Vol 28.01 - Bamidbar                            Spanish French Audio  Video

Page 1  Page2   Page3   Page4   Page5   Page6  

Chumash

Translation:

1. On the verse (Num. 1:53):

“The Levites shall encamp around the Mishkan of the Testimony, so that there be no wrath upon the congregation of Bnei Yisroel etc.:

Rashi cites the heading,

“so that there be no wrath”

and writes:

“If you act in accordance with My command, there will be no wrath, but if not, and outsiders enter into this service of theirs, there will be wrath”.

One must understand:

Rashi has already stated, many times, the maxim:

“from the negative you can draw conclusions regarding the positive”.

Therefore, since the verse states that when we will fulfill the command – “there will be no wrath”, it is self-understood that if we will not fulfill it – “there will be wrath”.

Therefore, what is Rashi innovating in his comment?

Even if we say that Rashi wants to emphasize,

(not just the very aspect that “if not . . there will be wrath”, but rather)

that this is the entire intent of the verse.

Namely, to inform us of the punishment (“if not . . there will be wrath”) -

For there is entirely no innovation in the “positive”: (“If you act in accordance with My command, there will be no wrath”),

Nevertheless, it is still not understood:

What is the reason for Rashi’s elaborate wording:

“If you act in accordance with My command, there will be no wrath, but if not, and outsiders enter into this service of theirs, there will be wrath”

Rashi should have concisely stated:

“So that there be no wrath: However, if you do not do so there will be wrath”.

(Similar to Rashi’s wording previously in Parshat Shemini on the verse:

“Do not let your hair grow long . . so that you will not die” - “Therefore, if you do so, you will die”).

The commentators answer that Rashi’s innovation here is (not the actual aspect of, “if not . . there will be wrath”, but rather) to inform us regarding whom the verse wishes to negate with the words, “so that there be no wrath”.

At first glance, one could think that the words refer to the beginning of the verse:

“The Levites shall encamp”.

Namely, that if they will do so, “there will be no wrath”.

However,

“if not (meaning that if the Levites do not encamp) there will be wrath”.

Therefore, Rashi negates this explanation, and explains:

“if not, and outsiders enter into this service of theirs”,

Namely, that the “so that there be no wrath” is a continuation to the previous verse:

“any outsider (non-Levite) who approaches shall be put to death”.

This means that if “outsiders enter into this service of theirs” there will be “wrath upon the congregation of Bnei Yisroel”.

However, according to this, it is not understood:

1. As aforementioned, what is the reason for Rashi’s lengthy beginning words:

“If you act in accordance with My command, there will be no wrath”,

What is this coming to teach us?

Rashi should have started his comment with the “negative” (לאו):

“If they enter into . . there will be wrath”.

2. Even if one says the “positive”, why does Rashi state it with the wording:

“If you act in accordance with My command”, plainly (not explaining which Mitzvah it refers to?)

Seemingly, Rashi should have stated in the “positive”, the same way he stated in the negative:

“If outsiders do not approach it (and so forth), there will be no wrath, yet if they do approach it, there will be wrath”.

3. Also Rashi’s wording “if . .outsiders enter into this service of theirs”, is not straightforward:

In general, it is Rashi’s style to use the wording of the verse. Therefore, why does he change from the previous verse:

“any outsider who approaches (this service)” (הזר הקרב)

and writes,

“outsiders enter into this service of theirs” (שיכנסו),

Moreover, why does Rashi use the plural “outsiders enter into”?

2. Further on Rashi continues,

“as we find with the incident with Korach: ‘for the wrath has gone forth from the L-rd’”

This is entirely not understood:

1. What does Rashi wish to convey with the proof of the “incident with Korach”?

Must one rely on a proof that when G-d warns one with a punishment (wrath) for the sin of an outsider approaching the service, that there will indeed be the punishment?!

2. Primarily, what at the outset, is the proof of the “incident with Korach” (which seemingly has no connection) to the context of this verse?

By the “incident with Korach”, the wrath that “went gone forth from the L-rd” was not connected with the sin of “outsiders entering into this service of theirs”. Rather, it was related to the plague on the Yidden due their complaining (“The day following the incident with Korach”: “You have killed the people of the L-rd”.

Moreover:

Even if the sin that the “the two hundred and fifty men who were bringing the incense” incurred, their sin is not similar to “outsiders enter into this service of theirs”, in these verses.

Our verses speak regarding the service of the Levites (dismantling the Mishkan, erecting it, and guarding the Mishkan).

Whereas there, it speaks regarding an outsider (including a Levite) who performs the service of a Kohen.

It is extremely difficult to say that Rashi just wishes to bring an example on the aspect of “wrath” (punishment) - even when it speaks there regarding a different sin.

The commentators state that this aspect in Rashi’s comment, follows a previously comment of Rashi on the verse:

“any outsider who approaches shall be put to death”.

Where he explains:

“Shall be put to death: at the hands of heaven”.

Seemingly, how does Rashi accept (according to the simple meaning of the verse) the teaching that “Shall be put to death” means “at the hands of heaven” and not “at the hands of man”?

On the contrary, on the words,

“and the owner also shall die” (in Parshat Mishpatim),

Rashi explains:

“by Divine decree. One might think at the hand of man. The Torah therefore states etc.”.

One therefore sees that without a proof from another place one would have had to explain that the words, “Shall be put to death” refers to death “at the hands of man”.

On this Rashi brings (here) that one learns this from the verse “there will be no wrath”, which means a punishment “at the hands of heaven”, “as we find with the incident with Korach”.

For regarding the incident with Korach, the punishment (of the offerors of the incense) was “at the hands of heaven”. From this it is a proof that “any outsider who approaches shall be put to death” means “at the hands of heaven”.

However, this explanation is, seemingly, very problematic:

For in this explanation of Rashi, there is no hint to his previous explanation,

“Shall be put to death: at the hands of heaven”.

Moreover, from Rashi’s plain wording here, it implies that the proof from the “incident with Korach” is on the very aspect that if “outsiders enter into this service of theirs then there will be wrath”.

3. One could say that the explanation of this, by prefacing a comment in the order of the verses:

Between the verse,

“any outsider who approaches shall be put to death”

and

“so that there be no wrath”,

the Torah pauses with the verse,

“Bnei Yisroel shall camp, each man at his own camp and each man at his own banner, according to their divisions”.

and the (beginning of this verse)

“the Levites shall encamp around the Mishkan of the Testimony”,

It is not understood. What is the meaning of “so that there be no wrath”?

• If “so that there be no wrath” means the punishment of “any outsider who approaches shall be put to death” and it speaks regarding Bnei Yisroel and not the Levites – then it is problematic:

1. Why do these aforementioned aspects (regarding the place of the encampment of Bnei Yisroel) come between the two verses which are (speak of) the same thing (the punishment for an outsider that enters this Avodah)?
2. Why do we need two verses? What is added by the verse “so that there be no wrath” after “any outsider who approaches shall be put to death”?

• And if “so that there be no wrath” is stated solely regarding the Levites (and answers the two aforementioned questions).

Namely, that if the Levites will not encamp around the Mishkan,

(even when this does not lead to “any outsider who approaches”),

it is still called a “wrath” – and the meaning of wrath is

(not the punishment of death, but rather)

a lighter punishment:

Since the Levites are:

“the legion of the king”, and it states, “the Levites shall be Mine”, ”they are given; they are given to Me” meaning that they are close to G-d.

If they will not encamp, “around the Mishkan of the Testimony”, it will be the opposite – there will be “wrath” upon them.

It is even more problematic:

This verse expressly states:

“(So that there be no wrath) on Bnei Yisroel”.

It is understood that here, it is speaking in relation to (a sin due to) Bnei Yisroel – not the Levites!

4. Therefore, Rashi states:

“If you act in accordance with My command, there will be no wrath, but if not, and outsiders enter into this service of theirs, there will be wrath”.

With this Rashi answers the aforementioned contradiction in the verses:

The reason that “So that there be no wrath” is states in relation to “The Levites shall encamp around the Mishkan” is because this forewarns that there should not be “wrath” on “the congregation of Bnei Yisroel”.

• “If you act in accordance with My command” - if one fulfills the Mitzvot which are spoken here in the Parsha, whose general subject is “The Levites shall encamp around the Mishkan of the Testimony” (as will be explained) then “there will be no wrath”.

• “And if not” - if one will not act in accordance with “My command”, this will be a cause to carry out that “outsiders will enter into this service of theirs”, and therefore “there will be wrath upon the congregation of Bnei Yisroel”.

The explanation of this is:

The point of this Parsha is:

“You shall appoint the Levites over the Mishkan of the Testimony . .and they shall minister to it etc.”,

This is a command and warning on the separation (הבדלה) and the “boundaries” (גבולות) which G-d placed between the Levites and the other Yisroel. Through this, it will protect the “outsider” from coming into the Mishkan.

Therefore, the Torah states here,

“Bnei Yisroel shall camp, each man at his own camp and each man at his own banner, according to their divisions”.

This is not just a warning and prevention (פארמיידן) of the aspect that “any outsider who approaches shall be put to death” (he should not come to do the Avodah of the Levites).

Rather it is an independent command – that one must keep the separations and boundaries by the Bnei Yisroel.

In continuation to this the Torah states:

“The Levites shall encamp around the Mishkan of the Testimony, so that there be no wrath upon the congregation of Bnei Yisroel”

This verse continues in the severity of keeping the established separations (מחיצות)

(“Bnei Yisroel shall camp, each man at his own camp . . The Levites shall encamp around the Mishkan etc.”

Through this it ensures that there not be any “wrath”.

This is emphasized by Rashi with his words,

“If you act in accordance with My command” - keeping the separations - there will be no wrath”.

Moreover, from the negative you can draw conclusions regarding the positive:

That nullification of the separations causes “wrath”. However, then the “wrath” is just in potential (בכח).

Therefore, Rashi explains and emphasizes:

“but if not, and outsiders enter into this service of theirs, there will be wrath”.

Specifically, when the nullification of the separations causes that “outsiders actually enter etc.”, then there will be wrath, in actuality.

5. According to this, one can understand why Rashi changes his wording, and instead of using the words of the verse,

“any outsider who approaches”

states,

“outsiders enter into this service of theirs”

For these two verses speak of different aspects:

• The previous verse speaks about the specific punishment of a specific outsider who transgresses the sin of “entering into this this service” - the service which is states in this verse – dismantling and erecting the Mishkan.

Therefore, it states “and the outsider” (והזר) – in the singular. For even an individual is prohibited in the service of dismantling and erecting the Mishkan.

• Whereas “in this service” (בעבודתם זו) which Rashi states here (in the verse, “so that there be no wrath”) refers to the “Avodah” of this verse –

“Bnei Yisroel shall camp, each man at his own camp . . The Levites shall encamp around the Mishkan of the Testimony”,

That there should not be any nullification of the boundaries (in general). The “camp” of Yisroel, and the “camp” of the Levites must be divided and separate.

Therefore, Rashi states “outsiders (זרים) enter into” in the plural.

For when a Yisroel (an individual) pitches his tent in the Levite camp, through this, an Israelite “camp” is not created within the Levite camp. A camp is created through a multitude (רבים) of people – (“outsiders”).

For this reason, Rashi changes (from the wording of the verse “approaches”) to “enters”. For in our verse, which specifically speaks of an encampment in the Levite camp, the wording “approaches” is not fitting. Rather “enters” (into the camp).

Whereas in the previous verse which speaks regarding the dismantling and erecting of the Mishkan, it is the opposite – there the wording “approaches” is more fitting.

6. According to this, the proof of “incident with Korach” is also understood:

With this, Rashi wishes to convey the two aforementioned extremes (Par. 4):

That the nullification of the boundaries, solely (גרידא) – when there is lacking just the “acting in accordance with My command” - already causes a wrath.

However, on the other hand, when does he wrath actually come? Only after there is the actual “outsiders entering into this service of theirs”.

This was seen in the incident with Korach:

The sin of Korach was that he wanted to nullify the separations of the Yidden, like his complaint

“for the entire congregation are all holy. . So why do you raise yourselves above the L-rd's assembly?”

And the sin evoked a “wrath” upon all the Yidden, as it states,

"Dissociate yourselves from . . congregation, and I will consume them in an instant.”

However, on the other hand, although Korach pulled in (אריינגעצויגן) “all the congregation” (“they were all enticed”), the “wrath” was not in actuality,

(Like the claim of Moshe and Aharon: “if one man sins, shall You be angry with the whole congregation?”)

This only happened after the two-hundred and fifty men brought the incense.

In other words, the nullification of the separations brought in actuality that

“no outsider, who is not of the seed of Aharon, shall approach to burn incense before the L-rd”

So much so that the Yidden, after the “incident with Korach”, continued to complain etc.

Then the “wrath” (which had already begun beforehand) came out in actuality, as it states, “the wrath went out etc.”

7. From this, we have a teaching about how much one should be careful regarding another Yid:

Although Korach gathered the entire congregation in a dispute against Moshe Rabbeinu, nevertheless, it did not cause “wrath to go forth from the L-rd”.

Moreover:

As long as Korach just conducted his dispute solely with claims and words, and it did not extend to actual deed, there was no punishment, even on Korach and his company.

Specifically, when it came to actual deed (after the stringent warning) and they brought the incense, was there wrath. Beforehand, the punishment on them and afterward the plague on Bnei Yisroel

From this we have a lesson:

Even a Yid, who due to various and sundry reasons, is lacking in the aspect of guarding himself from unwanted things. Nevertheless, as long as it does not come, in actuality, “to rebelling against the Holy One, blessed is He”, this Yid is still in a standing and condition that he has grace in G-d’s Eyes (נשיאת חן בעיני אלקים). There is no aspect of wrath, G-d forbid.

On the contrary:

G-d is slow to anger (מאריך אף) and “G-d helps him” (הקב״ה עוזרו), in a manner of grace and love, in order for him to do Teshuvah and become, “beloved and desirable before the Creator etc.”

M’Sichas Motzai Shabbat Parshat Bamidbar 5749