Shemini: When Truth and Kindness Converge

In the midst of offering sacrifices for the dedication of the Sanctuary, Aharon’s sons, Nadav and Avihu, brought “a strange fire that they were not commanded [to bring].”5 As a result, they passed away.6 Despite this tragedy, Moshe instructed Aharon and his surviving sons, Elazar and Isamar, to continue the sacrificial worship of the day,7 including partaking of the sacrifices they offered.

Although Aharon and his sons carried out Moshe’s command, they did not partake of the goat offered as a sin-offering for Rosh Chodesh8 and, instead, had it burnt. Moshe was upset with Aharon’s sons and rebuked them, demanding,9 “Why did you not eat the sin-offering in the sacred place?”

Hearing Moshe’s rebuke, Aharon responded, “Today … a tragedy befell me. Had I eaten the sin-offering today, would G‑d have approved?”

Moshe did not object to Aharon’s statement. On the contrary,10 “Moshe heard, and it found favor in his eyes.”

Rashi cites the words, “it found favor in his eyes,” and comments, “[Moshe] acknowledged [Aharon’s words] and was not ashamed to say, ‘I did not hear [this law].’ ”

The supercommentaries11 interpret Rashi as actually saying something other than what his words imply at first glance. Based on the explanation of the narrative in the Talmud,12 they understand Rashi’s words to mean that because Moshe was not ashamed, he did not say “I did not hear [this law].” Were Moshe to have been ashamed, he would have said exactly that, “I did not hear [this law].” However, Moshe did not feel embarrassment and try to excuse himself by saying, “I did not hear [this law].” Instead, since he was not ashamed, he humbly acknowledged Aharon’s words and said, “I heard, but I forgot.”

Nevertheless, according to a straightforward reading of Rashi, the above interpretation is entirely inexplicable. As is well-known, Rashi composed his commentary in a clear and unambiguous style so that a five-year-old beginning his study of the Written Torah could understand it. If Rashi’s intent was that Moshe acknowledged Aharon’s words and said, “I heard, but I forgot,” Rashi would not have left out this fundamental point – the very words that Moshe said. Indeed, if the Talmud felt it necessary to state them explicitly, how much more so, should Rashi have done so.

It is also obvious that Rashi did not rely on the Talmud to clarify that Moshe said, “I heard, but I forgot.” As mentioned many times, Rashi interprets the meaning of the verses, explaining them as they appear in their immediate place and does not rely on explanations found in other sources. In particular, this is true in the present instance where Rashi does not even mention that the source of his commentary is in the Talmud.

All the above points lead to the conclusion that Rashi – based on the straightforward understanding of Scripture – is presenting a different interpretation. He does not interpret the verse as it is understood according to halachah, i.e., the manner in which the Talmud interprets it. In particular, this is true since the exchange between Aharon and Moshe is also mentioned by Toras Kohanim. That source employs different wording13 than the Talmud does, and Rashi follows the wording of Toras Kohanim.14

There are other points that require clarification:

a) What is the difficulty that exists in this verse that Rashi felt necessary to clarify by saying, “[Moshe] acknowledged [Aharon’s words] and was not ashamed…”? The meaning of the verse appears to be straightforward, “Moshe heard”15 Aharon’s words and they “found favor in his eyes.”

b) According to the straightforward understanding of Scripture, what forces Rashi to say that Moshe “acknowledged [Aharon’s words] and was not ashamed to say, ‘I did not hear [this law]’ ”?

There are commentaries16 that understand that Rashi was compelled to offer this commentary because the verse states, “Moshe heard….” On the surface, that phrase is superfluous, because Moshe certainly heard what Aharon told him. All that is necessary for the verse to state is “[His words] found favor in Moshe’s eyes.” Since before stating this, the verse states, “Moshe heard,” Rashi understands that the implication is that Moshe had previously heard from G‑d what Aharon told him. However, he had forgotten them. Therefore, after he remembered, he told Aharon that his words found favor in his eyes, thus admitting that he had forgotten them.

However, according to a straightforward approach to Scripture, it seems impossible to understand Rashi’s commentary in this manner. There are two problematic points raised by the commentaries: 17

a) According to that interpretation, the verse should have stated “and Moshe had heard” or the like, wording which emphasizes that he had heard the concept previously.

b) Rashi should have also cited the words “Moshe heard.”

Moreover, according to those who interpret Rashi as following the understanding of the Talmud, Rashi should have explicitly stated that interpretation.18 In particular, this is true because that interpretation negates the straightforward meaning of “Moshe heard.” According to its straightforward meaning, the verse refers to the words that Moshe had just heard from Aharon, while according to the Talmud it refers to a law that he had previously heard from G‑d. At the very least, if this was his intent, Rashi should have specified, “I indeed heard and (I forgot).” From that addition, it would have been possible to understand – albeit with difficulty – this interpretation of “Moshe heard.”

A further point requires clarification: In Parshas Mattos, on the verse,19 “Elazar, the kohen, said…,” Rashi comments:

Since Moshe was aroused to a state of anger, he came to err and the laws of purging [utensils that had belonged to] non-Jews eluded him.

A similar incident happened on the eighth day of the dedication [of the Sanctuary] as it is written,20 “He [Moshe] became angry with Elazar and Isamar”; he was aroused to a state of anger, and he came to err. Similarly, [when he castigated the Jewish people] “ ‘Now listen, you rebels…,’ and struck the rock,”21 he came to err because of anger.

From that source, we see that, according to a straightforward understanding of Scripture, it is necessary to have a reason and an explanation why Moshe came to err. Since this difficulty22 first arose in this Torah reading, Rashi should have explained here that Moshe’s error came about because he was aroused to a state of anger. Why does Rashi clarify this point so much later, in Parshas Mattos, and not here, in this Torah reading, immediately when it first arises?

The explanation of the above is as follows: With his commentary, “[Moshe] acknowledged [Aharon’s words] and was not ashamed to say, ‘I did not hear [this law],’ ” Rashi implies – as is the simple meaning of the words23 – that Moshe acknowledged without shame that he had not heard24 the concept that Aharon brought up, i.e., he had not heard from G‑d the distinction between sacrifices that were commanded to be offered only on one occasion and sacrifices that were commanded to be offered for all time.25

Rashi does not interpret the verse as the Talmud does – that Moshe had heard the distinction between these two types of sacrifices from G‑d but forgot it and that he “acknowledged [Aharon’s words] and was not ashamed” to say, “I heard it, but forgot”26 – for the following reasons:

a) According to the straightforward understanding of Scripture, how could saying the truth – “I heard it, but forgot” – and not saying an untruth27 – “I did not hear it”28 – be something for which Scripture praises Moshe? Obviously, a person should tell the truth.

b) How is it appropriate to say “it found favor in his eyes” regarding something he heard from G‑d?29 How can a mortal pass judgment on the words of the Divine?

c) And most fundamentally, the expression, “it found favor in his eyes,” implies that it could have been otherwise – Moshe could have rejected Aharon’s words – and the verse is teaching us that Moshe accepted Aharon’s words because they “found favor in his eyes.” If Moshe had heard the teaching and forgotten it, the verse should have stated that Aharon’s words found favor in G‑d’s eyes30 – i.e., it was a genuine Torah teaching. If so, what is the verse trying to teach us by saying that Aharon’s words also found favor in Moshe’s eyes?

For these reasons, Rashi interprets the passage according to its straightforward meaning – that Moshe had not heard the distinction between these two types of sacrifices from G‑d. This interpretation is reflected in an earlier commentary of Rashi regarding Aharon’s words, “Will this find favor in G‑d’s eyes?” There, Rashi interprets Aharon’s words as meaning, “If you heard a Divine instruction that a person in an acute state of mourning may partake of sacrifices that were commanded to be offered only on one occasion, you do not have license to act with leniency regarding sacrifices that were commanded to be offered for all time.”31

According to this interpretation,the following points are understood:

a) Why it was praiseworthy for Moshe to “acknowledge [Aharon’s words] and not [be] ashamed to say, ‘I did not hear [this law].’ ”

Moshe had the option of agreeing to Aharon’s words by remaining silent, because remaining silent is considered acquiescence.32 Alternatively, he even could have acknowledged that Aharon was correct without making it known that he had not heard the matter.

b) The meaning of the words, “It found favor in his eyes.”

According to Rashi’s understanding, Aharon’s words were the product of his own logic. Neither Aharon nor Moshe had heard them from G‑d. Now, we do find that certain laws pertaining to sacrifices that were commanded to be offered for all time are identical with those pertaining to sacrifices that were commanded to be offered only on one occasion. For example, earlier, with regard to the passage regarding the Pesach offering brought in Egypt, Rashi33 explains that some – but not all – of these laws apply with regard to the Pesach offering brought for all time. Moshe originally thought that similar logic would apply in this instance as well. Nevertheless, after hearing Aharon’s ruling that in this case a distinction should be made between sacrifices that were commanded to be offered for all time and those to be offered only on one occasion, Aharon’s logic found favor in Moshe’s eyes.34

The difficulty in the present verse that required Rashi to offer a commentary and, particularly, the commentary he chose, stems from the fact that the words “and it found favor in his eyes” appear superfluous. What novel matter are they teaching us? It is obvious that, in a simple physical sense, Moshe heard what Aharon told him, as stated in sec. 2 above. Accordingly, it is implicit that the meaning of the word וַיִּשְׁמַע in the additional phrase, “And Moshe heard,” is the same meaning as the derivations of that word in the verses, “You heeded ( שָׁמַעְתָּ ) the voice of your wife,”35 and “They did not know that Yosef understood ( שׁוֹמֵעַ ),”36 et al. – i.e., hearing means understanding and accepting the words spoken.37 Thus, the intent is that Moshe accepted Aharon’s words.

This same implication is found in the words, “it found favor in his eyes.” It is therefore necessary to say that “it found favor in his eyes” comes to add a further point that could not be derived from the words, “Moshe heard,” vayishma Moshe, that Rashi understands as meaning, “Moshe accepted.” The addition of the phrase “it found favor in his eyes” indicates that not only did Moshe accept Aharon’s words, they evoked a further response. The question then arises: What is the additional and new development to which this phrase alludes?

Rashi explains that with the words vayishma Moshe, the Torah is implying that in addition to merely accepting Aharon’s words, Moshe valued them so much – “[they] found favor in his eyes” – that “he said,”38 i.e., he told39 them to others.

Rashi also relates Moshe’s praise, saying, “[Moshe] acknowledged [Aharon’s words] and was not ashamed to say ‘I did not hear [this law].’ ”40 Moshe publicly made known that “I did not hear [this law]” even though there was no necessity for him to do so. It would have been sufficient for him to acknowledge and agree with Aharon’s conclusion.

According to the above – that Rashi’s words should be interpreted according to their straightforward meaning, i.e., that Moshe said, “I did not hear [this law]” – we can understand why, here, Rashi does not offer the same interpretation as he offers in Parshas Mattos, i.e., “Since Moshe was aroused to a state of anger, he came to err.”41

Because the distinction between sacrifices that were commanded to be offered only on one occasion and sacrifices that were commanded to be offered for all time is a matter dependent on logic – and logically, there is a possibility for accepting either approach42 – here, according to the straightforward meeting of the verse, Rashi is not compelled to state so novel a concept, that it was possible for Moshe to be aroused to a state of anger and, therefore, to err.

By contrast, in Parshas Mattos, we are forced to say that Moshe’s arousal to a state of anger caused him to err. As mentioned, this is a truly novel concept. It also raises a question why his anger caused him to err specifically in that instance.

Therefore, commenting on that verse, Rashi continues and explains, “A similar incident” – i.e., a similar novel incident albeit in a different context – “happened on the eighth day of the dedication [of the Sanctuary] as it is written,43 ‘He [Moshe] became angry…’ ” Once we are forced to say that according to the straightforward meaning of Scripture, Moshe’s being “aroused to a state of anger” could cause him “to err,” we can now also explain that this is what happened on the eighth day of the dedication. Moshe’s anger prevented him from realizing the distinction between sacrifices that were commanded to be offered only on one occasion and sacrifices that were commanded to be offered for all time.44 Although Aharon understood this distinction effortlessly, because of his anger, Moshe did not.45 Why Moshe and Aharon Differed

7. The following is one of the insights described as “the wine of the Torah”46 embedded in Rashi’s commentary:

Since the difference of opinion between Moshe and Aharon was dependent on logic, it is necessary to understand:

a) Why was Moshe inclined to think that there is no difference between sacrifices that were commanded to be offered only on one occasion and those to be offered for all time, and why was Aharon inclined to think that there is a distinction between them?

b) Originally, Moshe maintained that there is no difference between these two types of sacrifices, and he was so certain regarding this point that – when he saw that Aharon’s sons conducted themselves differently regarding sacrifices to be offered for all time and refrained from eating them – he became angry. What made him change his mind when Aharon told him – without bringing any proof – that such a distinction should be made47 and to undergo such a radical reversal of opinion that Aharon’s interpretation found favor in his eyes?48

It is possible to explain these issues by focusing on the inner, spiritual dimension of the matter.49 The difference between the spiritual motifs personified by Moshe and Aharon are reflected in the statement of the Midrash,50 “Chessed, ‘kindness,’ this is Aharon…. Emes, ‘truth,’ this is Moshe.”

One of the differences between truth and kindness is that truth is eternal, never changing. It remains the same in every time and in every place,51 continuing with absolutely no variation of degree or intensity. By contrast, kindness – which is characterized by doing good for another person – requires continuous adaptation. Its expression must vary according to the situation and the ways it must be fitted to each of its varied recipients, for they are not identical. Moreover, whenever kindness is dispensed, there is a difference between the beneficence as it exists in its potential state within the giver and the manner in which it is conveyed to a recipient, as indicated by our Sages’ statement,52 “You, [G‑d,] bestowed upon them [an abundance of] good beyond their capacity to receive.”

Because of the above distinction, the tendency of Moshe – who is identified with the attribute of truth – was that in every situation where there is a doubt, the ruling should remain unchanged, regardless of the differences between one time and another. Therefore, in the instance at hand, he maintained that there should be no distinction between sacrifices to be offered for all time and those to be offered only on one occasion. The same holiness that applies to sacrifices offered in a one-time situation applies regarding the holiness of those offered for all time.

By contrast, the approach of kindness identified with Aharon dictates a different approach. Aharon “love[d] peace and pursue[d] peace, love[d] the created beings and drew them close to the Torah.”53 He devoted himself to the entire Jewish people, even to those in the category of “created beings,”54 bestowing kindness upon them all, each one according to his situation and level.55 Therefore, he saw a distinction between sacrifices to be offered only on one occasion and those to be offered for all time.

When looking from the perspective of the recipients – those to whom it is necessary to show kindness and for whom sacrificial offerings are necessary – it is impossible to require that the same degree of holiness continue unabated in the same manner and with the same strength on every diverse level and in every time.

The above concepts correspond to the mystical concept of Moshe’s role and rung as “the one who accompanies the King” and that of Aharon as “the one who accompanies the queen,”56 i.e., the Jewish people. Moshe’s mission was to convey G‑dliness to the Jewish people, while Aharon’s mission was to bring them closer to G‑d.

The perspective of Moshe, “the one who accompanies the King,” focuses on the King and communicates His intent,i.e., drawing down G‑dliness to the Jewish people from Above to below.57 According to that approach, the G‑dly light is drawn down in a uniform manner and manifests itself on this lowly plane in the same manner as it is manifest in the lofty spiritual level of the World of Emanation, Atzilus, without any distinction. This characterized Moshe’s Divine service on this lowly plane, drawing down G‑dliness as it is manifest Above and revealing it to the Jewish people.

Aharon, “the one who accompanies the queen,” was characterized by a different focus, involvement with the queen, i.e., comprehending the perspective of the Jewish people and elevating them to a higher level. The possibility of such an ascent is dependent on the situation and spiritual level of the Jewish people as a whole and of every individual Jew. Therefore, this Divine service involves change and variation according to the particular situation of each individual Jew on this lowly plane.58

Nevertheless, Moshe learned from Aharon’s words. After he heard that the Divine service of the Jews in this world, the World of Action, Asiyah, involves change and variation, and that the Divine service and the holiness involved in a one-time event is not the same as that which is ongoing, then “Moshe heard, and it found favor in his eyes.” He accepted Aharon’s perspective. From this we can understand that this approach became valid not only from the standpoint of Aharon (the attribute of kindness), but also from the standpoint of Moshe (the attribute of truth).59

The above can be explained by focusing on a related concept in our Divine service:

In Tanya,60 the Alter Rebbe discusses the Divine service of the beinonim, “the intermediates,” the spiritual level to which every person can aspire, stating that even though there are fluctuations in their love for G‑d, “with regard to the level of the beinonim, it can truly be termed perfect service according to the individual level of truth appropriate for the beinonim, each person according to his level.”

The Alter Rebbe makes this statement even though “when compared to the level of the tzaddikim who are genuinely true servants of G‑d, the love manifest by the beinonim cannot be termed true service at all, since it lapses and fades away after prayer, as it is written, ‘The lips of truth shall be established forever, but the tongue of falsehood is only momentary.’ ”61

The Alter Rebbe’s statements require clarification. Truth is absolute and unchanging. Therefore, the perfect and genuine conception of truth exists only in G‑dliness, as it is written,62 “G‑d your L‑rd is true.” In and of itself, it is impossible that there be another aspect of truth in the world, since all the matters in the world are creations that were brought into existence from nothingness and will eventually cease to exist. If we find an aspect of truth in created beings, it is only because “the truth of G‑d [shines] to the world.”63 The truth found within a created being is relative. As stated in Tanya, loc. cit., at a higher level, it would not be considered truth. However, the existence of this relative truth is possible only because the eternal truth of G‑dliness exists and shines forth within created beings.

To cite a parallel: Many sources64 note that the command to love G‑d “with all your might,”65 uses a singular form, me’odecha. Chassidusinterprets that phrase as me’od shelcha, “your me’od.” Me’od means “very much.” Thus, the command implies that one should love G‑d with a love that knows no boundaries or limits. The use of the singular implies that this love is individual in nature. Each person is commanded to reach a love that surpasses his own natural boundaries and limits. By doing so, he arouses and draws down a dimension of G‑dliness that is truly unbounded.

True, me’od shelcha implies that the person attains a level of love that surpasses merely the limits of his individual Divine service but, in of itself, his service and love have limits. Indeed, when compared to someone on a higher level of Divine service, it is actually limited. However, since the true concept of infinity and lack of limitations exists only in G‑dliness, a description of a created being or his qualities as unlimited must, by definition, be seen in a relative context.

Since created beings are inherently limited, in and of themselves, it is impossible for them to achieve service that is truly unbounded. Therefore, when a created being performs a service that is beyond his own limitations, the capacity to do so stems from a power above his own. It is connected with and derives from G‑d, Who is truly unlimited. For this reason, man’s unlimited expression of love, me’od shelcha, is a microcosm of G‑d’s true lack of limitation and arouses the expression of that dimension.

Based on the above, the same reasoning can be employed in understanding the subject under discussion:

Distinguishing between the appropriate service and level of holiness between matters that apply on one occasion and those that apply for all time (Aharon’s approach), is a perfect and genuine approach in Divine service. It is an expression of “the truth of G‑d” which shines forth to the Jew as he exists in a particular situation and state at a given time.

All the above applies regarding “the truth of G‑d” becoming manifest in the world, i.e., as it shines forth to created beings on their level. However, Moshe’s level was “the truth of G‑d” as it is manifest in Atzilus,66 which transcends “the truth of G‑d” that shines forth to created beings. Therefore, on his own, Moshe did not perceive the distinction between sacrifices that were commanded to be offered only on one occasion and sacrifices that were commanded to be offered for all time.

By saying, “Moshe heard, and it found favor in his eyes,” the Torah is teaching that Aharon brought about a change in the outlook of Moshe, whose perception reflected the attribute of truth of Atzilus, enabling him to distinguish between sacrifices that were commanded to be offered only on one occasion and sacrifices that were commanded to be offered for all time.

As is well-known, the ultimate inner intent of the World of Atzilus is to make possible Divine service and the revelation of G‑dliness to created beings in this lowly world.67 Thus, there are two dimensions within the World of Atzilus: a)the world as it exists from its own perspective, which transcends created beings, and b) the intent of that world, as it perceives that it exists for the sake of the World of Asiyah, and more specifically, for the sake of created beings in our material world.

Correspondingly, there are two dimensions within Moshe: one as he exists for himself, reflecting the attribute of truth of Atzilus, which transcends the distinctions that exist in created beings and in truth as it applies to them, and one that Aharon engendered within Moshe. Aharon served as “the one who accompanies the queen,” whose mission was to elevate the Jewish people by “lov[ing] created beings and draw[ing] them close to the Torah,” the Torah of Moshe. He revealed the ultimate Divine intent, and how it is connected with this lowly physical plane, the World of Asiyah. This is the inner intent of the truth of Atzilus – that its attributes exist for the sake of revelation to created beings on this physical plane. When “Moshe heard, and it found favor in his eyes,” this became the perspective of Moshe (Atzilus) in a manifest manner.68

There is a lesson from the above that relates to every person’s Divine service:

When focusing on our own spiritual striving, we must strive to ensure that our Divine service is constant, without change. Just as, “I, G‑d, have not changed,” so too, “you, the descendants of Yaakov,”69 must be enduring and unalterable. However, when relating to another Jew, including even one who is only a “created being,” i.e., one whose only virtue is that he is G‑d’s creation,70 we must invest ourselves and appreciate that other person’s standing and situation, realizing that not all times are the same. We cannot begin working with and helping another person, and how much more so, we cannot reach out to one whose level is that of a “created being,” and demand and require of him to continually remain on the same level of holiness as he attains during moments of inspiration or the like.

When involving ourselves with other Jews – including even those who are “created beings,” and investing ourselves in them within the context of their immediate standing and circumstances – we enable them to eventually recognize that “the truth of G‑d is everlasting,” because it is the immutable truth stemming from “ I, G‑d, have not changed.”71

Bringing about the awareness of G‑dly truth to other people will also bring about perfection in the truth that exists within the person who is involved with them.

When “kindness” – the sensitivity to a person’s immediate situation taught by Aharon – “and truth” – the eternal, immutable relevance of Moshe’s teachings – “meet, justice and peace [will] kiss,”72 leading to the fulfillment of G‑d’s ultimate intent, His desire for a dwelling in the lower realms.73

Likkutei Sichos, Volume 17, p. 109ff.
Adapted from a sichah delivered on Shabbos Parshas Shemini, 5729 [1969]