Parshas Shemini
1. On the verse1 "ואת שעיר החטאת דרש דרש משה והנה שורף" ("And Moshe diligently inquired about the goat of the sin-offering, and behold, it had been burnt"), our Sages say2 that on the eighth day of the inauguration (Shemini LaMilu'im) three sin-offering goats were offered: "שעיר עזים ושעיר נחשון ושעיר ר"ח ומכולן לא נשרף אלא זה" ("the goat [of the day], the goat of Nachshon, and the goat of Rosh Chodesh, and of all of them only this one was burnt")3 — the goat of Rosh Chodesh. And therefore "ויקצוף (משה) גו' מדוע לא אכלתם את החטאת גו'" ("And (Moshe) was angry… 'Why did you not eat the sin-offering…'")4, and Aharon answered him: "הן היום הקריבו את חטאתם גו' ותקראנה גו' ואכלתי חטאת היום הייטב בעיני ה'. וישמע משה וייטב בעיניו" ("Behold, today they have offered their sin-offering… and such things have befallen me… had I eaten the sin-offering today, would it have been good in the eyes of G‑d? And Moshe heard, and it was good in his eyes")5.
One of the explanations of our Sages6 of the discussion between Moshe and Aharon — whether the goat of Rosh Chodesh should have been eaten (according to Moshe's initial supposition) or burnt (according to Aharon's view) — is:
Aharon and his sons were onenim (mourners before the burial, through the passing of Nadav and Avihu), and an onen is forbidden to [eat] sacred offerings7; but regarding the goat [of the day] and the goat of Nachshon, Moshe had told them "ואכלתם גו' – כי כן צויתי" ("And you shall eat it… for so I have been commanded")8 — "באנינות יאכלוה" ("in aninus they shall eat it")9.
Concerning the goat of Rosh Chodesh, however, Moshe and Aharon differed: Moshe held that they should have eaten the goat of Rosh Chodesh in aninus as well, just like the other two goats, since there was an explicit permission (for the offerings of that day), "For so I have been commanded — in aninus they shall eat it"; Aharon held [otherwise] and answered him: "שמא לא שמעת אלא בקדשי שעה דאי בקדשי דורות ק"ו ממעשר הקל ומה מעשר הקל אמרה תורה לא אכלתי באוני ממנו בקדשי דורות לא כל שכן" ("Perhaps you heard [the permission] only concerning kodshei sha'ah, temporary offerings (the goat [of the day] and the goat of Nachshon); but regarding kodshei doros, offerings for all generations, there is a kal vachomer from maaser, which is lighter: if concerning maaser, which is lighter, the Torah said10 'I did not eat of it in my mourning,' then concerning kodshei doros, how much more so!").
And immediately, "וישמע משה וייטב בעיניו הודה ולא בוש (משה) לומר לא שמעתי אלא (אמר) שמעתי ושכחתי" ("And Moshe heard, and it was good in his eyes — he admitted, and (Moshe) was not ashamed to say 'I did not hear,' but rather (he said11) 'I heard and forgot'").
2. We need to understand:
Why did Aharon need to say "(but regarding kodshei doros) a kal vachomer from the lighter maaser etc."? Aharon was not seeking to inform Moshe anew of the general law that an onen is forbidden to [eat] sacred offerings12 (Moshe knew this beforehand as well, and from this very occurrence — from the fact that G‑d had to tell him "I have been commanded," an explicit permission regarding the other goats — "in aninus they shall eat it"13),
— [but rather] to emphasize the distinction that the special permission for aninus applies only to the kodshei sha'ah and not to the kodshei doros (the goat of Rosh Chodesh) — to the exclusion of Moshe's reasoning that the permission included all the offerings of that day.
[If so, what does the kal vachomer from the lighter maaser add here14 (as if without the kal vachomer one could not distinguish between kodshei sha'ah and kodshei doros)?] —
Aharon should have said briefly: "Perhaps you heard concerning kodshei sha'ah, but not concerning kodshei doros!"
This precision is even more striking in light of the fact that we find that Rashi, too, in his commentary on the Torah15 brings the content of the discussion between Moshe and Aharon [that Aharon said that there is a distinction between kodshei sha'ah and kodshei doros] — and Rashi there is indeed brief in his wording: "הייטב בעיני ה' – אם שמעת בקדשי שעה אין לך להקל בקדשי דורות" ("Would it have been good in the eyes of G‑d — if you heard [this] concerning kodshei sha'ah, you have no [basis] to be lenient concerning kodshei doros") (and he does not bring the kal vachomer from the lighter maaser).
3. This will be understood by first noting the precise wording of Rashi cited above: "If you heard concerning kodshei sha'ah, you have no [basis] to be lenient concerning kodshei doros":
From Rashi's wording "you have no [basis] to be lenient" (and not "to learn" or the like — [which would mean] that one cannot learn kodshei doros from kodshei sha'ah at all16) it is evident that the reason kodshei doros cannot be compared to kodshei sha'ah is [not because the permission of aninus (with the kodshei sha'ah) was a "temporary directive"* from which one cannot learn to another case at all17, but] because kodshei doros are more stringent than kodshei sha'ah, and for this reason — "if you heard concerning kodshei sha'ah, you have no [basis] to be lenient concerning kodshei doros."
Accordingly, it is understood why the Gemara adds (in Aharon's words) "a kal vachomer from the lighter maaser" — because according to the approach of the Talmud it is the reverse: kodshei sha'ah are more stringent than kodshei doros, and all the more so than the lightest of the kodshei doros. And the proof of this:
The Gemara18 brings the dispute between Rabbi Yossi HaGlili and the Sages concerning the source of the law that an (outer) sin-offering whose blood was brought into the innermost Sanctuary becomes disqualified and must be burnt: Rabbi Yossi HaGlili learns it from the verse (in our parsha) "הן לא הובא את דמה אל הקודש פנימה" ("Behold, its blood was not brought into the Sanctuary within")19 (Moshe asked Aharon: why was the sin-offering burnt — its blood was not brought "into the Sanctuary within") — "מכלל דאי . . עייל דמה – בשריפה" ("by implication, if… its blood had been brought in — it is to be burnt"). And from this one learns regarding every outer sin-offering whose blood was brought into the innermost Sanctuary that its law is to be burnt. The Sages, however, learn this law from a different verse, and as Rashi20 explains, in their view one cannot learn it from the verse "Behold, its blood was not brought…," because "דורות משעה לא ילפינן" ("we do not learn [the law for] generations from a temporary [case]").
For seemingly, even if we do not learn [one from the other] — what compels [us] to differ and to be more stringent (with the sha'ah)? — From this it is evident that according to the Sages kodshei sha'ah are generally more stringent than kodshei doros21, which is why, although it is stated explicitly regarding "(kodshei) sha'ah" that a sin-offering whose blood was brought into the innermost Sanctuary is to be burnt, one could say that kodshei doros are not (so severe, and are not) to be burnt.
[Moreover: the meaning of "sha'ah" there is not "kodshei sha'ah" in the plain sense (i.e., offerings that were offered only at that time) — for the offering that was burnt was a goat of Rosh Chodesh (as above) — but rather (as Tosafos22 explains) "הוראת שעה היתה" ("it was a temporary directive") (a temporary directive within kodshei doros).]
It follows that according to the Sages23, matters of "sha'ah" are so much more stringent than matters of "doros" that one cannot learn even from a "sha'ah" within kodshei doros (the goat of Rosh Chodesh of the eighth day of the inauguration) — because it is more stringent than ordinary kodshei doros. And all the more so are actual kodshei sha'ah (the goat [of the day] and the goat of Nachshon) more stringent than kodshei doros.
And since "kodshei sha'ah" are (according to the Talmud's approach) more stringent than "kodshei doros," the Gemara cannot say "if you heard concerning kodshei sha'ah, you have no [basis] to be lenient concerning kodshei doros," because, on the contrary: if with the kodshei sha'ah (the stringent ones) there is the leniency of permission to eat in aninus, then all the more so does the leniency — the permission to eat in aninus ("in aninus they shall eat it") — apply to the kodshei doros (of that same occasion24).
Therefore Aharon had to add "but regarding kodshei doros — a kal vachomer from the lighter maaser"*: since we find that the prohibition of aninus applies even to the "lighter maaser," one cannot be lenient with aninus regarding kodshei doros (by learning from kodshei sha'ah); rather, it is reasonable to say that the permission of aninus was a temporary directive only regarding the kodshei sha'ah, and one cannot learn from it.
4. There remains, however, something not understood: what is the reasoning of the dispute whether kodshei doros are more stringent (as is Rashi's approach in his commentary on the Torah), or kodshei sha'ah (as is the Talmud's approach)?
One may say that the dispute is (not about which is more stringent (as above), but rather) about what kind of "kodshei sha'ah" there was here.
Among kodshei sha'ah there are two kinds:
a) Ordinary "kodshei sha'ah," truly one-time (which have no effect or common element with doros), such as the offerings that Eliyahu offered on Mount Carmel. And it is reasonable that these (kodshei sha'ah) are lighter than kodshei doros (as in the above example — that for Eliyahu's offerings on Mount Carmel the prohibition of slaughtering outside [the Sanctuary] was permitted).
b) "Kodshei sha'ah" which, although their actual offering is only at that time, their essence and content is an effect for generations. Such as the offerings of the days of inauguration, which inaugurated the Mishkan, and similarly the offerings of the Nesi'im for the dedication of the altar. And this kind of kodshei sha'ah is, understandably, more stringent than ordinary offerings (kodshei doros), because through them are accomplished, and on them depend, matters for generations.
And similarly in our case itself — regarding the goat [of the day] and the goat of Nachshon: the category of "kodshei sha'ah" can apply to them in two ways. By way of introduction: the discussion here is (not about their offering upon the altar, but) about the eating by the Kohanim. And in this one can consider whether the eating by the Kohanim is also part of the dedication of the Mishkan and the altar:
According to the plain meaning, it seems that the eating by people (the Kohanim) has no connection with the inauguration of the Mishkan and the altar:
Not only the goat (of the eighth day of the inauguration) — i.e., an offering connected with the inauguration of the days of inauguration — for then (at the time the goat was eaten) it was already after Aharon's offerings had already accomplished (through being offered upon the altar) the inauguration, and in its completeness, to the point that "תשרה שכינה בכם" ("the Shechinah shall rest among you")25; and — "ותצא אש מלפני ה' ותאכל על המזבח גו'" ("And fire went forth from before G‑d and consumed upon the altar…")26, and consequently the eating by the Kohanim afterward accomplishes nothing in the inauguration of the Mishkan and the altar (for generations):
But even the goat of Nachshon, with which began the twelve days of the dedication of the altar (through the offerings of the Nesi'im) — it is nevertheless reasonable to say according to the plain meaning that the "dedication of the altar" is connected with the offering upon the altar in the Mishkan, but not with the eating by the Kohanim.
— It follows that according to Rashi's commentary on the Torah, the eating by the Kohanim of the "kodshei sha'ah" does not pertain to generations; rather, it is a one-time matter, i.e., it belongs to the first kind (mentioned above) of kodshei sha'ah, which are lighter than kodshei doros; and consequently (in Rashi's words) — "if you heard ('in aninus they shall eat it') concerning kodshei sha'ah (the lighter ones), you have no [basis] to be lenient concerning kodshei doros (the more stringent ones)."
In the study according to halachah, however, just as we find concerning the atonement brought about by an offering that "כהנים אוכלים ובעלים מתכפרים" ("the Kohanim eat and the owners are atoned")27*, so too (according to halachah) concerning all the effects of an offering — including the effects of the offerings in our case: the inauguration of the Mishkan and the altar — the eating by the Kohanim is connected with it and brings it about.
It follows that (also) the eating by the Kohanim of the goat [of the day] and the goat of Nachshon pertains to generations, and therefore the approach of the Talmud is that kodshei sha'ah are more stringent than kodshei doros, and therefore Aharon had to resort to the "kal vachomer from the lighter [maaser]" (as explained above at length).
5. According to the above explanation of the difference between the approach of the Talmud and the approach of Rashi in his commentary on the Torah regarding Aharon's argument, we will also understand the difference between them regarding Moshe's admission, "And Moshe heard, and it was good in his eyes":
In the Gemara6 it says: "He admitted, and (Moshe) was not ashamed to say 'I did not hear,' but rather (he said) 'I heard and forgot'" — that with Moshe there was forgetting involved; whereas Rashi in his commentary on the Torah28 brings (not the wording of the Talmud, but) along the lines of the wording of Toras Kohanim29: "He admitted, and was not ashamed to say 'I did not hear'" — the plain meaning of Rashi's wording being (as discussed at length on another occasion30) that Moshe was not ashamed to say that he had not heard the distinction between kodshei sha'ah and kodshei doros from G‑d (but there was no forgetting involved).
One may say that "each follows his own approach":
According to the approach of the Talmud, that Aharon's basis is only the "kal vachomer from the lighter [maaser]" (because on grounds of reasoning (without the kal vachomer) Aharon too would have agreed that the goat of Rosh Chodesh must be eaten in aninus, all the more so than the kodshei sha'ah, which are more stringent) — one must say that the reason Moshe (initially) held otherwise is because at the time of the event he did not know the lesson of the "lighter maaser"31; here there was forgetting — Moshe our teacher forgot the law (and lesson) of maaser.
According to Rashi's commentary on the Torah, however, the difference between Moshe's initial supposition and Aharon's view was a matter of reasoning: Moshe held that the permission of aninus is connected with the day, as the eighth day of the inauguration32, and consequently in this there is no difference between kodshei sha'ah and kodshei doros; and Aharon introduced the novel point that the permission of aninus applies only to the special offerings (of that day as [one of] the days of inauguration), but one cannot on that account be lenient with the goat of Rosh Chodesh, which is of the kodshei doros.
And therefore Rashi does not say that there was forgetting with Moshe — because regarding a line of reasoning it does not fit to say: [there was] forgetting, and therefore one says [something] contrary to reason! One can forget a law, as in "נתעלמה ממנו הלכה" ("the halachah was hidden from him")33, but there is no place to say that one forgot a line of reasoning (one can make an error in reasoning34, but not forget it).
Rather, according to the plain meaning of Scripture, Moshe said "I did not hear" — he had not heard the distinction from G‑d.
6. From every matter one must derive a lesson in the service of man [to G‑d]35. One may say that the lesson of the above matter is how careful one must be in matters that are akin to "kodshei sha'ah":
There are matters in one's service [of G‑d] that are akin to "kodshei doros" — fixed matters that exist from generation to generation without change; and there are matters akin to "kodshei sha'ah" — new matters "שתלמיד ותיק עתיד לחדש" ("that a seasoned student will in the future innovate"), enactments of the great leaders of Israel that are called for by the needs of the time, "בקעה מצא וגדר בה גדר" ("he found an open field and fenced it in")36, and the like.
In the things to which one has been accustomed from generation to generation, there are not (so many) difficulties in overcoming the evil inclination, since one has already passed through the "כל התחלות קשות" ("all beginnings are difficult")37; and moreover — habit becomes nature. But regarding the forms of service that are akin to "kodshei sha'ah," the evil inclination opposes them forcefully: "What makes this day different from other days?", "the custom of our fathers is without this innovation," etc. — until he makes himself into a leader and halachic authority of the generation [deciding] what the need of the time is.
Therefore, extra caution is required with a new form of service (and especially — one that is not merely a matter of the moment38, but also pertains to generations), more and more than with the regular forms of service (which are akin to kodshei doros).
And this is learned from the above explanation (according to the approach of the Talmud), that the fact that the "kodshei sha'ah" were eaten in aninus (and the "kodshei doros" burnt) was only a temporary directive for that day; but the regular order must be the opposite way — that the kodshei sha'ah are (harder, and consequently) more stringent than kodshei doros: even where one may "eat" the kodshei doros, that is still no proof that one may "eat" the kodshei sha'ah.
And as we find with the offerings of the inauguration, that the first offering that Aharon brought — a bull for a sin-offering — he did not eat (as with a sin-offering of kodshei doros), but rather — "תשרוף באש" ("you shall burn in fire")39.
For with kodshei doros, where the evil inclination does not oppose (to such an extent), one can "allow oneself" the pleasure of eating the offering, in which there is enjoyment, and the body too derives enjoyment (and pleasure) from it; whereas with "kodshei sha'ah," regarding which the evil inclination works most intensely to confuse etc., one must have extra caution regarding eating40. When one feels a personal taste, and especially a physical one, this gives a place where the evil inclination can gain a foothold, etc. —
Rather, there must be the burning of the offering, complete self-nullification.
7. And this is also the practical lesson in our generation:
According to all the signs at the end of Tractate Sotah, we now find ourselves in the very "עקבתא דמשיחא" ("the heels of Moshiach," the period just before Moshiach's coming), and as my father-in-law, the Rebbe, said41, "הנה עומד אחר כתלנו" ("Behold, he stands behind our wall"), and in which there are "windows and lattices" — the need of the time is to prepare oneself (together with one's entire surroundings) to greet our righteous Moshiach.
— One must know that in this service one must have extra caution (including — alacrity), and it must be done with complete self-sacrifice and devotion, "בכל מאדך" ("with all your might").
When speaking of kodshei doros — the regular forms of service — there is room for the service to be an orderly service according to reason and understanding, in which one does not lose (entirely) one's own existence — one has pleasure in it, even to the point of bodily enjoyment (— from the mitzvah, or in order to serve G‑d, and the like42);
When, however, speaking of the need of the time to prepare for Moshiach — kodshei sha'ah — one must remember that this is a time-bound matter, which overrides other matters, and one must put oneself into it in a manner beyond measure and limitation, until one becomes totally absorbed in it, until one's own existence is lost (— akin to the burning of the offering).
And this itself brings our righteous Moshiach, whose coming is in a manner of "היסח הדעת" ("when the mind is diverted")43 (beyond the level of daas44) — "מצאתי דוד עבדי" ("I have found David My servant")45 — in the true and complete Redemption, speedily in our days, literally.
(From the sichos of Acharon shel Pesach, Shabbos Parshas Shemini, and Shabbos Parshas Tazria, 5742)
Notes
1) Our parsha, 10:16.
2) Toras Kohanim (and Rashi) on the verse. Zevachim 101b.
3) Rashi's wording.
4) Our parsha, there, 16–17.
5) There, 19–20.
6) Zevachim there, 101a (Rava's answer).
7) See below in the text.
8) Our parsha, there, 13. However, there it refers to the meal-offering (as is explicit in the preceding verse, "Take the meal-offering," and in Rashi: "This is the meal-offering of the eighth day and the meal-offering of Nachshon." See also Rashi there, 18). And see Rashi there, 16: "But regarding the temporary offerings, they relied on Moshe, who told them regarding the meal-offering, 'and eat it as matzos.'"
9) Zevachim there, beginning of 101a ([OCR unclear]). Toras Kohanim and Rashi on the verse.
10) Tavo 26:14.
11) In the Shitah Mekubetzes this word is absent.
12) In Vayikra Rabbah on our parsha (13:1; and see Avos DeRabbi Nassan ch. 37, 12): "Since he became angry, the halachah that an onen is forbidden to eat sacred offerings was hidden from him… immediately Aharon expounded a kal vachomer to Moshe: if maaser, which is lighter, etc." And so it is according to Shmuel (Zevachim there), "this is [the view of] Rabbi Yehudah and this is [the view of] Rabbi Nechemiah," according to Rashi's approach there, that according to Shmuel, Rabbi Nechemiah does not hold "for so I have been commanded — in aninus they shall eat it," and "regarding aninus Moshe was not warned to expound a kal vachomer" (that is, Moshe held that there is no prohibition of aninus with sacred offerings). But according to Rava's answer, that Rabbi Nechemiah too holds "in aninus they shall eat it," Moshe knew of the prohibition for an onen to eat sacred offerings, as is explicit in Rashi there, s.v. Idi v'idi (and see also Rashi on the verse (10:12): "Take the meal-offering — even though you are onenim and sacred offerings are forbidden to an onen"), except that "Moshe, when he became angry, erred, etc." concerning the distinction between "sha'ah" and "doros." And see below in the text, section 5.
13) See also Sfas Emes and Keren Orah on Zevachim there.
14) As the question of the Sfas Emes there. And his answer, "the Gemara teaches us in passing the main reason why an onen is forbidden," requires, in our humble opinion, great investigation and explanation.
15) 10:19, s.v. Hayitav. And see Rashi there, 16 (s.v. Se'ir hachatas) onward, and the commentators on Rashi. This is not the place [to elaborate].
16) Especially since Rashi changes from his wording in Pesachim (83a), "we do not learn [the law for] generations from a temporary [case]" — as cited below in the text.
*) See Menachos 19b, and the sources cited there.
17) Especially since both are the same offerings, and in the vast majority of their laws they are equal — it is not at all reasonable to say that they are not in the same category at all (so as to learn one from the other). And to say that they are related to one another (a) is closer to the plain meaning of Scripture; (b) lessens the dispute between Moshe and Aharon.
18) Pesachim 83a.
19) 10:18. The view of Rabbi Yossi HaGlili is also cited in Toras Kohanim on our parsha, on the verse.
20) Pesachim there, s.v. Amar lahen.
21) And although Rashi too, in his commentary on the Torah, explains according to the view of the Sages (Tzav 6:23; and see Rashi on our parsha there) — in study according to the plain meaning this is not because it is impossible to learn it from the verse in our parsha, but because this is the plain meaning of the verse in Parshas Tzav. And see Re'em on Tzav there. And this is easily understood.
22) Pesachim there, s.v. Amar lei — according to Rashi's view. And he cites from Rashi (in the passage there before this (82b, s.v. Lechach ne'emar), and elsewhere) that it speaks of the goat of Rosh Chodesh.
23) One may say (so as not to multiply disputes) that Rabbi Yossi HaGlili too agrees that, in general, matters of "sha'ah" are more stringent than matters of "doros"; only, he holds that here, where it speaks of the goat of Rosh Chodesh, there was no "temporary directive" to burn it.
24) Unlike kodshei doros in general, where even for Moshe the prohibition of aninus with sacred offerings was obvious (as is understood from the very fact that G‑d had to permit aninus to him on this occasion, as above, section 2). One may add that, simply, when G‑d told Moshe the permission of aninus, He also told him the prohibition of aninus with sacred offerings (in general); and accordingly one may say that Moshe's initial supposition was that since they were said in one utterance, the prohibition does not apply to that occasion, and consequently he is obligated to eat in every case. [OCR unclear] "Those who desecrate it shall be put to death" and "On the Shabbos day, two lambs" were said in one utterance (Mechilta (and Rashi), Yisro, on the verse (Yisro 20:8) "Remember") — even though (a) they were written in two [different] books, and (b) it is said there "besides the continual burnt-offering" (which is not specific to Shabbos, similar to the kodshei doros in our case). Therefore Aharon mentioned bringing the kal vachomer from the lighter maaser, whose counter-ruling is not stated alongside it. [However, according to this, on the contrary: it requires investigation and explanation why "it was good in his eyes," and it requires some investigation what kal vachomer is relevant here. And one cannot say that in our case it is a one-time matter, unlike the case of Shabbos — for in our case, too, it is reasonable to say that the same law applies at the dedication of the First, Second, and Third Beis HaMikdash (and perhaps also the Mishkan of Shiloh).]
*) And see below in the text, section 5, and note 31 (regarding Moshe).
25) Rashi's wording, our parsha 9:23, at the end (and see there, s.v. Vayavo Moshe).
26) There, 24.
27) Toras Kohanim (and Rashi), our parsha 10:17 (regarding the goat of Rosh Chodesh, which is for atonement). Pesachim 59b, and the sources cited there.
*) And there this is learned from the verse (Tetzaveh 29:33) concerning the inauguration. Note that in Rashi on Tetzaveh there this is not cited ([OCR unclear]), and he cites it only in our parsha, concerning the goat of Rosh Chodesh.
28) 10:20.
29) There (except that in Toras Kohanim: "he admitted immediately").
30) Likkutei Sichos vol. 8, p. 182, note 4; vol. 10, p. 109ff., and the sources cited there.
31) But this is not compelling, for one may say that Moshe's initial supposition was because "I did not eat of it in my mourning" — he knew that he would say it after 39 years*, whereas [the teaching] that there is no prohibition of aninus he heard regarding the present, and explicitly.
*) Especially since one may say that since "I did not eat…" was said in connection with the confession of maaser, then just as the general obligation of maaser applies only once they entered the Land, so too the prohibition of "I did not eat of it in my mourning" is connected with entering the Land (which also changes the offering of the sacrifices — especially when the time comes of "when you come… to the resting place…").
32) See Likkutei Sichos vol. 7, p. 105ff.
33) See Vayikra Rabbah cited above, note 12. And similarly in many places.
34) See Rashi's wording, Zevachim there, end of s.v. Idi v'idi. Likkutei Sichos vol. 8, there. And elsewhere.
35) [OCR unclear] the teaching of the Baal Shem Tov regarding every single thing that a person sees or hears (Keser Shem Tov (Kehot ed.), Additions, sec. 159, and the sources cited there).
36) Eruvin 6a, and the sources cited there.
37) Mechilta and Rashi, Yisro 19:5.
38) For these are lighter than kodshei doros (as above in the text); and likewise in one's service — since it pertains only to the moment and has nothing in it for generations, the evil inclination does not oppose it so much, etc.
39) Tetzaveh 29:14.
40) Note the matter that "the dung of your festival offerings" (only three times a year) is said, [while] "the dung of your Shabbos offerings" (every single week) is not said (Zohar II, 88b; though its explanation according to Chassidus is in a different manner — see Torah Or, [OCR unclear]; Siddur, 200c–d; 203c ff.; and elsewhere).
41) In the "Kol Korei" (printed in "HaKeriah VehaKedushah," Sivan 5701; Igros Kodesh of the Previous Rebbe, vol. 5, p. 367). And elsewhere.
42) See Tanya ch. 7 (11b).
43) Sanhedrin 97a, end.
44) Iggeres HaKodesh, sec. 4 (105b ff.).
45) Psalms 89:21 — see Sanhedrin there: "Three things come when the mind is diverted: Moshiach, a found object, etc."
Key Lesson
Kodshei sha'ah, which carry an effect for generations, are more stringent than the regular kodshei doros; so too, new forms of service called for by the needs of the time demand extra caution, because the evil inclination opposes them most forcefully. Preparing to greet Moshiach is the need of our time, and it must be done with total self-sacrifice, beyond measure and limitation, to the point of losing one's own existence — and this itself brings Moshiach.