3175 —הבעת תודה על פירוש כתר כהונה והערות על לימוד תורה

B"H, 8 Teves, 5715.

Brooklyn.

Haraha"g vavac"h iy"a nu"n oseik b-tzt"z Morenu HaRav Mordechai Gimpel HaKohen

Shalom u'Vrachah!

Following your visit and our conversation, I hereby express my thanks for the book Sifrei with the commentary Keser Kehunah, first volume. May it be the will of Hashem that you and your esteemed brothers succeed in increasing (quantity) and enhancing (quality) Torah study. This work is relevant to all aspects of our Torah learning—beginning with children's studies (see Rambam Hilchos Talmud Torah end ch. 2) and culminating in the highest forms of Torah study (see Chullin 66b). As is my custom and out of fondness for receiving a sefer, I am copying here some notes as time allowed—at least at the beginning and end of the book. The sefer Techeles Mordechai on the Torah was received in its time.

With blessings for success.

P.S. At the beginning of Keser Kehunah on section 1: The content of his commentary addresses why the section about sending out those who are impure was necessary—since we already hear about punishment (as it says: "And a man who becomes impure and does not purify himself") but do not hear a prohibition (a negative commandment). This interpretation requires examination: a) Three verses discuss punishment—Vayikra 15:31 ("And you shall warn them... so they will not die..."), Bamidbar 19:13 ("Anyone who touches... shall be cut off..."), and Bamidbar 19:20 ("And a man who becomes impure..."). It is unclear why Sifrei cites only the last verse and not the first two. b) The above explanation requires two emendations. Even though the final emendation—bringing the beginning of the section but intending its end—is acceptable since that is where Sifrei is discussing, still, regarding bringing "And a man who becomes impure," if he means only its end "shall be cut off," or if this is added in Sifrei's text—even though such cases exist—it remains forced. c) The questioner does not clarify why he asks about this section's necessity. Therefore, it seems to me that Sifrei's explanation is that "since it says... he shall purify himself," these words are part of the question: Why was this section stated? The difficulty is because it says "And a man who becomes impure and does not purify himself." (Malbim explains similarly.) This way we need not emend or say he refers to only part of the verse; rather, he brings proof that there is a prohibition—and nothing more. It also explains why he does not bring "And you shall warn them...," since there it addresses only Kohanim—not all Israel. As for Bamidbar 19:13—not difficult either since that verse discusses the Mishkan specifically; as stated there "he defiled Hashem's Mishkan." The initial assumption in Sifrei's first section is that this command applies later as well—as it concludes "You might say... or perhaps only later...", so he brings also a verse commanding for later generations—Bamidbar 19:20. And this resolves matters.

At the end of the book, section 58: Regarding versions in Beraisa d’Rabbi Yishmael at its conclusion—“ve’chen” or “ve’kan”—see Beraisa di-13 Middos d’Rabbi Yishmael (Vilna, 1925), which brings both versions and several explanations. In Kisvei HaAriZal (in Pri Etz Chaim and elsewhere), also cited by Taz Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim siman 127 s.k. 4: “ve’kan.” However, Rabbeinu HaZaken established both versions in his Siddur; in his main version: “ve’chen”—with a kuf vocalized with tzerei.

In Keser Kehunah s.k. 160 on this passage—regarding Shemos Rabbah at end of parsha 29: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said when a person calls his friend there is an echo to his voice; but when G‑d’s voice went forth there was no echo. Although one does not challenge homiletics, according to his explanation it is unclear why it begins “when a person calls his friend...” It seems to me that other commentators explain “bas kol” literally—as an echo—that at Matan Torah G‑d’s voice had no echo. There is a profound idea here connected to what precedes in Midrash: When G‑d gave the Torah no bird chirped etc., even the sea did not stir—the world was silent so that every part of creation heard and absorbed “Anochi Hashem Elokecha.” The next teaching clarifies that this was not just spiritual understanding by creation’s soul—but even physical matter heard (understood) and absorbed G‑d’s word “Anochi Hashem Elokecha.” Do not be surprised by this concept—for so it will be in the future when even stones will cry out as our sages say in Midrash Tehillim psalm 73 at its end; see also Taanis 11a. Thus we understand why there was no echo—for an echo occurs when sound waves hit something that blocks them instead of absorbing them; thus they bounce back. There are two points here: a) The sound was not absorbed by what blocked it; b) The sound reaches where its echo would go—not directly from its source but via an intermediary. Since “Anochi Hashem Elokecha” came from G‑d directly to every detail of creation—as Midrash concludes: When G‑d spoke at Sinai He silenced everything so all would know there is nothing besides Him—not just people or animals but even inanimate objects like seas did not stir—so wherever His voice reached it was absorbed directly from Him without any echo or intermediary.

Summary

The Rebbe thanks for receiving Keser Kehunah, offering detailed scholarly notes on its interpretations while emphasizing how every level of creation received direct Divine revelation at Sinai—a lesson about internalizing holiness without barriers or intermediaries.