Parshas Korach
1. On what is stated in the parsha, that G‑d designated the priesthood and the priestly gifts for Aharon and his sons, "לחק עולם ברית מלח עולם הוא לפני ה׳ לך ולזרעך אתך . . אני חלקך ונחלתך גו׳" ("as an eternal statute; it is an eternal covenant of salt before G‑d, for you and for your descendants with you... I am your portion and your inheritance, etc.")1, the Sifri2 says: "ג׳ כתרים הם כתר תורה וכתר כהונה וכתר מלכות, כתר כהונה זכה אהרן ונטלו, כתר מלכות זכה דוד ונטלו, הרי כתר תורה מונח כדי שלא יתן פתחון פה לבאי העולם כו׳ הרי כתר תורה מונח לכל באי העולם שכל שזוכה בו מעלה אני עליו כאילו שלשתם מונחים וזוכה בכולם" ("There are three crowns: the crown of Torah, the crown of priesthood and the crown of kingship. Aharon merited the crown of priesthood and took it; David merited the crown of kingship and took it; the crown of Torah, however, lies [available], so as not to give an opening for argument to those who come into the world3, etc. The crown of Torah lies [available] for all who come into the world4, so that whoever merits it, I consider it as if all three lay [before him] and he merited them all"). And the Sifri concludes that the crown of Torah is greater than the other crowns, because "כל עצמו של שני כתרים אין באים אלא מכחה של תורה וכן הוא אומר בי מלכים ימלוכו" ("the entire essence of the two crowns comes only from the power of the Torah, and so it says5: 'Through me kings reign'").
Similar to this drasha, the Gemara6 states (in brief): "שלשה זרים הן של מזבח ושל ארון ושל שלחן של מזבח זכה אהרן ונטלו ושל שלחן זכה דוד ונטלו של ארון עדיין מונח הוא כל הרוצה ליקח יבוא ויקח שמא תאמר פחות הוא ת״ל בי מלכים ימלוכו" ("There are three crowns: of the altar, of the ark and of the table. Aharon merited that of the altar and took it; David merited that of the table and took it; that of the ark still lies [available] — whoever wishes to take it, let him come and take it. Lest you say it is lesser, Scripture says: 'Through me kings reign'").
The Rambam, in the Laws of Torah Study8, also cites the drasha7, in these words: "בשלשה כתרים נכתרו ישראל כתר תורה וכתר כהונה וכתר מלכות, כתר כהונה זכה בו אהרן שנאמר והיתה לו ולזרעו אחריו ברית כהונת עולם, כתר מלכות זכה בו דוד שנאמר זרעו לעולם יהי׳ וכסאו כשמש נגדי, כתר תורה הרי מונח ועומד ומוכן לכל ישראל שנאמר תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה קהלת יעקב כל מי שירצה יבוא ויטול שמא תאמר שאותם הכתרים גדולים מכתר תורה כו׳" ("With three crowns Israel was crowned: the crown of Torah, the crown of priesthood and the crown of kingship. Aharon merited the crown of priesthood, as it says9: 'It shall be for him and for his descendants after him a covenant of eternal priesthood'; David merited the crown of kingship, as it says10: 'His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before Me'; the crown of Torah, however, lies set and ready for all Israel, as it says11: 'The Torah which Moshe commanded us is an inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov' — whoever wishes, let him come and take it. Lest you say that those crowns are greater than the crown of Torah, etc.").
This needs to be understood: in the Talmud no proofs from verses are given — even though the Talmud is a blend of halacha, Scripture, give-and-take, etc. (and similarly in the Sifri12) — yet specifically the Rambam, in his work which is "הלכות הלכות" ("halachos upon halachos")13, brings proofs from the verses?
2. In the Hagahos Maimoniyos14 the source of the Rambam's words is noted (not only in Tractate Yoma — as in the Kesef Mishneh15 — but also) in Avos deRabbi Nosson16 — and there, indeed, proofs from verses are brought for all three crowns.
However:
a) There, two of the verses are not the ones the Rambam brings.
b) And chiefly: in Avos deRabbi Nosson the proofs from the verses are not for the positive side, as the Rambam brings them, but for the negative side — that the crown of priesthood and the crown of kingship cannot be obtained, unlike the crown of Torah. In its words (in Avos deRabbi Nosson): "כתר כהונה כיצד אפילו נותן (לו) כל כסף וזהב שבעולם אין נותנים לו כתר כהונה שנאמר והיתה לו . . כתר מלכות אפילו נותן כל כסף וזהב שבעולם אין נותנים לו כתר מלכות שנאמר ודוד עבדי נשיא להם לעולם אבל כתר תורה אינו כן עמלה של תורה כל הרוצה ליטול יבא ויטול שנאמר הוי כל צמא לכו למים" ("The crown of priesthood — how so? Even if one gives (him) all the silver and gold in the world, he is not given the crown of priesthood, as it says: 'It shall be for him...'; the crown of kingship — even if one gives all the silver and gold in the world, he is not given the crown of kingship, as it says17: 'And David My servant shall be their prince forever'18; but the crown of Torah is not so: the toil of Torah — whoever wishes to take it, let him come and take it, as it says19: 'Ho, everyone who thirsts, come to the water'")20.
Another point in the Rambam here stands out in comparison with his wording elsewhere (in the Laws of Kings21): "כיון שנמשח דוד זכה בכתר מלכות והרי המלכות לו ולבניו הזכרים עד עולם שנאמר כסאך יהי׳ נכון עד עולם" ("Once David was anointed he merited the crown of kingship, and the kingship belongs to him and to his male descendants forever, as it says22: 'Your throne shall be established forever'") — not the verse he brings here regarding "David merited the crown of kingship — 'His seed... and his throne, etc.'"
Also regarding the first verse, which the Rambam brings here as proof that Aharon merited the crown of priesthood — "as it says: 'It shall be for him and for his descendants after him a covenant of eternal priesthood'"23 — an explanation is required: in its plain meaning, the verse "It shall be for him" refers not to the (ordinary) priesthood that Aharon merited, but to the priesthood that was given as a special directive to Pinchas son of Elazar ("and for his descendants after him").
It is not understood: why does the Rambam bring the verse24 which does not speak about Aharon25, and not earlier verses in the Torah which refer explicitly to the ordinary priesthood — to Aharon and all his sons (especially since he begins with the words "Aharon merited it...") — and in our parsha: "ברית מלח עולם הוא גו׳ לך ולזרעך אתך" ("It is an eternal covenant of salt... for you and for your descendants with you")2627 (and the like)28, as indeed Rashi brings it in the Gemara29?
One must also understand another change of wording in the Rambam compared to the wording in the Sifri and in the Gemara: there it says "Aharon merited and took it... David merited and took it"30, whereas in the Rambam he omits "and took it" and says: "Aharon merited the crown of priesthood; David merited the crown of kingship."
3. The above halacha of the Rambam is copied by the Alter Rebbe in his Laws of Torah Study31, and he indeed omits the above verses which are brought in the Rambam for the fact that Aharon merited the crown of priesthood and David merited the crown of kingship.
Moreover: on the subject of the crown of Torah the Alter Rebbe says there: "כתר תורה הרי הוא מונח ועומד ומוכן לכל ישראל כל מי שירצה יבוא ויטול שנאמר מורשה קהלת יעקב שהיא ירושה לכל ישראל" ("The crown of Torah lies set and ready for all Israel; whoever wishes, let him come and take it, as it says: 'an inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov' — for it is an inheritance for all Israel"). That is, also regarding the crown of Torah (where the Alter Rebbe does bring a verse — the same one as in the Rambam), he (a) changes and reverses the order of the Rambam: first he says "whoever wishes, let him come and take it", and afterwards he brings the verse — whereas in the Rambam it is in the reverse order; (b) the Alter Rebbe adds "for it is an inheritance for all Israel", which does not appear in the Rambam32.
4. This will be understood by first explaining a question on the subject as a whole:
The Rambam is, as mentioned, a book of "halachos upon halachos." What bearing does it have on halacha here, in the Laws of Torah Study, that "with three crowns Israel was crowned", and that Aharon merited the crown of priesthood and David merited the crown of kingship?
Seemingly one could say that this is an introduction which brings out the special superiority of (the crown of) Torah, that it is higher than (the crown of) priesthood and kingship ("the crown of Torah is greater than both of them", as the Rambam concludes in that halacha) — and this matter bears on halacha, as the Rambam continues33: "אמרו חכמים ממזר ת"ח קודם לכהן גדול עם הארץ שנאמר יקרה היא מפנינים מכהן גדול שנכנס לפני ולפנים" ("The Sages said34: a mamzer who is a Torah scholar takes precedence over an ignorant Kohen Gadol, as it says35: 'It is more precious than pearls (peninim)' — than the Kohen Gadol who enters the innermost Sanctuary (lifnai velifnim)").
This, however, is not sufficient, for if it were only for this, the whole lengthy discussion would not be necessary, and it would suffice to mention only briefly that there are two other crowns, the crown of priesthood and the crown of kingship.
And further (and chiefly): if the Rambam were aiming here at the halacha that "a mamzer who is a Torah scholar takes precedence, etc.", he would have had to specify what this "precedence"36 consists of — as we find it in the Mishnah37, where this comes in continuation of the laws (in the preceding Mishnah) of who takes precedence to be kept alive and to be redeemed (and these laws the Rambam brings later, explicitly, in the Laws of Gifts to the Poor38).
From this it is understood that the matter of all three crowns and their details — that "Aharon merited the crown of priesthood" and "David merited the crown of kingship" — is something that bears on halacha (also) regarding the superiority of (the crown of) Torah in itself, not only as an introduction to its superiority over the other crowns39. And the question returns to its place: what does this add to the explanation of the crown of Torah?
One cannot say that the Rambam means by this merely to emphasize the difference of the crown of Torah — that while the crown of priesthood and the crown of kingship do not pertain to all Jews (since "Aharon merited it... David merited it"), the crown of Torah does pertain to all Jews (similar to Avos deRabbi Nosson) — for then the Rambam would have said it in wording more suited to this: in negative terms (as in Avos deRabbi Nosson) or the like40.
5. The explanation of this*:
The precise wording of the Rambam explains the definition and nature of the crown of Torah.
The expression "crown of Torah" is used in the Talmud regarding several matters, with different content. For example:
In Tractate Nedarim41: "אוי לי שנשתמשתי בכתרה של תורה" ("Woe is me, for I made use of the crown of Torah"), "כל המשתמש בכתרה של תורה" ("Whoever makes use of the crown of Torah") — by which is meant the honor of the Torah42;
In Tractate Megillah43 (according to the reading before us44): "ודאשתמש בתגא חלף . . זה המשתמש במי ששונה הלכות כתרה של תורה" ("And one who makes use of the crown passes away... this is one who makes use of one who studies halachos, the crown of Torah") — this means the "halachos"45 of the Torah. And elsewhere46.
Similarly in the Rambam's usage, "the crown of Torah" has various meanings, in accordance with the subject being discussed. We find that the Rambam uses the expression "the crown of Torah" meaning chiefly the superiority47 of the Torah (or the understanding of Torah, and the like), as for example in the halacha48: "לא ישא אדם בת עמי הארץ . . שאם מת או גולה בניו עמי הארץ יהיו שאין אמן יודעת כתר התורה" ("A man should not marry the daughter of ignorant people... for if he dies or is exiled, his children will be ignorant, since their mother does not know the crown of the Torah").
But in the halacha before us, where he brings the saying of our Sages regarding the three crowns, it means neither the honor of the Torah, nor the matter of the halachos of the Torah, nor simply Torah study, but a special superiority49 in the matter of Torah in general50.
— And in order to bring out more clearly the definition of "the crown of Torah" (in this halacha), the Rambam brings [the matter of] the crown of priesthood and the crown of kingship, and the proofs from the verses, as will be explained.
6. The crown of priesthood and the crown of kingship are not the priestly service and the rule of kingship in themselves — for even before Aharon merited the crown of priesthood there was a kohen and priestly service; similarly regarding kingship, there was already kingship earlier, with Shaul, even before David merited the crown of kingship.
What, then, does the "crown of priesthood" and the "crown of kingship" accomplish? The Rambam says: "Aharon merited the crown of priesthood, as it says: 'It shall be for him and for his descendants after him a covenant of eternal priesthood'; David merited the crown of kingship, as it says: 'His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before Me'" — that is, when one merits the crown of priesthood and the crown of kingship, it remains an eternal matter: "for him and for his descendants... eternal priesthood", "his seed forever". And as the Rambam rules in the Laws of Kings (regarding kingship): "Once David was anointed he merited the crown of kingship, and the kingship belongs to him and to his male descendants forever."
But one must understand: the Rambam rules that "המלכות ירושה" ("kingship is inherited")51 — not only the kingship of David, but kingship in general (even among the kings of Israel). Moreover: "ולא המלכות בלבד אלא כל השררות וכל המינויין שבישראל ירושה לבנו ולבן בנו עד עולם" ("And not kingship alone, but all positions of authority and all appointments in Israel are an inheritance for one's son and grandson forever")52. How, then, does the Rambam connect the superiority of the "crown of kingship" with the fact that "the kingship belongs to him (to David) and to his sons... forever" [and similarly the crown of priesthood — that "it shall be... a covenant of eternal priesthood"]?
7. The explanation of this53:
When the Rambam explains the matter of kingship among the kings of Israel, he says54: "נביא שהעמיד מלך משאר שבטי ישראל והי׳ אותו המלך הולך בדרך התורה והמצות ונלחם מלחמות ה׳ הרי זה מלך וכל מצות המלכות נוהגות בו אע״פ שעיקר המלכות לדוד ויהי׳ מבניו מלך" ("A prophet who appointed a king from the other tribes of Israel, and that king walked in the way of the Torah and the mitzvos and fought the wars of G‑d — he is a king, and all the laws of kingship apply to him, even though the essence of kingship belongs to David, and one of his sons (of that king of Israel) shall be king"). That is, even when there is kingship among the kings of Israel (and in a manner that "one of his sons shall be king" — it passes by inheritance to his sons), the "essence of kingship" remains specifically with David. The "essence of kingship" is not present among the kings of Israel.
The explanation of this: a king and kingship can exist in two ways*: a) One is called a king because one carries out the function of kingship, the activities and conduct of royal rule ("אשר יוציאם ואשר יביאם" — "who shall lead them out and who shall bring them in"55 — the details which Shmuel explained56) — and seemingly this is possible also through a viceroy, if his appointment is such that "רק הכסא אגדל ממך" ("only by the throne will I be greater than you")57. b) One is a king fully and in essence5859.
And this is "the essence of kingship": the kingship of the House of David is not only that they are kings in practice (and carry out the function of royal rule)60, but that they possess the "essence" — the very essence of the definition of kingship.
And this is the matter of the "crown of kingship": it is (not only kingship in practice, but) the very essence of the definition of kingship.
8. Accordingly we will understand what is accomplished by the fact that when "David merited the crown of kingship... the kingship belongs to him and to his sons... forever" — because in accordance with the change in the cheftza (the object) of kingship, there comes a change in the gavra (the person), the king:
When kingship is merely in the manner of an appointment to fill a function (like "all positions of authority and all appointments"), it is something added onto his existence; he possesses kingship (as he possesses property). Therefore, the fact that his kingship passes by inheritance to his sons is similar to any inheritance of an estate: just as one inherits all the property of the bequeather, so one inherits his function and appointment61. And as the Rambam says: "וכל הקודם בנחלה קודם לירושת המלוכה" ("Whoever has precedence in inheritance has precedence in inheriting the kingship")62, "וכל הקודם לנחלה קודם לשררות המת" ("and whoever has precedence in inheritance has precedence for the position of authority of the deceased")63.
When, however, one merits the crown of kingship — one has the "essence" of kingship — it becomes so also in the person (a change in the person)64, such that the matter of kingship becomes, with him, (not an addition onto his essence, but) his very being and essence — his existence is the existence and essence of a king65.
Therefore the Rambam says in Sefer HaMitzvos66 that a [OCR unclear] king who is not of "זה הזרע הנכבד (בית דוד) לענין מלכות נכרי קרינא בי׳ כמו זרע אחר בלתי זרע אהרן לענין עבודה זר קרינא בי׳" ("this honored seed (the House of David) is called a stranger regarding kingship, just as one of any seed other than the seed of Aharon is called a stranger regarding the service").
Consequently, it becomes an eternal matter — for him and for his sons forever.
Since this is the essence and being of the father, and the heir is the very existence of the bequeather, it is consequently the essence and being of his sons, and so of his heir (the son) — forever.
And this is the explanation of the Rambam's ruling (regarding the kingship of David)67: "מלכי בית דוד הם העומדים לעולם . . אבל אם יעמוד מלך משאר ישראל תפסק המלכות מביתו" ("The kings of the House of David are those who endure forever... but if a king arises from the rest of Israel, the kingship will cease from his house") — because although among the kings of Israel too the kingship passes by inheritance (as in the objection of the Raavad67), it nevertheless does not possess the quality of eternity. Whereas "the kings of the House of David are those who endure forever", because since "(David) merited the crown of kingship", it is bound up with the very essence and being of kingship and of the king.
And just as this is regarding kingship, so it is regarding priesthood: there is the priestly service, the actual priestly ministry; and then there is "Aharon merited the crown of priesthood" — Aharon merited the crown of priesthood, the essence of priesthood. And since he has the essence of priesthood, priesthood became bound up with his essence [similar to the matter of Jewishness, which is the essence and being of a Jew (and similarly with a convert who converted according to halacha)].
And therefore priesthood is with him in the manner of "for him and for his descendants after him a covenant of eternal priesthood" — eternally, as explained above regarding a king.
9. Accordingly we will also understand why the Rambam, speaking of the "three crowns", says "Aharon merited it... David merited it" and omits "and took it":
Regarding the activities of royal conduct, and similarly the priestly service, it is fitting to say "and took it": one takes and acts (in practice). But the "crown of priesthood" and the "crown of kingship" — the "essence" of priesthood and kingship, which effects the change in the person and becomes bound up with the essence of the person — in this there cannot be any "took it" (on their own), but rather "they were crowned" by G‑d.
And in light of all this it is also understood why the Rambam brings specifically the verses — (regarding the crown of priesthood) "It shall be for him and for his descendants after him a covenant of eternal priesthood", and (regarding the crown of kingship) "His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before Me" — because in these verses the above definitions are emphasized:
From the verse "It shall be for him and for his descendants after him a covenant of eternal priesthood" it is proven:
a) That this comes from G‑d68, which is emphasized in the priesthood of Pinchas, to whom G‑d gave the priesthood69 at that time, in a special manner70;
b) That this became his essence, which is why it is "for him and for his descendants after him a covenant of eternal priesthood" — it is the same "eternal covenant" for "him" and for "his descendants"71. To the point that there is the halacha, as the Rogatchover explains on this verse, that "כאן נתחדש דגם זרע פסול העבודה כשרה" ("here72 it was newly established that even [in the case of] a disqualified seed, the service is valid")73 — from which it is proven that this is not the inheritance of the performance of a function, but of something in his essence: the son, in his essence74, is the same essence as the father.
And similarly it is proven from the verse "His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before Me", which comes in continuation of the verses75 "אם יעזבו בניו תורתי ובמשפטי לא ילכון גו׳ ופקדתי בשבט פשעם ובנגעים עונם וחסדי לא אפיר מעמו גו׳" ("If his children forsake My Torah and do not walk in My judgments... then I will punish their transgression with the rod and their iniquity with plagues, but My kindness I will not remove from him..."), regarding which "the Holy One, blessed be He, assured him of this", that "the kingship will never be cut off from the seed of David"76. And afterwards it concludes in the verses: "אחת נשבעתי בקדשי אם לדוד אכזב, זרעו לעולם יהי׳ וכסאו כשמש נגדי" ("Once have I sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David: his seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before Me"). The kingship is such that no interruption is possible in it; it is an eternal throne ("as the sun before Me"); the eternity is in "his seed forever"77.
10. In light of all the above, it will be explained why, before the Rambam explains and details the matter of the crown of Torah, he prefaces the details relating to the crown of priesthood and the crown of kingship and the proofs from the verses — because specifically through this the definition of the crown of Torah among Jews is explained: that "the crown of Torah lies set and ready for all Israel, as it says: 'The Torah which Moshe commanded us is an inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov' — whoever wishes, let him come and take it."
By way of preface, at least in very brief:
Similar to the crown of a king in the literal sense — there are78 many objects of the king, among them "לבוש מלכות . . וסוס אשר רכב עליו" ("royal apparel... and the horse upon which [the king] has ridden"), and also the "royal crown", each in its own right;
and then there is how the king (uses them and) is changed by this.
So too in Torah (and in priesthood79) there is the crown of Torah (in itself) — according to the interpretation mentioned above80, that this means the halachos of the Torah (not the give-and-take, etc.) — and there is the person (who not only studies halacha — for which there must also be "and take it", at least at that time only) who is crowned with the crown of Torah.
Just as with the crown of priesthood and the crown of kingship, the definition of the "crown" is: a) from the side of the object; b) from the side of the person — it becomes (bound up with) his essence; c) in the "relationship" between the object and the person — the "crown" comes to the person in the manner of "they were crowned"81 (by G‑d), and afterwards there can be "and take it" and acting with it — taking and doing in their completeness — so too it is regarding the "crown of Torah".
And accordingly a depth is added to the statement "the crown of Torah lies set and ready for all Israel... whoever wishes, let him come and take it": in addition to the interpretation that G‑d gave the Torah in a manner that everyone who wishes to learn Torah has the ability to do so ("whoever wishes, let him come and take it"), "Israel was crowned"82 — the Torah was given to them by G‑d in a manner that it became bound up with their very essence; it is "an inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov".
In other words: "an inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov" means that the Torah "lies set and ready for all Israel" — not that it is ready "somewhere else" and ownership of it comes through his taking it ("let him come and take it"), but that it lies [within him] and has become his essence. The "let him come and take it" is merely so that the crown of Torah (with which they were crowned) should stand in such a manner that he can act fully with (through) it.
11. Accordingly one may explain — as a possible approach — the reason the Alter Rebbe (in his Laws of Torah Study) omits the verses and changes the Rambam's wording in the continuation of the halacha (as mentioned above), for one may say that the one depends on the other:
By changing and saying first "whoever wishes, let him come and take it", and afterwards bringing the proof from the verse, "as it says: 'an inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov'", and adding "for it is an inheritance for all Israel", it is emphasized more that the inheritance is not only that it "lies set and ready for all Israel" and everyone can take it, but also that the taking itself is an inheritance for all Israel83 — (not something accomplished entirely through his own deed, but) something which comes from Above and becomes his very existence, as explained above — the content which the Rambam brings out through the verses regarding the crown of priesthood and the crown of kingship.
12. And accordingly the halachic point in this in the Rambam is also understood:
The Rambam aims here to bring out not only the superiority of the crown of Torah — on account of which (as he says in the halachos that follow) "a mamzer who is a Torah scholar takes precedence over an ignorant Kohen Gadol", and "אין לך מצוה בכל המצות כולן שהיא שקולה כנגד ת״ת" ("there is no mitzvah among all the mitzvos that is equal to Torah study")84, etc. (and therefore halacha demands alacrity, etc., in Torah study) —
but also, and chiefly, how the crown of Torah has a connection and bond with every Jew as his inheritance. From this it is understood that attaining it through the ways which the Rambam brings further on in the halachos85 ["... לא יסיח דעתו לדברים אחרים ולא ישים על לבו שיקנה תורה עם העושר והכבוד כאחת כך היא דרכה של תורה כו׳" ("...he should not divert his mind to other matters, and should not set his heart on acquiring Torah together with wealth and honor at the same time... such is the way of Torah, etc."), and "עשה תורתך קבע ומלאכתך ארעי וכו׳" ("Make your Torah [study] fixed and your work occasional, etc."), and more] is not a matter of enhancing a mitzvah and the like, but is the fulfillment of this "mitzvah" properly86.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Korach 5728 and Shabbos Parshas Emor 5740)
Notes
1) Korach 18:19–20.
2) Piska 119.
3) In the Sifri it begins: "Thus you find that there are three crowns, etc." See in detail in the commentators on the Sifri the explanation of "thus you find", in continuation of what is said before it there.
4) The wording "to those who come into the world", "for all who come into the world" (and similarly in Midrash Shmuel, cited below in note 7) apparently does not mean all human beings, since these three crowns were given only to Israel, as is plain and explicit in the Rambam cited below in the text, and elsewhere. And as is also evident in the Sifri there — rather, the intent is similar to the expression "the whole world" (kula alma) in the Talmud and the like. But it is very forced to interpret the expression "those who come into the world" this way (unlike "the whole world" in the Talmud, which refers to all the parties to the dispute, etc., in the discussion) — and even [according to] its plain meaning, that the nations of the world [OCR unclear] the crown of Torah of their seven mitzvos) [OCR unclear] that it lies [available] for all. And it is explicit in Midrash Lekach Tov, beginning of Chukas: "so as not to give an opening for argument to the nations of the world." This is not the place to elaborate. — See Rosh Hashanah 1:2, "all who come into the world", and Rambam, Laws of Repentance 3:3 (from the Mishnah), "of those who come into the world". Similarly in the Rambam ibid. 7:3, end of the Laws of Shemitah and Yovel, and Laws of Kings 8:10. And in the Rambam, end of the Laws of [OCR unclear], and Laws of Sanhedrin 12:3: "all who come into the world". See Likkutei Sichos vol. 3, p. 230, and the sources cited there. This is not the place to elaborate.
*) See (in a different manner) Likkutei Sichos vol. 27, p. 246ff.
5) Mishlei 8:15.
6) Yoma 72b.
7) Similarly in Koheles Rabbah 7:1 (2), and Midrash Shmuel ch. 23. Both conclude (similar to the wording of the Sifri): "Whoever merits Torah, it is as if he merited all three, and whoever did not merit, etc." (Koheles Rabbah; and at greater length in Midrash Shmuel there). Regarding the three crowns and the superiority of the crown of Torah (that whoever merits it, it is as if he merited them all), see also Shemos Rabbah 34:2; Tanchuma, Vayakhel 8, at the end; Bamidbar Rabbah 4:14, at the end (14:10 — and there it does not conclude with the superiority of the crown of Torah); Yalkut Shimoni, Mishlei, §941.
*) Except that in Midrash Shmuel and Bamidbar Rabbah 4 ibid. (and similarly in Midrash Lekach Tov) it also concludes: "and the crown of a good name surpasses them." See also Koheles Rabbah ibid. (3).
8) Beginning of ch. 3.
9) Pinchas 25:13.
10) Tehillim 89:37.
11) Berachah 33:4.
12) See below, note 27.
13) The Rambam's introduction to the Yad (s.v. "In this time").
14) On Rambam, Laws of Torah Study ibid., sub-paragraph 1.
15) Similarly in the Lechem Mishneh, and in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, Laws of Torah Study, beginning of ch. 4, cited below in the text. And in the Migdal Oz on the Rambam: "All is in Yoma, chapter Ba Lo, and in Tractate Avos."
16) It is there at the beginning of ch. 41.
17) Yechezkel 37:25.
18) See Binyan Yehoshua on Avos deRabbi Nosson there, which explains the reason that specifically these verses about priesthood and kingship were cited in Avos deRabbi Nosson: because in them it is emphasized that they apply also in the present time; see there. But apparently this is not the (main) emphasis in Avos deRabbi Nosson, but rather that the crown of Torah pertains to everyone, unlike the crown of priesthood and the crown of kingship.
19) Yeshayahu 55:1.
20) See Likkutei Sichos vol. 7 (p. 299, and there p. 301) for the explanation of the difference between the verses in the Rambam and in Avos deRabbi Nosson there.
21) 1:7.
22) II Shmuel 7:16.
23) Note also that in Rabbeinu Yonah on Avos 4:13 the verses concerning the crown of priesthood and the crown of kingship are cited as in the Rambam. Perhaps the Rambam and Rabbeinu Yonah had before them a midrash (ibid. 7: [OCR unclear]) in which these verses are cited; or such was their reading in Avos deRabbi Nosson — similar to how the commentators resolve the Rambam's words in several places there. — See the sources noted in note 20, and see the next note.
24) And although this verse is also cited in Avos deRabbi Nosson, this does not compel the Rambam to cite the verse (on the contrary, his way is to cite a verse which is clearer, even if this is not as Chazal [cited it] — as is known from the principles of the Rambam (see Yad Malachi, Principles of the Rambam, §4)); and in this very halacha he cites (concerning kingship and Torah) other verses, and not the verses in Avos deRabbi Nosson.
25) Especially since Pinchas did not become a kohen until he killed Zimri (Zevachim 101b; Rashi on Pinchas 25:13), so that the verse refers only to Pinchas, and not to the other sons of Aharon, the kohanim. And also according to the second opinion in Zevachim there, the verse "It shall be for him and for his descendants after him" is explained — "it is written as a blessing" — as referring only to Pinchas and his descendants, as Rashi explains there, s.v. hahu: "He gave him the good tidings that the priesthood would not cease from his descendants." [See Tosafos s.v. [OCR unclear] there (according to the opinion that he became a kohen when he killed Zimri), from the Sifri (end of Balak) that eighty kohanim descended from him (from Pinchas), etc. (see the sources noted there, and the reading of the Sifri before us); but there it is derived (from the preceding verse) "My covenant of peace."]
26) And in the Mechilta, at its beginning: "Before Aharon was chosen, all Israel were fit for the priesthood; once Aharon was chosen, all Israel were excluded." It cites two verses: that of our parsha ("an eternal covenant of salt") and that of Parshas Pinchas ("It shall be for him and for his descendants after him").
27) In the Sifri there it is somewhat implied (although not explicit there) that the crown of priesthood relates to what is stated in our parsha — see there at its beginning: "and he challenged the priesthood... to a flesh-and-blood king, etc." (cited in Rashi (from the Sifri) on our parsha at the beginning of the subject (18:8)). See also the Sifri there on the verse (ibid. 19–21) "a covenant of salt... and to the sons of Levi": "Scripture tells, etc."
28) Simply put, one may say the reason is that in the verse in our parsha the word "priesthood" is not mentioned (regarding "for you and for your descendants"), as it is with Pinchas. And similarly it is understood regarding the verse in Tetzaveh (28:43), "an eternal statute for him and for his descendants after him", where the word "priesthood" is not stated. But this still requires study, for seemingly the main proof should be from a place where the matter of eternal priesthood for Aharon is more explicit, unlike the verse "It shall be for him and for his descendants after him", which speaks of Pinchas. See also Pekudei (40:15 — cited in Binyan Yehoshua on Avos deRabbi Nosson there): "Their anointing shall be for them an eternal priesthood throughout their generations."
*) See Rashi there, that the verse in general does not refer to the essence of the priesthood, but is "a decree for now and for all generations" (regarding one who serves while lacking the priestly garments).
29) Yoma (cited in note 6), s.v. Hachi garsinan: "for the priesthood was given to Aharon as a covenant of salt." Similarly cited in Avos deRabbi Nosson, version 2, beginning of ch. 48: "The crown of priesthood — this is the crown of Aharon... as it says: 'It is an eternal covenant of salt before G‑d.'" Note that regarding kingship Rashi in Yoma there writes: "and likewise kingship to David and his descendants" (and according to this reading, it is not necessarily referring to a verse (as noted in the current printings of Rashi — to Tehillim 18:51, and so in II Shmuel 22:51), unlike the reading in Rashi in the Ein Yaakov: "to David and his descendants forever"). And in Avos deRabbi Nosson there, version 2, the verse (II Divrei HaYamim 13:5) is cited: "Do you not know that the L‑rd, the G‑d of Israel, gave (the kingship) [a kingdom] to David" (note that this verse too concludes "a covenant of salt"). This verse is also cited in the Mechilta, at its beginning, regarding "once David was chosen, all Israel were excluded, as it says: 'Do you not know, etc.'"
30) And so in Koheles Rabbah and Midrash Shmuel ibid.; Midrash Lekach Tov ibid.
31) Beginning of ch. 4.
32) The fact that the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch cites from the verse only "an inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov", and omits the beginning of the verse found in the Rambam, is apparently because this was his reading in the Rambam, as it appears in several printings and manuscripts of the Rambam (noted in the Rambam cited in note 36). — Accordingly, the question that the beginning of the verse need not necessarily be cited here falls away from the outset.
33) In the next halacha there.
34) Horayos 13a — in the Mishnah (and the proof from a verse — in the Gemara there).
35) Mishlei 3:15.
36) Note the reading in the Rambam (see Rambam, Sefer HaMadda — Jerusalem 5724): "important" instead of "takes precedence".
37) Horayos ibid.
38) End of ch. 8.
39) Note that this halacha ("The Sages said: a [OCR unclear] Torah scholar, etc.") the Rambam wrote as a separate halacha; but (a) according to several readings it is not a separate halacha, but comes in continuation of halacha 1 (see the Rambam cited in note 36, and the sources cited there); (b) in the Alter Rebbe's Laws of Torah Study there it comes as one continuous passage. See Likkutei Sichos vol. 33, p. 42ff.
40) Similar to the wording of the Yalkut Shimoni on Mishlei there; and elsewhere.
*) See what follows below (in a somewhat different manner) in Likkutei Sichos vol. 33 ibid.
41) 62a.
42) See Rashi and the Ran there. So too it is cited and explicit in the Alter Rebbe's Laws of Torah Study ibid., sections 14–15. But in the Rambam ibid. 3:6, when he speaks of "the honor of the Torah", the expression "makes use of the crown of Torah" is not used, but rather: "one who derives benefit from the words of Torah". See the wording of the Rema, Yoreh De'ah 246:21; below, note 45.
43) 28b.
44) And so in the Ein Yaakov before us. And so it is cited in Iggeres HaKodesh, sec. 29.
45) As explained in Iggeres HaKodesh there. And according to the reading of the Bach (and so in several manuscripts — see Dikdukei Soferim, Megillah there), which lacks the words "the crown of Torah", apparently the meaning there (as in Nedarim) is that he makes use of one who studies halachos, i.e., he makes use of the honor of the Torah (of one who studies halachos). See the Rema there, and the Shach there, sub-paragraph 22; Be'er Heitev there, sub-paragraph 4.
46) See the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 53:33.
47) In the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Avos there (on the Mishnah "There are three crowns" [OCR unclear]): "These three good qualities were given to this nation, etc." This implies that he interprets "crown" in the sense of "qualities" (and in the Kafich edition: "great qualities, etc.").
48) Laws of Forbidden Relations, end of ch. 21.
49) Similarly in Rambam, Laws of Kings ibid.: "Once David was anointed he merited the crown of kingship, and the kingship belongs to him and to his sons, etc."
50) And so the expression "crown of Torah" ibid., [OCR unclear]. One may say that this is why in halacha [OCR unclear] there he did not mention the expression "the crown of Torah" with regard to the honor of the Torah (as mentioned in note 42), because the concept "crown of Torah" in this chapter is not in the sense of the honor of the Torah and the like, as in the matter of "making use of the crown of Torah".
*) Explained at length in Likkutei Sichos vol. 27, p. 243ff. See also Likkutei Sichos vol. 34, p. 43ff.
51) Laws of the Temple Vessels 4:20; Laws of Kings ibid.
52) Laws of Kings ibid. Similarly in the Laws of the Temple Vessels ibid.
53) Regarding what follows (concerning the kingship of David), see at length Likkutei Sichos vol. 25, p. 110ff.; vol. 30, p. 99ff.
54) Laws of Kings ibid. 1:8.
*) Note Hemshech 5672, ch. 122.
55) Pinchas 27:17.
56) I Shmuel 8:10ff.; Rambam, Laws of Kings ch. 4.
57) Mikeitz 41:40.
58) Perhaps one may say there is a practical difference regarding a king, who once he has bowed does not straighten up again (Berachos 34a–b; Rambam, Laws of Prayer 5:10) — that during his prayer there are no acts of kingship (and they are forbidden).
59) And regarding David during those six months when he did not receive atonement as a king (see Yerushalmi, Rosh Hashanah 1:1; Horayos, end of ch. 3, halacha 2), see Likkutei Sichos vol. 25 ibid., p. 107, note 21, from Responsa Avnei Nezer, Yoreh De'ah 312 — that one may say that even then he had the status of a king, only that regarding the goat-offering there is a special law. See there.
60) Not only according to what the Ramban writes on the Torah (Vayechi 49:[OCR unclear]), that the other kings who were not of the kings of the House of David are "like judges and officers", but even according to the view of the Rambam cited above, that "a prophet who appointed a king, etc. — he is a king, and all the laws of the king apply to him", he nevertheless writes that this is not "the essence of kingship". See the objections of the Raavad there, halacha 9.
61) And similarly regarding the inheritance of the Kohen Gadol, explained in the Laws of the Temple Vessels.
62) Laws of Kings ibid.
63) Laws of the Temple Vessels ibid.
64) Note Rambam, Laws of Repentance 8:2: "And likewise what they said, 'their crowns on their heads', means: the knowledge which they knew, on account of which they merited the life of the World to Come, is with them, and it is their crown... so the crown of which the Sages spoke here is knowledge." From this it is understood that although a crown — a diadem — in its plain sense is above the head and separate from it, its essence and content is that it changes (becomes part of) his existence.
65) Note that the testimony for the House of David is that whoever is fit for kingship, it (the crown) fits him — Avodah Zarah 44a, end — "it sits well on his head, etc." (Rashi there, s.v. holmehu).
66) Negative commandment 362.
67) Laws of Kings ibid. 1:9.
68) Unlike the verse in our parsha, "an eternal covenant of salt... for you and for your descendants with you", which was made through the priestly gifts (Sifri, and Rashi there, 18:8).
69) See above, note 25.
70) And he merited this, as the verse continues: "because he was zealous for his G‑d and made atonement, etc." — unlike in our parsha, which came only after Korach challenged the priesthood. And it is obvious regarding the other verses before it (cited above in note 28), which do not relate at all to a special matter or event.
71) Unlike in Pekudei (cited above in note 28), "Their anointing shall be for them an eternal priesthood throughout their generations", where "eternal" is not stated explicitly regarding his descendants.
72) Tzafnas Paneach on the Torah, beginning of Parshas Pinchas (from Kiddushin 66b). See there.
73) "That is to say, although the one who performs it does so improperly, for he is like a non-kohen in all respects, nevertheless the service is valid" (Tzafnas Paneach there). And although in the Rambam, Laws of Entering the Sanctuary 6:10, he cites (and its source is Kiddushin there) the verse (Berachah 33:11) "Bless, O L‑rd, his substance, etc." — perhaps the Tzafnas Paneach means that the derivation is from there, but here (in the episode of Pinchas) this was newly established. This requires study.
74) And the action through which he was desecrated does not change him — similar to Jewishness, where "although he sinned (whatever sin it may be), he is a Jew" (Sanhedrin 44a).
75) Tehillim 89:31ff.
76) Rambam, Laws of Kings ibid. 1:7.
77) Unlike the verse "Your throne shall be established forever", which he cites in the Laws of Kings there, where "forever" is stated only regarding "your throne", and the expression "forever" is not explicit regarding his descendants. For there (and similarly in [OCR unclear] there) the concern is the eternity of David's throne, whereas here in the Laws of Torah Study it is an introduction to the crown of Torah, which is in the manner of "an inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov" (as explained below in the text); therefore he cites specifically the above verse.
78) Esther 6:8. See Rashi (ibid. 9) that he did not mention the crown (specifically), etc.
79) The "object" of the crown of priesthood, one may say, is the incense — and that is why the clarification of the priesthood in our parsha was specifically through it. This is not the place to elaborate.
80) Section 5.
81) And the fact that the Rambam writes regarding the crown of priesthood and the crown of kingship "Aharon merited it... David merited it" — and not "it was given to Aharon, etc., it was given to David" (as in Rabbeinu Yonah on Avos there) — is because this emphasizes more that it was "acquired" by them, that it became part of their essence and existence (see the wording of the Rambam, Laws of Torah Study ibid. 3:6: "you will not merit the crown of Torah"; ibid. 3:13: "one who wishes to merit the crown of Torah").
82) This expression — "Israel was crowned" — is found neither in the Sifri nor in Yoma, and it is absent from all the sources cited above in note 7 (and in all of them it says "there are three crowns" or the like). But it is stated explicitly in Sefer HaBahir, §152: "With three crowns Israel was crowned" (and there it continues: "the crown of priesthood, the crown of kingship, and the crown of Torah above them"). And in Bamidbar Rabbah 14 ibid.: "three crowns which the Holy One, blessed be He, gave to Israel" on this.
83) Note the three levels in Torah: inheritance, purchase (toil), and gift — noted and explained at length in Likkutei Sichos vol. 13, p. 115ff. See also below, p. 176ff.
84) Rambam ibid. 3:3.
85) Halacha 6ff. — And see Likkutei Sichos vol. 26, cited above, in the gloss to note 50.
86) Rambam ibid. 3:6. Note that in the Alter Rebbe's Laws of Torah Study, ch. 3, beginning of section 3, he writes: "Therefore one whose heart moves him to fulfill this mitzvah properly", and does not cite the continuation of the Rambam's wording, "and to be crowned with the crown of Torah". Perhaps one may say that since the order of the halachos in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch differs from the Rambam's Laws of Torah Study, and the Alter Rebbe wrote the matter of the crown of Torah only at the beginning of ch. 4, he therefore did not mention this expression before that, here. Note also the difference in wording of the Alter Rebbe there 4:8 — regarding Torah study at night — "Therefore one who wishes to merit the crown of Torah" (kesser Torah), while in the Rambam there 3:13 (regarding the same) "Therefore one who wishes to merit the crown of the Torah" (kesser haTorah). This is not the place to elaborate. See Likkutei Sichos vol. 34, p. 42ff.
*) See the Rambam cited above in note 36 — several textual variants in the expression "with the crown of the Torah".
Key Lesson
The crown of Torah is not an external acquisition but every Jew's inheritance, bound up with his very essence, just as the crowns of priesthood and kingship became the very being of Aharon and David. Therefore making Torah study fixed and devoting oneself to it is not an added enhancement but the proper fulfillment of the mitzvah itself.