| א. שאלות ודיוקים ברש"י |
A. Questions and Inferences in Rashi
From where did Rashi know that this was the case; perhaps the intent of "your father's house," is the whole House of Levi, who was the father of Kehat who was the father of Amram?
וזר לא יקרב אליכם AND A LAYMAN SHALL NOT APPROACH UNTO YOU — It is you whom I warning concerning this.
"רוצה לומר, שלא באה כאן אזהרה לזר, רק אזהרה לכהנים ולוויים השומרים שלא יתרשלו במשמרתם למנוע הזרים מאצלם..."
Beer Yitzchak:
He means to say, that the warning did not come to the layman, but it is rather a warning to the priests and the Levites on guard; that they should not be negligent in their guarding, such as to prevent the laymen from coming among them.
על פי איזו מן המידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן, למד לומר כן?
According to which of the hermeneutical principles of the Torah did he learn to say this?
What is his difficulty in our verse?
ואני הנה נתתי לך AND I, BEHOLD, I HAVE ALSO GIVEN THEE [THE CHARGE OF MINE HEAVE OFFERING] with joy. This is suggested by the word “Behold”, for this is an expression used when something is done with joy, just as in, (Exodus 4:14) “Behold, he goeth forth to meet thee and when he will see thee he will rejoice in his heart!” A parable! This may be compared to a king who presented a field to his friend, but he did not write or seal a deed of gift nor did he record it in the court. When a man came and laid claim to the field, the king said to him, “It seems that anyone who wishes to do so may come and claim against you; behold, I will write and seal a deed of gift to you, and record it in the court! So here, too, because Korah came and made a claim against Aaron to the Priesthood, Scripture (God) came and gave him the twenty-four “gifts” of the priesthood as an everlasting covenant of salt (i.e. an enduring covenant). For this reason is this section recording the gifts of the priests placed here after that which narrates Korah’s rebellion (Sifrei Bamidbar 117:1).
A. What is his difficulty in our verse?
|
ב. בעל דברי דוד, מקשה: |
ולמה לו לומר: "בשמחה, לשון שמחה הוא זה" שהוא נראה מיותר, שהרי היה לו לומר: "בשמחה", כמו (שמות ד') "הנה הוא יוצא..."
B. The author of Divrei David asks:
Why should he say, "with joy, for this is an expression of joy," which seems superfluous. For behold, he should have [just] said, "with joy, as in (Exodus 4:14), 'Behold, he goes forth...'"
התוכל ליישב קושייתו?
Are you able to resolve his difficulty?
ג. ומקשין על סוף דברי רש"י: והלוא מדרך רש"י לדרוש סימוכין על פרשיות בתחילת הפרשה (במקום ששתי הפרשיות הסמוכות נפגשות) ולמה לא פירש למה נסמכה פרשה זו לפרשת קרח בפסוק א' בפרקנו אלא דווקא בפסוק ח'?
ענה לקושייה!
C. And they ask about the end of Rashi's words here:
Is it not Rashi's way to expound about the adjacency of sections at the beginning of the section (the point where the two sections meet)? So why did he not expound why this section was adjacent to the section about Korach in verse 1 of our chapter, but rather specifically in verse 8?
Answer the difficulty!
למשחה. לִגְדֻלָּה (שם):
למשחה means as a distinction (cf. Onkelos; Sifrei Bamidbar 117:2; Zevachim 91a).
והשווה:
Compare this to the following:
א. מה ראה רש"י להבליט את 'הגדולה' כאן, והרי את המלה כבר פירש בשמות?
A. Why did Rashi see fit to emphasize [the meaning as], "distinction," here; behold he already explained the word in Exodus?
ב. מה ראה רש"י להביא ראייתו ממרחק, מדברי-הימים, והרי השורש מ-ש-ח מצוי בתורה?
B. Why did Rashi see fit to bring his proof from far away - from Chronicles - behold the root, mem-shin-chet (that he is explaining) is found in [other places in] the Torah?
נחלקו מפרשי רש"י בהבנת דבריו אלה:
Rashi's commentators disagree about the understanding of his words here:
ספר הזיכרון:
לאחר הקטרת האשים, כלומר שאין הכהן רשאי לאכלם, עד שיקריב מה שראוי להיקרב.
Sefer HaZikaron:
"After the burning of the portions given over to the fire," meaning that the priest is not allowed to eat them until he offers what is to be offered.
מנחת יהודה:
הנותר מן האש והוא החלק שאינו קרב על המזבח.
Minchat Yehudah:
The remnant of the portion given over to the fire, and that is that which is not offered on the altar.
A. What is their difference in the understanding of the word, "from" (in the verse)?
B. Which opinion appears to you to be the correct understanding of Rashi's words?
C. Where in the Prophets do we find that a severe punishment comes to the one who transgresses that which is stated in our verse (if we understand it the way it was understood by the author of Sefer HaZikaron)?
From where does Rashi know that the intention is specifically to these?
מנחתם חטאתם ואשמם EVERY MEAL OFFERING OF THEIRS, AND EVERY SIN OFFERING OF THEIRS, AND EVERY GUILT OFFERING OF THEIRS — all these offerings should be understood in their usual meanings.
ד"ה לא תטה משפט: כמשמעו.
** מה ראה רש"י להגיד לנו שהוא כמשמעו, והרי אינו צריך לפרש לנו אלא במקרים שאין הכתוב כמשמעו? (ועיין רש"י, דברים ט"ז י"ט:
** Why did Rashi see fit to tell us that it should be understood in its usual meaning? Behold, he only needs to explain to us cases where the verse is not like its usual meaning. (And see Rashi on Deuteronomy 16:19:
לא תטה משפט. כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ:
לא תטה משפט means what it literally implies: THOU SHALT NOT PERVERT JUDGMENT.
ועיין רש"י, דברים י"ז י"ט:
And see Rashi, Deuteronomy 17:19:
דברי התורה. כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ:)
דברי התורה [ALL] THE WORDS OF [THIS] LAW — Take it as what it literally implies.)
A. What is his difficulty?
B. From where does he know that this is the case?
| ב. "עבודת מתנה" |
| B. "A service of gift" |
"And thou and thy sons with thee shall keep your priesthood in everything that pertaineth to the altar, and to that within the veil; and ye shall serve; I give you the priesthood as a service of gift; and the common man that draweth nigh shall be put to death."
עבדת מתנה [I HAVE GIVEN YOUR PRIESTHOOD UNTO YOU] AS A SERVICE OF GIFT — This means as a gift have I given it to you.
ד"ה עבודת מתנה אתן את כהונתכם: (אחרי הביאו דברי רש"י) לומר שהיא לכם מתנה גמורה עד שהזר הקרב יהיה חייב מיתה. והנכון בעיני שיאמר, ועבדתם עבודת כהונה ואיננה לכן עבודת שעבוד כעבודת עובדי המלכים, אבל עבודת מתנה גדולה נתתי לכם בה לכבוד ולתפארת מאתי, כעניין שדרשו (פסוק ח') "למשחה" – לגדולה, כדרך שהמלכים אוכלים.
S.v. I give you the priesthood as a service of gift: (After bringing the words of Rashi), meaning to say that it is a binding gift to you, to the point that the non-priest that approaches will be liable for death. But that which appears correct in my eyes is that it is stating that [though] you will be serving a service of priesthood, it is not therefore a service of subjugation like the service of the servants of kings. Rather, I have given you a service of a great gift - it is a source of glory and splendor from Me. [This is] like the matter that they expounded (in Sotah 15a, on verse 8), "for anointing," - for distinction, in the way that the kings eat.
הכתוב מאפיין את עבודות הכהנים במקדש כ"עבודת מתנה", עבודה של מסירות והתמסרות. כל העשיות, אשר עליהם נצטוו במקדש, עולות ומתעלות למושג "מתנה". בעוד שהמקדש וכליו: ארון, שולחן ומנורה מביאים לתודעתנו את אשר ניתן לנו מאת ה' (על ידי התורה ולמען התורה), הנה תכלית העבודה במקדש היא ללמדנו מסירת כל עצמותנו וכל הטוב הניתן לנו מאת ה' – לה' לבדו... (דברי-הימים א' כ"ט י"ד) "מידך נתנו לך".
R. S. R. Hirsch:
The verse typifies the service of the priests in the Sanctuary as a service of gift - a service of giving over and being given over. All of the actions that they were commanded about in the Sanctuary come up to and are brought up to the concept of gift. Moreover, in that the Sanctuary and its vessels - the ark, the table and the menorah - come to raise our consciousness about that which has been given to us by God (through the Torah and for the sake of the Torah), the purpose of the service in the Sanctuary is to teach us the giving of our entire selves and all that is given to us by God - to God alone... (I Chronicles 29:14), "it is from Your hand that we give to You."
ד"ה עבודת מתנה: רוצה לומר עבודת הכהונה המסורה לכם בייחוד, כולם תוכן עניינם שיש בהם מתנה, כלומר נתינה על דבר אחר, כגון זריקת הדם והקטרת חלבים ואברים, ניסוך המים והיין, ורק על עבודות אלה שהן מתנות – אם קרב זר עליהם חייב מיתה, אבל עבודה שאיננה מתנה, כלומר שאין בה נתינה, כגון תרומת הדשן, שאין בה כי אם עבודת סילוק, שמסלקין ומסירין מעל המזבח, אין בה חיוב מיתה לזר...
(R. Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenberg):
S..v. A service of gift: It means to say [that] the service of priesthood given to them exclusively, all [involves giving]. This is to say, giving to something else, such as the sprinkling of blood, the burning of fats and limbs, the pouring of the water and the wine. And it is only about these forms of service which are gifts, that the non-priest who approaches is liable for death. But forms of service which are not gift - meaning to say, that do not include giving, such as the removal of the ashes, which only includes the service of removal, since they remove them and put them away from the altar - do not carry a liability for death for the non-priest...
1. From the point of view of syntax, there are two approaches to "service of gift," in the four commentators above. What are they?
2. Explain the difference between Rashi and Ramban.
3. Explain the difference between Hirsch and the author of HaKetav VeHaKabalah.
| ג. האמירה לכהנים 'אני חלקך ונחלתך' |
| C. The Statement, "I am your portion and your inheritance" |
"Thou shalt have no inheritance in their land, neither shalt thou have any portion among them; I am thy portion and thine inheritance"
בארצם לא תנחל - בשעת חילוק הארץ. וחלק לא יהיה לך בתוכם - בביזה: אני חלקך ונחלתך - על שולחני אתה אוכל ועל שולחני אתה שותה.
(Bamidbar 18:20) " In their land you will not inherit" — in the division of the land. "and you will not have a portion in their midst" — ("a portion") of the spoils. "I am your portion and your inheritance" — At My table (i.e., from the sacrifices) you eat and at My table you drink.
S.v. In their land, you shall not inherit: such that you should inherit your portion like one of all the [other] tribes of Israel. And you will not even get a small portion in their land. For the cities that were given to them were cities of refuge, and they are for the sake of Israel...