Questions for Tazria Metzora

1.  Our pesukim tell us that certain halachos stem from childbirth. Assuming that the word “וילדה” is only natural childbirth and not a caesarian section, what four halachos that apply after natural childbirth will not apply after a caesarian section.

 2.  In mid seventeen hundreds, the Frankist cult arose that believed that Mashiach would only come if the Jewish People kept the Torah perfectly or if it totally broke all the laws of the Torah, and since perfection is extremely unlikely, we should try the opposite. This idea that you can bring Mashiach by breaking all the Torah laws was even given a name- antinomianism. As the Gemara says,  אין בן דוד בא עד שתתהפך כל המלכות למינות   What passuk in our parsha was used to support this belief.  

3.  Why is a bald man like a shmatteh.

4.  Is there a geographic limitation on where a section of the law of Tzaraas applies?  Is this true with all the types of Tzaraas?

5. There are three kinds of Tzaraas. One, for example, is Tzaraas of people. Of the three kinds, two need a korban to become tahor, and one does not. Which, and why?

6.  We make a bracha on counting Sefiras HaOmer because of the Mitzva of וספרתם לכם. There are two mitzvos of counting in the parsha but no bracha is made on them. What are they, and why are they different than Sefiras HaOmer.

7.  What issur deoraysa does a metzora have to transgress in order to become tahor.

8.  What word in the parsha can be either a verb or an adjective.  Hint: it's a color.

9.   A man came to Rav Chaim Kanievsky with a shailah. He had a very uncomfortable rash or psoriasis which he showed to Reb Chaim. The doctor had prescribed a medicated ointment. The question was whether he could put it on the rash on Shabbos, or whether there would be an issue of dissolving a thick cream, or refuah, on Shabbos. Rav Chaim asked to see the rash and said "You should be asking whether you can use the cream during the week, not only on Shabbos, because the rash has the symptoms of tzaraas, and the Torah forbids removing the signs of Tzaraas." 

Was this man allowed to walk into the old city of Yerushalayim?

1.  Our pesukim tell us that certain halachos stem from childbirth. Assuming that the word “וילדה” is only natural childbirth and not a caesarian section, what four halachos that apply after natural childbirth will not apply after a caesarian section.

12:1-6

After a caesarian birth, there are no special laws of tuma and tahara; There is no korban. The child’s bris can be but does not have to be on the eight day. If the bris is done on the eighth day, it is not docheh Shabbos.

 

 2.  In mid seventeen hundreds, the Frankist cult arose that believed that Mashiach would only come if the Jewish People kept the Torah perfectly or if it totally broke all the laws of the Torah, and since perfection is extremely unlikely, we should try the opposite. This idea that you can bring Mashiach by breaking all the Torah laws was even given a name- antinomianism. As the Gemara says,  אין בן דוד בא עד שתתהפך כל המלכות למינות   What passuk in our parsha was used to support this belief.  

13:13

וראה הכהן והנה כסתה הצרעת את־כל־בשרו וטהר את־הנגע כלו הפך לבן טהור הוא

As the Gemara (San 97a) there says,

דאמר רבי יצחק: אין בן דוד בא עד שתתהפך כל המלכות למינות. אמר רבא: מאי קרא? ״כלו הפך לבן טהור הוא״.

 

 

3.  Why is a bald man like a shmatteh.

Because he is called a קרח  or a גבח, and a shmatteh is called קרחת או גבחת.

Man- 13:42

כי־יהיה בקרחת או בגבחת נגע לבן אדמדם צרעת פרחת הוא בקרחתו או בגבחתו

Shmatteh- 13:55

וראה הכהן אחרי הכבס את הנגע והנה לא הפך הנגע את עינו והנגע לא פשה טמא הוא באש תשרפנו פחתת הוא בקרחתו או בגבחתו

 

4.  Is there a geographic limitation on where a section of the law of Tzaraas applies?  Is this true with all the types of Tzaraas?

Yes.  Nig’ei battim is exclusively in Eretz Yisrael.  This limitation is unique to the Tzaraas of houses. There is no such limitation for Tzaraas of people or of cloth and leather

14:34

כִּי תָבֹאוּ אֶל־אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי נֹתֵן לָכֶם לַאֲחֻזָּה וְנָתַתִּי נֶגַע צָרַעַת בְּבֵית אֶרֶץ אֲחֻזַּתְכֶם׃

 Not explicit in the pesukim, but a metzora is only banished from walled cities that were given a special kedusha. This is how Chazal understand the words  (13:46) "בָּדָ֣ד יֵשֵׁ֔ב מִח֥וּץ לַֽמַּחֲנֶ֖ה מוֹשָׁבֽוֹ"

5. There are three kinds of Tzaraas. One, for example, is Tzaraas of people. Of the three kinds, two need a korban to become tahor, and one does not. Which, and why?

Tzaraas of people and Tzaraas of houses require a korban to become tahor. Tzaraas of clothing does not require a korban. This was pointed out and explained by the Rama in his sefer Toras HaOla volume III chapter 68.   https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=35871&st=&pgnum=206&hilite=  see there. My simple explanation is that the first two hurt kedusha; of a person, and of a house, symbolized by the mezuza. Clothing has no inherent kedusha, so no korban is required to restore kedusha.

6.  We make a bracha on counting Sefiras HaOmer because of the Mitzva of וספרתם לכם. There are two mitzvos of counting in the parsha but no bracha is made on them. What are they, and why are they different than Sefiras HaOmer.

15:13, a Zav:

וכי־יטהר הזב מזובו וספר לו שבעת ימים לטהרתו וכבס בגדיו ורחץ בשרו במים חיים וטהר

15:28, a Zavah

וְאִם־טָהֲרָה מִזּוֹבָהּ וְסָפְרָה לָּהּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים וְאַחַר תִּטְהָר׃

Both have to count, neither makes a bracha. Why is this different than Sefiras HaOmer?

1.      Sefiras HaOmer is an independent mitzvah. The counting of tahara is only a הכשר, it is just a prerequisite for becoming Tahor.  If they don’t care to become tahor, they don’t have to count.  (pashut.)  (problems – Machlokes Beis shammai + Beis Hillel against R Yosi b’reb Yehuda in Nidah 30a. BSh and Bh hold טבילה בזמנה מצוה So it’s not just optional.  Also, Shechita is a macshir and you still make a bracha.)

2.      Sefira is a set number of days. In the case of Tahara, if tuma interrupts, you have to start over. (Tosfos Kesuvos 72a)-

וספרה לה לעצמה - וא"ת אמאי אין מברכת זבה על ספירתה כמו שמברכין על ספירת העומר דהא כתיב וספרה וי"ל דאין מברכין אלא ביובל שמברכין ב"ד בכל שנה שלעולם יוכל למנות כסדר וכן עומר אבל זבה שאם תראה תסתור אין לה למנות:

Explanation of Tosfos in Noda B’Yehuda II YD:23 arguing with Shelah who makes it into a mitzvah:

כוונתן דביובל ועומר שתמיד הזמן נמשך כסדר לא צריך קרא למכתב וספרת שהרי אין צריך בזה השגחה כלל א"ו מצוה היא אבל בזבה שאם תראה תסתור ואין הזמן עובר ממילא וצריך השגחה על זה ואם כן אין כוונת הפסוק בוספרה לה על הספירה אלא על ההשגחה שיהיו נקיים ולא למצוה לכך אין לה למנות. זהו הנלע"ד לדחות עיקר דברי השל"ה. אבל לדידן אפילו אם יהיבנא ליה להגאון השל"ה סברתו שפסוק זה וספרה לה למצוה הוא אכתי אין לדבריו קיום בנשי דידן דהרי זה פשוט אף אם נימא שהיא מצוה מ"מ מצוה זו שייכא להטבילה דאטו אם לא תטבול כלל ואין רצונה לטבול מי יש מצוה בספירה הזו אתמהה

 

8.  What issur deoraysa does a metzora have to transgress in order to become tahor.

Shaving his head and face with a razor- 14:9 – a double issur for any man, and an extra issur if he is a nazir, but a metzora who needs to become tahor has to shave all his hair.

והיה ביום השביעי יגלח את־כל־שערו את־ראשו ואת־זקנו ואת גבת עיניו ואת־כל־שערו יגלח וכבס את־בגדיו ורחץ את־בשרו במים וטהר

Just interesting – the Gimmel in והתגלח is written large. Reasons given are:

1.    Three people have this halacha of being shaved as bald as an egg- The initial group of Leviim during their inauguration, every nazir after his term ends; and the metzora.

2.      That this taglachas supersedes three issurim – peios harosh, peios hazakan, and nazir.

3.      That a boy’s first haircut should be at three years old.  I’m not making this up. It is said in the name of the Arizal. And it’s passuk 33, so you should do it on Lag BaOmer. If you believe that the passuk numbering is holy, which is isn’t. Even though נעשה ונשמע is 24:7.

 

7.  What word in the parsha can be either a verb or an adjective.  Hint: it's a color.

Yarok. ‘Green’ and ‘will spit’.

Green- 14:37

וְרָאָה אֶת־הַנֶּגַע וְהִנֵּה הַנֶּגַע בְּקִירֹת הַבַּיִת שְׁקַעֲרוּרֹת יְרַקְרַקֹּת אוֹ אֲדַמְדַּמֹּת

Spit- 15:8

וְכִי־יָרֹק הַזָּב בַּטָּהוֹר

9.   A man came to Rav Chaim Kanievsky with a shailah. He had a very uncomfortable rash or psoriasis which he showed to Reb Chaim. The doctor had prescribed a medicated ointment. The question was whether he could put it on the rash on Shabbos, or whether there would be an issue of dissolving a thick cream or refuah on Shabbos. Rav Chaim asked to see the rash and said "If the medicine is to cure the rash, and not just for the discomfort, you should be asking whether you can use the cream during the week, not only on Shabbos, because the rash has the symptoms of tzaraas, and the Torah forbids removing the signs of Tzaraas." 

Was this man allowed to walk into the old city of Yerushalayim?

Yes, he is allowed to go into Yerushalayim. 

The Tuma and Tahara status, and the banishment of the Metzora, only go into effect when the Kohen says "Tamei" or "Tahor" (as the Meiri says in MK 7b d'h אפילו,  

'אפילו היו סימני טומאה של מצורע או סימני –רפואה ניכרים לכל אדם אינו לא טמא ולא טהור, עד שיטמאנו הכהן או יטהרנו'.)

Rav Kanievsky was not a Kohen so despite his psak halacha, the man remains tahor.

However, the prohibition of removing signs of Tzaraas is inherent. It is Safeik Issur Deoraysa to remove what might be symptoms of tzaraas (Devarim 24:8, השמר בנגע הצרעת) until an expert, Kohen or non-Kohen, says that they are not tzaraas.   

Note: There is one and only one solitary shittah that obvious tzaraas is immediately tamei, with or without a kohen. That is the Yaavetz, שו"ת שאילת יעבץ א, קלח. The only achron  (the Minchas Yitzchak in  ה, א, יד; ו, קלב ד"ה והנה) who cites him lehalacha does so for purely political reasons, to keep people off of the Har Habayis, an issur kares.   Everyone else only mentions him as a curiosity: 

Ayeles Hashachar here in 13:2;   Lehoros Nassan, 13:2;  and more.

Moreh Lifnei Rabbo

This is from a pre-internet journal I used to keep. 

The Se’ir Rosh Chodesh of Aharon.  (5759-1999) Dr. Krinsky asked me, how is it possible that immediately after the death of Nadav and Avihu, which according to some was for paskening lifnei rabban, that Aharon burned the korbon of Rosh chodesh without asking Moshe!  And you can’t answer that to Aharon it was even more poshut than bei’asah be’kutcha, because we see that Moshe didn’t realize that Aharon was right at first.  So I told Dr. Krinsky that maybe Aharon wasn’t a talmid, or at least that he was a talmid chover.  But then I turned to Moshe, who hadn’t heard the conversation, and asked him whether he thought that Aharon was considered a talmid of Moshe, or was he an equal.  Moshe answered, “Aharon must have been an equal to Moshe, because if he wasn’t, he wouldn’t have burned the se’ir Rosh Chodesh without asking Moshe.”  Dr. Krinsky couldn’t believe that Moshe hadn’t heard our conversation, but the fact is, he hadn’t.

 (5760-2000).  I checked the sforim, and it turns out that both Reb Moshe and the Lutzker Rov ask the question-- but the Lutzker Rov on 10:19 asks on Aharon, and so he says that Moshe and Aharon were ‘shkulim’, as above; Reb  Moshe, on the other hand, asks the question on Elozor and Isomor (in the first Dorash Moshe, on 10:20,) and he answers that since Rashi says that Moshe admitted that he learned the drosho of Aharon from Hashem but forgot it, this shows that he had taught it to them, and so there was no halacha of moreh lifnei rabbon
 I asked the kids the question again this year, and both Mordechai and Ita showed me the Rashi  in 10:19 that says that the reason Aharon answered Moshe, when Moshe had directed his question to Elozor and Isomor, was that it would not be appropriate for a talmid to respond to his rebbi’s tayneh.  This, they said, shows that while Elozor and Isomor were considered Moshe’s talmidim, Aharon was not.
 I also saw the Ohr Hachaim, who says that Aharon’s drosho from Maiser is so clear, that this din has a halacha of ‘bei’aso bekutcho.’
 (August 2000/5760) I saw the Mishneh in Avos 4:12, and the Machzor Vitri’s pirush there, and the Avos D’rav Nosson towards the end of Perek 27 and the pirush of the Ben Avrohom there.  The bottom line is, that almost everyone says that Moshe was the rebbi (obviously, and as the Gemora in Eruvin 54b says,) but since Aharon was older, they were considered ‘shkulim’.  This doesn’t, however, affect the fact that Moshe was the Rebbi, and there should be a halocho of moreh lifnei rabbo.  Also— the Medrash Rabba in Shemos 3:17 says, on “ve’atta tihiyeh lo leilohim”, that even though Aharon was older, since Moshe was the rebbi, Aharon had to be mechabed Moshe like he was mechabed the Shechina (moreh Rabboch kimoreh shomayim.)
 (February ‘03/Adar I ‘63) I saw that the Netziv in the beginning of Parshas Tetzaveh (Shemos 27:20) says, after bringing several of the aforementioned rayos, that Aharon did not have a din of a talmid.  Although he did learn from Moshe, after he learned from Moshe he did not need him, and he was considered an equal gadol.  However, Moshe’s gadlus was in pilpul and chiddush, while Aharon’s was in svoro yeshoro and emes, ‘lehoros es Bnei Yisroel.’  And then he brings that this advantage of Aharon in svoro yeshoro resulted in Aharon’s ascension over Moshe when Aharon paskened correctly regarding the Se’ir Rosh Chodesh

UPDATE APRIL 2025/NISSAN '85)   Avi Saltzman said Aharon had the excuse of being an Onein. He didn't explain his question, but I suppose he meant thae Gemara BB 16b on Iyov  אֵין אָדָם נִתְפָּס בִּשְׁעַת צַעֲרוֹ, Rashi- 

שאין אדם נתפס - להתחייב על שהוא מדבר קשה מחמת צער ויסורין דקאמר לא בדעת ידבר לא אמר לא ברשע ידבר אלא לא בדעת:

Rav Avremi Isenberg threw in the idea that he was pattur because as an onein, he was pattur min hamitzvos, and מורה לפני רבו is only because of מפני שיבה תקום or את ה' אלוקיך תירא; if he's pattur from the latter, he is pattur from the former.

Clever, but no cigar. First of all, the eisek with Nadav and Avihu was davka given over to Mishael and Eltzaphan and Klal Yisrael as a whole, so they did not have any ptur aninus. Second, pashtus Shmuel was a child and pattur min hamitzvos, too, and being pattur min hamitzvos did not protect him. Apparently, the chillul Hashem of moreh lifnei rabbo is a metziyus and the punishment is a metziyus too. As to whether the rebbi can be mochel- Reb Chaim Shmuelevitz here beginning on page 254 and especially on page 260 says there is no mechila. I don't know how he explains how Eli was mochel Shmuel, unless it's a combination of his being a kattan and mechilah. Rabbi Krasner in his Nachalas Shimon Shmuel I Siman 8 page 95 brings a Chasam Sofer; The Maharsha asks on Shmuel that he was a kattan and answers dinei shamayim are different. Everyone asks on the Maharsha that adderabba, missah bidei shamayim is not for an aveira done before the age of 20; so the Chasam Sofer says that the consequence of Moreh is not an onesh, it is what happens when you consume poison. (Like the Netziv says by machlokes.)

Chasam Sofer:

 ולפע"ד י"ל כך דמהרש"א הק' הא קטן הי' בן שני שני' ולא בר עונשי' הוא ותי' האי עונש בידי שמים הוא וצ"ע הא גם למעלה אין עונש לקטן אבל הכוונה כי המורה הלכה אינינו מטעם עונש אלא כאוכל סם המות ומת

See along those lines Reb Chaim Shmuelevitz in Shemini.

Moshe Rabbeinu's Proclamation that He Made a Mistake and that Aharon Corrected Him

Moshe Rabbeinu angrily criticized Aharon and his sons for burning the Chatas of Rosh Chodesh Nissan, which, he thought, Hashem had specifically commanded them, despite being Aveilim, to eat. Aharon replied that this exceptional halacha only allowed him to eat the unique Korbanos of the moment, the Korbanos of Miluim, but not to the Korban of Rosh Chodesh. Moshe, upon consideration of Aharon's argument, agreed that Aharon was right, and that he, Moshe, had erred. Not only did he admit his error, but, according to the Targum Yonasan, the Targum Yerushalmi, and the Medrash here, he made an official proclamation publicizing his error and that Aharon was right in correcting him.

The Targum Yonasan in Vayikra 11:20

וּשְׁמַע משֶׁה וּשְׁפַר קֳדָמוֹי וְאַפֵּיק כְּרוֹזָא בְּמַשְׁרִיתָא לְמֵימָר אֲנָא הוּא דְאִיתְעַלָמִית הִילְכָתָא מִנִי וְאַהֲרן אָחִי אִדְכַּר יָתָהּ לִי

Targum Yerushalmi

כֵּיוַן דִּשְׁמַע משֶׁה וּשְׁפַר פִּתְגָמָא בְּאַפּוֹי וְאַפִּיק כְּרוֹז בְּכָל מַשְׁרִיתְהוֹן דְּיִשְרָאֵל וַאֲמַר אֲנָא הוּא דְאִיתְעֲלָמִית הִילְכָתָא מִנִי וְאַהֲרן אָחִי אַלִּיף יָתָהּ לִי וְעַל דְּאַשְׁפַּל משֶׁה גַרְמֵיהּ קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ אַגָר סַגִי וּשְׁמַע משֶׁה וּשְׁפַר פִּתְגָמָא בְּאַפּוֹי:

Medrash 13:1

וַיִּשְׁמַע משֶׁה וַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינָיו, הוֹצִיא כָּרוֹז לְכָל הַמַּחֲנֶה וְאָמַר, אֲנִי טָעִיתִי אֶת הַהֲלָכָה וְאַהֲרֹן אָחִי בָּא וְלִמֵּד לִי.

Why did Moshe do this? I doubt that Moshe Rabbeinu publicly criticized Aharon. Why would he have done that? It's not as if it was a halacha that was relevant in other cases - it was a unique exception to the rule with no relevance to the usual halacha. If, for some reason, he did criticize him publicly, of course, it is only fair that the retraction should be done publicly as well. But here are several approaches I came across with answers I thought were interesting.

(I'm sure the sefer Na'ar Yonasan discusses this. I'm planning to get a hold of a copy next time I go to EY. It's at Geula Books and Vagshal.)


Yakra d'Oraysa from Rav Yechiel Tzik of Bnei Brak.
A lomdus - that Moshe wanted people to realize that Aharon's argument was not merely a Kal Vachomer, which only stands if no convincing counter argument is brought (as we know by the Boaz/Rus decision.) He remembered that Hashem had told him this din, and as a Halacha l'Moshe mi'Sinai, it could not be debated.

וידבר אהרן אל משה הן היום הקריבו את חטאתם ואת עולתם לפני ה׳ ותקראנה אותי כאלה ואכלתי חטאת היום הייטב בעיני ה׳: וישמע משה וייטב בעיניו(י' י״ט-ב׳)

וישמע משה, תירגם אונקלוס ושמע משה, דהיינו שמיעת האוזן, דהיינו שקיבל את דבריו.

והנה איתא בזבחים ק״א. דאהרן דן את דינו מק״ו ומה מעשר (שני) הקל אמרה תורה (דברים כ״ו, י״ד) לא אכלתי באוני ממנו, קודש חמור לא כל שכן. ואיתא שם ק״א: הודה ולא בוש משה לומר, לא שמעתי, אלא שמעתי ושכחתי.

והנה נפק״מ גדולה אם אהרן דן דינו מק״ו ומשרע״ה הסכים לק״ו או שמעתי ושכחתי. דאם הדין נלמד מק״ו הרי שאם יהיה לק״ו פירכא אפילו באחד הדורות הבאים שוב לא יתקיים הק״ו כמבואר ברמב״ם פ״ב מהלכות ממרים הל״א (וראה עוד בחידושי מרן הגרי׳׳ז עה״ת במגילת רות, הובא ביקרא דאורייתא רות (די, כ״ב) בשם שלמי תודה).

אמנם מדאמר מרע״ה שמעתי ושכחתי, הרי שאין זה ק״ו בלבד, אלא זהו עצם הדין שקיבל משרע״ה מסיני ושוב אין הלכה זאת ניתנת לשינוי ולביטול ולא גרע מכל הלכה למשה מסיני, דכתב שם הגרי״ז שאי אפשר לחלוק על זה, לפיכך הודה משרע״ה ואמר שמעתי ושכחתי.

ולפי האמור יתבאר מה שפירש התרגום יונתן בן עוזיאל, ושמע משה ושפר קדמוי ואפיק כרוזא במשריתא למימר אנא הוא דאתעלמית הילכתא מני ואהרן אחי אדכר יתה לי. דיש להבין מה היה צריך משרע״ה להכריז במחנה, אלא קמ״ל דאין זה ק״ו בלבד, אלא שע״י הק״ו שדן אהרן, נזכר משרע״ה בעצם הדין ושוב לא ניתן לפרוך דין זה לעולם.

 עלי ציון עה״ת מהדורא תליתאה (בכ״י)

Sorosi Bamidinos from Rav Henoche Levine of Flatbush.
By agreeing with Aharon, he realized that Aharon's silence at the moment of the tragedy was evidence of absolute bitachon and Ahavas Hashem, not shock - because his mind was clear enough to present a clear and convincing argument le'halacha immediately afterwards. Aharon's self control and bitachon was a priceless lesson for Klal Yisrael.

 בספר אהבת יונתן כאן מפרש: וכן אי׳ בתו״ב סי׳ ס ובש״ס זבחים קא.: הודה מיד ולא בוש לומר לא שמעתי, אלא אמר: שמעתי ושכחתי, כי השמיעה תבא לפעמים על קבלת הדברים, כמו: ״כי שמעת לקול אשתך״, שקיבל דברי אהרן והודה לו מיד, כי עתה הבין ברוח קדשו שהדין עם אהרן, ושעל כן לא ציוהו ה׳ שיצוה לאהרן לאכול בשר חטאת במקום הקודש. ״וייטב בעיניו״ מעשה אהרן ששרף החטאת, מישרת לבו, ע״כ.

 ובספר חתם סופד (שטרן) כאן, מסביר דהא ד״וייטב בעיניו״ באופן מיוחד, וז״ל: נראה דמרע״ה היה  מצטער כי סבור, אגב מדירותיהם באבלם, אירע מכשול, וכמ״ש חז״ל (זבחים קא.) דלמא אגב  מרירותיה נגע ביה טומאה, ואם היה (באמת) כן, א״כ האי ״וידום אהרן״ לא היה מחמת סבלנות וקבלת דין שמים באהבה, אלא שהתמרמר בחמת רוחו, על כן היה מרע״ה מצטער על זה. אך כששמע מרע״ה טענתו של אהרן: אם שמעת בקדשי שעה, לא שמעת בקדשי דורות, נמצא היה שכלו של אהרן יותר צלול וברור משל מרע״ה, שהרי מרע״ה טעה בסברא זו. ע״כ התברר שלא התמרמר כלל, וקבל דין שמים באהבה ושמחה, ע״כ ״וייטב בעיניו״, עכ״ל.

 ואולי אפשר להעמיס זה הכוונה בדברי המתרגם, שכתב שמרע״ה העביר כרוז שממנו נתעלמה ההלכה ואהרן הזכירו, כי באמת נתפעל מרע״ה ממדרגת אהרן כשראה גודל הסבלנות של אחיו ובהירות שכלו בזמן כזה, וסבור שמצוה לפרסם הנהגתו כדי שילמדו ממנו ישראל, והבן.

 והוסיף התרגום ירושלמי על דברי המתרגם לומר שעל שהשפיל משה עצמו להודות לאהרן קיבל עליו שכר רב, וישמע משה השכר שניתן לו וייטב בעיניו, ומהו השכר, שנתייחד לו הדיבור תיכף בפי: ״זאת החיה אשר וגו׳״, עכ״ד

Nesivei Chaim from Harav Chaim Elazari of Canton OH, a talmid of the Alter
Mussar, of course, a nusach of mussar I can imagine my father zatzal saying. Even if you are convinced that someone darshened wrongly, that is no reason to get angry at him. Respectful disagreement, even if voiced vehemently, is a far better choice than righteous anger, when the other is a talmid chacham and a yarei shamayim.

 וישמע משה וייטב בעיניו (י, נ).

 עיין ב״מסלות חיים״ (חלק שני, עמוד לב) מה שבארנו בזה בע״ה. כעת ראיתי ״ת״י בן עוזיאל״ וגם ב״תרגום ירושלמי״ וז״ל: ״כיון דשמע משה ושפר פתגמא באפוי ואפיק כרוז בכל משריתהון דישראל ואמר אנא הוא דאיתעלמית הילכתא מני ואהרן אחי אליף יתה לי ועל דאשפל משה גרמיה קביל עליה אגר סגי ושמע משה ושפר פתגמא באפוי.״ לכאורה, האם היה צורך שמשה יכריז במחנה על זה ששכח הלכה ואהרן הזכירו, ואם הוא טעה ורצה להודות שטעה, היה יכול לעשות זאת לאלה שפסק להם בטעות, וגם זה לאו מילתא זוטרתא.

לענ״ד, יכול להיות שמשה רצה ללמד את בני ישראל, שגם אדון הנביאים אשר אליו דבר ה׳ פא״פ, גם הוא עלול לטעות, ועוד למדנו מכאן, שלכעוס על זה שמדמים שהוא טעה בדבר הלכה מתוך וכוח בד״ת, גם זה נקרא כעס שלא לצורך, אשר גרם שנתעלמה ממנו הלכה, כאן הכועס הי׳ רבן של כל ישראל וכעסו היה לש״ש, והוא נענש בזה, שנטלה גדולתו ממנו בזה שנעלמה הלכה ממנו. ודו״ק.

Shemini. Was It Sinful or Meritorious

Moshe told Aharon that Nadav and Avihu were chosen because they were greater than them. Aharon heard what Moshe said and was comforted.  On the other hand, we have clear statements in the Torah, amplified innumerable times in Chazal, that Nadav and Avihu had done something wrong. So what is the story here? Were they chosen to be korbanos because they were so great and righteous, or did they die because of their failings? Was it punishment or reward?

Additionally, it appears that the consolation of Aharon only enabled him to continue functioning pursuant to the commandment to not be meisi'ach da'as. Klal Yisrael, on the other hand, was allowed and indeed commanded to cry and mourn for the fiery death of these two great men. So it seems that Moshe Rabbeinu saw a need to comfort Aharon, and his words did have an effect, but despite the truth of those words, there was still an overwhelming reason to cry and mourn.

I think that you can't escape the fact that it was both. It was sinful and meritorious, it was punishment and reward. Apparently, a human who is judged imperfect only in light of the highest middas hadin can be chosen as a korban davka because of that combination of exaltedness and imperfection. Punishment because one was zocheh to perfect middas hadin is indistinguishable from reward. This was the consolation of Aharon.

And I think that despite what might be an initial negative reaction to the application of "two dinim" to something so deeply emotional and human, I think that you also have to accept what Rav Povarsky says about two dinim in aveilus: one in sympathy with the torment of the human soul after death, and the other mourning for the loss of personal contact with the niftar. The din Torah of aveilus is the first, and the personal aveilus is the second. A tzadik gammur might not elicit the first, but will doubly elicit the second.  Here, the fact that their death was the result of their inconceivably high darga meant that the first din of aveilus was not relevant, and so Aharon was told to force himself to not think about the personal loss he had experienced - איבעי ליה ליתובי דעתיה (Sukkah 25b). Klal Yisrael certainly needed to mourn the terrible personal loss they had suffered, both out of their own emotion and to show respect to Nadav and Avihu - calm serenity would show they felt that it wasn't a big loss.

Questions for Shemini

Reminder. These are not tests to see how much people know. Just knowing the answer is not useful here.  The answers require proof from specific words in the parsha. Assume that every question begins with "Where to we see in this parsha that...."

In 2025/pei hei, I asked 1,4,7,9-10, and 12.

1.  In what two contexts does this parsha state: "A fire came out from before Hashem" and how are they related?

2.  Who is referred to in this parsha as someone's "uncle"?

3.  Identify the four pairs of brothers who appear in this parsha.

4.  Where in the parsha are people described as "brothers" when they were really cousins?

5.  Where do find a commandment to take things מחוץ למחנה.

6.  What is the source of the halacha that an aveil can not cut his hair and must tear kriah.

7. In this week's parsha, we find two cases of people who paskened a halacha without consulting with Moshe Rabbeinu.  The first case resulted in severe punishment, the second case did not.

8.  Name the four animals that display only one sign of kashrus.

9.  In what way is an earthenware vessel more resistant to becoming tamei than any other type of vessel.

10.  In what way is the tuma of an earthenware vessel more persistent than any other type of vessel. 

11.  If a person has a tamei thing inside his body, can he become tahor?

12.  Show me two ways of describing the negative or the opposite of Tumah. 

  

1.  In what two contexts does this parsha state: "A fire came out from before Hashem" and how are they related?

The expression "And a fire came out from before Hashem" is used to describe consuming the korban olah and its fats (9:24), and also to describe the consuming of Nadav and Avihu, the sons of Aaron, who brought a foreign fire into the Mishkan (10:2).

ותצא אש מלפני ה' ותאכל על המזבח את העלה ואת החלבים

ותצא אש מלפני יהוה ותאכל אותם וימתו לפני ה'

They are related because Nadav and Avihu were punished for bringing their own fire for the Ketores, instead of waiting for the fire from before Hashem.

10:1

ויקריבו לפני ה' אש זרה אשר לא צוה אתם

 

2.  Who is referred to in this parsha as someone's "uncle"?

Uziel is the uncle of Aharon (10:4).

ויקרא משה אל מישאל ואל אלצפן בני עזיאל דד אהרן

 The sons of Kehas were Amram, Yitzhar, Chevron, and Uziel.

3.  Identify the four pairs of brothers who appear in this parsha.

(1) Moshe and Aharon, (2) Nadav and Avihu, (3) Elazar and Isamar, (4) and Mishael and Eltzafan, the sons of Uziel who are asked to carry the bodies of Nadav and Avihu out of the Mishkan (10:4).

4.  Where in the parsha are people described as "brothers" when they were really cousins?

Eltzafan and Mishael are asked to carry the bodies of Nadav and Avihu out of the Mishkan.  Eltzafan and Mishael are the first cousins once-removed of Nadav and Avihu, but are referred to as their brothers (10:4).

ויקרא משה אל מישאל ואל אלצפן בני עזיאל דד אהרן ויאמר אלהם קרבו שאו את אחיכם מאת פני הקדש אל מחוץ למחנה

 

5.  Where do find a commandment to take things מחוץ למחנה.

The Chatas of Aharaon and of the Tzibur, 9:11  

ואת הבשר ואת העור שרף באש מחוץ למחנה

The bodies of Nadav and Avihu. 10:4

ויקרא משה אל מישאל ואל אלצפן בני עזיאל דד אהרן ויאמר אלהם קרבו שאו את־אחיכם מאת פני הקדש אל מחוץ למחנה 

ויקרבו וישאם בכתנתם אל מחוץ למחנה כאשר דבר משה

6.  What is the source of the halacha that an aveil can not cut his hair and must tear kriah.

10:6

ויאמר משה אל אהרן ולאלעזר ולאיתמר  בניו ראשיכם אל תפרעו  ובגדיכם לא תפרמו ולא תמתו

 indicating that other aveilim are obligated to do so.

 

7.  In this week's parsha, we find two cases of people who paskened a halacha without consulting with Moshe Rabbeinu.  The first case resulted in severe punishment, the second case did not.

In 10:1-2 Nadav and Avihu brought outside fire to burn the Ketores. In 10:19 we see that Aharon paskened that he had to burn the Korban Chatas of Rosh Chodesh even though he had been told to eat the Chatas of inauguration.

8.  Name the four animals that display only one sign of kashrus.

11:4,5,6,7 - Camel, shafan, hare, and pig.

אך את־זה לא תאכלו ממעלי הגרה וממפרסי הפרסה את־הגמל כי־מעלה גרה הוא ופרסה איננו מפריס טמא הוא לכם

ואת־השפן כי־מעלה גרה הוא ופרסה לא יפריס טמא הוא לכם

ואת־הארנבת כי־מעלת גרה הוא ופרסה לא הפריסה טמאה הוא לכם

ואת־החזיר כי־מפריס פרסה הוא ושסע שסע פרסה והוא גרה לא־יגר טמא הוא לכם

 

9.  In what way is an earthenware vessel more resistant to becoming tamei than any other type of vessel.

It only can become tamei from the inside, not if it is touched on the outside. 11:33.

וכל כלי חרש אשר יפל מהם אל תוכו כל אשר בתוכו יטמא

 10.  In what way is the tuma of an earthenware vessel more persistent than any other type of vessel. 

All other vessels can be purified from Tuma through tevilla. Earthenware vessels can never be purified.

11:32

וכל אשר יפל עליו מהם במתם יטמא מכל כלי עץ או בגד או עור או שק כל כלי אשר יעשה מלאכה בהם במים יובא וטמא עד הערב וטהר

11:33

וכל כלי חרש אשר יפל מהם אל תוכו כל אשר בתוכו יטמא ואתו תשברו

11.  If a person has a tamei thing inside his body, can he become tahor?

Yes. 11:40,  the din of tumah bluah or maga beis hastarim.

והאכל מנבלתה יכבס בגדיו וטמא עד הערב

  

12.  Show me two ways of describing the negative or the opposite of Tumah. 

Taharah and Kedusha.

Tumah/Tahara, 11:47

להבדיל בין הטמא ובין הטהר ובין החיה הנאכלת ובין החיה אשר לא תאכל

and

Tumah/Kedusha, 11:44

כי אני ה' אלהיכם והתקדשתם והייתם קדשים כי קדוש אני ולא תטמאו את נפשתיכם בכל השרץ הרמש על הארץ 

Achron shel Pesach 2025, with a lot of help from my friends.

This was my drasha from achron shel Pesach 2025. It is a synthesis of insights from Rav Dr Nachum Stone, Rav Chaim Brown, and Rav Avraham Bukspan.  Thank you.

Shemos 11:2

דבר נא באזני העם וישאלו איש מאת רעהו ואשה מאת רעותה כלי כסף וכלי זהב

Rashi

דבר נא. אֵין נָא אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן בַּקָּשָׁה, בְּבַקָּשָׁה מִמְּךָ הַזְהִירֵם עַל כָּךְ, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר אוֹתוֹ צַדִּיק אַבְרָהָם "וַעֲבָדוּם וְעִנּוּ אוֹתָם" (בראשית ט"ו), קִיֵּם בָּהֶם, "וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן יֵצְאוּ בִּרְכֻשׁ גָּדוֹל" (שם), לֹא קִיֵּם בָּהֶם:

The explanation of what Rashi means is very well known. Of course the Ribono shel Olam would fulfill His promise. But the fulfillment was intended to be the great treasure of Mattan Torah. The problem was that when it came to the warning of Avdus and Inui, Hashem fulfilled it literally. But when it comes to the promise of treasure, Hashem fulfills it with metaphorical treasure? Of course the Torah is incomparably greater than any worldly treasure, but for some people this would be hard to bear. Either both should be literal or both metaphorical, with avdus through the opposite of אין לך בן חורין אלא מי שעוסק בתורה, the avdus to the yetzer hara, and inui through some other means, like עִנָּה בַדֶּרֶךְ כֹּחִי. 

But there is another Rashi that says something different.

14:5

ויגד למלך מצרים כי ברח העם ויהפך לבב פרעה ועבדיו אל העם ויאמרו מה זאת עשינו כי שלחנו את ישראל מעבדנו

Rashi

ויהפך. נֶהְפַּךְ מִמַּה שֶּׁהָיָה, שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמַר לָהֶם "קוּמוּ צְּאוּ מִתּוֹךְ עַמִּי" (שמות י"ב), וְנֶהְפַּךְ לֵב עֲבָדָיו, שֶׁהֲרֵי לְשֶׁעָבַר הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים לוֹ "עַד מָתַי יִהְיֶה זֶה לָנוּ לְמוֹקֵשׁ" (שמות י'), וְעַכְשָׁיו נֶהֶפְכוּ לִרְדֹף אַחֲרֵיהֶם בִּשְׁבִיל מָמוֹנָם שֶׁהִשְׁאִילוּם: 

This is an entirely different reason than Rashi had said earlier.

Rashi here is saying that the reason the common Mitzri madly pursued the Jews, despite all the makkos and terror they knew resulted from oppressing the Jews is that they were filled with anger about all they had lent the Jews that they saw they were never getting back. In order to ensure that there would be a קריעת ים סיף with far greater damage to the Mitzrim and with far greater spoils of war, Hashem told Moshe to encourage the Jews to borrow from their neighbors. 

The "reason" Rashi had said earlier was like טעמי המצוות. It is an excellent reason for the tzivui, and it is true and good. But we can not really know the deeper purpose of a tzivui Hashem, which goes far beyond any taamei hamitzvos it says in the Torah.  There are wheels within wheels, and we are unwitting instruments of the invisible hand of the Ribono shel Olam. 

You have to realize that Kriyas Yam Suf was not just an additional miracle. 

The Magen Avraham holds that you can fulfil the mitzva of זכירת יציאת מצרים by talking about קריעת ים סוף. Most achronim, including the Gra and the Pri Megadim, argue. Zechiras yetzias mitzrayim is only the miracles that happened ביום ההוא, not a week later. But then why in the Hagaddah is so much weight given to krias yam suf? It says, oh, if in Mitzrayim there were X nissim, by קריעת ים סוף there were 10X. If Bizas Mitzrayim was X, ביזת הים was 100X. What is the point of belittling יציאת מצרים in favor of קריעת ים סוף? Why in Shachris and Maariv do we jump from יציאת מצרים to extensive praise for קריעת ים סוף?  There is no mitzva of zechiras קריעת ים סוף?  

The answer is that יציאת מצרים could be seen as the middas Emes of the RBSO, which obligated the kiyum of the promise. But the nissim of KYS and the Bizas Hayam, there was no reason for that. This could all have been avoided by not bumbling around in the desert. And Hashem had already given us great wealth from Mitzrayim. The reason Hashem did it this way was to show that YM was not merely a fulfillment of a pledge to our forefathers, it was a sign of a loving relationship of a father to his son. Hashem did קריעת ים סוףout of love, not duty. So this had to be set in motion davka at the moment of יציאת מצרים.

קריעת ים סוף is not part of sippur יציאת מצרים. But it is a גילוי of what יציאת מצרים meant. It was purely ahava and rachamim, not just kiyum of a bris.

Reb Nachum thought this would be a good match with Adam Smith's invisible hand. This led me to realize an interesting pshat in the halacha of לך לאות ולא לאחרים לאות. What's the pshat that the shel rosh should be prominently visible, but the shel yad should be covered? Because the יד חזקה of יציאת מצרים was open and great and a tremendous kiddush Hashem, but at the same time, the יד חזקה of יציאת מצרים was hidden from all. We had no idea of what the Ribono shel Olam was setting in motion, not in this world and certainly not in the עולמות עליונים as Reb Chaim Volozhiner says. The Yad Hashem is, for the most part, hidden.

This reminds us of the Ramban at the end of Bo (13:16)  Everything we see is the direct result of Hashem's involvement in this world, whether it looks like a tremendous neis or it looks like teva.

וּמִן הַנִּסִּים הַגְּדוֹלִים הַמְפֻרְסָמִים אָדָם מוֹדֶה בַּנִּסִּים הַנִּסְתָּרִים שֶׁהֵם יְסוֹד הַתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּהּ, שֶׁאֵין לָאָדָם חֵלֶק בְּתוֹרַת מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ עַד שֶׁנַּאֲמִין בְּכָל דְּבָרֵינוּ וּמִקְרֵינוּ שֶׁכֻּלָּם נִסִּים אֵין בָּהֶם טֶבַע וּמִנְהָגוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, בֵּין בְּרַבִּים בֵּין בְּיָחִיד, אֶלָּא אִם יַעֲשֶׂה הַמִּצְוֹת יַצְלִיחֶנּוּ שְׂכָרוֹ, וְאִם יַעֲבֹר עֲלֵיהֶם יַכְרִיתֶנּוּ עָנְשׁוֹ, הַכֹּל בִּגְזֵרַת עֶלְיוֹן כַּאֲשֶׁר הִזְכַּרְתִּי כְּבָר (בראשית יז א, ולעיל ו ב). וְיִתְפַּרְסְמוּ הַנִּסִּים הַנִּסְתָּרִים בְּעִנְיָן הָרַבִּים כַּאֲשֶׁר יָבֹא בְּיִעוּדֵי הַתּוֹרָה בְּעִנְיַן הַבְּרָכוֹת וְהַקְּלָלוֹת, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב (דברים כט כג-כד) "וְאָמְרוּ כָּל הַגּוֹיִם עַל מֶה עָשָׂה ה' כָּכָה לָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת, וְאָמְרוּ עַל אֲשֶׁר עָזְבוּ אֶת בְּרִית ה' אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתָם", שֶׁיִּתְפַּרְסֵם הַדָּבָר לְכָל הָאֻמּוֹת שֶׁהוּא מֵאֵת ה' בְּעָנְשָׁם. וְאָמַר בַּקִּיּוּם "וְרָאוּ כָּל עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ כִּי שֵׁם ה' נִקְרָא עָלֶיךָ וְיָרְאוּ מִמֶּךָּ".

This also explains the moments before the Krias Yam Suf. We were told to be silent: Hashem said מה תצעק, Moshe said השם ילחם לכם ואתם תחרישון. Hashem said, stop shouting. Moshe said, be quiet. The problem was that when we daven, we ask for specific things. The lesson is that the Ribono shel Olam has plans and intentions which will do not necessarily entail the immediate fulfillment of your myopic desires but which ultimately benefit you and all of Klal Yisrael. Just daven for kiddush Hashem, for rachamim, for erech apayim, for the opportunity to do mitzvos and maasim tovim. Don't hector the Ribono shel Olam with specifics.

Yizkor Pesach 2025

 Who was the first we know who kept Pesach? Avraham Avinu, and Lot. Of course Avraham Avinu kept Pesach, because the Avos were mekayeim kol hatorah kulah. Lot we know from 19:3

ויפצר בם מאד ויסרו אליו ויבאו אל ביתו ויעש להם משתה ומצות אפה ויאכלו

Rashi 

ומצות אפה - פסח היה

I understand that they had Matza. Maybe it was a siman of anivus. But one of the mitzvos is sippur yetzias Mitzrayim, which made no sense at all before the shibud and the geula. It is possible that Avraham Avinu, whose kiyum of mitzvos was most likely based on nevu'ah, did sippur of what would happen in the future. But I don't think that counts as sippur. Sippur requires recounting an existing fact, not anticipating what will happen in the future.

I think the answer is that as Reb Yerucham says, the ikkar of the mitzva of sippur is hakaras hatov, a theme emphasized again and again in the Hagada, not the least in Dayeinu. Avraham Avinu's and Lot's Hagada focused on hakaras hatov.

Pharaoh's lack of hakaras hatov is emphasized in אשר לא ידע, and Moshe's great hakaras hatov is an endless theme in the story, from the time he did not begin his great mission to Mitzrayim without asking Yisro's permission, to his not personally executing the first three makkos.

We are even makkir tov to the Mitzrim for giving us a place to live when we had to leave Knaan,  The terrible things they did to us later does not entirely erase that chiyuv of hakaras hatov. It is not an all or none cheshbon. 

Devarim 23:8

לא תתעב אדמי כי אחיך הוא לא תתעב מצרי כי גר היית בארצו

Rashi 

לא תתעב מצרי - מכל וכל אע"פ שזרקו זכוריכם ליאור מה טעם שהיו לכם אכסניא בשעת הדחק 

Of course, the Hagada is a symposium on Emuna and Hashgacha Pratis, as Reb Chatzkel says. But Reb Chatzkel's Emuna without Reb Yerucham's Hakaras Hatov is sterile.

With this in mind, think about our Hakaras Hatov to our parents. The essence of  kibbud Av v'Eim is Hakaras HaTov (as you see in the Mishna in BM 33a.) That chiyuv in the Aseres HaDibros is side by side with our chiyuvim to the Ribono shel Olam.   As the Chinuch says in 33, 

לג. מצות כיבוד אב ואם.

לכבד האב והאם, שנאמר (שמות כ יב) כבד את אביך ואת אמך וגו'. ובא הפרוש (קדושין לא, ב) אי זהו כבוד, מאכיל ומשקה מלביש ומכסה מכניס ומוציא.

משרשי מצוה זו, שראוי לו לאדם שיכיר ויגמל חסד למי שעשה עמו טובה, ולא יהיה נבל ומתנכר וכפוי טובה שזו מדה רעה ומאוסה בתכלית לפני אלקים ואנשים. ושיתן אל לבו כי האב והאם הם סבת היותו בעולם, ועל כן באמת ראוי לו לעשות להם כל כבוד וכל תועלת שיוכל, כי הם הביאוהו לעולם, גם יגעו בו כמה יגיעות בקטנתו, וכשיקבע זאת המדה בנפשו יעלה ממנה להכיר טובת האל ברוך הוא שהוא סבתו וסבת כל אבותיו עד אדם הראשון, ושהוציאו לאויר העולם וספק צרכו כל ימיו והעמידו על מתכנתו ושלמות אבריו, ונתן בו נפש יודעת ומשכלת, שאלולי הנפש שחננו האל, יהיה כסוס כפרד אין הבין, ויעריך במחשבתו כמה וכמה ראוי להזהר בעבודתו ברוך הוא.

...

ונוהגת בכל מקום ובכל זמן בזכרים ובנקבות (קידושין לא, א) כל זמן שאפשר להן, כלומר בכל עת שלא ימנעו אותן בעליהן. והעובר עליה, בטל עשה וענשו גדול מאד שנעשה כמתנכר לאביו שבשמים

For those of us who are saying yizkor, and for those who have living parents, remember that the heart and soul of Pesach is Hakaras Hatov, and it is the time to show our Hakaras Hatov to our parents. A neshama can have an aliyah even if it's still in a living person. So however you choose to do it, now is the time to say thank you, and to do something meaningful to show your Hakaras Hatov.

(I heard something on these lines from Rav Matisyahu Solomon. He said over that Reb Yerucham was once seen to display a deep emotional distress. When asked, he said that he heard that when a bachur from the Mir had gone home for Pesach, his mother had asked him to help with something, and he apologized and said that he had a seder. Reb Yerucham was extremely upset. How can it be that a bachur from the Mir goes home to the parents who made it possible to go away to learn, and he spends the whole year in yeshiva, and when he comes home, he doesn't immediately volunteer to do whatever he can to help? And unimaginably, when asked to help he finds an excuse to not help? How can it be that such a bachur spent the year learning in the Mir??)