๐พ Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to โบ scriptures โบ jewish โบ t โบ Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Levitiโฆ captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:29:17. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
15 โ[1] ** ืืืืื ืืืฉืื ืชืืชืื ืืื ืื, and one of his sons, the priest who will be anointed in his stead, etc.** The sages in *Menachot* 51 explain that this verse teaches that if a High Priest has died and no successor has as yet been appointed, that one of his sons must offer the daily meal-offering which is mandatory for the High Priest. They derive this ืืืื from the words ืืื ืื ืชืืชืื, "one of his sons in his stead." The same sages use the letter ื in the word ืืื ืื for a different exegetical purpose. The Talmud on that folio quotes a *Baraitha* according to which the word ืื ืื means that the High Priest's sons enjoy the status of ordinary priests; to the query that may be the Torah intended them to have the status of High Priests (pl)? The sages point to the words ืืืืื ืืืฉืื ืชืืชืื ืืื ืื as proof that only one of the sons may be anointed as High Priest in place of their father. It seems clear that this conclusion is derived from the word ืืื ืื, i.e. from amongst his sons, not all his sons.
โ[2] On this subject the Talmud *Horiot* 11 adds that even a High Priest who is the son of a High priest needs to undergo anointing with the oil of anointing. They derive this from the words: ืืืืื ืืืฉืื ืชืืชืื ืืื ืื; if anointment of the son were not required all the Torah would have had to write was ืืืืื ืืชืืชืื ืืื ืื the extraneous word ืืืฉืื teaches that even if the High Priest's own son is his successor he has to be anointed. This seems difficult. The word ืืืฉืื is essential to teach us that the sons who up until then were only ordinary priests, as per We could answer this query by saying that we did not need the word ืืืฉืื to enable us to allow the sons to offer the meal-offering in the absence of a newly appointed High Priest, for why else would the Torah write two verses dealing with the ordinary priest offering a meal-offering. It is clear therefore that on the first occasion the Torah mentions the meal-offering brought by an ordinary priest that the regular priest is meant, whereas on the second occasion the Torah refers to an ordinary priest who happens to be the son of a High Priest. The word ืืืฉืื did not have to be mentioned unless the Torah wished us to derive an additional lesson from that word. The Talmud concluded therefore that the word teaches that even if a High Priest is succeeded by his son he needs to be anointed for his new office.
โ[3] There remains the problem why the Torah had to write ืชืืชืื ืืื ืื, an inverted way of saying ืืื ืื ืชืืชืื, "from amongst his sons as his replacement." Perhaps the Torah was especially interested in the word ืชืืชืื appearing next to the person whom he replaced in order for the Talmud in *Menachot* to be able to arrive at the conclusion that one of the High Priest's sons must offer the meal-offering normally offered by the High Priest pending appointment of a new High Priest. The whole verse may then be understood as follows: ืืืืื ืืืฉืื ืชืืชืื ืืขืฉื, "and the priest who will be anointed in his place will carry out (the functions of that Office);" however, if a replacement has not yet been appointed, ืืื ืื ืืขืฉื, "one of his sons may carry it out." Had the Torah written ืืืื ืืืฉืื ืืื ืื ืชืืชืื, the meaning would have been that only if the son had already been appointed in place of his father, i.e. had been appointed or was considered fit to be appointed, would he be obligated to offer the meal-offering his father used to offer; seeing that the Torah reversed the words ืืื ืื ืชืืชืื and wrote ืชืืชืื ืืื ืื ืืขืฉื, we derive the law that any of the High Priest's heirs may bring the meal-offering. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that as long as no replacement for the High Priest has been appointed the meal-offering in question has to be paid for by the public purse (instead of by the High Priest or his estate). The significance of the sequence of the words ืชืืชืื ืืื ืื then is that no one other than the son of the deceased High Priest is entitled to replace him. After having given this explanation I have found that *Torat Kohanim* already preceded me in explaining these *Baraithot* in the same spirit.
Version: Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk
Source: http://www.urimpublications.com/or-hachayim-commentary-on-the-torah-5-vols.html
License: CC-BY