Parasha: Shemini · Aliyah: First (Chesed)

ויהי ביום השמיני, it was on the eighth day; We need to analyse why the Torah had to introduce this chapter with the word ויהי. We are told in Megillah 10 that Rabbi Levi claimed there was an ancient tradition that every time the word ויהי appears it has a connotation of something painful having occurred. This view was challenged by the questioner pointing to the word ויהי in our portion which introduces the joyous event of Aaron performing the rites in the Tabernacle; furthermore, we have a Baraitha according to which this day was as joyous an occasion as the day on which G'd created Heaven and Earth, a day which is also introduced in the Torah by the words ויהי ערב ויהי בקר, "it was evening it was morning, etc." The Talmud answers that the saddening event in our portion was the death of Nadav and Avihu. The questioner in the Talmud continues, wanting to know why the word ויהי is used in Kings I 6,1 when the building of Solomon's Temple is reported. He also points to Genesis 29,10 where Jacob's encounter with his bride-to-be Rachel is introduced by the word ויהי. The questioner mentions a further occurrence of that word every time G'd completed part of the creation of the universe and the Torah describes the completion of that portion with the words ויהי ערב ויהי בקר. What were the negative elements on those occasions which prompted the Bible to draw our attention to them by means of the word ויהי? Rav Ashi answers that the word ויהי by itself may have either positive or negative connotations. When the word ויהי is followed by the word בימי, "during the lifetime of, etc." it invariably has a negative connotation. The Talmud added that there are five occasions when the expression ויהי בימי occurs in the Bible. Thus far the discussion in Megillah 10.

Why did the questioner address his question to what is written in our verse, when the real question is what is written in Genesis over and over again, i.e. ויהי ערב ויהי בקר, which enabled the query about our verse not having a negative connotation? I must assume that the questioner obviously had all these verses in mind when he challenged Rabbi Levi's tradition. The only reason he introduced our verse was to make his question even more powerful by suggesting there are many such verses which clearly point to a joyous event. Alternatively, the questioner wanted to draw the opposite conclusion of the one Rabbi Levi reported as originating with the men of the great assembly. He wanted to argue that the word ויהי always introduces something joyous. He reasoned that just as the Tanna had compared our verse to the verse in Genesis in which the expression occurs for the first time and which certainly spoke about a positive event, so every time that expression occurs it denotes something positive, a joyous occasion. Using the verse ויהי ערב ויהי בקר in Genesis makes it much harder to refute the questioner's argument seeing no specific event is mentioned in that verse the nature of which could be disputed. Rabbi Levi's answer that our verse describes a day on which Nadav and Avihu died is somewhat astounding. This answer is applicable to our verse, but certainly not to the verses commencing with ויהי ערב in Genesis? It would not do to say that Rabbi Levi felt that the words ויהי ערב in Genesis also referred to something negative [after all they were preceded by G'd saying that He approved of how His instructions had been carried out, וירא אלוקים כי טוב, Ed.]. More to the point, why did not Rabbi Levi himself address those verses which begin with the word ויהי and which clearly speak of joyful events? He himself should have known the answer given by Rav Ashi!

I believe that Rabbi Levi did not mean to teach us anything other than Rav Ashi. The Talmud alludes to this by not introducing Rav Ashi's words with the introductory: אלא אמר רב אשי, "however, Rav Ashi said, etc." Had the Talmud used that formula we would have been justified in understanding him as refuting Rabbi Levi. What Rav Ashi said is compatible with what Rabbi Levi said, i.e. that the word ויהי contains a negative connotation. There are indeed many verses when that word alludes to something saddening. He only answered the person who had challenged Rabbi Levi believing that Rabbi Levi had meant that the word ויהי without the addition בימי is employed by the Bible exclusively in a negative context. This is why the questioner chose our verse out of the many other verses he could have chosen. He wanted to show that the events described in our verse were exceptionally joyous. After all, what conceptual difference is there between ויהי ביום, and ויהי בימי? The answer given was that the reason the Torah wrote ויהי ביום instead of a formula which would have reflected the purely joyous nature of the occasion was that the two sons of Aaron died on that very day. [With all due respect to the author, if he had introduced the subject as it is introduced in the Talmud namely: ויהי בימי אחשורוש, followed by Rabbi Levi's statement that every place where the expression ויהי occurs it carries a negative connotation, his remarks would have been easier to follow. No doubt the author had his reasons and that is why I did not see fit to amend his quotation above. Ed.]

Subsequently the question about the meaning of the word ויהי when it is not followed by either the word בימי or ביום is dealt with. In that context Rav Ashi said that the word itself is neutral and that its meaning is modified by what follows, such as the word בימי, for instance. The questioner who quoted a number of verses in which the word ויהי is not modified by either the word ביום or בימי, refers to very joyous events and gave Rav Ashi cause to say that this need not lead us to the assumption that only the words בימי or ביום modify the meaning of the word ויהי to signal that something sad is being reported. There are other occasions when the word by itself may also introduce something sad. When we have the words בימי, however, what follows invariably contains a negative element. Incidentally, the negative element in Exodus 19,16 where the Torah states ויהי ביום השלישי and introduces the happy event of מתן תורה, was that all the Israelites died for a brief space of time when they found themselves unable to absorb G'd's revelation. According to Shabbat 88, G'd brought them back to life immediately.

Perhaps another element of pain asscociated with the words ויהי ביום השמיני is that Moses realised on that day that it had become Aaron and his sons who were the "heirs" of his own spiritual stature and not his own sons. The Talmud (Menachot 109) tells about the High Priest Shimon Ha-tzaddik who had appointed one of his sons Chonov to be his successor, something which aroused the jealousy of Chonov's brother Shimi. The results were terrible. At any rate, we see from there that aspiring to something noble may cause the finest person anguish if one's desire goes unfulfilled. At the time G'd had repeatedly urged Moses to accept the role of leader of the Jewish people and Moses had repeatedly declined, G'd had become angry, deciding to deny Moses the position of High Priest [a hereditary position provided the son was suitable. Ed.] Up until now Moses had not felt saddened by not having been accorded the rank of High Priest. Now when he saw that Aaron had been given this honour, he was saddened by having forfeited the chance to be the High Priest. Although we know that Moses was the most humble and fair person his heart was not made of stone, and he suffered some emotional distress about this, especially as the position denied him involved being the instrument of atonement for his people, etc. Perhaps the Torah alluded to Moses' feelings in the matter in Numbers 7,1 where we read ויהי ביום כלות משה להקים את המשכן, "it was on the day Moses completed erecting the Tabernacle;" this was the same date as the day which is described in our portion as "the eighth day," i. e. the first of Nissan. Our suggestion would account for the fact that the Torah introduced both paragraphs with the words ויהי ביום, seeing that in our verse the sad event was the death of Nadav and Avihu whereas in Numbers the sadness the Torah alluded to was Moses' distress at having forfeited the chance to be the High Priest.

ביום …קרא משה לאהרון, on that day Moses called Aaron, etc. Any psychologist realises that a person who is forced to give up a position of honour originally intended for himself to someone else, even if that someone is his own brother, may be expected to display his distress in three ways. 1) He is unlikely to carry out the command with dispatch; 2) he is unlikely to perform the command in the most effective manner; 3) he will try to avoid fulfilling this command publicly. The Torah here describes that Moses mastered all the inhibitions an ordinary individual would have displayed in carrying out this command. 1) He carried out the command on the first day it was possible, i.e. the eighth day. 2) He carried out the command with all its attendant subsidiary commands, i.e. he appointed Aaron's sons at the same time although there was no immediate need for Aaron's sons to substitute for their father and this was perhaps the hardest part for him to fulfil. 3) He called in the elders of the people and performed the command in public. Moses displayed an example of suppressing his personal feelings in order to fulfil G'd's command.

קח לך עגל, "take for yourself a bull-calf, etc." Yuma 4 questions the need for the words "for yourself," seeing that the Torah goes on to say that the he-goat in verse 3 was for the people; obviously then the bull-calf was for Aaron personally. The Talmud answers that the words קח לך meant that Aaron was to pay for that bull-calf out of his personal funds.

Perhaps we may add that the word לך was intended as a sign for all times that Aaron had not made the golden calf with sinful intent nor had he been involved in its worship. This is why a bull-calf could serve as atonement for Aaron. The same could not be said of the people at large seeing their involvement in the sin of the golden calf had been במזיד, i.e. they had been aware of what they had been doing. Not only could a bull-calf not serve as atonement for their sin, on the contrary, it would remind G'd of their sin and be an accuser. You will find in Vayikra Rabbah 21,10 that the reason G'd did not want Aaron to enter the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement dressed in his golden garments was because he had been the one who made the golden calf and we have a principle of אין קטיגור נעשה סניגר, "something which served once as an accuser cannot reverse its role and serve as advocate for the defence." This was a consideration which did not apply to the Israelites who had sinned knowingly in the way they related to the golden calf so that a bull-calf could not serve as a sin-offering for them.

In this connection we must explain why G'd commanded Aaron to take a bull-calf as a sin-offering altogther. Is not a sin-offering intended as atonement and there is therefore no more powerful advocate for the defence than such an offering? Apparently G'd judged matters very fairly. On the one hand, Aaron's involvement in the construction of the golden calf was peripheral; he had neither made its shape, nor believed in it when it emerged from the crucible, and, as he explained to Moses: "the calf emerged by itself" (Exodus 32,24), i.e. as a result of an action by the sorcerers Yeynuss and Yombrus amongst the mixed multitude as reported by Tanchuma 19 on Parshat Ki Tissa. It follows therefore that there were steps in the procedure which resulted in the golden calf materialising which Aaron did take knowingly. He told the people to bring the gold; he accepted it from them; he etched the gold with an etching tool. All of these details he performed in full awareness of what he was doing. Even though the reason he did these things was fear of the Israelites killing him just as they had killed his nephew Chur, and even though all he did was stall for time until Moses would return, he did something improper. This is why G'd told him to bring a sin-offering to atone for a sin which he had been instrumental in making possible. Concerning the gold which was the crucial element in that sin, G'd told Aaron not to appear before Him in the Holy of Holies dressed in gold seeing the accuser could not become an advocate for the defence. The same consideration did not apply to the Israelites as they had been involved in that sin knowingly and a bull-calf could not therefore be used as a sin-offering on their behalf. G'd therefore commanded the Israelites to prepare a he-goat as their sin-offering.

We have to question how it is possible that in view of the principle (Rosh Hashana 26) that the accuser cannot serve as an advocate for the defence that the Talmud Erchin 16 tells us that the purpose of the four golden garments of the High Priest was to atone for four different categories of sin. In view of this the accuser certainly did turn advocate for the defence! We must answer therefore that one cannot compare the process of atonement which occurs as a result of offerings presented on the copper altar outside the Tabernacle with the process of atonement initiated by offerings presented on the golden altar inside the Sanctuary. The function of the golden altar inside the Sanctuary is to cleanse the people from sin absolutely so that not a trace of their former sins remain. The well-known symbol for this was the red cord hung at the cliff from where the scapegoat was thrown off, which turned white as a result of the atonement procedures performed by the High Priest inside the Sanctuary being accepted by G'd (compare Yuma 67). The golden garments worn by the High Priest when he performed duties outside the Sanctuary did not interfere with the atonement process because that atonement process did not result in a complete removal of all vestiges of guilt. In order to achieve such total atonement, the High Priest could not wear anything in the Sanctuary which would remind G'd of his ever having been associated with the sin of the golden calf. The very fact that Aaron was commanded to wear the golden garments when performimg his duties on the copper altar was proof that his involvement with the golden calf had only been peripheral. The Israelites, whose sin had been far greater, could not obtain their forgiveness through any process performed only on the copper altar outside the Sanctuary.

תדבר לאמור, "you shall speak saying;" We need to explore the reason why Moses commanded Aaron to speak in this instance instead of instructing the Israelites himself as was his custom. Perhaps it was because at the time of the golden calf it had been Aaron who invited the people to bring him their gold, Moses now wanted to give him an opportunity to speak to the people and tell them to bring a male goat to be the sin-offering as atonement. This would be in line with the principle הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר, "that the mouth which uttered the prohibition must be the mouth which utters the permission." We have repeatedly quoted our sages as saying that the sin which causes someone's reputation to become sullied can best be repaired when the method of rehabilitation is as closely linked to the circumstances of the sin it rehabilitates as is possible. This is why G'd ordered Aaron to inform the people of this procedure. The words תדבר לאמור mean that inasmuch as on the previous occasion Aaron had uttered words which resulted in the people becoming unrestrained, demeaning themselves, he was now to utter words which would eventually elevate the people and result in atonement for that sin.

Furthermore, seeing that Moses had observed how Aaron had been elevated by G'd to such a high position, Moses told him to communicate soothing messages to the Jewish people. The word לאמור implies a message couched in a very friendly manner. Aaron told the people that G'd would appear to them (verse 4) to indicate that the whole procedure he was instructing them about was for their good, not for his own. This recalls what we wrote in the name of Torat Kohanim at the beginning of פרשת ויקרא, that the fact G'd did not communicate with Moses in the Tabernacle for 38 years was on account of the sin of the spies; when G'd is reported as communicating with Moses out of the Tabernacle this was a compliment to Israel.

ויקתו את אשר צוה משה, They took what Moses had commanded, etc. When the Torah writes "which Moses had commanded," the Torah means what Moses had commanded to Aaron, i.e. that Aaron took the animals Moses had commanded him to take and sacrifice on behalf of the people. Had the Torah only written that the people took the animals Aaron had commanded them to take, I would not have known of Aaron's involvement, i.e. that Aaron carried out Moses' instructions. Furthermore, perhaps the Torah wrote "which Moses commanded" as a contrast to the usual "as G'd had commanded," that Moses' command sufficed for the people to carry out these orders although they had not been assured that the command which they were bidden to carry out had emanated from G'd.

זה הדבר אשר צוה ה׳ תעשו, "This is the thing G'd commanded you should do." What precisely does the Torah refer to by the word הדבר? Rashi explains that the reference is to Aaron's offering. [our editions of Rashi on the Torah do not have a commentary by Rashi on this verse. Ed.] This is not the plain meaning of the verse seeing that it addresses the Israelites, i.e. תעשו, (pl) and not Aaron. Perhaps Rashi referred to words in the previous verse: ויקרבו כל העדה ויעמדו לפני השם, that "the whole congregation drew near and stood in the presence of G'd." The Torah was careful there to write in the "presence of G'd," instead of "in front of the Tent of Meeting." The words were altogether superfluous seeing the Torah mentions that all this occured in front of the Tent of Meeting. We may therefore assume that in verse 5 the Torah describes the spiritual preparations made by the people to appear in the presence of the Lord. They achieved a spiritual niveau which made them fit to be in the presence of G'd. When Moses observed this, he added of his own accord in verse 6: "this is the thing which G'd commanded you should do;" Moses told the people that they should always remain on such a spiritual plane that they would be fit to be in G'd's presence. David spoke about this in Psalms 16,8: שויתי ה׳ לנגדי תמיד, "I am ever mindful of the Lord's presence." When doing this he could be assured of what is written in the second half of that verse: כי מימיני בל־אמוט, "so that He (i.e. Torah) is at my right hand and I (David) will never be shaken." The reward for such a spiritual preparation is "the glory of the Lord may appear to you." Another general meaning of the term לפני השם is that there should not be a curtain or barrier between Israel and G'd; Isaiah perceives of the sins of the Jewish people as constituting such a barrier (compare Isaiah 59,2). Accordingly, our verse reports that the Israelites were at peace with their G'd at that time enabling them to appear in the presence of the Lord.

After I had written this I found a comment in Bamidbar Rabbah 12,8 on this verse which goes as follows: "What is the meaning of זה הדבר? It refers to circumcision. The same expression occurs in Joshua 5,4 when it describes the fact that Joshua circumcised all the Jewish males who had been born in the desert immediately after the people crossed the river Jordan." Thus far the Midrash. Actually, what do the two events have in common? After all Moses did not circumcise anyone on the day Aaron assumed the office of High Priest!

I believe we must distinguish between circumcising the foreskin of the body and removing the "foreskin" of the heart, the קליפה, the peel, which makes us unreceptive to G'd's commands. Moses commanded the people to rid themselves of that foreskin in order to qualify for being in the presence of the Lord. If they were to do this the glory of G'd would appear to them.

I have seen yet another Midrash quoted in Torat Kohanim on our verse which goes as follows: The words זה הדבר refer to Moses urging the Jewish people to remove the evil urge from their hearts so that all of them would be of a single purpose and share the same sense of reverence for G'd as a result of which they would merit to serve in the presence of the Lord. Moses promised the people that their service of the Lord would be something unique as it is written "and you shall circumcise the foreskin of your hearts (Deut. 10,16), etc." Moses added: "when you do this, the verse 'the glory of G'd will appear to you' will be fulfilled."

וכפר בעדך ובעד העם. "and make atonement for yourself and for the people." We learn from this that Aaron's own atonement effected the atonement of the people. This is because Aaron's sin was brought about through the Israelites. Had they not demanded from Aaron that he make a deity for them, none of all this would have happened. As long as Aaron had not obtained atonement for his part in that sin, both the sinner and the one who had been the prime cause of that sin still remained guilty. As soon as Aaron obtained atonement, so did the people. We derive all this from the linkage of the two atonements in this verse i.e. "on your behalf and on behalf of the people."

ויקרב אהרון אל המזבח, Aaron approached the altar, etc. This verse alludes to a conversation in the celestial spheres which is reported in the Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2,6: "They enquired from 'prophecy': what shall be the punishment of a person who has sinned? Answer: והנפש החוטאת היא תמות. 'The person (soul) who sins, she (the soul) will die (Ezekiel 18,4)'. When they asked 'mercy' the same question the answer given by 'mercy' was: 'he shall bring a sacrifice.'" The major factor determining the value of the animal sacrifice is the thoughts it evokes in the person offering it. If that person will realise that everything which is being done to the sacrificial animal is something that should really be done to him, the offering may effect atonement for its owner. When the Torah writes that Aaron approached the altar this is another way of saying that he readied himself to place his own soul on the altar as a guilt-offering. He was aware that when he performed the act of slaughtering the animal instead, this was an act of mercy by G'd who spared his life and allowed him to present the animal's life as a substitute for his own.

In order to understand the system of crime and punishment and the apparent ease with which atonement can be obtained by the offering of an animal, we must consider various statements by our sages. Tanchuma Shoftim posits that G'd has sworn to hold the universe and the creatures therein responsible for their deeds. If anyone were to declare that G'd is a וותרון, an indulgent and lenient G'd, he will experience that his bowels יוותרו, will become loose. (Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 5,1). If, as the prophet said in Ezekiel 18,4, the sinner ought to die for his sin, how is it that he only has to offer a sacrifice in order to escape death? I believe we can find a reason for this which is acceptable even in legal terms. At the time a person commits a sin he does not do so as a human being in full command of his faculties. Rather, he has temporarily taken leave of his senses or he would never have committed the sin in the first place. Compare Sotah 3. We are told there that prior to committing a sin man's mind is afflicted by some mental disturbance. Had the person committing the sin not descended to a spiritual level such as that of a beast he would not have committed the sin. On the day such a person becomes a penitent, his רוח, spiritual level, has reasserted itself and he again assumes the spiritual level of a human being. Would it be fair to kill such a human being because of what he did while he was on the spiritual level of a beast? When such a person has to offer a beast in expiation of his sin he will realise the anguish the beast suffers when it has to die and he will appreciate that he himself had been in a situation similar to that of the beast which now has to die. Man's sensitivity to the animal's anguish then is what really saves him from the fate of the animal. This is what the Psalmist has in mind when he speaks of "man and beast You deliver, O Lord" (Psalms 36,7). G'd has delivered the part of man which is similar to the beast because man chose to allow his spiritual part to dominate him. His spiritual part had not deserved to be punished as it had no part in his sin. When looked at from this point of view the requirement to bring this sacrifice is part of justice as opposed to being in lieu of justice. This is why the Psalmist introduced the verse we quoted by saying: משפטיך תהום רבה, "Your justice is like the great deep;"

ויקרב את קרבן העם. He presented the people's offering. This refers to the presentation of the "lights" [a term denoting enlightenment in kabbalistic jargon. Ed.] which were planted in the Israelites from the source of the original "light" which had been diffused due to Adam's sin and which had prevented man from achieving the close relationship with G'd he should have maintained. The change which took place in man's soul dictated that he keep a certain distance from G'd as ever since the sin G'd and man are perceived of as two different species, [a halachic term used when two categories of food, a forbidden one and a permissible one become mixed and the question arises if one of them loses its former identity. Ed.] The Torah tells us here that by means of the service performed by Aaron two species which had previously been incompatible had again become compatible. The words "he brought close the offering of the people" mean that he re-united what had become estranged. Actually, by rights, this verse should have been written at the end of the whole procedure in verse 23. Why did the Torah write this verse prior to describing the details of the procedure? The Torah wanted to teach us the lesson that it is not the actual procedure which is crucial in achieving the objective of the sacrifice. It is the intent with which such a procedure is initiated which determines if the execution of the ritual will achieve its objective.

We have a mystical element in this verse also. I have mentioned on a previous occasion that the burnt-offering, עולה, represents the concept of כנסת ישראל, [a concept known in kabbalistic language as the שכינה תחתונה, the lower manifestation of the שכינה in the emanation מלכות. Ed.] the ideological concept of the people of Israel. If the Israelites fail to behave as they should they "lower" the concept of כנסת ישראל. On the other hand, if they draw near to G'd as expressed in the words ויקרב את העולה, they will experience one spiritual ascent after another. Not only will they not be tainted by sins but they will be able to face the most rigorous standards of justice. This is what is implied in the words ויעשיה כמשפט.