קרח ב

B"H Okay, let's break down this Sicha (discourse) from the Rebbe. The goal is to understand the Rebbe's deep analysis of a specific comment by Rashi, the primary commentator on the Torah. We'll unpack the questions, the context, and the profound lessons the Rebbe draws out. **Setting the Scene: The Verse and Rashi's Comment** The Sicha begins by focusing on a verse in this week's Torah portion, Parshas Korach (though the verse itself is technically at the beginning of the next section, often read together or closely following Korach). The verse is Numbers 18:8: > *"G‑d spoke to Aaron: 'And I, behold (**v’Ani Hinei**), I have given you the charge of My gifts...'”* This verse introduces the section detailing the various gifts given to the Kohanim (Priests – Aaron and his descendants). Rashi, whose commentary aims to provide the *pshat* (the plain, straightforward meaning) of the text, makes two points on the words "**וַאֲנִי הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לְךָ**" ("And I, behold, I have given you"): 1. **"Hinei" (Behold) signifies Joy:** Rashi explains that the word "הִנֵּה" (*Hinei*) here means that G‑d gave these gifts *with joy*. He compares it to another verse (Exodus 4:14) where G‑d tells Moses about Aaron: "Behold (*hinei*), he is coming out to meet you, and when he sees you, he will rejoice in his heart." * *(Rebbe's side note): The Rebbe points out that Rashi emphasizes this ("It is an expression of joy") because "Hinei" doesn't *always* mean joy in its plain sense. It often signifies presence or points something out ("Look!"). So, Rashi needs to explicitly state that *here*, it carries the connotation of joy.* 2. **Connection to Korach (The Parable):** Rashi explains *why* this section about the Priestly gifts appears immediately after the story of Korach's rebellion. Korach had challenged Aaron's legitimacy as the High Priest. Rashi brings a parable from the Sifri (an ancient collection of Midrashic interpretations on Numbers and Deuteronomy): * **The Parable:** A king gave a field to his beloved friend but didn't provide a formal written deed. Someone came along and challenged the friend's ownership. The king then told his friend, "Let anyone who wants to challenge you come forward! I am hereby *writing*, *sealing*, and *registering the deed in the royal archives* for you." * **The Application (Nimshal):** Rashi concludes: "So too here. Because Korach came and challenged Aaron regarding the Priesthood, *the verse came and gave him the 24 Priestly gifts* with an eternal covenant of salt. That is why this section is placed next to [the story of Korach] here." **The Rebbe's First Question (Section Aleph א): Why Combine These Two Points?** The Rebbe immediately asks: These two explanations from Rashi – (1) "Hinei" means joy, and (2) the parable explaining the connection to Korach – seem completely unrelated. They address different aspects of the verse. In fact, the Rebbe notes, in their original source (the Sifri), they appear as separate teachings and even comment on different words. So, **why does Rashi bundle these two distinct ideas together under the very same comment (starting with the words "And I, behold...")?** Rashi is usually very precise. Combining them suggests he sees an intrinsic connection. What is it? **The Rebbe's Second Set of Questions (Section Beis ב): Discrepancies with the Source (Sifri)** The Rebbe delves deeper into Rashi's second point (the parable) and highlights several differences between Rashi's version and the source text in the Sifri: 1. **Who is Speaking? "The Verse Came" vs. "G-d":** * In the Sifri's application of the parable, it says: "Korach came and challenged... G‑d (HaMakom) said to him [Aaron], '...Come, and *I* will write, *I* will seal, *I* will register...'" * Rashi, however, writes: "...*the verse came* (ba ha'katuv) and gave him..." * **Question 2a:** Why does Rashi change "G‑d" to "the verse came"? This seems like a significant shift. 2. **Why Mention "24 Gifts"?** * Rashi specifically states that G‑d gave Aaron "*24* Priestly gifts." * **Question 2b:** Why does Rashi feel the need to specify the number 24 here? The Sifri doesn't mention the number in its conclusion. How is the *number* relevant to explaining the *juxtaposition* of the passages? Rashi could have just said "gave him the Priestly gifts with an eternal covenant." 3. **Were All 24 Gifts Given *Here*?** * This leads to a bigger problem. The Torah section introduced by our verse (Numbers 18) *does not actually list all 24* of the traditional Priestly gifts. For example, it omits: * *Challah* (the portion of dough given to the Kohen) * *Reishis HaGez* (the first shearings of wool) * *Zeroa, Lechayayim, v'Keivah* (the Foreleg, Cheeks, and Maw given from non-sacrificial animals) * **Question 2c:** How can Rashi say that *in response to Korach*, "the verse came and gave him *24* Priestly gifts," when the verses right here don't mention all 24? 4. **The Timing Problem:** * Making things even more difficult, the gifts of *Reishis HaGez* and *Zeroa, Lechayayim, v'Keivah* are explicitly commanded much later in the Torah, in Deuteronomy (Parshas Shoftim, Deut. 18:3-4). This is near the end of the 40 years in the desert, long after Korach's rebellion! * **Question 2d:** How could these gifts be *given* as a response to Korach if they weren't even commanded until decades later? These questions show that Rashi's seemingly simple comment is actually quite complex and presents several textual difficulties. **Exploring Rashi's Wording: "Placed Here" vs. "Said Here" (Section Gimmel ג)** The Rebbe offers a potential insight by examining another subtle difference between Rashi and the Sifri: * **Sifri:** Concludes by saying, "Therefore, this passage was *said* (נֶאֶמְרָה - *ne'emrah*) next to Korach." This implies G‑d actually spoke these words at this specific time, right after the Korach incident. * **Rashi:** Concludes, "And therefore, this passage was *placed* (נִסְמְכָה - *nismachah*) here." This implies that the *Torah text* was arranged this way, placing this section here for thematic reasons, but doesn't necessarily mean G‑d spoke these words right then. The actual command could have been given earlier or later. **Connecting the Dots:** The Rebbe suggests that Rashi's use of "placed here" (*nismachah*) might explain why he says "the *verse* came" instead of "G‑d." If the passage wasn't *spoken* now, but merely *written* here by Divine Providence (via Moses), then it's the *written text* ("the verse") that conveys the message in this context. The message is: the giving of these gifts (whenever it originally happened) and the covenant associated with them serve to counteract any challenge to the Priesthood, like Korach's. **But a New Question Arises:** Okay, this might explain Rashi's wording, but *why* does Rashi choose this interpretation? What in the plain text (*pshat*) leads Rashi to believe this section was merely *placed* here and not *said* here right after Korach, differing from the Sifri's implication? **A Possible (But Flawed) Explanation Based on the Timing of the Gifts (Section Daled ד)** The Rebbe considers a possible reason for Rashi's view: * **Premise:** The verse establishing the "eternal covenant of salt" (Numbers 18:19) speaks of "*All* the holy gifts..." This strongly implies the covenant covers *all 24* Priestly gifts. Logically, you can't make an eternal covenant covering all the gifts *before* all the gifts have actually been commanded. * **Sifri vs. Rashi on When Gifts Were Known:** * The **Sifri** actually finds hints within *this* Torah section (specifically interpreting verse 18:12 creatively) that allude to the missing gifts (like *Reishis HaGez*, *Zeroa*, *Challah*). If the Sifri believes all 24 gifts are indeed referenced *here*, then it makes sense for the Sifri to say the passage was *said* ("ne'emrah") now, right after Korach, complete with the covenant covering everything. * **Rashi**, however, *does not* quote this specific interpretation from the Sifri. For Rashi (sticking to *pshat*), the commands for *Reishis HaGez* and *Zeroa* etc. only appear later in Deuteronomy. * **The Hypothesis:** Therefore, perhaps Rashi concludes that since the covenant covers all 24 gifts, and some gifts were only commanded later (in Deuteronomy), this entire passage (especially the covenant part) couldn't have been *said* back at the time of Korach. It must have been revealed later, after Deuteronomy, and only *placed* ("nismachah") here retrospectively by the Torah's narrative structure. * *(Supporting point): Rashi himself elsewhere (commentary on Deut. 18:3) links the gift of the *Zeroa, Lechayayim, v'Keivah* to being a reward for Pinchas's zealous act (Numbers 25), which happened near the end of the 40 years, long after Korach and even after Aaron's death.* **Why This Explanation Fails (Section Hey ה)** The Rebbe swiftly refutes this line of reasoning with two powerful points: 1. **The Parable's Implication:** If the purpose of giving the "written, sealed, registered deed" (the gifts and covenant) was to *immediately* counter Korach's challenge, it makes no sense for the King (G‑d) to wait almost 40 years (until after Deuteronomy or Pinchas's act) to provide this security! The parable implies a prompt response. 2. **The Verse Explicitly Mentions Aaron:** This is the decisive point. The verse clearly states: "G‑d spoke **to Aaron**... And I, behold, I have given **to you** [Aaron]..." (Numbers 18:8). The recipient of this communication, which includes the gifts and ultimately the covenant over all 24, is *Aaron himself*. Since some key gifts (like the reward for Pinchas) were only instituted *after Aaron's death*, it's impossible for this entire passage, including the covenant covering those future gifts, to have been *said* only then. It *must* have been communicated during Aaron's lifetime. * *(How to reconcile Pinchas's reward? The Rebbe suggests it's possible the gift was decreed for Aaron and his descendants during Aaron's lifetime, *in the merit of Pinchas's future act*. Rashi uses similar logic elsewhere, e.g., the Exodus happening in the merit of future Torah acceptance.)* **A New Twist:** This forces the opposite conclusion! Rashi must believe the passage was said *before* Korach's rebellion, or at least during Aaron's lifetime. So, the reason Rashi says it was "placed here" (*nismachah*) cannot be because it was said *later*. Perhaps it was said *earlier*, and then *inserted* here after Korach? **The Remaining Question (Restated):** If the passage *was* said during Aaron's lifetime (likely before Korach, as we'll see), what textual basis (*pshat*) does Rashi have for saying it was only *placed* here ("nismachah") rather than being *said* right here after Korach? **The Rebbe's Solution: The Significance of Past Tense (Section Vav ו)** Here is the Rebbe's brilliant insight into Rashi's thinking, based purely on the *pshat*: * **Observation:** Look closely at the verses in this section (Numbers 18:8ff). According to the plain meaning, *no absolutely new gifts are commanded here*. All the specific gifts listed (like *Terumah*, *Bikkurim*, parts of sacrifices) had already been mentioned earlier in the Torah (e.g., Exodus, Leviticus, earlier in Numbers). * **What *is* New Here?** The main additions are the *framing* statements: the introduction "G‑d spoke to Aaron..." (v. 8) and the concluding declaration about the "eternal covenant of salt" (v. 19). * **The Key Word: "Natati" (I Have Given):** The verse says "וַאֲנִי הִנֵּה **נָתַתִּי**" - "And I, behold, I **have given**." The verb is in the *past tense*. G‑d isn't saying "I *am giving*" but "I *have already given*." * **Rashi's Logic:** Since G‑d is referring to gifts He has *already* given, it's entirely logical, based on the plain text, to understand that this specific divine communication (listing these previously given gifts between the introduction and the covenant conclusion) wasn't necessarily *spoken verbatim right now*. Rather, the Torah *placed* ("nismachah") this record of G‑d's words (which might have been spoken earlier) *here*, right after Korach. Why? To teach the lesson that these *already-established* gifts, now framed by the eternal covenant, serve as the definitive answer to challenges like Korach's. * **Contrast with Sifri:** The Sifri *does* find hints of *new* gifts here (through non-pshat interpretation). Therefore, the Sifri can logically say the passage was *said* ("ne'emrah") now, completing the list. Rashi, sticking to *pshat*, sees no new gifts being commanded, only a confirmation and framing of existing ones, hence "nismachah." * **Clarifying Rashi's Intent:** Even if the covenant itself was revealed now, Rashi's emphasis ("the verse came and *gave* him...") includes the *giving of the gifts* as part of the response. Since the actual *giving* was earlier, Rashi uses "nismachah" for the passage's placement and "the *verse* came" to indicate that the written text is *recounting* that prior giving in this new context. **Understanding "Hinei" - Back to the Beginning (Section Zayin ז)** Now that we understand *why* Rashi might see the passage as "placed here," let's revisit the first point: "Hinei" means joy. * **Basic Meaning of "Hinei":** Usually signifies presence, immediacy, pointing something out ("Here I am," "Look!"). * **When Used with Actions:** It often emphasizes the readiness or commitment of the doer. * **Why Emphasize Readiness?** Typically, this emphasis occurs when the action is surprising, unexpected, or contrary to a previous state or expectation. * Examples: "Behold (*Hineni*), I am bringing the flood" (surprising after G‑d declared creation "very good"). Sarah saying, "Behold (*hinei*), G‑d has prevented me from bearing" (contrary to nature and G‑d's promise). Even in this Parsha, "Behold (*hinei*), I have taken your brethren the Levites... a gift to you" (surprising, as guarding the Temple seemed exclusive to Kohanim). * **The Question for Our Verse:** In "And I, *hinei*, I have given you the gifts," what's the surprise? Giving gifts to the priests seems natural. Why the need for "Hinei"? * **Rashi's Answer (Again):** *Therefore*, Rashi explains, "It is an expression of joy." When there's great joy involved, the word "Hinei" becomes appropriate even without an element of surprise, because joy itself implies eagerness, enthusiasm, and a heightened state of readiness (*zerizus*). **Connecting Joy and Korach: The Solution to the First Question (Section Ches ח)** This leads us back to the Rebbe's very first question: Why did Rashi link the "joy" aspect of "Hinei" with the parable about Korach? * **The Question:** Okay, "Hinei" means joy here. But *why* was G‑d particularly joyful about giving/confirming these gifts at this juncture? And is it just *any* joy? The Rebbe notes that "Hinei" as joy in *pshat* seems reserved for *remarkable* or *unexpected* joy (like Aaron not being jealous of Moses). Where is that level of joy here? * **Rashi's Integrated Answer:** This is the masterstroke. Rashi brings the second point (the parable/Korach context) precisely to explain the *source and intensity* of the joy indicated by "Hinei." The joy isn't just about giving gifts; it's about the *profound significance* these gifts take on in light of Korach's challenge. They become the ultimate tool to *solidify and eternally secure* the Priesthood. * **Proof of Great Joy: The Abundance!** How do we see this isn't just a routine confirmation but an act of great joy? Look at the response to Korach. Just before this section (end of Parshas Korach), the Torah describes the miracle of Aaron's budding staff. *One miracle* was deemed sufficient to prove G‑d chose Aaron and stop the people's complaints. Yet *here*, in relation to the same underlying issue (the challenge to the Priesthood), Rashi emphasizes that G‑d "gave him ***24*** Priestly gifts"! This sheer abundance, far beyond what seemed necessary after the staff miracle, demonstrates that this wasn't merely a functional act but one performed with immense generosity and, therefore, *joy*. * **The Connection is Complete:** Rashi connects the two points because the *context* (response to Korach via the parable) explains the *reason* for the extraordinary joy ("Hinei"), which is manifested in the *abundance* (24 gifts) of the solution. **Rashi's Deeper Understanding of the Solution (Section Tes ט)** The Rebbe points out a subtle but crucial difference this reveals between Rashi and the Sifri regarding *how* the challenge to the Priesthood is nullified: * **Sifri:** Focuses mainly on the *covenant* (Bris Melach Olam - eternal covenant of salt) associated with the gifts as the factor that secures the Priesthood. * **Rashi:** Implies *two* elements work together: 1. The *giving of the 24 gifts themselves*. 2. The fact that they are secured by an *eternal covenant of salt*. This is why Rashi writes "the verse came and (1) gave him 24 Priestly gifts (2) with an eternal covenant of salt." This two-part solution further justifies Rashi's use of "nismachah" (placed here). Part 1 (the giving) happened earlier, but the text recounting it is *placed here* to be combined with Part 2 (the covenant) as the complete response to Korach. **Why Rashi Includes the Full Parable:** Now we understand why Rashi didn't just give the punchline but quoted the *whole parable*. It wasn't immediately obvious why *both* the gifts *and* the covenant were needed, especially after the staff miracle seemed sufficient. The parable, with its three stages, provides the blueprint: * The king says he will: 1) **Write** (כּוֹתֵב - *Kotev*), 2) **Seal** (חוֹתֵם - *Chotem*), 3) **Register in the archives** (מַעֲלֶה בְּעַרְכָּאִין - *Ma'aleh b'Arka'in*). The Rebbe explains how these three stages correspond perfectly to Rashi's understanding of G‑d's actions: 1. **Giving the 24 Gifts = "Writing" (Kotev)** 2. **Establishing the Covenant (Bris) = "Sealing" (Chotem)** 3. **The Covenant being one of "Eternal Salt" (Melach Olam) = "Registering in the Archives" (Ma'aleh b'Arka'in)** **Unpacking the Three Stages (Section Yud י)** The Rebbe elaborates on the unique function of each stage: 1. **"Writing" (The 24 Gifts):** A written deed proves ownership even when the owner is far away. Challenges often arise when the owner isn't present. Similarly, the 24 Priestly gifts serve as a constant, tangible proof and reminder of the Kohen's status and connection to G‑d, *wherever he may be*. Many gifts are given outside the Temple, some even outside the Land of Israel. They are the Kohen's portable "deed." 2. **"Sealing" (The Covenant - Bris):** A deed needs a seal for finality. An unsealed document might suggest the giver could retract. The "seal" prevents the giver (G‑d, in this case) from changing His mind. G‑d establishes a *covenant* (Bris) signifying that, unlike the Priesthood of the firstborn which *was* transferred, Aaron's Priesthood is irrevocable *from G‑d's perspective*. 3. **"Registering in Archives" (Eternal Salt - Melach Olam):** Even a sealed deed might be challenged or seem invalidated by external circumstances (like challenging it in court). The primary function of the Priesthood was service in the Temple ("to serve Me"). When the Temple was destroyed and the service ceased, one might argue (Heaven forbid) that the Priesthood itself became defunct. (The Rebbe draws a parallel to the Davidic monarchy – despite the promise that the "scepter shall not depart from Judah," there were periods without kings). * Therefore, the covenant needed to be one of "Eternal *Salt*." Salt is incorruptible, enduring forever. Rashi (on Lev. 2:13) explains salt signifies something "healthy and enduring... that never spoils." This "salt" quality ensures the Priesthood's validity *eternally*, regardless of external changes like the Temple's destruction. It gives the "deed" unchallengeable permanence, like being registered in the highest archives. **A Deeper Insight ("Niflaos"): Why Exactly 24 Gifts? (Section Yud Aleph יא)** The Rebbe reveals a fascinating layer of meaning ("niflaos" - wonders) connecting the specific number 24 to the nature of Korach's challenge: * **Korach's Method - Subtle Undermining:** Korach didn't openly defy G‑d like a robber (*gozel*). He used clever arguments ("the whole congregation is holy...") to subtly undermine Aaron's authority. This is akin to *theft* (*geneivah*), which is done stealthily. * **The Tribes' Involvement:** Korach persuaded *all the tribes* to join his challenge ("gathered the whole congregation... went to the tribes and persuaded them... until they were all persuaded" - Rashi on Num 16:19). * **The Penalty for Theft:** Jewish law requires a thief to pay back double (*kefel* - Ex. 22:3, 22:6). * **The Calculation:** Since the *12 tribes* (representing Israel) participated in this "theft" of legitimacy from Aaron, they collectively incurred the penalty of double payment: **12 tribes x 2 = 24**. The **24 Priestly gifts** represent this "repayment," rectifying the challenge and reaffirming the Priesthood. * **Addressing a Question:** What about the tribe of Levi (Korach's own tribe)? Weren't they involved too? Shouldn't it be 13 x 2 = 26 gifts? * **The Rebbe's Answer:** The gifts are primarily aimed at preventing *future* challenges ("Let anyone who wants come and challenge..."). After the Korach incident and the miracle of Aaron's staff (which represented Levi), the threat of a future challenge from *within* the tribe of Levi was neutralized; Levi and Aaron were now unified (symbolized by one staff). The ongoing potential for challenge came from the *other 12 tribes*. Therefore, 24 gifts were sufficient to address the future threat from those tribes. **Fine-Tuning the Count: Terumas Maaser (Section Yud Beis יב)** One final detail: * **The Issue:** One of the 24 gifts is *Terumas Maaser*, the portion the Levite gives from the tithe (*Maaser Rishon*) he receives from the Israelite. Doesn't this gift come from the *Levite*, not the 12 tribes? Does this make the count 23 from the Israelites + 1 from the Levites, disrupting the "12 x 2 = 24" idea? * **The Rebbe's Textual Proof:** The Torah *twice* emphasizes that the Levites give this *Terumah* from the tithe they "receive *from the Children of Israel*" (Num 18:26, 28). * **The Insight:** This repetition highlights that the *fundamental obligation* for *Terumas Maaser* rests on the produce *while it is still considered the Israelite's* (before the Levite fully acquires his tithe). The Levite acts as the one who separates it, but its origin and liability trace back to the Israelite owner. * *(Halachic Support): This explains the law allowing the Israelite owner to separate *Terumas Maaser* on behalf of the Levite – because the obligation is intrinsically linked to the Israelite's produce.* * **Conclusion:** Therefore, *all 24 gifts* are fundamentally sourced from, or obligated upon, the produce of the Israelites (the 12 tribes), maintaining the integrity of the 24 count. **The Timely Lesson: Connecting to the Previous Rebbe (Section Yud Gimmel יג)** The Rebbe concludes by connecting these insights to the time of year and a significant event in recent Chabad history: * **Context:** Parshas Korach is often read in or near the Jewish month of Tammuz. Tammuz (specifically the 12th and 13th days) marks the anniversary of the imprisonment and miraculous liberation of the previous Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn (the Rebbe Rayatz), in Soviet Russia in 1927. * **The Parallel:** Just as Rashi explained that Korach's challenge ("ערעור" - *er'ur*) didn't weaken Aaron's Priesthood but ultimately led to its greatest strengthening (the 24 gifts and the "eternal covenant of salt," like a challenged deed validated in court), so too with the Previous Rebbe. * **The Previous Rebbe's Experience:** The "challenge" of his arrest and imprisonment for bravely spreading Judaism didn't crush his work. On the contrary, his liberation ("גאולה" - *Geulah*) led to an immense strengthening and expansion of his activities. It ensured his life's work of disseminating Torah ("spreading the wellsprings") and bolstering Jewish life would continue with unstoppable force, like an "eternal covenant." * **Global Impact:** The liberation allowed these efforts to reach across the globe, far beyond what was possible before. * **Ultimate Redemption:** This strengthening and global expansion, stemming from overcoming a great challenge, serves as a direct preparation for the ultimate and complete Redemption – the arrival of Mashiach, speedily in our days. **In Summary:** The Rebbe takes a seemingly straightforward comment by Rashi and unpacks layers of meaning. He resolves textual difficulties by highlighting Rashi's precise wording ("nismachah," "ba ha'katuv," "24 gifts," "natati") and adherence to *pshat*. He reveals the deep connection Rashi saw between G‑d's joy ("Hinei"), the challenge of Korach, and the establishment of the Priesthood through the abundant gifts and the multi-layered security of the eternal covenant (Writing/Gifts, Sealing/Covenant, Registering/Salt). He even finds significance in the exact number 24, linking it to the rectification of the tribes' challenge. Finally, he draws a powerful parallel to the resilience and ultimate triumph of the Jewish spirit, exemplified by the Previous Rebbe's story, connecting it all to the anticipation of the final Geulah.