English translation — קרח ב

In the verse¹

"And G-d spoke to Aaron: And I, behold I have given you the charge of My terumos, etc."

Rashi stands on "And I, behold I have given you" and says two matters,

which are both in the Sifri

(with a change of language)

1.

a)

That "And I <b>behold </b>

(I have given you)

" means "with joy...

like behold²

he is going out to meet you and see you and rejoice in his heart"

(and adds to the language of the Sifri)

— "with joy,

<b>this is an expression of joy</b>"³

— because according to the plain meaning, "hinei" is not everywhere an "expression of joy"

(but only when there is a necessity to interpret it so),

and therefore Rashi specifies "this is an expression of joy <b>this</b>"⁴].

b)

That the reason for the juxtaposition of the portion

(regarding the priestly gifts)

to the incident of Korach,

is understood from "a parable of a king who gave a field to his friend and did not write etc. One came and protested etc. The king said to him: Whoever wants to come and protest against you, I am writing and signing for you and filing in the courts,

so here, because Korach came and protested against Aharon regarding the priesthood, the verse came and gave him twenty-four priestly gifts in a covenant of salt forever⁵,

and therefore this portion was juxtaposed here."

One must understand: at first glance the two matters have no connection between themselves,

and as we see,

they indeed stand in the books as &lt;b&gt;separate &lt;/b&gt;discourses

(and in other words)

— but Rashi includes them in the same opening phrase,

and in the continuation &lt;b&gt;one&lt;/b&gt;?

B.

Also one must understand:

After the Sifri says the mashal,

he concludes

(the nimshal),

and his language: "Korach came and contested the priesthood against him,

the Omnipresent said to him: Whoever wants to contest against you regarding the priesthood, come⁶

and I write and I sign and I raise you to values."

Rashi, however, concludes the nimshal

(as above)

: "Here too, because Korach came and contested against Aaron⁷

regarding the priesthood, the verse came and gave

to him 24 gifts of priesthood in a covenant of salt forever.

It is understandable why Rashi concludes

(not as in Sifri: and I write etc. seal etc.,

but)

"the verse came and gave him etc.",

because he wants to interpret⁸

the "write etc." in the allegory — "gave him 24 gifts of priesthood in a covenant of salt forever."

because in the books one knows this from before: before he says the parable,

he prefaces "The Scripture made a covenant with Aharon regarding the Holy of Holies...

because Korach came against Aharon and challenged the priesthood etc.",

therefore he does not need to repeat it again,

after the parable].

But it is not understood:

a)

Why does Rashi say "The <b>verse</b> says 'and he gave him etc.'" — and not

(as in the Sifri)

"<b>the place</b>"?

b)

Why does Rashi say "<b>twenty-four</b> priestly gifts" — what is the practical difference here of the number of priestly gifts?

Rashi should have said "and he gave him priestly gifts in an eternal covenant of salt."

Further: In the verses <b>here</b> are counted <b>not</b> all the 24 priestly gifts — the gifts of challah are not mentioned,

first of the shearing,

the foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw⁹

— so how does Rashi say

that because of Korach's protest "the verse came and gave him <b>24</b> priestly gifts in a covenant etc."?

The difficulty is even greater: regarding the first of the fleece and the foreleg, jaw, and maw, the Torah only <b>commanded</b> later¹⁰,

in the portion of Shoftim¹¹

Gimmel.

Regarding this precision of the language of Rashi "The <b>verse</b> came and gave etc." one can say,

that this is connected with another change of language in Rashi's commentary relative to the Sifri:

In the Sifri he concludes "therefore this section was stated adjacent to Korach,"

but Rashi changes from the Sifri and says "and therefore this section was placed adjacent here."

The difference between the two expressions "was stated" and "was placed" simply is: "this section was stated adjacent to Korach" means that it was stated in proximity to the event of Korach; as opposed to "was placed ...

here" means the juxtaposition of the section in the Torah¹²

: it was written in the Torah in this place

(but it was stated earlier or later).

And since Rashi assumes that the section is only "adjacent ..

here",

therefore he infers "for &lt;b&gt;the verse &lt;/b&gt;'and he gave him etc.'"&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;

— because the very message

(of the

priestly gifts that is stated)

in the section did not come in sequence to the incident of Korach,

rather the Torah

("&lt;b&gt;the verse&lt;/b&gt;")

juxtaposes the section here,

to teach that the giving of the priestly gifts in an eternal covenant of salt nullifies the possibility of a challenge to the priesthood.

It remains however not understood — this itself reason requires: from where does Rashi take this novelty

(in simple meaning of Scripture),

that the portion is

(not said and therefore also written in proximity to the incident of Korach,

as the Sifri teaches,

but)

only "placed adjacent..

here"?

D.

Seemingly one could say,

that this depends on another difference between the Sifri and Rashi's commentary,

and with an introduction:

from the plain meaning of the verse⁵

"<b>All </b>the holy offerings etc. I have given to you etc. an eternal covenant of salt etc." implies,

that this does not refer only to a part,

but to <b>all </b>the priestly gifts; and also from the content of the matter it is thus implied — because there is no logic to differentiate among the priestly gifts and say,

that only a part of them was given with an "eternal covenant of salt".

And accordingly it must turn out,

that when the portion was said, they had already been commanded earlier regarding all twenty-four priestly gifts — and according to this the verse says,

that "<b>All </b>the holy offerings etc. I have given to you etc. an eternal covenant of salt".

And the difference between the Sifri and Rashi is in this: on the verse¹⁴

"All

fat of oil etc. their firstfruits which they give to Hashem, to you I have given them",

it says in the Sifri "their firstfruits — this is the first shearing,

which they give — this is the arm and the jaw and the maw,

to Hashem — this is challah"¹⁵.

That is,

that in the portion itself are already all the twenty-four priestly gifts¹⁶.

Therefore the Sifri teaches,

(where it says about the "covenant of salt forever")

was "<b>said</b>" <b>here</b>;

Not so according to Rashi,

who does not bring the above-mentioned exposition¹⁷

(And on the contrary,

he explains "their beginning,

it is the great terumah"),

and the obligation of the first shearing and the foreleg, jaw, and maw is not known from the portion,

but only from Parshat Shoftim — one must say,

that the portion

that the portion

(regarding "a covenant of salt forever")

was not stated in proximity to the incident of Korach

(when the obligation of all the priestly gifts did not yet exist),

but only after Parshat Shoftim.

that "all of them were stated, their general principles and their details, from Sinai" — nevertheless Rashi says

(in Parshat Shoftim¹⁹)

that the gifts of the foreleg, jaw, and maw came as a reward for the deed of Pinchas

("the foreleg under the hand...

the jaw under the prayer...

and the maw under...

her maw"),

it is simply²⁰

It is plausible to say,

that only now

(after the incident of Pinchas)

was renewed²¹

their obligation]

And therefore Rashi says "therefore &lt;b&gt;this section was placed &lt;/b&gt;here."

E.

But when you examine it, one cannot say so,

because:

a)

If one were to assume that the parshah was said only after Parshas Shoftim

(or at least — after the incident of Pinchas)

— it would turn out that the “king” waited with the “writing and sealing for you and presenting to the courts”

(in order to preserve the possibilities for appeal)

<b>year </b>

(after the appeal of Korach)

b)

And the main point: the verse from <b>the </b>portion indeed states "And G-d spoke to <b>Aaron </b>and behold I have given <b>to you</b>",

that the "I have given" — which includes all the twenty-four priestly gifts as mentioned above — is "to you",

to <b>Aaron</b>²²,

and consequently before the deed of Pinchas

(which occurred <b>after </b>the death of Aaron)

that they gave it to Aaron because of the merit of Pinchas <b>in the future</b>²³,

<b>in the manner of</b>²⁴

as <b>Rashi </b>already

<b>Earlier</b>²⁵

was explained regarding the Exodus from Egypt,

that it was in the merit of

(the <b>later</b>)

receiving of the Torah]

One cannot say,

that the portion was said much later after the incident of Korach.

And according to this, the opposite emerges — that what Rashi says “<b>was juxtaposed</b> ..

(not: “was said”)

is because he holds that the portion was said <b>before</b> the matter of Korach —

It is not understood,

as above: from where is Rashi's proof in the plain sense of Scripture to learn that the section was said earlier,

and only "it was placed adjacent..

here”

here"?

6.

And one can say the explanation in this:

In the verses of the portion it does not come to

(according to the simple meaning of Scripture)

any one gift that was not already stated earlier.

That which was added,

is the beginning and end,

that the priestly gifts were given to Aaron and to his sons "for anointing"

and

(at the end)

"a perpetual statute, a covenant of salt forever."

One must say,

that what the verse says "And I, behold I have given etc.,"

means

(not that he gives now

these gifts,

but)

that I have already given,

in the past.

And therefore it is plausible to say

(in the simple sense),

that the verses of the portion,

where are enumerated &lt;b&gt;in detail &lt;/b&gt;the gifts of the priesthood,

were not &lt;b&gt;said &lt;/b&gt;here,

but “&lt;b&gt;was attached &lt;/b&gt;..

here”: the Torah wrote here the &lt;b&gt;previous statements &lt;/b&gt;of the Holy One, blessed be He,

about the gifts which “I have given”

(already)&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;.

But not according to the Sifri,

which teaches that in the verses here are hinted also the first of the fleece and the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw which were not yet stated in a verse earlier

(as above)

— the portion was &lt;b&gt;said &lt;/b&gt;here,

to complete the matter of the gifts of the priesthood

(also those which until now were not stated in a verse)

*&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;.

And even though also according to Rashi the &lt;b&gt;covenant&lt;/b&gt; regarding the priestly gifts was said "here"&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;

— but according to &lt;b&gt;Rashi&lt;/b&gt; it pertains to the matter of nullifying the possibility of challenge,

not only the covenant regarding the priestly gifts,

but also the &lt;b&gt;giving&lt;/b&gt; of the priestly gifts

(as will be explained at length)

And therefore Rashi infers "the &lt;b&gt;verse&lt;/b&gt; comes and gave him etc. and therefore this section was juxtaposed here",

because regarding the &lt;b&gt;giving&lt;/b&gt; of the priestly gifts,

here only the "&lt;b&gt;the verse comes and gave him&lt;/b&gt;" appeared: the "verse" tells here about the giving

(from earlier&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;).

7.

The explanation of all this:

The simple meaning of "hinei" is,

in the manner of "hineini"

(abbreviation of "hinei ani")

— here,

ready and prepared.

Like "hinei ishtekach kach valech"³⁴,

"vayar vehinei ayil"³⁵.

And when it speaks about an action that one is going to do

(or that one has done)

— shows the word

"hinei" on the preparation of the one who does the action,

that <b>he</b> is "ready" for it.

Why does one need to <b>emphasize</b> his preparation — it is

(generally)

because one speaks about an action which is a <b>novelty</b>,

not as it would seemingly have needed to be.

For example: "And I, behold I bring the flood, etc."&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;

— a novelty,

because it is the opposite of what is stated earlier "And God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good"&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;

; "And Sarai said, etc. 'Behold now, the Lord has restrained me from bearing'"&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;

— opposite of the nature of a woman in general to have children,

and in particular here — opposite of the promise of the Holy One, blessed be He, in the Covenant Between the Parts "So shall your seed be"&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;

; and so too in our portion itself&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;

: "And I, behold I have taken your brothers the Levites, etc., to you as a gift, etc." — even though "&lt;b&gt;You &lt;/b&gt;and your sons, etc., shall bear the iniquity of the Sanctuary, etc."&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;,

that guarding the Sanctuary has a connection specifically to the priests,

&lt;b&gt;Nevertheless&lt;/b&gt;,

"I have taken your brothers the Levites"&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;

to help the priests.

But in our case,

in the verse "And I, behold I have given, etc.",

there is seemingly no novelty

(&lt;b&gt;opposite &lt;/b&gt;of the preceding)&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;.

So how does the expression "behold" fit here?

Therefore Rashi says "it is an expression of joy",

that when there is a joy in the matter,

the expression "hinei" is appropriate even when there is no novelty in the action; because the joy in an action brings alacrity,

addition etc. in the readiness to do the thing,

and therefore the expression "hinei" fits it

(ready and prepared)⁴⁴.

Ch.

With this, however, the question arises: where does one see that the giving of the priestly gifts was with joy?

Furthermore: from the very thing that only in limited places is

(according to the simple explanation⁴⁵

( the word "hinei" is used as an expression of joy,

it is proven,

that this is a minority,

an exception,

a joy in a manner of novelty —

and as we indeed find it in the verse that Rashi brings as proof — "Behold, he is going out to meet you, and he will see you and rejoice in his heart",

that despite the fact that "<b>he </b>

(Aharon)

<b>is going out to meet you</b>"⁴⁶

and Moshe is to become the redeemer of Israel — contrary to the honor of the older brother — nevertheless,

this will not arouse in him anger or the like⁴⁷,

but on the contrary — "and he will see you⁴⁸

and rejoice in his heart".

Where does one see a great joy in giving the priestly gifts?

On this Rashi brings,

that the matter of priestly gifts has

(also)

revealed the great benefit to nullify and negate a challenge to the priesthood⁴⁹.

And the great joy at the giving of the priestly gifts expresses itself in that after "Korach came and challenged Aaron regarding the priesthood" is "the Scripture came and gave him <b>24</b> priestly gifts" — a <b>multitude</b> of gifts:

We just learned,

that in order to ensure that Jews should know "I have chosen Aharon the priest and they shall no longer lodge upon the priesthood"⁵⁰

was sufficient <b>one </b>action

(the staff of Aharon blossomed⁵¹)

And here one gives for the same matter — <b>twenty-four</b>⁵²

priestly gifts!

This is a proof,

that this was not merely a giving

(in order to secure the appeal),

but specifically a great giving,

which proves that it comes from within <b>joy</b>⁵³.

T.

According to this, however, it turns out,

that there is a difference between Rashi and Sifri — through which one nullifies the possibility of appeal:

In the book it is mentioned only about the matter of making a covenant with Aharon

(a covenant of eternal salt)

upon all the holy of holies,

that the making of the covenant nullifies the possibility of challenge.

According to Rashi, however, it turns out,

that here there were two things

(to nullify the possibility of challenge)

: "The verse came

(a)

and gave him twenty-four priestly gifts,

(b)

with a covenant of eternal salt."

(Mishnah from Sifri and is)

precise "The &lt;b&gt;Scripture &lt;/b&gt;came and gave him etc. and therefore &lt;b&gt;was juxtaposed &lt;/b&gt;this section here" — because the actual giving of the gifts of priesthood was already &lt;b&gt;earlier &lt;/b&gt;

(before the protest of Korach),

it is only that "The &lt;b&gt;Scripture &lt;/b&gt;came and gave etc.",

as above section 6].

With this will also become understandable why Rashi needs to bring the parable with all its details — for prima facie: when Rashi says only the moral&lt;sup&gt;54&lt;/sup&gt;

— "Because Korach came and protested against Aharon regarding the priesthood, the Scripture came and gave him 24 gifts of priesthood in a covenant of salt forever" — would nothing be lacking

(prima facie)

in the understanding of the matter.

What does the parable of a king who said "Behold I am writing and signing etc." add?

and especially since in this matter he does not at all cite the Sifri as a source for his commentary],

Rather, with this Rashi intends to explain&lt;sup&gt;55&lt;/sup&gt;

why they had to come to both matters

(He gave him twenty-four priestly gifts and a covenant of eternal salt)

and furthermore — that the earlier sign and wonder of Aaron's staff that blossomed was not sufficient —

That just as in the mashal three matters are required:

(a)

writer,

(b)

and seal,

(c)

and presentation before the court,

so too is it also in the nimshal: giving the twenty-four priestly gifts — corresponding to "writer"; cutting a covenant — "and seal"; and the covenant is in a manner of "everlasting salt" — "and presentation before the court"⁵⁶,

as will be explained below.

Ten.

The function of a document

("writer")

is,

that the owner of the field has a proof that the field belongs to him,

even when he finds himself at a distance from the field.

When he finds himself in and around his field,

it is not so necessary to secure against a claim; a claim is primarily likely when he distances himself from his field — and this is secured through the document.

And so too in the analogy: in order that the priests,

wherever they find themselves

(not only when they perform the service in the Holy Temple)

should "have a vision"⁵⁷

that they are priests to God — therefore "He gave ...

the twenty-four priestly gifts",

many of which are not specifically connected to the Holy Temple and Jerusalem,

and regarding some of them the obligation is even outside the Land⁵⁸.

But the matter of "writing" alone is not sufficient,

because:

(a)

As long as the document is not signed, the matter is not yet concluded,

and the giver can have regret;

(b)

Even after he signs,

one ensures that the <b>giver </b>should not be able to have <b>regret</b>,

but there still exists a possibility that someone should contest the <b>document </b>and nullify it — for which reason the document must have validation in court

("present before the authorities").

And these are the two matters of "covenant"

(the matter of "seal")

and "eternal salt"

(the strength of "ascending in levels")

The Most High made a covenant with Aaron that the matter of the priesthood of Aaron and his seed after him is in a manner that in it there will be no change

("regret")

— in the manner that the service of the firstborns was taken away⁵⁹.

It can, however, be,

that although from the side of the giver there will not be any "regret" regarding the matter of the priesthood,

there will, however, come a situation that can cause the nullification of the entirety of the matter of the priesthood

(similar to a challenge on a document)

: the bringing near⁶⁰

to you Aaron your brother etc. from among the children of Israel <b>to minister to Me</b> — <b>service to Me</b>,

is nullified since the Temple was destroyed,

the service of the priests is not applicable,

so seemingly the matter of the priesthood is nullified, heaven forbid

which was given to the tribe of Judah,

and it states "the scepter shall not depart from Judah"⁶¹,

but nevertheless there came a time of nullification of the monarchy,

no kings,

and even not "heads of the exiles"⁶²]

Upon this was the covenant in a manner of "&lt;b&gt;eternal salt&lt;/b&gt;" — a covenant "in a thing that is healthy and enduring ..

that does not spoil &lt;b&gt;forever&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;63&lt;/sup&gt;

— analogous to "raising in value" which does upon the &lt;b&gt;existence&lt;/b&gt; of the document.

Yes.

In Rashi's commentary there are indeed "wonders" from all parts of the Torah.

And it could be said from the "wonders" in this Rashi: the nullification of Korach's claim — is connected with the priestly gifts specifically in this

Number from 24⁶⁴

Korach’s appeal on the priesthood of Aharon was in a manner of <b>theft</b> — not a rebellion against the Above in an open manner

(like robbery which is in the open),

but concealed,

smuggled into a “rational argument” — “It is too much for you, for the entire assembly, all of them are holy, etc.”⁶⁵

And "Korach assembled against them the &lt;b&gt;entire &lt;/b&gt;congregation"&lt;sup&gt;66&lt;/sup&gt;

— "He went to the tribes &lt;b&gt;and enticed them &lt;/b&gt;..

Until &lt;b&gt;they were all enticed&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;67&lt;/sup&gt;

— All the tribes were partners in the "theft,"

They all became obligated in "double" — "he shall pay double"&lt;sup&gt;68&lt;/sup&gt;

— Twelve times double,

&lt;b&gt;24 &lt;/b&gt;

(priestly gifts).

And seemingly, Korach and the tribe of Levi were indeed from

(Heads)

the protesters — were indeed <b>thirteen</b> tribes⁶⁹,

And accordingly, there should have been <b>twenty-six</b> priestly gifts?

— But because the intention of the priestly gifts is,

to prevent a protest <b>in the future</b>,

in the language of Rashi

(in the parable)

"The king said to him, <b>Whoever wishes may come and protest</b>"⁷⁰,

and regarding that future, one needed to be concerned only for a protest from <b>the rest of the tribes</b>,

but not from the tribe of Levi

— as it is proven from this that the staff of the tribe of Levi is the staff of Aaron&lt;sup&gt;71&lt;/sup&gt;,

which he is &lt;b&gt;on the contrary &lt;/b&gt;— nullifying "the complaints of Bnei Yisrael"&lt;sup&gt;72&lt;/sup&gt;

The punishment of Korach and his assembly nullified the possibility of appeal of the sons of Levi

(they became "one",

one staff with

(the staff of)

Aaron),

and afterwards one needed to secure only the complaints of the rest of the tribes&lt;sup&gt;73&lt;/sup&gt;.

12.

One can still ask:

One of the gifts of the priesthood is terumat maaser,

which Israelites do not give

only Levites

("And to <b>the Levites</b> you shall speak"⁷⁴).

It turns out,

that all twelve tribes give only <b>twenty-three</b> priestly gifts?

But here we see again,

how

(also)

according to the <b>plain meaning</b> of Scripture everything is precise: regarding the tithe of the tithe the verse says <b>two</b> times⁷⁵

that it comes from the tithe which "you shall take from <b>the children of Israel</b>" — and at first glance,

what is the emphasis

(<b>and the repetition</b>

( that the tithe comes from the <b>children of Israel</b>?

But with this the verse emphasizes,

that the obligation of terumat maaser applies to the produce while it is still in the possession of the Israelite,

but the Levite actually separates it,

since he receives the maaser.

Which gives an explanation of the law⁷⁶

that "the householder has permission to separate terumat maaser"

(and it is not called "one who separates⁷⁷

without knowledge")⁷⁸

— because the obligation of terumat maaser is due to the fact that the maaser comes "from &lt;b&gt;the children of Israel&lt;/b&gt;",

and the obligation already applies when the produce was in the possession of Israel.

It turns out,

that <b>all </b>the 24 priestly gifts belong to Israelites.

13.

The portion of Korach is read in the month of Tammuz

(or on the Shabbat of blessing the month

Tammuz)

— the month of the redemption of the Rebbe, the father-in-law.

One of the hints of his imprisonment and redemption — is in the commentary of Rashi,

in which one sees,

that the challenge of Korach did not only not weaken the priesthood of Aharon,

but on the contrary,

it caused a very great strength⁷⁹,

up to a "covenant of eternal salt"

(similar to a document against which a challenge was raised that was upheld in court).

And so it was by the Rebbe⁸⁰,

that

Specifically through the "arousal" of the imprisonment,

came the redemption which ensured that his service of spreading Torah and strengthening Judaism would continue and in a manner of "an eternal covenant",

And with a great advantage over before — in a manner that the wellsprings of Torah should be able to reach all ends of the earth,

so that the redemption is a close preparation to the true and complete and general redemption through Mashiach our righteous one,

speedily in our days, literally.

(From talks of Shabbos Parshas Korach and Shabbos Parshas Chukas 5727)