English translation — במדבר ב

Sicha on <pg>10</pg>

A.

Regarding the juxtaposition of "the banner of the camp of Reuben"

(who camped "southward"<sup>1</sup>)

to the sons of Kohath

(who camped "on the side of the Tabernacle southward"<sup>2</sup>)

said Chazal,

and it is brought in Rashi on the Torah,

"Woe to the wicked and woe to his neighbor."

In his commentary on this discourse

("Woe to the wicked etc.")

Regarding our subject we find several ways, and among them:

In the Tanchuma<sup>3</sup>

it is stated: "And from the south the sons of Kehath, and near to them Reuben, Simeon, and Gad; from here they said, Woe to the wicked and woe to his neighbor—these three tribes that were neighbors to Korach and his company in the south perished with him in his dispute, as it is stated<sup>4</sup>

And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and their houses and all that was theirs and all the people who were with Korach and all the property."

In Bamidbar Rabbah⁵

: "The three of the south,

who were neighbors to the quarrelsome ones,

were lost with them and about them it is said, Woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbor, and who were the quarrelsome ones? Korach son of Yitzhar son of Kehas, and because they were neighbors to them, Reuven and Shimon and Gad were all quarrelsome ones, as it says⁶

And Korach son of Yitzhar took etc., and likewise the sons of Gad and the sons of Shimon, they too were quarrelsome ones."

And in Rashi's commentary on the Torah

(on the verse²

"The families of the sons of Kehas shall encamp etc. southward")

wrote: "And neighboring them the banner of Reuven who encamp southward,

woe to the wicked and woe to his neighbor,

therefore were stricken from them Dasan and Aviram and two hundred and fifty men with Korach and his assembly who were drawn after them in their quarrel"⁷.

And from the differences between them: In Tanchuma it is said only that they were punished together — "they perished with him in his dispute"<sup>8</sup>

(And on this he brings the proof from the verse "And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and their houses and all the people who were with Korach and all the property",

that it speaks only of the punishment)

; in Rashi he adds "

(gathered from them etc.)

that they were drawn along with them in their dispute"<sup>9</sup>,

meaning that the "wicked one" drew his "neighbor" also to the actual transgression

(and therefore he omitted the proof that is in Tanchuma from the verse "And the earth opened its mouth etc.")

; and in Bamidbar Rabbah he adds even more<sup>10</sup>,

that "they were all disputants..

they too were quarrelsome"<sup>11</sup>.

<pg>11</pg>

2.

Also, one must understand several precise points and variations in the language of Rashi:

a)

"And adjacent to them the banner of Reuben, those camping to the south,"

and he did not specify that in this banner are also included the tribes of Simeon and Gad,

as in the Tanchuma and Bamidbar Rabbah.

[And seemingly,

what Rashi precisely expressed in his wording "the banner of Reuben" — and not "the banner of the camp of Reuben"

(as the language of the verse<sup>1</sup>,

and as his wording in his commentary later brought nearby — "the banner of the camp of Judah")

— because his intention is only to the tribe of Reuben alone,

and not to the tribes that were "camping upon him"].

And the difficulty is greater: in the continuation of the matter,

on the verse¹²

"Moshe and Aharon and his sons",

Rashi "and adjacent to them the banner of the camp of Yehudah and those who encamp near him Yissachar and Zevulun, good for the righteous, good for his neighbor, because they were neighbors of Moshe who was engaged in Torah, they became great in Torah"

(and its source is in Tanchuma and Bamidbar Rabbah there)¹³

— behold that here regarding "good for the righteous" Rashi also brought Yissachar and Zevulun,

and what reason did Rashi change regarding "woe to the wicked etc." and wrote only "the banner of Reuven" and nothing more?

And seemingly one can say that this is because we do not find

(in the simple meaning of the verse)

that Gad and Shimon were drawn with him in the dispute,

and one needs to understand the reason for this distinction.

And likewise — what is the reasoning of the distinction between the midrashim and Rashi that only the tribe of Reuven was drawn into the dispute,

or that the proximity of Korach also affected the tribe of Shimon and the tribe of Gad?

b)

In Tanchuma and Bamidbar Rabbah they did not explain who from the tribe of Reuven were lost with Korach and his assembly,

while Rashi specifies "Dasan and Aviram and two hundred and fifty men"

(that

(most of them)

are from the tribe of Reuven¹⁴).

3.

And it is to be explained with an introduction,

that regarding the matter of the effect of neighbors — the influence of a person on his neighbor — we find several modes:

a)

The effect of the neighbor is in a matter entirely external,

such as that the reward of a righteous person is drawn also to his neighbor,

and likewise the opposite,

that the punishment upon the wicked is drawn also upon his neighbor¹⁵.

And as the simple language of the Gemara

(at the end of tractate Sukkah¹⁶)

that they penalized the entire watch because of "Miriam the daughter of Bilgah who apostatized"

[although superficially, "because of her do we penalize the entire watch?",

rather]

because of "Woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbor"¹⁷.

b)

The action of the neighbor is an internal action,

that is,

that he changes the manner of conduct of his neighbor¹⁸,

to the extent that he also changes his essence¹⁹.

c)

Neighborliness is not the reason that "

(Good for the righteous)

good for his neighbor"

(or the opposite — "

(Woe to the wicked)

woe to his neighbor"),

but rather it is a sign of the essence of the neighbor

(that their being neighbors indicates that both belong to each other in their essence and definition and the like),

and the action of neighborliness is that it reveals and brings out this quality

(of the neighbor)

from concealment and potential to revelation and actuality.

4.

And one can say the source for these three ways,

in the source of the matter of "Woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbor" in the Halachah — in the laws of plague-spots of houses,

and this is the language of the Torat Kohanim²⁰

: "And they shall remove, it teaches that both of them remove,

from here they said, woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbor,

both of them remove, both of them cut, both of them bring the stones"

(And similarly is it in the Mishnah Nega'im²¹).

And in the definition of this law there are three explanations:

A)

"If a wall separates between two houses and a plague appears in the wall on the side of this house, the owner of the other house must join with him, as it is written 'and they shall remove the stones' in plural, etc."²².

According to this explanation,

this obligation does not apply to the object

(the wall)

of the neighbor,

but rather this is a law regarding the treatment of the person,

that the neighbor of the wicked one "must join with him" in the removal of the stones and in the cutting and bringing of the stones of the wicked one.

B)

That "both of them remove" means that the obligation of removing the stone applies also to the part of the stone of the neighbor

(in which the plague was not seen).

And in this itself — two explanations:

(a)

Rashi's method

(at the end of tractate Sukkah¹⁶)

— that the law

(in Torat Kohanim)

that "both of them remove"

(because of "woe to the wicked and woe to his neighbor")

is

(only)

"by a stone in the corner",

and as Rashi explained elsewhere²³

in explanation of the words of the Mishnah

(of tractate Nega'im²⁴)

"a stone in the corner when he

removes, he removes all of it",

"a leprous stone in the corner that appears in this house and in this house, for the way of corners is to place there large stones that hold the entire thickness of the wall and appear on both sides"²⁶

— that this stone has an obligation to remove all of it

(also the side where the plague did not appear)²⁷.

(b)

Some commentators²⁸,

that the law of "he removes all of it" is not only regarding a stone in the corner of the house

(which is visible from two sides),

but rather in all parts of the wall

(which is opposite the plague on the other side)

that separates between the two houses,

and this is the intent of the Mishnah: "A wall²⁹

separates between two houses and a plague appears on the wall on the side of this house" — "both remove [stones]"

(because of "woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbor")³⁰,

that also his fellow is obligated to remove the stones in his part

(opposite the plague)³¹.

And it can be said,

that three laws

(and approaches)

these are in accordance with the three aforementioned manners in the action of neighbors

("woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbor")

:

In the first manner, the neighbor's action is only an external action,

and therefore does not affect the wall

(his house)

of the neighbor,

but only obligates the neighbor to join with him in removing the stones.

In the second manner,

"Woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbor" is a strong influence

(internal)

more,

and therefore one must remove the entire stone at the corner of the house,

<pg>12</pg>

Also the part that is next to the neighbor,

that is, that it is as if also the stone of the neighbor is afflicted.

But regarding the third manner,

it is necessary that the neighbor of the "wicked one" remove the stones that are in his part,

because the adjacency to the wicked one indicates his connection to the wicked one,

not from the aspect of the influence of the wicked one upon him,

but rather this is a sign that intrinsically they belong to each other.

And therefore in this wall where the plague is seen on the other side at his fellow,

this indicates that also the part of the wall opposite it that belongs to his fellow belongs to the plague

(even though it is not seen in it,

and it is not one stone with it).

5.

And according to this, one can also explain the reason for the difference between the three above-mentioned homilies in our parshah — the Tanchuma,

Bamidbar Rabbah and Rashi — in the explanation of the matter of "Woe to the wicked and woe to his neighbor" regarding the juxtaposition of the camp of Reuben to the sons of Kohath:

The Tanchuma holds like the first way,

that the effect of the neighbor

(here)

is primarily regarding the punishment,

that the punishment that comes upon the wicked is also drawn upon his neighbor

(and even when he causes that his neighbor will participate³²

in his evil deeds,

this is only that his neighbor is drawn after him,

but not that thereby a change is made in the essence of the neighbor),

therefore he only brings that "they perished with him in his dispute";

According to Rashi, the action of the neighbors is not only regarding punishment, but it is also an action and change in the body of the neighbor,

and this is what Rashi adds

(that not only "they were stricken from them",

but)

"that they were drawn along with them in their dispute"<sup>33</sup>.

[And one could say,

that Rashi's intention in what he wrote "therefore they were stricken from them, Dathan and Abiram etc. with Korach and his assembly, that they were drawn along with them in their dispute"<sup>34</sup>

is not that they are two matters —

(a)

that they were punished with them

(they were stricken),

(b)

and they were drawn along with them in the dispute

[for according to this, it should have said in reverse order,

"that they were drawn along with them in their dispute..

and therefore they were stricken"<sup>35</sup>]

— but rather it is the same thing,

that "they were stricken" in that "they were drawn along with them in their dispute"].

And based on this, there is further explained a change of language in Rashi from the language of the Tanchuma,

that in the Tanchuma the language is "his people perished in his dispute",

and Rashi changes and writes "who were drawn with them in their dispute"

(plural language)

— one can say<sup>36</sup>,

that in the Tanchuma the emphasis is that the neighbors were only dragged after Korach,

and therefore it emphasizes that this is only "his dispute"

(of Korach),

that the evil act is attributed only to the wicked one and not to his neighbor; but according to Rashi, because of the neighborliness to Korach "they were drawn with them in their dispute",

which hints that the neighbors were drawn into the dispute,

until it also became the dispute of the neighbor,

a dispute of many;

But the method of the Bamidbar Rabbah is like the third way above,

that neighborliness is a sign of their essence<pg>13</pg>

The neighbors,

who in their essence are connected to each other.

And this is what is precise in Bamidbar Rabbah "they were all quarrelsome etc. they too were quarrelsome"

(and not "that they were drawn along with them in their quarrel",

as in Rashi),

meaning that this is their essential trait,

and the neighborliness only revealed and brought this trait from potential to actual.

And similarly earlier on the good side it says there that "the tribes

(of the camp of Yehudah)

who were adjacent to Moshe and Aharon..

were all great in Torah"

(and not

(only)

"that they became great in Torah",

as in Tanchuma and in Rashi)

— that the neighborliness revealed³⁷

that essentially "they were all

(worthy to be)

great in Torah".

And it can be said that this is what is precise in Bamidbar Rabbah there

(on the good side)

"Fortunate is the righteous and fortunate is his neighbor",

not "to the righteous..

to his neighbor" as in Tanchuma

(and Rashi),

because according to Tanchuma

(and Rashi)

the fortune

(and the good)

that comes to his neighbor comes through

(from)

the righteous and his influence,

but in Bamidbar Rabbah the "fortunate" is about both equally,

and it can be said that this is what is precise "and about them it is said³⁸

fortunate is the righteous and fortunate is his neighbor".

[And one should add,

that this explanation in the method of the Bamidbar Rabbah,

that adjacency is a sign of the connection and bond between them in essence,

corresponds with the entirety of the content of the sermon of the Bamidbar Rabbah here,

which begins with the virtue of the places

(the four directions east west north and south<sup>39</sup>)

where the flags camped<sup>40</sup>,

and in its language "east from there light goes out to the world and there camped the flag of Yehudah who were masters of kingship masters of Torah masters of commandments therefore there camped Moshe and Aharon and his sons who were masters of Torah masters of commandments atoning for Yisrael with their prayer and their sacrifice",

and upon this it continues "and upon them it is said who is righteous and fortunate is his neighbor these tribes that were adjacent to Moshe and to Aharon etc. were all great in Torah etc.",

and this is that from the aspect of their essential virtue of the flag of Yehudah and their connection to "east",

the flag of Yehudah camped in the auspicious direction of east,

and "therefore

(also)

there camped Moshe and Aharon and his sons"].

6.

According to this reasoning in the method of Rashi, the reason is understood that Rashi writes only "the flag of Reuven" and did not also bring Shimon and Gad:

Since according to Rashi's approach "Woe to the wicked and woe to his neighbor" is from the aspect of the influence of the wicked upon the conduct and essence of the neighbor,

it is understood,

that it is not something equal in all,

and consequently

(in our case)

you have nothing in it but its novelty,

the tribe of Reuben about which it is explicit that it was drawn into the dispute.

Since they were the main banner,

consequently it is understood that they were "neighbors" and most connected to

(the sons of Kohath —)

Korah; but regarding Simeon and Gad, about which it is not explicit in the verse,

there is no necessity to say<sup>41</sup>

that also in them the neighborliness acted and influenced that they be drawn with them<sup>42</sup>

; and in Reuben itself Rashi infers<pg>14</pg>

"Were drawn from them Dathan and Abiram and two hundred and fifty men",

that is, that Korah did not influence the entire tribe but only a small number in the tribe of Reuben itself.

And for this reason Rashi specifies "Dathan and Abiram and the two hundred and fifty men" and did not write simply "therefore they were punished with Korach and his assembly" — it must be said,

that in this that he joined "Dathan and Abiram" with the "two hundred and fifty men" in one category,

his intention is to emphasize the content and essence of neighborliness to a wicked person,

that it acts and influences upon the essence of the people who are neighbors to him,

that just as it is simple that "Dathan and Abiram" were not only dragged after his dispute of Korach,

but they were disputants by nature⁴³,

so was it effected in the two hundred and fifty men through the neighborliness to the wicked,

that they became disputants⁴⁴.

7.

But apparently from what we have learned,

that according to the Tanchuma the matter of neighborliness is only an external action regarding a separate matter of punishment,

it is puzzling — for it is explicit in the Tanchuma there regarding the adjacency of the banner of the camp of Yehudah to the place of encampment of Moshe and Aharon: "From here they said, fortunate is the righteous and fortunate is his neighbor; these three tribes that were adjacent to Moshe and Aharon became great in Torah,

Yehudah, as it is said⁴⁵

the scepter shall not depart..

of Yissachar it is written⁴⁶

and of the sons of Yissachar, knowers of understanding..

and of Zevulun, they draw with the scribe's staff⁴⁷

because they were his neighbors, all of them became sons of Torah",

behold that the neighborliness effected in them themselves,

that "they became great in Torah..

sons of Torah"?

And one could say,

that according to the Tanchuma there is a difference between a good neighbor and a bad neighbor,

that neighborliness to evil its effect is only external

(regarding punishment,

or at most that the neighbor will be dragged after him),

but regarding a good neighbor — that "the measure of good is greater etc."⁴⁸

— the neighborliness affects also the essence of the neighbor,

that he is changed for good,

and therefore the Tanchuma writes that "these three tribes that were adjacent to Moshe and Aharon became great in Torah."

And perhaps one could say,

that also according to Rashi's method there is an advantage in neighborliness to good over neighborliness to evil

(for the measure of good is greater etc.)⁴⁹,

that therefore the neighborliness of the camp of the banner of Yehudah to Moshe and Aharon<pg>15</pg>

acted not only on the tribe of Yehuda, the head of the camp — the one adjacent to him

(in the manner of the action of the sons of Kehas on the banner of Reuven alone as above),

but also on Yissachar and Zevulun who encamp on the banner of the camp of Yehuda.

And one may add,

that this matter is emphasized in the change in Rashi in the proof regarding Yehuda that "they became great in Torah" — that he brings a verse from the Writings "as it is said⁵⁰

Yehuda my lawgivers"⁵¹,

unlike in the Tanchuma which brings "the scepter shall not depart from Yehuda nor a lawgiver from between his feet"⁵²,

which is said

(a)

in the Chumash,

and

(b)

before our parshah — because

[in addition to the fact that Rashi brings a verse in which it is explicit that this was so in practice,

and not the verse in the Chumash which is only a promise and blessing that "it shall not depart",

behold]

in the verse in the Chumash it is not explicit that this is for the entire tribe of Yehuda,

for "the scepter shall not depart from Yehuda nor a lawgiver from between his feet" means that there were among them "the heads of the exile in Babylon" and "the princes of the Land of Israel"⁵³,

whereas in the verse "Yehuda my lawgivers" this is the name of the entire tribe,

and from this it is understood that this is the characteristic of the entire tribe of Yehuda.

And therefore Rashi changed and brought this verse,

to emphasize,

that proximity acts and changes the essence of the neighbor⁵⁴.

And it can be said that this is also the precision of the language in Rashi "Good for the righteous, good for his neighbor",

and not "Fortunate is the righteous and fortunate is his neighbor"

(as in the Tanchuma),

because the term "fortunate"

(from the language of happiness or from the language of⁵⁵

praise)

can be⁵⁶

also when one receives the influence of reward through the righteous or is influenced by the conduct of the righteous,

but not so the term "good" includes also the meaning of a change in his essence and definition that he becomes "good".

Ch.

And one may add to this in the manner of allusion and homily:

The connection of these two matters of "Good for the righteous, good for his neighbor" and "Woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbor" in our parshah,

is not only from the aspect of the nature of the matter of neighborliness,

but

(also)

from the aspect of their content and subject matter discussed in them: the way to be saved and to be rid of being drawn into dispute&lt;sup&gt;57&lt;/sup&gt;

("Woe to the wicked"),

is through engaging in Torah

("Good for the righteous etc.").

And likewise conversely,

in order that the engagement in Torah be proper,

and to the extent that those engaged are "great&lt;pg&gt;16&lt;/pg&gt;

in Torah",

meaning that they unite with the Torah,

is specifically when they distance themselves from dispute to the utmost end.

And it can be said that this is also among the reasons for the connection of Parshat Bamidbar to the holiday of Shavuot,

for "we always read Parshat Bamidbar Sinai before Atzeret"⁵⁸,

for just as in this parsha the two aforementioned matters are explained,

so too is it regarding the matter of the Giving of the Torah:

It is explained in Chazal regarding the Giving of the Torah: "The entire Torah was given to make peace in the world"⁵⁹,

meaning to effect peace and unity in a place where there could be dispute and division; and on the other hand,

the reason for the giving of the Torah is as it is written⁶⁰

"And Israel encamped there opposite the mountain"

(which was on Rosh Chodesh Sivan),

and Chazal said⁶¹

that here "they were of one heart",

and through this Israel became worthy of receiving the Torah,

and as is explicit in Chazal⁶²

"When they came to Sinai they encamped as one encampment and he encamped etc. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Since Israel hated dispute and loved peace and became one encampment,

behold the time has come that I will give them My Torah."

And both of them together,

the nullification of dispute and greatness in Torah,

come about through neighborliness to a tzaddik,

"It is good for the tzaddik, good for his neighbor",

For the Torah study of a tzaddik is in a manner of peace and unity⁶³,

and especially the study of Torah for its own sake,

Torah as it is connected and bound with the Giver of the Torah⁶⁴,

and therefore through the neighborliness to the tzaddik and the study of his Torah,

this brings about peace and unity in each one,

And until they merit the true peace that will be at the coming of Moshiach⁶⁵,

who will teach Torah to the entire nation⁶⁶

in a manner of unity,

"And at that time there will not be [name] etc. and no envy and competition"⁶⁷,

also no envy and competition of holiness⁶⁸,

"For the earth will be filled with knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea"⁶⁹.

(From the talks of Shabbos Parshas Bamidbar 5735,

5743,

5744; 6 Tishrei 5728)