Rabbi Levi’s list. [Sifre Zuta, on the other hand, may have considered this a continuation of the communication regarding which animals are kosher (11:1-28), which was not more relevant on that day, so wouldn’t have occurred specifically then.]

    (4) Parashas Shiluach T’mayim: Whomever was ritually impure had to vacate the inner camps (Bamidbar 5:1-4), which applied to the entire nation, and was only relevant after the Mishkan (the innermost camp) was built (see Rashi).

    (5) Parashas Acharay Mos: The Yom Kippur service, including instructions for how the Kohain Gadol can enter the inner sanctum without dying the way Nadav and Avihu did. Even though it was said “after their deaths” (Vayikra 16:1) there’s no reason why it had to be taught immediately afterwards (see Tosfos, see also Y’rushalmi Yuma 1:1 and Vayikra Rabbah 20:12), which is likely why it’s not included in the Sifre Zuta. Even if it was communicated to Moshe on the day of their deaths (the “Eighth Day”) so that he can warn Aharon not to enter the inner sanctum any time he wants (see Rashi), it was most relevant for Aharon, who performed the service (and was the most likely to have entered the inner sanctum), as opposed to the entire nation. Additionally, Moshe was told to “speak” to him, which implies not writing it down (yet). Nevertheless, it can be suggested that Aharon was impacted so strongly by his sons’ deaths that he had to be told immediately that he will be able to enter the inner sanctum without suffering the same consequences as long as he follows the prescribed process. It can be further suggested that the deaths of two of the most righteous people, spiritual leaders of the nation, affected the entire nation so much that they had to be made aware that their spiritual leader will be able to enter the inner sanctum under the right conditions, and it was therefore written down for them, with the “speak to” implication of not writing it down meaning not to write it down for Aharon, who was taught it orally before it was put on parchment for the nation.

    (6) Parashas Sh’suyai Yayin: It was forbidden for the Kohanim to perform the service, or even teach, after drinking wine (or anything similar). This was taught immediately after Nadav and Avihu’s death (Vayikra 10:8-11), leading to rabbinic speculation that it was a causal factor (see Vayikra Rabbah 12:1), but also had to be taught then because it became relevant when the Kohanim started performing the service in the Mishkan (Rashi). And even though it applied most to Aharon and his sons, the entire nation needed to know that the Kohanim weren’t allowed to perform their spiritual duties under the influence. Nevertheless, if we are going with the premise that only the most important things were written down then, this wouldn’t seem to qualify — unless Aharon, and the entire nation, were so impacted by the tragedy that they needed to be reassured that there were contributing circumstances that could be, and would be, avoided in the future. By publicly making it known that one of the contributing factors, alcohol, was becoming prohibited from that point forward, there was a measure of reassurance that this tragedy would not be repeated.

    (7) Parashas Neiros: Besides the construction of the Menorah, there are three times when its lighting is mentioned. The first, Sh’mos 27:20-21, was obviously said to Moshe before the Mishkan was built, so is not being referred to here. The second, Vayikra 24:1-4, parallels the first, with Moshe first being told that he will, in the future, command the Children of Israel to donate pure olive oil for the Menorah, and then being told that now is the time to command them to do so. With the Menorah being lit daily, the oil was now needed, so this “section” might have been what was being referred to. However, every source I have seen (including the Sifre Zuta) says it refers to Bamidbar 18:2, which is directed at Aharon (not the nation), and is introduced by telling Moshe to “speak to Aharon, and say to him,” a double-language of verbal communication that, unless they somehow cancel each other out like a double-negative (which didn‘t happen with the 5th item on the Sifre Zuta’s list), would doubly-imply that it should not be written down (yet).

    Rashi, paraphrasing Midrash Tanchuma, tells us that Aharon was commanded regarding the Menorah here because he was feeling down about not being included with the other Tribal Chiefs in bringing an offering to help consecrate the Mishkan. Based on what I have suggested above, perhaps the impact the deaths of Nadav and Avihu had on him, and on the nation, came into play here as well. Seeing Aharon excluded from the service after the death of his sons, while the Tribal Chiefs played a major role, reinforced the concern everyone had about Aharon’s future role in the Mishkan. Therefore, a very public proclamation was made, and put down on parchment, that Aharon still played the most major role, entering the sanctuary every day to light the Menorah.

    (8) Parashas Para Aduma: As previously mentioned, this refers to the red heifer used in the purification process, a process which first started the day after the Mishkan was fully operational (see Rashi). No real (additional) controversies to report here, especially after taking up twice as much of your time as usual this week. My apologies; I hope it was worthwhile.