๐พ Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to โบ scriptures โบ jewish โบ t โบ Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Levitiโฆ captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:46:00. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
7 โ[1] ** ืืคื ื ืืณ ืืฉืจ ืืืื ืืืขื before the Lord who is in the Tent of Meeting, etc.** In answer to the question why the Torah had to write the words "before the Lord" which had already been written in verse 6, Rabbi Nechemyah in *Torat Kohanim* says that seeing that we find that Aaron stood beyond the golden altar on the Day of Atonement when he sprinkled the blood on the dividing curtain, we could have assumed that the same procedure was to be followed here. The Torah therefore had to make clear that only the golden altar was "before the Lord," not Aaron. This suggests that except for the fact that the blood of the bullock on the Day of Atonement was sprinkled towards the dividing curtain, the words "before the Lord" in our verse would be superfluous. This is difficult. How would I have known where Aaron was to have stood if the Torah had not written the words "before the Lord?" Seeing that in that event the Torah had not designated a specific spot where Aaron had to stand to perform the sprinkling ceremony, I would have concluded that he had the choice of standing either in front of the golden altar or beyond it. The Torah therefore had to write the words: "in front of the Lord," to tell us that Aaron was to stand in front of the altar. Why was all this necessary? Because we find that there was another occasion when he was to stand beyond the golden altar. Another difficulty is this: why would I assume that Aaron was to perform the ritual of sprinkling the blood towards the dividing curtain while he was standing so far away that the altar was between him and the dividing curtain? Perhaps the words are to tell us that he was to sprinkle the blood on the altar while standing in front of it (facing the dividing curtain)? Seeing that in Leviticus 17,18 the Torah describes Aaron as exiting the Holy of Holies in the direction of the golden altar while putting some of the blood of the bullock on its corners, maybe the Torah wanted to tell us that the same procedure should be followed here, i.e. that when Aaron was to put the blood on the corners of the golden altar he was to do so while having his back to the dividing curtain and facing outwards before pouring out the excess blood at the base of the copper altar? As far as the sprinkling of blood towards the dividing curtain was concerned, however, this should take place when Aaron stood between the golden altar and the dividing curtain? If we had had no other detail than this to worry about, we could have answered this problem.
โ[2] However, I have seen that the same Rabbi Nechemyah speaking of the meaning of the words "and Aaron shall exit towards the altar which is in front of the Lord" (Leviticus 16,18), questions the meaning of these words. He answers that we find in connection with the bullock which Aaron has to offer concerning all the other inadvertently committed sins that he had to stand on the far side of the curtain with the altar between him and the dividing curtain. I might have concluded that he was to follow the same procedure also with the bullock on the Day of Atonement; therefore the Torah had to write the word ืืืฆื, etc. Where did Aaron stand on that occasion? ืืคื ื ืืฉื, in front of the Lord." Thus far Rabbi Nechemyah in *Torat Kohanim* item 45 on 16,18 (item 45). It is difficult to understand why Rabbi Nechemyah had to find justification for the words of the Torah in that verse. Surely the Torah had to inform us (or the High Priest) that the High Priest had to leave the place he stood on and not sprinkle the blood on the altar while standing between it and the dividing curtain. Besides, the *Torat Kohanim* claims that the **only** reason we know where the High Priest stood at the time was that the Torah describes him as in the process of exiting towards the golden altar when he sprinkled blood on the dividing curtain. Furthermore, according to what Rabbi Nechemyah said that the words ืืืฆื ืื ืืืืื are not needed seeing that we now learned where Aaron was standing from the words ืืคื ื ืืฉื in 16,18 instead of as he said in our verse from the words ืืคื ื ืืฉื in 4,7. Rabbi Nechemyah glibly assumed that the High Priest would have stood outside the altar when sprinkling the blood of the bullock towards the dividing curtain when he performed this procedure on occasions other than the Day of Atonement. Where is there an indication in the text that this was indeed the case? If he were to use the words ืืคื ื ืืฉื to prove this theory, perhaps those words referred to the need to sprinkle some of the blood onto the altar itself which is the plain meaning of the verse! Besides, if the Torah had omitted both the words ืืืฆื ืื ืืืืื and the words ืืคื ื ืืฉื, how would I have known where Aaron was to have stood? How could Rabbi Nechemyah therefore even ask what these words were supposed to teach us?
โ[3] Actually, the exegesis of Rabbi Nechemyah in both parts of *Torat Kohanim* is most appropriate. Had the Torah not written the words ืืืฆื and not the apparently superfluous words ืืคื ื ืืฉื, I would simply have concluded that Aaron was free to sprinkle both onto the dividing curtain and onto the altar regardless of whether he stood between the altar and the dividing curtain or between the entrance to the Sanctuary and the golden altar. The Torah mentioned in connection with a wrong decision rendered by the High Court and acted upon by the community that a bullock had to be offered by the High Priest and that the blood was to be sprinkled as atonement on the **golden altar** (according to the plain meaning of the verse). The Torah also mentioned the golden altar as recipient of the blood of the bullock offered by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement as evident by the words ืืืฆื ืื ืืืืื. These facts established a halachic linkage between these two bullocks and the procedure to be followed concerning them. Not only this, but in both instances the Torah also speaks of the blood requiring to be sprinkled either upon or in the direction of the dividing curtain which is beyond the golden altar. Logic would have told us that the procedure prescribed in chapter 16 must be similar to that prescribed in chapter 4, i.e. that the sprinkling of the blood towards the dividing curtain was to be performed from a position beyond the golden altar, closer to the dividing curtain. We would then have made a ืื ืืฆืื ื kind of exegesis from what was missing in the information described in chapter 4, 13-21 by referring to chapter 16, 3-20. Rabbi Nechemyah tells us in *Torat Kohanim* that the words ืืคื ื ืืฉื are intended to prevent us from arriving at such a faulty conclusion. He asks rhetorically: Why were the apparently superfluous words ืืคื ื ืืฉื written seeing we would have used the same words in 16,18 and have applied them in our verse here? After all, we already know that the golden altar was used for sprinkling of the blood of the bullock offered as a sin-offering by the Torah writing ืืืฆื ืื ืืืืื. The words ืืคื ื ืืฉื could most certainly not be used to teach us that the High Priest was not to sprinkle the blood of the bullock on the copper altar seeing that altar was outside the Sanctuary. We are therefore back to the question what precisely the words ืืคื ื ืืฉื have been written for in our context seeing everything else could have been derived from the legislation about the bullock on the day of Atonement. Rabbi Nechemyah answers all these questions saying that the words ืืคื ื ืืฉื prove that the Torah did not want us to apply the ืื ืืฆืื ื type of exegesis by comparing the procedure to be followed with the bullock in our paragraph to the procedure followed with the bullock on the Day of Atonement. The essential difference between these two procedures involving the bullock as a sin-offering on the Day of Atonement and that in our chapter is, that there is no mention of the sprinkling of the blood **on** the dividing curtain by the High Priest while the latter is standing between the altar and the Holy of Holies in our verse. This is in contrast to the bullock to be offered on the Day of Atonement, where there is specific mention of this. Had I derived the various procedures applicable to the procedure followed with the bullock on the Day of Atonement, I would have also had to apply the detail of where the blood was to be sprinkled from the procedure outlined in chapter 16. The appearance of the word ืืคื ื ืืฉื in our verse teaches me not to derive **any ืืืื** from the bullock used on the Day of Atonement, be it the sprinkling of the blood on the dividing curtain or the sprinkling of the blood of that animal on the altar. Seeing this is so we would not have had any source upon which to base an assumption as to where the High Priest was to stand during the procedure of sprinkling the blood in the direction of the dividing curtain involving the ืคืจ ืืขืื ืืืจ, i.e. the bullock in our chapter. It seems clear therefore, that the words ืืคื ื ืืฉื must refer to the golden altar and not to the place where the High Priest was standing during all the sprinklings mentioned in our verse. Rabbi Nechemyah explains the words ืืืฆื ืื ืืืืื in 16,18 as follows: "What do these words teach us, i.e. what is the plain meaning of this verse?" Answer: "That the High Priest should not commence the sprinkling of the remaining blood on the altar until he has passed the golden altar on his way out of the Sanctuary." This teaches by inference that prior to that the High Priest had performed the sprinkling of the blood on the dividing curtain while standing between the golden altar and the dividing curtain.
โ[4] [Although the author continues to dissect the exegetical comments by Rabbi Nechemyah still further, I have decided to omit further details seeing we have shown how he solved the main problem. Ed.]
Version: Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk
Source: http://www.urimpublications.com/or-hachayim-commentary-on-the-torah-5-vols.html
License: CC-BY