Let me share with you a technical Vort. We have in this week’s Parsha as
Rashi teaches us in 4:14 (ויחר אף: ר' יהושע בן קרחה אומר כל חרון אף
שבתורה נאמר בו רושם, וזה לא נאמר בו רושם, ולא מצינו שבא עונש על ידי אותו
חרון. אמר לו רבי יוסי אף בזו נאמר בו רושם, הלא אהרן אחיך הלוי, שהיה
עתיד להיות לוי ולא כהן, והכהונה הייתי אומר לצאת ממך, מעתה לא יהיה כן,
אלא הוא יהיה כהן ואתה הלוי, שנאמר (דברי הימים א' כג כד) ומשה איש הא-להים
בניו יקראו על שבט הלוי) that Aharon Hakohen was Zoche to Kehuna. When
he came out with joy to greet Moshe Rabbeinu he was Zoche to be a Kohen.
There is a major problem. The Kehuna here was still with the Bechorim
until the Cheit Ha’eigel because until that time there was no special
designation for Sheivet Levi. It would appear that it is a mistake that
if the Kehuna was still with the Bechorim how would Aharon be Zoche to
the Kehuna?
I recall seeing at one time in the writings of the Steipler, he says a Yesod which I understand is a Rashi near the end of Maseches Zevachim that it is not true that the Bechorim would have been Kohanim. The Bechorim would have been Leviim which was then taken over by Sheivet Levi, but in regards to Kehuna Aharon Hakohen was Zoche to Kehuna here.
As we see when there is no Levi in Shul the Bechor takes over and washes the hand of the Kohanim (by Duchaning). We don’t say that if there is no Kohen in Shul that the Bechor takes over and Duchans. The reason for this is that it was only the Levi’ya that went by the Cheit Ha’eigel from the Bechor to Levi. The Kehuna, Aharon was Zoche to that. This is an old Vort that I had seen in the writings of the Steipler.
However, recently I realized that this seems on the one hand to answer a Kasha of the Maharsha. It seems that the Maharsha doesn’t agree. The Maharsha in Maseches Pesachim 117 or 118 by the Sugya of Hallel asks how it says in Hallel which was originally said at the splitting of the Yam Suf before the Chait Ha’eigel, so the Maharsha asks how does it say in Hallel a mention of Beis Aharon 3 times in Hallel regarding Betach Ba’shem? How do we say that, Yomru Na Beis Aharon? How do we say something special about the Bais Aharon? Yivareich Es Beis Aharon, what is special about the Beis Aharon? At the Eigel the Bechorim were still the Kohanim?
We see from the Maharsha’s Kasha that he does not agree with this Yesod. However, on the other hand, the Steipler’s Yesod would answer the Maharsha’s Kasha. So if we would call it Shittas Rashi it would answer the difficulty.
I recall seeing at one time in the writings of the Steipler, he says a Yesod which I understand is a Rashi near the end of Maseches Zevachim that it is not true that the Bechorim would have been Kohanim. The Bechorim would have been Leviim which was then taken over by Sheivet Levi, but in regards to Kehuna Aharon Hakohen was Zoche to Kehuna here.
As we see when there is no Levi in Shul the Bechor takes over and washes the hand of the Kohanim (by Duchaning). We don’t say that if there is no Kohen in Shul that the Bechor takes over and Duchans. The reason for this is that it was only the Levi’ya that went by the Cheit Ha’eigel from the Bechor to Levi. The Kehuna, Aharon was Zoche to that. This is an old Vort that I had seen in the writings of the Steipler.
However, recently I realized that this seems on the one hand to answer a Kasha of the Maharsha. It seems that the Maharsha doesn’t agree. The Maharsha in Maseches Pesachim 117 or 118 by the Sugya of Hallel asks how it says in Hallel which was originally said at the splitting of the Yam Suf before the Chait Ha’eigel, so the Maharsha asks how does it say in Hallel a mention of Beis Aharon 3 times in Hallel regarding Betach Ba’shem? How do we say that, Yomru Na Beis Aharon? How do we say something special about the Bais Aharon? Yivareich Es Beis Aharon, what is special about the Beis Aharon? At the Eigel the Bechorim were still the Kohanim?
We see from the Maharsha’s Kasha that he does not agree with this Yesod. However, on the other hand, the Steipler’s Yesod would answer the Maharsha’s Kasha. So if we would call it Shittas Rashi it would answer the difficulty.
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה