"Sick with Love"

The section Acharei begins with the words, "G-d spoke to Moshe after the death of Aharon's two sons."[384] The Torah then states that Moshe was to relate to Aharon that "he was not to enter at all times the Holy of Holies,"[385] only on Yom Kippur.

Rashi[386] asks why the verse finds it necessary to state that these words that G-d told Moshe to relate to Aharon were spoken specifically after the demise of Aharon's two sons. He answers with the following parable:

"It is similar to a sick person who was warned by a doctor, 'Do not eat cold things nor sleep in a cold place.' Another doctor then came and told him, 'Do not eat cold things nor sleep in a cold place, so that you will not die as did another person [who did these things.]' The admonition of the second individual was much more persuasive. This is why it states, 'after the death of Aharon's two sons.'"

Rashi is thus informing us that the words "after the death of Aharon's two sons" does not merely recount the time when G-d spoke these words, but that these words are part of the actual message to Aharon:[387]

G-d told Moshe that when speaking to Aharon he was to remind him about the passing of his two sons. This is similar to the warning of the second doctor who by adding "so that you will not die as did another person [who did these things]," lends far greater force to his warning than the first doctor.

This raises a number of questions. The concept of warning someone to act in a certain manner so as to prevent an untimely demise is readily understandable. What novel aspect does Rashi provide by couching this message in the above parable?

Additionally, even if a parable is warranted it need not necessarily be of an ill individual; a healthy person who is admonished not to do something dangerous because it might kill him as it did another person, will conduct himself in a far more circumspect manner than if he was not warned that such conduct had already killed another.

Moreover, when a parable or analogy is offered -- especially a Torah parable -- one endeavors that all the particulars of the analogy are similar to the analogue. Since this parable is of an ill individual and not of someone who is healthy, we must perforce say that this comes to tell us that prior to this exhortation Aharon, too, was in some way unwell. What, possible "illness" was Aharon suffering from?

With regard to numerous Torah commandments we find the Torah mentioning only the actual command; no warning is given of the impending punishment for not observing the command. Even regarding those commandments that specify the punishment for their non-performance, nothing like "so that you will not die as did another" is ever mentioned. Why, specifically here, does Aharon have to be warned in such a dire manner?

Rashi answers the latter question by stating "It is similar to a sick person, etc." From the parable it is understood that were Aharon simply to be told that "he was not to enter at all times the Holy of Holies," he might well not observe this command; only by warning him "so that he would not die as did another" would he scrupulously observe this command.

But why is this so; why wouldn't Aharon be capable of observing G-d's command without this additional warning? Rashi answers this by offering the parable of someone who is ill.

A sick individual, one who has a high fever, strongly desires to cool himself by eating cold foods or by finding himself in a cold room. So great is his desire that even if a doctor warns him not to do so he may well not heed his advice, unless he is warned that such behavior may well lead to his death.

Aharon, too, was "sick with love"[388] for G-d, having a tremendous desire and thirst for Him. He therefore had an intense desire to enter the Holy of Holies, where G-dliness was most immanent.

Were Aharon not to have been warned that entering the Holy of Holies might well result in his death just as it resulted in the death of his two sons, he would not have been able to contain his fierce desire to enter the Holy of Holies. It was therefore of utmost necessity to add "after the death of Aharon's two sons."

---

There is a vital lesson here for us all. Although it is demanded of the Jew that he find himself within this world and transform it into a dwelling for G-d,[389] nevertheless, this should also be accompanied by a feeling of "against your will you live."[390]

In other words, the thirst and desire of a Jew should be to depart his everyday and mundane life and enter the Holy of Holies. His refraining from doing so is entirely because of G-d's command to make for Him a dwelling place in the nethermost level, in this physical world.

Based on Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VII, pp. 117-125.

"Taking Cover"

In the Torah portion Acharei[391] we have the commandment to cover with earth the blood of all birds and wild animals after they are slaughtered. This law, known as Kisui HaDam, does not however apply to domesticated animals.

The reason for Kisui HaDam is that having performed the commandment of ritual slaughter, the commandment should not be put to shame (bizui mitzvah) by leaving the blood uncovered, for commandments are not to be "shamed."

Indeed, it is from Kisui HaDam that we derive the principle of bizui mitzvah as it applies to all other commandments. In the words of the Gemara:[392] "The 'father of them all' -- the 'father' and source that all commandments are not to be 'shamed' -- is [the commandment of covering the] blood."

But why, then, does Kisui HaDam extend only to birds and wild animals and not to domesticated animals? After all, the same commandment of ritual slaughter is performed on domesticated animals.

The Ramban[393] answers this as follows: "The command is ... to cover all blood of wild animals and birds, for their blood is not offered upon the altar. Even with regard to birds, only two types of birds are offered upon the altar; and they, too, are not slaughtered [in the regular manner].

"Most common domesticated animals, however, have their blood offered to G-d upon the altar as an act of atonement. It is thus not fitting for their blood to be covered. As for the secular slaughter of domesticated animals -- this was not permitted in the desert; later on as well, the Torah speaks of the majority of instances."

That is to say, the obligation of Kisui HaDam is dependent upon its ability to be offered upon the altar. This is also indicated by the verses[394] that introduce the commandment of Kisui HaDam: "The life-force of the flesh is in the blood; I gave it therefore to you to be placed upon the altar ... Therefore I told the Children of Israel do not eat blood ... he must cover [the blood] with earth. This indicates that the prohibition of eating blood and Kisui HaDam result from "I gave it therefore to you to be placed upon the altar."

We see from the Ramban's words that the purpose of Kisui HaDam is to forewarn something untoward -- the proper place of blood is only upon the altar; any blood that is not fit to be placed upon the altar must be covered by earth, thereby negating its import.

In terms of man's spiritual service this may be understood in the following manner: Blood provides and is symbolic of life -- "for blood is the soul."[395] It thus is to be used for matters of holiness, inasmuch as all sacred matters are to be performed with revealed vitality and fervor.

When it comes to mundane matters, however, they are to be done without fervor.[396] "All one's deeds are to be for the sake of Heaven"[397] -- not for the sake of corporeal pleasure, but to act as a vehicle in one's service of G-d. The inner dimension of Kisui HaDam is thus that with regard to worldly things one must cover the blood, that the vitality and fervor of corporeal matters is not to be felt.

This also explains why the blood is to be covered with earth, as earth is symbolic of self-abnegation -- "and I am but earth and dust."[398] When occupying oneself in permitted matters, one should arouse the feeling of humility and selflessness. This will enable the individual not to be drawn after physical pleasures, but to act purely for the "sake of Heaven."

Accordingly, spiritually speaking, the fact that Kisui HaDam does not apply to the blood of a domesticated animal used for secular purposes, alludes to an even loftier level of spiritual service within the physical world:

Not only does the person occupy himself in physical matters "for the sake of Heaven," he also does this in a manner where they are similar to "mundane matters that are performed with the same purity as holy [matters]."[399] In other words, the person's worldly deeds are performed on the same plane as if they were instruments of holiness.

For the fact that domesticated animals as a whole have the same laws applied to them as those domesticated animals that are brought upon the altar, connotes that even the mundane animals are associated with the level of those animals used for a sacred purpose, whose blood need not be covered.

How does one attain this level?

When an individual is so permeated with dedication to divine service that he does not even have to be forewarned against succumbing to worldly temptations, then there exists nothing for him other than serving G-d. All his interactions with worldly matters are then but an adjunct to his spiritual service. Such an individual transforms his everyday matters into veritable aspects of holiness.

Understandably, such a person can even occupy himself with physical matters in a manner of fervor and vitality -- he need not "cover the blood" -- since his vitality is entirely directed to holiness and to nothing but holiness.

Based on Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XXXVII, pp. 48-53.

   

Notes:

384. (Back to text) Vayikra 16:1.

385. (Back to text) Ibid., verse 2.

386. (Back to text) Ibid., verse 1.

387. (Back to text) See Klei Yakar ibid.

388. (Back to text) Shir HaShirim 2:5.

389. (Back to text) Tanchuma, Naso 6; Tanya beginning of ch. 36.

390. (Back to text) Avos conclusion of ch. 4. See also Tanya end of ch. 50 and Likkutei Sichos, Vol. IV, p. 1217ff.

391. (Back to text) Vayikra 17:13.

392. (Back to text) Shabbos 22a.

393. (Back to text) Vayikra 17:14. Compare also his commentary in Devarim 12:22; Chinuch, Mitzvah 187. See also Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. III, ch. 46.

394. (Back to text) Vayikra ibid., verses 11-13.

395. (Back to text) Devarim 12:23.

396. (Back to text) See Likkutei Torah, Shlach, p. 42d; Toras Chayim, Vayakhel, p. 620a ff., et al.

397. (Back to text) Avos 2:12. See also Rambam, Hilchos De'os conclusion of ch. 3. Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, ch. 231.

398. (Back to text) Bereishis 18:27.

399. (Back to text) Chagigah 19b, and sources cited there.