Parshas Acharei
1. In this week's Torah portion, after the verse relates all the details of the commands concerning the order of the service of Yom Kippur, which the Almighty told Moshe to pass on to Aharon, it concludes1: "ויעש כאשר צוה ה' את משה" ("And he did as G‑d commanded Moshe").
Rashi pauses on the words "And he did as G‑d commanded, etc." and explains: "כשהגיע יום הכפורים עשה כסדר הזה, ולהגיד שבחו של אהרן שלא הי' לובשן לגדולתו אלא כמקיים גזירת מלך" ("When Yom Kippur arrived he did according to this order; and [it is stated] to tell the praise of Aharon, that he would not wear them2 for his own greatness, but as one who fulfills the decree of the King").
The commentators3 say that Rashi comes here to explain two separate things. With the words "When Yom Kippur arrived he did according to this order," he explains that "And he did as [G‑d] commanded, etc." did not take place immediately after he was commanded. (That command was given "אחרי מות שני בני אהרן" ("after the death of Aharon's two sons"), that is, on Rosh Chodesh Nissan, or at least close4 to Rosh Chodesh Nissan, and the doing could not take place before Yom Kippur.) And with the words "and to tell his praise, etc." Rashi explains what the verse as a whole comes to let us know with "And he did, etc."5
According to this, however, it is not understood:
a) Generally, when Rashi explains two separate matters in a given word, he divides his commentary into two separate comments (by quoting the wording of the verse once again before the second matter). Why, then, in our verse, does Rashi include two separate matters, the time of "And he did" and the novelty of "And he did," in one and the same comment?6
b) Moreover: the first matter (the time) relates to the word "And he did," whereas the second matter (the novelty) relates to the entire conclusion of the verse. Surely there should have been two separate comments!7
c) Earlier there is an explicit verse stating that all the matters in this portion must be done "בחודש השביעי בעשור לחדש" ("in the seventh month, on the tenth of the month")8. It is therefore self-understood that Aharon did it on Yom Kippur. What, then, is Rashi adding with his explanation "When Yom Kippur arrived"?
d) According to the above, that at the beginning of his comment Rashi explains only the time of the doing, he should have said only "When Yom Kippur arrived." Why does he add the words "he did according to this order"?
We must therefore say that with these words too he explains what is accomplished by "And he did" [for the fact that "he did according to this order" is also a novelty].
But this itself requires explanation: why would one think that Aharon performed a different order of service, not "as G‑d commanded Moshe," to the point that the verse needs to tell us anew that "he did according to this order"9?
Furthermore: since Rashi holds that "he did according to this order" is indeed a novelty, he could seemingly have explained that the entire novelty of the verse consists only of the fact that "he did according to this order." What is Rashi adding, and from where does he derive it, that the verse also comes "to tell his praise, etc., that he would not wear them for his own greatness, etc."?
One can likewise ask from the other direction: since Rashi explains that the verse "And he did, etc." comes "to tell his praise, etc.," why does he also need to say (or, what is the proof that) "he did according to this order"?
2. The explanation of all this is as follows:
The entire portion (beginning from the start of the Sidra), including also "והיתה זאת לכם לחקת עולם גו'" ("And this shall be for you an eternal statute, etc."), the beginning of our verse, was said (as mentioned in section 1) close to Rosh Chodesh Nissan.
Accordingly, there would have been room to say that the "And he did, etc.," which appears in the same verse as "And this shall be, etc., once a year," also took place immediately after the command concerning it (and not on Yom Kippur, half a year later; especially since the portions that follow it, "וידבר גו' איש איש גו'" ("And He spoke, etc. Any man, etc."), until the beginning of Bamidbar, were also said during that time, before "the first of the second month," a considerable time before Yom Kippur).
And although it is not possible to say that Aharon actually carried out the command before Yom Kippur, one would explain that "And he did" here means that Aharon accepted upon himself to perform the service, similar to "וילכו ויעשו" ("And they went and did") stated in Parshas Bo10, and this indeed took place immediately when he heard the command.
Therefore Rashi explains "When Yom Kippur arrived," through which he teaches that the meaning of "And he did" here is literal, and not as in Parshas Bo.
And Rashi's compelling reason for this (even though it follows from this that the same verse speaks about two separate times) is simply understood. In Parshas Bo10 the verse teaches something new with the wording "And they did": "מכיון שקבלו עליהם מעלה עליהם הכתוב כאילו עשו" ("Since they accepted it upon themselves, Scripture credits them as if they had done it"). But once the verse has already said this in Parshas Bo, one understands on one's own that Aharon too, since he accepted it upon himself, is considered as if he had done it. Why then would the verse need to tell us this11? Therefore Rashi explains "When Yom Kippur arrived," and the meaning of "And he did" here is literal11*.
The student, however, asks: even according to the literal meaning of "And he did," there is a difficulty: what is the novelty in the fact that Aharon did "as G‑d commanded, etc."12? Therefore Rashi continues: "he did according to this order, and to tell his praise, etc.," meaning that according to this explanation the novelty is indeed understood, since the verse comes here to teach two things: (a) "he did according to this order," and (b) "to tell his praise, etc., that he would not wear them for his own greatness, but as one who fulfills the decree of the King." The explanation of this is as follows:
3. On the verse "ובא אהרן אל אהל מועד" ("And Aharon shall come into the Tent of Meeting")13, Rashi says: "אמרו רבותינו שאין זה מקומו של מקרא זה... כל הפרשה כולה נאמרה על הסדר חוץ מביאה זו" ("Our Rabbis said that this is not the proper place of this verse... the entire portion was stated in order, except for this entry, etc.").
And this is precisely what our verse here teaches with "And he did as G‑d commanded, etc.": he did according to this order14. That is, Aharon did it in the order which (I, Rashi, have told you, which) already appears earlier in Rashi's commentary, even though Moshe Rabbeinu told him the commands in a different order, in the order in which they appear in the Torah.
But Rashi cannot end his commentary with this, for it is seemingly contrary to the plain meaning of the verse. According to this, the novelty in "he did according to this order" is that Aharon did not act in the order in which the Almighty told Moshe. How then can one say about this, "And he did as G‑d commanded Moshe"15?
Therefore Rashi says "and to tell his praise, etc., as one who fulfills the decree of the King." That is, the fact that regarding "And he did," whose accomplishment is that "he did according to this order," the verse uses the wording "as G‑d commanded, etc.," means that the main point and emphasis is not on "as" but on "commanded." The verse thereby wishes to say that Aharon did it solely because "G‑d commanded," "as one who fulfills the decree of the King."
4. But Rashi also does not want to explain that with "And he did, etc." the verse intends to relate only "that he would not wear them for his own greatness, etc.," because this praise fits [according to Rashi's approach16] only the matter of wearing the garments, as Rashi says, "that he would not wear them for his own greatness," since the priestly garments are "לכבוד ולתפארת" ("for honor and for glory")17, but not the other commands in the portion. And since "And he did" refers to all the commands18 of the portion, Rashi therefore explains that the main meaning of "And he did" is that he did (all the commands) according to this order19. Only the wording "as G‑d commanded" comes "to tell20 his praise, etc., as one who fulfills the decree of the King."
5. Another reason why one cannot explain that "And he did, etc." means only "to tell his praise, etc." will be understood after a preface:
When Rashi explains the praise of Aharon, that he put on the garments not for his own greatness, he uses the wording "that he would not wear them for his own greatness" (and not as in the Toras Kohanim, "that he would not wear garments"21). That is, he did not put on them, the garments stated in this portion22, for his own greatness.
By this Rashi means to bring out that (the fact that he put on the eight garments, which a) he wore all year round, and b) include also the golden garments, not for his own greatness involves no novelty, and the praise of Aharon does not consist in this. Rather,) the fact that he put on the white garments (of Yom Kippur) not for his own greatness, this is the praise of Aharon.
This needs to be understood: the golden garments are seemingly more important than the white linen garments23 [as can also be seen from the fact that in the command concerning the priestly garments, "for honor and for glory," the verse24 lists the golden garments before the garments of fine linen]. Why, then, should the novelty and praise "that he would not wear them for his own greatness" apply to the white garments more than to the golden garments25? And why only the white garments of Yom Kippur?
The explanation of this is as follows:
Regarding the golden garments, from the outset there could be no thought that Aharon put them on for his own greatness (because of his personal greatness, and not because of the greatness, the honor and glory, of the High Priesthood in general), since the very same garments could later be worn (by himself, when he stands at a different level, or) by the High Priest after him (even though he stands at a lower level). It is therefore clear that this is not for his own greatness (that of Aharon). The same applies to the white garments worn all year round.
The white garments that he put on on Yom Kippur, however, are different. Since (as Rashi said earlier26) "לא ישתמש באותן ארבעה בגדים ליום כפורים אחר" ("he may not use those four garments for another Yom Kippur"), one could think: if the garments relate to the matter of the High Priesthood in general (or in general to the service of Yom Kippur and the like), why may he not put on next year the same garments he wore the previous year?
It would seemingly follow from this that the garments are for his own greatness, and since a person changes from time to time (from year to year), he must therefore have different linen garments every year on Yom Kippur27. And about this the verse relates the praise of Aharon: that even the white garments which he changed from year to year, "he would not wear them for his own greatness, etc."
6. According to all the above, it is simply understood why Rashi does not want to explain that "And he did" means only the novelty "that he would not wear them for his own greatness":
The praise "that he would not wear them, etc." applies mainly at the second Yom Kippur, when it will be seen28 that he puts on new garments. But the plain meaning of "And he did, etc." is that this (with all the matters it includes) took place "when Yom Kippur arrived," immediately at the first Yom Kippur. Therefore Rashi explains that the main meaning of "And he did" is "when (the first) Yom Kippur arrived he did according to this order." Only the fact that the wording "as G‑d commanded, etc." is used is "to tell the praise of Aharon, that he would not wear them for his own greatness, but as one who fulfills the decree of the King."
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Acharei 5730)
Notes
1) 16:34.
2) Rashi's wording "שלא הי' לובשן" ("that he would not wear them," a continuous form), and not "שלא לבשן" ("that he did not wear them") in the past tense (as he says just before, "he did according to this order"), can be explained by the fact that he would (change them and) put them on several times (Rashi above, verse 4).
3) Re'em and Gur Aryeh here.
4) Especially according to Rashi's explanation at the beginning of the portion: "It came after, etc.; this is an urging, etc."
5) The Re'em here asks: why does Rashi not explain "ויעשו את הפסח" ("And they made the Pesach offering," Behaaloscha 9:5), and likewise "ויעש משה" ("And Moshe did," Korach 17:26)? One could similarly ask regarding many other verses in which "And he did" or the like is stated and Rashi does not explain them. But it was already explained in the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Tzav 5725 that in all these verses one can say that they were stated for the sake of the continuation of the matter that follows them. For example, "And they made the Pesach offering" comes as a lead-in to what is stated afterwards, "And there were men, etc., who could not make the Pesach offering, etc." The same applies to the other verses (for the above reason or a similar one), as explained at length in that sicha.
6) Also: why does Rashi quote (before his explanation) "And he did as G‑d commanded, etc."? Seemingly, what is relevant to his explanation "as one who fulfills the decree of the King" is only "And he did as G‑d commanded" (see below, end of section 3). Why then does he allude with "etc." also to the words "Moshe"? And if these words are also relevant to his explanation, why does he not quote them explicitly?
7) See also above in our portion, 3; and in Shemini (11:2), three comments beginning "זאת" ("This").
8) Ibid., 29. Also at the beginning of the portion (verse 3) Rashi explains "but only on Yom Kippur, etc."
9) In the Toras Kohanim here: "From where do we know that the entire portion was stated in order? The verse teaches, 'And he did as G‑d commanded Moshe.'" But according to the plain meaning, on the contrary: every time Rashi explains that "there is no earlier and later in the Torah," he brings a proof for it, and as long as there is no proof, etc., it is obvious that the portion was stated in order (see above, p. 119, note 13, and the gloss there).
10) 12:28. See Rashi there.
11) Similar to "ואלה תולדות נח נח איש צדיק" ("These are the offspring of Noach; Noach was a righteous man"), "to teach you that the main offspring of the righteous are good deeds" (Rashi at the beginning of Noach). This is not stated regarding the righteous who came after him (see Likkutei Sichos, vol. 5, p. 39).
11*) According to what is stated in the text, it is understood why in each place where "And he did" or the like is stated, Rashi explains it differently than in the other places (they are listed in the Re'em here and in the Gur Aryeh at the end of Tzav), for one cannot say that the same novelty would be written twice.
12) Also: if we were to say that there is a novelty in this, similar to Rashi's explanation at the end of Tzav, "to tell their praise, that they did not turn right or left," then since Scripture already taught this novelty in Parshas Tzav, one cannot say that it writes this novelty again in our portion (see the previous note).
13) 16:23.
14) As is precise in Rashi's wording there: "it was stated, etc., except, etc.," and not "it was written, etc., except, etc."
15) And although "as G‑d commanded, etc." also includes the intent of the Holy One, blessed be He, which He did not state explicitly (note Rashi, Pekudei 38:22), nevertheless, since the entire main intent of the verse is to tell us that "he did according to this order," which was not stated explicitly, the verse would have needed to say this in a different wording, and not in the wording "as G‑d commanded," whose plain meaning is the command that was stated explicitly in speech. (Parshas Pekudei is different, since there it is a change from the wording that should have been written; see Rashi there.) See further below, note 20.
16) See also the Toras Kohanim here: "that Aharon does not wear garments, etc." (and see below, section 5). But the Ohr HaChayim here writes "rather he did everything to fulfill the command of G‑d," which implies that he explains it as referring to all the services of Yom Kippur. See further below, notes 18 and 25 (in the gloss).
17) Tetzaveh 28:2.
18) One can say that this is the reason of the Ohr HaChayim, who explains it unlike what is stated in the Toras Kohanim here (see above, note 16).
19) For the "order" relates to all the matters of the portion.
20) That is, also to tell his praise. But it is obvious that it comes mainly as a continuation of "And he did: he did according to this order," for "this order" too is what G‑d commanded, only He did not tell it to Moshe explicitly. One can say that this is also Rashi's intent in alluding to the words "Moshe" with "etc." (see above, note 6): that "this order" too is included in "G‑d commanded Moshe" [for Aharon understood the order of how to act from the words that Moshe told him as he heard them from G‑d]. Nevertheless, he does not quote these words explicitly but only alludes to them with "etc.," because this matter (concerning the order) was not stated fully in the command to Moshe; rather, we learn it through a "reason" given by our Rabbis (see Rashi 16:23). [This is unlike Pekudei (cited above in note 15), where Rashi therefore explains that Moshe was told as it was actually done, which is not the case here. Here too one sees the great precision of Rashi's wording. "Turn it over and turn it over again."]
21) See the Rambam's Sefer HaMitzvos, positive commandment 33: "And it already appears in the Sifri... that Aharon does not wear these garments for his own greatness... even though they are of the utmost beauty, being of gold and onyx and jasper, etc." That is, he explains that the Sifri speaks of the High Priest's garments of the whole year.
22) 16:4. And although in Rashi there (s.v. "ורחץ במים" ("and he shall bathe in water")) the golden garments are also mentioned, nevertheless one cannot say that Rashi's intent in "would wear them" refers to the garments he mentioned earlier in his commentary (similar to "according to this order," which refers to the order given in his commentary, as mentioned in section 2), because Rashi mentions these garments only incidentally, in connection with "and he shall bathe in water" (unlike the order given above on verse 23, which is the explanation of the verses).
*) From the fact that he mentions (there, s.v. "כתונת בד" ("a linen tunic"), etc.) "eight garments," there is no difficulty in the first place, for on the contrary, what is stated there is "that he does not serve inside [in the Holy of Holies] in the eight garments."
23) As is also understood from the Sefer HaMitzvos there. It is likewise understood from the fact that only the High Priest had these garments.
24) Tetzaveh 28:4, which comes as a continuation of "ועשית בגדי קדש גו' לכבוד ולתפארת" ("And you shall make holy garments, etc., for honor and for glory," ibid., 2).
25) And although the praise of Aharon, that he did not wear them for his own greatness, is stated specifically in this portion, which proves that this novelty relates to (the service of) Yom Kippur*, and the novelty of Yom Kippur regarding the garments (since only regarding them is "for honor and for glory" stated) lies in the white garments, it still requires a reason: what is the novelty (regarding greatness) of the white garments of Yom Kippur over the eight garments which he wore throughout the year?
*) One can say that for this reason too the Ohr HaChayim departs from the Toras Kohanim (see above, note 16): since, regarding the garments, the white garments of Yom Kippur do not (simply) carry more "greatness" than the eight garments of the whole year, he therefore explains it as referring to the service of Yom Kippur as a whole. Note Rambam, Laws of the Yom Kippur Service, ch. 2, halachah 5.
26) Verse 23, s.v. "והניחם שם" ("and he shall leave them there").
27) The reason this command does not apply to the other garments of the High Priest (nor to the garments of an ordinary Kohen) can simply be explained by the fact that the ultimate purpose of "honor and glory" is in the service in the Holy of Holies.
28) For until then one could say that "he shall leave them there" means that they are designated for his service and his greatness on Yom Kippur. Especially the people, who see that the garments are put away, would surely interpret it so, and the main point of "for honor and for glory" and greatness is in the eyes of the onlookers. See the Moreh Nevuchim (part 3, ch. 45), that it must be "for honor and for glory"... "because the masses do not regard a person as great according to his true form, but according to the perfection of his limbs and the beauty of his garments."
Key Lesson
Aharon's greatness was that even when serving in the holiest garments, ones that seemed made for his personal honor, he wore them only because G‑d commanded it, "as one who fulfills the decree of the King." So too, every Jew should perform even the most exalted and distinguished acts not for personal stature, but purely out of acceptance of G‑d's will.