## Mei HaShiloach, Volume I, Leviticus, Shmini

###### Mei HaShiloach, Volume I, Leviticus, Shmini 1
[Mei HaShiloach, Volume I, Leviticus, Shmini 1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mei%20HaShiloach/s/Volume%20I,_Leviticus,_Shmini/r/1)

**ויהי ביום השמיני וכו'.** ויקחו בני אהרן נדב ואביהוא וכו'. ענין מיתת נדב ואביהוא הוא ע"פ מה דאיתא (באבות) (תמיד ל"ב.) איזהו חכם הרואה את הנולד. הענין בזה אף שנאמר (דברים י"ח,י"ג) תמים תהיה עם ה' אלקיך ונתפרש שם שלא ירבה להתחכם, אך רואה את הנולד הוא, בזה המעשה עצמה שהוא עושה יחקור ויתבונן אם המעשה והרצון הזה הוא מבורר שיהיה קיים כן לעולמי עד אפילו לעוה"ב. וענין קטורת הוא כדאיתא בזוה"ק (במדבר קנ"א:) מאי קטורת קטירא דכולא, היינו שהש"י הוא תוך כל המעשים שנעשו מבריאת העולם ועד סופו, ובלתי רצונו לא יעשה שום דבר, וע"ז מורה ענין קטורת כמו שנתבאר בפ' תצוה [ד"ה ועשית]. ובאמת כפי מה שהאדם מקרב עצמו לה', כן זוכה להתגלות אור ה' מבלי לבושים שהם גדרים וסייגים, כי באור הברור, שם לא נמצא שום סייג ואיסור, ושם כל מעשה האדם מבוררים שהם לה'. וזהו ענין קטורת שהיה סוד ואסור להתחכם בזה, כי רק ר' עקיבא ירד בשלום (חגיגה י"ד:) וזה שנאמר (ויקרא ט"ז,א') בקרבתם לפני ה' וימותו, שהיו מקרבים עצמם לה' והסתכלו בעומק הצפון ורצו לעמוד על בירר התנהגות הש"י, ולזה הטעם על לא צוה אותם הוא מרכא כפולא, היינו שכל כך בער בלבם אהבת ה' עד שמסרו נפשם, כי מרכא היא לשון רך שלבם נתרכך, וכפולא היינו כפול ברוב טובה אשר לא צוה הש"י. ולפי שהיו צעירים לימים ולא אנסיבי ולא אתכללו במשה ואהרן כדאיתא בזוה"ק (שמות ל"ז:), ולא נטלו עצה, ולזה הפלוגתא (בגמ') חד אמר שתויי יין היו היינו שיש לטעון על קרבותם שהיתה ח"ו מקלות ראש, או שהיתה כוונתם שיוסר מהם עול הגדרים כמו שנתבאר, וגם מאמר המדרש שהיו מחוסרי בגדים ומה היו חסרים המעיל (ויקרא רבה פרשה כ',ו') אף שהמעיל אינו רק לכהן גדול רק הם הכניסו עצמם למקום שהיו צריכים למעיל, והבן.

**Living waters, the Mei HaShiloach. Trans. and edited by Betsalel Philip Edwards, Jerusalem, J. Aronson 2001 [Revised digital edition, 2021]:**
*“And it was, on the eighth day … and Nadav and Avihu, Aharon’s sons, each took a censer ….”* (Vayikra, 9:1, 10:1)
The death of Nadav and Avihu is related to what is said in the *Pirkei Avot* (and Masechet *Tamid*, 32b), “who is wise? He who sees what will be born in the future.” On the one hand, we are told (*Devarim*, 18:13), “be honest [simple] with Hashem your God,” which means not to be overly clever (becoming involved in predictions of the future). Yet still, we are to fulfill the advice of “seeing what is born in the future.” One does this by looking into the very action he is doing, deeply investigating and contemplating whether this action is refined to the extent that it will endure for all time, even in the world to come. The matter of the incense offering⁷ is as is said in the holy Zohar (*Bamidbar*, 151b), “what is incense [*ketoret*]? It is the connection [*ketira*] of everything.”⁸ and the surrounding light out of which all is formed are hinted at in the eleven spices in the incense. Furthermore, as mentioned elsewhere, Rabbi Yitzhak of Acco writes in his explanation *Meirat Eineihem*, that smoke, *ashan*, is an acronym for: *olam, shana, nefesh*, meaning place, time, and soul, the three main components of existence, as discussed in the *Sefer Yetsirah.*
This means that God is involved in all the actions that are done from the creation of the world until its end, and without His will nothing could be done. The incense teaches of this, as it taught in the *Mei HaShiloach* in *Parshat Tetsave* (v. “and he made”). For truly, the closer a man brings himself to God, the more he merits the light of God without its garments, which are the borders and fences that protect the Divine Law. The light itself is completely refined, with no fences or prohibitions, and there it is made totally clear that all the actions of man are wholly given over to God. This is the matter of the incense, which is a secret of the Torah and forbidden to delve into with guile. With the four sages who entered the garden (*Chagiga*, 14b, the mystic plane of Divine secrets uncovered) only Rabbi Akiva left in peace (one died, one stricken with madness, one abandoned the Torah).
This is why it says of Nadav and Avihu (*Vayikra*, 16:1), “who came close before God and died,” for they would bring themselves close to God, looking into the hidden depths, and wanted to stand on the refined, undressed truth of God’s conduct. This is why the cantillation marking on the word “not” [*lo*] in the verse, “which He commanded them not” (*Vayikra*, 10:1) is a *mercha c’foola.*
This shows how their hearts burned with such an intense love of God that they gave over their very lives, for *mercha* is related to *rach*, or soft, that their hearts became weak; and *cfoola*, or *cfool*, meaning double, or an increase of good that God did not command. Since they were young, they were not included together with Moshe and Aharon, as it is said in the holy Zohar (*Shemot*, 37b), “they did not take their [Moshe and Aharon’s] advice.”
What advice did they disregard? One opinion in the Gemara tells us that “they were drunk from wine,” claiming that they came to this state of intense closeness and became, God forbid, irreverent. Thus their intention was to remove all borders, as is explained, and here we have (the other advice that they disregarded in) the Midrash, which says that they entered missing some of the priestly garments. The missing garment was the *me’il*, the coat (made entirely of *t’chellet*, sky-blue wool, teaching of the intense fear of God, see *Mei HaShiloach Parshat Tetsave*) (*Vayikra* Rabba, 20:6). Even though the *me’il* is only for the high priest, they brought themselves to a place where they needed to wear the *me’il*,⁹ and understand.

footnotes:
⁷ The sons of Aharon each offered a censer full of incense but lit it from “outside fire,” and as R. Shlomo Carlebach once explained, they were trying to bring the Messiah, by making the outside fire like the inside fire.
⁸ Perhaps because the smoke from the incense rises up to connect heaven and earth, or because the ten sefirot
⁹ Meaning that anyone who merits to enter into a height of the secrets of the Torah as they did, must be as the Cohen Gadol, the high priest, and be enwrapped in the intense fear of God.


###### Mei HaShiloach, Volume I, Leviticus, Shmini 2
[Mei HaShiloach, Volume I, Leviticus, Shmini 2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mei%20HaShiloach/s/Volume%20I,_Leviticus,_Shmini/r/2)

**ואת שעיר החטאת דרש דרש משה.** ענין השני דרישות, כענין רמז שמרמז בגמ' (סנהדרין ק"ו:) על דואג ואחיתופל שלמדו שלש מאות הלכות פסוקות במגדל הפורח באויר הרומז לגגה של למ"ד, כי האות למד מורה על ישוב הדעת וסדר בכל מצות לא תעשה עם כל הספיקות שנולד בהלאוין האלו, וגם מורה על ישוב הדעת בתנועה אחרונה בבליעת המאכל מבית הבליעה לגוף להכיר ולהבין איזה שייך לו. וזה שהשיב לו אהרן (זבחים ק"א.) אם שמעת בקדשי שעה לא שמעת בקדשי דורות. וזה שנאמר דרוש דרש משה שהשיב לו אף שדרשת כל צרכך, מ"מ אין לו להקל בקדשי דורות. וזהו סמיכות הפרשיות אחרי רואו כי בניו נענשו לפי שרצו להסתכל בנסתרות ועתידות, וזה בהכרח לנו להבין כי קדשי דורות חמורים מאוד וחביבים בעיני הקב"ה למאוד, לכן אינו נכון לאכול, ואחר הצער גדול שהיה להם ממיתת נדב ואביהוא עי"ז זכו וניתן להם הבדלות ממאכלות אסורות.

**Living waters, the Mei HaShiloach. Trans. and edited by Betsalel Philip Edwards, Jerusalem, J. Aronson 2001 [Revised digital edition, 2021]:**
*“And for the goat of the sin offering Moshe diligently inquired ….”* (Vayikra, 10:16)
(“Diligently inquired,” Rashi explains. “Two inquiries. Why was this one burned, and why were these not eaten?”) Why did he make two inquiries? This matter is hinted at in the Gemara (*Sanhedrin*, 106b), “concerning Doag and Achitophel who learned three hundred laws in the castle floating in the air hinted at in the ‘roof’ of the letter *lamed.”* (The letter *lamed* reaches higher than the other letters of the alphabet, and thus its roof is called a “castle floating in the air.”) The letter *lamed* teaches of a settled mind, and an understanding of the order in all the prohibitive mitzvot along with the uncertainties that arise from all these prohibitions. It also teaches of a settled mind in that it graphically represents the last turn in the swallowing of food from the palate into the esophagus and the body, as if to show the understanding of the proper place for the food to go. This is as Aharon answered him (*Zevachim*, 101a), “Perhaps you have heard of the special sacrifices of the hour, and have not heard of the regular sacrifices for all generations.”¹⁰, 10:17). ‘Perhaps,’ said Moshe to Aharon, ‘its blood entered the innermost sanctuary?’ [and therefore should have been burned]. ‘The blood was not brought into the sanctuary’, he answered. ‘Perhaps it was taken outside of the boundary [taken outside of the Temple, and therefore should have been burned]?’ he suggested. ‘It was in the sanctuary’, he replied. ‘And perhaps you offered it in a state of mourning, and thus disqualified it?’ ‘Moshe’, he answered, ‘did my sons offer it? I offered it.’ Then he exclaimed, ‘Behold, the blood of it was not brought within, and it was in the sanctuary, then you should certainly have eaten it, as I commanded, that they should eat it in a state of mourning.’ He said to him: ‘And there have befallen me such things as these, and if I had eaten the sin-offering today, would it have been pleasing in the sight of the Hashem (*Vayikra*, 10)? Perhaps you heard it in this way only about sacrifices of the hour (special sacrifices)? For if [you would apply it] to the [regular] sacrifices for all generations, [you may argue] *a minori* from tithe, which is of lesser holiness. For if the Torah said of the tithe, which is of a lesser holiness, “I have not eaten thereof in my mourning,” how much the more does it apply to sacrifices, which are more holy?’ When Moshe heard that, it pleased him. He admitted his mistake and Moshe was not ashamed to say, ‘I had not heard it’, but said, ‘I heard it and forgot.’ This is as it says, “and Moshe diligently inquired,” and he answered Moshe, “even if you have inquired all that you need to, still you are not to be lenient with the sacrifices for all generations.” This is why this passage follows the incident of the death of the sons of Aharon, for he saw that his sons were punished for wanting to look into hidden and future matters. From this we learn the stringency of the sacrifices for all generations, and how greatly beloved they are by God. Therefore they are not to be eaten. After the great tragedy they had undergone with the death of Nadav and Avihu, they merited greater boundaries to separate themselves with the following mitzvot of forbidden foods.

footnotes:
¹⁰ Rav Nehemiah explains it in this way: ‘Wherefore have ye not eaten’ etc? (Vayikra


###### Mei HaShiloach, Volume I, Leviticus, Shmini 3
[Mei HaShiloach, Volume I, Leviticus, Shmini 3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mei%20HaShiloach/s/Volume%20I,_Leviticus,_Shmini/r/3)

**וישמע משה וייטב בעיניו.** אחר כך הבין משה הענין שיפה עשה אהרן שלא אכל השעיר של ראש חודש אך נפלא בעיניו מהיכן דן אהרן כן, הלא אחר כל הדרישות היה לו לאכול, כמ"ש אכול תאכלו אותה בקודש כאשר צויתי, עד שהשיב לו אהרן מענין נדב ואביהוא, ובזה הענין נמצא עמקות גדול כי שעיר ראש חדש רומז להבאת כפרה על מעיטת הירח, ושעיר ראש חודש הראשון נשרף שלא רצה אהרן לאכלו ומזה הבין משה עד עתה, והדברים עמוקים.

**Living waters, the Mei HaShiloach. Trans. and edited by Betsalel Philip Edwards, Jerusalem, J. Aronson 2001 [Revised digital edition, 2021]:**
*“And Moshe heard, and it was well in his eyes.”* (Vayikra, 10:20)
Afterwards Moshe understood the matter, for Aharon had done well in not eating the goat offering of the new moon. Yet still, it was a wonder to Moshe how Aharon knew to make such a judgment. Is it not so that after all of the inquiries he should have eaten it, as it is written (*Vayikra*, 10:18), “you shall surely eat it in the holy place as I have commanded,” until Aharon answered him with the matter of the death of Nadav and Avihu. This subject contains great depths, for the goat offering of the new moon hints at bringing atonement for reduction in size of the moon.¹¹ The first goat of the new moon was burned, for Aharon did not want to eat it, and from here Moshe understood until now. The matter is very deep.

footnotes:
¹¹ The first dispute was between the sun and moon, who were originally both great lights, equal in size. The moon asserted “two kings cannot wear the same crown,” so God told the moon, “go and reduce yourself.” This is, as it were, the introduction of dispute in the world.


###### Mei HaShiloach, Volume I, Leviticus, Shmini 4
[Mei HaShiloach, Volume I, Leviticus, Shmini 4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mei%20HaShiloach/s/Volume%20I,_Leviticus,_Shmini/r/4)

סימני עופות טהורים. איתא בגמ' (חולין ס"ה.) שאינו דורס ויש לו זפק וקרקבנו נקלף ואצבע יתירה, והארבעה סימנים האלו מרמזים בנפש האדם, הדורס נתפרש בגמ' שאוכל מיד כשטורף ואינו ממתין עד שתמות, זה מורה על כעס. והפירוש השני של דורס הוא שאוחז ברגלו המאכל כשאוכל, מורה על חסרון בטחונו בה' וירא פן יקח ממנו הטוב שחלק לו, וגם האדם צריך להיות נקי באלו השנים שלא יכעוס ויהיה לו בטחון בה'. ואצבע יתירה מורה על ישוב הדעת כי בהאצבע הוא מחזיר פניו מן הרגל, ורומז כי בכל מרוצתו יש לו מעצור וישוב הדעת, פן נכון לפניו לשוב לאחוריו. וזפק מורה שיהיה ממולא בד"ת שאחר שאכל בכדי שבעו מניח המותר בתוך הזפק לזכרון שיהנה מזה גם אח"כ, כדאיתא (ברכות כ"ח.) בר' זירא כשהיה עיף מד"ת הלך וישב על פתחא דר' נתן ב"ר טובי אמר כי אזלי רבנן מבי רב איקום מקמיהו שלא רצה לישב בטל כלל. וקרקבנו נקלף היינו שלא ינוח כח המאכל להתפשט לגרום לו ח"ו שום נטויה מה', וגם רמז שיקרת ת"ח מכוסה כי אין דמיון וערך לשער יקרת ת"ח באור תורתו בעוה"ב, כי הנראה בעוה"ז אין דמיון ושיעור נגד יקרותו בעוה"ב.

**Living waters, the Mei HaShiloach. Trans. and edited by Betsalel Philip Edwards, Jerusalem, J. Aronson 2001 [Revised digital edition, 2021]:**
The outward signs of pure birds. It is written in the Gemara (*Chullin*, 65a), “[These are the signs of a pure bird.] It does not seize its prey, it has a crop, a gizzard that can be peeled, and an extra toe.” These four signs are hinted at in the soul of man. “Seizing its prey” is explained by the Gemara as a bird that eats its prey immediately once it is captured, and does not wait until its prey dies. This teaches of anger. The second explanation of “seizing its prey” is that it clutches its prey with its claws while it eats, which teaches of a lack of trust in God, for it fears that the good that was given to it will be taken away. So, too, man must be clean in these two matters, not to become angry, and to trust in God. “An extra toe” teaches of a settled mind. By means of its toe it pushes its attention away from that which has become habitual,¹² in Hebrew means both “habitual” (*hergel*) and “foot.” hinting at the ability to contain itself when it wants to fulfill its own will, lest it finds itself comfortably settling into old habits. “A crop” teaches of being filled with words of Torah, for after it has eaten its fill it places the remainder inside its crop, as a reminder to benefit from it afterwards. This is as it is written in the Gemara (*Berachot*, 28a), “When Rabbi Zeira was exhausted from his study of the Torah, he would go and sit in front of the door of Rabbi Natan bar Tovi, for when the sages would exit, he would stand in their honor. In this way he did not sit idle even for a moment.” “A gizzard that can be peeled” means not to let the power in the food spread into the body and cause any deviation, God forbid, from God. This also hints that the preciousness of the Torah scholar is concealed, for there is no comparison between the preciousness of his study in this world and the supreme preciousness of its light in the world to come.

footnotes:
¹² Regel


###### Mei HaShiloach, Volume I, Leviticus, Shmini 5
[Mei HaShiloach, Volume I, Leviticus, Shmini 5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mei%20HaShiloach/s/Volume%20I,_Leviticus,_Shmini/r/5)

סימני שרץ העוף, שיש להם כרעים לנתר בהם על הארץ. והוא כענין המבואר במס' ברכות [ל"ג.] גדולה דעה שניתנה בין שתי אותיות, גדול מקדש שניתן בין שתי אותיות, אלא מעתה גדולה נקמה שניתנה בין שתי אותיות, אין במילתא מיהא גדולה. היינו השמים נגד הדעה והמקדש הם מקיפים רצון ה' תמיד וזהו שניתנו בין שתי אותיות, אבל נקמה לא, כי אינה טובה בתמידות, כי צריך האדם לכוון העת והנפש והמקום שיהיה מכוון לרצון הש"י כי בתמידות אינו מוכשר בעיני הש"י, וזה במעשה פנחס וזמרי שהיה פנחס צריך לכוון, כי תורת קנאין פוגעין בו הוא רק בשעת מעשה כי זה היה אחד מעשר ניסים, שאלמלא פירש זימרי והרגו לפנחס לא היה נענש עליו (סנהדרין פ"ב.) כמבואר, וזהו אשר לו כרעים לנתר וכו', היינו שצריך להיות להאדם הכח במדות נקמה לפעמים רק שיכוון העת שהוא רצון הש"י, ויהיה ביכולתו מיד לנתר ולקפוץ מזה המדה ולא ישאר בלבו שום כעס ושנאה אח"כ והבן.

**Living waters, the Mei HaShiloach. Trans. and edited by Betsalel Philip Edwards, Jerusalem, J. Aronson 2001 [Revised digital edition, 2021]:**
*“Yet these you may eat of every flying creeping that goes on four [legs], which has legs above their feet, and uses them to leap on the earth.”* (Vayikra, 11:21)
This is similar to the matter discussed in the Gemara (*Berachot*, 33a), “Great is knowledge, since it is placed between two names of God [“For a God of knowledge is God,” Shmuel 1, 2:3]. Great is the Sanctuary [Mikdash], since it is placed between two names [“You have made, O God, the Sanctuary, O God,” *Shemot*, 15:17]. In refutation to this, one said, if so, you could also say, great is vengeance, since it is placed between two names [“God of Vengeance is God,” *Tehilim*, 94:1].” Meaning, the heavens corresponds to knowledge, and the Sanctuary (Mikdash) is that which is constantly surrounded by God’s will. This is “placed between two names of God.”¹³ Yet it is not so with vengeance, for vengeance is not always good. One must calculate the proper time, place, and person regarding the vengeance, for it must be set in accordance with God’s will, for it is not always proper in God’s view.
We find this in the incident with Pinchas and Zimri. Pinchas had to consider his intentions carefully (and in a split second). Even though the law says “zealots may harm them,”¹⁴ this was one of the ten miracles performed for Pinchas at that time, for if Zimri had separated and risen up to kill Pinchas, he would not have been punished (*Sanhedrin*, 82a), as is explained. This is the inner meaning of “that has legs above its feet, and uses them to jump,” meaning that a man must have the power in the aspect of vengeance at times, where he must intend the exact moment that is God’s will. Then he must have the ability to immediately “leap” and jump from this mode of behavior, where afterwards no remnant of anger and hatred will be left in his heart. Understand.

footnotes:
¹³ Meaning, if God’s name surrounds it, then it is always good.
¹⁴ A zealot may harm one found having intercourse with an Aramite, as Pinchas did.


###### Mei HaShiloach, Volume I, Leviticus, Shmini 6
[Mei HaShiloach, Volume I, Leviticus, Shmini 6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mei%20HaShiloach/s/Volume%20I,_Leviticus,_Shmini/r/6)

סימני בהמה טהורה, מעלת גרה ומפרסת פרסה. מעלת גרה היינו, שאינו חוטף הטוב מהש"י ותמיד הוא מוכן להחזירו, אף שקבל כבר הוא מוכן להחזירו ורק מקבלו בנייחא. ומפריס פרסה הוא שאינו קופץ ידיו לאחוז במה שנחלק לו מהש"י, וזהו מגודל בטחונו בה' כי על זה רומז מפריס פרסה כמ"ש (תהלים י"ח,ל"ז) תרחיב צעדי שעומד במרחב.

**Living waters, the Mei HaShiloach. Trans. and edited by Betsalel Philip Edwards, Jerusalem, J. Aronson 2001 [Revised digital edition, 2021]:**
Signs of Pure Animals. “Whatever has parted hooves, is cloven footed, and chews the cud, of these you may eat” (*Vayikra*, 11:2). “Chews the cud” means one who does not snatch the good from God, and is always willing to return it. Even if he has already received it he is ready to return it, and he only receives it in a pleasant way. “That has parted hooves” means that his hands do not jump to seize that which God has allotted him, and this comes out of his great trust in God. “That has parted hooves” hints at this, as it is written (*Tehilim*, 18:37), “You have enlarged my steps under me,” meaning that he stands in a wide space.


###### Mei HaShiloach, Volume I, Leviticus, Shmini 7
[Mei HaShiloach, Volume I, Leviticus, Shmini 7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Mei%20HaShiloach/s/Volume%20I,_Leviticus,_Shmini/r/7)

בגמל כתיב פרסה איננו מפריס לשון הוה, ובשפן כתיב לא יפריס לשון עתיד, ובארנבת כתיב לא הפריסה לשון עבר. והענין בזה כי גמל מורה על מהירות וזה מה דאיתא במס' שבת [ק"ד.] מאי טעמא מהדר אפי דגימ"ל לגביה דל"ת שכן דרך גומלי חסדים לרדוף אחר דלים, וכשלא במקום הראוי אז הוא מהירות שאינו נושא חן בעיני הבריות ג"כ, ע"כ נאמר בו לשון הוה היינו שבשעת מעשה ניכר שהמעשה אינה נכונה, וזה ענין אות גימ"ל כשהוא ביו"ד מורה על גמילות חסדים, וכשהוא שלא ביו"ד מורה על מהירות הנקרא גמל. וענין שפן הוא הנראה לבני אדם לישוב הדעת וענוה אך לא בזאת בחר הש"י, והוא כענין שנתבאר בפסוק [פר' בשלח] ויותירו ממנו אנשים, כי הם החזיקו את עצמם לענוים במה שהותירו, פן לא יהיו כדאים בעיני הש"י שיזמין להם מן על יום מחר, וזה הוא ענוה פסולה שלא בחר בה הש"י, כי אין צריך שיחזיק האדם את עצמו שהוא קטן מכל, כי הם הוציאו את עצמם מכלל ישראל אשר כל ישראל הם כדאים ורק הם אינם כדאי, ואף שנראה לעין אנושי לישוב הדעת וענוה ונושא חן בשעת מעשה בעיני הבריות, אך בעיני הש"י לא נכון הוא ועל זה נאמר (שמות ט"ז,כ') וירם תולעים ויבאש, כי תולעת רומז למדת ענוה כמו שאמר דהע"ה (תהלים כ"ב,ז') ואנכי תולעת אך ענותנותו של דוד היתה נושאת חן בעיני הש"י, ועליהם נאמר ויבאש, ועל זה נאמר בשפן לשון עתיד מחמת שאף שנושא חן בשעת מעשה רק שאח"כ מתברר שלא היה ממדות הטוב. והארנבת מורה לעז פנים, שאף שרואה שאין בשורשו שום חיים כלל מ"מ ירצה שיפעול כרצונו וזהו חוצפה כלפי שמיא, כמו שנתבאר בבלעם הרשע, שאף שאמר לו הקב"ה לא תלך מ"מ התאמץ וזה הוא ראיה שיש חסרון בשורשו, וע"ז נאמר לשון עבר.

**Living waters, the Mei HaShiloach. Trans. and edited by Betsalel Philip Edwards, Jerusalem, J. Aronson 2001 [Revised digital edition, 2021]:**
Of the Camel it is written, “since it chews the cud but is not cloven-footed,” in the present tense. With the badger it is written, “and it will not split its foot,” in the future tense. And with the rabbit it is written, “it has not split its foot,” in the past tense. The camel teaches of quickness (rather, undue haste). This is what is said in the Gemara (*Shabbat*, 104a), “for what reason is the face of the letter *gimmel*—ג?—turned towards the letter that follows it, *dalet*—ד For it is the nature of those who do acts of kindness (“*gomlei chassidim*—the same letters as *gimel*, and the same letters for camel, *gamal*) to run after the the poor (poor, *dal* is the same letters as *dalet*).” When the kindness goes to a place that it is not warranted it is a result of undue haste, and also finds no favor in the surrounding creation. Therefore of the camel (*gamal*, the same as *gomlei chassadim*, those who do kindness, and the letter *gimel*), the nature of its hoof is expressed in the present tense, for immediately at the time of the action one sees that it is not proper. This is the nature of the letter *gimel*—for when it is spelled with a *yud* [*gimel yud mem lamed*] it means acts of kindness—*gemilut chassadim*—and when it is not spelled with a *yud* it teaches of undue haste, called *gamal*, the camel.
The badger teaches of a quality that appears to others as humility and a settled mind, yet truly it is behavior that God did not choose (meaning it is not genuine). This is discussed above in *Parshat Beshalach* on the verse (*Shemot*, 16:20), “and some of them left it [the manna] until morning, and it bred worms, and became loathsome.” That is, they fancied themselves as being humble in leaving it over, on the chance that the next day God would not consider them worthy to have given them manna, and then on the morrow they would still have some. This is defunct humility, which God did not choose, for one should not view himself as being the least important, and in this they took themselves out of the community of Israel, where all of Israel is worthy, and only they are not. This would first appear to be an expression of the good qualities of a settled mind and humility. At the time of the action (of their deeming themselves unworthy) it would find favor in the view of their surrounding community. However, in God view it is not proper, and of this it is said (*Shemot* 16:20), “and it bred worms and became loathsome,” for worm teaches of the quality of humility, as David haMelech said (*Tehilim*, 22:7), “and I am a worm.” However, the humility of David haMelech was favorable in God’s view, yet of them, it is written, “and it became loathsome.” Thus the sign of impurity for the badger is written in the future tense, for even though such an action appears favorable (appears to come from true humility and a settled mind) at the time of the action, it will later become clear that it was not a good attribute.
The rabbit teaches of brazenness. Even though he sees within himself that there is no root of life, nevertheless he wants things to go according to his will. This is brazenness towards Heaven. This is explained concerning the evil Bilaam, for even though the Holy One, blessed be He, told him not to go, nonetheless he was obstinate, and this is proof that there is a deficiency at the root (and thus, in the past). This is why the rabbit’s sign of impurity is mentioned in the past tense.