Vol 23.15 - Korach 2                             Spanish French Audio  Video

Page 123   Page124   Page125   Page126   Page127   Page128   Page129   Page130   Page131   Page132   Page133  

Translation:

1. On the verse (Num. 18:8):

 "The L-rd told Aharon: Behold I have given you the charge of My gift (offerings) etc.”

Rashi addresses the words:

“Behold I have given you”,

and states two aspects, both of which are cited in the Sifri (with different wording):

1. That the word “Behold (I have given you)” (ואני הנה נתתי לך) means “Joy, as in ‘Behold, he is coming forth toward you, and when he sees you, he will rejoice in his heart’” (Ex. 4:14).

(However, Rashi elaborates (and adds to the wording of the Sifri):

“With joy. This (word “behold”) is an expression of joy”.

For according to Pshat, the word “behold” is not always an expression of joy. (Rather only when there is a necessity to translate it so).

Therefore, Rashi precisely notes: “This is an expression of joy”.

2. That the reason for the juxtaposition of this Parsha (regarding the twenty-four gifts of Kehuna/ Matanot Kehuna) to the episode of Korach, is understood from a parable of:

“A king who gave a field to his friend but did not write nor sign (a deed) . . A person came and contested (his ownership) . . The king said to him: ‘Anyone who wants may come and contest your rights. Behold, I will write and sign (a deed) for you, and record it in court’. Here, too, since Korach came and made a claim against Aharon regarding the Kehuna, Scripture comes and gives him twenty-four gifts of Kehuna as an everlasting covenant of salt. This is why this section is placed here (after the rebellion of Korach)”

One must understand:

Seemingly these two comments do not have any connection between them. Moreover, as we see, they are indeed stated as two separate homilies in the Sifri (and are based on different words). Yet Rashi combines them in the same heading, and in one comment?

2. One must also understand:

After the Sifri states the parable, it concludes with the lesson (נמשל):

“Korach came and contested against his (Aharon's) claim to the priesthood. The Omnipresent said to him: Let anyone who wishes come and contest it, and I am writing and I am sealing it and I am recording it in the courts”.

However, Rashi concludes the (aforementioned) lesson:

“Here, too, since Korach came and made a claim against Aharon regarding the Kehuna, Scripture comes and gives him twenty-four gifts of Kehuna as an everlasting covenant of salt “.

It is understood why Rashi concludes:

(not like the Sifri: “I am writing and I am sealing it”, but rather)

“Scripture comes and gives him etc.”.

For Rashi wishes to explain the words, “I am writing etc.” in the lesson, “(Scripture) gives him twenty-four gifts of Kehuna as an everlasting covenant of salt”.

(Whereas, the Sifri does not need to say this. For in the Sifri, one knows this beforehand.

Before, the Sifri states the parable, it prefaces,

“Scripture forged a covenant with Aharon with the holy of holies (viz. Ibid. 19) . . For Korach arose against Aharon and contested the priesthood etc. “.

Therefore, the Sifri did not need to repeat this again, but rather just the parable).

However, it is not understood:

1. Why does Rashi state, “Scripture comes and gives him etc.” not (like in the Sifri): “the Omnipresent”?
2. Why does Rashi state “twenty-four Matanot Kehuna”? What is the ramification of knowing the number of the priestly gifts? Rashi should have just said, “He gave him priestly gifts as an everlasting covenant of salt”.

Moreover, in the verses here, not all the twenty-four Matanot Kehuna are enumerated. It does not mention the Mitzvah of Challah, the first of the fleece of your sheep, the foreleg, the jaws, and the maw. Therefore, how does Rashi state that due to Korach’s claim, “Scripture comes and gives him twenty-four gifts of Kehuna as an everlasting covenant of salt”?

This puzzlement is even greater:

Regarding the first of the fleece of your sheep, the foreleg, the jaws, and the maw, the Torah only commanded them later in Parsha Shoftim!

3. Regarding the precise wording of Rashi,

“Scripture comes and gives him etc.”,

one could say that this is connected with another difference of Rashi’s wording, in his comment, versus the Sifri:

• In the Sifri, it concludes, “Therefore this section was stated (נאמרה) next to (the episode of) Korach.”
• Yet Rashi changes from the wording of the Sifri and states, “This is why this section is juxtaposed (נסמכה) here”.

The difference between the two wordings stated (נאמרה) and juxtaposed (נסמכה) plainly is:

• This section was stated (נאמרה) next to (the episode of) Korach”, means that it was stated in proximity to the episode of Korach.
• Whereas juxtaposed (נסמכה) . . here”, means the juxtaposition of the Parsha in the Torah. It was written in Torah in this place (however, it was stated either before or after).

Since Rashi accepts that the Parsha is just juxtaposed (נסמכה) . . here”, therefore, he precisely writes,

“Scripture comes and gives him etc.”

For the essential announcement (אנזאג) (of the Matanot Kehuna that is stated) in the Parsha, did not come in continuation to the episode of Korach. Rather the Torah (“wrote”) juxtaposed the Parsha here, to teach us that the giving of the Matanot Kehuna, as an everlasting covenant of salt, nullifies the possibility of contesting the Kehuna.

However, it remains not understood:

This itself requires a reason:

How does Rashi know this innovation (in the simple meaning of the verse). Namely, that the Parsha was

(not stated and therefore also not written in proximity to the episode of Korach, as the Sifri learns, but rather)

just “juxtaposed (נסמכה) . . here”?

4. Seemingly, one could say, that this is dependent upon another difference between the Sifri and Rashi.

To preface:

From the plain understanding of the verse:

“All the gifts of the holy (offerings) . . I have given to you . . as an eternal portion; it is like an eternal covenant of salt etc.”

It implies that this refers not just to a part, but rather to all the gifts of the priesthood.

Moreover, from the subject matter, it appears so. For there is no reason to differentiate among the Matanot Kehuna and state, that just a part of them should be given with “an everlasting covenant of salt”.

According to this, it must come out that when the Parsha was stated, it had already been commanded, previously, regarding all the twenty-four Matanot Kehuna. According to this, the verse states,

“All the gifts of the holy (offerings) . . I have given to you. . like an eternal covenant of salt etc.”.

This difference between the Sifri and Rashi is in this aspect:

On the verse:

“The choice of the oil . . the first of which they give to the L-rd, to you I have given them”.          

The Sifri states:

• "the first of them" – refers to the first of the shearing (Dev. 18:4).
• "which they shall give" – refers to the shoulder, cheeks and maw (Ibid. 3).
• "to the L-rd" – refers to Challah (Num. (Ibid. 18:13)

This means that in this Parsha, itself, it already states all the twenty-four Matanot Kehuna. Therefore, the Sifri learns that this Parsha (which is stated regarding the “everlasting covenant of salt”) is “stated” (נאמרה) here.

Whereas according to Rashi, who does not cite the aforementioned homily,

(And on the contrary, explains, “the first: This refers to Terumah Gedolah- (the Kohen’s portion of the produce separated by Israelites))

and the obligation of the first shearing, and the foreleg, the jaws, and the maw is not known from this Parsha, but only first learned in Parshat Shoftim - one must therefore say that this Parsha

(regarding the “everlasting covenant of salt”)

was not stated in proximity to the episode of Korach,

(when there was not yet the obligation of all the gifts of the priesthood)

but only after Parshat Shoftim.

(Although Rashi already explained, before this, that

“all of them (the Mitzvot, including their general rules and specifications were said at Sinai”.

Nevertheless, Rashi states (in Parshat Shoftim) that the gifts of the shoulder, jaws and maw came as a reward for the deeds of Pinchas:

• The foreleg represents the hand . . (as it states: Pinchas grasped a spear in his hand”)

• The jaw represents prayer (as it states: 'Pinchas stood and prayed”)
• The maw (fourth stomach) represents . . her genital area”)

Therefore, it is plainly logical to say that only then (after the episode of Pinchas) was their obligation innovated).

Therefore, Rashi states, “This is why this section is juxtaposed here”.

5. However, if one precisely examines this, one cannot say this, since:

1. If one accepts that this Parsha was first stated after Parshat Shoftim (or, at the very least, after the episode of Pinchas) it would come out that the “king” waited with the “writing and signing and recording it in court” (in order to forewarn the possibility of contesting it) 38 years (after the claim of Korach)!
2. Primarily:

In the verse of this Parsha, it states,

“The L-rd told Aharon: Behold I have given you”.

Namely, the “I have given” - which includes all the twenty-four Matanot Kehuna, as aforementioned – is “to you” – to Aharon. Therefore, it was before the episode of Pinchas (which took place after the death of Aharon).

(There is no contradiction on this that Rashi states that the foreleg etc. are a reward for the episode of Pinchas, as aforementioned. For one could say that it was given to Aharon due to the merit of Pinchas that would be in the future. This is similar to what Rashi already, before this, explained regarding the exodus from Egypt - that it was in the merit of (the later) receiving of the Torah).

One cannot say, that this Parsha was stated much later after the episode of Korach. For, according to this, it comes out, the opposite – that Rashi’s statement that this is “juxtaposed (נסמכה) . . here” (not “stated/נאמרה”) is since he maintains that this Parsha was stated before the aspect of Korach.

Therefore, it is not understood, as aforementioned:

From where is Rashi’s necessity, in the simple meaning of the verse, to learn that this Parsha was stated previously, and that it was just “juxtaposed (נסמכה) here”?

6. One could say that the explanation of this is:

In the verses of the Parsha, there is (according to the simple meaning of the verse) not one gift that was not stated previously in Scripture. That which came (צוגעקומען) is the beginning and end. Namely, that the Matanot Kehuna were given to Aharon and his sons, “for distinction” and (at the conclusion) “as an eternal portion; like an eternal covenant of salt”.

Therefore, one must say that that when the verse states:

“Behold I have given you”,

it means

(not that G-d is now, giving these very gifts, but rather)

that G-d has already given them, in the past.

Therefore, it is logical to say (in the manner of Pshat) that these verses of the Parsha, where it enumerates, in detail, the Matanot Kehuna, were not stated here but rather “juxtaposed (נסמכה) here”. The Torah, wrote the previous words of G-d, regarding the gifts which, “I have (already) given” – here.

Whereas, according to the Sifri, who learns that these verses here, also allude to the first shearing of fleece, and the foreleg, the jaws, and the maw which were not yet, stated in the verse before this (as aforementioned) – this Parsha was stated here – to complete the aspect of the Matanot Kehuna (even those which until now were not stated in the verse).

Although, even according to Rashi, the forging of the covenant, regarding the Matanot Kehuna was stated “here”. Nevertheless, according to Rashi, regarding the aspect of the nullification of the possibility of contesting the priesthood – not only is the forging of the covenant for the Matanot Kehuna related, but also the giving of the Matanot Kehuna (as will be explained at length).

Therefore, Rashi precisely states:

“Scripture comes and gives him . . This is why this section is juxtaposed here”.

For regarding the giving of the Matanot Kehuna, here it only accomplished,

“Scripture comes and gives him”.

“Scripture” tells here regarding the (previous) giving.

7. The explanation of all this is:

The simple translation of the word “behold” (הנה) is, similar to the word “here I am” (הנני) (which is a contracted expression of “here, I am” (הנה אני))

This means right here, prepared and ready (אט דא ,מוכן ומזומן). This is like the verses:

• “behold, here is your wife, take (her) and go“ and
• “(Avraham) looked up and behold a ram“

When it is speaking about a deed which one is going to do (or a deed that has already done) the word “behold” depicts the preparation of the one who is performing the deed. Namely, that he is “prepared” for this. However, the reason why one must emphasize his preparation (at all) - is because it is speaking about a deed, which contains an innovation (חידוש) - not like it seemingly should be.

For example, the verse:

“Behold I am bringing the flood waters etc.”,

is an innovation, for it is contrary to what was stated beforehand,

“And G-d saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good”.

Alternatively, the verse:

“And Sarai said . . "Behold now, the L-rd has restrained me from bearing”,

is contrary to the nature of a woman, in general, not to have children - and especially here – since it is the opposite of G-d’s promise at the Covenant between the Parts - "So will be your seed".

Similarly, in our Sidra itself, the verse:

“I have therefore taken your brethren (the Levites) . . they are given to you as a gift”

(is seemingly contrary to the verse):

“You, your sons . . shall bear the iniquity associated with the Sanctuary”,

which means that the guarding of the Mikdash has a relation solely to Kohanim.

Nevertheless, “I have therefore taken your brethren, the Levites” to help the Kohanim.

However, in our case, in the verse,

“I have therefore taken etc.”

there is seemingly no innovation (that is contrary to what was stated previously). Therefore, why is the word “behold” used?

Therefore, Rashi states:

“This (word “behold”) is an expression of joy”.

Namely, that when there is a joy in the matter, the word “behold” is fitting, even when there is no aspect of innovation in the deed.

For the joy in a deed brings alacrity and addition etc. (זריזות, הוספה) in the preparation to performing the thing. Therefore, the word “behold” (prepared, and ready) is fitting.

8. However, with this, the question arises:

Where do we find that the giving of the Matanot Kehuna was with joy?

Moreover:

From this itself, that only in a small number of places (according to Pshat) is the word “behold” used as an expression of joy, this proves that this is a minority, an exception (אויסנאם) – a joy in a manner of innovation.

This is as we indeed find in the verse that Rashi cites as a proof:

“Behold, he is coming forth toward you, and when he sees you, he will rejoice in his heart” (Ex. 4:14)”.

That notwithstanding that which “he (Aharon) is coming forth toward you”, and Moshe is going to be the redeemer of Yisroel – the opposite of honor towards an elder brother. Nevertheless, this did not evoke within him an affront (קפידה) and so forth. Rather, on the contrary, “when he sees you, he will rejoice in his heart”.

However, where do we see a great joy regarding the Matanot Kehuna?

On this Rashi brings, that the aspect of Matanot Kehuna (also) accomplished the great benefit of nullifying and negating a claim against the priesthood.

This great joy at the giving of the Matanot Kehuna is manifested in that which, after,

“Korach came and made a claim against Aharon regarding the Kehuna”,

that

“Scripture comes and gives him twenty-four gifts of priesthood”-

a multitude of gifts.

We just learned, that in order to forewarn, that the Yidden should know that,

“I have chosen Aharon to be Kohen, so they will no longer complain about the Kehuna”.

that it was sufficient for there to be one deed (the blossoming of Aharon’s staff).

Yet here, for the same aspect, twenty-four Matanot Kehuna are given!

This shows that this was not just a plain giving (in order to forewarn the claim). Rather, it is specifically a large gift, which shows that is comes from joy.

9. However, according to this, it comes out that there is a difference between Rashi and the Sifri -regarding, through what means, does one nullify the possibility to contest:

• In the Sifri, it just mentions the aspect of forging the covenant with Aharon (an everlasting covenant of salt) on all the holy of holies. Namely, that the forging of the covenant nullifies the possibility to contest.
• However, according to Rashi, it comes out that here, there are two things (to nullify the possibility to contest):

1. (Scripture comes and) gives him twenty-four gifts.
2. An everlasting covenant of salt.

(Therefore, Rashi (changes from the Sifri and) precisely writes,

“Scripture comes and gives him . . This is why this section is juxtaposed here”.

For the actual giving of the Matanot Kehuna had already been before this (before Korach’s claim). It is just that “Scripture comes and gives etc.”, as aforementioned Par. 6).

With this, it is also understood why Rashi must, at all, bring the parable with all its details.

For seemingly:

If Rashi would have just stated the lesson (נמשל),

“Since Korach came and made a claim against Aharon regarding the Kehuna, Scripture comes and gives him twenty-four Matanot Kehuna as an everlasting covenant of salt”,

(seemingly) nothing would have been missing in the understanding of the matter.

What is added with the parable of a king who says:

“Behold, I will write and sign etc.”?

(Although the parable is stated in the Sifri – it is not Rashi’s aspect to cite the homilies of the Sifri. Especially, since in our case – Rashi does not, at all, cite the Sifri as the source of his comment).

However, with this, Rashi wishes to explain why we needed to have both aspects (He gave twenty-four Matanot Kehuna and an everlasting covenant of salt). Moreover – in order to explain why the previous sign and wonder of Aharon’s staff blossoming was not sufficient.

Just as the parable expresses (פאדערן) three aspects:

• Write, and
• Sign (a deed) for you, and
• Record it in court

Similarly, is it in the lesson:

• The giving of the twenty-four Matanot Kehuna is similar to “I will write”
• The forming of the covenant is similar to “I will sign”, and
• The covenant is in a manner of “everlasting salt” – similar to “I will record it in court”.

This will be explained.

10. The innovation of a contract (“I will write”) is that the owner of the field has a proof that the field belongs to him, even when he is far from the field. When he is in, or in proximity, to his field, it is not that necessary to forewarn a claim. A claim is mainly caused when one distances himself from his field – this is forewarned through a deed.

Similarly, in the lesson:

In order that the Kohanim, who, wherever they are found (not just when they perform the Service in the Beit HaMikdash) should “have a proof” that they are “priests to G-d”. G-d therefore, “gave them twenty-four Matanot Kehuna”.

Moreover, many of them are not specifically connected with the Beit HaMikdash or Yerushalayim - and with some of them, they are in effect even in the Diaspora.

 However, the aspect of “writing” itself is not sufficient, for:

1. As long as the deed is not signed, the matter is not concluded, and the donor can have remorse.
2. Even after the signing, where one forewarns that the giver should not be able to have remorse. However, there is the possibility that someone else should contest the deed and nullify it. To avert this, the deed must be recorded in Beit Din (“I will record it in court”).

These are the two aspects of “covenant” (the aspect of “signing”) and “everlasting salt” (the force of “recording it in court”):

G-d forged a covenant with Aharon that the aspect of the priesthood, of Aharon and his descendants after him, is in a manner that, in this, there will be no change (“remorse”). This is similar to the service that was taken from the firstborn.

However, it could be that although, due to the giver, there will be no “remorse” on the aspect of the Kehuna. However, there will come a condition that will cause the nullification of the entire aspect of the Kehuna (similar to a claim on a contract).

The aspect of the verse:

“Take unto you your brother, Aharon . . from among Bnei Yisrael, as Kohanim to Me”- “to serve Me”,

was nullified when the Beit HaMikdash was destroyed.

Since the service of the Kohanim is not applicable, then, seemingly, the aspect of the Kehuna itself is, G-d forbid, nullified.

(This is similar to the aspect of kingship, which was given to the tribe of Yehuda, as it states “The scepter will not depart from Yehuda”. However, nevertheless there came a time where the kingship was nullified - no kings and even no “heads of the exilarch”).

To avert this, there was the covenant in a manner of “everlasting salt” – a forging of the covenant,

“with an object that is wholesome and lasting. . that it should never spoil”,

similar to “recording it in the courts” which effect the upholding of the contract.

11. In Rashi’s comment there are “wonders” (נפלאות) from all parts of Torah.

One could say that among these “wonders” in this comment of Rashi – the nullification of the claim of Korach – is connected with the Matanot Kehuna specifically in the number of twenty-four.

Korach’s claim against Aharon’s priesthood was in a manner of theft (גניבה). It was not a rebellion against G-d, in an open manner (like robbery (גזילה) which is brazen (בריש גלי)). Rather, obscured (פארשטעלט), stolen with a “logical claim” – “You take too much upon yourselves, for the entire congregation are all holy etc."

Moreover, “Korach assembled all the congregation”. He “went to the tribes and enticed them . .until they were all enticed“. All the Shvatim were partners in this “theft”.

They were all liable to pay double (כפל) for the penalty of theft, as it states, “he must pay two”.

Double (כפל) the twelve (number of tribes) equals the twenty-four (Matanot Kehuna).

However, the number twelve is seemingly insufficient. For Korach, together with the tribe of Levi, were (among the leaders of) the contesters. Therefore, they totaled thirteen Shvatim and, according to this, there should have been twenty-six Matanot Kehuna?

However, since the intent of the Matanot Kehuna is, to prevent a claim in the future. As Rashi writes (in the parable):

“The king said to him: ‘anyone who wants may come and contest your rights’”.

Therefore, regarding the future, one just had to be concerned for a claim from the other Shvatim, however, not from the tribe of Levi.

This is proven from that which the staff of Shevet Levi is the Aharon’s staff, where he, on the contrary, nullifies the “complaints of Bnei Yisroel“.

The punishment of Korach and his cohorts nullified the possibility of the contesting of Bnei Levi (they were “one”, - one staff with (the staff of) Aharon). Afterward, one had to forewarn just the complaints of the other Shvatim.

12. However, one could ask:

One of the gifts of the priesthood is Terumat Maaser. This is not given by Yisroelim but rather from those of Shevet Levi (Note: From the produce given to them by the Israelites).

(as it states, “Speak to the Levites”)

It therefore comes out that all the twelve Shvatim just give twenty-four Matanot Kehuna?

However, one further sees, that (even) according to the simple meaning of the verse, everything is precise:

Regarding Terumat Maaser the verse states twice, that this comes from the Maaser that comes from what, “you take from Bnei Yisroel”.

Seemingly, why it is emphasized (and repeated twice) that the Maaser comes from the Bnei Yisroel?

However, with this, the verse is emphasizing, that the obligation of Terumat Maaser applies to the produce when it is still in the domain of a Yisroel. However, the Levi actually separates it, since he receives the Maaser.

This gives a reasoning to the law that

“The homeowner has permission (i.e. the right) to separate Terumat Maaser”.

(and it is not called “Separating Terumah without one’s knowledge” (תורם שלא מדעת)),

since the obligation of Terumat Maaser is due to that which the Maaser comes “from Bnei Yisroel“ and the obligation already in effect when the produce is in the domain of a Yisroel .

Therefore, it comes out that all the twenty-four Matanot Kehuna, pertain to Yisroelim.

13. Parshat Korach is read in the month of Tammuz (or on Shabbat Mevarchim (of the month of) Tammuz) - the month of the redemption of, my father-in-law – the Rebbe Rayatz.

One of the allusions to the imprisonment and redemption, is in this comment of Rashi, where one sees that the claim of Korach, not only did not weaken Aharon’s priesthood. But on the contrary, it caused a tremendous force. So much so, that became an “everlasting covenant of salt” (similar to a contract that is contested yet is upheld in Beit Din).

Similarly, this was by the Rebbe. Specifically, through the “contesting” (ערעור) of the imprisonment, came the redemption that ensured that his Avodah of spreading the Torah and strengthening Judaism would continue - and in a manner of an “everlasting covenant”.

Moreover: It was with a greater force than before – in a manner that the wellsprings of the Torah should spread to all the ends of the earth. So much so, that this redemption is an immediate preparation to the true and complete and comprehensive Geulah through our righteous Moshiach, speedily and in our days, mamosh.

M’Sichas Shabbat Parshat Korach and Shabbat Parshat Chukat 5727