A.
As our parasha opens, G-d instructs Moshe to tell Aharon: בהעלתך את
הנרת אל מול פני המנורה יאירו שבעת הנרות: ויעש כן אהרן אל מול פני המנורה העלה
נרתי' כאשר צוה ד' את משה: (“...When you raise up the
lights, before the face of the lamp [mënora] the seven lights will
shine. And Aharon did so; before the face of the mënora he raised up its
lights, as Ha-Shem had commanded Moshe”; VIII, 2-3).
Rashi comments on verse 3 on the authority of the Sifrei:
"ויעש
כן אהרן" להגיד שבחו של אהרן שלא שינה (“‘And Aharon did so’ is to relate the praise of Aharon, that
he did not change [anything]”).
The quotation from Rashi is a paraphrase of
the text of the Sifrei (פרשת בהעלתך פיסקא ב'), not a direct quotation. The way in which
Rashi phrases it is a bit peculiar, and draws our attention (as does the
oddly repetitive verse on which he is commenting): Since the last word of the
phrase from verse 3 is “Aharon”, one would think it sufficient to say “to
relate his praise, that he did not change [anything]”; the additional phrase, shel
Aharon, “of Aharon” appears unnecessary, since the antecedent of the
prepositional suffix is so obvious. Why, then, does Rashi, justly famed
for his economy of language, feel it necessary to include it?
B.
We begin by turning to the Talmud. The subject
under discussion is the principle of compromise [pëshara] in resolving
commercial disputes. The principle is laid down that a compromise which divides
some amount between the parties is only possible before it actually comes
before béyth din for adjudication; at that point, the process is
different, and there will be a winner and a loser: אלא
יקוב הדין את ההר שנאמר "כי המשפט לאלקים הוא" וכן משה הי' אומר, יקוב
הדין את ההר (“but the judgment
pierces the mountain, as it is said, ‘For judgment is G-d’s’ [Deuteronomy
I, 17], and so was Moshe wont to say, The judgment pierces the mountain”; סנהדרין ו:)
The Maharsha
explains this odd expression: ויש לפרשו לפי ענינו הכא
שהדיין מבקש לעשות פשרה דלעשות דין קשה שירא מבעל דין קשה שמא יתחייב ויהי' רודפו
וע"כ דימה אותו להר קשה ואומר שאל יחשוב הדיין כן אלא יקוב הדין כו' (“...And one should explain it according
to its subject here, that the judge wishes to make a compromise, for exacting
justice is hard, since he is afraid of a harsh party to the dispute [ba‘al
din], lest he be found guilty and persecute [the judge], and therefore the
passage compares [the ba‘al din] to a hard mountain, and says that the
judge ought not think this way, rather, the judgment will pierce the
mountain....”).
In short, Moshe was the champion of strict din, justice,
trusting that, since “justice is G-d’s,” He will not allow any genuine miscarriage of justice when a
properly constituted béyth din exercises due diligence in hearing the
evidence and applying the halacha, כי הדין והמשפט
לאלקים הוא וכדלקמן כל הנוטל מזה שלא כדין ונותן לזה הקב"ה נוטל וכו' שנאמר
"כי ד' יריב ריבם" (“For judgment and justice are G-d’s, as we
find later on, anyone who takes from this one and gives to that one unjustly,
the Holy One, Blessed is He takes from the latter and returns to the former, as
it is said, “For Ha-Shem will fight their fight” [Proverbs XXII, 23]”; מהרש"א שם).
Aharon’s reaction to such a dispute was rather
different: אבל אהרן אוהב שלום ורודף שלום ומשים שלום בין
אדם לחבירו שנאמר "תורת אמת היתה בפיהו ועולה לא נמצא בשפתיו בשלום ובמישור
הלך אתי ורבים השיב מעון"
(“But Aharon [was] a lover of peace [ohév shalom] and pursuer of peace [rodéf
shalom], and a maker of peace between a man and his fellow [u-mésim
shalom béyn adam la-haveiro], as it is said, ‘The Torah of truth was
in his mouth, and no injustice was found in his lips; in peace and
uprightness he walked with Me, and returned many from sin’ [Malachi II, 6]”; סנהדרין שם).
As Rashi ad loc. explains it: דכיון שהי' שומע מחלוקת ביניהם קודם שיבאו לפניו לדין הי' רודף
אחריהן ומטיל שלום ביניהן (“For
as soon as he heard [that there was] a dispute between them, before they would
come before him for judgment, he would chase after them and establish peace
between them”). The Ba‘alei Tosafoth deduce from Rashi’s language
that כיון שלא הי' דיין ולא הי' הדין בא לפניו אלא
לפני משה ודאי לדידי' שרי
(“Since he was no a judge and the judgment would not come before him, but before,
it was certainly permitted him” to engage in this sort of behaviour; תוס' שם דה"מ אבל);
Rashi’s “him” thus refers to Moshe.
Indeed, Aharon’s course, trying to solve the
dispute through vittur (“concession”) and pëshara before reaching
the stage at which court action was necessary surely met with Moshe’s approval
as well; for, as we learn elsewhere in the Talmud: מותר לו לאדם לשנות בדבר
השלום שנא' "אביך צוה וגו' כה תאמרו ליוסף אנא שא נא וגו'" ר' נתן אומר
מצוה שנאמר "ויאמר שמואל איך אלך וישמע שאול והרגני וגו'" דבי ר' ישמעאל
תנא גדול השלום שאף הקדוש ברוך הוא שינה בו דמעיקרא כתיב "ואדוני זקן"
ולבסוף כתיב "ואני זקנתי"
(“It is permitted for a person to change [something] for the sake of peace, as
it is said, '...[Y]our father commanded before he died to say, Thus shall you
say to Yoséf, Please forgive your brothers’ transgressions....’ [Genesis
L, 16-17]. Rabbi Nathan says, '[It is a] mitzva, as it is said, "And
Shëmu’él said, 'How shall I go, and Sha’ul will hear and kill me....’"' [I Samuel
XVI, 2]. It was taught in Rabbi Yishma‘él’s study hall, 'Great is peace, for even
the Holy One, Blessed is He, changes [things] for it’s sake, for at first it is
written, "And my lord is old" [Genesis XVIII,12] and at the end it is written, "And I have grown old" [ibid., 13]'”;יבמות
ס"ה:).
In the first Biblical example, Yoséf’s brothers
altered the facts somewhat in order to preserve the new-found peace between
them and their brother; in the second, the prophet’s question is directed
toward G-d, Who then directs him to dissemble; and in the third, G-d Himself
deliberately changed Sara’s words in reporting them to Avraham; all for the
sake of peace.
In discussing Aharon’s behavior as described in
our first citation, the Maharsha discerns three categories of peace:
Peace between man and G-d; peace for oneself; and peace between men, telling us
that Aharon was an אוהב שלום לפי שהפורש עצמו מן הדין לעשות פשרה מביא שלום בינו לבין אביו
שבשמים כי הדין והמשפט לאלקים כו' ורןדף שלום כי ע"י הדין אפשר שבעל דין
המתחייב בורח ממנו ויהי' שונא לדיין וע"י הפשרה הוא רודף שלום שיהי' לו ממנו
ולא יהי' אויבו ואומר ומשים שלום בין אדם לחבירו הוא בין בעלי דינין שהפשרה היא
בהסכמת ורצון שניהם משא"כ הדין וגו' (“Ohév shalom because one who recuses himself from
judgment to make a compromise brings peace between himself and his Father in
Heaven, for judgment and justice are G-d’s... And rodéf shalom for through din it is possible
that the party who loses will flee from [the verdict] and come to hate the
judge, whilst through pëshara he pursues the peace which he will have
from [the one who would have lost], who will not be his enemy; and it says u-mésim
shalom béyn adam la-haveiro, that is, between the parties to the
suit, for a pëshara is by the agreement and desire of both of them,
which is not the case with din....”).
We can infer from the above the unique qualities in
Aharon’s personality which suited him to be chosen the first kohén gadol, setting
the tone and standards intended to inspire and motivate his descendants to
follow in the path which he blazed.
C.
In light of the foregoing we can also deduce how
it is that our verse stands in praise of Aharon, and why Rashi takes
pains to highlight it.
It was Aharon’s nature which so suited him for the
role of peacemaker, an art which (as we have seen) occasionally requires the
softening or altering of details standing between the disputants. However, his
willingness to do this was not out of ignorance of halacha; to the
contrary, as the prophet proclaims, תורת אמת היתה בפיהו
כו' בשלום ובמישור הלך אתי (“The Torah of truth was in his mouth...in
peace and uprightness he walked with Me”(.
The key lies in the mitzva which our verse
describes: For the care of the mënora in the Mishkan Aharon was
responsible only directly to the Master of the Universe; no other people was
involved, a classic example of a מצוה בין אדם למקום, a commandment between man and G-d alone.
In such cases, Aharon was exacting and punctilious with himself, not with
others.
This was somewhat out of character for Aharon;
doubtless it was one of his middoth, one of the measures of his
personality on which he had to work most diligently, and our verse attests to
his brilliant success: ויעש כן אהרן כו' כאשר צוה ד' את
משה; Aharon deviated neither
to the right nor to the left from Moshe’s words, and Rashi emphasizes
this to point out what a colossal achievement it was.
D.
We see in this the necessary mix of middoth which
one must cultivate if one is to be an adam shalém bë-Yisra’él: On the
one hand, to be ever willing to make concessions and compromises for the sake
of pace and harmony with others, trusting that G-d will prevent any injustice
arising from such a concession or compromise; on the other, to be zealous,
careful, and exacting with regard to oneself.
In this way, Aharon the kohén gadol serves
as a model not only for his direct descendants, but for all of Israel, the ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש
(“kingdom of kohanim and holy nation”; Exodus XIX, 6).
No comments:
Post a Comment