Parashat VaYikra

Rabbi Yishmael says: There are thirteen rules [which one must follow] when being Doreish the words of the Torah:
13) Two pasukim that contradict either other, until a third pasuk comes along to choose between [the two pasukim.]

This final rule to the Shlosh Esrei Midos is rather puzzling. The rule seems to imply that when we find pasukim that argue with each other, we should look for a third pasuk to explain which of the first two verses is correct and which is incorrect. But could this Drasha be implying that a pasuk in the Torah is incorrect or not accurate? Of course not! But if both pasukim are true, then what does the third pasuk accomplish? Perhaps it comes to resolve how there isn’t any contradiction between those first two pasukim. But if this is the only purpose the third pasuk serves, why do we consider it a Drasha? Isn’t it nothing more than a logical resolution?

In the first pasuk of this week’s parasha, we are told “VaYidabeir Eilav Hashem MeiOhel Mo’eid Leimor,” Hashem spoke to Moshe from the Ohel Mo’eid. However, this fact isn’t so simple, since the pasuk in Parashat Terumah says Hashem spoke to Moshe from on top of the Kapores, which is on the Aron. Which pasuk is correct, the Sifri asks. The answer comes from a Kasuv Shlishi, a pasuk in Parashat Naso that states, “when Moshe came to the Ohel Mo’eid to speak to [Hashem], he heard the voice from atop the Kapores…” Therefore, we see that the voice came from the Kapores and not the Ohel. What then can we say about the pasuk in this week’s parasha and its claim that Hashem’s voice came from the Ohel?

Perhaps the real question we should ask is why do we need a Drasha in the first place. The Kapores is inside of the Ohel Mo’eid, so if one pasuk says that Hashem spoke from the Kapores, then it implies that He spoke from inside the Ohel. Isn’t that a rational explanation of the pasuk in this week’s parasha? In fact, this seems to be exactly what the pasuk in Naso describes. The pasuk begins by explaining that Moshe heard Hashem’s voice come from the Kapores after he entered the Ohel, so before he entered, the voice must have sounded like it was coming from the Ohel. Why then do we consider this a Kasuv Shilshi that breaks up the contradiction; if anything it resolves the contradiction and does so without anything more than common sense?!

Maybe there’s something more to this Drasha that we are overlooking. If we look closely at the words in Rabbi Yishael’s statement, we notice there is a missing verb. Had the statement said, “two pasukim are contradictory until…” the grammar would make sense; but instead, the words read “two pasukim that are contradictory until...” This implies that the nature of these contradictory verses changes after we find a Kasuv Shlishi. But what could change upon the discovery of the Kasuv Shlishi?

Perhaps the point of the Drasha is to teach us that the Kasuv Shlishi is what chooses between the two contradictory pasukim, and not us. Chazal were perfectly capable of resolving contradictory verses in the Torah, but if they found an extra pasuk like the one in Naso, then they would be forced to use it to resolve the argument. And what argument does the pasuk resolve? As we pointed out earlier, the two pasukim aren’t even necessarily contradictory!

However, two pasukim do say Hashem spoke from the Kapores and only one pasuk says Hashem spoke from the Ohel, and the pasukim themselves provide no resolution. Therefore, we are forced to accept not just that the voice came from the Kapores but also that it did not come from the Ohel, nor can we presume that the pasuk in VaYikra comes to suggest that Moshe heard the voice while he was outside the Ohel. In fact, this is what Rashi teaches us on the very words Mei’Ohel Mo’eid:

“Mei’Ohel Mo’eid. This teaches us that the voice was cut off and did not leave the Ohel. One might think this was smply because Hashem’s voice was soft, therefore the pasuk in Naso states Kol. This is the powerful Kol that we speak of in Psalms 29.”

Of course, it would make perfect sense for Rashi to explain “Mei’Ohel Mo’eid” to mean that the voice did leave the Ohel; after all, the pasuk doesn’t say LiOhel. This would also help Rashi explain the voice to be loud and powerful. But because of the Kasuv Shlishi, he is forced to explain it this way. We now see how a Kasuv Shlishi is a Drasha and not just a reflection of common sense. It doesn’t only determine for us what pasuk is correct and what must be expounded upon, it even tells us when we may not simply resolve two pasukim by logic.

Alternatively, the Kasuv Shlishi can force us to resolve through logic. For instance, the pasuk in Naso clearly establishes that Moshe entered the Ohel Mo’eid to speak with Hashem, but the pasuk in parashat Fidukei says “and Moshe did not enter into the Mishkan.” That pasuk, however, continues with an explanation “because the cloud rested on [the Ohel].” Therefore, Chazal establish this explanation as a Kasuv Shlishi that forces us to explain the two pasukim by the logic expressed in the pasuk. The logical resolution forces Chazal to accept that both pasukim are true, that neither is open for Drasha (as opposed to Rashi’s explanation of Mei’Ohel Mo’eid). And if both pasukim are true, then we must recognize that one possible resolution is that one pasuk (the one in Fikudei) held true on the day of Chanukas HaMishkan, and the other pasuk (the one in Naso, which is stated after the twelve days of Korbanos from the Nissi’im) held true at other times. But the Kasuv Shlishi teaches us that the deciding factor was not HaKamas HaMishkan or Chanukas HaMishkan, but rather the presence of Hashem’s Anan.

Ultimately, we come to see that even the most obvious Drashos are not as obvious as one may expect them to be. Rabbi Yishmael’s rules really do provide strict regulations over our interpretations of Torah’s words. Good Shabbos.