Parshas Shemini
1. This week's Torah portion speaks about the pure animals, which one may eat, and the impure animals, which one may not eat. The Torah gives two signs of a pure animal: "מעלת גרה" ("it chews the cud") and "מפרסת פרסה" ("it has split hooves"). Concerning these signs there is an inquiry1 whether they are causes of purity and impurity — that is, because the animal chews the cud and has split hooves it is pure, and conversely — or whether they are merely identifying signs, meaning that the animal's purity stems from other causes, and only so that we should know which animals are pure did the Almighty place in them signs by which we will know that they are pure.
The difference between the two approaches is:
The law is that "היוצא מן הטהור טהור" ("that which comes forth from a pure [animal] is pure")2, even though it has no signs of purity. For example, an offspring of a pure animal whose hooves are closed: although it has no signs of purity, since it comes forth from a pure animal, it too is pure.
If we say that the signs of purity are no more than identifying signs, the law is understandable logically as well: since it comes forth from a pure animal, the matter of signs has no place there. If, however, we say that the signs are a cause of purity, logic should dictate that if its hooves are closed it must be impure, and the fact that the law is that it is pure is due to a Scriptural decree.
A practical halachic difference between whether the purity is due to logic or due to a Scriptural decree is this: One may not play with a pure thing. When was this said? If it is of a pure species. If, however, its species is impure, and it is pure only by a Scriptural decree, the prohibition does not apply. The proof of this: on the verse "לויתן זה יצרת לשחק בו" ("this Leviathan You have formed to play with"), the Yerushalmi3 asks: how may one play with a pure thing? And it answers that the Leviathan is intrinsically an impure thing, and was permitted out of the general prohibition. We see from this that if the purity is due to a Scriptural decree, one may play with it.
2. There are several proofs that the signs of purity are a cause of purity. This is also implied by the wording of the verse, which says, "כי מעלה גרה הוא ופרסה איננו מפריס וגו׳" ("for it chews the cud, but it does not have a split hoof, etc.").
There is also a proof from the law that the "תרנגול דאגמא" ("marsh fowl") is forbidden. Tosafos4 says that here the rule "that which comes forth from the pure is pure" does not apply, because the chick "מעפרא קא גדיל" ("grows from the earth"), and consequently it becomes impure on account of the signs of impurity. If we were to say that the signs are only identifying signs — then, since we know from what species the fowl comes, what difference does it make that it has signs of impurity? We must therefore say that the signs are a cause of purity, and the rule "that which comes forth from the pure is pure" is a Scriptural decree; therefore, if "it grows from the earth," the rule does not apply.
We need to understand the connection between chewing the cud and having split hooves and purity. This is especially so since, in the inner dimension of the matter — even if we say that the signs are no more than identifying signs — it is known that everything, even worldly matters, is under individual Divine Providence, and all the more so matters of Torah and its mitzvos. Hence, from the very fact that these signs were designated for purity, it is proof that they are connected to purity, at least as an effect, not as a cause as according to the first approach.
3. One of the reasons5 for the forbidden foods is that every food one eats becomes "דם ובשר כבשרו" ("blood and flesh like his own flesh"). The Torah therefore forbade the forbidden foods so that the traits of the forbidden food, which are not good ones, should not be integrated into the person.
From this the matter of the signs of purity and impurity is also understood. The prohibition of eating such animals as do not chew the cud and do not have split hooves — so that their characteristics, their traits, should not pass over into the person — shows that a person's conduct must be with "split hooves" and "chewing the cud."
4. As has been said, every matter in Torah is a lesson, an instruction for a person. So this — that the signs of an animal serve, at least, to clarify the animal's purity — is also a lesson: the traits of "chewing the cud" and "split hooves" in a person clarify and distinguish his conduct, whether it is pure or, G‑d forbid, the opposite.
A further detail in this: the distinguishing and clarifying of purity concerns an animal. Its counterpart in a person is "the animal in a person's heart" — the animal soul. The distinguishing and clarifying does not concern the matters of the G‑dly soul, Torah and its mitzvos — whether they are entirely "for their own sake" or with an ulterior motive. The distinguishing is not about that, for even when it is with an ulterior motive one must still learn Torah and fulfill mitzvos: "לעולם ילמוד ויקיים מצות אפילו שלא לשמה שמתוך כו׳" ("a person should always study [Torah] and fulfill mitzvos even not for their own sake, for out of [doing so not for their own sake he will come to do so for their own sake]")6. The distinguishing concerns physical matters, which are bound up with the animal soul: one must discern whether the "animal" is a pure one or not.
Both animals are written in the Torah, the impure animal as well. That is to say, even while conducting oneself according to the Torah, one can also be an impure animal — as the Ramban says, one can be "נבל ברשות התורה" ("a degenerate within the license of the Torah") (meaning that it seems to be within the license of the Torah, but in truth he transgresses the command7 "קדושים תהיו" ("You shall be holy") — a fundamental and root command). So, in order to distinguish what is a pure animal, the Torah gives two signs: a) split hooves; b) chewing the cud.
5. In general, in an animal too there is a principal distinction between the head and the foot — as is also understood from the laws of treifos, etc. Furthermore, even in an animal, only the feet are close to the ground. That is, with the loftier powers, even of the animal soul, one must not be immersed in physicality, in earthly matters; only with the powers of action8, as much as one must.
— It is related that the Rebbe (the Rebbe Rashab), of blessed memory, said to a Chassid who was a man of stature and talent and who had gone into the galoshes business: "Feet in galoshes I have seen, but a head in galoshes…" —
Besides this, at the foot, between the foot and the ground, there must be a hoof — a separation even between the feet and earthliness.
The hoof (פרסה), whose meaning, as mentioned, is פרסא — with an alef — a separation and concealment, must, however, be a split one. This means that even in earthly matters G‑dliness should shine; one should see G‑dliness in them.
(As is explained in Chassidus9 regarding hair: in a woman, "שער באשה ערוה" ("a woman's hair is nakedness"); also with the Levites, "והעבירו תער כו׳" ("they shall pass a razor [over all their flesh]"); but regarding a nazir it says "גדל פרע שער ראשו" ("he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long"). The explanation of this is that where the vitality and light are scant, there hair (constriction, and by way of the separation of the skull) is a deficiency; whereas where the vitality and light are abundant, there must be hair. Therefore regarding a nazir: "קדוש יהי׳ גדל פרע וכו׳" ("he shall be holy, he shall let the locks grow long, etc."). And so it is with the hoof of an animal: the hoof must be a split one.)
And as stated in Tanya10, "שגם בעניני ארץ לא יפרדו מאחד האמת" ("that even in earthly matters they should not be separated from the One True [G‑d]") — that even in worldly matters one should not separate oneself from the Almighty, the One True. Therefore the split must go all the way through — reaching even the very bottom.
Only then can one make of the animal a pure animal; that is, his "animal" — the physicality that is necessary for the body — should be a pure animal.
And as it is written in Kehillas Yaakov, by the author of the sefer Malei HaRo'im, that בהמה ("animal") is an acronym for "בשר היורד מן השמים" ("flesh that descends from heaven"), in which case it is certainly pure, for "אין דבר טמא יורד מן השמים" ("nothing impure descends from heaven")11.
7. There is a further detail in "split hooves"12: the hoof is split in two. That is, walking on the earth — dealing with earthly matters — must be with two movements: "ימין מקרבת ושמאל דוחה" ("the right hand draws near and the left pushes away")13.
There are those with whom there is only "the right hand draws near," without any restraint at all. They argue that in order to bring Jews close to Torah, it is worthwhile to bend matters of Torah and even, G‑d forbid, to remake the Torah according to the spirit of the times.
That one must bring all Jews close to Torah is indeed true, as we have spoken several times14 about the explanation of the Mishnah15 "אוהב את הבריות ומקרבן לתורה" ("loving the creatures and drawing them close to Torah"): even those who are nothing more than mere "creatures" — that is, who have in themselves no virtue other than being the Almighty's creations16 — must also be brought close to Torah. But what they argue — that for this purpose one should make "improvements" (which in truth are corruptions) in the Torah, G‑d forbid — this is contrary to the way of the Torah. And as the wording of the Mishnah itself says: "and drawing them close to Torah" — bringing them close to Torah, but not dragging the Torah, G‑d forbid, and remaking it according to their spirit.
Even if their argument were a valid argument — that by doing so one will bring Jews close — one must know that according to Torah law one may not change, G‑d forbid, even a minor detail of the Torah, whether a Biblical law or a Rabbinic one, and even what our Rabbis instituted in the latest generations.
— Unless it is a true prophet, and when he says it only as a temporary ruling — for then it is a law of the Torah, like all the mitzvos, that one must listen to him, as with Eliyahu on Mount Carmel, a prophet, and that too only as a temporary ruling17. But other than that, one may not, G‑d forbid, turn away even a tiny bit from the Torah, regardless of what one would accomplish by doing so —
And especially since the truth is that not only will one not improve anything by this, and not bring Jews close to Torah, but on the contrary, one makes things worse by it: one becomes swallowed up among them oneself, until one turns away, G‑d forbid, completely from Torah and Yiddishkeit.
As in the well-known parable of my father-in-law, the Rebbe [the Previous Rebbe]: when a person finds himself lost in a forest among beasts of prey, this does not mean that he went out of his house straight into the middle of the deep forest. Rather, at first he walked on the king's highway, the way of the King of the world, and afterwards he turned off from the king's highway by one hair's breadth, and to that hair's breadth another hair's breadth, and another hair's breadth, until he caught himself and realized that he is in the deep forest among beasts of prey.
8. The sign of split hooves alone, however, is not enough; one must also have the sign of chewing the cud. Every physical thing one is about to do, one must chew over well, clarify it once and once again — whether he should do it, and how he should do it — and only then is it a pure animal.
According to Chassidus, this is the matter of the general refinements (בירורים): the refinement of ב״ן and afterwards the refinement of מ״ה.
9. Another lesson can be drawn from the signs of purity of a bird. With a bird, one may not rely on the signs alone, and one must also have a tradition (מסורה)18. Seemingly, why does one need a tradition? One can see the signs and know by oneself. The point, however, is that one cannot rely on one's own intellect. One can study Shulchan Aruch, and even conduct oneself according to one's own understanding beyond the letter of the law — and at the very same time be in the lowest depths of She'ol, Heaven save us. There must be mesorah, and mesorah also stems from the word מסירה (giving oneself over) and התקשרות (bonding) — bonding with the Rebbe; and the Rebbe is a "hunter," a Rebbe who has occupied himself with rescuing Jewish souls, and is "בקי בהם ובשמותיהם" ("expert in them and in their names"), from the counsel of the evil inclination.
(Compiled from the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Re'eh 5710 and Shabbos Parshas Shemini 5716)
10. The order of this week's parsha is: first it speaks about "יום השמיני למילואים" ("the eighth day of the inauguration"), then about the death of Aharon's two sons, and at the end of the parsha about the pure animals, etc., up to the prohibition of eating creeping and crawling creatures.
The advantage of the eighth day of the inauguration over the preceding days is that "ביום השמיני הקים את המשכן ולא פרקו" ("on the eighth day he erected the Mishkan and did not dismantle it") (they set up the Mishkan and did not take it down). Although everything that is done according to the command of the Torah is an eternal matter19 —
— which is why, although "כל קשר שעתיד להתירן" ("any knot that is destined to be untied") is not a permanent knot, nevertheless, if the knot is made according to the command of the Torah — the Torah commanded that the knot be made — then one must say that the knot is a permanent knot. The command of the Torah makes the matter an eternal matter. Below, it is drawn down only into time, but the matter itself is an eternal matter.
Moreover, even when the untying is also according to the command of the Torah — the Torah tells him to untie it — nevertheless the knot, while it exists, is an eternal matter. The untying too — in its time — is eternal, only that it is at a different time, along the lines of what is written in Tanya20: "ויחוד זה למעלה הוא נצחי לעולם ועד וכו׳ אלא שלמטה הוא תחת הזמן" ("and this union Above is eternal, forever and ever, etc., only that below it is subject to time").
With this the matter of the knot of tefillin will be resolved, according to the opinions21 which hold that every day one must untie the knot and tie it again anew — that it is nevertheless called a permanent knot. —
Accordingly, the erecting [of the Mishkan] during the seven days of inauguration is also an eternal matter. Nevertheless, it is not equal to the erecting of the eighth day, when there was "he erected it and did not dismantle it" in actual fact. And especially since on the eighth day "fire descended from heaven," which is a lofty matter that did not exist at all on the preceding days.
In any case, the eight days of inauguration are a matter of redemption.
Further on, the parsha speaks about the death of Aharon's two sons and instructs that it should not come to that. It is known22 that the matter of the death of Aharon's two sons was "running" (רצוא) without "returning" (שוב). From this it is understood that the Jewish people then stood at a very lofty level, to the point that they had to be guarded from actual expiry of the soul (כלות הנפש).
Nevertheless, afterwards, in the very same parsha, it instructs about eating creeping and crawling creatures, "שנפשו של אדם קצה בהם" ("which a person's soul loathes"), which even by human intellect are extremely repulsive. Seemingly — how is it fitting for this to stand adjacent to such lofty matters?
One can say that although it speaks about very lofty levels, it nevertheless instructs at the end specifically about accepting the yoke [of Heaven]: "כי אני הוי׳ המעלה אתכם וגו׳" ("For I am G‑d who brings you up, etc.") — "על מנת שתקבלו מצותי וכו׳" ("on condition that you accept My commandments, etc."). For there is also the body23; and on the other hand — in a positive sense — the body derives from a place that is higher than intellect, comprehension and contemplation. Therefore its intrinsic connection is to matters that are not comprehension, etc.
The practical outcome of this is that one must arrive, in all matters, at acceptance of the yoke, even when one stands at a lofty level. Without acceptance of the yoke, one can in time fall down to the point of eating creeping creatures, etc., G‑d forbid.
(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Shemini 5710)
11. The haftorah of this week's parsha relates how King David brought the Ark of G‑d from the house of Oved Edom the Gittite to the City of David.
On the way, it is related, "ודוד מכרכר בכל עוז לפני ה׳ ... ודוד חגור אפוד בד" ("and David danced with all his might before G‑d ... and David was girded with a linen ephod"). Upon arriving in the City of David, the wording is: "המלך דוד מפזז ומכרכר לפני ה׳" ("King David leaping and dancing before G‑d").
We need to understand the allusion in the differences in the wording of the verse between outside the city and the City of David: a) Earlier, "and David was girded with a linen ephod" is mentioned, while in the City of David it is not mentioned. b) Earlier it says only "dancing," while in the City of David — "leaping and dancing."
We also need to understand what is related further: when Michal the daughter of Shaul saw King David leaping and dancing, she mocked him. David answered her, "לפני ה׳ אשר בחר בי מאביך כו׳ ונקלותי עוד מזאת גו׳" ("Before G‑d, who chose me over your father, etc., and I will be held even more lightly than this, etc."). Why did he preface with "who chose me over your father"? He only needed to explain the reason for his joy.
12. Concerning the linen ephod, the Rambam24 says that it is not one of the eight priestly garments, because the ephod of the priestly garments was made not only of בד — linen — but also of blue and purple wool, etc. He brings a proof from Shmuel the prophet25, who was a Levite, and nevertheless it is written of him "נער חגור אפוד בד" ("a lad girded with a linen ephod").
And the Rambam concludes that the linen ephod was worn by the disciples of the prophets and by one who is fit for the Divine spirit to rest upon him, to show that he had attained "למעלת כהן גדול שמדבר על פי האפוד והחושן ברוח הקודש" ("the level of the Kohen Gadol, who speaks by means of the Ephod and the Choshen with the Divine spirit").
This means that since prophecy is a very lofty level — for "אין השכינה שורה אלא על חכם גבור ועשיר ובעל קומה" ("the Shechinah rests only upon one who is wise, strong, wealthy and of stature")26, together with the other qualities that are enumerated — and even then the matter of the garments, and what they are like, matters, to the point that it says "ויפשט את בגדיו" ("and he took off his garments") — therefore, as a sign that one is ready and fit for the Divine spirit to rest upon him, there would be the girding of a linen ephod.
What the Rambam says has a source in the Yerushalmi27: in Nov, the city of the Kohanim, there were 85 Kohanim who wore a linen ephod. The Yerushalmi asks: is there not only one Kohen Gadol? It answers, "שכולם היו ראויים לכהונה גדולה" ("for all of them were fit for the High Priesthood"). And these are the very words of the Rambam.
13. One of the preparations for prophecy is seclusion (התבודדות), which generally takes place outside the city. When David was on the way, outside the city, that was the main place where he prepared himself for prophecy. Therefore it is mentioned there that he also wore a linen ephod.
That is also why there was "dancing with all his might before G‑d," for "אין השכינה שורה אלא מתוך שמחה" ("the Shechinah rests only amid joy")28. Also, מכרכר is rendered as "praising" — saying songs and praises to the Almighty — in order to elicit the revelation of prophecy, for praises and lauds draw forth hidden powers, as is known29.
At the rejoicing in the City of David, "מפזז" ("leaping") is also mentioned, indicating an abundance of dancing30. Outside the city it was not so, or there was no dancing at all. Dancing, it is explained in Chassidus, comes from the joy permeating a person through and through, until it reaches even the feet.
That is why the word "leaping" is mentioned specifically in the second verse: the joy outside the city had a purpose — prophecy and the resting of the Shechinah — and consequently it was limited; it was not entirely through and through. The joy of the City of David, specifically, was a joy without a purpose, and consequently without limit; there, there was also "leaping."
14. With this we will also understand why Michal the daughter of Shaul could not accept David's leaping and dancing before G‑d in the City of David.
As for joy with a calculation — although it is indeed the case that "אין רואים את המלך" ("one may not see the king")31 when he is engaged in such matters as weaken "שום תשים עליך מלך — שתהא אימתו עליך" ("You shall surely set a king over you — that his awe be upon you") — nevertheless, since it has a purpose, it has a place within reason and understanding, according to intellect. But the leaping and dancing in the City of David, which was beyond limitation, beyond reason and understanding — this she could not accept.
15. With this we will also understand what David answered her: "who chose me over your father." He thereby pointed out the difference in the order of Divine service. Shaul's service was according to reason and understanding, which is why Shaul did not want to destroy Amalek completely, because according to intellect it emerged that one should keep "the best of the sheep and the cattle, in order to sacrifice to G‑d your G‑d," as he said to Shmuel.
And this is what David said, "who chose me over your father": from Shaul, who followed reason, the kingship was taken away and given "לצוות אותי נגיד" ("to appoint me ruler") — specifically to David, whose service is acceptance of the yoke, as it is written "ודוד עבדי" ("and My servant David"). So if one wants there to be an enduring kingship, there must be acceptance of the yoke: "ונקלותי גו׳ והייתי שפל גו׳" ("and I will be held even more lightly ... and I will be lowly ...") — without the limitation of intellect.
16. This is also a support for the custom among Chassidim — and so it was also seen with the Rebbeim — that on Shabbos and Yom Tov one dances, claps one's hands, etc. Although according to the Mishnah this requires a special explanation according to nigleh (the revealed part of Torah)32, it is nevertheless done in a simple manner. One must say the inner reason, as mentioned above:
Since we are coming ever closer to Moshiach —
— right after the destruction [of the Beis HaMikdash] we already began going toward Moshiach, as the Midrash relates33, that from the moment of the destruction it took only as long as a cow's lowing and the redeemer of Israel was born; and from moment to moment we come ever closer to the time of "ועבדי דוד מלך עליהם" ("and My servant David shall be king over them") — over all Israel — "נשיא להם לעולם" ("a prince for them forever")34 —
Therefore one conducts oneself — and as the Rambam rules35 — in the manner of "My servant David": "leaping and dancing before G‑d."
(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Shemini 5715)
Notes
1) Tzafnas Pa'neach (by the Rogatchover) on the Rambam, beginning of Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros — all of this is noted there at length. Compare also Moreh Nevuchim, Part III, ch. 48. See also Likkutei Sichos vol. 2, p. 375 ff.
2) Bechoros 5b.
3) Shabbos, end of ch. 9. See also Chullin, end of ch. 3, and Chiddushei Aggados there.
4) Tosafos s.v. "Tarnegolta," Niddah 3b.
5) Ramban on the Torah, Vayikra 11:13, and elsewhere. See also Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, end of siman 81.
6) Hilchos Talmud Torah of the Alter Rebbe, ch. 4, halacha 3. Tanya, ch. 39.
7) Ramban, beginning of Parshas Kedoshim. See also Tanya, ch. 30.
8) See also above, p. 61 ff., and p. 189 ff.
9) Likkutei Torah, maamar beginning "VeNikdashti." Derech Mitzvosecha, the mitzvah of shaving the metzora.
10) Iggeres HaKodesh, section 9.
11) Sanhedrin 59b.
12) For an additional lesson in this, see Likkutei Sichos vol. 2, p. 378.
13) Sotah 47a. Sanhedrin 107b.
14) See also above, p. 99 ff.; Likkutei Sichos vol. 2, p. 316 ff.
15) Avos, ch. 1, mishnah 12.
16) Tanya, ch. 32.
17) Rambam, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah, ch. 9, halacha 3.
18) Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, siman 82, se'if 3.
19) See above, p. 218 ff.
20) Ch. 25.
21) See Tosafos s.v. "Abaye" (Eruvin 97a); Tosafos s.v. "Mishe'as" (Menachos 35b); Tosafos s.v. "Ve'idach" (Chullin 40a); Seder HaDoros, year 4930.
22) Explained at length in the maamar beginning "Acharei Mos" of 5649, and that of 5675 (in Hemshech 5672, vol. 2).
23) This is understood even better in light of the story the Maggid told the Alter Rebbe of what he saw in a vision: how Moshe Rabbeinu answered the young schoolchildren [OCR unclear: במשנ״ז] regarding "ויפול אברהם על פניו ויצחק גו׳" ("And Avraham fell upon his face and laughed, etc.") — that all the interpretations are true, and a verse does not depart from its plain meaning; and if you ask how it is possible that Avraham should be in doubt about the word of G‑d, know that this stems from the body, for even a holy body is flesh (HaTamim, vol. 2, p. 91; Kovetz Michtavim regarding the recitation of Tehillim, p. 70; Igros Kodesh of the Previous Rebbe, vol. 3, pp. 454–455).
24) End of Hilchos Klei HaMikdash.
25) The reason the Rambam did not bring a proof from David, who was not of the tribe of Levi at all — which would seemingly be a stronger proof — was explained at length in the sicha; this is not the place for it.
26) Shabbos 92a.
27) Sanhedrin, ch. 10, halacha 2.
28) Shabbos 30b.
29) Hosafos to Torah Or, Vayechi. Derech Mitzvosecha, the mitzvah of Hallel.
30) See Radak there (II Shmuel 6:16), and the Targum there.
31) Sanhedrin 22a.
32) Beitzah 36b. Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 339, se'if 3. Responsa Minchas Elazar, vol. 1, siman 29.
33) See Likkutei Sichos vol. 2, p. 359 ff.
34) Yechezkel 37:24–25.
35) End of Hilchos Lulav: "The joy with which a person rejoices in performing a mitzvah and in the love of G‑d etc. ... and so David, King of Israel, said, 'and I will be held even more lightly'" [OCR unclear — the rest of this note is cut off in the source].
Key Lesson
A Jew's involvement with the physical world must be like the hooves of a kosher animal: separated from earthliness, split through and through so that G‑dliness shines even in worldly matters, and "chewed over" carefully before acting — while never bending the Torah in order to draw others close. Above all, even at the loftiest levels, everything must rest on kabbalas ol, which is why Chassidim, following "My servant David," rejoice with leaping and dancing beyond the limits of reason.