English translation — קרח א

Sicha 1<pg>105</pg>

A.

In the verse<sup>1</sup>

"And Moses was very angry, and he said to the Lord, 'Do not turn to their offering, etc.'",

Rashi cites "Do not turn to their offering" and explains "according to its simple meaning, the incense that they offer before You tomorrow, do not turn to them<sup>2</sup>.

And the Midrash<sup>3</sup>

says<sup>4</sup>

I know that they have a share in the daily communal offerings; even their share shall not be accepted before You with favor; place the fire and it shall not consume it"<sup>5</sup>.

And the commentators wrote<sup>6</sup>

the reason that Rashi needed to bring the interpretation of the midrash and was not satisfied with the simple interpretation — that it refers to "the incense that they offer before You tomorrow

(that)

do not turn to them" — for it is difficult to him how could it enter Moses' mind that the incense that these wicked men offered would be accepted favorably before the Holy One, blessed be He, and he needed to beseech the Holy One, blessed be He, about this "do not turn"?

And therefore Rashi brings the interpretation of the midrash that it refers to their portion in the communal daily offerings,

about which there is need for a special prayer that "their portion not be accepted before You favorably etc."

But it requires examination in this,

for this difficulty that is in the simple interpretation is not in the particular

(aspects)

of it,

but in the entirety of the interpretation,

therefore,

prima facie there is no place for this interpretation at all from the outset,

and if so, why does Rashi bring this interpretation at all,

and moreover — as the first and primary interpretation — and it would have been proper for him to bring only the interpretation of the midrash alone

(as we find in many places that Rashi brings only the interpretation of the midrash).

At first glance, one must say,

that therefore Rashi precedes

(before the first explanation)

"According to its simple meaning, the incense etc.'"

[And not as his way everywhere that when he explains

(first)

his simple explanation of the verse,

he does not mention that this is "according to its simple meaning"]

— to emphasize,

that even though it is immediately proven that this explanation is difficult from its outset,

nevertheless this is the explanation of the verse "according to its simple meaning"

(namely according to the plainness of the language of this verse).

But this explanation in the words of Rashi is not reasonable at all,

for it is obvious that Rashi would not bring

(and certainly not precede)

an explanation such as this which is refuted and difficult due to the content of the matter

(even though this is the plain meaning of the language of the verse).

And since despite the above difficulty Rashi brings the explanation "according to its simple meaning",

and moreover he precedes it to the explanation of "the midrash",

behold it necessarily follows that this explanation is closer to the plain meaning of the verse

(not only from the aspect of the superficiality of the language of the verse,

but also)

from the aspect of its content,

and that is that it is closer to resolving the words of the Scripture than the midrash.

2.

And this will be understood by prefacing the precision in Rashi's wording "the incense that they offer before you tomorrow, do not turn to them" — that is,

to the people who offer — and he did not write "do not turn to it",

which

(a)

fits better with the beginning of his words: "the incense..

do not turn to it"; and primarily

(b)

fits the content of the request in the verse "<pg>106</pg>

do not turn to their offering",

that the turning

(turn)

is to the offering and not to the people who offer.

[In the Ramban indeed he copied in Rashi "Eliyahu",

and so it is in several versions of Rashi<sup>7</sup>.

However, from the fact that we find in several places like the text before us "aleihem"<sup>8</sup>,

there is room to decide that so is the primary text,

and as explained many times,

that when one finds two versions in Rashi — a version that is understood simply and a version that seemingly is difficult to understand and to reconcile — then it stands to reason,

on the contrary,

that the version that is not understood and nevertheless was brought — it is the correct one.

And it is also understood — the copyists

(or the printers)

changed,

that certainly their intention is desirable and proper,

except that in their opinion the change is a correction,

because only according to this will the verse and the expressions in the verses be understood].

And it can be said that Rashi was precise and wrote "aleihem" and not "Eliyahu",

in order to explain the interpretation of the verse here.

And the explanation in this: In the words of Moshe to Korach and to all his congregation<sup>9</sup>

"This do: take for yourselves censers, Korach and all his congregation, and put in them fire and place upon them incense before Hashem tomorrow, and it shall be that the man whom Hashem will choose, he is the holy one",

Rashi explains: "This do: take for yourselves censers — what did he see to say to them thus? He said to them etc. We have nothing etc. except one Kohen Gadol, and you, two hundred and fifty men, seek the Kehunah Gedolah; I also desire this; here, for you a service beloved of all, this is the incense beloved of all sacrifices, and the drug of death is placed within it, by which Nadav and Avihu were burned; therefore he warned them etc. Whoever will be chosen by Him will come out alive, and all of you will perish".

And according to this it is understood that the clarification that Aharon "he is the holy one" came about by means of that Aharon "came out alive and all of you will perish"<sup>10</sup>,

for since "we have nothing etc. except one Kohen Gadol",

that only to him belongs the service of the incense and not to others,

it follows that the incense of "all of you" is strange incense<sup>11</sup>

— and a stranger who offers incense is liable to death,

similar to Nadav and Avihu who were burned by it — and therefore "all of you will perish" and that "he came out alive" is the one whom Hashem chose.

But all this was at first,

when Moshe thought that those two hundred and fifty men were seeking the high priesthood

(a thing that "I too want in it").

But after the discussion and the soft words¹²

and words of peace that Moshe spoke to Korach and the Levites

("Is it too little for you that the God of Israel has separated you"¹³),

and after Moshe sent "to call Dasan and Aviram etc." — "that Moshe went around after them to make peace with them with words of peace"¹⁴

— and all his words and efforts did not help at all,

but they stood in their rebellion,

then — "And Moshe was very angry — he was distressed exceedingly"¹⁵,

and then he said "Do not turn to their offering": "the incense that they<pg>107</pg>

offer before You tomorrow, do not turn to them",

meaning that their punishment should not be in the manner of the death of Nadav and Avihu,

punishment for the sin that they offered strange fire,

but "Do not turn

(at all)

to them",

that they should die because of their own sin and rebellion.

And based on this, the words of Moshe "Do not turn to their offering" will be sweetened,

and not "Do not accept their etc.",

or "Do not take their etc.",

and the like,

for here the intention is not that he should not accept their incense offering,

for it is obvious, and what does it teach us&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;

(as above in section 1)

— but rather that he should not turn to them at all,

so that through this it will be noticeable that their death did not come as a result of their offering incense

(but rather that it was not according to the law).

And the reason for this is understood: at first, when there was place to think that the two hundred and fifty men wanted the high priesthood, thinking that they were worthy of it,

Moshe told them that through the incense G-d would choose who is worthy of the priesthood,

and they all perish because of the poison of death in the incense; but&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;

after he saw that all their protest of the two hundred and fifty men, the princes of the congregation, is only a part of the totality of the dispute of Korach and Dasan and Aviram against Moshe and Aharon etc. as above — there is no punishment for the detail of offering foreign incense,

but rather there must be such a punishment that will nullify the general and the essential,

the totality of the protest against the mission of Moshe and the priesthood of Aharon.

And this matter is proven from the continuation of the verses,

that the verse in which the punishment of the 250 men is stated — "And fire went out from before Hashem and consumed the 250 men who offered the incense"¹⁸

— did not come in the continuation of the story of their offering of the incense¹⁹,

but rather^*19

in the continuation of the punishment of the swallowing of "all²⁰

the men who were Korach's and all the property"²¹.

And this is what Rashi precisely says "Do not turn to them" and not "to them" regarding the offering

(incense),

for Moshe's request was not in relation to the incense — but rather

(mainly)

for negation in relation to the men,

as above.

3.

And with this we can explain the change in the language of the verses regarding Moses' command about offering the incense,

that this command was twice:

The first time Moses said "Do this: take for yourselves censers, Korach and all his assembly, and put fire in them and place incense upon them before Hashem tomorrow, and the man whom Hashem chooses, he is the holy one etc.",

but after "Moses was very angry etc. do not turn to their offering etc.",

he said to them a second time²²

"You etc. and Aharon etc. and take each his censer etc. and bring them before Hashem" — and two changes

(essential)

between them:

(a)

The first time it was said only "and put etc. and place etc. before Hashem",

but the second time a command was also said about the offering — "and bring them before Hashem",

(b)

The first time it was not mentioned that Aharon was also commanded to offer incense,

but not so the second time²³.

<pg>108</pg>

And according to the above, one can say,

that the change the second time is in continuation of Moshe's request "Do not turn to their offering."

And the explanation of this:

After that "And Moses was very angry and said etc. 'Do not turn to their offering,'"

that the intention in this

(as above at length)

that "Do not turn

(at all)

to them,"

that they should not be punished because they offered strange incense but because of their rebellion etc. — one might think to say,

that through this request Moses effected that it should not be considered at all as an act of offering incense

(even strange incense)^*23,

therefore the verse needed to emphasize that nevertheless there was here an act of offering incense — "And you shall offer them before the L-rd"²⁴

(and therefore the verse explains that also Aaron offered incense,

which emphasizes that this is the category of the service of incense,

which belongs to the priesthood).

And the necessity that it was in the category of offering incense — because it is explicit afterwards in the portion that the fire-pans with which they offered the incense became sanctified,

as the word of the L-rd to Moses^*24

: "Say to Elazar son of Aaron the priest, and he shall lift up the fire-pans etc. 'for they have become holy,'"

and in Rashi "for they have become holy — the fire-pans and they are forbidden for benefit, for they made them into service vessels"²⁵,

and if you would say that in actuality their offering was not even in the category of strange incense,

how did the fire-pans become sanctified,

therefore the verse needs to inform here that nevertheless there was here an action of offering incense^*25.

[But this is not the case in the first command at the beginning of the matter,

for there there is no need to emphasize that this is the work of the incense,

because Moses had not yet requested "Do not turn to [their offering]."

And it can be said,

that there it is relevant to emphasize only the existence of incense,

because the essential concept of incense

(even without the service involved in it)

has the capacity to test who is "the holy one" whom "the L-rd will choose,"

and precisely according to the language of Rashi&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;

that Moses said to Korach and his assembly "Here for you is a beloved service vessel from all..

and the drug of death is placed within it,"

meaning,

the virtue is that it is a "beloved service vessel,"

and on the other hand "the drug of death is placed within it,"

therefore those whom the L-rd has not chosen — "

(all of you)

perish"].

4.

However, Rashi is not satisfied with this explanation,

because there are still several difficulties in reconciling the words of the verse:

From the simple meaning of the continuation of the verse "And Moses was very angry and said to the Lord, Do not turn to their offering,"

it implies that this request contains a general novelty regarding the matter discussed in the portion, namely the challenge to the priesthood of Aaron,

and it is logical that Moses does not need to make a special request that the Holy One, blessed be He, do all that is necessary to negate the dispute and challenge to the priesthood.

Therefore it is more appropriate to explain that this was a special request concerning a matter that is not related

(see there)

to their very action and their dispute against Aaron.

And in general it is forced to say that all of Moshe's request was only regarding the manner of negating the acceptance of their incense.

And because of these difficulties

(which are not only difficulties&lt;pg&gt;109&lt;/pg&gt;

Details in this explanation,

but there is in them difficulty in the overall meaning of the verses)

Rashi prefaces that this explanation is "according to its simple meaning",

that even though this explanation is difficult to reconcile with the continuation of the verse — nevertheless according to its simple meaning this is the content of the verse.

And because of this difficulty Rashi adds another explanation: "And the Midrash says I know that they have a portion in the daily communal offerings even their portion will not be accepted before You with favor etc.",

that this matter — "a portion in the daily communal offerings" a)

is a matter in itself that is not related to the offering of their incense,

and not to the dispute and challenge on the priesthood of Aharon in general,

b)

it is a positive thing,

that each one of the children of Israel has a portion in the daily communal offerings.

And upon this comes the special request

(of Moses)

"Do not turn to their offering,"

that also their portion in the daily communal [offerings] will not be accepted favorably, that "the fire will set it down and not consume it."

And with this Moses intended

(not

(only)

to bring upon them an additional special punishment,

but)

to add thereby in the negation of the dispute and the challenge to the priesthood.

That is,

that not only are they not connected to the priesthood and deserve punishment for this,

but they are as if separated, G-d forbid, from the entirety of Israel²⁷,

that in a matter in which all of Israel are partners — the daily communal [offerings],

behold regarding them — their portion is not accepted favorably.

However, it is understood that this interpretation is not according to its simple meaning and only from the words of the "Midrash" — because²⁸

In this verse and in this entire portion it is not mentioned

(even by hint)

the matter of "communal daily offerings"²⁹.

5.

From wondrous matters in the halacha in this Rashi:

In the Midrash³⁰

it is stated: "I know that these have a portion in that meal-offering³¹

that they offered, as it is said³²

besides the continual burnt-offering and its meal-offering,"

and Rashi changes and writes: "I know that they have a portion in the communal continual-offerings."

And it may be said,

that Rashi in this goes according to his method,

for he holds that less than the value of a perutah is not considered "his"

(as is stated in tractate Sukkah³³),

and based on this it is impossible to say that the congregation of Korach has a portion in that meal-offering,

for their portion is not worth a perutah and consequently "theirs" does not apply to this³⁴,

therefore he changed<pg>110</pg>

Rashi from the wording of the Midrash "in that afternoon-offering which they offered"

(for in one afternoon-offering certainly they do not have a perutah's worth)

and wrote "that they have a share in the communal daily-offerings",

that his intention in this

(is not to the afternoon-offering or the daily-offering of that day,

but)

to the daily-offerings

(plural)

of the community of the entire year,

that the share which they have

(to each individual)

in the communal daily-offerings of the entire whole year — together it is a thing that is well fit to call it by the name "share".

And about this Moses requested that "their share in the communal daily-offerings

(of the entire year)

shall not be accepted before You for acceptance".

And one may add in "wondrous matters" in the manner of the hint in Rashi's commentary — that in the precise wording of his "they have a share in the communal daily-offerings" one can find a hint to the words of the AriZal³⁵

that holiness does not move from its place,

and as the Alter Rebbe wrote³⁶

that this is "even after he has ascended on high on high" — that nevertheless "he is not uprooted completely and entirely from his place and his first level".

And with the introduction of the question in Rashi's words "they have a share in the daily communal offerings",

for superficially,

aside from the question

(the above)

from the aspect of the equality of the matter and the law of money in it

(since their share is not worth a perutah)

— behold we come here to the well-known discussion regarding a communal offering,

for since it is a matter of the community, there is in it no connection to the individual³⁷,

for the definition of community is not a partnership of several individuals,

but a new entity,

in a manner that there is no connection to the individuals as individuals,

and consequently it is not applicable to say regarding this "a share" to several individuals by themselves.

And one can say the explanation in this:

Rashi's intention

(that they have a portion in the communal daily offerings)

in plainness is — that since all Israel gave the half-shekel from which communal sacrifices were purchased

(as explained in Rashi above³⁸),

it follows,

that each and every one of Israel has a portion in the communal sacrifices³⁹.

And even though they must be handed over to the public completely and fully⁴⁰,

so that a new reality of public funds and the status of a communal sacrifice be made,

and not a partnership of several individuals — nevertheless, since the reality of "public" and the public treasury was created through the giving of the half-shekel by each individual,

it is impossible that the individual's connection to the sacrifice be nullified and uprooted entirely⁴¹

(which is through the half-shekel that he gave,

which is his individual commandment,

and especially since the giving of the half-shekel was to atone for your souls⁴²),

and in the language of the aforementioned Alter Rebbe that "even after it has ascended to a very high level" to become the category of public,

nevertheless, the quality is not "uprooted entirely and completely"

(and the holiness)

that was effected through the giving of the individual,

and therefore it is possible to say about this "that they have a portion in the communal daily offerings."

6.

Based on all the above, one must also explain the precision of the language "I know

(that they have a share in the daily&lt;pg&gt;111&lt;/pg&gt;

public offerings)

" — for at first glance it is superfluous,

and it should have said "they have a share in the daily public offerings" and the like.

But the explanation in this: the matter of the above-mentioned,

that even after the half-shekel becomes an object of public money,

there is a connection of the individual to the communal offering that was purchased by the giving of his half-shekel,

is not a thing that can be understood by each one on his own,

but only through Moshe Rabbeinu,

who is the prince of the generation,

For according to the order and nature of things,

the public and the individual are two opposite categories and types,

and as with offerings,

that an individual offering and a communal offering are two different kinds,

and this is not like that⁴³

[And from this there also extends into the order of the world,

that there are two general conducts in the life arrangements of groups of people

(states and the like)

: there is a regime that emphasizes the needs of the public and the collective,

even when they are at the expense of the individual and the private person and detract from or even negate them,

and there is a conduct that emphasizes the freedom and welfare and benefit of the individual,

each individual by himself

(and even sometimes they push aside the welfare of the public and the collective for the benefit of the individual),

for in this order of conduct,

the virtue of the individual and the private person is what decides and determines the order of life].

But all this is from the aspect of the definition of "order",

order of the public and order of the individual in their essence.

But as it is from the aspect of "the leader of the generation",

that "the leader is everything"⁴⁴

— behold, in his power and his action to unite the two virtues.

And as it is regarding the existence of the leader himself — that these two matters are included in the leader himself: on one hand, he is one individual,

and on the other hand,

all his matters and actions pertain and relate to the entire collective.

And so too it is regarding the matter of leadership in his very self,

that the leadership is not only leadership over the entire collective,

but he is the leader of each and every individual in his own right

[and it can be said that this is the precise language of the Rashba⁴⁵

"the king is like the public, that the public and all of Israel are dependent on him",

that the dependence on the king is not only the dependence of the public and the collective,

which is one entity,

but also the dependence of all of Israel,

each one in his own right

(a multitude of individuals)].

And therefore specifically from the side of Moshe,

"the leader of the generation",

is drawn and comes the knowledge

(which acts and produces fruits in actuality),

that also in the daily public offerings,

whose entire essence is the definition of a public offering and not a partnership offering,

participation of individuals,

the portion of the individual will not be nullified,

and consequently the coins that are in the

(offering)

public which is superior and in a completely different perfection,

they have relevance and connection also to the individual,

not only as he is a part of the public,

but also as he is a part and individual in his own right.

7.

The portion of Korach occurred in several years adjacent to the 3rd of Tammuz,

the day on which "freedom was granted" to the Rebbe, my father-in-law, the leader of the generation,

the leader of the generation,

from his imprisonment in which he was imprisoned for spreading Torah and strengthening religion.

And the point and content mentioned above we find in the "great work" which he performed "in spreading Torah and strengthening religion"⁴⁶,

that although it was in large and broad dimensions concerning the community and all of Israel

(both in that country and all the more so and certainly<pg>112</pg>

after his departure from that country),

however, it is not diminished by this, G‑d forbid, from the interest and effort for the good of the individual and the particular in spirituality and also in physicality,

and to the extent that he put himself aside for the sake of the good of a private individual,

even though the person whom he was benefiting — not only was he not at all in the category of "his fellow in Torah and mitzvos"⁴⁷,

but he was completely incomparable to him.

And this quality is drawn down by the leader of the generation to each and every one who walks in his ways,

and engages in spreading the Torah and strengthening the religion,

that they can engage and act in the dissemination of Judaism and the wellsprings to the public and the community,

and together with this, not to diminish the effort for the good of the individual.

And through the service in the aforementioned manner, one brings about the redemption not only of the entire Jewish people but also of each and every individual

[And as it was in the redemption of the Rebbe, my father-in-law, on the 12th-13th of Tammuz,

as he emphasizes in his well-known letter⁴⁸

"Not only me did the Holy One, blessed be He, redeem on the 12th of Tammuz, but also all the lovers of our holy Torah,

observers of the commandment,

and also those who are called by the name Israel,

for every Jewish person

(without regard to his individual state in observing and fulfilling the commandments)

his heart is whole with G-d and His Torah"]

—

that the Holy One, blessed be He, redeems not only the entire Jewish people,

but each and every one,

as it is said⁴⁹

"And you will be gathered one by one, O children of Israel",

each individual by himself,

and as Rashi explains⁵⁰

that the Holy One, blessed be He, "holds with His hands literally each individual person",

and all are united together in a "great congregation" that "will return here"⁵¹

in the true and complete redemption,

speedily in our actual days.

(From sichos of Shabbos Parshas Korach 5747,

11 Nissan 5731)