English translation — נשא א

A.

From the verse "And every terumah etc. which they bring to the kohen shall be his"¹

Rashi brings down "And every terumah etc.",

and on this he explains²

: "Said Rabbi Yishmael,

Do they bring terumah to the kohanim? Is it not he who goes after it to the threshing floors?³

What does 'which they bring to the kohen' come to teach?

These are the first fruits, about which it is said 'You shall bring [them] to the House of the Lord your God'.⁴

And I do not know what shall be done with them; [therefore] the verse comes to teach 'to the kohen shall be his',

The verse came and taught about the first fruits that they shall be given to the kohen."

In this it is not understood:

a)

By Rashi it is indeed difficult

(according to the initial assumption that the verse speaks here about terumah)

only the wording "asher <b>yakrivu</b> lakohen": since the kohen is the very one who goes around seeking the terumah at the threshing floors,

the wording "yakrivu lakohen" does not fit, which means,

on the contrary,

that the owners must bring it to the kohen.

But the very novelty of the verse — that the terumah must be given to the kohen — is not difficult for Rashi: the verse would have needed to let it be heard,

since in the preceding sedras <sup>5</sup>

it is only said that one must separate terumah<sup>6</sup>,

not mentioning thereby that one must give it to the kohen <sup>7</sup>.

According to this one must understand: what difficulty has now arisen,

according to the conclusion "elu habikurim",

that Rashi comes here to answer with the statement "ve'eyni yode'a ma ya'ase bahem — talmud lomar lakohen etc."?

One cannot say,

that after Rashi brings the verse

(which is stated regarding first-fruits)

"You shall bring [it] to the house of the Lord your God"

(to prove from the wording "you shall bring" that first-fruits must be <b>brought</b> into the Temple,

the place where the priests are located,

and therefore it is correct to learn that "they shall offer" in our verse means first-fruits),

one would have a difficulty to say,

that from this verse itself it is already understood that this must be given to the priest; and therefore Rashi must reject this and say,

that despite the aforementioned verse, "<b>I do not know</b> what shall be done with them"

— But one cannot learn thus,

because it is understood <b>plainly</b>

(even without Rashi's commentary)

and consequently a style of "and I do not know etc." is not applicable here — because: what is he teaching us?

In the verse "You shall bring [it] to the house of the Lord your God" there is not <b>any</b> implication ⁸

"what shall be done with them" and it is simple that it does not imply that by <b>bringing</b> the first-fruits into the <b>Temple</b> is meant the <b>giving</b> to the <b>priest</b> ⁹.

(On the contrary: as long as there is no instruction otherwise — they should apparently remain in the possession of the owner).

b)

If Rashi already wants to explain the novelty of the verse

(according to his commentary "these are the first-fruits"),

it would have been enough if he says "and I do not know ..

Torah says, to the priest it shall be" — why does he need to then <b>explain</b> "the verse came and taught concerning the first-fruits that they should be given to the priest"?

c)

Even when Rashi needs to,

for some reason,

in the detailed explanation of "the verse came and taught concerning the first-fruits that they should be given to the priest",

it is still difficult to understand: why does Rashi need to add the words "concerning the first-fruits" after he already said explicitly earlier "these are the first-fruits" — it would have been enough if he says "the verse came and taught that they should be given to the priest"?

d)

Another difference between Rashi's explanation according to the conclusion

("These are the first-fruits")

and his explanation according to the initial assumption

(that the verse speaks about terumah)

: In the formulation of the question "But is terumah etc." he says "And what does 'which they shall bring to the kohen' come to teach?" — d.

That the word "to the kohen" refers

(<b>not</b> to the following words "it shall be his",

but)

to "which they shall bring"; in contrast, in the formulation in the conclusion,

he says the wording "comes to teach 'to the kohen it shall be his' — that the word 'to the kohen' is in one continuation with 'it shall be his'"?

h.

Rashi's question "But is terumah offered etc." is apparently relevant only to the word "terumah"

Why does Rashi also quote the word "and every

(terumah etc.)

which apparently is not relevant to the content of his explanation?

And especially since a few verses before this *⁹

by "and every unclean person" — Rashi does not quote the word "and every".

6)

Why does Rashi bring the name of the author of the explanation "Rabbi Yishmael" and not suffice with beginning his explanation "And when you bring a terumah etc." — d.

e)

e.

What is added to the understanding of the verse through the knowledge that "And when you bring a terumah etc. these are the first fruits" was said by <b>Rabbi Yishmael</b>?

b.

In addition to all these particular details mentioned above,

also the overall explanation is not understood,

the proof,

that "and every terumah" here means

(not terumah,

in its simple sense,

but)

first fruits:

After the words "וכל תרומה" <b>before</b> "אשר יקריבו לכהן",

it says "לכל קדשי בני ישראל",

and what the words "לכל קדשי בני ישראל" mean — Rashi <b>does not</b> say.

From this itself it is evident,

that Rashi takes it as such a simple thing,

that even the "בן חמש

(למקרא)

" will understand it himself:

In an <b>earlier</b> parshah ¹⁰

Rashi has already stated a rule "כך דרך המקראות לכתוב למ״ד יתירה".

Consequently the student already knows,

that when a word begins with a למ״ד,

which cannot be interpreted according to how it is used ordinarily in continuation of the previous words — it is a למ״ד יתירה.

From this it is understood simply also in our verse,

that although it says "ל<b>כל קדשי בנ״י" — but since one cannot learn these words in continuation to "וכל תרומה" ¹¹,

one must say that it is a למ״ד יתירה.

And consequently it turns out,

that with "

כל קדשי בנ״י" is meant all <b>other</b> "קדשי בנ״י"

(which <b>do not</b> enter into "וכל תרומה"),

i.

e.

all the other מתנות כהונה ¹².

Thus it is not understood: How does Rashi force from "asher yakrivu lakohen" that "vechol terumah" does not mean terumah simply,

because of the difficulty "And does one bring a terumah offering to the kohen?" — one could learn that "vechol terumah" indeed means terumah in its plain sense,

and "asher yakrivu lakohen" refers

(<b>not</b> to "vechol terumah",

but)

to "

(ל)

(to)

all holy things of Bnei Yisrael" <b>adjacent to it</b>,

that regarding

(most of)

the priestly gifts the kohen does not "go around" seeking them,

but they are brought to the kohen?

The difficulty is even stronger: Since the verse separates out the detail of "vechol terumah" separately and does not include it in the "<b>all</b> holy things of Bnei Yisrael" it is seemingly itself a proof,

that "all terumah" is <b>not</b> brought as an offering to the kohen ¹³,

and therefore the verse must separate it out separately from the "holy things of Bnei Yisrael <b>asher yakrivu lakohen"</b>.

Thus it is the opposite: "And does one bring a terumah offering to the kohen" is actually a reasoning that supports saying that the meaning of "vechol terumah" is specifically terumah and not bikurim!

3.

The explanation in all of the above:

From the language of the verse "&lt;b&gt;and&lt;/b&gt;every terumah etc."

(with a vav ha-mosif)

It is proven that this law comes in continuation to the law that is stated earlier — of robbery of a convert: just as robbery of a convert one must give to the priest ¹⁴,

so too "every terumah" and "every holy thing of the children of Israel" one must give to the priest.

It is, however, in this not understandable:

a)

There are <b>many many</b> gifts,

which one was commanded about in the <b>previous</b> parshiyos that one must give them to the kohen — why does the Torah connect the matter "And every terumah etc. to the kohen etc." specifically with gezel hager ¹⁵?

b)

Why does the verse separate "all terumah" from "all holy things of Bnei Yisrael" and say "which &lt;b&gt;they shall bring&lt;/b&gt; to the kohen," which applies only to the other gifts of the priesthood and not to terumah — seemingly it should have said "which they shall give to the kohen"

(or the like)

; the matter of &lt;b&gt;our&lt;/b&gt; verse is not to explain the details of the laws of &lt;b&gt;gifts of the priesthood&lt;/b&gt;; the verse comes in continuation of the preceding matter of robbery from a convert,

and in connection with robbery from a convert,

only the detail is relevant that one must &lt;b&gt;give&lt;/b&gt; it to the kohen — and there is no difference whether this is by returning it to the threshing floor or by bringing it to him?

From this it is forced,

that the connection of "and all terumah etc." to robbery from a convert is

(not only from the aspect that they are given to the kohen,

from the aspect that only they both have between them a special equivalence that distinguishes them from the other gifts of the priesthood.

And because of this special connection of "all terumah" to robbery from a convert,

terumah is taken out from the category of the other "holy things of Bnei Yisrael" and stands separately in the verse.

4.

The "novelty" with which "the robbery of a convert" distinguishes itself from the other priestly gifts,

consists in this: all other priestly gifts ¹⁶

are specific portions of the property of Israel that the Torah gave over to priests; i.e.

that these specific parts belong <b>ab initio</b> to the priest.

that these specific parts belong <b>ab initio</b> to the priest.

Not so regarding the robbery of a convert,

it is not possible to say that this robbed item belonged from the beginning to the priest: before the item was robbed it certainly belonged to the convert; also after it was robbed from the convert,

the robber is obligated to return the robbery

(not to the priest,

but)

but)

to the victim; and even after the victim died,

leaving no heirs,

the robbery still does not belong to the priest — because as long as the robber does not confess,

even when witnesses come and testify that he robbed,

there is no obligation upon him to give the robbery to the priest.

Only then when the robber himself confesses

(specifically after the victim died ¹⁷)

and wants to repent and return the robbery,

must he give it to the priest.

And even then,

it is not that the priest is here instead of the victim,

i.e.

that the obligation of restitution to the victim passes over to the priest¹⁸,

that the obligation of restitution to the victim passes over to the priest¹⁸,

rather the robber is obligated to return it to the <b>Most High</b>,

to the true "Master of the house" ¹⁹,

and after "the Lord acquired it" — "He gave it

(the Lord)

to the priest"²⁰.

And since in the robbery of a convert the innovation is in this,

that the item is given to the priest despite the fact that essentially it does not belong to him,

therefore the Torah immediately afterwards continues and brings the law "And every terumah etc.",

which has a similarity to the robbery of a convert

(and it distinguishes "and every terumah" from "all holy things of the children of Israel" which do not have this similarity ²¹)

: also regarding terumah the obligation of giving to the priest is only after ²²

the owners separate it as "terumah <b>to</b> the Lord"; and only after this that it becomes "the terumah of the Lord" comes the obligation of "and you shall give etc. <b>the terumah of the Lord</b> to Aaron the priest"²³.

5.

Since the continuation and connection of "and every terumah" to gezel hager

(and that which is distributed from "all holy things of Bnei Yisrael"),

is because of that which terumah is similar to gezel hager,

one must then say that with "<b>and every</b> terumah" is meant not only terumah gedolah,

but also all other gifts of the priesthood — terumat maaser,

challah and bikurim ²⁴

— which are called by the name "terumah"²⁵

— because also by them there is the same similarity to gezel hager as by terumah ²⁶

By terumah and maaser and challah there is the law,

that first of all they must be separated by the owners as "terumah to Hashem",

and afterwards the obligation is created to give them to the kohen ²⁷.

Similarly also by bikurim,

that initially there is the obligation to <b>sanctify</b> them ²⁸

and bring them to "the House of Hashem your God"

(with several details of laws in the manner of their being brought into the Beis HaMikdash,

as they are enumerated at the beginning of parshas Ki Savo),

and specifically after their separation,

sanctification and bringing to the Most High — only then comes the obligation to give them to the kohen²⁹.

6.

According to the above it is also understandable,

that the two questions above

(section 1)

— from where is Rashi's proof that "asher yakrivu lakohen" refers

(not only to "lechol kodshei bnei yisrael",

but)

also to "vechol terumah",

and the reason that he stands on "&lt;b&gt;vechol&lt;/b&gt; terumah etc."

(although his question "and is terumah offered to the priest etc." seemingly does not pertain to the word "vechol")

— are answered one with the other,

because from the word "vechol",

it is compelled that "asher yakrivu lakohen" refers also to "vechol terumah":

Since in "&lt;b&gt;vechol&lt;/b&gt; terumah" is also included bikurim

(as above section 5),

and regarding bikurim it is explicitly stated "tavi beis Hashem Elokecha",

i.e.,

that is,

that the priest does not need to go after them — if so it is clear,

that "asher yakrivu lakohen" comes in continuation and has a connection also to "vechol terumah".

7.

But after Rashi answers

(on the question "And is a terumah brought to a kohen etc.",

that)

"These are the first-fruits",

then by "and every terumah" is meant <b>only</b> first-fruits

(and <b>not</b> terumah gedolah,

terumat maaser and challah³⁰)

— the question arises: in what way do first-fruits have more connection to gezel hager than terumah gedolah?

Therefore Rashi continues "<b>And I do not know</b> what shall be done with them..

the verse came <b>and taught</b> etc.": that what the verse distinguishes here first-fruits from <b>all</b> the other priestly gifts,

also from terumah gedolah etc.,

is <b>not</b> because of the fact that in first-fruits there is more similarity to gezel hager than terumah gedolah

that before &lt;b&gt;yet&lt;/b&gt; the owners separate bikkurim there already exists a specific fruit,

the first one that ripened,

which must become bikkurim,

by this itself the fruit already has a connection to the priest &lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;

; in contrast, regarding terumah, before the separation there are no specific grains etc. which must be set aside as terumah,

and the right of the priest begins entirely only after the separation; and consequently, terumah gedolah is much more similar to gezel hager than bikkurim]

But he distributes bikkurim by itself because of the reason that "&lt;b&gt;And I do not know&lt;/b&gt; what to do with them."

And therefore "the verse came and taught concerning the bikkurim that they should be given to the priest."

True indeed,

that the law that bikurim are given to the kohen,

is said in parshas Korach ³³

— "The first fruits of all that is in their land, which they bring to the Lord, shall be yours" — this

(a)

is indeed later, after our parshah,

(b)

there it is mentioned incidentally,

together with all the other gifts of the priesthood ³⁴,

but the first time and the source of this law,

that bikurim are given to the kohen,

is here in our verse "And every terumah etc."; because of this law "the verse came".

And that the verse stands in proximity and continuation to the law of stolen property of a convert,

is this because of the aforementioned reason,

that bikurim is one of the gifts of the priesthood that have a similarity to stolen property of a convert.

Ch.

According to this explanation it will also become understandable,

why Rashi must again interpret "the verse came to teach about the bikurim that they should be given to the kohen" — although one can know this from what he says earlier "these are the bikurim" — because by this Rashi intends to emphasize,

that specifically regarding <b>bikurim</b> the "teaching" from the verse is required:

Regarding this similarity to theft from a convert, first fruits are no different from great terumah,

and on the contrary: great terumah is more similar to theft from a convert than first fruits

(as above).

But since the verse comes here to <b>teach</b> us laws — "the text came <b>to teach</b>" — therefore this is only "concerning the first fruits" ³⁵.

9.

But according to the explanation "these are the first fruits" another difficulty arises — in the language of the verse "which they shall bring to the priest, to him it shall be": why is "to him it shall be" added after it already says earlier "

(which they shall bring)

<b>to the priest</b>" — since the terumah and "all holy things of the children of Israel" are brought and given to the priest,

is it not then understood that "to him it shall be"?

According to Rashi's view,

that by "and every terumah" is meant primarily terumah gedolah³⁶

and also other priestly gifts

(as above section 5'),

one could learn that with the word "lo" the verse excludes not the priest but the owners; and the meaning of "lo yihyeh" is: the right of benefit of the terumah

(the choice of "they shall offer to the kohen" a certain one or another)

belongs to the owners³⁷,

as the law is by terumah gedolah

(and also by terumah and maaser and challah),

that the owners can give it to whichever kohen they want³⁸.

(And this would also have been smooth in the continuation of the verses: in the previous verse it stands that the theft of a convert must be given to the kohen <b>who is of that watch</b>³⁹

; therefore the verse emphasizes,

that by "and every terumah",

despite its similarity to the theft of a convert

(as above at length),

is "&lt;b&gt;lo&lt;/b&gt; yihyeh",

the owner of the terumah <b>has</b> the choice to give it to whichever kohen he wants).

But not according to the conclusion of "these are the first-fruits",

one cannot learn that by "to him it shall be" is meant "the benefit of their consumption belongs to the owners" — because by first-fruits it says "you shall bring to the house of the Lord your God" and from this it is understood &lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;

that he must give them to &lt;b&gt;the&lt;/b&gt; kohen who is &lt;b&gt;then&lt;/b&gt; in the Temple.

Therefore Rashi warns: "the verse says 'to the kohen, to him it shall be'",

that "to the kohen" and "to him it shall be" come in one and the same context

(not as in the initial understanding,

where Rashi's wording is "which they will sacrifice to the kohen" and no more,

as explained above),

i.e.,

that is,

that "to him" means

(not to the owners,

but)

to the kohen.

But the question still remains according to <b>this</b> explanation of "lo yihiyeh",

what does the verse innovate with the words "lo yihiyeh" after it already says "asher yakrivu lakkohen"?

— On this Rashi continues "ba hakatuv velimed etc. sheyihyu <b>nitanin</b> lakkohen":

If it had only said "asher yakrivu lakkohen",

one could learn

(since bikurim are connected with specific details of the laws of bringing to the Beis Hamikdash etc.)

that he only needs to <b>bring</b> the bikurim to the kohen but not to <b>give</b> them to him

(similar to "velakach hakohen hatene miyadecha" in parshas Ki Savo<b>⁴¹</b>

which is only

(as Rashi says)

"<b>lehanif</b> oto").

Therefore the verse says "lo yihiyeh",

"sheyihyu <b>nitanin</b> lakkohen",

that the bikurim <b>belong</b> to him.

Yud.

At first glance one could ask:

Rashi's wording "and I do not know &lt;b&gt;what shall be done&lt;/b&gt; with them"

(and not "and I do not know to whom to give them" and the like)

shows,

that one knows &lt;b&gt;not at all&lt;/b&gt; what &lt;b&gt;to do&lt;/b&gt; with the first fruits — despite the fact that in parshas Ki Savo all the detailed laws of first fruits are explained

(except for the law of giving to the priest).

From this it is forced,

that the words "and I do not know etc." refer to what he says earlier "because it is said 'you shall bring to the House of the Lord your God'",

i.

e.

that from the verse "you shall bring etc." that is stated in the &lt;b&gt;earlier&lt;/b&gt; portions,

"I do not know what shall be done with them".

So it is difficult: with the words "ואיני יודע כו' בא הכתוב ולימד כו'" Rashi wants

(as above sec. 7)

to explain,

that the reason that bikurim is separated in our verse from all other gifts of the priesthood

(although gezel hager is more similar to terumah gedolah than to bikurim),

is it because were it not for our verse "איני יודע" — one does not know the law from any other place,

nor from the &lt;b&gt;later&lt;/b&gt; portions

(not like terumah,

regarding which it stands in parshas Shoftim &lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;

"ראשית דגנך גו' תתן לו״ — to the kohen)

— so Rashi should have said "ואיני יודע שיהיו &lt;b&gt;ניתנין לכהן&lt;/b&gt;",

in what consists the novelty

("לימד")

of our .

verse regarding &lt;b&gt;all&lt;/b&gt; other verses.

Why does Rashi say "ואיני יודע &lt;b&gt;מה יעשה&lt;/b&gt; בהם",

through which language he makes clear,

that he refers only to the verse "תביא בית ה׳ אלקיך"?

Then the explanation in this: from the language of the verse "to the kohen it shall be"

(and not "they shall give to the kohen" and the like,

similar to how it says &lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;

by terumah gedolah "you shall give to him",

and likewise by other priestly gifts),

it is proven that the verse states here two laws:

(a)

(which they will offer)

to the kohen",

and

(b)

"it shall be to him".

What kind of two laws are they?

— Rashi says on this "and I do not know what shall be done with them",

that means,

that from the verse "you shall bring to the house of the L-rd your G-d" that is stated earlier in the Torah,

one does not know "what shall be &lt;b&gt;done&lt;/b&gt; with them".

And upon this comes the clarification,

gradually,

in our verse: "

(which they will offer)

to the kohen",

that after the "you shall bring to the house of the L-rd your G-d" shall be done with them "they will offer to the kohen" &lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;

; and then the verse states a second law "it shall be to him",

that after the bringing to the kohen — shall be done with them "it shall be to him" to give the people.

Yes.

But it is not understood: why is the law that the first fruits must be brought to the kohen stated only in our verse — not earlier in the verse "you shall bring to the house of the L-rd your G-d"?

On this Rashi says "Said Rabbi &lt;b&gt;Yishmael&lt;/b&gt; etc.",

that the explanation "And I do not know what will be done with them etc. the verse came and taught etc." was said by Rabbi Yishmael,

that he,

Rabbi Yishmael holds &lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;

that "General principles were said at Sinai and particulars in the Tent of Meeting",

therefore he learns,

that in parshas Mishpatim and parshas Tisa which were said "at Sinai",

stands only the general principle — "you shall bring etc."

And only in parshas Nasso which was said "in the Tent of Meeting" stand the details &lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;

— "which they will bring to the priest, to him it shall be".

12.

As is known, Rashi's commentaries also contain "the wine of the Torah",

inner matters of the Torah — and the "wine of the Torah" in our Rashi,

will become understood by explaining one of the general instructions &lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt;,

which one learns out from the mitzvah of first fruits.

The growth of fruits, and especially the most superior fruits like first fruits, is connected with great effort and toil of man: plowing,

sowing,

etc. etc.

So when a Jew has already anticipated seeing the fruits,

which have grown after so much work and labor,

the Torah tells him

(that not only must he give a part of them to the kohen,

but even more)

: “<b>The first</b> of the first fruits of your land” — the <b>first</b> ripened ones,

before he has yet taken anything for himself,

he must bring to the Beis HaMikdash and give to the kohen.

And since all the instructions of the Torah are eternal,

in every time and in every place,

it is understood,

that the same conduct is required of a Jew also in the time of exile and outside the Land,

regarding all earnings: that when a matter of charity comes to him,

he should not take into account that the livelihood comes to him with such difficulty,

and the first and best of his hard-earned earnings “you shall bring to the house of the Lord your God,”

give to the Most High,

for charity.

But the evil inclination comes and begins to argue and contend with the Jew: When it would have been about charity for a matter of holiness

(like a yeshiva,

a synagogue, etc.)

for the public good

(and he,

the giver — is also included among them)

— that is still understandable.

But it is speaking entirely about "first fruits" that one gives to an individual

(a kohen)

and they become <b>that one's property</b> ⁴¹.

Now since

(argues the evil inclination)

that you yourself are also a needy one — and regarding all Jews it is indeed stated "And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests" ⁴⁸

— then who says

that the "<b>first</b>" of your hard-earned earnings you must give to a <b>second</b>?

In what is he more deserving than you?

At most: divide your "first fruits"

(the best of what you possess)

into several parts,

give them to <b>several</b> needy ones and among them — also to yourself! And especially since you indeed toiled for them.

True indeed "And He will bless you, <b>the Lord your God</b>",

but the Torah indeed says that this was "in all that <b>you do</b>"⁴⁹.

To this comes the instruction,

that in order to know what he must do with his "first fruits",

first of all

(while it is still "I do not know what shall be done with them",

he does not yet know what to do with them,

or,

at least,

in what manner to give them as charity: whether to give them entirely to another Jew,

or to take a part also for himself, etc.),

he should bring them "to the house of the Lord your God",

and specifically then and there he will know the truth that — "they are given to the kohen" ⁵⁰.

That which the evil inclination whispers to him,

that being a needy person he may take a portion of the first fruits,

is only because he has not come to the decision that the first fruits are charity money; he has still not freed himself from the feeling

(despite his resolution to give away the money for charity)

that it is &lt;b&gt;his&lt;/b&gt; property,

a thing that &lt;b&gt;he&lt;/b&gt; has earned.

Therefore it is hard for him to effect in himself to give it away to another

(only since if the evil inclination had come to him with open speech: do not give so much money to charity,

he would not have obeyed him — he begins,

covertly with a "just" claim: just as he himself is also a needy person — consequently the partial leaving for himself,

that is, it is not a matter of charity.

And moreover, all the more so from the law "the poor of your city take precedence" &lt;sup&gt;51&lt;/sup&gt;,

he himself and his household are indeed prior to every person&lt;sup&gt;52&lt;/sup&gt;).

But when he will fulfill the "you shall bring to the house of the Lord your God" — come with the "first fruits" into the domain of the Most High — then there will be established in him &lt;b&gt;simply&lt;/b&gt; that "&lt;b&gt;to the priest it shall be&lt;/b&gt;."

It will not occur to him at all,

that also he should receive a portion of it — just as it does not occur to him to take a portion of other charity money.

And while he conducts himself with such a conduct,

there is fulfilled in him that which Rashi says in the following verse: "A man who will give to the priest — the gifts that are fitting for him,

to him it shall be — abundant wealth",

that the Almighty will give him from His full, open, holy and wide hand all that is needed.

To him,

in children,

life and sustenance and in all of them — abundance.

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Nasso and Beha'aloscha 5729)