פרשה: קרח · עלייה: שישי (יסוד)

ויעש משה כאשר צוה השם כן עשה, Moses did as G'd commanded, so he did. The reason that the Torah repeated the same statement twice may be as follows: The first statement indicates that Moses carried out G'd's instructions immediately; the second statement כן עשה refers to his replacing the rod of Aaron in the Sanctuary. The word כאשר therefore refers to both actions.

כל הקרב הקרב..ימות, "Anyone that comes near..that comes near will die." Only now did the message penetrate the average Israelite's head although they had been informed about this previously. This is remindful of a proverb cited in Shir Hashirim Rabbah on the verse (Song of Songs, 1,2: "May he kiss me with the kisses of his mouth." The proverb says that if one slaughters an animal one will suffer terrible pain."

אתה ובניך ובית אביך, "you and your sons, and your father's family." I believe the words ובית אביך refer to Moses, who was also a descendant of Aaron's father, to warn him to observe all the strictures i.e. to prevent unauthorised people from entering the Temple (Tabernacle) precincts. If the word was meant to apply to the Kehatites, in what way were these different from all the other Israelites when it came to entering the Tabernacle? Furthermore, the next verse addresses itself specifically to the Levites which proves that the Torah did not address the Levites in the previous verse. The reason the Torah had to warn Moses was because we learned in Zevachim 102 that the priesthood was never taken away from Moses [after he had performed the sacrificial rites during the first seven days of the Tabernacle's inauguration. Ed.]. Even according to the view that Moses' appointment as a priest was limited to these seven days, I do not believe that he had been forbidden to enter the areas reserved for the priests. Our sages in the Sifri write as follows: "The words בית אביך refer to the Levites; this means that the Levites were instructed by the priests." I believe that this is an halachic exegesis, מדרש הלכה, an attempt to anchor the rules that have been handed down from Sinai in the text somehow.

אתך, "with you." In view of the fact that the Torah already mentioned Aaron by name, why did the Torah have to write the word אתך? Perhaps the Torah wanted to indicate that Moses and Aaron had a joint responsibility in this regard at all times. We should not think that Moses and Aaron as well as his sons rotated the times of their responsibility in this regard. The word אתך defines that each party concerned bore round the clock reponsibility in ensuring that the sanctity of the Tabernacle be preserved at all times.

גם הם גם אתם, "neither they nor you." According to the plain meaning the words גם הם mean "just as the Israelites who approach;" the words גם אתם mean "when you act on their account" just as in the previous verse the words about אתה ובניך.

Our sages in Erchin 11 quote the following Baraitha: גם הם גם אתם; you with what is theirs and they with what is yours in respect to the death penalty; they with what is theirs without death penalty but subject only to the penalty due for violating an ordinary negative commandment." [Priests who perform the songs allocated to the Levites are guilty of the death penalty (at the hands of heaven) just as the Levites are guilty of the death penalty if they perform the sacrificial service which is the exclusive domain of the priests. Levites who are assigned to watching the doors and sing or play musisc instead, or vice versa, are not subject to the death penalty. Ed.] Abbaye disagrees and says that even if a Levite who is assigned a certain task normally performed by the Levites performs the task allocated to another Levite instead he is also subject to death at the hands of Heaven. Rashi explains that Abbaye does not accept the wording of the Baraitha which said הם בשלהם אינה במיתה. He quoted another Tannaitic scholar who holds his view.

Maimonides who deals with this problem in chapter 3 of his Hilchot kley Hamikdash, writes as follows: "if a Levite assisted in the performance of a task which was not assigned to him [but to another Levite, Ed.] he is guilty of death as the Torah wrote ולא ימותו, "in order that they not die (our verse)." However, if a priest performs a task which is really one to be performed by a Levite he has transgressed an ordinary negative commandment but is not guilty of the death penalty." Thus far Maimonides. There are difficulties with everything Maimonides wrote in this regard. There is not a single opinion in the Talmud which supports his view that a Levite who merely assisted another Levite in the carrying out his specific task is guilty of death. In fact, all opinions agree that the prohibition of a Levite assisting another Levite in the task allotted to the latter, is only a rabbinic injunction. How could one possibly be guilty of death for violating such an injunction? Even if we accept the Talmud's concensus that the prohibition in question, namely the switching of tasks between Levites, is Biblical but does not carry the penalty of death at the hands of heaven, it follows that if a Levite actually sings although not appointed he is not guilty of death. How could Maimonides arrive at the ruling that the second Levite who merely assisted the first, albeit unbidden, should be guilty of death? Even if we were to posit that Maimonides accepted the view of Abbaye that the Levite who sang in place of the Levite who was appointed to sing is guilty of death, we still have two problems. 1) Abbaye said nothing about a Levite who only assisted the first Levite in the former's task; the Talmud makes it clear that there is a difference between someone who carries out a task and someone who merely assists. 2) Abbaye arrives at his ruling based on the verse והזר הקרב יומת (Numbers 18, 7), that the non-priest who approaches the Sanctuary (and performs sacrificial service) will be executed, whereas Maimonides quotes our verse that ולא ימותו גם הם גם אתם, that the various categories of Israelites involved would be guilty of death. [The Talmud in Erchin 11 proves that the word זר in this instance does not mean simply a non-priest but the category of priest or Levite to whom the task in question had not been allocated. Ed.] Seeing that Maimonides derives his ruling from our verse, how can we assume that he agrees with Abbaye? Why does Maimonides disagree with the Talmud?

Apparently Maimonides found support for his view in a Baraitha quoted in Sifri Zuta which writes as follows: "Rabbi Joshua ben Chananyah (a Levite) tried to assist Rabbi Yochanan ben Gudgada [a fellow Levite who also lived while the Temple was still standing. Ed.] in the matter of הגפת דלתות, "the closing of the Temple doors." He said to him: 'desist' for you have already become guilty of the death penalty for I am one of the people appointed to be the one to lock these gates whereas you are one of the people assigned to sing." We see from this incident that a Levite who assists another Levite who performs in performing his task is guilty of the death penalty even if he only wanted to assist the Levite appointed for that task. This then is what Maimonides' ruling is based on.

Although it is dear that the Talmud ruled differently, Maimonides accepted the version of Sifri Zuta as binding for 2 reasons. [The author continues to debate the merit of Maimonides' ruling in this matter for another six pages. In order to appreciate the subject it is necessary to study the matter in Erchin 11 thoroughly. The reader who is interested is referred to the original. In the end, our author demonstrates that both Maimonides, the Baraitha in Erchin and the Baraitha in Sifri Zuta are really on the same track. Ed.]

ואני הנני נתתי לד את משמרת תרומותי, "And I, behold I have placed you in charge of My heave-offerings." The reason for the word ואני, which appears superfluous, is that G'd adds another duty to the duty of the priests to guard the sanctity of the Sanctuary on pain of death; G'd states that He had already given the priests an advance payment so to speak, namely the task to preserve the sanctity of the heave-offerings (which are theirs) and the sanctity of everything holy the Israelites designate as such.

בארצם לא תנחל, "you will not have an in heritance in their land, etc." According to Sifri this verse forbids the priests not only a share in the land but also a share in the spoils of war. This is based on the respective meaning of נחלה and חלק both of which appear twice in our verse. The Torah tells us that though the other tribes might be willing to share the loot with the priests and they might interpret the verse as only excusing them from sharing but not forbidding same, this is not so. The legislation is not comparable to the Shemittah legislation where we are told in Shevi-it 10,9 that the rabbis were delighted if a debtor volunteered to repay a debt which the creditor could no longer insist on collecting legally. To make the point quite clear the Torah wrote לא תנחל, you must not inherit. Had the Torah written nothing else I would have thought that only inheritance of land is actually forbidden but that accepting a share of the spoils of war is permissible. This is why the Torah had to add the word וחלק, "as well as any part." The reason the Torah added the word בתוכם may be understood when we look at Proverbs 1,14: גורלך תפיל בתוכנו, i.e. "accept part of our lot together with us." The prohibition applies only when the priests receive their share as part and parcel of the division between the tribes. If anyone wishes to give them some of the spoils in the form of a gift this is permissible.

אני חלקך ונחלתך בתוך בני ישראל, "I am your share and your inheritance amongst the children of Israel." G'd first says "I," meaning that which is unique to Him will be the share of the priests. He then added: "amongst the children of Israel," i.e. that there would not be anything the Israelites did in which G'd did not have a share; the priest would receive this share of the harvests of the land, the trees, the bread, the meat, the wine, the oil, and the remainder of the 24 categories of gifts the Israelite is to donate to the priest on G'd's behalf.