| Dear Yeshiva Family:
The Bigdei Kehuna and the Process of Anointing In this week's parshah, the Torah details the Bigdei Kehuna—the sacred vestments worn by the Kohanim as they performed the avodah (service) in the Beis HaMikdash. The passuk states:
"And with these garments, you shall dress Aharon, your brother, and his sons with him; you shall anoint them, you shall fill their hands, and you shall sanctify them, and they shall be Kohanim to Me." (Shemos 28:41)
Rashi explains that the phrase "you shall anoint them" refers to the Shemen HaMishcha (the anointing oil), which was poured upon the Kohanim as part of their inauguration. The phrase "you shall fill their hands" is an expression of milu'im, meaning an initiation process through which they officially assumed their roles as Kohanim.
From this passuk, which describes the eighth and final day of the milu'im, it is evident that both Aharon and his sons underwent this process of anointing with the Shemen HaMishcha. This is further reinforced by similar pesukim in Shemos 40:13 and Shemos 30:30. However, a closer examination of earlier pesukim—such as Shemos 29:7 and Vayikra 8:10—reveals that during the preparatory days leading up to the eighth day, only Aharon himself was anointed, not his sons.
The Rambam (Hilchos Klei HaMikdash 1:7) clarifies this distinction: In the first generation of Kohanim—Aharon and his sons—even an ordinary Kohen (Kohen Hedyot) required anointing with the Shemen HaMishcha. However, in subsequent generations, this process was no longer necessary for standard Kohanim, because the original anointing had a one-time, transformative effect, permanently elevating the sanctity of the Kohanim, and all future generations would inherit this holiness automatically. This was the anointing represented by the 8th day of the Miluim, where all the living Kohanim got anointed. However the other pesukim were referring to an anointing that was specific to elevating a standard Kohen to a higher level of Kedusha reserved for the Kohen Gadol, which is why only Ahron underwent that process and not his sons.
The Halachic Status of a Resurrected Person This concept of anointing as a one-time transformative act has fascinating implications in an unusual but deeply significant halachic discussion: the status of a person who dies and is subsequently resurrected.
The question arises—when Techiyas HaMeisim (the resurrection of the dead) occurs, does a person fully retain their previous identity in all halachic aspects? - Marriage: If a man was married before he died, does his resurrection automatically restore his previous marital status, or must he remarry his wife?
- Property Ownership: Does a person regain ownership of their possessions, or do they belong to his heirs?
This is not just an abstract theoretical debate regarding Techiyas HaMeisim in the future—it has already been relevant in cases of individual resurrection recorded in Tanach: - The son of the Shunamite woman, whom Elisha HaNavi revived (Melachim II, Perek 4).
- The son of the Tzarfatit, brought back to life by Eliyahu HaNavi (Melachim I, Perek 17).
Did these individuals automatically resume their previous lives in all aspects, or did their deaths create a halachic reset, requiring them to reclaim their legal status?
Although this topic may seem highly abstract, it is actually extensively discussed among the Rishonim and Poskim. Beyond its relevance to historical cases, this discussion has practical implications even today in modern medical ethics.
One contemporary halachic discussion related to this issue concerns defining the moment of death in the context of modern medicine. Some Poskim argue that if a person's heart completely stops beating, they may be halachically considered dead, even if they can later be revived.
This has led to serious halachic deliberations regarding individuals undergoing open-heart surgery, particularly in procedures where the heart is physically removed from the body, even temporarily: - If a person is considered halachically dead at the moment their heart is removed, does their subsequent survival mean they have "returned to life"?
- If so, does this mean they must remarry their spouse upon recovery?
Although this may sound extreme, leading Poskim have discussed whether a patient in such a situation—having technically experienced a halachic state of death—should re-perform a Kiddushin (marriage ceremony) upon recovery.
A Fascinating Case: The Resurrection of R' Zeira One of the most well-known cases involving resurrection is the story of Rabbah and R' Zeira, recorded in Megillah 7b. The Gemara relates that Rabbah and R' Zeira shared a Purim seudah, during which Rabbah became intoxicated and, in his drunken state, killed R' Zeira. The next day, realizing the tragedy that had occurred, Rabbah davened, and through his tefillos, he was able to bring R' Zeira back to life.
This story serves as an important precedent in the discussion of Techiyas HaMeisim—how resurrection affects a person's previous halachic status.
The Aderes (Rav Eliyahu David Rabinowitz-Teomim) raises a fascinating question based on a passage in Berachos (46a). The Gemara there records an incident in which R' Zeira was given the opportunity to lead Birchas HaMazon—a privilege traditionally given to a Kohen—yet he declined.
The Aderes notes that in another Gemara, (Yerushalmi Berachos 3:1) R' Zeira is explicitly identified as a Kohen. If so, why would he have refused to lead the bentching? As a Kohen, he should have had the halachic right and responsibility to do so!
To resolve this difficulty, the Aderes suggests a bold and intriguing conclusion: - This incident must have occurred after R' Zeira's resurrection at the hands of Rabbah.
- When he was brought back to life, he lost his status as a Kohen.
- Since his kahuna did not carry over after Techiyas HaMeisim, he was no longer eligible to lead Birchas HaMazon as a Kohen.
This chiddush of the Aderes—that a resurrected Kohen loses his kahuna status—raises profound halachic implications regarding the continuity of personal identity after Techiyas HaMeisim.
Rav Chaim Berlin's Challenge: The Status of Aharon HaKohen However, this conclusion appears to be contradicted by a clear Gemara in Sanhedrin (90b). The Gemara states that after Techiyas HaMeisim, Aharon HaKohen will once again accept Terumos and Ma'asros, implying that he will still retain his status as a Kohen even after being resurrected[1].
If so, this seems to refute the Aderes's position. If a resurrected person loses their previous status, how can Aharon HaKohen resume his kahuna and function in his priestly role after Techiyas HaMeisim[2]?
This discussion opens the door to deeper insights into the nature of Techiyas HaMeisim and the way halacha understands continuity of identity after death and resurrection.
A Second Anointing? The Ramban's Approach The Sefer Kuntrus Har HaMor quotes the Ramban (Sefer HaMitzvos, Shoresh 3), who suggests that in the future, at the time of Techiyas HaMeisim, there will be another anointing for Kohanim. If so, perhaps the Gemara in Sanhedrin, which states that Aharon HaKohen will once again accept Terumos and Ma'asros, is not a contradiction to the Aderes. It is possible that Aharon regains his status as a Kohen only after being re-anointed following his resurrection.
This would resolve the difficulty, as it would mean that Kohanim indeed lose their status upon resurrection—in line with the Aderes—but they can regain it through re-anointment, explaining why Aharon would still function as a Kohen in the future.
The Challenge from the Toras Kohanim However, many sefarim that discuss this exchange raise a powerful objection from a Midrash in Toras Kohanim (Tzav 18), which explicitly states that no second anointing is required at Techiyas HaMeisim. This contradicts the Ramban's assumption, as it suggests that resurrected Kohanim do not need a new anointing to retain their original status.
This places the Ramban in a difficult position: How can he suggest that a second anointing is necessary when an explicit Midrash states otherwise? If the Midrash is correct, then we are back to our original question—how can the Aderes maintain that a resurrected Kohen loses his status when we see from the Gemara in Sanhedrin that Aharon will still function as a Kohen after Techiyas HaMeisim?
A Fundamental Issue: The Uniqueness of Kahuna Beyond this, the idea that a resurrected Kohen loses his status and must be re-anointed raises an even more fundamental concern: If a resurrected Kohen can regain his status through anointing, what would prevent anyone from simply being anointed and attaining the status of a Kohen? In other words, if kehuna is something that can be reinstated artificially, then what makes kehuna unique? Would this mean that non-Kohanim could theoretically become Kohanim through anointing? The Torah clearly defines kehuna as an inherited status, passed down from Aharon to his descendants— if it is lost then how can an anointing process alone be enough to confer this identity?
This issue challenges the Aderes's assumption that a resurrected Kohen is no longer a Kohen. If kehuna is an inherent status, why would death—and subsequent resurrection—erase it?
Eliyahu HaNavi in the Cemetery: A Proof Against the Aderes? A further challenge comes from a Gemara in Bava Metzia (114b), which records an incident where Eliyahu HaNavi was found in a cemetery. The Gemara questions how this is possible, given that Eliyahu was a Kohen, and a Kohen is forbidden to enter a cemetery.
This implies that even after death and resurrection, Eliyahu still retained his kahuna status. If the Aderes were correct that a Kohen loses his status upon resurrection, then Eliyahu should no longer be considered a Kohen after his return to life—yet the Gemara assumes that he remains one!
Where Does This Leave Us? This debate leaves us with three competing perspectives: - The Aderes maintains that a resurrected Kohen loses his kahuna status, as seen in R' Zeira's case.
- The Ramban argues that a second anointing at Techiyas HaMeisim is required to reinstate a Kohen's status.
- The Midrash and the Gemara in Bava Metzia imply that kahuna remains intact even after death and resurrection, contradicting both the Aderes and the Ramban's assumption.
This leads to a fundamental question: Does personal identity remain fully intact after Techiyas HaMeisim, or does some aspect of a person's halachic status reset? The resolution to this debate carries profound implications—not only regarding Kohanim but for all aspects of Jewish identity after resurrection.
A New Approach: The Dual Purpose of Anointing Perhaps we can resolve this debate by carefully analyzing the purpose of anointing as explained by Rashi.
In Shemos 30:29, Rashi states that the function of anointing with Shemen HaMishcha was to sanctify whatever was anointed—whether the Mizbe'ach, the service vessels, or the Kohanim themselves. Their very bodies were being anointed and elevated to a new spiritual status.
Rashi then comments that the word Lemashcha is translated by Onkelos as greatness, for there is no purpose in their anointing other than to inaugurate them to their exalted position.
Rashi further comments (Shemos 29:30) that the term "lemashcha" refers to elevation and greatness, as it implies authority and exaltation. From here, we see that anointing served a dual purpose: - To sanctify the Kohanim, endowing them with inherent kedushah.
- To elevate them, granting them a higher status of authority and greatness.
Both aspects of this dual function, the kedushah (holiness) and gadlus (greatness) were not required by standard Kohanim in later generations for their status was inherited—it was passed down naturally from father to son. A newborn Kohen is automatically sanctified by virtue of his lineage and does not require additional anointing to assume his role.
The Soul and the Body: A New Perspective on Resurrection To explain the debate surrounding Techiyas HaMeisim, we must consider a fundamental concept: the twofold nature of a human being—the soul (neshama) and the body (guf).
A fascinating teshuva from the Ben Ish Chai explores these very issues, offering profound insights into the nature of identity after Techiyas HaMeisim. He maintains that while a person's soul remains unchanged, their body is considered new upon resurrection. This distinction carries significant halachic implications.
Marriage: Eternal Souls, New Kiddushin The Ben Ish Chai rules that since the neshamos remain the same, a person who was married in this world will be reunited with their original spouse in the next world. Their souls are eternally connected, and upon Techiyas HaMeisim, they will naturally reunite. Someone who was married to two different people would reunite with their first spouse.
However, he maintains that new kiddushin (marriage) would still be required after resurrection. Why? While their souls remain the same, their bodies are different. Since the kiddushin performed in this world was an act binding their physical selves, and their physical form has changed, the original marriage bond does not automatically transfer. Thus, although they are destined to be together, a new halachic act of kiddushin would be necessary to restore their marital status in the physical realm[3].
We see from here that while the neshama retains its previous status, the body must reestablish its halachic standing. The soul is eternal; it does not die but merely transitions to another plane of existence. The body, however, is temporary and undergoes death and decay before being recreated anew at Techiyas HaMeisim.
When a Kohen is born into this world, his neshama is automatically infused with the kedushah of kehuna, and that holiness remains intact forever. However, upon death and resurrection, the question arises: Is he the same person as before, or is he considered a new being?
This distinction allows us to explain the Ramban's position that Kohanim will require a new anointing in the future: - The soul remains unchanged, and thus its inherent kedushah as a Kohen is unaffected.
- The body, however, is new, and since anointing was applied to the body, the resurrected Kohen requires re-anointing to restore his physical status of kehuna.
This aligns with the Toras Kohanim, which states that no new anointing is necessary, as it refers to the neshama's sanctity—which never wavers. However, the Ramban speaks of the guf—a newly formed body, which necessitates a fresh anointing to restore its elevated status.
Applying This to R' Zeira's Resurrection Based on this approach, we can now explain the case of R' Zeira.
After being killed by Rabbah and later resurrected, it is reasonable to assume that some form of supernatural healing took place. The fatal wounds inflicted upon him were repaired, allowing him to continue living without being susceptible to immediate death again.
This means that while his soul remained unchanged, his physical body had undergone a transformation—perhaps even appearing different from before. This would explain why, despite retaining his neshama's inherent kedushah, his newly restored body was no longer considered kadosh.
Thus, even though he was originally a Kohen, his resurrected body lacked the status of kehuna, rendering him unfit to lead Birchas HaMazon as a Kohen.
This understanding allows us to harmonize the various opinions: - The Toras Kohanim asserts that kehuna is eternal—referring to the neshama, which never loses its kedushah.
- The Ramban maintains that a resurrected Kohen requires new anointing, as he is inhabiting a newly formed body that lacks prior sanctification.
- The Aderes's view regarding R' Zeira is consistent with this, as his physical transformation after resurrection prevented him from assuming his former status of kehuna.
May we all merit to witness Techiyas HaMeisim, when the righteous will rise, souls will reunite with their loved ones, and the world will be filled with the ultimate revelation of Hashem's presence.
Rabbi Moshe Revah Rosh HaYeshiva, HTC - Beis HaMidrash LaTorah mrevah2@touro.edu
____________________________________________________________
[1] R' Chaim Berlin Zatzal raises this challenge in a Sefer Zikaron for R' Yitzchok Hutner, concluding that the Aderes was most likely saying this explanation in jest. [2] Many approaches are suggested to resolve this apparent contradiction including exploring if there a distinction between individual resurrection (as in the case of R' Zeira) and Techiyas HaMeisim at the end of days, if the original anointing with Shemen HaMishcha plays a role in preserving Aharon's status, and are there differences between a Kohen Gadol and a Kohen Hedyot in this regard? [3] See bais Shmuel e.h 17:11 and Birkei Yosef there. As well as Rav Poalim 2 sod yesharim | 
No comments:
Post a Comment