English translation — במדבר

A.

In the verse¹

"And the Levites shall encamp around the Tabernacle of Testimony, and there will be no wrath upon the congregation of the children of Israel etc.",

Rashi copies the words ,

and there will be no wrath" and explains: "If you do My commandments, there will be no wrath, and if not, that strangers enter into their service, this will be wrath."

One must understand²

Rashi has already brought several times³

the principle that "from a negative you hear a positive" — so since in the verse it says,

that when one fulfills the command — "there will be no wrath",

it is then understood by itself that if one does not fulfill it — "<b>there will be</b> wrath"; so what is there that Rashi <b>innovates</b> in his explanation⁴?

Even if one would say⁵

that Rashi wants here to emphasize

(not merely the essence of the matter that "And if not..

there will be wrath",

but)

that this is the entire intention of the verse,

to make heard the <b>punishment</b>

("And if not ..

there will be wrath")

— because in this "hen"

(that "if you do according to My commandments there will not be wrath")

there is indeed no novelty at all⁶

— it is still not understood:

What is the <b>lengthiness of language</b> in Rashi — "If you do My commandments there will not be wrath and if not that strangers will enter into their service this will be wrath"?

Rashi should have said <b>briefly</b>: and there will not be wrath — behold if you do not do so there will be wrath

on the verse "Your heads do not uncover etc. and you will not die" — "behold if you do so you will die"].

Commentators answer⁸,

that the novelty of Rashi here is

(not the essential matter of "And if not ..

there will be wrath",

but)

to let hear whom the verse means to exclude with the "and there will be no wrath": at first glance one might think that the words refer to the beginning of the verse "And the Levites <b>shall encamp</b> etc.",

that if they will <b>do thus</b> "there will be no wrath",

"And if not

(if the Levites do not encamp)

there will be wrath" — Rashi <b>excludes</b> this interpretation,

and explains "And if not <b>that strangers will enter</b> <b>into their service, this</b>",

that the "and there will be no wrath" is a continuation of the previous verse⁹

"And the stranger who approaches shall be put to death",

that if "strangers will enter into their service, this" there will be a "wrath upon the congregation of the children of Israel".

But even according to this it is not understandable:

a)

as above,

What is the lengthiness in the <b>beginning</b> of Rashi's language "If <b>you do My commandments</b> there will be no wrath" — what does he teach us?

! Rashi should have begun with the "not",

"Behold if they enter etc. there will be wrath"?

b)

Even if they say the "hen" — why does Rashi say it in the language of "if

You shall do <b>as My commandments</b>" simply

(not specifying about which commandment it speaks)?

Seemingly he should have said at the "yes" correspondingly as he concludes at the "no": "If strangers will not enter

(and so forth)

there will be no wrath, but if they will enter there will be wrath."

3)

Also in Rashi's language "that strangers will enter into their service" is not smooth: generally it is Rashi's way to use the language of the verse — why does he change from the previous verse "And the stranger <b>who approaches</b>

(to their service¹⁰)

and says "<b>that will enter</b> strangers

(<b>into</b> their service)

Also: why does Rashi here use the plural language "that will enter <b>strangers</b>"¹¹?

2.

Rashi continues: like we find in the incident of Korach that¹²

the wrath went out etc.

Is entirely not understandable:

a)

What is Rashi coming with here with the proof from "the incident of Korach"?

Does one need to come to a proof that when the Almighty warns with a punishment

(wrath)

for the sin of bringing a stranger near to the service,

the punishment will indeed come?

b)

And the main point: what is the proof from "the incident of Korach" at all

(which seemingly has no connection at all)

to the content of the verse: in "the incident of Korach" the "wrath went out from before the Lord" is not connected to the sin of "strangers shall come near to their service",

but in connection to the plague upon the Jews because they had complained

("on the next day" of the incident of Korach)

"You&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;

have killed the people of the Lord"&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;.

Further: even the sin because of which the "two hundred and fifty men who offered incense"&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;

received their punishment is not comparable to "strangers will enter into their service" in the verses: our verses speak about the service of the &lt;b&gt;Levites&lt;/b&gt;

(the taking down of the Tabernacle and its erection&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;

and guarding the Tabernacle&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;),

but there it speaks about a stranger

(including a &lt;b&gt;Levite&lt;/b&gt;)

who does the service of the &lt;b&gt;priestho&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;od&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;.

And it is a great difficulty to say that Rashi is only bringing an example of the matter of "wrath"

(punishment)

— even when there it speaks about a different sin.

Commentators say¹⁹,

that the matter in Rashi comes in continuation to a previous Rashi on "והזר הקרב יומת"¹⁶

— that Rashi explains: יומת — by the hand of Heaven.

At first glance,

from where does Rashi take

(in the plain sense of Scripture)

to teach that "יומת" means "by the hand of Heaven" and not by the hand of man²⁰?

And on the contrary: on the verse "וגם בעליו יומת"

(in Parshat Mishpatim²¹)

Rashi explains "by the hand of Heaven,

could [it mean] by the hand of man? The Torah says, etc."

One sees that were it not for the proof from another place, one would have had to interpret "יומת" as a death by the hand of man.

On this Rashi brings

(here)

that one learns it from the verse "ולא יהי׳ קצף" which means a punishment by the hand of Heaven — "as we find in the incident of Korach",

that in the incident of Korach the punishment

(of those who offered the incense²²)

was by the hand of Heaven.

Thus from this it is proven that "והזר הקרב יומת" means "by the hand of Heaven".

But superficially, this interpretation is a great difficulty,

because in this Rashi interpretation there is no hint to his earlier interpretation "yumat — by the hands of heaven"; and from the plain meaning of Rashi's language here it implies,

that the proof from "the incident of Korach" is about the very matter that if "strangers would enter their service, this would be wrath"²³.

3.

And one can explain the explanation in this: with a prior note on the order of the verses: between the verse "and the stranger who approaches shall be put to death" and "and there shall be no wrath" the Torah interrupts with the verse "and the children of Israel shall encamp, each man by his camp and each man by his banner, according to their hosts",

and

(the beginning of this verse)

"and the Levites shall encamp around the Tabernacle of the Testimony".

It is not understood what is the plain meaning of "ולא יהי׳ קצף":

If "ולא יהי׳ קצף" means the punishment of "והזר הקרב יומת" and it speaks about the children of Israel and not regarding the Levites — then it is difficult: a)

How do the aforementioned matters come in

(about the place of the encampment of the children of Israel)

between the two verses that they are the same thing

(the punishment of a stranger who approaches their service)

; b)

Two verses for what do we need: What does "ולא יהי׳ קצף" add after "והזר הקרב יומת"?

And if the "ולא יהי׳ קצף" means only in relation to the Levites

(and answers to the two questions above),

then if the Levites will not encamp around the Mishkan

(even when this did not bring to "והזר הקרב")

it brings about a "קצף"

— and "קצף" means

(not the punishment of death,

but)

a lighter punishment: thus the Levites are "לגיון של מלך"²⁴

and "והיו לי הלוים"²⁵,

"נתונים נתונים המה לי״²⁶

— close to the Above: but if they will not encamp "סביב

“for the Tabernacle of Testimony” will be the opposite — “wrath” upon them —

is then even more difficult: the verse states explicitly “

(and there will be no wrath)

upon the congregation of &lt;b&gt;the children of Israel&lt;/b&gt;”,

one understands that here it speaks in connection with

(a sin on the part of)

the &lt;b&gt;children of Israel&lt;/b&gt; — not the &lt;b&gt;Levites&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;

4.

Therefore Rashi says "If you do as My commandments, there will not be wrath, and if not, that strangers will enter into their service, this will be wrath",

With this Rashi resolves the aforementioned contradiction in the verses:

That which "and there will not be wrath" is stated in the verse in connection to "and the Levites shall encamp around the Tabernacle"; is because this guards that there should not be "wrath" upon "the congregation of the children of Israel":

"If <b>you will do My commandments</b>" — if one fulfills the commandments that are spoken about here in this portion,

whose general content is "and the Levites shall encamp around the Tabernacle of Testimony"

(as follows)

— then "and there will be no wrath";

"And if not",

and if one will not do "My commandments",

then this will be a cause to bring about that "<b>strangers will enter into this service of theirs</b>" — and consequently "there will be wrath upon the entire congregation of the children of Israel".

The explanation of this:

The point of the parshah is — "And you shall appoint the Levites over the Tabernacle of the Testimony etc. and they shall serve him etc."²⁸.

A command and warning about the "separation" and the "boundaries"²⁹

that the Most High established between the Levites and

Israelites³⁰.

And thereby it is prevented that "strangers" will not come to the Mishkan.

And therefore the Torah says here "And the children of Israel shall encamp each man by his camp and each man by his banner according to their hosts" — this is not merely to protect and prevent the matter of "and the stranger who comes near shall be put to death"

(that he should not come to perform the service of the Levite),

but a commandment in itself,

that one must maintain the separations and boundaries among the children of Israel³¹.

And in continuation of this the Torah says "And the Levites shall camp around the Tabernacle of Testimony and there will not be wrath upon the congregation,

of the children of Israel": The verse continues in the matter of maintaining the established partitions

("And the children of Israel shall camp each man by his camp etc. and the Levites shall camp around the Tabernacle etc."),

which thereby ensures that there should not be any "wrath";

And this is what Rashi emphasizes in his language "If &lt;b&gt;you do as My commandment&lt;/b&gt; — the fulfillment of the partitions — there will not be wrath",

And from the negative you infer the positive — that the nullification of the partitions causes "wrath" — but then the "wrath" is only "in potential."

And therefore Rashi explains and emphasizes "And if not &lt;b&gt;that strangers will enter&lt;/b&gt; into their service this will be wrath",

that specifically when the nullification of the partitions leads to "strangers will enter etc." in actuality,

then "&lt;b&gt;will be&lt;/b&gt; wrath" — in actuality.

5.

According to this one will understand why Rashi changes his language and instead of using the language of the verse "והזר הקרב" he says "שיכנסו זרים בעבודתם זו״ — because the two verses speak about separate matters:

The previous verse speaks about the specific punishment of a specific stranger who committed the sin of "קרב לעבודתם &lt;b&gt;זו&lt;/b&gt;״ — the service that is stated in &lt;b&gt;that&lt;/b&gt; verse: dismantling and setting up the Mishkan;

And therefore it says "והזר" — to &lt;b&gt;an individual&lt;/b&gt;,

because even an individual is forbidden the service of dismantling and erecting the Mishkan.

But "בעבודתם &lt;b&gt;זו&lt;/b&gt;" that Rashi says here

(in the verse "ולא יהי׳ קצף")

refers to the "service" of &lt;b&gt;that&lt;/b&gt; verse&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;

— "וחנו בני ישראל איש על מחנהו גו׳ והלוים יחנו סביב למשכן העדות",

that there must not be nullification of the partitions

(in general),

"camp" of Israel and "camp" of Levites must be separated,

separately&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;.

And therefore Rashi says "that &lt;b&gt;strangers&lt;/b&gt; will enter" — plural form,

because when a Jew

(an &lt;b&gt;individual&lt;/b&gt;)

pitches his tent in the camp of Levi&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;,

thereby is not created a "&lt;b&gt;camp&lt;/b&gt;" of Israel in place of the camp of Levi — a camp

is created by a &lt;b&gt;multitude&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;

("strangers"&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;).

And for this reason Rashi changes

(from the word of the verse "הקרב")

to "&lt;b&gt;יכנסו&lt;/b&gt;" — because in our verse,

where it speaks about a &lt;b&gt;camping in the camp&lt;/b&gt; of Levi,

the language "קרב" does not fit for it,

but "&lt;b&gt;יכנסו&lt;/b&gt;"

(in the camp)

; but not so in the previous verse,

where it speaks about the dismantling and setting up of the Mishkan,

it is the opposite — there the language "קרב" fits more.

ו.

Based on this, also the proof from "the incident of Korach" is understandable:

Rashi is thereby bringing a proof on the two extremes mentioned above

(section d)

: that the nullification of the partitions <b>alone</b> — when only the "you shall do as My statutes" is lacking — already causes a wrath; but on the other hand,

when the wrath comes <b>in actuality</b>,

only after there is the "strangers will enter into their service" in actual reality.

And this is seen in the incident of Korach³⁷

: the sin of Korach was that he wanted to nullify the distinctions among Jews,

as his claim³⁸

: for all the congregation, all of them are holy etc. and why do you raise yourselves above the assembly of the Lord.

And the sin provoked a "wrath" upon all Jews — "and the Lord spoke etc.

Separate yourselves from the midst of this congregation etc. and I will consume them in a moment"³⁹

But unfortunately,

even though already in this Korach had drawn in "the entire congregation"

("they were all enticed")⁴⁰,

the "wrath" was not actualized

(and in the claim of Moses and Aaron⁴¹

: one man sins and on the entire congregation You will be wrathful?)

; and only after the 250 men brought incense — i.e.

the

nullification of the separations brought about an actual actualization,

that "a stranger who is not of the seed of Aaron shall approach to burn incense before the Lord"⁴²,

until when the Jews after the incident of Korach still complained etc. — then the "wrath"

(which had already begun <b>from earlier</b>⁴³)

came out actualized,

"<b>the wrath went out</b> etc."

7.

From this we have a lesson on how much one must be careful towards a fellow Jew.

Even though Korach assembled the entire congregation in a dispute against Moses our teacher⁴⁰,

nevertheless there was not yet any "the wrath went out from before the L-rd."

Moreover: as long as Korach only led the dispute with claims and with speech,

and this had

Not expressed in an actual deed,

Even upon Korach and his assembly the punishment had not yet come⁴⁴.

Specifically when the actual deed occurred

(After the severe warning⁴⁵)

And they brought incense,

The wrath occurred — first the punishment upon them,

And afterwards the plague upon the children of Israel.

And from this one has a lesson:

Even a Jew who, due to various and sundry reasons, lacks in this matter of guarding from undesirable things,

is, as long as it does not come to an actual deed "to dispute against the Holy One, blessed be He⁴⁶,

is the Jew still in a situation and state that he has a finding of grace in the eyes of God,

there is no matter of wrath, heaven forbid.

And on the contrary: The One Above is slow to anger and "the Holy One, blessed be He, helps him"⁴⁷

in a manner of <b>grace</b> and <b>love</b> that he should do repentance,

and become a "beloved and pleasant before the Creator etc."⁴⁸.

(From the talk of Motzaei Shabbat Parshat Bamidbar 5739)