๐พ Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to โบ scriptures โบ jewish โบ t โบ Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Numberโฆ captured on 2024-07-09 at 03:21:36. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
3 โ[1] ** ืื ืื ืื ืืชื, "neither they nor you."** According to the plain meaning the words ืื ืื mean "just as the Israelites who approach;" the words ืื ืืชื mean "when you act on their account" just as in the previous verse the words about ืืชื ืืื ืื.
โ[2] Our sages in *Erchin* 11 quote the following Baraitha: ืื ืื ืื ืืชื; you with what is theirs and they with what is yours in respect to the death penalty; they with what is theirs without death penalty but subject only to the penalty due for violating an ordinary negative commandment." [Priests who perform the songs allocated to the Levites are guilty of the death penalty (at the hands of heaven) just as the Levites are guilty of the death penalty if they perform the sacrificial service which is the exclusive domain of the priests. Levites who are assigned to watching the doors and sing or play musisc instead, or vice versa, are not subject to the death penalty. Ed.] Abbaye disagrees and says that even if a Levite who is assigned a certain task normally performed by the Levites performs the task allocated to another Levite instead he is also subject to death at the hands of Heaven. Rashi explains that Abbaye does not accept the wording of the Baraitha which said ืื ืืฉืืื ืืื ื ืืืืชื. He quoted another Tannaitic scholar who holds his view.
โ[3] Maimonides who deals with this problem in chapter 3 of his *Hilchot kley Hamikdash,* writes as follows: "if a Levite assisted in the performance of a task which was not assigned to him [but to another Levite, Ed.] he is guilty of death as the Torah wrote ืืื ืืืืชื, "in order that they not die (our verse)." However, if a priest performs a task which is really one to be performed by a Levite he has transgressed an ordinary negative commandment but is not guilty of the death penalty." Thus far Maimonides. There are difficulties with everything Maimonides wrote in this regard. There is not a single opinion in the Talmud which supports his view that a Levite who merely assisted another Levite in the carrying out his specific task is guilty of death. In fact, all opinions agree that the prohibition of a Levite assisting another Levite in the task allotted to the latter, is only a rabbinic injunction. How could one possibly be guilty of death for violating such an injunction? Even if we accept the Talmud's concensus that the prohibition in question, namely the switching of tasks between Levites, is Biblical but does not carry the penalty of death at the hands of heaven, it follows that if a Levite actually sings although not appointed he is not guilty of death. How could Maimonides arrive at the ruling that the second Levite who merely assisted the first, albeit unbidden, should be guilty of death? Even if we were to posit that Maimonides accepted the view of Abbaye that the Levite who sang in place of the Levite who was appointed to sing is guilty of death, we still have two problems. 1) Abbaye said nothing about a Levite who only assisted the first Levite in the former's task; the Talmud makes it clear that there is a difference between someone who carries out a task and someone who merely assists. 2) Abbaye arrives at his ruling based on the verse ืืืืจ ืืงืจื ืืืืช (Numbers 18, 7), that the non-priest who approaches the Sanctuary (and performs sacrificial service) will be executed, whereas Maimonides quotes our verse that ืืื ืืืืชื ืื ืื ืื ืืชื, that the various categories of Israelites involved would be guilty of death. [The Talmud in Erchin 11 proves that the word ืืจ in this instance does not mean simply a non-priest but the category of priest or Levite to whom the task in question had not been allocated. Ed.] Seeing that Maimonides derives his ruling from our verse, how can we assume that he agrees with Abbaye? Why does Maimonides disagree with the Talmud?
โ[4] Apparently Maimonides found support for his view in a Baraitha quoted in *Sifri Zuta* which writes as follows: "Rabbi Joshua ben Chananyah (a Levite) tried to assist Rabbi Yochanan ben Gudgada [a fellow Levite who also lived while the Temple was still standing. Ed.] in the matter of ืืืคืช ืืืชืืช, "the closing of the Temple doors." He said to him: 'desist' for you have already become guilty of the death penalty for I am one of the people appointed to be the one to lock these gates whereas you are one of the people assigned to sing." We see from this incident that a Levite who assists another Levite who performs in performing his task is guilty of the death penalty even if he only wanted to assist the Levite appointed for that task. This then is what Maimonides' ruling is based on.
โ[5] Although it is dear that the Talmud ruled differently, Maimonides accepted the version of *Sifri Zuta* as binding for 2 reasons. [The author continues to debate the merit of Maimonides' ruling in this matter for another six pages. In order to appreciate the subject it is necessary to study the matter in *Erchin* 11 thoroughly. The reader who is interested is referred to the original. In the end, our author demonstrates that both Maimonides, the Baraitha in *Erchin* and the Baraitha in *Sifri Zuta* are really on the same track. Ed.]
Version: Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk
Source: http://www.urimpublications.com/or-hachayim-commentary-on-the-torah-5-vols.html
License: CC-BY