English translation — קרח ב

Sicha 2<pg>65</pg>

A.

At the conclusion of the laws of terumat ma'aser

(at the end of our parshah<sup>1</sup>)

it is stated<sup>2</sup>

: "And you shall not bear sin for it when you separate its fat from it,

and the holy things of the children of Israel you shall not profane and you shall not die."

And in Rashi: "And you shall not bear sin for it etc. — for if you do not separate, you will bear sin.

And you shall not die — for if you profane, you will die."

And Rashi's intent simply

(as explained in the commentaries<sup>3</sup>),

that the verse did not come to inform us that if the Levites separate terumat ma'aser they will not sin and will not be punished — for what does this teach us<sup>4</sup>

— but rather came to teach us in a negative formulation the prohibition and the punishment,

that "if you do not separate, you will bear sin,"

and "if you profane, you will die."

And behold, the lengthiness of the language of the verse and Rashi's commentary implies,

that there are here two matters

(prohibitions)

different —

(a)

"And you shall not bear a sin on it when you separate etc."

(b)

"And the holy things of the children of Israel you shall not profane etc."

For it could be said that the entire verse speaks about one matter,

and the bearing of sin is itself the punishment of death stated at the end of the verse,

it should have said "And you shall not bear a sin on it to die"

(and the like)

— like the language of the verse earlier in our parshah⁵

"And they shall not approach etc. to the Tent of Meeting to bear a sin to die",

and similarly earlier in Parshas Emor⁶

(regarding the prohibition of eating terumah in impurity)

it is stated "And they shall not bear a sin on it and die through it".

And it is puzzling,

why did Rashi remain silent and not explain what are the two prohibitions in this verse.

And especially that we find several explanations in Chazal and commentators of Scripture in explaining the duplication in the verse,

and in Rashi's commentary there is no mention,

apparently,

to resolve this question⁷.

2.

At first glance, one could say,

that Rashi does not need to explain it,

because it is understood from the language of the verse itself: "And you shall not bear sin for it when you remove its fat from it" refers to maaser from which terumat maaser has not been removed,

that "if you do not remove, you shall bear sin"; and the end of the verse,

"And the holy things of the children of Israel you shall not profane etc." refers to a stranger

(an Israelite or a Levite)

who eats terumat maaser,

as the language of the verse "And the holy things of the children of Israel you shall not profane"

(which refers to something already holy),

and the profanation of the holy is through eating⁸

the holy.

But it is very forced to say that according to Rashi the <pg>66</pg>

It is written "And My holy things of the children of Israel you shall not profane and you shall not die" refers to a non-priest who eats terumah of maaser,

for according to Rashi this thing is already learned from what is said above⁹

"And it shall be considered for you your terumah like grain from the threshing floor",

and according to Rashi there "Your terumah of maaser is forbidden to non-priests and to those impure and they are liable for it death¹⁰

and an additional fifth like terumah gedolah"

(And it is included in the prohibition of terumah gedolah).

And in several simple-sense interpreters of the verse¹¹

they explained,

that what is said "And My holy things of the children of Israel you shall not profane" is a prohibition

(And punishment)

of eating maaser from which terumah of maaser was not taken.

And seemingly,

since Rashi is silent and did not explain for what matter "And My holy things of the children of Israel you shall not profane etc." is said — and in this portion it speaks only about the laws of terumah of maaser¹²

— it must be said,

that also Rashi holds thus.

For if it does not refer to the prohibition of eating terumah of maaser

(which is learned from "And your terumah shall be considered" as above),

it necessarily follows that it speaks about the prohibition of eating maaser from which terumah of maaser was not taken.

But if so

(in addition to this that the simple language of the verse "and the holy things of the children of Israel" means that it speaks of something already holy)

still needs explanation,

what is the reason for the repetition in this verse?

3.

At first glance, one can explain the repetition,

that "and you shall not bear sin for it when you remove its fat from it" refers to the actual prohibition of raising the terumah of the maaser

(even if one does not eat the maaser that is tevel to terumah of maaser),

as the precise language "if you do not raise, you shall bear sin",

but "and the holy things of the children of Israel you shall not profane" is the prohibition of eating⁸

maaser that is tevel to terumah of maaser.

But it is difficult to explain thus,

for if so,

"And you shall not bear a sin on account of it" what does it come to teach us?

Behold, the very prohibition of not separating the terumah of the maaser we know from the obligation and positive commandment "And you shall separate from it a terumah for Hashem, a maaser from the maaser"¹³,

and consequently it is understood¹⁴

that if they do not separate, they transgress a positive commandment¹⁵.

<pg>67</pg>

And further: Simply, one must say,

that "And you shall not bear a sin on account of it" means that there is a punishment for this,

for the term "bearing a sin" simply and usually indicates a matter of punishment¹⁶.

But if you say that it refers to not separating the terumah of the maaser,

it is very difficult,

for is it possible to say that there is a punishment of death

(by the hand of heaven)

for the nullification of separating the terumah of the maaser?

And likewise it is difficult to say that "You shall bear a sin on account of it" means a punishment of lashes,

since there is no warning here¹⁷,

and furthermore — behold, in not separating the terumah of the maaser there is no action

(and one is not lashed for a prohibition that has no action)¹⁸.

And there are commentators&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;

who explained,

that "and you shall not bear sin because of it" refers to the prohibition of eating tithe that is tevel to terumat maaser

[And according to this,

what is written "and you shall not bear sin because of it when you separate etc." — "that if you do not separate you will bear sin" — that is,

because "if you do not separate" they will come to sin when they eat the tithe].

And according to this it works out well that there is here a "bearing of sin",

punishment for the act of eating.

But if this is Rashi's method in his commentary on the Torah,

the question returns to its place — since both parts of the verse speak of one prohibition

(eating tithe that is tevel to terumat maaser)

— what is the repetition in the verse?

And furthermore: what bearing of sin — punishment — is there here besides the punishment of death

("if you profane it you will die")

that is at the end of the verse?

And one cannot say that "and you shall not bear sin on account of it" refers to the punishment of lashes — for

since eating tevel of terumat ma'aser carries the punishment of death

("if you profane [it] you shall die"),

there is no law of lashes here, because "it stands

for him in a rabbinic [prohibition] of a more severe [punishment]"

(which is a simple reasoning also in study according to the plain meaning).

[And although the punishment of death here is only death by the hands of Heaven,

and only according to Abaye

(in the opinion of Rabbi Nechunya ben HaKaneh)

we say regarding this "it stands for him in a rabbinic [prohibition] of a more severe [punishment]" — nevertheless, according to the plain meaning of the verse, there is no room to distinguish between death by human hands and death by the hands of Heaven,

for the reasoning of "it stands for him in a rabbinic [prohibition] of a more severe [punishment]"

"Minei'" is in both of them,

because even death by the hand of Heaven is "greater than minei'"²⁶].

D.

And this will be understood with the prior explanation of Rashi above on the verse²⁷

(regarding maaser)

"The maaser of Bnei Yisrael which they will elevate to Hashem as a terumah I have given to the Levites etc." — "which they will elevate to Hashem as a terumah,

the Scripture called it terumah until they separate from it terumat maaser."

And superficially, explanation is needed,

what is the practical difference of this that Scripture called the maaser by the name "terumah" before they separate from it terumat maaser²⁸.

And it cannot be said that it comes to teach us the prohibition of eating maaser before the separation of terumas maaser,

because this matter is explicit at the end of the portion,

"And you shall not bear sin on account of it etc. and the holy things of Bnei Yisrael you shall not profane etc."

(as above).

And furthermore,

behold, the prohibition to eat maaser that is tevel for terumas maaser applies also to a kohen,

and how is it appropriate to make known this prohibition by means of "the verse called it terumah"

(which is permitted to a kohen)?

And it seems to me,

that the intention of the verse in this that "it called it terumah" is to inform us of the definition of the prohibition of maaser that is tevel for terumas maaser,

that it is not because of the obligation to separate terumas maaser from it,

but rather because in the maaser there is already mixed a part of terumas maaser²⁹

[and in the manner of Rashi's approach in his commentary to the Talmud³⁰,

that the prohibition of tevel is because of the terumah mixed in it],

therefore "the verse called it

(the entire maaser)

terumah"³¹.

And based on this is resolved what is said "And the holy things of the children of Israel you shall not profane and you shall not die",

which refers to eating maaser that is tevel for terumat maaser,

and nevertheless the verse calls it "the holy things of the children of Israel",

because even before the separation of terumat maaser, the terumah is mixed in the maaser

(and causes it to be holy),

and this itself is the reason that there is a punishment of death for eating it,

due to the part of terumat maaser that is in it

[in the manner of Rashi's commentary in the aforementioned Talmud,

that this that "they are liable to death for eating tevel" is due to the part of terumah mixed in it].

5.

However, seemingly there is room for questioning about this:

Above in parshas Emor³²

It is said "And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they set apart to the Lord",

And in the Gemara³³

They learned from this the prohibition of tevel,

And they expounded that what is written "the holy things etc. which they set apart etc." — "Of that which is destined to be set apart the verse speaks".

But<pg>69</pg>

In Rashi on the Torah there explains,

That "they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel" is a prohibition "to feed them to strangers".

And superficially it requires clarification,

since the prohibition of tevel is because of the terumah mixed in it,

why did Rashi strain to explain that it is a prohibition of feeding sacred things

(terumah)

to non-priests

(which without this they were already careful about from other verses&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;),

and did not explain it

(as in the Gemara)

that it refers to the prohibition of eating tevel,

and it is called "sacred things of the children of Israel" because of the portion of terumah mixed in it?

And one can say,

that according to Rashi's method in his commentary on the Torah

(which is in the manner of the simple meaning)

there is a distinction between tevel and great terumah and tithe that is liable for terumah of the tithe:

In the study according to the plain meaning it is not reasonable to say,

that from the aspect of the obligation itself to separate terumah,

there already exists in actuality in the tevel the part of terumah

(which he will separate in the future)³⁵.

And therefore it is impossible to interpret the verse "And they shall not profane the holy things of Bnei Yisrael"

(in Parshat Emor)

as referring to the prohibition of tevel

(since there is no holy thing here)³⁶

;

But not so regarding maaser,

where there already was an action of separation³⁷,

that the Israelite separated maaser from the tevel,

behold in this separation is already included also the separation of terumat maaser,

except that it is mixed in the maaser.

And this itself the verse teaches us in that "it called

(the maaser)

terumah",

that in the separation of the maaser by the Israelite already from the beginning the holiness of terumat maaser begins in the tenth part of the maaser,

except that it is mixed in the maaser.

And the action of the Levi is only that he clarifies³⁸

the part of terumat maaser from the maaser³⁹.

And therefore it is called "holies of the children of Israel",

for Israel through the separation of the tithe already effected holiness in the terumat ma'aser mixed in it⁴⁰.

And it can be said,

that this matter is also understood from the language of the verse⁴¹

regarding the separation of terumat ma'aser — "when you lift up its fat from it": according to Rashi⁴²,

"its fat

(from it)

" refers to the part of terumat ma'aser that is in the tithe,

and from what is said "when you lift up its fat from it" it implies,

that even before they separate the terumat ma'aser

(for this is the explanation of "when you lift up" — language of separation⁴³),

already<pg>70</pg>

called "chelevo",

that is, the action of man is in this that he clarifies,

separates and distinguishes the portion of the terumat ma'aser

("chelevo")

from the ma'aser

("from it"),

and this is because the terumat ma'aser is mixed in the ma'aser.

6.

According to all the above, the repetition in the verse "and you shall not bear sin because of it when you separate [the fat] etc. and the holy things of the children of Israel you shall not profane etc." is resolved — even though both speak of tevel ma'aser that is liable for terumat ma'aser:

According to what was explained above, that the definition of its prohibition is from the aspect of the portion of terumat ma'aser that is in it,

it follows,

that in eating ma'aser that is tevel to terumah and ma'aser there are two prohibitions: a)

the prohibition of theft — that he robs from the kohanim the portion of terumat ma'aser that is in it,

for since the sanctity of terumat ma'aser has already taken effect on it,

it can be said that this portion already belongs to the kohanim⁴⁴

(even before giving it to the kohen⁴⁵).

b)

the prohibition of profaning sacred things,

for the sanctity of terumat ma'aser has taken effect on it

(and it is called "terumat Hashem"⁴⁶).

And these two prohibitions are the ones explained in the verse here: a)

"And you shall not bear sin on account of it when you lift up its fat from it" — "behold, if you do not lift up, you shall bear sin",

this is the prohibition of robbing the kohanim,

and therefore it says "when you lift up"

("behold, if you do not lift up"),

for the robbery is done immediately when the Levite does not lift up and separate the portion of terumat ma'aser that is in the ma'aser

[rather, as long as he has not eaten it

(and the like)

it is in his power to separate it and return the stolen object,

and as will be explained below in section 7]

; b)

"And the sacred things of the children of Israel you shall not profane",

that is, the prohibition of eating the ma'aser that is tevel because of the sanctity of terumah that is in it

("sacred things of the children of Israel").

And this is also the difference,

that regarding "and you shall not profane" it is said "and you shall not die",

for the punishment for profaning holy things is death

(by the hand of heaven),

but regarding "when you separate its fat from it" it is said simply "and you shall not bear a sin on account of it",

for here there is only a prohibition of robbery.

7.

And it can be said,

that what is written "and you shall not bear a sin on account of it",

which indicates a matter of punishment

(and not merely a prohibition)

— refers to the obligation of payment to the priest

(for also the obligation of payment is included in "bearing a sin").

For since the sanctity of terumat maaser has already taken effect on it and it belongs to the priests,

therefore,

one who destroys maaser that is tevel for terumat maaser is obligated to pay the priests the tenth part

(maaser from the maaser)

that is in it.

And even though as long as the tithe is in existence he can separate from it terumat ma'aser and return the stolen object — behold, if he lost the tithe

(through eating or in any manner whatsoever)

without raising from it terumat ma'aser,

then he is obligated to pay the kohen.

[For the way of the halachah⁴⁷

there is a special minority that the kohen has only from the time of raising onward

(also according to the one who says that gifts not raised are considered as if raised)⁴⁸.

But according to the simple meaning it can be said that it is not so,

for since terumat ma'aser is mixed in the tithe and the sanctity of terumat ma'aser applies to it,

this portion already belongs to the kohanim

(also<pg>71</pg>

Before giving it to the kohen in practice)

And they are obligated to pay the kohen for its loss].

And although before the giving to the kohen it is impossible to say that it is in the possession of a particular kohen,

Nevertheless, it can be said,

That in a simple sense it has already become the property of the kohanim⁴⁹

(And only there is the right of choice⁵⁰

For the Levite to give it to whichever kohen he wants,

And this is the mitzvah of giving terumat maaser),

And he is obligated to pay.

And it can be said,

That he gives it to whichever kohen he wants

(In that watch, in the manner of the law of the convert's stolen property⁵¹).

And on the other hand, it can be said: since when the terumah of the tithe has not yet come into the hand of a kohen, the obligation of payment does not apply to it

(since it is not in the private ownership of a kohen)

— behold, for this same reason it can be said,

that according to the simple understanding,

one who loses untithed produce that is obligated in terumah is liable to lashes for the prohibition of robbery.

For this that one is not lashed for the prohibition of robbery is because it is a prohibition that is connected to a positive commandment

("And he shall return the stolen object"&lt;sup&gt;52&lt;/sup&gt;),

for which one is not lashed

(as brought

(also)

in Rashi on the Torah&lt;sup&gt;53&lt;/sup&gt;),

but if he has already eaten the stolen object, it is no longer connected to a positive commandment,

and since in our case also payment&lt;sup&gt;54&lt;/sup&gt;

is not applicable

(as above),

then he is lashed for robbing the kohanim.

And based on this, it follows,

that "And you shall not bear [sin] etc." means according to its simple meaning

(as in most places),

that there is here an actual punishment.

And perhaps one could say even more,

that even if he loses the tithe through eating,

that then there is upon him the punishment of death by the hand of Heaven

("If you profane [them], you will die"),

nevertheless he is liable for payment

(or lashes),

and we do not say regarding this "kim lei be-drabba minei" — because the payment

(or the lashes)

are from the aspect of the robbery of the kohen,

whereas the punishment of death is from the aspect of the prohibition of profaning sacred things,

and thus this is death for this and payment for that,

which in the simple sense⁵⁵

we do not say regarding this "kim lei be-drabba minei"⁵⁶.

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Korach 5725)