Were the Bechorim Kohanim? - Ki Sisa 5771

In the Parsha we learn that Aharon Hakohen participated in the creation of the Eigel. Chazal are troubled by Aharon’s participation. What is often quoted is a Gemara in Maseches Sanhedrin 7a (7 lines from the top) (ופליגא דרבי תנחום בר חנילאי דאמר רבי תנחום בר חנילאי לא נאמר מקרא זה אלא כנגד מעשה העגל שנאמר וירא אהרן ויבן מזבח לפניו מה ראה א"ר בנימין בר יפת א"ר אלעזר ראה חור שזבוח לפניו אמר אי לא שמענא להו השתא עבדו לי כדעבדו בחור ומיקיים בי אם יהרג במקדש ה' כהן ונביא ולא הויא להו תקנתא לעולם מוטב דליעבדו לעגל אפשר הויא להו תקנתא בתשובה). The Gemara Darshuns the Posuk 32:5 (וַיַּרְא אַהֲרֹן, וַיִּבֶן מִזְבֵּחַ לְפָנָיו; וַיִּקְרָא אַהֲרֹן וַיֹּאמַר, חַג לַירוָר מָחָר)

Aharon saw, the Gemara asks what did Aharon see? The Gemara relates that Chur had refused to participate and Chur was killed by the mob. Aharon was afraid that if he too would be killed, there would be terrible repercussions on Klal Yisrael. There is a concept of (אם יהרג במקדש ה' כהן ונביא).

There is an Inyan if the Kohen and Navi are killed in the Mikdash Hashem it is a terrible thing. Therefore Aharon Hakohen chose to participate rather than to be killed as this would be a terrible Kitrug on Klal Yisrael. This is a well known Vort and is actually a Gemara in Sanhedrin 7 as has been stated already.

My question for the week is, this Gemara that says Aharon and Chur would be the Kohen and Navi seems to be inconsistent to something that we all know.

It is well known that until the time of the Eigel, the Kehunah was supposed to be given over to the Bechorim of Klal Yisrael (the first born). It was only as a consequence of the Cheit Ha’eigel that it was taken away from the Bechorim.

This idea is almost B’feirush in the Pesukim in Parshas Bamidbar and Behaloscha. There we read that Moshe Rabbeinu counts the number of Leviim and counts the number of Bechorim and is Podeh (makes an exchange) one for the other. As Rashi says in Parshas Bamidbar 3:12 (מתוך בני ישראל: שיהיו ישראל שוכרין אותן לשירות שלי. על ידי הבכורות זכיתי בהם ולקחתים תמורתם, לפי שהיתה העבודה בבכורות, וכשחטאו בעגל נפסלו, והלוים שלא עבדו עבודה זרה נבחרו תחתיהם) the Bechorim should have done the Avodah up until this point. Therefore we have a major problem. If Aharon would be killed, that would not be the death of a Kohen and Navi. Aharon at that point before the Cheit Ha’eigel was not yet a Kohen, so it is not a case of Kohen V’navi. This seems to be an exceedingly difficult problem and a Kasha that begs resolution.

I had this Kasha and as I continued learning the Parsha I came to something else that will shed light on this. So let’s begin a second discussion.

Was the Cheit Ha’eigel something that took place before the building of the Mishkan, before the commandment to build the Mishkan or is it something that took place afterwards. As you know Parshas Ki Sisa is sandwiched between the Parshios of Terumah and Tetzaveh that discuss the Mishkan and Parshas Vayakhel Pekudai that discusses the Mishkan. Which took place first? The Cheit Ha’eigel or the commandment to build the Mishkan?

This is a Machlokes Rashi and Ramban. In 31:18 Rashi (ויתן אל משה וגו': אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה. מעשה העגל קודם לצווי מלאכת המשכן ימים רבים היה, שהרי בשבעה עשר בתמוז נשתברו הלוחות, וביום הכפורים נתרצה הקב"ה לישראל, ולמחרת התחילו בנדבת המשכן והוקם באחד בניסן) brings a Medrash Tanchuma that says the Cheit Ha’eigel preceded the commandment to build the Mishkan. So according to Rashi the Cheit Haeigel took place before the Parsha of Terumah and Tetzaveh and we use the principle of (אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה) and the Parshiyos are not always in order of the sequence of events.

The Ramban however in many places including the beginning of Parshas Vayakhel disagrees and says that the commandment to build the Mishkan was before the building of the Eigel. Klal Yisrael was commanded to build the Mishkan and after the Cheit Haeigel they were deemed unworthy of the Mishkan residing among them and only later when Moshe Rabbeinu came down on Yom Kippur with the second set of Luchos was the commandment actually fulfilled and the people built the Mishkan. This Ramban is the Shitta of the Zohar.

So we have 2 opinions. Rashi says the Cheit Ha’eigel was before the commandment to build the Mishkan and the Ramban says that the commandment to build a Mishkan preceded the Cheit Ha’eigel. Of course the Ramban fits better with the order of the Parshiyos of the Torah.

There is a problem here because in Parshas Tetzaveh when there was a commandment to make the Bigdei Kehunah we have mentioned numerous times that it was for Aharon and his children as Kohanim. According to Rashi it is fine, after the Eigel Aharon and his children are going to be Kohanim. However, according to the Ramban where the Parshiyos of Terumah and Tetzaveh preceded the Cheit Ha’eigel we have a serious difficulty. Before the Eigel was built, the Bigdei Kehunah were going to be for the Bechorim. So the question then is, why does it say for Aharon and his children? This is a Kasha on the Shitta of the Ramban.

The grandchildren of the Steipler printed some of his notes and letters in a Sefer called Rishumai Kehillas Yaakov. In there, there is a letter that addresses this and the Steipler says something that is an extraordinary Chiddush, not something that we would have understood on our own, but once we hear it many things come out good.

The Steipler says the following Chiddush. Aharon and his descendents were going to be Kohanim in any event. We learn this in Parshas Shemos 4:14 when Rashi says (וראך ושמח בלבו: לא כשאתה סבור שיהא מקפיד עליך שאתה עולה לגדולה. ומשם זכה אהרן לעדי החשן הנתון על הלב) that Aharon saw Moshe Rabbeinu when he was returning to Mitzrayim and he rejoiced with the good fortune of Moshe Rabbeinu. The Schar for that was that the Kehuna went to Aharon.  

Aharon was going to be Kohen anyway. The whole issue of Bechor or Sheivet Levi had to do with the Leviim alone. Only the Leviim were people who achieved their status because of the Cheit Ha’eigel, because they refrained from participating. So that Aharon would have been Kohen anyway. The whole Parshas Bamidbar and Parshas Behaloscha was a tradeoff of Bechorim against Leviim. It was only the Leviim who were Zoche after the Cheit Ha’eigel.

A Raya to this is if the Bechorim were to be Kohanim why were the Bechorim of Sheivet Levi deprived of that privilege? If the Bechorim were supposed to be Kohanim so then a Bechor from Sheivet Levi should have been a Kohen even after the Cheit Ha’eigel?

Therefore says the Steipler, it must be that the Kohanim were going to be Kohanim anyway and it had nothing to do with the Cheit Ha’eigel and the whole issue is a tradeoff of Leviim and Bechorim and that is it. This of course answers both questions the question (that was supposed to be the question of the week) of (אם יהרג במקדש ה' כהן ונביא) and the question of Aharon and his children from Parshas Tetzaveh.

There is a bonus, because it answers something else as well. It is known in the name of the Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh that the Bechorim will return to do the Avodah when Moshiach comes. We don’t know where the Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh learned that from because we don’t have Midrashim that say it. However, we are relying in the Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh. 

It is a problem because the Gemara says how do we know that there will be Techiyas Hameisim? We know it because the Posuk says Terumah will be given to Aharon Hakohen. The problem is that Aharon never lived to enter Eretz Yisrael to receive Terumah. The Gemara says in the Yemos Hamashiach he will receive Terumah. If Kohanim will no longer be Kohanim after Moshiach comes as the Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh seems to say, why would Aharon get Terumah? According to the Steipler’s Yesod it is beautiful, the Kohanim are Kohanim. The entire issue is an issue of Leviim alone.

There are other questions that are answered by this. If you bear this in mind in Parshas Bamidbar and Parshas Behaloscha you will see that other difficulties are answered as well. It is a beautiful Yesod.

(See Shemos 5772)

Chiyus Is Metaher - Parah 5770

The Yesoid of Tumah Rav Schorr writes is, Misah and the Yesoid of Taharah is Chiyus. The Posuk says Mi Yitein Tahor Mi’tamei. Rav Schorr explains this reference to birth in a very technical way. The baby is born from a Tipa of Shicvas Zera. The baby comes out of a Mekor that is a Makom Tamei, from the Uterus that has a Din of Tamei because the baby comes out with Dam. Yet, a baby is Tahor. Shouldn’t we have to Toivel the baby in a Mikva to make him/her Tahor? The Teretz is, Chiyus is the biggest M’taheir.

With this Rav Schorr explains a Gemara in Maseches Niddah. The Gemara says that Rav Chananya was asked when the Maisim get up by Techiyas Hamaisim how will they become Tahor? Someone who is Tamei Mais gets sprinkled with the Parah Aduma to become Tahor, so how does a Mais himself become Tahor? The Gemara explains that the Shaila was a Divrei Shtus because Chiyus is the biggest M’taheir.

He brings a Mekor from a fruit that is Tamei that has seeds that are Tamei. If you were to plant those seeds and a tree would grow with fruit, that fruit is Tahor. Ai the fruit came from that original Tamei seed? Chiyus is the biggest M’taheir.

Rav Moshe was asked if it is permissible to reattach a limb like a finger to a Kohen’s hand. An Eiver is Tamei B’maga and a Kohen is not allowed to become Tamei. Rav Moshe said it is permissible to reattach it because the place that it is being attached to is not exposed. The Halacha is that a Bais Hastarim is not Mekabeil Tumah.

The question is, how can the Kohen later touch the outside of his own finger? Chiyus is the biggest M’taheir.

Tahara and Tumah are used as references to Kedusha and the lack of Kedusha as well. Chiyus in Avoidas Hashem and Chiyus in Ruchniyos is Takeh a M’taheir. Someone who has a Chiyus in his Davening and a Chiyus in his learning, being as alive as one can be is the biggest M’taheir.

Thrown Or Fallen? - Ki Sisa 5770

32:19 Moshe Rabbeinu broke the Luchos. There are 2 seemingly contradictory Divrei Chazal. On the one hand the Gemara says that Hashem said thank you to Moshe for breaking the Luchos. On the other hand we have the Divrei Chazal that the letters from the Luchos fell into the air and the stones became so heavy that Moshe Rabbeinu couldn’t carry them because they lost the Kedushah. This seems to be a contradiction because one opinion is that Moshe broke them and the other opinion is that they became so heavy that Moshe Rabbeinu couldn’t carry them.

Rav Yisrael Salanter answers the contradiction by saying that there are 2 Luchos. One was the Bein Adam Lamakoim and the other was the Bein Adam L’chaveiroi. When Klal Yisrael was Oiver the Aveira of Avoida Zorah then the first set of Luchos with the 5 Mitzvois of Bein Adam Lamakoim became too heavy for Moshe Rabbeinu to hold. Then Moshe was left holding the second set with the 5 Mitzvois of Bein Adam L’chaveiroi to Klal Yisrael, however, he said Bein Adam L’makoim or Bein Adam L’chaveiroi without the other one doesn’t go. So one was broken by Moshe and the other broke on its own.

In 32:19 it says, יט  וַיְהִי, כַּאֲשֶׁר קָרַב אֶל-הַמַּחֲנֶה, וַיַּרְא אֶת-הָעֵגֶל, וּמְחֹלֹת; וַיִּחַר-אַף מֹשֶׁה, וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ מִיָּדָו אֶת-הַלֻּחֹת, וַיְשַׁבֵּר אֹתָם, תַּחַת הָהָר  The K’siv is Miyadoi from his hand, singular, because only one broke by Moshe Rabbeinu breaking it.

Rav Pam used to say that a Yid has 2 Simanei Kashrus, Bein Adam Lamakoim and Bein Adam L’chaveiroi and just like by a Behaima with one Siman and without the other Siman renders the animal more disgusting than one that is totally Treif, so too someone who is wonderful in Bein Adam L’chaveiroi and terrible in Bein Adam Lamakoim its very bad. This is because they will say how great is his actions are because they see his Bein Adam L’chaveiroi, however, they will learn Rishus from him. The reverse is true as well if he has only the Siman of Bein Adam Lamakoim and not Bein Adam L’chaveiroi.

Rav Druk would say the same thing by fish. Snapir, the fins that guide a fish through the water is the Bein Adam Lamakoim. Kaskeses the scales are like coins one on top of the other that represents the Bein Adam L’chaveiroi. The Gemara says any fish that does not have scales certainly does not have fins, because a person who does not have Bein Adam Lachaveiroi certainly does not have Bein Adam Lamakoim.

Killing Grandpa - Ki Sisa 5769

32:27 כז  וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם, כֹּה-אָמַר יְרוָר אֱלֹרי יִשְׂרָאֵל, שִׂימוּ אִישׁ-חַרְבּוֹ, עַל-יְרֵכוֹ; עִבְרוּ וָשׁוּבוּ מִשַּׁעַר לָשַׁעַר, בַּמַּחֲנֶה, וְהִרְגוּ אִישׁ-אֶת-אָחִיו וְאִישׁ אֶת-רֵעֵהוּ, וְאִישׁ אֶת-קְרֹבוֹ The Leviim were called upon by Moshe Rabbeinu to carry out the death sentence of those who were Chayuv Misah. Rashi explains that sometimes a person had to give Misah to a relative and Moshe Rabbeinu said don’t look, even if it is your relative you should still give him Misah.

Actually later in V’zois Habracha it is even more explicit by the Beracha of Levi. In 33:9 it says, ט  הָאֹמֵר לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ, לֹא רְאִיתִיו, וְאֶת-אֶחָיו לֹא הִכִּיר, וְאֶת-בָּנָו לֹא יָדָע:  כִּי שָׁמְרוּ אִמְרָתֶךָ, וּבְרִיתְךָ יִנְצֹרוּ Rashi says, האומר לאביו ולאמו לא ראיתיו: כשחטאו בעגל ואמרתי (שמות לב, כו) מי לר' אלי, נאספו אלי כל בני לוי וצויתים להרוג את אבי אמו והוא מישראל, או את אחיו מאמו, או את בן בתו, וכן עשו. ואי אפשר לפרש אביו ממש ואחיו מאביו וכן בניו ממש, שהרי לוים הם ומשבט לוי לא חטא אחד מהם שנאמר כל בני לוי  This means that the Leviim carried out the Chiyuv Misah even on relatives that they were Michuyav to be Mechabeid.

We have a Klal Gadol that anytime you have 2 Mitzva obligations that come into conflict if it is possible to be Mekayeim both of them we do them both. Here there were 22,000 Leviim who were able to be Mekayeim this command, so why did it have to come out that a grandson had to kill a grandfather who was Chayuv Misah if a different Levi can kill that person and he wouldn’t be Oiver the Kibbud aspect?

A possible Teretz was suggested. When it comes to hating someone who does Aveiros, a person has to be Mechavein L’sheim Shamayim. He has to really mean it and there can’t be a personal Negi’yos. Rav Pam used to say the Pesukim from Tehillim 139:21-23 כא  הֲלוֹא-מְשַׂנְאֶיךָ יְרוָר אֶשְׂנָא;    וּבִתְקוֹמְמֶיךָ, אֶתְקוֹטָט כב  תַּכְלִית שִׂנְאָה שְׂנֵאתִים;    לְאוֹיְבִים, הָיוּ לִי כג  חָקְרֵנִי אֵל, וְדַע לְבָבִי;    בְּחָנֵנִי, וְדַע שַׂרְעַפָּי Dovid Hamelech is saying, someone who hates you Hashem, I hate them. Those who fight with you Hashem, I am fighting with them. I hate them with an ultimate hatred. After this, Dovid says examine me Hashem and check my heart see that I am L’sheim Shamayim.

Rav Pam would mention Yeihu who killed the Oivdei Habal upon the command of Yona  Hanavi. Later when he committed the Aveira of Avoda Zorah he was punished for killing the Oivdei Habal because if you kill people for being Oived Avoida Zorah than you can’t be Oiver it yourself.

The Gemara says, that only Shmuel Hakatan could write the Beracha of V’lamalshinim because of the same idea. That only someone who is righteous and is doing his actions L’sheim Shamayim can write a Beracha out of Kanayos.

Rav Tzaddok writes that any time a Mitzvah comes B’tzuras Aveira it has to be L’sheim Shamayim. Sometimes a person has a Mitzvah to say Lashon Hora to save someone from a problem; you have to be Mechavein to say the Lashon Hora L’sheim Shamayim.

Yibum is a similar example that you have to be Mechavein L’sheim Shamayim because it comes B’tzuras an Aveira of marrying a sister in law.

Perhaps, this concept can be used by our Parsha. Moshe Rabbeinu was saying that you should go kill the people who were Oived Avoda Zorah. Maybe the person doing the killing is not being Mechavein L’sheim Shamayim? So Adaraba, the person doing the killing should be the person who is the most reluctant to kill by having him kill his own relatives. These are the people who will be Mechavein L’sheim Shamayim.

Headless Haman - Purim 5769

Every Chanukah in the Ma’oiz Tzur, we say regarding the story of Purim, Roiv Banav V’kinyanav Al Ha’eitz Talisah. What is the Pshat in Roiv Banav? There is a Gemarah that says that Haman had 30 children, so 10 children being hung isn’t Roiv?

There is a Sefer Igeres HaPurim that says the Kasha can be answered by a Toisafois in Maseches Chagigah 11a in Dibbur Hamaskil B’rum Gimmel Amos (ברום ג' אמות. ואע"ג שאדם מחזיק ד' אמות קומה כדמוכח בשמעתין דכוכין דאורך הכוך ד' אמות קומת האדם אינו אלא ג' אמות לבד הראש ומצי להרכין את ראשו מן הצד והא דנקט ד' אמות משום עובי צידי הארון ואע"ג דמצינו בפ"ק דב"ב (דף ב:) גבי היזק ראייה שיעור ראייה ד' אמות היינו שיכול להגביה עצמו על ראשי אצבעותיו עד שיציץ ד' אמות וכן מוכח בעובדא דבני המן בתרגום של מגילת אסתר שנסדר על פי המדרש שגובה קומתן ג' אמות לבד הראש דקחשיב ואזיל על רום חמשים אמות לפי תליית כל העשרה והיו נהרגים כבר קודם התלייה וכן משתעי קרא בשושן הבירה הרגו היהודים ואבד חמש מאות איש ואת עשרת בני המן משמע שבכלל הריגה היו וגם הפייט יסד בסליחה אדם בקום איש בשלש אמות והרביעית (וחמישית) אויר מגולה). There it is brought down that a persons height up to the neck is 3 Amos. This is not counting the head.  Toisafois discusses that the 11 people hung on the 50 Amah tree are only left 3 Amos per person. Toisafois concludes that they were all hung without their heads. They had been killed and then hung. What this Sefer suggests is that maybe there is no Issur Loi Salin if the head is missing, because the Issur of Loi Salin is because of the Tzelem Eloikim. So Roiv Banav V’kinyanav Al Ha’eitz Talisah, a possible Pshat is that it was Roiv Banav because the head was missing when they were hung.