English translation — קרח ג

A.

In this week's parshah¹

The Torah states the law of "the firstborn of an ox or the firstborn of a sheep or the firstborn of a goat" — that "you shall not redeem; they are holy; their blood you shall sprinkle etc. and their fat you shall burn etc. and their meat shall be yours

(to the kohanim)

like the breast of the wave offering and like the right thigh, it shall be yours."

Rashi stands on the words "like the breast of the wave offering and like the right thigh" and explains: "of peace-offerings that are eaten by kohanim, their wives, their children, and their servants for two days and one night; likewise the firstborn is eaten for two days and one night."

One must understand:

Rashi begins

(by shelamim)

with <b>two</b> details —

(a)

(<b>who</b> may eat them)

"for the priests, for their wives, for their children, and for their servants"²

(b)

(<b>when</b> they are eaten)

"for two days and one night" — and concludes only with <b>one</b> detail: "even the firstborn is eaten for two days and one night";

It is perplexing — whichever way you look at it: if Rashi omits the words by bekhor because he holds³

that bekhor is eaten only by males of the priesthood⁴

— he should not have

brought the words by shelamim⁵

; and if also bekhor is eaten "to the priests, their wives, etc." — why does he omit them by bekhor?

And it is understood that one cannot say,

that because he wants to be brief in his language, Rashi omits a law!

And additionally — according to this, he also should not have needed to say the words “

(even the firstborn)

is eaten for two days and one night”,

but rather write briefly: “even the firstborn, so”⁶,

or altogether omit the entire ending “even the firstborn, etc.”⁷.

The wonder is even greater: the source of this Rashi commentary is in the Sifri&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;

and Gemara&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;,

and in both places the detail of “

(eaten by the priests)

to their wives and to their sons and to their servants” is not mentioned at all,

neither regarding peace-offerings nor regarding the firstborn — it only states “Just as peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so too the firstborn is eaten for two days and one night” — and Rashi

(from the Mishnah of the Sifri and Gemara and is)

adds the detail in his commentary.

B.

Afterwards Rashi quotes the words “to you it shall be” and explains: “Rabbi Akiva came and taught: the verse added another ‘to you’ so that you should not say like the breast and thigh of a thanksgiving-offering, which is eaten only for a day and a night.”

One must understand:

a)

As discussed several times,

Rashi cites the name of the author of the discourse only in a case where this adds to the understanding of the commentary — and in our case: What becomes better understood here through the knowledge that the discourse was said by <b>Rabbi Akiva</b>?

b)

What is the lengthy language "&lt;b&gt;came &lt;/b&gt;R' Akiva &lt;b&gt;and learned&lt;/b&gt;" — Rashi should have said concisely

(as is his way in many places)

"Said R' Akiva"?

The source of the statement of R"A is in Sifri&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;

and Gemara&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;,

and there too is an unusual language "&lt;b&gt;jumped &lt;/b&gt;R"A".

But there it is understandable,

because he comes in the middle of a discussion: earlier they asked the question "before the sages in the vineyard of Yavneh&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;

etc. R' Tarfon answered etc.",

R' Yosi HaGelili asked a difficulty that R' Tarfon could not answer&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;,

another entered into the discussion — "&lt;b&gt;jumped &lt;/b&gt;R' Akiva ..

said etc." — but how does the language "&lt;b&gt;came &lt;/b&gt;R' Akiva" fit here in Rashi when the entire discussion is not mentioned?

3)

That a firstborn is eaten for two days and one night, one does not need to come to an addition "to you it shall be"

("The verse added for you another 'to you it shall be'")

— this law is learned from the verse "year by year"

(in Parshat Re'eh¹²),

as Rashi explains there "we learned that it is eaten

(the firstborn)

for two days and one night"¹³.

4)

Regarding the plain meaning — from where is the compulsion that "to you it shall be" is a multiplication

("The verse added for you another 'to you it shall be'")?

3.

The explanation of all this:

Rashi’s is difficult the superfluous language in our verse¹⁴.

For prima facie: after it says “and their meat shall be yours”

(that the meat of the firstborn belongs to the kohen),

what do they come to add upon this the words “like the breast of the waving and like the right thigh

(shall be yours)”

— Therefore Rashi teaches that the words come to teach a <b>law</b>,

in what manner “their meat” is eaten.

If one would however say that the words only indicate the &lt;b&gt;time&lt;/b&gt; of eating — "for two days and one night" like the breast and thigh of a peace-offering — it is not understandable: why does the verse need to hint,

to state the law by comparing to another offering — with the words "like the breast of the waving and like the right thigh",

and especially that then it is not clear whether this means "of peace-offerings that are eaten ..

for two days and one night" or "of

thanks¹⁵

that is not eaten except for a day and a night",

and one needs to have an additional addition and teaching "to you it shall be — a different 'Havayah'"

— it should have stood <b>clearly</b> and briefly: "On the day of his offering it shall be eaten

and on the morrow"¹⁶

From this Rashi forces,

that with the words "like the breast of the waving and like the right thigh" one means more than the one law

( — rather &lt;b&gt;two &lt;/b&gt;laws)

: "that they are eaten

(a)

by the priests, their wives, their children, and their servants

(b)

for two days and one night".

4.

Based on this it is also understandable why Rashi learns out "that you should not say like the breast and thigh of a thanksgiving offering" from "to you it shall be",

and does not want to rely on the verse "year by year"

(in parshas Re'eh)

If one would say,

that in our verse there is no teaching about the time of eating the firstborn,

it will turn out,

that with "the breast of the waving and the right thigh" the verse means only one law — "eaten by the priests, their wives, their sons, and their servants";

It becomes difficult as above: why does the verse state the law with a <b>hint</b>

("the breast of the waving and the right thigh")

and — not <b>explicitly</b>.

And especially since before this it does state explicitly¹⁷

(by "the gift of their anointing portion from all the wave offerings of the children of Israel")

— "to you I have given them and to your sons

and to your daughters”

(and consequently one would have known also — their wives and their servants¹⁸)?

Therefore Rashi teaches,

that “to you it shall be” comes to clarify the law of “two days and one night”,

and consequently,

that with the words “like the breast of the waving and like the right thigh”¹⁹

the verse comes to state two laws²⁰,

both that it is eaten by the priests, their wives, their sons, and their servants,

and that it is eaten for two days and one night.

It remains, however, not understood

(as above)

: Why does Rashi conclude only with one detail — "even the firstborn is eaten for two days and one night"?

H.

The explanation in this:

The two explanations of Rashi

("like the breast of the wave-offering and like the right thigh" and "to you it shall be")

are not separate <b>distinct</b> explanations,

rather this is one continuum²¹

: Rashi states the teaching of shelamim,

and the conclusion of <b>this</b> are the words "<b>even the firstborn</b>"²²

— just as the laws of the breast and thigh of shelamim,

so are the laws of the firstborn;

And then Rashi begins and says a <b>second </b>matter: Regarding this law <b>aforesaid </b>"eaten for two days and one night"

(There is a

Continuation and explanation²³

— "To you shall be, come R. Akiva and learn etc.'")

In this detail it is not enough

(the study of)

the words "like the breast of the waving and like the right thigh

(of a peace-offering)

" — because one might think "like the breast and thigh of a thanksgiving-offering which is eaten only for a day and a night" — but one must arrive

(also)

at the subsequent words "to you, Hashem",

"the verse added for you another Hashem".

Based on this it is also understandable what Rashi is precise: "Rabbi Akiva came and taught": he wants thereby to clarify that the explanation is not a beginning of a topic — in which case the language "Rabbi Akiva came" would not fit — but it is a continuation

(and in the middle of this explanation in connection)

to the preceding words "for two days and one night";

Rashi warns&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;

The question on "for two days and one night" — why does one compare a firstborn to a peace-offering and not to a thanksgiving-offering — and says: "&lt;b&gt;Ba &lt;/b&gt;R' Akiva and learned, the verse added for you another 'havayah' etc."

6.

After all the above, a sharp student can ask,

that the language of the verse is not entirely smooth:

Since the verse repeats the <b>same</b> wording "yihiyeh lecha ..

lecha yihiyeh" — it is

plausible to say,

that this speaks about the <b>same</b> matter,

in order to strengthen it²⁵,

it says "one man, one man per tribe",

and similarly by the offerings of the princes it says&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;

"one prince per day, one prince per day" — that Rashi there does not explain the repetition of the language,

because in the manner of the simple meaning it is to strengthen and emphasize the matter]

But according to the above explanation it turns out,

that the first part of the verse — "and their flesh shall be yours like the breast of the waving and like the right thigh" — is

(not a specific law,

but)

a general law,

a general comparison to the breast and thigh of peace-offerings

(in no more than one detail: eaten by the priests, their wives, etc.,

and eaten for two days, etc.)

; and the language "shall be yours" at the end of the verse comes to include one detail in the law of its time of eating?

Therefore Rashi emphasizes,

that the discourse was said by <b>R. Akiva</b> — and in accordance with his method,

who does not hold that "the Torah speaks in the language of men"²⁸,

and a double language in the Torah is not for the sake of strengthening and the like,

but in order to increase an additional matter — "the languages are for amplification"²⁹

; and therefore he also learns in our case³⁰,

that

"Lecha Yihyeh" is an amplification — "the verse added for you another Havayah".

(that <b>lo</b> amrinan dibra Torah kilshon bnei adam)

— when Rashi assumes in the way of peshat that dibra Torah kilshon bnei adam,

as is proven from that³¹

which Rebbi Akiva learns³²

that the doubled language "ish echad ish echad lamateh" comes to include that there were <b>24</b> spies,

and Rashi learns

(according to the simple meaning of the verse³³)

that there were only twelve³⁴

spies?

— Because there it is about <b>twelve different</b> in their level³⁵

tribes³⁶,

it is understandable

(in the way of peshat)

that the verse wants to emphasize that <b>each</b> tribe had "ish echad",

and therefore it doubles "ish echad ish

One”

(And this “one prince per day, one prince per day” regarding the offerings of the princes)

; not so in our case, the duplication and emphasis “to you it shall be” is indeed superfluous³⁷].

7.

The essence of the Torah in Rashi’s commentary:

In Sifri⁸

and Gemara⁹

there is a supposition to compare a firstborn to a sin-offering and a guilt-offering — because they are all "a gift to the priests" — and to learn "just as a sin-offering and guilt-offering are [eaten] for a day and a night, so too a firstborn is [eaten] for a day and a night"; but Rashi in his commentary only warns "lest you say like the breast and thigh of a thanksgiving-offering."

Simply, the reason is,

because Rashi bases himself on the verse "like the breast of the waving and like the right thigh" which cannot be interpreted regarding a sin-offering and guilt-offering

(which belong entirely to the priest)³⁸

; but in Sifri and Gemara, where the discussion to which sacrifice the firstborn is compared is

(not from the aspect of the verse "like the breast of the waving etc.",

but)

from the aspect of logic.

But it can be said that in this there is also a matter in the manner of a hint:

"Bechor" is a hint to <b>Jews</b>— "Bnei³⁹

Firstborn of Israel”&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;

; firstborn of man

(referring to earth for the supernal&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;,

a part of God from &lt;b&gt;above&lt;/b&gt;)

is the divine soul,

and firstborn &lt;b&gt;animal &lt;/b&gt;

(pure)

is the animal soul of a Jew

(and therefore the verse says "firstborn &lt;b&gt;ox&lt;/b&gt;..

&lt;b&gt;sheep&lt;/b&gt;..

&lt;b&gt;goat&lt;/b&gt;",

which are,

as known&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;,

the three general categories in the animal soul of Israel).

So Rashi in his commentary on the Torah does not need to safeguard and negate that firstborn is equivalent to sin-offering and guilt-offering — because from the &lt;b&gt;simple meaning &lt;/b&gt;of the verse,

where the &lt;b&gt;simplicity &lt;/b&gt;of a Jew is emphasized,

there is no possibility even that a Jew

(from himself)

has a connection to sin-offering and guilt-offering.

Regarding the divine soul of a Jew,

it is stated in the Zohar⁴³

simply <b>and plainly </b>on the verse⁴⁴

"When a soul sins" — "wonder",

that even at the level of soul,

the lowest degree of

(the five⁴⁵

names by which it is called)

the divine soul,

it is a wonder and astonishment how it can fall into a sin.

Rashi adds here an even greater wonder,

that even a firstborn animal — the animal soul of a Jew — is

(from its own perspective)

not relevant to a sin⁴⁶

; and furthermore:

Even "their flesh" — the body

his physical — is also not any comparison to compare him — make a connection — to a chatas and asham.

But "like the breast of the waving and like the right thigh" — of <b>shelamim</b>: that which the G-dly soul of a Jew descended and was clothed in an animal soul and in a physical body,

is in order that he should make from it a shelamim — <b>peace in the world</b>

— that also this lowest world,

the physical and material,

should become a dwelling place for Him, blessed be He.

8.

Why does Rashi need to negate — "that you should not say like the breast and thigh of the thanksgiving-offering":

Also the thanksgiving-offering is a peace-offering⁴⁸,

but its subject is,

that earlier the person was in a state of danger,

and he was saved from it in an unusual manner,

in a miraculous way⁴⁹

(and therefore he brings a thanksgiving-offering)

; which in spiritual service means,

that the person has a great trial and difficulties in his service of the Blessed One,

which endanger his spiritual life,

only he "saves" himself from this state through a "miracle" — through an unusual service

(that habit becomes <b>nature</b>),

through self-sacrifice that is above reason and intellect.

And therefore there is a ks”d,

that af”p what a Jew

(mts”o)

is not related to chatas and asham,

but from the side of his body and his animal soul he is related to trials and the like of danger,

so,

that the “shlamim” — the

peace in the world — which he does upon is connected with “neis”

(and todah)

Rashi also rejects the simple understanding,

because from the perspective of the "simple meaning" of a Jew,

the simple faith in Hashem One is easy for him,

and consequently he is "believing with Him" in all situations and circumstances to such an extent,

that for him there is from the outset no place for matters contrary etc. from while still in his Judaism⁵⁰.

This very thing that a Jew feels that there is a reality of trial etc. from which he needs to save himself

(and in particular,

that one would need to come to a "miracle"),

shows that something has become mixed into him that is not "Jewish"

(in the manner of sin and guilt offering,

which a Jew from the perspective

himself has no connection to it),

because according to the nature of a Jew, he has no connection to matters that are the opposite of good.

And from this also descends into the physical,

that when a Jew is as he needs to be,

he does not need to come to any miracles

(and consequently — a thanksgiving offering)

regarding his physical state,

because according to <b>nature</b> it is “Hashem is with him”,

and consequently — “Hashem guards you, Hashem is your shadow at your right hand”⁵¹,

And "the illumination of the face of the king, life"&lt;sup&gt;52&lt;/sup&gt;,

the Above gives him all matters of children, life, and sustenance,

and in all of them — profit.

(From the sicha of Motzaei Shabbos Kodesh Parshas Korach 5738)