|
Please click on image below to download Dvar Torah
THE WEEKLY SIDRA- SH’MINI
Rabbi Moshe Greebel
There is a most fascinating concept in the Torah of ‘Ain Kataigar Na’aseh Sanaigar,’ or, an accuser cannot transform into an advocate. In simpler terms, that, which was used for an Avaira (sin), may in no way, serve as an atonement for that same Avaira. Our very first encounter with this principle, in seen in the Gemarah B’rachos 59a:
“For at the time when HaKadosh Baruch Hu wanted to bring a flood upon the world, He took two stars from Kimah (a star grouping), and brought a flood upon the world. And when He wanted to stop it, He took two stars from Ayish (another star grouping) and stopped it. But, why did He not put the other two back? A pit cannot be filled with its own clods; or another reason is, the accuser cannot become advocate…..”
That is, just as the dug pit cannot be completely refilled with its own displaced earth, so too, can the flood not be stopped with simply replacing the stars in Kimah. Additionally, since the removal of the two stars in Kimah, in the role of accusers, brought on the flood, re-instating them in Kimah as advocates, is not to be done. A second encounter of ‘Ain Kataigar Na’aseh Sanaigar’ is essential in two different aspects of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur:
1. A bovine Shofar may not be utilized on Rosh Hashanah.
2. The Kohain Gadol (high Kohain) may not enter the Kodesh HaKadashim (holy of holies) on Yom Kippur, wearing the Bigdei Zahav (four garments of gold).
Concerning both these aspects, the Gemarah in Rosh HaShanah 26a, instructs the following:
“Ulla said that the reason of the Rabbanim (that a bovine Shofar may not be used for Rosh Hashanah) is to be found in the saying of Rav Chisda. For Rav Chisda said, ‘Why does the Kohain Gadol not enter the inner precincts (Kodesh HaKadashim) in garments of gold (on Yom Kippur) to perform the service there? Because the accuser may not act as advocate.’”
Since the sin of the Aigel HaZahav (golden calf) plays the role of the accuser, a bovine Shofar of a calf, cow, heifer, etc. may not act as advocate. And, since the material of the Aigel HaZahav was gold (the accuser), the Kohain Gadol may not enter the Kodesh HaKadashim on Yom Kippur, wearing the Bigdei Zahav (as the advocate).
This principle of ‘Ain Kataigar Na’aseh Sanaigar’ is seen as well, when it comes to acquiring a woman for marriage. Two of the three ways in which she is acquired are with a Sh’tar (written document), and with money, or the value thereof. From where in the Torah, do we know that acquiring a woman for marriage is accomplished through a Sh’tar? We know it from the subject of Get (divorce), where it is written:
“When a man has taken a wife, and married her, and it comes to pass that she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some uncleanness in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she has departed out of his house, she may go and become another man’s wife. (D’varim 24:-1-2)
Unquestionably then, a Get can only be accomplished with a written document, ‘a bill of divorcement’ by the husband, which comes straight from the Torah itself. Examining the Gemarah in Kiddushin 5a, which speaks of why a Sh’tar is necessary as well, for the acquisition of a woman in marriage, we find:
“And from where do we know that (a woman may be acquired) by a Sh’tar too?..... Therefore Scripture states, ‘And when she is departed’ and ‘becomes (another man's wife).’ Thus, ‘becoming’ (being acquired) is assimilated to ‘departure’ (divorce). Just as the ‘departure’ is by a Sh’tar, so is ‘becoming’ (acquisition in marriage) too…..”
Momentarily interrupting the Gemarah, since departing from a marriage and becoming acquired in a marriage are so strongly compared in the Torah, our Rabbanim of blessed memory, taught that both processes require a Sh’tar. But, this comparison leads to a new difficulty. If departing and becoming are so strenuously compared, why would this not apply to money as well? Since money was one of the acquisitions of marriage, why should it not be a requirement of Get as well? The Gemarah answers with another example of ‘Ain Kataigar Na’aseh Sanaigar’:
“…..Then let ‘departure’ be assimilated to ‘becoming’! Just as the ‘becoming’ may be by money, so the ‘departure’ too may be effected by money? Abayai replied, ‘Then it will be said that money unites (in marriage) and money sunders (in divorce). Shall the advocate become the accuser…..?’”
Shall the money which was utilized for marriage (advocate) be utilized as well to dissolve a marriage (accuser)? But, at this stage, would the same not apply to the Sh’tar?
“…..If so, of Sh’tar too it will be said that Sh’tar sunders and Sh’tar unites. Shall the prosecutor become the defender…..?”
The Gemarah responds:
“…..The contents of each Sh’tar are distinct…..”
That is, concerning Sh’tar, the principle of ‘Ain Kataigar Na’aseh Sanaigar’ does not apply. For, the wording of each Sh’tar (K’subah and Get) is certainly unalike, making the accuser and advocate two completely different entities. However, when it comes to Get requiring money from the comparison of departing and becoming, the Gemarah is for the moment, less successful:
“…..Then here too, (the purpose of) this money is distinct, and that of the other is distinct. Nevertheless, the impress (of the coin) is the same…..”
That is, while the argument can be made that the wording of each Sh’tar is different, money, regardless of its use, is money, with nothing physically different about it.
Having deliberated over the background of the principle of ‘Ain Kataigar Na’aseh Sanaigar,’ we will leave the Gemarah at this point, prior to its resolving the question of why Get does not require money, even though it is strongly compared in the Torah to marital acquisition, which does require money.
What is the relationship between ‘Ain Kataigar Na’aseh Sanaigar’ and this week’s Sidra? Consider the following. On Rosh Chodesh Nisan, the eighth day after the commencement of the Miluim (seven day initiation period for Aharon and his sons to be Kohanim), the Mishkan (Tabernacle) was assembled and dedicated. Part of this extremely important day was a series of special Korbanos (livestock offerings), which Moshe ordered Aharon to offer, as we find in this week’s Sidra. Here is the beginning of that series:
“And he (Moshe) said to Aharon, ‘Take a young calf for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering, without blemish, and offer them before HaShem.’” (Vayikra 9:2)
After the entire series of these Korbanos is enumerated in the Torah, they were offered as prescribed:
“And they brought that which Moshe commanded before the Tent of Meeting; and all the congregation drew near and stood before HaShem.” (ibid 9:5)
Yet, one Passuk (verse) later, we find:
“And Moshe said, ‘This is the thing which HaShem commanded that you should do; and the glory of HaShem shall appear to you.’” (ibid. 9:6)
What is ‘this thing’ that HaShem commanded to be done? Did they not already offer the required Korbanos for this very special day? The commentary of the B’nai Yisachar resolves this question, utilizing our Gemarah from Kiddushin. Initially, the series of Korbanos began with a ‘young calf for a sin offering.’ Rashi on this, learns:
“Take a young calf for a sin offering…..To let it be known that HaKadosh Baruch Hu has forgiven him (Aharon for building the Aigel HaZahav) through this (young) calf (which he offers on this special day). It is for the (original) calf which he made.”
Now then, poses the B’nai Yisachar, is this not a flagrant violation of ‘Ain Kataigar Na’aseh Sanaigar’? How can a calf play simultaneous roles of accuser and advocate for Aharon? To answer this query, we return to the Gemarah in Kiddushin, which made a strong distinction between the K’subah and the Get:
“…..The contents of each Sh’tar are distinct…..”
So is the case here too, explained the B’nai Yisachar. At the Aigel HaZahav, the B’nia Yisroel cried out:
“…..This is your g-d, Yisroel, which brought you up out of the land of Egypt!” (Sh’mos 32:4)
But, at this Aigel which was brought on so special a day, Moshe described it as:
“…..This is the thing which HaShem commanded that you should do…..” (Bamidbar 9:6)
As each Sh’tar in marriage and Get is different, each historical Aigel was certainly different in its purpose.
Moshe, in essence, was informing the B’nai Yisroel that ‘this thing which HaShem commanded,’ this Aigel on this very special day, unlike its predecessor, was by direct command of HaShem to be considered a Mitzvah. And, no violation of ‘Ain Kataigar Na’aseh Sanaigar’ existed.
May we soon see the G’ulah Sh’laimah in its complete resplendency- and in our times. Good Shabbos.
NCYI's Weekly Divrei Torah Bulletin is sponsored by
the Henry, Bertha and Edward Rothman Foundation -
Rochester, New York; Cleveland, Ohio; Circleville, Ohio
* * * * *
The National Council of Young Israel's Divrei Torah Bulletin is a weekly newsletter. If you'd like to receive our weekly e-newsletter with the Parshat Hashavua, Click here to sign up!
|
