ויהי ביום השמיני and how it parallels Maaseh Bereishit

I've been learning through some Torah Temimah on the parsha every week. What he does is first bring down a large collection of derashot on each phrase in each pasuk, and then discuss in detail what each derasha means and how they might have gone about deriving it.

Here, I'll present the first Torah Temima on parashat Shemini, the derasha and his discussion. And I will use that as a jumping off point for my own discussion of the derasha, and how I might bolster it.

So first, the pasuk, derasha, and comment of Torah Temima.

The pasuk is Vayikra 9:1:

וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי קָרָא מֹשֶׁה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו וּלְזִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל

"And it was on the eighth day that Moshe called to Aharon and his sons and the elders of Israel."

This was the eighth day of the miluim, such that the Mishkan and the kohanim are finally being inaugurated.

The derasha he cites from Megillah 10b, where it is embedded within a discussion of the word וַיְהִי, and whether it always has negative connotations. וַיְהִי בִּימֵי אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ was certainly negative but the inauguration of the Mishkan is surely positive, as the derasha makes clear:

והכתיב (ויקרא ט, א) ויהי ביום השמיני ותניא אותו היום היתה שמחה לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא כיום שנבראו בו שמים וארץ כתיב הכא ויהי ביום השמיני וכתיב התם(בראשית א, ה) ויהי (בקר) יום אחד

"But it is written: 'And it was on the eighth day' and it was taught in a brayta: That day there was joy before Hakadosh Baruch Hu like the day on which heaven and earth were created. It is written here (Vayikra 9:1) ויהי ביום השמיני and it is written there (Bereishit 1:5) ויהי (בקר) יום אחד."

Torah Temima end the quote with just the citation of ויהי בקר, which doesn't single out a specific day.

In his commentary on the derasha he writes:

א) נראה באור הדרשה ע״פ מ״ש בב״ר פ״ג שבעת
 הקמת המשכן אמר הקב״ה נדמה בעיני כאלו
 באותו יום בראתי את עולמי, ומבואר שם הטעם
 מפני שמחחלת בריית העולם נתאוה הקב״ה ליחד
 שמו וקדושתו בעולם ע״י המשכן, וזה גופא יתבאר
 ע"פ מ״ש במגילה ל״א ב' אלמלא מעמדות לא
 נתקיימו שמים וארץ, ומעמדות היינו בקיום ביהמ״ק
 וקרבנות, כנודע [עי לפנינו בפ' פינחס בר״פ
 קרבנות], ולאשר שביום השמיני למלואים היה גמר
 הקמת המשכן, לכן דריש שגדלה ככיכול שמחתו של
 הקב״ה כיום בריאת שמים וארץ, יען דבבריאת
 שמו״א היתה רצונו ומחשבתו כביכול לברוא את העולם
 לתכלית המעמדות, ובהקמת המשכן נתקיים רצונו
 בזה, ולסמך וסימן לדבר נתן שווי המלות ויהי
 דכתיבי בשניהם

"It appears that the derasha is based on that which is written in Bereishit Rabba parasha 3 (3:9), that at the time of the erection of the Mishkan, Hashem said, 'it seems to me as if today I have created my world'. And it is explained there the reason, that from the beginning of creation Hashem desired to associate/designate [ליחד] his Name and his holiness in the world via the Mishkan. And this itself is explained via that which is written in Megillah 31b, 'if not for the Maamadot the Heavens and Earth would not have been established'. And the Maamadot were in the establishment of the Bet Hamikdash and korbanot, as is known. [See earlier, in parashat Pinchas, at the beginning of the parasha of korbanot.] And since on the eighth day of the Miluim were the completion of the erection of the Mishkan, therefore they darshened that it was as if the happiness of Hakadosh Baruch Hu was as great as the creation of Heaven and Earth, since at the creation of Heaven and Earth, His Will and Though were as if to create the world for the purpose of the Maamadot, and with the erection of the Mishkan His will was fulfilled in this. And as a support and sign to the matter the [author of the midrash] noted the equivalence of the words וַיְהִי which were written by both of them."

So, he explained the intent behind the Midrash as well as how the derasha is working.

I would note that as gezeira shavas go, this seems way too common of a word. How many places does the word וַיְהִי occur? Aside from its frequency, why specifically associate these two instances? Maybe if it is a mere mnemonic, but the idea is already established from elsewhere, as the Torah Temima establishes it.

I'd also note that in the Bereishit Rabba which the Torah Temima cited, the derasha about the Divine purpose in creation uses a different pasuk, which has Vayhi, Yom, and Rishon:

ט [תכלית הבריאה היא השראת השכינה בעולם

אמר רבי שמואל בר אמי: מתחלת ברייתו של עולם נתאוה הקב"ה לעשות שותפות בתחתונים. 

מה נפשך? אם לענין החשבון, לא היה צריך למימר אלא אחד שנים שלושה, או ראשון שני ושלישי, שמא אחד שני שלישי אתמהא?! 

אימתי פרע להם הקדוש ברוך הוא? להלן בהקמת המשכן, שנאמר: (במדבר ז) ויהי המקריב ביום הראשון את קרבנו, ראשון לברייתו של עולם. 
אמר הקב"ה: כאילו באותו יום בראתי את עולמי. 

תני: עשר עטרות נטל אותו היום ראשון למעשה בראשית.
ראשון למלכים,
ראשון לנשיאים,
ראשון לכהונה,
ראשון לשכינה, שנא' (שמות כה) ועשו לי מקדש. ראשון לברכה,
ראשון לעבודה,
ראשון לאיסור הבמה,
ראשון לשחיטה בצפון,
ראשון לירידת האש, שנא' (ויקרא י) ותצא אש מלפני ה' וגו'. 

We find a parallel to the midrash as it appears in the gemara as it appears in the Sifra. The gemara again:

והכתיב (ויקרא ט, א) ויהי ביום השמיני ותניא אותו היום היתה שמחה לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא כיום שנבראו בו שמים וארץ כתיב הכא ויהי ביום השמיני וכתיב התם (בראשית א, ה) ויהי (בקר) יום אחד

And the Sifra can be read here, 15-16. This despite the word כתיב, which is Aramaic, and could have suggested to me that this is a post-Amoraic editor offering the derasha. In the Sifra, it is כאן הוא אומר instead. And there are surrounding supports there for the joy, from צאינה וראינה בנות ציון.

Within the give-and-take of the gemara, the particulars of the derasha do not matter. The point was just that here the word ויהי is used, and we see from this other Tannaitic source that this was a day of great joy.

If I wanted to bolster the derasha, I would do so in a different manner. We already see from elsewhere that there is ambiguity, argued within Chazal in the phrase וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי. Does this mean the eighth day of the miluim? The eighth day of Nissan? One of them? Both of them? Earlier context helps clarify that the miluim was meant, but that does not necessarily mean the eighth of the miluim exclusively.

So here is another interpretation of וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי, that it is the eighth day to Creation. There were six days of creation, all the way until וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי. And then there was the seventh day, on which it was finished, וַיְכַל אֱלֹהִים בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי. And now, skip all of the intervening Chumash and pick up here with the eighth day, in which we encounter the purpose of all of creation.

So it is not (just, or perhaps even) the single word וַיְהִי. Rather, it is how the phrase is reminiscent of the days listed in Maaseh Bereishit, and how Maaseh Bereishit left off on day seven, where here we are encountering day eight.

Why does Rashi explain the pasuk of וּבְיוֹם הֵרָאוֹת בּוֹ בָּשָׂר חַי יִטְמָא out of order?

Summary: Bartenura gives his answer; I give my own, that maybe it is not out of order, and if it is, it is a logical order.

Post: In parashat Tazria, we encounter the following pesukim and Rashis:

12. And if the tzara'ath has spread over the skin, whereby the tzara'ath covers all the skin of the [person with the] lesion, from his head to his feet, wherever the eyes of the kohen can see it,		יב. וְאִם פָּרוֹחַ תִּפְרַח הַצָּרַעַת בָּעוֹר וְכִסְּתָה הַצָּרַעַת אֵת כָּל עוֹר הַנֶּגַע מֵרֹאשׁוֹ וְעַד רַגְלָיו לְכָל מַרְאֵה עֵינֵי הַכֹּהֵן:
		מראשו: של אדם ועד רגליו:
		לכל מראה עיני הכהן: פרט לכהן שחשך מאורו:
13. then the kohen shall look [at it]. And, behold! the tzara'ath has covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce [the person with] the lesion clean. He has turned completely white; he is clean.		יג. וְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן וְהִנֵּה כִסְּתָה הַצָּרַעַת אֶת כָּל בְּשָׂרוֹ וְטִהַר אֶת הַנָּגַע כֻּלּוֹ הָפַךְ לָבָן טָהוֹר הוּא:
14. But on the day that live flesh appears in it, he shall become unclean.		יד. וּבְיוֹם הֵרָאוֹת בּוֹ בָּשָׂר חַי יִטְמָא:
		וביום הראות בו בשר חי: אם צמחה בו מחיה הרי כבר פירש שהמחיה סימן טומאה, אלא הרי שהיה הנגע באחד מעשרים וארבעה ראשי איברים שאין מטמאין משום מחיה, לפי שאין נראה הנגע כולו כאחד ששופע אילך ואילך, וחזר ראש האבר ונתגלה שפועו ע"י שומן, כגון שהבריא ונעשה רחב ונראית בו המחיה, למדנו הכתוב שתטמא:
		וביום: מה תלמוד לומר, ללמד יש יום שאתה רואה בו ויש יום שאין אתה רואה בו, מכאן אמרו חתן נותנין לו כל שבעת ימי המשתה לו ולכסותו ולביתו, וכן ברגל נותנין לו כל ימי הרגל:

My focus in this post is on the Rashis in pasuk 14, but I give the Rashis on pasuk 12 for context, for a reason that will become apparent shortly.

On pasuk 14, it seems like the explanations are out of order. First, d"h וביום הראות בו בשר חי, which would seem to be on the entire phrase, and we consider it more closely, specifically on the latter part, בשר חי; and then, d"h וביום, interpreting the first word of the verse.

R' Ovadia mi-Bartenura asks this question, and offers an answer:

"It is difficult, why does he twist about the Scriptures, that he explains basar chai before he explains uvyom, which precedes it in the verse? There is to suggest that because, if we had explained that the verse comes to explain the laws of מחיה, 'live flesh', I would have said that this which is written וּבְיוֹם comes to inform us that even by מחיה, which is an extremely strong sign, which is readily apparent to the eyes, even so, we can only see it during the day, but now that it comes to teach us a different law, why is וּבְיוֹם needed? Therefore it explains a different explanation thusly: there is a day that you see, etc."

I don't find this explanation so convincing, in each reach into the underlying assumptions of the derashot, and plausible alternate derashot. I would instead offer three other, more straightforward (IMHO), suggestions.

First, perhaps the Rashis are not really out of order. Refer to this Munich manuscript of Rashi I keep referring to, from 1233, we find that in fact it has the Rashis ordered by the order of the pasuk. Thus:

I marked up this text will a few red underlines, for each dibbur hamatchil. The first is מראשו, from pasuk 12. Then, לכל מראה עיני הכהן, from pasuk 12. Then, on pasuk 14, וביום הראות בו בשר חי. But this one is followed with מה תלמוד לומר, ללמד יש יום שאתה רואה בו! And finally, without the leading word uveyom, d"h הֵרָאוֹת בּוֹ בָּשָׂר חַי. Thus, in this manuscript, the two explanations are reversed.

However, I would caution that there are quite a number of textual insertions in this manuscript of Rashi, often pulled from midrashim. So perhaps this scribe felt free, as well, to "correct" the order of Rashi. If so, lectio difficilior applies. And it applies even more once we see the third explanation I offer.

A second, straightforward explanation is that if we examine the content of Rashi's two comments, we see that the first comment explains the main thrust of the pasuk. Don't we know מחיה  already, asks Rashi? Therefore, this entire pasuk has a different general meaning, which is then to fit into the surrounding context of the other laws of metzora. Once we establish that, we can focus on a specific tangential detail which is a midrash halacha derived from one of the words of the pasuk.







The third, even more straightforward explanation comes from checking out Rashi's sources, which we can get from Mekorei Rashi. The earlier Rashi is drawn from Sifra. The second part of the later Rashi, regarding the regel, is also drawn from the Sifra. And the order in the Sifra is the same as we find it in Rashi:

So why blame Rashi? It seems to me that he is basically learning through the parsha with the Sifra and other Rabbinic texts, and selecting out salient midrashim as he progresses. Indeed, he cites quite a lot from Sifra on these parshiyot in Vayikra, as I have noted in other posts. So why shouldn't he cite it in the very same order it appears in the Sifra? He should.

A separate question may be why the Sifra puts it out of order like this. And perhaps Bartenura's answer applies, or perhaps not. This is similar to a question of why Mishnayot are ordered in the way they are ordered. But at the least, we have a lot more raw material to work with. Perhaps it is based on features of the various disputes / discussions between these named Tannaim, in the first, between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yossi, and in the second, between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi. Thus, the first between colleagues, and the second, between teacher and student of the next generation. Or some other feature relating to the content. But we have more material from which to determine an answer, plus we can distance ourselves from the very question and assert that it is not part of the job of a supercommentator of Rashi, but rather a specific type of analysis of midrash halacha.

Aharon's shame and fear

Summary: Understanding the Rashi by considering his sources.

Post: At the start of Shemini, we read:

7. And Moses said to Aaron, "Approach the altar and perform your sin offering and your burnt offering, atoning for yourself and for the people, and perform the people's sacrifice, atoning for them, as the Lord has commanded.		ז. וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל אַהֲרֹן קְרַב אֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וַעֲשֵׂה אֶת חַטָּאתְךָ וְאֶת עֹלָתֶךָ וְכַפֵּר בַּעַדְךָ וּבְעַד הָעָם וַעֲשֵׂה אֶת קָרְבַּן הָעָם וְכַפֵּר בַּעֲדָם כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְ־הֹוָ־ה:
For Aharon was embarrassed and fearful to come close. Moshe told him, why are you embarrassed? You were chosen for this!		קרב אל המזבח: שהיה אהרן בוש וירא לגשת. אמר לו משה למה אתה בוש, לכך נבחרת:

Incidentally, at Shirat Devorah, there is a beautiful homiletic interpretation of this:

Rashi explains that Aharon was embarrassed and afraid to approach the altar.  Moshe therefore said to him "Why are you embarrassed? This is what you were selected for."

The Baal Shem Tov elucidated Rashi's words.  Moshe was saying to Aharon: "Why are you embarrassed? It is specifically due to the fact that you possess the character trait of humility and that you feel ashamed before Hashem that you were chosen to be the Kohen - "This is what you were selected for!"

Source: Rabbi Y. Bronstein

Though of course it is not peshat. For peshat in Rashi, first I will present the Taz on this, and then I will consider Rashi's sources and explain what I think Rashi intends.

First, the Taz:

"Bring Aharon near -- that Aharon was embarrassed and fearful to come close. Moshe told him, why are you embarrassed? You were chosen for this! This is apparent from the extra language of קְרַב אֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, where it would have sufficed to say עֲשֵׂה אֶת חַטָּאתְךָ. Certainly their is no performing of the sin-offering if he did not first draw near to the altar! Rather, perforce, he was ashamed to draw near. However, it is difficult what these two languages of 'shame' and 'fear' are doing. And further, the language of Rashi, 'for this you were chosen' -- would it be the case that because he was chosen, the shame would be nullified from him? This is not nullification of shame, which is part of a person's nature, as we find by Shaul, who was hidden by the vessels, even though he was chosen for the kingship. And it appears that Aharon was embarrassed, by virtue of his nature, to enter into greatness; and was also fearful by virtue of the fear that is the positive trait of the angels, for all of their conduct is in fear, as it is written "they answer {/speak up} and say in fear". And Moshe replied to him that the fear is all well and good, it is pleasant for you, as we mentioned. But your embarrassment, which is by virtue of your nature, you need to nullify your nature. For it is stated in Mizrachi above, in this parasha, that some explain that one who sins with some item and is rebuked for it, it is not of his way to make use of the thing, even mentioning it, all the more so that one would not gain atonement with it. And if so, when they saw that Aharon brought an eigel for a sin-offering, and was not embarrassed lest his sin be recalled, it would be known that it had been atoned for. Therefore, Moshe said here "why are you ashamed? Were you not chosen for this?" He hinted with this that since you are not ashamed, it will be apparent to all that you have been forgiven and chosen. And if so, it is not possible for you should not be ashamed, for you are nullifying the choice in this. But your fear is fitting for you, by aspect of the loftiness of the Divine Presence, etc."

Thus, he questions why both are needed, and notes that Moshe only targets the busha but not the yirah, leading him to this conclusion. And I agree with the idea of the extra קְרַב אֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ being the source of the derasha.

But perhaps looking at some of Rashi's sources (courtesy of Mekorei Rashi) would help us answer the Taz's excellent questions in another way, and indeed, one closer to Rashi's true intention. Here is what the Sifra states:

Notice that bushah and yir'ah are two separate positions. And in the busha section, the chet ha'egel does not seem to arise. Rather, it is more the awesomeness of the task combined with the humility of the person. And this person is encouraged and informed to harden/coarsen his (/her) thoughts and perform the work regardless, in order to serve the King. (This is more akin to the yir'ah aspect as understood by the Taz. Also, we can perhaps carefully analyze על מה נתבחרת, to figure out what it means in Rashi.)

Meanwhile, the yirah comes, it would seem, from uncertainty and fear due to Aharon's role in the sin of the Golden Calf. (And not, as the Taz interprets it, as yir'at Hashem which is a good thing in serving God.) The midrash portrays this quite colorfully, that "Aharon saw the altar in the form of an ox, and was afraid of it. Moshe said to him, 'My brother, harden your thoughts and come near to it.'"

I would then guess that Rashi is summarizing and presenting both positions in the Sifra, shortening it in the process. And the answer of lekach nivcharta is either covering the busha (as it indeed only appears explicitly in the Sifra) or is covering both. But Moshe is certainly acting to counter both of them.

(Another text, though not one I am sure was an input into this specific Rashi, is Targum Pseudo-Yonatan on the pasuk:

Here, Aharon sees the horns of the mizbe'ach and it looks like an eigel, a reference then to the eigel hazahav. And it is only this that Moshe is countering. This, then, is akin to the yesh omerim in the Sifra.
)

Even if the Taz is not the true meaning of Rashi, we can still derive an important lesson for ourselves in our own conduct. This is a lesson to (some) introverts, who might need to conquer this middah in themselves, at time, in order to accomplish good in the world.