[Index of all Weekly Divrei Torah pages]
This week’s parsha focuses upon the Cohanim – the priests among the Jewish people. As a sub-group within the tribe of Levi, the Cohanim have laws and requirements of their own, that do not all apply to the rest of the Jewish people. For example, there are restrictions upon whom a Cohen may marry (a regular Cohen may not marry a divorcee, and a Cohen Gadol, or high priest, may not marry a divorcee or a widow), upon what he can eat (he may eat trumah – or produce that is donated from the first of all other Jews’ produce), and to what extent he may get involved with burying a fellow Jew (only if they are his parent, sibling or child or wife). A beit din, or court of Jewish law (overseen by “regular Jews”) is tasked with watching over the Cohanim and making sure that they follow these laws, and the Cohanim themselves are commanded to make sure that even their offspring follow the special laws pertaining to them.
The latter point – that the Cohanim are commanded to watch over their children – is made at the very beginning of our parsha. There (Lev. 21:1), it states, “Say to the Cohanim, the sons of Aharon, and tell themŔ Rashi first quotes the words of the verse, “Say to the CohanimŔ and then explains, “Say, and then ‘tell them,’ in order to warn the adults regarding the children.” That is, the beginning of our parsha presents many of the commands pertaining to the Cohanim, and also places the responsibility for educating the Cohanim’s children squarely upon the parents’ shoulders.
We have two questions here;
1) Why does Rashi begin by quoting the words of the verse, “Say to the Cohanim”? As we see in his actual comment, he was concerned with the repetition of the command, “Say, and tellŔ If so, it should have been sufficient to mention those specific words, without adding ‘to the Cohanim.’ So, why does Rashi, who is very precise in his choice of words, add “to the Cohanim”?
2) Later in the parsha (Lev. 21:24), the Torah says, “And Moshe should speak to Aharon and to his sons and to all of the JewsŔ and proceeds to re-iterate the special obligations that devolve upon the Cohanim. And there, Rashi explains that the purpose of this reiteration was to make the Beit Din (court of Jewish law, comprised of “regular” Jews, not Cohanim) responsible for watching the Cohanim to make sure that they fulfill their special laws. Why did not Rashi apply this explanation to our verse, the very first verse of the parsha? It seems more plausible to issue a command about a general issue (that Cohanim must fulfill their mitzvoth) at the beginning of the parsha, than to issue a specific command regarding how the parents of the Cohanim must watch their offspring.
The answer, though, lies in the text, and it is Rashi’s task to explain the simple meaning of the text. And in our case, the text reads, “Say to the Cohanim, the sons of AharonŔ That is, the command from G-d was directed to the Cohanim, that they should “police themselves,” and make sure that they follow their own commandments. And since the command was to the Cohanim, it was not possible for Rashi to say that a Beit Din of “regular” Jews (not Cohanim), should take on the task. From the words of the text, Rashi concluded that this command was to be fulfilled by the Cohanim themselves. Therefore, Rashi explains that it applies to the adults among the Cohanim, who are commanded to watch over the children and not allow them to transgress the special priestly laws. In this way, we answer both questions above; 1) Rashi quotes the words, “to the Cohanim” to tell us that this is the basis of his explanation; he could not say that the command was for an independent Beit Din to be established, because the command was addressed directly to the Cohanim themelves, and 2) Because the command was addressed to the Cohanim, Rashi had to find a way to explain that the Cohanim should police themselves – and for this he chose the parents over the children. Later on (verse 21:24), more commands were given to the priests and there Moshe told the Cohanim that a mechanism should be established to supervise their fulfillment. Here, Rashi explains that this applied to a Beit Din to watch over the Cohanim.
But, if this explains Rashi, then we must understand why the Torah portion did not start with the command to the Jews to “police” the Cohanim (by way of an independent Beit Din). Although since the parsha began by discussing the need to watch over the Cohanim, and then branched off into other priestly laws, it looks as if the Torah digresses, nevertheless that could also be easily explained. We could say that even though the Torah digressed (in verses 21:16 -17) to speak of a Cohen who was crippled or deformed, nevertheless the original command to make a Beit Din also applied to such situations. That is, a Beit Din is necessary to supervise these laws as well. So, again, why does the Torah not begin the parsha with this important general command – to create a Beit Din to watch over the Cohanim?
Moreover, if the Torah were to begin with the general admonishment for the Beit Din to watch the Jews, it would solve another problem. As explained by Rashi, G-d first issued a command to the Cohanim to supervise their children, and later (21:24), Moshe commanded the Jews to supervise the Cohanim. Since these commands are separated by several other verses and issues, it appears as if Moshe came up with this second command of his own volition. It seems that the command did not originate with G-d, but with Moshe. However, if we were able to explain ( not like Rashi) that the original command (in 21:1) was to Moshe to “tell the Jews,” but only later (in 21:24) did Moshe issue the command, then there was only one command from Above – to establish a Beit Din to oversee the Cohanim. This is would be a more simple and straightforward way of understanding the parsha, so why does the Torah not begin in this fashion?
It must be that the Torah relies upon a general principle regarding the Cohanim – Cohanim zrizrim heim – “priests act with alacrity.” That is, the Cohanim are quick and precise in their behavior, and therefore there is no need to warn regarding their behavior. There is no reason to suspect that they will not do precisely as commanded from Above. Since they are fast and careful in their conduct, it is not necessary to warn from the very beginning to establish a court of law to guard them. But if so, why does Moshe do so later – why does Moshe admonish the Jews to establish such a court of Jewish law in the verse (21:24), ӓAnd Moshe should speak to Aharon and to his sons and to all of the JewsŔ?
To answer this question, we need to analyze, what precisely is meant by “The Cohanim act with alacrity”? Is this alacrity the effect of their special avoda, their special job in offering up sacrifices and serving in the Temple, that influences them to be quick and precise? Or is it something ingrained, something in their nature of the Cohanim themselves that guarantees they will always be true to the unique priestly commands? (The difference between the two possibilities arises regarding activities that are not associated with the avoda of the priesthood. If priestly alacrity stems from the special avoda of the Cohanim, then in cases not associated with the avoda, the Cohen will not necessarily be fast and precise. However, if the alacrity stems from an inner impetus that is ingrained, then even when the activity is not associated with priestly avoda, then the Cohen is still likely to act quickly and carefully).
It is possible that these two explanations are what lie behind the two
commands – in the beginning of the parsha (21:1) and in the middle (21:24) – to watch over and guard the Cohanim. To begin with, the first command (21:1) is from G-d to Moshe, “Say to the Cohanim, sons of Aharon, sayingŔ Here, the Torah relies upon the second explanation above – that “priests act with alacrity” – because it is within their very nature and “genes,” so to speak. From this perspective, it is not necessary to create an independent body – a Beit Din – to watch over the Cohanim, since they have it within themselves to achieve the same carefulness. Therefore, as Rashi explains, the command is to the parents of the Cohanim to watch over their children.
However, the second command (21:24) - “And Moshe should speak to Aharon and to his sons and to all of the JewsŔ – was issued by Moshe. And here, we find a command to create a Beit Din as an independent body to watch over the Cohanim. This is because here, Moshe relied upon the first possibility mentioned above, that the special alacrity of the Cohanim stems not from inside or from anything intrinsic, but from the special avoda and responsibilities that the priests have in the holy Temple. Since their quickness and precision did not emerge from anything within the Cohanim themselves, there is reason to suspect that when they were not involved in their avoda, they may not be so quick and careful. There was room to worry that when not in the Temple itself, the Cohanim made not be as careful about their specific mitzvoth as when in the Temple. And therefore, Moshe deemed it necessary to establish a Beit Din to supervise, in order to create a “fence around the Torah.” Therefore, he commanded the Jews to make a Beit Din that will watch over the Cohanim. That is why in the second command, it is Moshe who issues the “fence around the Torah” in the form of an admonishment to have a Beit Din supervise the Cohanim.
Everyone has a bit of a priest, and even of a High priest inside of him. We are all inspired somewhat by what we learn, and somewhat by our inner personal qualities, just as the Cohanim, who were guided by their avoda in the Temple as well as by their inner makeup. And as the Rambam wrote, anyone who chooses can “separate himself to stand before G-d and serve Him…and remove the yoke of confusion…and then he is sanctified to be holy of holies and G-d will be his portion and his inheritance forever and everŔ Thus, anyone who so chooses can stand on a level of service of G-d in which he is connected in essence, from inside. When that happens, the person will always feel that he is standing before HaShem, wherever and whenever he is. It is only when the Cohen inside of us is not activated, that we need reminders and ways of motivating ourselves. The one who is motivated from inside does not need reminders, but otherwise we all need the reminders and fences around the Torah that will help us stay on the path.
From Likutei Sichot of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, ztz’l, vol. 37, pp. 61-66 Rabbi David Sterne, Jerusalem Connection in the old city of Jerusalem