Leviticus 1:2 Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: When a man [adam] from [among] you brings a sacrifice to the Lord; from animals, from cattle or from the flock you shall bring your sacrifice.

Yerushalmi Shekalim, Chapter 1, Halacha 4:  The word “Man” [adam]is used to include converts

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #6:

This same drasha is mentioned in the Toras Cohanim on this posuk. The commentaries worked hard to explain in what way the word “man” comes to include converts. The common [thought] in all their comments is an effort to find a differentiation between the uses of the word “person” [ish] with the use of the word “man” [adam]. [It could be thought] that the word “person” [ish] implies someone of a higher level while the use of the word “man” [adam] implies just any man. Therefore, [one might say] that from the fact that it uses the word “man” [adam] here and not “person” [ish], that is how we can conclude that it implies converts. Look in the book “HaTorah v’haMitzvah” to see the examples that he brings and the great length to which he discusses this.

However, note that there are proofs to the opposite that are contained in the words of our sages. For example, when Scripture says “And you are called ‘man’” [adam] [referring to the Jewish people] [VALIDATE WHERE THIS IS FROM] In the Zohar on Parshas Tazriah it mentions various levels of people, “bar nash”, “adam”, “gever”, “enosh”, “ish” and it says there that the highest level is “man” [adam]. This is alluded to in the posuk (Genesis 5:2) where it says, “He called their name “Man” [adam] on the day He created them”. Similarly the Zohar comments in Deuteronomy [VALIDATE WHERE THIS IS FROM] that a wise scholar is called “man” [adam] while an ignorant person is not called “man” [adam]. ThIt also seems logical that the term “man” [adam] is more honorific [than the term “ish”] since “man” [adam] alludes to the higher similarity [with God] as it says in the posuk “let us make “man”[adam]  in Our image”. Further we find that non-Jews are labeled with the term “person” [ish] as it says in Parshas Emor “a person” [ish] who makes a vow; and this is taken to include non-Jews. And so too with many further examples [showing “ish” referring to non-Jews].

But were it not for the words of these [previous] commentaries, I would perhaps say that the drasha to include converts from the wording in our posuk is not exclusively from the use of the word “adam” but actually more from the entire phrase of the posuk. [Our posuk is actually an example of a misplaced modifier.] Instead of saying [as it actually does in Hebrew] “a man who sacrifices from amongst you”, it should have actually said “”a man from amongst you who sacrifices…” If it had used this later phrase, I would be able to understand the posuk to only refer to Jewish people. However, since the words “from you” come to be not in their proper place we then know that the posuk [even] refers to people who are converts.

However, apparently, the whole drash needs further investigating. The fact that converts can bring sacrifices should be obvious from the fact that non-Jews can also bring sacrifices. If a non-Jew can bring sacrifices, then certainly a convert can. Perhaps the answer to this question is that non-Jews are only allowed to bring “Olot” sacrifices [burnt offerings where the whole sacrifice is burned on the altar], as is explained in Parshas Emor (22:18). From converts, on the other hand, we accept any type of sacrificial offering [because they are treated fully as Jews]

Editor’s Note: Read this one carefully between the lines. The Torah Temimah is defending non-Jews and converts. Further, he is defending the Torah itself from the idea that it refers to non-Jews or converts as being in a lower level than Jews.

Again, it is always fantastic to hear the Torah Temimah say “were it not for the previous scholars, I would say as follows…” and then we listen as he proceeds to give his opinion.

Leviticus 1:1 And He called to Moses, and God spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting saying

Gemora Yoma 4b:  And He called to Moses, and God spoke to him; why does Scripture mention the call before the speech? — The Torah teaches us good manners: a man should not address his neighbor without having first called him.

 Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #1:

In other words, one should not begin to speak [to one’s friend] suddenly. The reason for this is to allow the listener [some time] to prepare himself to listen. This is similar to what it writes in Gemora Nidda 16b that God hates one who enters the house of his friend suddenly. Further, in Meseket Derek Eretz, Chapter 5, it says that one should learn proper behavior from God. God stood outside the Garden of Eden and He called to Adam, as the posuk says (Genesis 3:9) “And God called to the man [Adam] and He said, Where are you”.

The reason why our Gemora quotes our posuk here [in Leviticus] instead of the posuk in Genesis, is perhaps because the Gemora wanted to learn the greatest lesson. Even with someone who God recognized and brought close to Himself with the greatest love and affection [such as Moses], God nevertheless [displays good manners and proper behavior] by not suddenly beginning to speak with him. It is about Moses that God testifies and says “in all My house he is faithful” and “plainly and not in riddles do I speak to him.” Even here He prepared him [Moses] to speak before He spoke with him.

Editor’s Note: The Torah Temimah wants to emphasize, I think, that even God displays proper manners and proper behavior. Further, this proper behavior should be towards everyone, even someone whom you love dearly and with whom you are very familiar

Exodus 35:30 Moses said to the children of Israel, see God has called on Betzalel  the son of Uri the son of Hur from the tribe of Yehuda

Gemora Brachos 55a:  R. Isaac said: We must not appoint a leader over a Community without first consulting it, as it says: See, the Lord hath called by name Bezalel, the son of Uri. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: Do you consider Bezalel suitable? He replied: Sovereign of the Universe, if Thou thinkest him suitable, surely I must also! Said [God] to him: All the same, go and consult them. He went and asked Israel: Do you consider Bezalel suitable? They replied: If the Holy One, blessed be He, and you consider him suitable, surely we must!

 Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #22:

Note what the Tashbetz writes in section 155 regarding the resulting halacha from this text. The Tashbetz states that a king who appoints a ruler for the Jews without consulting them will cause that ruler to not have authority to enact laws against their consent. Further, for such a ruler the Jews are exempt from making payments if the ruler’s calculations are decided by an expert to be erroneous.

This is the lesson that we see from the fact that even the Holy One, Blessed Be He, consulted with the congregation prior to appointing a ruler over them.

Note also what is written in the Orach Hayim section 153.

Editor’s Note: In this note, the Torah Temimah is defending the practice of gaining the consent of the governed.

Exodus 35:27 And the princes [nisi’im] brought the shoham stones and filling stones for the ephod and for the choshen;

Gemora Yoma 75a:  Actual clouds [nisi’im] as it says in Proverbs 25:14 “clouds [nisi’im] and wind”

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #20:

In other words “nisi’im” refers to actual clouds. The reason for taking this posuk out of its simple meaning and explaining it in a forced manner like this, perhaps is because in all the places where it mentions the princes (nisi’im) it specifies them with a particular proper noun. Examples of such phrases are: “princes of Israel” or “prinices of the congregation” or “princes of the tribes” or “princes of the forefathers”. Here, [in our posuk] it just mentions the word “princes” [without any clarification of which princes]. This drasha also includes within it the interpretation of the next posuk where it says the phrase “in the morning, in the morning”. That when the manna fell from heaven, precious stones and pearls fell with it. The manna fell from the place of the clouds [nisi’im]. These are the clouds, therefore, referred to in our posuk as having brought the precious stones.  

However, it does require further investigation as to how the nisi’im in our posuk could possibly mean clouds. Note that it also says that they brought the oil for the menorah. And we hold that [halachically] the oil for the menorah must be olive oil. This is explained in the beginning of parsha Ki Tetze and in the Gemora Menachos 89a. Clearly it would be impossible for the clouds to bring the olive oil. Perhaps one could possibly say that the answer is related to the answer also in Menachos 89a that actually wheat fell from the clouds. See what Rashi and Tosafot say over there in that Gemora.

In general, however, we don’t learn [laws] from miracles and there is no requirement to answer questions relating to aggada.

Editor’s Note: It is wonderful how the Torah Temimah explains why the Gemora chooses to take the word “nisi’im” out of its clear meaning. On the other hand, when the Torah Temimah delves into that answer he runs into unanswerable questions. This being aggadic material however, these questions are not cause for alarm.

Exodus 38:22 And Bezalel the son of Uri the son of Hur from the tribe of Yehudah made all that God had commanded Moshe.

Gemora Yerushalmi Peah, Perek 1, Halacha 1 – It does not say “According to all that Moshe commended him to do” but rather according to “all that God commanded Moshe”. From this we learn that [Bezalel] set his mind [in agreement] to do even things that he had not heard from the mouth of his teacher, as it says “To Moshe on Mount Sinai”

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #4:

This [gemora] hints to the fact that if a person does an action with the intention of fulfilling God’s will and for the sake of heaven, he’ll receive [divine] assistance, because he intended it in a true way.

This principle is also alluded to in the aggada in the Gemora Brachos 55a where it says as follows:

R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Johanan: Bezalel [the name literally means “in the shadow of God”] was so called on account of his wisdom. At the time when the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses; Go and tell Bezalel to make me a tabernacle, an ark and vessels, Moses went and reversed the order, saying, Make an ark and vessels and a tabernacle. Bezalel said to him: Moses, our Teacher, as a rule a man first builds a house and then brings vessels into it; but you say, Make me an ark and vessels and a tabernacle. Where shall I put the vessels that I am to make? Can it be that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to you, Make a tabernacle, an ark and vessels? Moses replied: Perhaps you were in the shadow of God and knew!

This is also alluded to in the posuk Exodus 31:2. This shows that Bezalel did everything for the sake of heaven and his intention was to fulfill God’s will. In this way, he set his thought to match God’s thoughts even in matters that he did not hear from Moshe.

Also, see what it says similar to this at the end of parshas Haazinu [Deuternomy 32:16] where the Gemora Yerushalmi [Peah Chapter 1, Halacha 1] says as follows:

R. Mana says “It is not something that is far from you”. If you find that it is far, it is from you [because of you.] Why would this be so? Because you did not toil hard enough to understand it. It is from here that we know that any issue that Beis Din [the Court] deliberates intensely over will, in the end, stand.

Editor’s Note: The freedom and encouragement to use one’s own ability to think and to even disagree with one’s teachers is built into the Gemora.

Exodus 38:22 And Bezalel the son of Uri the son of Hur from the tribe of Yehuda made all that God had commanded Moshe.

Gemora Yerushalmi Brachos, Perek 4, Halacha 3 – R. Samuel bar Nahmani in the name of R. Yohanan, “[The eighteen blessings of our thrice daily prayers] correspond to the eighteen commands [i.e. the words, ‘As the Lord had commanded’] in the passage concerning the building of the Tabernacle [Exod. 38:21ff.].” Said R. Hiyya bar Abba, “Only [those commands mentioned] between, ‘And with him was Oholiab the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan’ [Exod. 38:23] and the end of the book [are counted, excluding the first command in verse 22].”

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #3:

In other words there are 18 times that it mentions in this parsha “as God commanded” besides this one time in our posuk. Perhaps our posuk is excluded from the counting because all of the work was done by Bezalel and Ohaliab but the command in our posuk is just to Bezalel.

Note that the reason our section of the chumash is called ‘the second temple’ perhaps is because the topic of building the temple is written twice in the Torah, once in Parshat Terumah and once here in Parshat Pekudei. The section in Parshat Terumah is called ‘the first temple’ and this section is called ‘the second temple.’ Perhaps it should have called it the ‘secondary temple’ [since this section is secondary to the first section.] The commentaries explain, however, a [somewhat] far-fetched explanation [to the phrase ‘second temple’] that fits in well with this being the reason for the association of the 18 blessings of our daily prayers with the 18 commandments in our section. It is possible to explain it according to what it says in Midrash Rabba when it is explaining the first sentence of our parsha which says, “These are the accounts of the temple, the temple of the Testimony…” The Midrash Rabba explains the use of the word ‘temple’ twice as a reference to the dwelling [the temple] that was twice destroyed because of our sins. Similarly it says in Shmos Rabba, Perek 31 on the posuk (Leviticus 26:11) “I will put my dwelling place amongst you” – don’t read it as “dwelling place” read it instead as “my pledge”. [A pledge is something that one gives to another when one borrows money from him. In the case, the “pledge” refers to the temple that was destroyed when God took it back. In Hebrew the word for dwelling place/temple and the word for pledge have the same root.]

This is similar to what Bilam says when he curses [and is forced to bless] the Jewish people. “How goodly are your tents, your dwelling places Israel.” The word “tent” is a reference to the temple when it is standing and the word “dwelling place” refers to the temple when it has been destroyed.

After the temple was destroyed and the sacrifices which served as an atonement for our sins were no longer brought, all we are left with is our prayers to replace the sacrifices in the temple. This is alluded to in the correspondence of the number of commands given to Bezalel and Ohaliab being exactly equal to the number of blessings in our thrice daily prayers.

This is similar to the prayers for Rosh Hashanah which have ten posukim to reference the ten utterances with which God created the world. There are other similar examples.

Editor’s Note: This note has no Talmudic arguments. It is just a beautiful homily on prayer and how prayer is all we have left now that the temple has been destroyed.

Exodus 28:38 – It shall be upon Aaron’s forehead, and Aaron shall bear the iniquity of the holy things that the children of Israel sanctify, for all their holy gifts. It shall be upon his forehead constantly to make them favorable before the Lord.

Gemora Menachos 7b – “It should be on his forehead constantly” – From this phrase we see [that one who is wearing it] should not remove his concentration from it.

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #26:

From here the rabbis learn [in a variety of places in the Gemora] that one who is wearing tefillin should not remove his concentration from them and is obligated to touch them constantly. This is learned from an “a fortiori” deduction from the ceremonial miter [that is the subject of our posuk]. The a fortiori deduction is as follows:

Just like the miter which only has God’s name written on it once, one is required to concentrate on it constantly, certainly this law applies to tefillin that has God’s name mentioned many times.

Tosafot comment in the Gemora noted above that this a fortiori deduction is not a full deduction. The [flaw] with the deduction is that the name of God written on the miter  used is the [full] revealed name while in the tefillin the name of God that is used is the [lesser] covered name.  Therefore, Tosafot conclude, that the prohibition of losing concentration while wearing tefillin is not biblical [ie, not fully based on this posuk above] but rather is from a rabbinic decree [that is loosely based on the above posuk.]

However, many others disagree with this observation of the Tosafot. These other rabbis conclude that it is, in fact, a full a fortiori deduction and that therefore the prohibition of not concentrating on one’s tefillin is biblical in nature and solidly based on our posuk. These dissenting rabbis wonder what practical halachic difference would there be in whether the full name or the covered name of God is used.

My opinion is that the words of Tosafot are correct. We do, in fact, find that many halachic stringencies apply to the miter but don’t apply to the tefellin. [Therefore, this law about concentration would logically only apply to the miter but not the tefillin.] It is logical to conclude that these stringencies that apply to the miter but not to the tefillin are there precisely because the full, revealed name of God is written on the miter.

For example, in the Gemora Kedushin 66a, King Yannai tests the Sages of Israel by wearing the miter. Rashi explains there that the test is to see whether the Sages stand up in honor the miter, since the name of God is written on it.

Notice that we do not find this stringency of needing to stand up for tefillin. One has to conclude that this stringency for the miter is due to the fact that the full, revealed name of God is written on the miter [but not on the tefillin.] Due to this full revealed name of God being there, the miter is due this additional honor.

 Another example is in the Gemora Sota 38a. There is mentions that the priests when they bless the people are supposed to raise their hands above their heads, except for the high priest who is wearing the miter. He is not supposed to raise his hands above the miter. Rashi there explains that the reason for not raising his hands above the miter is because the name of God is written on the miter. Behold, this stringency of not raising one’s hands above one’s head also does not apply to tefillin. Again, one would have to conclude that this stringency is precisely because the miter has the full revealed name of God written on it.

Therefore, it appears obvious that the explanation of the Rosh and the Tur on Or Hachaim Section 28 and also the explanation of the תר’י is correct; that the main fulfillment of the requirement to concentrate on one’s tefillin is done by avoiding idle chatter and frivolity while wearing one’s tefillin. Even though normally the term for concentration should be taken literally, but in this case since the halacha is only rabbinic in nature the rabbis only legislated laws that would lead to a desecration of God’s name if not followed.

The halachic difference between ruling that concentration is biblical versus rabbinic is precisely in this issue of whether one needs to touch them constantly. If, in fact, the requirement of concentration is biblical in nature, then one would need to touch one’s tefillin constantly so that one is constantly mindful of wearing tefillin. But if the requirement of concentration is only rabbinic, then the requirement of touching them is only general in nature. And there are other halachic distinctions that arise from this difference of opinion regarding the exact source of the requirement of concentration, but here is not the place for extending the topic.

 DBS Note: First of all, the Torah Temimah’s knowledge of the entire Talmud shines through in this note. Secondly, this note is a very good introduction to the concept of “a fortiori argument”. I am cutting and pasting a Wikipedia definition of this important concept. If you are new to the concept, read the note above again to see precisely how it applies. Thirdly, this note shows clearly the hierarchy of traditional Judaism in tiers of obligations. Biblical obligations are more important and stringent than rabbinic obligations. Much effort is put into ensuring that we delve into which obligations are of what type and what the resulting halachic ramifications are.

Lastly, it is wonderful how the Torah Temimah weighs in on the arguments of approximately 1,000 years earlier and clearly expresses his opinion of who was right.

DEFINITION OF A FORTIORI:

An a fortiori argument /ˈɑː fɔːrtɪˈoʊriː/^[1] is an “argument from a yet stronger reason.” For example, if it has been established that a person is dead (the stronger reason), then one can with equal or greater certainty argue that the person is not breathing. “Being dead” trumps other arguments that might be made to show that the person is not breathing, such as for instance, not seeing any sign of breathing.

An a fortiori argument draws upon existing confidence in a proposition to argue in favor of a second proposition that is held to be implicit in the first. The second proposition may be considered “weaker,” and therefore the arguer adduces a “stronger” proposition to support it.

Also, here is the link to a Wikipedia article on miter/mitre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitre

Exodus 28:40 – And for the sons of Aaron you should make coats and you should make belts and turbans shalt thou make for them, for honor and for beauty.

Jerusalem Talmud Yoma Chapter 3 Halacha 6 – The Rabbis [Rabbi Yosi?] taught an explanation of the phrase “for the sons of Aaron you should make coats.” From this wording they learned that it is required to have two coats for each cohen.

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #30:

Rabbi Yosi thinks that this statement apply to general ‘coats’. In other words, since it says ‘for the sons of Aaron’ that is the reason why it writes ‘coats’ in the plural. Certainly, the intent of the rabbis was not that each cohen should wear two coats. We know that it says in Gemora Zevachim 18a that a cohen who wears two garments of the same type while he’s doing the service in the temple, that service is invalid.

Rather, the intent is that each cohen should have an extra coat in reserve in case he needs it. Further, it is entirely possible that it need not be limited to two, but rather a cohen could have more in reserve if he wanted. The Talmud teaches “two” as the minimal obligation based on the use of the plural form.

Also, it does make sense [ניחה] that the same deduction is not made about belts and turbans that are also written in the plural. Only the coat is worn close to the body and likely to absorb bodily foulness.

Truly though it is not clear to me why the rabbis interpreted this posuk in this way. Certainly the words of Rabbi Yosi are based on logical reasoning rather than on a textural deduction. It does seem that the reason why it writes “coats” in the plural is because the subject is also in the plural (the sons of Aaron); just like belts and turbans are also in the plural. Additionally a similar phrase is using in the Gemora Megilla 7a  where it discusses the requirement to send “gifts to the poor”. [Gifts is written in plural as is the word ‘poor people’.] There, even though the Gemora says it means at least two gifts to at least two poor people, Rashi says that one gift to one poor person would be sufficient for the minimum requirement. He bases this on the fact that even though it does use the plural form for ‘gifts’; nevertheless since it says ‘poor people’ [also in the plural] we can conclude that the minimum requirement is one gift for one poor person.

Take note also that the Rambam in Chapter 8 of the section “Vessels of the Temple” does not mention at all this requirement of having two coats for each cohen.  Even though, as we mention above, it is not clear from the language of the posuk how the deduction is made that one must have two coats, nevertheless, it is clear that this is a deduction that the rabbis have made from the language of the posuk. It certainly has a valid reason and logic to it, even if we don’t understand it. If that is the case, how is it possible for the Rambam just to omit this law entirely? To compound the difficulty, look in the Gemora Chaggigah 3a where it concludes that a person who is deaf in only one ear is exempt from the obligation to go up to Jerusalem during the three pilgrimage festivals. The Gemora there concludes this from the words of the posuk (Parshat Vayelekh) where it says “Read the Torah in their ears”. From the fact that it says “ears” in the plural, the Gemora concludes that if one is deaf in one ear, he is excluded from this command. And the Rambam does include this law! Also, the Gemora Yerushalmi there actually attaches the law about being deaf in one ear to our posuk here about each cohen needing two coats.

Since this is the case, it really makes no sense for the Rambam to omit the law requiring two coats yet include the law exempting a person who is deaf in one ear. This issue requires much further study.  

DBS Note: I appreciate the intense insistence on consistency.  Also, being that I am deaf in one ear, this note has a personal relevancy to me.