English translation — קרח א

A.

Already spoken many times,

that Rashi in his commentary on the Torah answers all questions that arise in the plain meaning of Scripture

(according to the five methods of interpretation),

and if there is a certain difficulty for which one does not find an explanation in Rashi's commentary,

one must say,

that the answer to it is understood by itself according to the plain meaning of Scripture¹,

or it is answered by one of the commentaries of Rashi

(on the spot,

or before this).

In our portion,

after the verse tells about the punishment of the swallowed ones — "And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them, etc."²

that "By this you shall know that the Lord has sent me to do all these deeds — that I did by the word of the command to give Aaron the high priesthood, etc."³,

and about the punishment of the burned ones — "And fire came out from the Lord and consumed the two hundred and fifty men who offered incense"⁴

which proved that "the man whom the Lord chooses, he is the holy one",

and "they all perished"⁵

(and after the plague⁶)

— it is told about the blossoming of Aaron's staff.

Is not understood: why are all these punishments and signs not enough to nullify

the "complaints of Bnei Yisrael"⁷

and one would have needed

(also)

to have the "sign" of the blossoming staff of Aharon?

On the verse⁸

"Return the staff of Aaron before the testimony as a sign" — Rashi explains: "As a sign for a remembrance that I have chosen Aaron the priest and they will no longer complain about the priesthood."

The Ramban⁹ stands

on Rashi's commentary and says "And this staff is not a sign only for the tribe of Levi that was chosen from the other tribes, not for Aaron that the priesthood should be his,"

and he interprets "as a sign — for the tribe of Levi in place of the firstborn,

for the burning is a sign for the priesthood and the blossom for the Levites"¹⁰.

Commentaries¹¹

are lengthy to explain,

that according to Rashi, the sign of the staff,

"the staff of Aaron blossomed,"

was about both matters — both that Aaron was chosen for the priesthood and also that the tribe of Levi was chosen for the service of the Levites — and they explain the necessity for his interpretation:

If this would have been a "sign" only for the choosing of the tribe of Levi,

would

(a)

it not have been the "staff of Aaron,"

but

The staff of Elazar ben Aharon as prince of the tribe of Levi¹²,

just as with all the other tribes,

that the staff was taken by the prince of the tribe¹³

(b)

One would have written not the names of the princes and Aharon

("A man his name you shall write on his staff,

and the name of Aharon you shall write on the staff of Levi"¹⁴),

but the name of the tribe¹⁵.

Other commentators explain,

that that which the sign of the staff was

(also)

regarding the priesthood of Aharon,

is proven from that which —

a)

The blossoming was specifically in the letters of the name "Aharon",

not in another place of the staff¹⁶

; b)

And it blossomed <b>blossoms</b> etc. hints at the high priesthood from the aspect of <b>the tzitz</b>¹⁷.

And so forth.

But all this is not

(even not in hint)

in Rashi here.

Also one must understand: even according to the above that there are several proofs that the sign was

(also)

regarding the priesthood of Aaron — it is not understood why one needed at all this additional sign and aspect regarding the choice of Aaron,

and

are not sufficient the previous signs,

as above?

And it can be said that the explanation in all this will be understood according to Rashi's commentary on the verse¹⁸

"And it brought forth a blossom etc.,"

And as follows later.

2.

On the words "And it brought forth a blossom" Rashi says "according to its plain meaning."

And it is not understood: a)

Rashi should have said it at the <b>first</b> time when it says in our subject¹⁹,

at "his staff blossomed",

and not at the ..

third!

b)

It is understood simply,

that Rashi explains the language of the verse only there,

where the plain meaning does <b>not</b> lie open in the implication of the words and the verse,

but he is not at all explaining

(because one does not need to <b>explain</b> it — and therefore Rashi does not say <b>what</b> is its meaning)

there where the explanation is heard from the language of the verse

(its explanation according to its plain meaning)

— and when Rashi says "its explanation according to its plain meaning" and the like — it is to negate an explanation which is not "according to its plain meaning" and nevertheless one would have wanted to explain it thus due to the content of the subject and the like.

must understand what is the different interpretation and the proof upon it — in our verse.

The Sh"Ch²⁰

says,

that "where there are two expressions such as here 'flowered and returned and blossomed a blossom and flowered' it is known what language it is and 'blossom' is not known what language it is therefore Rashi explained 'flowered' in its plain sense and does not need explanation but 'blossom' is not known and needs explanation and it is 'set fruit'."

But according to this rule, on the contrary,

the difficulty is even stronger²¹

: When Rashi explains <b>only </b>the words "ויצץ ציץ",

it makes it even clearer that "ויוצא פרח" does not need to be explained

(because it is "כמשמעו"),

but when he <b>explains </b>"כמשמעו" — it implies that he warns and negates another interpretation,

as above.

Further, Rashi focuses on the word "ציץ" and explains "הוא חנטת הפרי כשהפרח נופל".

And it requires clarification: Rashi's way is,

as is known,

to explain the <b>plain meaning</b> of the verse — i.e.

i.e.

<b>the interpretation</b> of the words

(and the subject under discussion)

and not merely to add in describing the thing and its details,

except when this too is necessary for understanding the plain meaning of the verse,

one must understand: what is relevant here the detail and manner in the growth of plants,

that "the budding of the fruit" is "when the flower falls"²²?

3.

Further, Rashi stands on "and it ripened into almonds" and explains "when-

Hochar²³

the fruit Hochar that they are almonds, language of "And the child grew and was weaned"²⁴

And this language is found regarding fruit of the tree, like "and the unripe grape that ripens"²⁵.

It is known,

as has been spoken already many times,

that Rashi's language is precise to the utmost.

One must understand: that which Rashi brings the language of the verse "and the unripe grape that ripens" is understood

(according to the language of Rashi himself),

because from this there is a proof that this language

(<b>and he was weaned</b>)

is found

(not only regarding children,

because they are weaned from their mother's milk²⁶,

but)

also regarding fruits.

What, however, is the precision

(<b>and the addition</b> in his language)

"in fruit of <b>the tree</b>",

and not simply "in fruits"²⁷?

4.

And it can be said, the explanation in this:

In the plain sense of Scripture, several questions present themselves here,

and among them:

A)

The Almighty indeed said "And it shall be, the man whom I will choose, his staff <b>shall blossom</b>" — why is this

(in actuality)

was with a change

(and additions)

— not only "blossomed",

but also "and brought forth buds, and produced blossoms, and ripened almonds"²⁸?

Moreover — additions which require <b>miracles</b> additional!

b)

In this verse there is seemingly a redundancy — after the verse says "And behold, it blossomed etc." it then says again "And it brought forth <b>blossom</b>".

answer the redundancy of the language "And behold, it blossomed" "And it brought forth blossom",

that there were two kinds of blossom: on one side of the staff there were blossoms which remained there and never fell off³⁰

; and on the other side of the staff there was "And it brought forth blossom, and it sprouted buds, and it ripened almonds" — blossoms which afterwards fell off "like the way of all blossoms of trees"³¹.

No

(explanation)

Rashi, however, cannot be learned this way³²,

because such a <b>novelty</b> Rashi, according to his method of commentary on the Torah, would have had to state <b>explicitly</b> — and it is not even present by way of hint].

And the questions Rashi answers with his commentary that "and a blossom emerged" means "according to its plain meaning" and "and a bud sprouted" — "it is the ripening of the fruit when the flower falls".

H.

From the very fact that Rashi says that "veyotzei perach" means "as it sounds,"

D.

H.

A flower,

It is understood that the term "yifrach" "perach" <b>earlier </b>does not mean the blooming of a flower.

The expression "yifrach",

perach

(in the pa'al form),

when it speaks in relation to a tree,

means "blossomed" in its literal sense,

that flowers have grown out

(and by a tree that bears fruit it is the blooming of flowers from which the fruits later grow out&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;)

When it speaks however about a staff and the like,

not about a tree,

the expression "perach" is not limited specifically to the blooming of a flower,

but a general addition

(addition)

to the &lt;b&gt;staff&lt;/b&gt; — &lt;b&gt;flowering&lt;/b&gt;,

anything that grows and comes later&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;

(and see the expression&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;

"poreach ava'bu'ot",

"tzaddik katamar yifrach"&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;).

And therefore Rashi must safeguard at "and it brought forth a blossom" — that the "blossom"

Here it is,

"according to its plain meaning" — a blossom came out,

a flower — not like the expressions "it will blossom" and "blossom" which appear earlier,

which are,

as above,

not limited to its plain meaning; and Rashi does not need to interpret that explicitly earlier

(and at length),

because the expression of blossoming was already learned earlier³⁷,

and knowing that here it speaks about a staff it is a self-understood thing,

that this means not only the emergence of a flower,

but a blossoming which includes the growth of blossoms, buds, and fruits.

And since the expression "his staff blossomed" in this utterance of Hashem means the general concept of blossoming — beginning from the emergence of the blossom and all the details that come afterward — it is understood that after the Above said <b>in general </b>

(as in many places)

"his staff blossomed,"

then afterwards one enumerates in detail "and it brought forth a blossom, and sprouted buds, and produced almonds."

And likewise is understood the double language in the verse "and behold, the staff of Aaron of the house of Levi had blossomed, and it brought forth a blossom": first the Torah relates

In general — the staff of Aaron blossomed

(as the Most High said "its staff will blossom"),

and afterwards the Torah details the details of the blossoming: and it brought forth a blossom — literally,

a blossom; afterwards "and it sprouted buds" — the setting of the fruit; and afterwards "and it ripened almonds".

6.

According to this, however, the question arises: since "and it brought forth a blossom and it sprouted buds and it ripened almonds" is the elaboration of "the staff of Aaron blossomed" that stands earlier,

and in chronological order first "and it brought forth a blossom" until its end,

almonds — it turns out that at the time when "and Moses brought [them] into the Tent of Meeting etc." [they] had already completed all three matters "and it brought forth a blossom and it sprouted buds and it ripened almonds" — the verse should have stated only the final detail of the three "and it ripened almonds",

because only that did Moses see

(and not "and it brought forth a blossom and it sprouted buds" — as the Rashbam asks³⁸)?

And it is difficult to learn,

that when entering the Tent of Testimony, Moshe saw the entire transition of all three details one after the other — because,

what benefit is there in this that <b>Moshe</b> will see all this — the intention in this is indeed so that "I will cause to cease from Me the complaints of <b>Bnei Yisrael</b>"³⁹,

that <b>Jews</b> should recognize and believe that "I have chosen Aharon"⁴⁰?

Therefore Rashi adds in his commentary on "

(and it budded)

blossom" "it is the ripening of the fruit <b>when the flower falls</b>" — to explain that it was according to the natural order of growth

The fruits and this made possible that the Jews should know this⁴¹,

through <b>seeing</b> the fallen <b>blossoms</b>:

Moses took out all the staffs and showed the Jews — "And Moses brought out all the staffs from before the Lord to all the children of Israel, and they saw etc." — he showed them everything — also the blossoms which had fallen at the time of the formation of the fruit,

and seeing the staffs with the almonds and also the fallen blossoms,

it became clear to them that in the "Tent of Meeting" was the entire order of "And it brought forth a blossom" — "literally",

it sprouted a bud — the formation of the fruit and the falling of the blossom; and "it ripened almonds".

7.

One can however ask: why was it necessary that the Jews should know it,

and in general — the natural order of the growth of almonds on the staff —

since this was entirely a matter of miracle,

would it not have been sufficient if fully grown almonds had grown from the staff?

According to other commentators, this is understood because they learn,

that the blossoms of <b>the </b>"blossom" and "flower" add to the greatness of the miracle.

As the Radak⁴²

learns "He said 'blossom' regarding the emergence of the leaves first and afterward the bud, and this is opposite the natural way of the almond tree, and this was to magnify the miracle"⁴³.

But according to Rashi that "and the flower blossomed" is "the ripening of the fruit when the blossom falls",

it turns out,

on the contrary,

that it grew according to the natural order of the growth of almonds —

It is not understood: if because of the magnification of the miracle,

Rashi should have learned like the Radak that it was <b>not</b> according to the natural order of the growth of almonds; and if because of the miracle itself,

it would have had to be in a manner that from the staff ready almonds should grow?

Ch.

So the explanation in this,

that specifically in this is the main reason why the Above made the sign of the staffs:

The swallowing of "all the men who were Korach's and all the property"&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;

led to the knowledge and recognition&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;

"that &lt;b&gt;Hashem sent me &lt;/b&gt;to do all these deeds"; that Moshe is an agent of the Most High and &lt;b&gt;everything &lt;/b&gt;that he does is "according to the word"; and even more and in particular this was revealed at the burning of the "two hundred and fifty men who offered &lt;b&gt;the incense&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;,

where it became clear to everyone that Aharon is the one whom the Holy One, blessed be He, chose for incense — for the high priesthood&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;.

This, however, did not yet entirely nullify the complaints of the children of Israel,

this only brings out that thus the &lt;b&gt;Most High &lt;/b&gt;commanded and therefore all these punishments came; but it could be that Aharon &lt;b&gt;in himself &lt;/b&gt;is equal to other Jews "and why do you raise yourselves up"; moreover — possibly

(because of the making of the calf)

that specifically Aharon&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;

is for this &lt;b&gt;not &lt;/b&gt;worthy,

other Jews are more worthy&lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt;.

Moreover: it could be that what the Most High commanded to make Aharon a high priest came because of the request and prayer of Moshe&lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt;.

And so forth.

Upon this came the sign of the staffs: regarding a staff, in and of itself and its nature, the matter of blossoming and the growth of fruits is not relevant,

this can be only by virtue of His choice and will of the Holy One, blessed be He;

On the other hand, through the staffs one saw,

that the will of G-d in this brought about,

that it was and remained not merely a matter of a miracle,

rather this becomes connected with the <b>nature of the staff</b>⁴⁸.

And therefore the manner of the blossoming was: first "and it brought forth a blossom"

as it sounds and afterwards "and a blossom sprouted",

the ripening of the fruit when the flower falls,

and afterwards "and it ripened almonds",

"when the fruit was recognized it was recognized that they are almonds" — a &lt;b&gt;natural &lt;/b&gt;order of the growth of fruits.

And it is understood that likewise is regarding the priesthood of Aharon: the entire matter of the priesthood by Aharon comes from the side of the Holy One Blessed be He's choosing "and the man whom &lt;b&gt;I will choose&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;,

the Above from His own side chose

(not from the side of a request from Moshe and the like),

and the choosing itself is in a manner,

that the priesthood becomes by him a natural quality.

Based on this it is also understood that which the Above commanded⁵⁰

"Return the staff of Aaron etc. as a keepsake for a sign — as a remembrance that I chose Aaron the priest and they will no longer complain about the priesthood"; since this becomes a natural and essential matter for Aaron and his sons it is not possible to say that

(even if another has a desire and will for the service in the Holy Temple⁵¹

or due to other reasons)

there should be in this a change — at a later time to choose another in his place⁵².

9.

Based on this it is also understood the continuation of Rashi's commentary on "and it bore almonds": the bringing of proof that "this language is common regarding fruit of the tree",

is not merely to bring a proof that the language "and it bore" is used regarding fruits

(not only regarding a child),

but also to emphasize that the manner of growth

("and it bore")

here regarding the almonds

On the staff,

was in the same manner and nature as the growth and development by <b>fruit of the tree</b>.

According to the above, the continuation in Rashi's commentary will be sweetened: "And why almonds? It is the fruit that hastens to blossom more than all fruits; even the one who arouses [a claim] against the priesthood, his punishment hastens to come"⁵³

Since the blossoming and growth of the fruits on the staff like fruit of the tree,

is in order to emphasize that this came in a natural order and therefore it is related to the matter of the priesthood of Aharon,

as above,

it is understood,

that also that the blossoming was specifically of the almond species is also related to the matter of the priesthood that is discussed here.

Therefore Rashi continues "And why almonds etc.,"

that also the detail that this was specifically the species

(fruits)

of almonds

(although this does not contribute to the sign regarding the choice of Aharon)

is relevant to our matter,

because this comes to hint that "the one who stirs up against the priesthood, his punishment hastens to come etc."⁵⁴.

Yud.

According to the above explanation in Rashi's commentary, a phrase in the Gemara is answered, about which the early authorities raise a question:

The Gemara says⁵⁵

that "when the Ark was hidden, with it was hidden⁵⁶

etc. Aaron's staff with its almonds⁵⁷

and its blossoms": one asks about this⁵⁸

: How does the Gemara mention "and its blossoms" — in the verse it says "and it produced almonds,"

and after the completion of the growth of the almonds there are no longer any blossoms

(which fall off earlier,

as above)?

And one pre-

He answers⁵⁹,

that "some of the blossoms remained" in order to magnify the miracle⁶⁰.

But it is not smooth,

at first glance: why does the Gemara need to specify the blossoms separately regarding the <b>concealment of </b>the staff?

According to the above, they were indeed on the staff, and when the staff was concealed, the blossoms were consequently also concealed.

Regarding the almonds, one can say

(with difficulty at least),

that thereby it becomes clear about which "staff of Aaron" it is speaking here⁶¹

; but what is the practical difference to mention here the blossoms⁶².

According to the above in Rashi's commentary — <b>according to its simple meaning</b> of the verse,

which makes no distinction in blossoms — that the blossoms <b>all</b> fell off and Moshe showed them <b>separated</b> from the staff,

it is understood:

Just as the first time Moshe took out the staff with the almonds and separately the fallen blossoms in order to show the Jews that it was a natural growth and development of

almonds,

which brings out the content of the priesthood of Aharon as above at length —

Thus it is also understood regarding the command "Return the staff of Aaron before the testimony as a keepsake for a sign — as a remembrance that I chose Aaron the priest and they will no longer murmur against the priesthood,"

that also in this "remembrance" it is relevant that the "return" should include both the staff with the almonds and the separated blossoms,

which brings out the manner "that I chose Aaron the priest."

And for this reason, also regarding the hiding it is interpreted "the staff of Aaron <b>with its almonds and its blossoms</b>": just as the matter of the hiding of the Ark was not

(merely)

to safeguard that it should not fall into the hands of the enemy,

but

(as discussed once at length⁶³)

because there

(the place of hiding)

it has a status of the place of the Ark

(which is why Solomon immediately <b>at the beginning of </b>the building of the Temple "knew that its end would be destruction, he built in it a place to hide the Ark"⁶⁴,

he sanctified it as a place for the sanctity of the Ark in the Holy of Holies),

So likewise also regarding the other things that were "before the Ark" — their concealment "with Him"

(with the Ark)

is because this is their place,

and consequently, also being located in the place of their concealment, they effect an action;

— particularly regarding the staff of Aaron,

that the teaching that it was hidden together with the Ark is from that which regarding it is written "for a sign"

(as a sign)

also in the place of concealment it is "for a sign" —

And therefore, in the genizah as well, the Gemara specifies "Aaron's staff with its almonds &lt;b&gt;and its blossoms&lt;/b&gt;",

And all this will be revealed with the coming of Mashiach Tzidkeinu,

about whom it is stated&lt;sup&gt;66&lt;/sup&gt;

&lt;b&gt;He will flourish &lt;/b&gt;in his days the righteous "that in his days the priesthood will return &lt;b&gt;and flourish &lt;/b&gt;the staff of Aaron"&lt;sup&gt;67&lt;/sup&gt;,

speedily in our days, literally.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Korach 5741)