Rav Heshi, it is great to hear from you!

This Drasha is cited also in Midrash Rabah Bamidbar 4:11. The Perush of MaHarZav there explains that this is learnt from the extra Lamed before "Vanav" [I see that you omitted this Lamed when you cited the verse, Rav Heshi]. If it would have written u'Vanav that would have implied that there was one "giving" to Aharon and his sons together, and they could then have divided it amongst themselves according to their wishes. But the extra Lamed of "u'L'Vanav" implies that this is as if it would write "And you shall give to Aharon and you shall give to his sons". This suggests that there are 2 "givings"; one to Aharon and one to his sons; so it is logical to say that Aharon gets a half and his sons (between them) get a half.

To summarize, it seems that the extra Lamed makes a split between Aharon and between his sons, which teaches that they get half each.

Dovid Bloom

The pshat of the Torah Temimah:-

The Torah Temimah on this verse (which is Vayikra 24:9. The Torah Temimah is in #21) gives a different explanation. He writes that it cannot be that Aharon and his children divide equally because, if so, it should have said "And it will be for the Cohanim" which would have meant that Aharon is included amongst the Cohanim and receives no differently than the others.

Torah Temimah writes that we learn a rule from here. Whenever anyone mentions an individual together with a group of people in connection with a gift, this means that the individual will receive the same as the group all put together. He cites Bava Basra 143a where Rav Yosef learnt from our verse that when a man said to his wife "I give my property to you and your sons" the Halacha is that she acquires a half and her sons, together, receive a half. Torah Temimah also asserts that if a king would impose a tax on the citizens of the city and say " the rich people and the people of the city must pay" this would mean that the rich pay one half and the other inhabitants of the city pay the other half, because if the king would have wanted that they should all give equally he should have simply said that the inhabitants of the city should pay and that would have included the rich equally.

TT also cited the Rema in Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 216:7 that if the community vowed that whatever money they collect will be for the needs of building a Shul and a Beis HaMidrash, the money will be distributed equally to the Shul and Beis HaMidrash.

To summarize, Torah Temimah does not learn like Maharzav that the Din is derived from the extra Lamed, but rather he learns that if the verse would have wanted to give it to all the Cohanim equally, it should not have mentioned Aharon at all.

Dovid Bloom

Rashi Avodah Zarah 10b explains that Aharon is equal to all the other Cohanim together because he is mentioned on his own. Nimukei Yosef and Gevuras Ari elaborate further:-

1) Rashi Avodah Zara 10b DH v'Haysa writes that since Aharon's name alone was mentioned, this means that he is equal to all the other Cohanim put together; so he gets half.

[ this seems also to be the intention of the aforementioned Torah Temimah; who wrote that if Aharon was to get equally with the other Cohanim, the verse would merely have said that it goes to the Cohanim and Aharon would have automatically received the same as them since he was also a Cohen].

2) Nimukei Yosef to Bava Basra 143a (which is another place in Shas where this verse is cited) seems to be following Rashi but adds a little more explanation. This is on 66b of the Rif pages DH Amar HaMechaber. He writes that the words îçöä ìàäøï åîçöä ìáðéå "Mechetzeh l'Aharon uMechetzeh L'Banav"; imply îòìééúà ãôøè åâøéòåúà ãëìì; "Ma'alyasa dePrat uGriyusa deKlal".

This is an interesting phrase which can be translated to mean that the "Prat"; the individual; possesses a Ma'alah. He is on a higher level. The fact that he was singled out on his own, suggests that he is over and above the others. In contrast, merely to be part of the "Klal" suggests a certain âøéòåúà "inferiority". The fact that Aharon is singled out suggests that he is higher than the other Cohanim, so he receives one half of the total.

3) I also found, bs'd, that Gevuros Ari (by the author of Sha'agas Aryeh) on Yoma 17b [which is another place in Shas where this verse is mentioned] DH Asa'an explains that the Limud is from the fact that Aharon was singled out. He writes îãôøè ìàäøï ùîò îéðä ãéù ìå éôåé ëç éåúø îáðéå ; "MidePorat l'Aharon Shema Minah DeYesh lo Yipuy Koach Yoser MiBonov"; "One learns from the fact that Aharon was singled out that he possesses a 'nicer strength' than his sons". The fact that the verse mentioned only Aharon on his own, teaches us that he receives more than everyone else.

Dovid Bloom

Gemara Bava Basra 143a mentions the idea of "Prat":-

1) I just noticed that the word "Prat"; mentioned by Nimukei Yosef and Gevuros Ari that I cited above; is in fact stated explicitly by Abaye in the aforementioned Bava Basra 143a. Abaye is discussing the man who said to his wife "My property is for you and for your sons", about which Rav Yosef brought a proof from Aharon and his sons that the wife gets half and her sons get half, just as Aharon got a half and his sons got a half. Abaye questioned this proof because Aharon is different from the scenario of the wife and sons, since Aharon anyway would receive some of the Lechem HaPonim, since he was also a Cohen. That is why the Torah made Aharon into a "Prat" in order that he should receive half of the total. The case of the wife is different because she does not inherit her husband, so the fact that she was singled out, does not mean she gets a half. Rather it is sufficient that she should receive equally to her sons.

2) I found, bs'd, that Chazon Yechazkel, in volume 1 of Kodashim, page 135, in Hashmotas uMiluim (it is page 68 in the Hebrew numbers given there) DH veHineh Isa writes [in the parentheses there] that the words "and it should be for Aharon and his sons" do not imply by themselves that Aharon gets half and the sons get half. Rather, there is a side proof that Aharon gets half. This is because Aharon is anyway entitled to take some of the distribution of the Lechem, as Abaye said. Since it was not necessary to single out Aharon; but even so the verse did single him out; this proves that it did so in order that he should receive more than he would have otherwise received, which is why he gets half.

So Chazon Yechezkel writes (at least according to Abaye, possibly not according to Rav Yosef) that the proof that Aharon gets half is not merely from the fact that the verse singles him out, but from the fact that there was no need to single him out, since he anyway receives some Lechem HaPonim like any other Cohen, so the fzct that the verse nevertheless singles him out proves that he gets half.

Dovid Bloom

Suppport for Maharzav that we learn from the extra Lamed:-

1) At the very beginning we saw that Maharzav; on Bamidbar Rabah 4:11; explains that we learn from the 2 extra Lameds before Aharon and before Vanav, that they both get a half. I found, bs'd, support for this from the Ra'avad who writes, in Hasogas HaRa'avad on Rambam Hilchos Zechiya uMatanah 11:6, that if someone says "I give my property ìøàåáï åìùîòåï åìáðé ìåé; LeReuven LeShimon uLiBnei Levi", then Reuven gets one third, Shimon gets one third and the sons of Levi get one third. Ra'avad continues that if he said "ìøàåáï åùîòåï åìáðé ìåé; LeReuven veShimon uLiBnei Levi" then it may be that the sons of Levi get a half and Reuven and Shimon together get a half, as Rambam there 11:6 wrote.

Ponim Yofos on the Chumash; by the author of "Haflo'oh" on Kesubos and "HaMakneh" on Kidushin; writes that according to Raavad the difference is whether he said a Lamed or not. This is in Ponim Yofos on Vayikra 24:9, on the verse "LeAharon uLeVanav". Ponim Yofos does in fact disagree with Raavad; as does Migdol Oz on the above Rambam and Raavad; but we do at least have support from one of the Rishonim for the explanation of Maharzav.

2) I want to suggest a source to support Raavad and Mahrzav. I have seen the question asked on Rebbe in our Gemara:- why did he cite his proof from Vayikra 24:9? why did he not cite a verse stated earlier in the Torah; in Vayikra 6:9 éàëìå àäøï åáðéå; "Yochlu Aharon uVanav"?! According to Raavad and Mahrzav the answer is very simple; because there are no Lameds in Vayikra 6:9 so Rebbe could not learn his Halacha from there! That is why Rebbe, in Sanhedrin 21a , cited a verse from later in the Torah, because it contains Lameds!

[ There still remains the question:- why did Rebbe here not cite Shemos 29:28, Vayikra 2:3, or Vayikra 7:31, which are all verses which contain Lameds? However, this is a general question, not specifically on Raavad and Maharzav. According to Raavad and Maharzav we do have an explanation why Rebbe chose to cite a verse which contains Lameds when he could also have cited a verse that does not contain Lameds]

Dovid Bloom

Summary:-

I will attempt now, bs'd, to conclude this topic, which has certainly turned out to be more complicated than I was anticipating.

1) Possibly the clearest source that we have seen is Rashi Avodah Zarah 10b DH veHaysa. The background in the Gemara is where Ketiyah bar Shalom said "All my possessions go to Rabbi Akiva and his friends". Rabbi Akiva made a Drasha about "Vehaya LeAharon uLeBanav"; "half for Aharon and half for his sons". Rashi writes that R. Akiva claimed that Ketiyah has made me equal to everyone else since he mentioned only my name.

Rashi implies that since the Torah mentioned only Aharon's name this means he is equal to everyone else put together, and the same applies to Ketiyah naming only R. Akiva.

2) The next source is Bava Basra 143a, where a man said to his wife "my property goes to you and to your sons". There is a dispute between Rav Yosef and Abaye what this means. Rav Yosef said that she acquires half of her husband's property and proves this from our verse that Aharon gets a half and the other Cohanim get a half. Rashbam explains that we learn from here that if someone who gives a present mentions an individual together with a number of people, the individual receives equally to the plural. Abaye disagreed and said to Rav Yosef that the case of Aharon is different to the case of the wife. Aharon would get some Lechem HaPoinim even if his name was not mentioned, because he is also a Cohen. This is why the verse singled out Aharon so that he should get half. In contrast, the wife would not get anything, in place of the sons, if her name was not mentioned. Therefore, if her name was mentioned, it is sufficient that she should be equal to each individual son, but not stronger.

I understand that Abaye means that since Aharon would have received; like any other Cohen; even if his name was not mentioned, then when his name is mentioned this pushes him up to receiving half. But the wife receives nothing if her name is not mentioned, so when her name is mentioned this only pushes her up to receiving the same as any individual son.

I cited above the Chazon Yechezkel who writes that the words "LeAharon uLeBanav" do not imply half-half. However Chazon Yechezkel only writes this according to Abaye. According to Rav Yosef, he writes that the words themselves "LeAharon uLeBanav" imply half-half. So this is the issue of dispute between Rav Yosef and Abaye:- does mentioning only Aharon imply that Aharon gets half?

Rambam Hilchos Zechiyah uMatanah 11:5 paskens like Rav Yosef, so this means that, according to the Halacha, singling out an individual from a group implies that the individual receives half, which is the same as Rashi Avodah Zarah 10b that I cited above.

3) Finally, Raavad and Mahrzav write that Rebbe learnt from the extra Lameds in the verse that Aharon receives equal to all the sons put together. They do not learn like Rashi.

Dovid Bloom

3) Rashi (Avodah Zarah 10b) explains that Aharon is equal to all the other Kohanim together because he is mentioned on his own. The Nimukei Yosef and Gevuras Ari elaborate further:

a) Rashi (Avodah Zarah 10b, DH v'Hayesah) writes that since Aharon's name alone was mentioned, this means that he is equal to all the other Kohanim put together, so he gets half.

(This seems also to be the intention of the aforementioned Torah Temimah, who wrote that if Aharon was to get equally with the other Kohanim, the verse would merely have said that it goes to the Kohanim and Aharon would have automatically received the same as them since he was also a Kohen.)

b) The Nimukei Yosef (Bava Basra 143a, which is another place in Shas where this verse is cited) seems to be following Rashi but adds a little more explanation. This is on 66b of the pages of the Rif, DH Amar ha'Mechaber. He writes that the words "Mechetzeh l'Aharon u'Mechetzeh l'Vanav" imply "Ma'alyasa d'Prat u'Gri'usa d'Klal."

This is an interesting phrase which can be translated to mean that the "Prat," the individual, possesses a Ma'alah. He is on a higher level. The fact that he was singled out on his own suggests that he is over and above the others. In contrast, merely to be part of the "Klal" suggests a certain "Geri'usa," "inferiority." The fact that Aharon is singled out suggests that he is higher than the other Kohanim, so he receives one half of the total.

c) I also found, bs'd, that the Gevuros Ari (by the author of the Sha'agas Aryeh) on Yoma 17b (another place in Shas where this verse is mentioned), DH Asa'an, explains that the Limud is from the fact that Aharon was singled out. He writes, "mid'Parat l'Aharon Shema Minah d'Yesh Lo Yipuy Ko'ach Yoser mi'Vanav" -- "One learns from the fact that Aharon was singled out that he possesses a 'better strength' than his sons." The fact that the verse mentions only Aharon on his own teaches us that he receives more than everyone else.

4) The Gemara in Bava Basra 143a mentions the idea of "Prat":

a) I just noticed that the word "Prat" (mentioned by the Nimukei Yosef and Gevuros Ari that I cited above) is in fact stated explicitly by Abaye in the aforementioned Gemara (Bava Basra 143a). Abaye is discussing the man who said to his wife, "My property is for you and for your sons," about which Rav Yosef brought a proof from Aharon and his sons that the wife gets half and her sons get half, just as Aharon received a half and his sons a half. Abaye questioned this proof because Aharon is different from the scenario of the wife and sons, since Aharon anyway would receive some of the Lechem ha'Panim since he was also a Kohen. That is why the Torah made Aharon into a "Prat" in order that he should receive half of the total. The case of the wife is different because she does not inherit her husband, so the fact that she was singled out does not mean she gets a half. Rather, it is sufficient that she should receive equally to her sons.

b) I found, bs'd, that the Chazon Yechazkel (volume 1 of Kodshim, page 135, in Hashmatos u'Milu'im (page 68 in the Hebrew numbers there), DH v'Hineh Isa) writes (in the parentheses there) that the words, "and it should be for Aharon and his sons," do not imply by themselves that Aharon gets half and the sons get half. Rather, there is a side proof that Aharon gets half. This is because Aharon is anyway entitled to take some of the distribution of the Lechem, as Abaye said. Since it was not necessary to single out Aharon, but even so the verse did single him out, this proves that it did so in order that he should receive more than he would have otherwise received, which is why he gets half.

So the Chazon Yechezkel writes (at least according to Abaye, possibly not according to Rav Yosef) that the proof that Aharon gets half is not merely from the fact that the verse singles him out, but from the fact that there was no need to single him out, since he anyway receives some Lechem ha'Panim like any other Kohen, so the fact that the verse nevertheless singles him out proves that he gets half.

5) We find suppport for the Maharzav who that we learn from the extra Lamed:

a) At the very beginning, we saw that the Maharzav (on Bamidbar Rabah 4:11) explains that we learn from the two extra Lameds before "Aharon" and before "Vanav" that they both get a half. I found, bs'd, support for this from the Ra'avad who writes, in Hasagas ha'Ra'avad on the Rambam, Hilchos Zechiyah u'Matanah 11:6, that if someone says, "I give my property l'Reuven l'Shimon ul'Bnei Levi," then Reuven gets one third, Shimon gets one third, and the sons of Levi get one third. The Ra'avad continues that if he says, "l'Reuven v'Shimon ul'Bnei Levi," then it may be that the sons of Levi get a half and Reuven and Shimon together get a half, as Rambam there (11:6) writes.

The Panim Yafos on the Chumash (by the author of "Hafla'ah" on Kesuvos, and "ha'Makneh" on Kidushin) writes that according to the Ra'avad the difference is whether he said a Lamed or not. This is found in the Panim Yafos to Vayikra 24:9, on the verse, "l'Aharon ul'Vanav." The Panim Yafos does in fact disagree with the Ra'avad, as does the Migdol Oz on the above Rambam and Ra'avad, but we do at least have support from one of the Rishonim for the explanation of the Maharzav.

b) I want to suggest a source to support the Ra'avad and the Maharzav. I have seen the question asked on Rebbi in our Gemara -- why did he cite his proof from Vayikra 24:9, and not cite a verse stated earlier in the Torah, in Vayikra 6:9, "Yochlu Aharon u'Vanav"? According to the Ra'avad and Maharzav, the answer is very simple: because there are no Lameds in Vayikra 6:9, so Rebbi could not learn his Halachah from there! That is why Rebbi, in Sanhedrin 21a, cites a verse from later in the Torah, because it contains Lameds!

(There still remains the question: why does Rebbi here not cite Shemos 29:28, Vayikra 2:3, or Vayikra 7:31, which are all verses which contain Lameds? However, this is a general question, not specifically on the Ra'avad and Maharzav. According to the Ra'avad and Maharzav we do have an explanation for why Rebbi chose to cite a verse which contains Lameds when he could also have cited a verse that does not contain Lameds.)

6) Summary:

I will attempt now, bs'd, to conclude this topic, which has certainly turned out to be more complicated than I was anticipating.

a) Possibly, the clearest source that we have seen is Rashi to Avodah Zarah 10b, DH v'Hayesah. The background in the Gemara is where Ketiyah bar Shalom said, "All my possessions go to Rebbi Akiva and his friends." Rebbi Akiva made a Derashah about "v'Hayah l'Aharon ul'Vanav" -- "half for Aharon and half for his sons." Rashi writes that Rebbi Akiva claims that "Ketiyah has made me equal to everyone else since he mentioned only my name." Rashi implies that since the Torah mentions only Aharon's name, this means he is equal to everyone else put together, and the same applies to Ketiyah naming only Rebbi Akiva.

b) The next source is Bava Basra 143a, where a man said to his wife, "My property goes to you and to your sons." There is a dispute between Rav Yosef and Abaye about what this means. Rav Yosef says that she acquires half of her husband's property, and he proves this from our verse that Aharon gets a half and the other Kohanim get a half. The Rashbam explains that we learn from here that if someone who gives a present mentions an individual together with a number of people, the individual receives equally to the plural. Abaye disagrees and says to Rav Yosef that the case of Aharon is different from the case of the wife. Aharon would get some Lechem ha'Panim even if his name was not mentioned, because he is also a Kohen. This is why the verse singles out Aharon -- so that he should get half. In contrast, the wife would not get anything, in place of the sons, if her name was not mentioned. Therefore, if her name was mentioned, it is sufficient that she should be equal to each individual son, but not stronger.

I understand that Abaye means that since Aharon would have received, like any other Kohen, even if his name was not mentioned, then when his name is mentioned this pushes him up to receiving half. But the wife receives nothing if her name is not mentioned, so when her name is mentioned this only pushes her up to receiving the same as any individual son.

I cited above the Chazon Yechezkel who writes that the words "l'Aharon ul'Vanav" do not imply half-half. However, the Chazon Yechezkel writes this only according to Abaye. According to Rav Yosef, he writes that the words themselves, "l'Aharon ul'Vanav," imply half-half. So this is the issue of dispute between Rav Yosef and Abaye: does mentioning only Aharon imply that Aharon gets half?

The Rambam (Hilchos Zechiyah u'Matanah 11:5) rules like Rav Yosef, so this means that according to the Halacha, singling out an individual from a group implies that the individual receives half, which is the same as Rashi to Avodah Zarah 10b that I cited above.

c) Finally, the Ra'avad and Maharzav write that Rebbi learns from the extra Lameds in the verse that Aharon receives equal to all the sons put together. They do not learn like Rashi.

Dovid Bloom