English translation — קרח א

1.

On the verse¹

And they fell on their faces etc. Rashi cites: "G-d, G-d of the spirits" and explains²

: "He knows thoughts,

Your measure is not like the measure of flesh and blood,

a king of flesh and blood, when a part of the province rebelled against him, he does not know who the sinner is, therefore when he becomes angry he takes vengeance on all of them, but before You all thoughts are revealed and You know who the sinner is."

And now simply — Rashi's intention is³

to be precise that one should not explain "

(G-d of)

the spirits" in the sense of souls⁴,

but in the sense of thoughts — and the explanation of "G-d of the spirits": G-d who knows thoughts.

(And as we find in the previous portion⁵

: "And My servant Caleb, because there was another spirit with him etc.,"

that the word "spirit" stated there its meaning is thought⁶).

And the proof for this: only according to this explanation is the connection understood of the beginning of the statement "G-d of the spirits" to what is said afterwards "One man shall sin and on the entire congregation

"You will be angry" — because since the Holy One, blessed be He, knows thoughts, He knows who the sinner is and upon whom to be angry,

But if we explain "God of the spirits" it is not understood: what is the meaning of "God of the spirits" as an introduction to what is said "One man will sin etc."⁷?

And this is what Rashi continues: "Your attribute is not like the attribute of flesh and blood etc. But You etc. and You know who the sinner is",

That is, according to this explanation of his that "God of the spirits" means "He knows thoughts",

the continuation in the verse is explained — and this is the necessity for his explanation⁸.

And we need to understand:

a)

Why does Rashi need to explain the matter

(that "Your measure is not like the measure of flesh and blood")

by means of the parable of "a flesh-and-blood king etc." — what clarification and additional explanation is there through this parable?

b)

If there is in this parable some explanation of the matter and therefore Rashi brings it — what is the reason that Rashi did not bring it earlier in the Torah — in Parshat Vayeira⁹

In the claim of Avraham Avinu

(similar

seemingly to the claim of Moses in our matter and consequently there too it is appropriate to bring this parable)

Regarding Sodom: “Will You also destroy the righteous with the wicked?”¹⁰

ג)

Behold, even a mortal king,

if he rules with justice and uprightness,

behold, when one sins he will not punish many people, but rather will appoint a judge etc. who will investigate and inquire and clarify "who is the sinner",

and even if it is in a manner that it is impossible to clarify who is the sinner,

behold, it still requires explanation - that because of this that it was not clarified who is the one¹¹

who sinned, will an upright king punish "everyone"?

ד)

Rashi opens with the language "the excess

(upon him a part of the country)

" and concludes with the language "

(who is the)

sinner"¹²?

e)

Thus — Rashi concludes “does not know who the sinner” in singular,

And unlike the opening “that a part of the province sinned against him”¹³?

2.

Afterwards Rashi copies the words “the one man” and explains: “he is the sinner and You will be angry at the entire congregation.

Said

Hashem said, "You have spoken well"

"I know and make known who sinned and who did not sin."

And also in this, see further:

A)

What is Rashi's intention in this explanation of his,

that in place of "

shall sin" that is said in the verse he wrote "he is the sinner" and added the word "and You

(upon the entire congregation You will be angry)

" - for seemingly there is in this no addition of explanation in the verse¹⁵.

B)

If Rashi's intention is to explain

(in some manner)

that which is said "

(the man one)

(the man one)

shall sin

(and also)

and upon the entire congregation You will be angry",

it would have been appropriate to copy also these words or at least to hint at them with "etc.".

3)

What is Rashi's intention in this that he adds the matter: "Said the Holy One, blessed be He, 'It is good that Korach sinned'"?

Moreover

4)

In response to Moses' claim - said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moses: "Separate yourselves from around the dwelling of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram,"

And the verse explains the punishment that came to the three of them.

According to this

It is not understood from Rashi: "Said the Holy One, blessed be He, 'You have spoken well'" — that is, the Holy One, blessed be He, agrees with Moses' claim "the one man

(And these words Rashi copies)

will sin" — and behold, the Holy One, blessed be He, announced that not one sinned but three?

e)

(I)

know" — seemingly superfluous, for the novelty is only in "I ..

make known".

And especially since Rashi adds this to the language of the Midrash "know"!

In the general matter, it is difficult:

In the preceding verses, it is mentioned several times that in the dispute of Korach against Moses and Aaron, many people participated — "And they rose up ..

And men from Bnei Yisrael, two hundred and fifty ..

And they assembled against Moses and against Aaron, etc.",

And Moses spoke "to Korach and to all his assembly",

And he also rebuked "all his assembly",

And even said "You and all your assembly that are gathered against the Lord"<sup>16</sup>,

And in Rashi<sup>17</sup>

: "That already they have in their hand a fourth transgression,

They sinned with the calf, etc." — from all this it is evident that not only one sinned in this dispute

(Also according to Moses' opinion)

— And how did Moses say "The one man will sin, etc."?

3.

And the explanation in this regard¹⁸

In his commentary on the verse "And Korah assembled against them etc."

(before this verse)

Rashi wrote: "He went to the tribes and incited them: 'Do you think that I am particular only about myself? I am particular for the sake of all of you, etc., until they were all persuaded.'"

That is, Korach is the one who enticed

the men of the congregation and drew them with his words that he intends for their good etc.,

until he brought them to complaints against Moshe and Aharon.

And it is the same matter regarding the heads of the participants in the dispute,

that they are "Dasan and Aviram etc. and men from Bnei Yisrael, two hundred and fifty",

and as Rashi explains: "Because the tribe of Reuven

(from whom were Dasan and Aviram etc. and the majority of the 250 men)

dwelt ..

adjacent to Kehas and his sons ..

they joined with Korach in his dispute",

That is, their participation in the dispute came about through Korach enticing them and inciting them until it seemed to them that his claim was correct¹⁹.

But they, of themselves, without Korach's enticement,

would not have entered into this dispute.

that he is not the guilty one in this that he did something improper because he was enticed to this by someone — for a person must distance himself from evil,

and also be strong in his mind not to be affected by enticements etc. — nevertheless, in practice they did not dispute Moshe and Aharon except in the influence of Korach].

And this is the intention of Rashi in bringing a parable of "a mortal king against whom a part of the province rebelled",

namely to emphasize that their conduct was "rebellious" — in a manner repulsive to the king

(as the plain meaning of "rebelled"),

but not that they intended to rebel against the king<sup>21</sup>

(and especially in a manner that would make them liable for death for this).

However, since "some of the province" sinned, at any rate,

it stands to reason that there is among them someone who is

(one,

at least)

who incited them and brought them to this sin — and

(in this very thing)

he is a "sinner" literally in rebellion against the king.

And this is what Rashi wrote: "And he does not know who the sinner is"

(in the singular)

— that is, the inciter and the cause of the sin.

But not so the people of "some of the province," who cannot be called "sinners"²²

but rather "a sin" exists here²³.

And therefore, with a human king, since he does not know who the sinner is, he takes retribution from all of them,

for in practice they all "sinned" against him,

"But before You all thoughts are revealed, and You know who the sinner is,"

and accordingly, it is not possible that those who only "sinned" should be punished with the severe punishment of the sinner.

And this claim of Moshe, Rashi explains it and interprets it with the words of the verse

(And it is not a speech

In and of itself as it was printed²⁴

- but in continuation of what was said before: "And you know who the sinner is")

: "The one man is the sinner

(But the rest of the people only "sinned")

And You

(Who knows thoughts)

upon the entire assembly will be angry?!" with a question mark!

And in response to Moshe's claim "Hashem said 'You have spoken well'" and the intention in this is for the entirety of his claim<sup>25</sup>

of Moshe that one should punish only the "sinner" and not those who only "sinned".

However regarding the detail,

it is not as Moshe knew and thought that there was one sinner,

but rather that "I know<sup>26</sup>

and make known

who sinned" - that not only Korach sinned but also Dasan and Aviram sinned

(unlike the rest of the congregation),

and this is what Hashem said "Separate yourselves from around the tent of Korach, Dasan, and Aviram",

because all three of them are "sinners".

4.

The lesson in the service of man — from Rashi’s explanation of this in the inwardness of the matters:

It is related in the parshah²⁷

that “Moses sent to call Dathan and Abiram etc.” and they refused to come and answered with great insolence²⁸

: “Is it a small thing that you have brought us up ..

to kill us in the desert etc. will you gouge out the eyes of those men etc.”,

until that “and Moses became very angry” — all of which indicates that their participation in the dispute was not

In a manner of "stench" only,

But that they were sinners - and afterwards Moshe Rabbeinu judged them favorably and said "the one man will sin"²⁹

And from this the instruction to what extent each one

(That in each one there is within him from the aspect of Moshe Rabbeinu³⁰)

must act and implant in his soul this trait - to judge his fellow favorably,

And even when the conduct of his fellow is in a manner that seemingly negates any favorable judgment,

Nevertheless he must seek merit for him and as a result of this - he will also do all that depends on him to return him and set him on the straight path.

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Korach 5731)