It has been discussed many times that Rashi, in his commentary on the Torah, addresses the complaints and questions that arise in the verses. The main point here is the verse "the staff of Aaron" which stands out in the narrative. Rashi does not provide an explanation for the phrase "the staff of Aaron" in the context of the verse "to be a sign for the rebels," as it seems self-explanatory that it was chosen to signify Aaron's selection for the priesthood.
The question arises as to why Rashi does not comment on this verse, or why he does not provide an explanation for the selection of the staff of Levi over the other tribes. After the verse recounts the swallowing of the rebels, Rashi explains that the sign was not only for the tribe of Levi but also for the priesthood. The blossoming of the staff was a sign for both the tribe of Levi and the priesthood, as indicated by the verse "the staff of the man whom I choose will blossom."
Regarding the staff of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, as the prince of the tribe of Levi, just like with the other tribes, the staff was taken from the prince of each tribe. If the names of the princes and Aaron were not written on the staffs (as the verse states, "each man shall write his name on his staff, and write Aaron's name on the staff of Levi"), then the name of the tribe would have been written instead. Other commentators explain that the sign of the staff was also for Aaron's priesthood, as evidenced by the fact that:
a) The blossoming occurred specifically in the letters of the name "Aaron," and not on another part of the staff; b) The sprouting of the bud hints at the high priesthood due to its unique nature.
However, all of this is well understood (even if briefly mentioned) in Rashi's commentary here as well. We need to understand: even according to the above, that there are several proofs that the sign was also for Aaron's priesthood, it is not clear why this additional sign was necessary at all.
There were already sufficient previous signs, as explained. It can be said that the explanation for all of this will become clear through Rashi's commentary on the verse "and it blossomed," as will be explained further.
Regarding the words "and it blossomed," Rashi says "in its meaning," and it is not understood: a) Rashi should have said this the first time it is mentioned in our context, at "his staff will blossom," or at least the second time. b) It is understood simply that Rashi does not explain the language of the verse except where the simple meaning is not apparent. In the meaning of the words and the verse, he does not explain (because it does not need explanation), and therefore Rashi says "in its meaning" where the explanation is evident from the language of the verse (its explanation as it sounds) — and when Rashi says "its explanation as it sounds" and similar expressions, it is to negate an interpretation that is not "as it sounds," and nevertheless would be.
However, according to this principle, the question becomes even stronger. When Rashi interprets the words "and it blossomed," it makes it even clearer that "and it sprouted a bud" does not need explanation (since it is "as it sounds"). But when he does explain "as it sounds," it implies that he is warning against and excluding another interpretation. This is evident when Rashi comments on the word "tzitz" and explains, "It is the budding of the fruit when the flower falls."
Rashi's approach, as is known, is to explain the simple meaning of the verse — that is, the interpretation of the words (and the subject matter) — and he does not add details unless they are necessary for understanding the simple meaning. We need to understand: what is relevant here about the detail and manner of plant growth, that "the budding of the fruit is when the flower falls"?
It is known, as has been discussed many times, that Rashi's language is extremely precise. We must understand: the reason Rashi brings the expression "and the unripe fruit will ripen" is clear (according to Rashi's own language), because from this it is evident that this expression (and it will ripen) is found not only with children, because they are weaned from their mother's milk, but also with fruits. However, what is the precision (and addition in his language) in "the fruit of the tree," and not simply "fruits"?
In the simple meaning of the verse, several questions arise, including:
a) The L‑rd said, "And the man whom I choose, his staff will blossom" — why was this (in practice) with a change (and additions) — it not only blossomed, but also "it sprouted a bud and produced almonds"?
b) In this verse, there seems to be a redundancy — after the verse states "and behold, it blossomed," it again states "and it sprouted a bud."
Our Rabbis in the Beis HaTorah answer this redundancy of "and behold, it blossomed" and "and it sprouted a bud," that there were two types of blossoms: on one side of the staff were blossoms that remained there and never fell off, and on the other side of the staff was "and it sprouted a bud and produced almonds," blossoms that later fell off, as is the way of all tree blossoms. However, according to Rashi's interpretation, this cannot be learned, because such a novelty Rashi, according to his method of interpretation, would have needed to state explicitly — and it is not even hinted at.
Rashi comes to answer these questions with his explanation that "and it sprouted a bud" means "as it sounds," and "it sprouted a bud" — it is the budding of the fruit when the flower falls.
A bloom, it is understood that the term "it will blossom," "it blossomed" earlier does not mean the blooming of a flower. The term "it will blossom," "it blossomed" (in the language of the verse), when it speaks in relation to a tree, means "as it sounds," that branches sprouted blossoms (and in a tree that bears fruit, it is the blooming of flowers from which fruits later grow); and in a barren tree, it is the blooming of flowers that do not bear fruit.
When it speaks about a tree, the term "פרח" (blossom) is not limited specifically to the blooming of a flower, but rather it is a general addition (an enhancement) to the staff — a blossoming, anything that grows or comes later. As the language indicates: "יפרח" (will blossom) — like "צדיק כתמר יפרח" (the righteous shall flourish like a palm tree).
Therefore, Rashi needs to clarify when it says "ויצא פרח" (and it sprouted a bud) — that "פרח" here means, as it sounds, a bloom, a flower — not like the terms "יפרח" and "פרח" that appear earlier, which are, as mentioned, not limited to their literal meaning. Rashi needs to explain this earlier explicitly (and in detail), because the term "פריחה" (blossoming) has already been learned earlier, and it is understood that here, when it speaks about a staff, it means the emergence of a flower, a bloom that includes the growth of blossoms, buds, and fruits.
And since the term "מטהו יפרח" (his staff will blossom) in G‑d's speech refers to the general concept of blossoming — beginning with the emergence of the flower and all the details that follow — it is understood that when G‑d said in general (as in many places), "מטהו יפרח" (his staff will blossom), it only accounts in detail for "ויצא פרח ויצץ ציץ ויגמול שקדים" (and it sprouted a bud, and it produced blossoms, and it yielded almonds).
Similarly, the redundancy of the expression is understood generally — "פרח מטה אהרן" (the staff of Aaron blossomed) as G‑d said "מטהו יפרח" (his staff will blossom), and then the Torah specifies the details of the blossoming: "ויצא פרח" (it sprouted a bud) — as it sounds, a bud; then "ויצץ ציץ" (it produced blossoms) — the budding of the fruit; and then "ויגמול שקדים" (it yielded almonds).
According to this, however, the question arises: Since "ויצא פרח ויצץ ציץ ויגמול שקדים" (it sprouted a bud, it produced blossoms, and it yielded almonds) is the specification of "פרח מטה אהרן" (the staff of Aaron blossomed) that appears earlier, and according to the order of time, first "ויצא פרח" (it sprouted a bud) until its end, almonds — it turns out that when "ויבא משה אל אהל העדות" (Moses came to the Tent of Testimony), all three matters had already occurred. "ויצא פרח ויצץ ציץ ויגמול שקדים" (it sprouted a bud, it produced blossoms, and it yielded almonds) — the verse should have stated only the final detail of the three, "ויגמול שקדים" (it yielded almonds), because that is what Moses saw (and not "ויצא פרח ויצץ ציץ" — as Rashbam explains).
And it is difficult to understand how, upon entering the Tent of Testimony, Moses saw the entire transition of the fruits. This was made known to the Jews through seeing the fallen blossoms: Moses took out all the staffs and showed them to the Jews — "ויצא משה את כל המטות מלפני ה' אל כל בני ישראל ויראו" (Moses brought out all the staffs from before the L‑rd to all the children of Israel and they saw) — he showed them everything — also the blossoms that had fallen during the budding of the fruit. Seeing the staffs with the almonds and also the fallen blossoms, it became clear to them that in the "Tent of Testimony" there was the entire order of "ויצא פרח" — "as it sounds," "ויצץ ציץ" — the budding of the fruit, and the falling of the blossom; and "ויגמול שקדים" (it yielded almonds).
One might ask: Why was it necessary for the Jews to know this, and in general — the natural order of the growth of almonds in the staff — since this was entirely a matter of a miracle, it would have been sufficient if it had just grown...
Rashi explains that "ויצץ ציץ" refers to "the budding of the fruit when the blossom falls." This implies, on the contrary, that it grew according to the natural order of the growth of almonds. This raises a question: If the purpose was to magnify the miracle, Rashi should have taught that it happened according to the natural order of almond growth. And if it was due to the miracle itself, it should have been that the staff would produce fully developed almonds immediately.
The explanation is that this is precisely the main point of the sign that the L‑rd made with the staffs: The swallowing up of "all the men who belonged to Korach and all their possessions" led to the knowledge and recognition that "the L‑rd has sent me to do all these works," that Moses is a messenger of the L‑rd and everything he does is by divine command. Moreover, this was revealed even more clearly through the burning of the two hundred and fifty men.
This, however, did not completely nullify the complaints of the children of Israel, as it only demonstrated that this was the L‑rd's command. Therefore, all the punishments came: It could be argued that Aaron, by himself, is equal to other Jews. "Why do you exalt yourselves?" Furthermore, one might argue (due to the incident of the Golden Calf) that specifically Aaron is not worthy, and other Jews are more deserving. Moreover, it could be that the L‑rd's command to make Aaron the High Priest came due to Moses' request and prayer, and so on.
Therefore, the sign of the staffs was necessary: With a staff, by its nature, the concept of blossoming and fruit growth is not applicable. This can only occur due to the choice and will of the Holy One, blessed be He. On the other hand, with the staffs, it was seen that the will of the L‑rd in this matter caused it to happen, and it did not remain merely a miraculous event, but it became a natural order of "ויצץ ציץ" — "the budding of the fruit when the blossom falls," and finally "ויגמול שקדים" — "when the fruit is recognized as almonds," a natural order of fruit growth.
Similarly, concerning Aaron's priesthood: The entire matter of Aaron's priesthood comes from the choice of the Holy One, blessed be He, "the man whom I choose." The L‑rd Himself chose (not due to any request from Moses, and so on), and this very choice is such that the priesthood becomes a natural attribute in him.
This also explains why the L‑rd commanded, "Return the staff of Aaron... for a keepsake, as a sign — as a reminder that I have chosen Aaron the priest and they will no longer complain about the priesthood." Since this becomes a natural and intrinsic matter in Aaron and his sons, it is impossible to say that (even if another has a desire and will for the service in the Holy Temple, or for other reasons) it should be...
Regarding the staff, it was in the same manner and nature as the growth and development of fruit on a tree. According to this, the continuation in Rashi's commentary is sweetened: "And why almonds? It is the fruit that ripens faster than all other fruits." This indicates that the punishment for those who challenge the priesthood comes swiftly.
Since the blossoming and growth of the fruits on the staff were like that of a fruit tree, to emphasize that this occurred in a natural order, it is relevant to the matter of Aaron's priesthood, as mentioned earlier. It is understood that the fact that the blossoming was specifically with almonds is also pertinent to the matter of the priesthood being discussed here. Therefore, Rashi continues, "And why almonds?" indicating that even the detail that it was specifically the almond fruit (although this does not add to the sign of Aaron's selection) is relevant to our matter. This comes to hint that the warning to those who challenge the priesthood is swift.
Based on the explanation of Rashi, a question in the Gemara is answered, which the early commentators discuss: The Gemara states, "When Aaron's staff was hidden, it was with its almonds and blossoms." The question arises: Why does the Gemara mention "blossoms"? The verse states, "and it ripened almonds," and at the completion of the almond growth, there are no longer any blossoms (which fall off earlier, as mentioned above). The answer given is that "some blossoms remained" to enhance the miracle.
This, however, is not straightforward. Why does the Gemara need to specify the blossoms when discussing the concealment of the staff? According to the above, they were indeed on the staff, and when the staff was hidden, the blossoms were also hidden. Regarding the almonds, one could say (albeit with difficulty) that this clarifies which "staff of Aaron" is being discussed here. But what is the practical difference in mentioning the blossoms?
According to the above explanation in Rashi — in the simple meaning of the verse, which makes no distinction regarding the blossoms — that all the blossoms had fallen off and Moses showed them separately from the staff, it is understood: Just as the first time Moses took out the staff with the almonds and showed the fallen blossoms to the Jews to demonstrate that it was indeed almonds, which brings out the essence of Aaron's priesthood, as explained at length earlier, so too is it understood regarding the command, "Return the staff of Aaron before the testimony for a keepsake, as a sign — as a reminder that I have chosen Aaron the priest and they will no longer complain about the priesthood," that in this "reminder" it is relevant that the "return" should include both the staff with the almonds and the separated blossoms, which brings out the manner of "I have chosen Aaron the priest."
For this reason, the concealment also included "Aaron's staff with its almonds and blossoms." Just as the concealment of the Ark was done to prevent it from falling into the hands of the enemy (as discussed at length elsewhere), because there it had the status of the place of the Ark (which is why Solomon, at the beginning of the construction of the Temple, knowing that it would eventually be destroyed, prepared a place to hide the Ark), he sanctified it as a place...
This is similarly relevant regarding the other items that were before the Ark — their concealment was with the Ark, which is why they were considered as being in the place of the Ark, and therefore, their concealment also had an effect.
Particularly concerning Aaron's staff, the teaching that it was concealed together with the Ark comes from the fact that it is written about it, "for a keepsake (as a sign)," which implies that even in the place of concealment, it serves as "a keepsake for a sign."
Therefore, the Gemara specifies in the context of the concealment, "Aaron's staff with its almonds and blossoms." All of this will be revealed with the coming of our righteous Mashiach, about whom it is stated, "In his days, the righteous will flourish," and "In his days, the priesthood will return, and Aaron's staff will blossom," speedily in our days, amen.