Parshath Tëtzavve (Exodus XXVII,20-XXX,10) 2/11/11

A.

ואתה הקרב את אהרן אחיך ואת בניו אתו מתוך בני ישראל לכהנו לי אהרן נדב ואביהוא אלעזר ואתמר בני אהרן: (“And you, bring near [haqrév] Aharon your brother and his sons with him from amidst the bënei Yisra’él to install as kohanim to Me [lë-chahano li], Aharon, Nadav and Avihu’, El‘azar and Ithamar, sons of Aharon”; XXVIII, 1).

This verse (which, as Rashi tells us, was actually stated after all the work on the Mishkan was completed, and therefore after the incident of the golden calf, which the Torah reserves for next week’s parasha) contains a couple of grammatical oddities which cry out for comment.

The first is the word haqrév. In order to demonstrate why the usage is odd, consider a comment of the Këli Yaqar on our verse: הוסיף כאן לשון "ואתה" לומר לך שמצד מעשה העגל נתרחק אהרן כמו שנפסלו בכורי ישראל ומשה קרבו בתפלתו כמו שנאמר "ובאהרן התאנף ד' מאד להשמידו ואתפלל גם בעד אהרן בעת ההיא" וגו' (“[G-d] added the term vë-atta [‘and you’] to tell you that because of the incident of the calf, Aharon was distanced [from G-d] just as Israel’s first-born were delegitimized, and Moshe brought him near [qirëvo] through his prayer, as it is said, ‘And with Aharon Ha-Shem was very angry to destroy him [lë-hashmido], and I prayed also for Aharon at that time’ [Deuteronomy IX, 20]”).

The above explanation indicates the anomaly to anyone possessed of a חוש חי לשפה העברית (“a living sense of the Hebrew language”). “Near” in the Holy Language is qarov; “to approach,” the verb in the qal or “simple” conjugation which embraces the basic meaning of the root, is qarav. “To bring close” i.e. establish (or re-establish) a state of closeness, is the factitive pi‘él, which the Këli Yaqar uses in the above quotation, qirëvo, “he brought him close.” The word in our verse, haqrév, is in the causative hif‘il conjugation, and usually means “bring close” with regard to qorbanoth, “sacrifices” (also formed on the same root). Why is it used here?

The second question concerns the infinitive lë-chahano. The word is, again, in the pi‘él, and presumably means “to install as a kohén, to create a state of këhunna,” kohén being the normal form of the durative participle of a presumed verb kahan (which does not occur in the Biblical corpus as a verb); the durative participle is often used to refer to a person performing the function of the verb, e.g., shomér, “guard,” from the verb shamar, “to guard,” or shohét, “slaughterer,” from shahat, “slaughter.”

The anomaly is the suffix –o. One might, at first blush, imagine it to be the normal third person masculine singular suffix (“him”) used, e.g., by the Këli Yaqar in the words qirëvo and lë-hashmido quoted above; but the actual direct object of the infinitive is plural, consisting of Aharon and his sons. Hence, no pronominal suffix would appear to be needed, and if one were, it ought to be the third person masculine plural form, -am, rather than –o.

The Even ‘Ezra explains the usage as follows: וי"ו לכהנו לי נוסף כוי"ו "חיתו שדי", "בנו בעור" (“The –o of lë-chahano li is extra, like the –o of hayëtho sadai [‘the wildlife of my fields’; Psalms CIV, 11], bëno Vë‘or [‘son of Bë‘or’; Numbers XXIV, 3]”). The Even ‘Ezra is suggesting that this is an example of the rather rare suffixed sëmichuth, which as a rule occurs in Hebrew poetry (hence, the examples he cites, from the Book of Psalms and Bil‘am’s prophetic trance; but cf. Genesis I, 24 for a rare instance of its occurrence in prose). It is the case that directed infinitives with the dative prefix l- are generally found in the sëmichuth or construct form, a form which indicates dependence on one or more following words, but the more common form of this infinitive is lë-chahén, without the suffix (cf., e.g., XXIX, 1). Clearly, the unusual suffixed form is intended to tell us something; but what?

B.

To consider the last question first, the Ba‘al ha-Turim points out that our rare form in fact occurs three times in quick succession in our parasha, here and in vv. 3 and 4; the reason, he infers, is כנגד בית ראשון ובית שני ולעתיד (“apposite the First Temple and the Second Temple, and for the future”); in other words, it establishes the institution of the këhunna forever, from that time forward.

This in fact parallels an observation in the Sifrei: בכל מקום שנאמר "לי" קיים לעולם ולעלמי עולמים. בכהנים הוא אומר "וכהנו לי". בלויים הוא אומר "והיו לי הלויים". בישראל הוא אומר "כי לי בני ישראל עבדים" וגו' (“In every place that it is said, li [“to/for Me”], [the subject] exists for ever and ever and ever. Concerning the kohanim He says, ‘they serve as kohanim for Me’ [XXVIII, 41]; concerning the Lëviyyim He says, ‘and the Lëviyyim will be li’ [Numbers VIII, 14]; concerning Israel, He says ‘for li are the bënei Yisra’él servants’ [Leviticus XXV, 55]....”; בהעלותך פסקא ל"ד בגירסת הגר"א).

The Nëtziv comments on the above: וידענו שלעולם יכהנו בני אהרן בביה"מ ולא זולת דכתיב בהו "ברית עולם". וגם התורה וכל מצותי' לא יבטלו לעולם, הרי "לי" דכתיב בכהנים קיים לעולמי עד. ואע"פ שאינם מכהנים מעת חורבן ביהמ"ק מכ"מ עיקר קדושתם ממעל לעולם לא נעדר כמש"כ ולכן גם היום קדושתן עליהם בכל מצות כהונה (“And we know perfectly well that the sons of Aharon will serve forever in the Temple and no-one else, for it is written concerning them ‘an eternal covenant’ [cf., e.g., Numbers XXV, 13]. And also the Torah and all its mitzvoth will never be annulled, for “li” which is written about the kohanim exists forever and ever. And even though they are not serving ever since the Temple’s destruction, nonetheless the root of their sanctity from Above [‘iqqar qëdushatham mi-ma‘al] never disappears, as I have written. And therefore, today, too, their sanctity is upon them with all the mitzvoth of këhunna”; עמק הנצי"ב שם בספרי דה"מ בכהנים).

All of the Torah’s mitzvoth concerning the institution of këhunna remain in effect, whether present-day kohanim have the opportunity to perform them or not; their qëdusha remains unchanged. It is this permanent ‘iqqar qëdushatham mi-ma‘al which provides the key to answering our first question.

C.

The Or ha-Hayyim was also bothered by the apparently anomalous use of haqrév. To understand his explanation, we begin by directing our attention to the verses immediately following ours. It becomes evident that the sanctification of the kohanim and their installation in the këhunna was accomplished through the series of eight special garments to be made for them. The Torah calls them בגדי קדש לאהרן אחיך לכבוד ולתפארת, “garments of sanctity for Aharon your brother, for glory [kavod] and splendor [tif’ereth]”; v. 2). It is in the course of the initial specification and enumeration of these garments that our unusual infinitive lë-chahano recurs.
The eight bigdei këhunna are divided into two groups, four made of white linen and four of gold thread. Continues the Or ha-Hayyim: על פי דבריהם ז"ל כי השמונה בגדים ד' של בגדי לבן ירמזו על ד' אותיות של שם הוי"ה וד' בגדי זהב ירמזו על ד' אותיות של שם אדנ"י, ודע כי שם הוי"ה ב"ה יתיחס אליו כינוי התפארת כידוע ושם אדנ"י יתיחס אליו כינוי הכבוד כו' סדר הכתוב סדר דרגות הקדושה זו למעלה מזו כו' וצוה ד' לעשות שמונה בגדים שבאמצעותם יתכפרו פגמים אשר יסבבו בני אדם אשר יגיעו למקום עליון וגו' (“According to the words of Hazal [עיי' זוה"ק ח"ב רכ"ז.] that [of] the eight garments, the four white garments allude to the four letters of the Tetragrammaton, and the four golden garments allude to the four letters of the name Ad-nai; and know that the Tetragrammaton is associated with the term tif’ereth [שם שם רנ"ה:], as is known, and the name Ad-nai is associated with the term kavod [שם ח"א כ"ה. ]... The order of [the words in] the verse is the order of the ranks of sanctity, one higher than the other... And Ha-Shem commanded to make eight garments by means of which defects which originate with human beings and which reach supernal places can be corrected....”). He then goes on to note that the Talmud explains that the eight garments have the effect of correcting eight categories of transgression to be found amongst the bënei Yisra’el [ע"ע זבחים פ"ח:].

Hence, the difference between the factitive qirév and causative hiqriv is that the first term establishes a state of physical proximity in this world, and the second, a state of metaphysical proximity between this world and the next, appropriate to qorbanoth as well as the ‘iqqar qëdushatham mi-ma‘al of the kohanim who administer them.

D.

Why was Aharon singled out for this duty rather than Moshe?

The Otzar ha-Torah offers a suggestion which meshes well with the passage from the Këli Yaqar quoted above: A leader, he suggests, who is to serve as an example for people to emulate should be perceived as one of them, lest they imagine that the ideal is too lofty, unattainable by ordinary men. Aharon was a very great man in his own right, a scholar and a prophet, but Moshe was unique, as the Torah itself attests: ולא קם נביא עוד בישראל כמשה אשר ידעו ד' פנים אל פנים: (“And there has never arisen in Israel another prophet like Moshe whom Ha-Shem knew face to face”; Deuteronomy XXXIV, 10). The fact that Aharon required Moshe’s intervention as much as anyone else in the aftermath of the golden calf incident, as we have seen, made him much more a man of the people than his exalted and illustrious brother.

And one thing more: The Mishna tells us, הוי כתלמידיו של אהרן אוהב שלום ורודף שלום אוהב את הבריות ומקרבן לתורה (“Be like Aharon’s students, a lover of peace and pursuer of peace, loving people and bringing them close to Torah”; אבות פ"א מי"ב), on which Rabbi ‘Ovadya of Bartenura comments further, following Avoth dë-Rabbi Nathan, כשהי' רואה שני בני אדם מתקוטטים הי' הולך לכל אחד מהם שלא מדעת חבירו ואומר לו ראה חברך איך הי' מתחרט ומכה את עצמו על שחטא לך והוא אמר לי שאבוא אליך שתמחול לו ומתוך כך כשהיו פוגעים זה בזה היו מנשקים זה את זה (“when he would see two people quarreling he would go to each of them without the other’s knowledge and say to him, 'See your friend, how he regrets and beats himself because he sinned against you, and he told me to come to you so that you will forgive him,' so that when they would bump into one another they would kiss one another”). A man of such sensitivity, well aware of the strains and tensions under which his fellows labor, is the ideal candidate to correct those “defects [in the administration of the cosmos] which originate with human beings, and which reach into supernal places.”