לקוטי שיחות חלק לג - קרח א

In the verse "And Moses was very angry, and he said to the L‑rd, 'Do not turn to their offering, etc.'" Rashi quotes "Do not turn to their offering" and explains, "According to the simple meaning, the incense they will offer before You tomorrow, do not turn to them. The Midrash says, 'I know that they have a portion in the communal offerings; even their portion should not be accepted before You favorably. Leave it as fire and do not consume it.'"

The commentators have written the reason Rashi needed to bring the Midrash's explanation and did not suffice with the simple explanation—that it refers to "the incense they will offer before You tomorrow, do not turn to them"—because it is difficult to understand how Moses could think that the incense offered by these wicked people would be accepted favorably before G‑d, and he needed to request from G‑d "do not turn." Therefore, Rashi brings the Midrash's explanation that it refers to their portion in the communal offerings, for which a special prayer is needed that "their portion should not be accepted before You favorably, etc."

However, there is a difficulty with this, for this issue with the simple explanation is not in a specific detail but in the overall explanation. Therefore, seemingly, this explanation should not have been considered at all from the outset. If so, why does Rashi bring this explanation at all, and even more so, as the first and primary explanation? He should have brought only the Midrash's explanation alone (as we find in several places where Rashi brings only the Midrash's explanation).

It would seem that this is why Rashi precedes (before the first explanation) with "According to the simple meaning, the incense, etc." [and not as is his usual manner, where when he first explains the simple meaning of the verse, he does not mention that it is "according to the simple meaning"]—to emphasize that even though it is immediately evident that this explanation is fundamentally difficult, nevertheless, this is the explanation of the verse "according to its simple meaning" (that is, according to the straightforward language of this verse).

But this explanation in Rashi's words is not plausible at all, because it is obvious that Rashi would not bring (and certainly not precede) such an explanation that is refuted and difficult due to the content of the matter (even if it is the simple meaning of the language of the verse). And since, despite the aforementioned difficulty, Rashi brings the explanation "according to its simple meaning," and not only that, but he precedes it to the "Midrash" explanation, it must be said that this explanation is closer to the simple meaning of the verse (not only because of the superficial language of the verse, but also) because of its content, meaning it is closer to resolving the words of the scripture than the Midrash.

This will be understood by first examining the precision in Rashi's language "the incense they will offer before You tomorrow, do not turn to them"—meaning, to the people offering—and he did not write "do not turn to it," which (a) would fit better with the beginning of his words: "the incense... do not turn to it"; and primarily (b) fits the content of the request in the verse "do not turn to their offering," where the turning (tifneh) is to the offering and not to the people offering.

[Indeed, in the Ramban, he quotes Rashi as saying "to it," and this is how it appears in several versions of Rashi. However, since we find in several places the version before us "to them," there is reason to conclude that this is the main version, as explained many times, that when two versions are found in Rashi—a version that is easily understood and a version that is seemingly difficult to understand and reconcile—it is more plausible, on the contrary, that the incomprehensible version that was nevertheless brought is the correct one. It is also understood—the copyists (or printers) changed it, certainly with good and proper intentions, but in their view, the change was a correction, because only in this way would the verse and the languages in the scriptures be understood.]

It can be said that Rashi was precise and wrote "to them" and not "to it," to explain the meaning of the verse here.

The explanation for this is as follows: In Moshe's words to Korach and all his assembly, "Do this: Take for yourselves censers, Korach and all his assembly, and put fire in them and place incense upon them before the L‑rd tomorrow, and it shall be that the man whom the L‑rd chooses, he is the holy one," Rashi comments: "Do this: Take for yourselves censers—What did he see to say this to them? He said to them, etc., we have only, etc., one High Priest, and you, two hundred and fifty men, are seeking the High Priesthood. I too desire this, but here is the most cherished service of all, the incense, which is more cherished than all the offerings, and a deadly poison is placed within it, through which Nadav and Avihu were burned. Therefore, he warned them, etc., the one whom He chooses will emerge alive, and all of you will perish."

According to this, it is understood that the clarification that Aharon "is the holy one" comes through the fact that Aharon "emerges alive and all of you perish," because since "we have only one High Priest," to whom the service of the incense belongs and not to others, it follows that the incense of "all of you" is foreign incense—and a non-priest who offers incense is liable to death, similar to Nadav and Avihu who were burned by it—therefore "all of you perish," and the one who "emerges alive" is the one chosen by G‑d.

However, all this was initially, when Moshe thought that those two hundred and fifty men were seeking the High Priesthood (something that "I too desire"). But after the discussions and the gentle words and words of peace that Moshe spoke to Korach and the sons of Levi ("Is it too little for you that the G‑d of Israel has separated you, etc."), and after Moshe sent to call Dathan and Abiram, etc.—"for Moshe was going around to reconcile them with words of peace"—and all his words and efforts were of no avail, and they persisted in their rebellion, then—"Moshe was very distressed"—he was exceedingly pained, and then he said, "Do not turn to their offering": "The incense they are offering before You tomorrow, do not turn to them," meaning that their punishment should not be like the death of Nadav and Avihu, a punishment for offering foreign fire, but rather "do not turn to them at all," that they should die because of their own sin and rebellion.

According to this, Moshe's words "do not turn to their offering" are sweetened, and not "do not accept their, etc.," or "do not take their, etc.," and the like, because here the intention is not that He should not accept their offering of incense, for that is obvious and what would it teach us (as mentioned above in section 1)—but rather that He should not turn to them at all, so that it will be evident that their death did not come as a result of offering incense (but rather that it was improper).

The reason for this is understood: Initially, when there was room to think that the two hundred and fifty men wanted the High Priesthood, thinking they were worthy of it, Moshe told them that through the incense, G‑d would choose who is worthy of the priesthood, and all of them would perish because of the deadly poison in the incense; but after he saw that all their challenge, the challenge of the two hundred and fifty leaders of the assembly, was merely part of the overall dispute of Korach, Dathan, and Abiram against Moshe and Aharon, etc., as mentioned above—there is no need to punish for the specific act of offering foreign incense, but rather there should be a punishment that nullifies the overall and primary issue, the overall challenge to Moshe's mission and Aharon's priesthood.

This is proven from the continuation of the verses, where the verse that states the punishment of the two hundred and fifty men—"And a fire came forth from the L‑rd and consumed the two hundred and fifty men who offered the incense"—does not follow the story of their offering of incense, but rather follows the punishment of the swallowing of "all the people who were with Korach and all the property."

This is why Rashi is precise in saying "do not turn to them" and not "to it," the offering (incense), because Moshe's request was not in relation to the incense—but primarily in negation in relation to the individuals, as mentioned above.

And with this, we can explain the change in the language of the verses in Moshe's command regarding the offering of the incense, which was commanded twice:

In the first instance, Moshe said, "This do: take for yourselves censers, Korach and all his congregation, and put fire in them and place incense upon them before the L‑rd tomorrow, and it shall be that the man whom the L‑rd chooses, he is the holy one, etc." However, after "Moshe was very angry, etc., do not turn to their offering, etc.," he said to them a second time, "You, etc., and Aharon, etc., and each man take his censer, etc., and bring them before the L‑rd." There are two main differences between these instances: (a) In the first instance, it is stated only "and put, etc., and place, etc., before the L‑rd," but in the second instance, there is also a command regarding the bringing — "and bring them before the L‑rd." (b) In the first instance, it is not mentioned that Aharon was also commanded to offer incense, unlike in the second instance.

According to the above, it can be said that the change in the second instance is a continuation of Moshe's request, "Do not turn to their offering."

The explanation is as follows:

After "Moshe was very angry and said, etc., do not turn to their offering," the intention here (as explained at length above) is "do not turn (at all) to them," meaning they should not be punished because they offered foreign incense but because of their rebellion, etc. It could be thought that through this request, Moshe caused it not to be considered at all as an act of offering incense (even foreign incense). Therefore, the scripture needed to emphasize that nevertheless, there was an act of bringing incense — "and bring them before the L‑rd." This is why the scripture explains that Aharon also offered incense, which emphasizes that this is an act of incense service, which pertains to the priesthood.

The necessity for it to be considered an act of offering incense is because it is explicitly stated later in the portion that the censers with which they offered the incense were sanctified, as G‑d spoke to Moshe: "Say to Elazar, the son of Aharon the priest, and he shall lift up the censers, etc., for they are sanctified," and Rashi comments, "for they are sanctified — the censers and they are forbidden for benefit because they made them service vessels." If it were to be said that in practice their offering was not even considered foreign incense, how were the censers sanctified? Therefore, the scripture needs to inform here that nevertheless, there was an act of bringing incense.

In contrast, in the first command at the beginning of the matter, there is no need to emphasize that this is the service of incense, because Moshe had not yet requested "do not turn, etc." It can be said that there it is important to emphasize only the existence of incense, because the very matter of incense (even without the service involved) is sufficient to test who is "the holy one" whom "the L‑rd will choose," as Rashi precisely states that Moshe said to Korach and his congregation, "Here is a beloved service for you... and a deadly poison is placed within it," meaning, the advantage is that it is a "beloved service," and on the other hand, "a deadly poison is placed within it," so those whom the L‑rd did not choose — "(all of you) perish."

However, Rashi is not satisfied with this explanation, because there are still several difficulties in reconciling the words of the scripture:

From the straightforward continuation of the scripture, "Moshe was very angry and said to the L‑rd, do not turn to their offering," it implies that this request contains a general novelty regarding the matter discussed in the portion, namely, the challenge to Aharon's priesthood. It is reasonable that Moshe does not need to make a special request for G‑d to do everything necessary to negate the dispute and challenge to the priesthood.

Therefore, it is more fitting to interpret that this was a special request about a matter that is not inherently related to their action and dispute against Aharon.

In general, it is difficult to say that Moshe's entire request was only about the manner of rejecting their incense offering.

Because of these difficulties (which are not just specific difficulties in this interpretation, but there is a general difficulty in the overall meaning of the scriptures), Rashi prefaces that this interpretation is "according to the simple meaning," that even though this interpretation is difficult to reconcile with the continuation of the scripture — according to the simple meaning, this is the content of the scripture.

Due to this difficulty, Rashi adds another interpretation: "And the Midrash says, I know that they have a portion in the communal offerings, even their portion should not be accepted before You favorably, etc." This matter — "a portion in the communal offerings" (a) is an independent matter that is not related to their offering of incense, nor to the dispute and challenge to Aharon's priesthood in general, (b) it is a positive matter, as each one of the children of Israel has a portion in the communal offerings.

And regarding this, Moshe's special request comes, "Do not turn to their offering," that even their portion in the communal offerings should not be accepted favorably, that "the fire should leave it and not consume it."

In this, Moshe intended (not only to bring upon them another specific punishment, but) to further negate the dispute and challenge against the priesthood. This means that not only are they not related to the priesthood and deserve punishment for this, but they are as if separated, G‑d forbid, from the community of Israel. In the matter in which all of Israel is united — the communal offerings — regarding them, their portion is not accepted favorably.

However, it is understood that this interpretation is not according to the simple meaning and is only from the words of the "Midrash" — because in this verse and throughout this entire section, the matter of "communal offerings" is not mentioned (even as a hint).

There are wondrous matters in halacha in this Rashi:

In the Midrash, it is stated, "I know that these have a portion in that offering which they offered, as it is said, 'besides the continual burnt offering and its meal offering,'" and Rashi changes and writes, "I know that they have a portion in the communal offerings."

It can be said that Rashi follows his own reasoning, that he holds that less than the value of a perutah is not considered "his" (as it is stated in Tractate Sukkah), and according to this, it cannot be said that the congregation of Korach has a portion in that offering, since their portion is not worth a perutah, and therefore it cannot be considered "theirs." Therefore, Rashi changed from the language of the Midrash "in that offering which they offered" (in which certainly they do not have the value of a perutah) and wrote "that they have a portion in the communal offerings," meaning (not the meal offering or the continual offering of that day, but) the communal (plural) offerings of the entire year, that the portion they have (for each individual) in the communal offerings of the entire year — together it is something that can properly be called a "portion." And regarding this, Moshe requested that "their portion in the communal offerings (of the entire year) not be accepted favorably before You."

We can add to the "wondrous matters" in the way of hint in Rashi's commentary — that in the precise wording "they have a portion in the communal offerings," there is a hint to the words of the Arizal that holiness does not depart from its place, as the Alter Rebbe writes that "even after it ascends higher and higher" — nevertheless, "it is not completely uprooted from its original place and level."

In advance of the question in Rashi's words "they have a portion in the communal offerings," seemingly, besides the question (mentioned above) regarding the value of the matter and its monetary law (since their portion is not worth a perutah) — we come here to the well-known discussion regarding a communal offering, that since it is a matter of the community, it has no connection to the individual, because the definition of a community is not a partnership of several individuals, but a new entity, in such a way that there is no connection to the individuals as individuals, and therefore it is not appropriate to say "portion" for several individuals separately.

It can be explained as follows:

Rashi's intention (that they have a portion in the communal offerings) simply is — since all of Israel gave the half-shekel from which the communal offerings were purchased (as Rashi explained earlier), it turns out that each one of Israel has a portion in the communal offerings.

And even though it must be given over to the community properly, so that it becomes a new entity of communal property and the status of a communal offering, and not a participation of several individuals — nevertheless, since the entity of "community" and the communal fund was created by the giving of the half-shekel of each individual, it is impossible for the individual's connection to the offering to be completely nullified and uprooted (which is through the half-shekel he gave, which is his personal mitzvah, especially since the giving of the half-shekel was to atone for your souls), and in the language of the Alter Rebbe mentioned above that "even after it ascends higher and higher" to become the status of a community, nevertheless, the advantage (and holiness) that was effected by the individual's giving is not "completely uprooted," and therefore it is possible to say "they have a portion in the communal offerings."

Based on all the above, we can also explain the precision in the wording "I know (that they have a portion in the communal offerings)" — seemingly unnecessary, and it should have said "they have a portion in the communal offerings" or similar.

The explanation for this is as follows: The aforementioned concept, that even after the half-shekel becomes a communal property, there remains a connection between the individual and the communal offering purchased through his half-shekel, is not something that can be understood by everyone on their own. It is only through Moshe Rabbeinu, who is the leader of the generation, that this understanding is possible.

According to the natural order of things, the community and the individual are two opposite categories and types. Just as with offerings, a personal offering and a communal offering are two different species, and one is not like the other. This distinction also extends to the order of the world, where there are two general approaches in the organization of human societies (such as states and the like): there is a system that emphasizes the needs of the community and the collective, even at the expense of the individual, diminishing or even negating them. And there is an approach that emphasizes the freedom, welfare, and benefit of the individual, each person on their own (to the extent that sometimes the good of the community is set aside for the benefit of the individual), because in this system, the value of the individual is decisive and determines the order of life.

However, all this is from the perspective of the "order" — the order of the community and the order of the individual on their own. But as it is from the perspective of the "leader of the generation," where "the leader is everything" — he has the power and ability to unite both advantages. This is also true regarding the existence of the leader himself — these two aspects are included within the leader: on one hand, he is one person, and on the other hand, all his matters and actions pertain to the entire community. Similarly, in the aspect of his leadership itself, the leadership is not only over the entire community but he is the leader of each and every individual separately [and it can be said that this is the precision in the language of the Rashba "the king is like the community, that the community and all of Israel depend on him," that the dependence on the king is not only the dependence of the community, which is one entity, but also the dependence of all Israel, each one individually (many individuals)].

Therefore, it is specifically through Moshe, the "leader of the generation," that the knowledge is drawn and comes forth (which acts and produces fruits in actuality), that even in the communal offerings, which are entirely of the nature of a communal offering and not a partnership offering, the portion of the individual is not nullified. Consequently, the funds present in the (communal) offering, which is of a higher and completely different perfection, have a connection and relationship also to the individual, not only as part of the community but also as a part and individual in his own right.

The portion of Korach often coincides with the third of Tammuz, the day when "freedom was granted" to my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe, the leader of the generation, from his imprisonment for spreading Torah and strengthening religion.

The above point and content can be found in the "great work" he did in spreading Torah and strengthening religion, that even though it was on a large and broad scale affecting the community and all of Israel (both in that country and certainly and all the more so after leaving that country), nevertheless, this did not, G‑d forbid, detract from his interest and effort in the welfare of the individual, both spiritually and materially. To the extent that he devoted himself for the benefit of a private individual, even when the person he was benefiting was not at all in the category of "his fellow in Torah and mitzvos," but was entirely beyond his level.

This advantage is continued by the leader of the generation to each and every one who follows in his ways and engages in spreading Torah and strengthening religion, so that they can work and act in spreading Judaism and its wellsprings to the community and the public, while at the same time not diminishing in their efforts for the benefit of the individual.

Through this manner of work, they bring about the redemption not only of the entire Jewish people but also of each and every individual [as was the case with the redemption of my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe, on the 12th and 13th of Tammuz, as he emphasizes in his well-known letter "not only did the Holy One, blessed be He, redeem me on the 12th of Tammuz, but also all those who love our holy Torah, observe mitzvos, and even those who are called by the name Israel, for every Jew (regardless of his personal state in observing and fulfilling the mitzvos) has a sincere heart with G‑d and His Torah"].

The Holy One, blessed be He, redeems not only the entire Jewish people but also each individual, as it is written, "And you shall be gathered one by one, O children of Israel." Each person is taken individually, as Rashi explains that G‑d "literally holds each person by the hand." Yet, they all unite together into a "great congregation" that "shall return here" in the true and complete redemption, speedily in our days, literally.

(From the talks of Shabbos Parshas Korach 5747, 11th of Nissan 5731)