English translation — וילך ג

A.

In the verse¹

"And Moses wrote this Torah and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carry the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel,"

the Rogatchover² stands

on the words "the priests, the sons of Levi":

The phrase "the priests, the sons of Levi" also appears earlier at the end of Parshat Shoftim³

regarding the law of the heifer whose neck is broken - "And the priests, the sons of Levi, shall come near, etc."; there the Sifri says: "I have only unblemished ones,

blemished ones from where? The verse says 'sons of Levi',"

D.

E.

that the superfluous phrase "sons of Levi" comes to include that also blemished priests⁴

are fit for the heifer whose neck is broken⁵

The Rogatchover asks "And here what" — what does this verse come to add with the words "sons of Levi"?

— Here there is indeed no place to learn that the verse adds blemished individuals,

since here it does not speak about service and the like,

where blemished individuals are invalid.

And this is one of the few places where the Rogatchover remains with a question⁶.

2.

As discussed several times,

one can extract from Rashi on the Torah "wondrous matters"⁷

also in the other parts of the Torah; and so too in our matter,

according to Rashi,

specifically according to the simple meaning of the verse,

the above-raised question is answered:

Rashi explains in our verse: "And Moses wrote etc. and gave it - when it was entirely completed, it was given to the members of his tribe."

This that Rashi says "when it was entirely completed" is understood

(as the commentators of Rashi⁸

explain)

: so that one should not think

(since the verse relates <b>here</b> how Moshe Rabbeinu wrote it and <b>gave</b> it)

that Moshe Rabbeinu wrote the Sefer Torah only until <b>that</b> portion and not further,

and gave it an unwritten one,

Rashi says that he gave it "when it was entirely <b>completed</b>".

and does not say in short: <b>And Moshe wrote</b>,

entirely.

Because from "vayichtov" alone there is no necessity that this is "kulah".

Since however it says in the verse "vayitnah",

this compels to say that the "vayichtov" means "kulah",

because Moshe will surely not give it incomplete].

It is however not understood the conclusion of Rashi "he gave it to the tribe of his son": at first glance

He repeats what is stated in the verse itself - "And he commanded the priests, the sons of Levi, who bore the ark of the L-rd"?

If Rashi comes to establish that "priests" here means

(not only priests,

but)

"the sons of his tribe" - the tribe of Levi in general - it is again difficult: the phrase "the priests, the sons of Levi" already appears earlier,

as above,

and there it means

(<b>not</b> the tribe of Levi in general,

but)

specifically the <b>priests</b>,

as the verse there continues "for them the L-rd chose... to serve Him and to bless... and by their mouth shall be every dispute and every plague"

(which means priests specifically)

; so too the phrase "the priests the Levites" appears several times in the Torah⁹,

and everywhere¹⁰

it means only <b>priests</b>,

as Rashi explains at the first occurrence¹¹

: "the priests the Levites - the priests who came from the tribe of Levi",

Today from where is Rashi's proof here that "and he commanded the priests, the sons of Levi" means "to the members of his tribe" - the entire tribe of Levi?

Although the verse itself concludes "who carry the ark of the covenant of the Lord" and the carriers of the ark were the Levites¹²

- one can explain it

(like the Chizkuni¹³),

that it speaks about the

Kohanim who prepared the Ark so that the Levites could carry it, and they are the ones who "ושמו אותם

(the sons of Kehas)

etc. אל משאו",

as it says at the end of parshas Bamidbar¹⁴

; and although this interpretation is not smooth,

it is nevertheless closer to the plain meaning of the verse,

than to interpret that by "הכהנים בני לוי" are meant also non-Kohanim - the entire tribe of Levi.

because only the sons of Kehas carried the Ark¹⁵].

3.

The explanation in this:

Also here

(as in the other verses)

Rashi teaches,

that "and he commanded the priests, the sons of Levi" means that the giving in practice was only to priests,

but indeed for this reason the question arises

(which he guards in his commentary)

: Moshe Rabbeinu gave the Sefer Torah

(as the verse concludes)

also "and to all the elders of Israel,"

to all the tribes of Israel,

that the elders were their representatives¹⁶

; now since the giving of the Sefer Torah to

"The Kohanim, sons of Levi" was only to the Kohanim,

it comes out,

that the giving of the Torah was to all the tribes of Israel - except

(the Levites of)

the tribe of Levi?

Therefore Rashi emphasizes in his commentary: "He gave it to the members of his tribe",

that what Moshe Rabbeinu gave the Torah to the Kohanim meant a giving "to the members of his tribe",

because the Kohanim in this represented the entire tribe of Levi¹⁷,

just as all the elders of Israel took it as all the tribes of Israel.

And this is also the reason why the verse adds “

(the Kohanim)

sons of Levi” because they were given the Sefer Torah not as <b>Kohanim in themselves</b>,

but because they are “<b>Kohanim, sons of Levi</b>”,

of the tribe of Levi

(but being the Kohanim “princes”¹⁸

of the tribe of Levi — they are similar to the elders of the tribes of Israel — the representatives of the entire tribe).

— although in general the Kohanim are separate from the tribe of Levi¹⁹,

a camp

(Shechinah)

by themselves*¹⁹

— the explanation of this is,

(according to the plain meaning of Scripture²⁰),

not that they were entirely separated from the tribe of Levi,

but that in <b>addition</b> to their quality of Levi they also have the quality of the Kehunah.

From the proofs on this:

a)

Rashi brings down at the beginning of Parshat Beha'alotcha: "Why is the section of the Menorah juxtaposed to the section of the princes? Because when Aharon saw the dedication of the princes ...

that he was not with them etc. not he <b>and not his tribe</b>; the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: By your life, yours is greater than theirs, for you light and prepare the lamps" — what is proven from this,

that although the matter of lighting and preparing the lamps pertains only to Aharon

(<b>the priesthood</b>²¹),

it is nevertheless a participation of²²

the entire tribe — the Supreme One thereby removed the distress that "not he <b>and not his tribe</b> etc."²³.

b)

After the dispute of Korach, the Most High said to Moses: "Take from them a staff, a staff, etc. twelve staffs, etc. and the name of Aaron you shall write on the staff of Levi, for one staff, etc."²⁴,

and as Rashi explains: "For one staff - even though I divided them into two families, the family of priesthood separately and Levi separately, nevertheless they are one tribe."

d.

According to this, it is understandable - also in the study according to the halachah - that with the words "

(the priests)

sons of Levi" the verse

(end of Parshat Shoftim)

includes those with blemishes

(as above sec. 1)

Just as blemished priests,

although they are priests,

until they eat in the holy [precincts] - that the eating atones²⁵,

they are however called "strangers" regarding unblemished priests - as he says in the Yerushalmi²⁶

: "He is a stranger, he is a blemished one" - so are the Levites,

although they are "one tribe" with the priests,

they are considered as "strangers" regarding priests; and from the analogy "Levites" is an amplification on blemished ones.

And so too in our matter: that which they gave the Torah scroll to the priests,

was not because of their

(holiness of <b>G-d</b>)

priesthood per se,

but as "priests <b>sons of Levi</b>" - as priests who also include the aspect of the Levite

(although this contains within itself the aspect of "strangeness" regarding the priestly portion within them).

H.

It is, however, still not smooth: since the kohanim are indeed separated from the levi'im - until there was a separate camp for themselves²⁷

- why did they not actually give them the Sefer Torah as <b>kohanim</b> separately,

and not only as "officers" of the levi'im?

And so also regarding the two above-mentioned matters -

(a)

hadlakat vehatavat haneirot which is in place of "chanukat hamishkan vehamizbe'ach"

(b)

mateh damachloket

Korach - why did they not separate there the Kohanim from the Leviim?

And on the contrary: in all these three matters it would seemingly have been more plausible to separate the Kohanim from the tribe of Levi:

a)

In our subject, although it says²⁸

about the entire tribe of Levi, "They shall teach Your judgments to Jacob and Your Torah to Israel" - that they all must teach Torah to Jews - nevertheless,

the kohanim also have in this a special role,

that specifically about them it says²⁹

"And you shall come to the <b>kohanim</b> etc. and they shall tell you etc. according to the Torah which they shall teach you etc.",

"And according to their word shall be every dispute and every plague"

(which is not found regarding Levites in general)

- they needed to be given the Sefer Torah separately,

not together with the Levites.

b)

The mitzvah of

(lighting³⁰

and)

the tending of the lamps is indeed relevant <b>only</b> to <b>kohanim</b>,

and so Rashi above: "<b>That you</b> light and tend the lamps",

and Levites are <b>forbidden</b> in this just like all the tribes of Israel,

and consequently for the Levites there needed to be a

(different)

participation in the dedication of the altar.

3)

The claim of Korach "and why do you raise yourselves above the congregation of the Lord"³¹

was not at all about the tribe of Levi - Korach himself was after all a Levite - but specifically about the priesthood in itself,

as he says³²

"and you seek also the priesthood" - and the staffs were after all "for a sign"³³

that "and they shall no longer complain

about the priesthood"³⁴

- it would have been fitting that the priests should have a staff for themselves.

6.

So the explanation in this

(in the inwardness of the matters)

Although that both the kohanim and both the leviim were elevated from all Jews to serve the Supreme One³⁵

and be separated from matters of this world³⁶,

there is however a difference between them: a kohen may not become impure³⁷

(and therefore he may not go out to the diaspora³⁸),

but for a levi there is not this prohibition.

4.

5.

A kohen is entirely separated from matters of opposite

(holiness and)

purity,

by him from his own side there may not be any impurity,

as opposed to by a levi there is not inquired a matter of impurity.

But when he needs to do the <b>service of </b>the leviim - he needs to purify himself³⁹.

Thus it is in the levels "Kehunah" and "Levi" which exist in every Jew

: The aspect of "Kohen" is the level in the soul

where there is not

(does not touch)

any

impurity

; and the aspect of "Levi" in him is the level where impurity can touch there,

and the service from the side of the level is to nullify

(immersion — letters of nullification)

the impurity.

In other words

(and in the language of the Tanya⁴⁴)

: Kohen is the state

(service)

of it-has-become-transformed,

there is no evil,

like delicacies “from pleasant and sweet foods”; Levi - suppression-of-evil,

one breaks the evil and nullifies it,

and like delicacies “from sharp or sour foods only that they are well seasoned and corrected etc.”

According to this it is understandable why in these three matters mentioned above they did not distinguish the Kohanim from the Levites,

because the intention and purpose of these three matters is to safeguard and rectify an undesirable matter,

which is connected

(not with the aspect of Kohen which has no connection with evil,

but)

specifically with the aspect of Levi; and therefore,

it was even by the Kohanim themselves <b>not </b>because of the superiority of the priesthood that is in them,

but from the aspect of the Levitehood that is in them.

7.

And the explanation:

a)

In our subject: the giving of the Sefer Torah was not for the sake of learning Torah in general,

but primarily in order to prevent an undesirable conduct,

for which he has the

Sefer Torah given specifically after the admonitions and covenant of parshas Ki Savo and Nitzavim⁴⁵.

b)

(lighting and)

the tending of the lamps had a connection with the "lowliness of spirit" of Aharon,

which is a movement of teshuvah that comes from the aspect of the Levite within him - and its totality of light goes out to the entire world⁴⁶

which

(even a little)

light

(its meaning is - also his)

pushes away <b>darkness</b>.

3)

The dispute of Korach: The taking of the staffs had a connection to the nullification and rectification of the dispute of Korach,

as it says⁴⁷

"And I will cause to cease from Me the murmurings of the children of Israel etc.",

And therefore the kohanim were not apportioned from the tribe of Levi regarding the three matters.

On the other hand,

are the kohanim

(and Aharon)

the emissaries of the tribe of Levi to carry out the three things,

because through this there opened up in this correction and repentance <b>both</b> advantages: the aspect of Levi and itkafya — one corrects the evil,

the aspect of Kohen and it'hapcha — the correction of evil is in the utmost perfection⁴⁸,

in a manner of <b>it'hapcha</b> darkness to light and bitterness to sweetness,

it becomes <b>all</b> good.

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Nitzavim-Vayeilech 5726)