1 Rashi generally follows the plain, rather than the
Midrashic interpretation. Here, however, Rashi informs us that his
comments will follow R' Tanchuma, since his exposition fits so
beautifully into the plain meaning of the text. (M.) Indeed, there is
no satisfactory interpretation for {Hebrew Ref} aside from
Tanchuma's, as quoted by Rashi. (D.D.)
2 Ramban disagrees. His
interpretation is "Korach took thought." He conceptualized his attack
against Moshe and the kehunah. According to Rashi, as well, the
reference is to Korach's thought. His thoughts took him to a different
side, away from the community. This teaches that Korach's pernicious
behavior was not impulsive, but was methodically planned in advance.
(D.D.)
3 The Kohanim service the entire community. Thus,
Korach's denial of their validity separated him from everyone.(G.A.)
4 Iyov, 15:12. The thought in your heart denying G-d's justice,
separates you from other people.
5 Tanchuma, 2.
6 The
essence of a person is the mind, which cannot be "taken" physically,
but may be "taken" figuratively when submitting to another's
persuasion. (G.A.)
7 20:25.
8 Hosheiah, 14:3.
9
Scripture does not generally mention a person's ancestry, but our
passage traces Korach's illustrious lineage in order to emphasize his
wickedness in departing from their ways. Why does it omit the most
illustrious of all, the patriarch Yaakov? (G.A.)
10 Bereishis, 49:6.
11 As Yaakov was, in fact, Korach's
ancestor, what is gained from omitting this in Scripture? The
antecedents mentioned here represent the sources of Korach's evil
activities. Some imperfection in them evolved into his wickedness.
Yaakov prayed that he be spared from serving as a source for Korach's
actions, and his prayer was answered. (G.A.)
12 But Yaakov is
mentioned as a source for Korach's good deeds. (G.A.)
13 Upon
which the Levites stood and chanted during the Temple services.
14
Divrei Hayamim 1, 6:23.
15 Tanchuma, 4.
16 The singular
usage, {Hebrew Ref} , "Korach took..," rather than the
plural, {Hebrew Ref} , "Korach, Dasan and Aviram
took ...," indicates that Korach was the prime mover who took
Dasan and Aviram. (G.A.) Also, the Levites and the Israelite firstborn
claimed that they should replace the kohanim. Since Dasan and
Aviram belonged to neither group, why did they join the rebellion?
Because Korach drew them. (M.)
17 Tanchuma, 4. Cf Rashi to 3:38.
18 Amram, Yitzhar, Chevron, Uziel. (Shemos, 6:18)
19 Tanchuma, 1. Korach did not contest Moshe's choice of
Elitzafan as the leader, because this would have exposed his selfish
motive. (G.A.) Nor did he attempt to depose Moshe himself as the
monarch, as the people would certainly have supported Moshe, who had
led them out of Egypt. (S.C.) He preferred to object to the kehunah,
so that the Levites and the firstborn, who were to replace the
kohanim, would join him in the rebellion. Once Moshe's authority
was successfully challenged, he could then proceed with his real
objective of ousting Elitzafan in his own favor. "I'll oppose him"
refers to the attack on the kehunah "I'll nullify everything he
said" refers to the final step of ousting Elitzafan. (M.)
20 Like
Dasan and Aviram, who were drawn to their neighbor Korach. (M.)
21
1:16. "Those summoned" there refers to the tribal leaders, indicating
that our "those summoned," too, refers to the leaders, Elitzur, and
others like him---the rest of the group of two hundred fifty, also men
of great distinction. (M.)
22 From the proximity of our chapter
to the preceding chapter (15:3--41) of tzitzis. (M. from
Tanchuma) Korach had them dress in techeiles, rather than simply
debate with Moshe, in order to create a spectacle which would attract
everyone's attention. (G.A.)
23 That a thread of techeiles
be twisted around the tzitzis (15:38). Aside from the
techeiles, however, the tzitzis obligation itself was not
under question. (M.)
24 Korach thought that such a garment did
not require techeiles. Tanchuma also relates that they asked
Moshe whether a house filled with Torah scrolls requires a mezuzah
on its doorpost, and scoffed when he answered in the affirmative.
Korach thought that such a house does not require a mezuzah.
Although Korach did not question Moshe's role as the king, he attacked
his position as the supervisor over the people's fulfillment of the
mitzvos and as the teacher of Torah. The purpose of the
techeiles fringe is to remind the wearer to perform the mitzvos
---"when you see it, you will remember all of G-d's commandments
and do them" (15:39).
25
Tanchuma, 2. Unlike "the son of Levi," which refers to Levi's son
Kehos (above), "the sons of Reuvein" is not a literal reference to
Eliav and Peles. They were not his sons (see Bereishis, 46:9). The
meaning, rather, is "of the tribe of Reuvein," and the reference is
to Dasan, Aviram, and On. (D.D.)
26 Their holiness in itself
would not justify the complaint, "Why do you raise yourselves above
the congregation"? Perhaps their leaders are holier. But as they all
heard the Word, why do you raise yourselves above them by claiming that
G-d wishes to communicate only with you? (G.A.)
27 Tanchuma, 4.
28 Korach seems to have attacked Moshe's position as well as
Aharon's "why do you raise yourselves..."? Yet, in his reply,
Moshe mentions only the kehunah (v. 10). Because Moshe had taken
the monarchy, Korach attacked the addition of the kehunah for
his brother. (G.A.)
29 Moshe's monarchy, however, was not an
issue in itself. Every nation needs a king, and Moshe was certainly no
less qualified than another. But the kehunah, they argued, was
superfluous. (Ibid.)
30 Tanchuma, 4.
31 Moshe and Aharon
also fell to their faces during the altercation with the spies [14:5].
(S.C.) There, they fell before the people to implore them not to return
to Egypt. (Ramban, there) Here, Moshe's hands were weakened.
32
"Now ... G-d will work with a man two or three times" (Iyov,
33:29), "... but for the fourth, I will not release him"
(Amos, 1:3). (G.A.)
33 Rashi to Devorim, 1:1, however, follows
another opinion which places Korach's dispute in Chatzeros, before the
episode of the spies. (M. See G.A. there.)
34 Shemos, 32:11.
35 11:2.
36 14:13.
37 Tanchuma, 5.
38 Figuratively, by the heat of the dispute. (M.) Or,
literally. In all likelihood, someone drank a cup of wine during his
meal, disqualifying him from appearing in the Divine Presence. (G.A.)
39 Moshe always refrained from wine, in constant expectation of
Divine visitation, Aharon refrained in order to qualify for performing
the sacrificial services, and the drunkenness of Korach's evil
followers was of no concern to Moshe. Why did he delay? So that they
might repent. (G.A.)
40 Tanchuma, 5.
41 This is from,
"the Levites shall be mine" (8:14). (M.) Korach did not directly
attack the Levites, but since they served with the kohanim as a
single unit, his challenge to the kohanim implied at attack on
them as well. (G.A.)
42 This is from, "Aharon was separated,
and consecrated as the holy of holies" (Divrei Hayamim 1, 23:13.) (M.)
43 G-d will bring the holy one close to Him, as is evident from
Targum. But {Hebrew Ref} is not interpreted as "he (the
holy one chosen by G-d) will bring an offering to Him (G-d)." The
appropriate phrase would then be {Hebrew Ref} , "he will bring
an offering to Him." (G.A.)
44 Bereishis, 1:5.
45 Divrei Hayamim 1, 23:13,
Tanchuma, 5.
46 Why did Moshe instruct them to perform a service
which would consume them? It was not his choice. He merely acquiesced
to their desire to serve as Kohonim Gedolim. (G.A.)
47
Vayikra, 10:1,2.
48 Tanchuma, 5.
49 By sinning, they were responsible, themselves, for the
destruction of their souls.
50 17:3.
51 Korach is not
listed among the deadly sinners. (S.C.)
52 Tehillim, 99:6.
53 The Levites were organized into "watches," or family groups,
each of which served at the Temple during a given week. (Rambam, Klei
Hamikdash, 3:9.)
54 "...the king's seer, with the word
of G-d." (Divrei Hayamim 1,25:5)
55 At the simple level, this refers to Aharon. Here, it is
homiletically applied to the individuals in Korach's group who would
repent and be spared.
56 Tanchuma, 5.
57 Rashi here
differs from his earlier interpretation of Korach's criticism of Moshe,
{Hebrew Ref} (above, v.3). There, he interprets "you have taken
too much for yourselves." This infers that the only impropriety, was
taking more than the proper amount. This interpretation does not apply
in our passage, where Moshe accuses Korach of disputing G-d. Here, any
amount is inappropriate. Rashi, therefore, changes the interpretation
to "this is immense for you." (G.A.)
58 Our passage opens with
Moshe speaking to Korach and then shifting to his exhortation of the sons of
Levi. (G.A.)
59 Tanchuma, 6.
60 Not close to Him. This was already stated in verse 9. Our
verse adds that He brought you close to the service. (M.)
61 Verse
9 stated that He separated you from the rest of the community. Perhaps
this means merely that you are obligated to serve, whereas their
service is optional. Our verse asserts that you were brought close, but
they were disqualified. (G.A.)
62 The {Hebrew Ref} in {Hebrew Ref} is not part of the root of the word, but is a prefix meaning
"because." (M.)
63 Rashi quotes the passage literally, "you,
and your entire congregation who are gathered, against G-d." It is
understood as "you, and your entire congregation who are gathered, are
gathered against G-d." (L.H.)
64 Tanchuma, 6.
65 Moshe
had already warned them, yet he approached them again. (G.A.)
66
Tanchuma, 10.
67 "We will not go up," rather than "we will not go."
(G.A.)
68 Shemos, 3:17.
69 In the text, death in the
wilderness is mentioned first (v. 13), then the failure to reach the
land of milk and honey (v.14), yet Rashi reverses the order because
death in the wilderness includes not reaching the land. Thus, it would
be illogical to first mention the death, then add the failure to reach
the land. The text, however, mentions the death decree first, because
this was the indication that they would never reach the land. The sense
of their complaint is, "you decreed death in the wilderness, so it is
clear that you will never bring us to the land." (G.A.)
70 14:29.
71 Not "If you put our eyes out." Then we will have met, and
going up to you would be irrelevant. (G.A.)
72 Not simply "if
you put our eyes out we will not go up to you." Obviously, we would
then be unable to go up. Rather, "even under the threat of putting our
eyes out, we will not go up." (M.)
73 They really meant their
own eyes. See Rashi to 12:12.
74 Tanchuma, 7. Although {Hebrew Ref} generally means "he was angry," here it means "he was
distressed." See Bereishis, 45:5.
75 Ramban objects to this
interpretation, contending that Moshe's request was directed only
against Dasan and Aviram, because of their extremely offensive remarks,
and they were not among the two hundred and fifty incense burners.
Rashi's opinion is that the two hundred and fifty pretenders to the
kehunah Gedolah acted on behalf of all of Korach's followers, just
as the Kohein Gadol actually represents the people. Thus, Moshe
requested that their incense-offering be rejected because of Dasan and
Aviram, whom they represented. (G.A.) Or, after Moshe's overture to
Dasan and Aviram was rejected, he returned his attention to Korach and
his group, and asked G-d to refuse their offering.(M.)
76 The
incense-offering was patently unacceptable, since the 250 were not
kohanim, and there was no need to ask that it be denied. (G.A.)
77 The communal olah-sacrifice offered twice daily. Shemos,
29:38.
78 Tanchuma, 7.
79 Not "I did not take one donkey from them," but "I did
not take a donkey from any one of them." (M.)
80 Shemos, 4:20.
81 Not because I had no need. Even when I needed one, I did not
take theirs. (M.)
82 Tanchuma, ibid.
83 "they" does not
refer to others, but to the congregation mentioned above in this
passage. They were the ones with the firepans in v. 17. (M.)
84 But
"each" does not include Korach himself, who is mentioned here
separately with Aharon. (G.A.)
85 As Scripture does not explain how Korach enticed them, it
must have been through his known method of operation-mockery. (G.A.)
86 How could he have congregated the people, who were not
involved until now? By enticing them throughout the night. (M.)
87
Tanchuma, 7.
88 But G-d Himself cannot be seen. (G.A.)
89
But not "knower of souls" in our context. (M.) {Hebrew Ref} here
means "thoughts"; as in Yechezkel 20:32. (G.A.)
90 Tanchuma, ibid.
91 One who has sinned. {Hebrew Ref}
, lit. "will sin," is understood as "has sinned," since it refers to
Korach, who already sinned. (M.)
92 Tanchuma, ibid.
93 Not
literally "go up" to Korach. The intent here is the opposite. (G.A.)
94 From your place, which is around Korach's dwelling. (G.A.)
95 Tanchuma, 3.
96 {Hebrew Ref} , "and stood," seems redundant. It
teaches that they blasphemed, like {Hebrew Ref} means
"he stood disdainfully," at the incident of Golias. (M.,
from Tanchuma)
97 Shmuel 1, 17:16.
98 This is when a
person reaches the age of majority, and is held accountable for his
actions.
99 Cf. Rashi to Bereishis, 23:1.
100 Although our
passage records the presence of the infants at the scene of the
blasphemy, it does not say that they were punished. Rashi assumes that
they were, because the flow of the narrative indicates that all those
mentioned here were included later (v. 32) in the punishment. (M.)
Indeed, if the infants were absolved from retribution because they were
considered non-participants, Scripture would not mention them at all in
the account of the crime. (G.A)
101 Tanchuma, 3. Why is this
transgression different? Because dispute and gehinom were both
brought into being on the second day of creation, indicating that the
two are fundamently linked, and that one, therefore, leads inexorably
to the next. The disputer suffers gehinom, quite aside from the
matter of punishment for evil, by simple cause and effect, like a
person who suffers a burn when touching a flame. Thus, the minors who
appeared as part of Korach's group were also consumed by the gehinom
pit which swallowed the entire company. (G.A.)
102 From "all" these deeds, even the ones Korach did not
dispute directly. (G.A.)
103 Natural death would exonerate them,
proving that they were justified in claiming that Moshe acted
independently, and was not sent by G-d. (G.A.)
104 G-d recreates
the universe daily, but Moshe asked for something new. (G.A.)
105
This is a new function, but not literally a new creation. "Nothing at
all is new under the sun" [Koheles, 1:9]. (M. See Ramban)
106 {Hebrew Ref} , "and" the earth will open [its mouth], is not in
addition to the new creation. It is the new creation itself. (M.)
107 V. 32.
108 Rashi adds this to balance with Verse 29, where
Moshe said that if they die normally, G-d did not send him. Now he
completes the equation by saying that if they are swallowed up, then he
was instructed by G-d. (M.)
109 Sanhedrin, 110a., to explain the
apparent redundancy, {Hebrew Ref} . (G.A.)
110 Not literally---there are no new creations. This refers,
rather, to the location of the mouth of gehinom. If it was
placed here during creation, fine, if not, place it here now. (G.A.,
from Sanhedrin)
111 But not from the cries of those who perished.
This would not have frightened them into fleeing. (M.)
112 But
not the fire on the altar. That fire was unrelated to the sanctity of
the pans. (M.) Nor does it refer to the fire which consumed the men.
That fire was intangible, and could not be removed. (G.A.)
113 There was no mitzvah to fulfill with the fire
itself. Fling it away to clear the pans. (G.A.)
114 The 250 men,
by using them to offer incense. (M.)
115 Rashi substitutes {Hebrew Ref} , "willful sinners," for Scripture's {Hebrew Ref} ,
generally "unintentional sinners." They willfully disputed the Holy
One. (M.) At first, they merely followed their neighbor Korach. Then,
they were merely {Hebrew Ref} . Later, they sinned willfuly, and
became {Hebrew Ref} . (S.C.)
116 Against their souls. By
their own sinful actions, they condemned their own souls. (G.A.)
117
Shemos, 27:2. But not the golden incense altar (Shemos, 30:3), although
the firepans had been used for burning incense. They were made of
copper, whereas the incense altar was made of pure gold. (G.A.) Also,
the overlay was a symbol to remind the people not to repeat the
transgressions of Korach and his followers. The copper altar stood in
the Sanctuary courtyard, where it was visible to the people. But the
incense altar was placed inside the tent of communion, where the people
were not permitted. It could not serve as a reminder. (Imrei Shefer)
118 This is not a separate injunction against being like
Korach, but an explanation of the first part of the passage. (M)
119
Not Korach literally, as he did not suffer tzora'as, but someone
who, like him, disputes the kehunah. (M.) Or, the disputer will
be stricken with tzora'as, which is compared to death (12:12),
like Korach, who actually died. (G.A.)
120 Shemos, 4:6.
121 King of Yehudah, who was stricken
with tzora'as when he tried to usurp the kehunah by
offering incense. (Divrei Hayamim 2,26:19)
122 Tanchuma, 96:11.
123 How else could Moshe have known that incense is effective
against the plague?
124 89a.
125 The angel, not Aharon, stood between the
dead and the living, i.e., was prevented from continuing his killing.
(G.A.)
126 V. 15.
127 According to this interpretation, it was
by G-d's command that the incense was used, not by Moshe's knowledge of
the secret. (G.A.)
128 The incense had the power to heal or
destroy, depending on the manner it was offered. Here, it healed. When
it was offered inproperly by Korach's followers and by Nadav and Avihu,
it destroyed. Rashi's remark (16:6) that it contained deadly poison is
not meant literally, but alludes to Moshe's prayer that none of the 250
sinners be spared because of their previous acts of merit. (D.D.)
129 This makes it necessary for Scripture to explain that one staff
is enough for Levi. (G.A.)
130 Bereishis, 8:1.
131 Esther, 7:10.
132 "In the
midst of their staffs" seems redundant. It teaches that it was
precisely in the middle. (G.A.)
133 Tanchuma, Acharei Mos, 8.
134 Referring to the blossoms which appear before the fruit
itself. Occasionally, however, {Hebrew Ref} precedes {Hebrew Ref} ,
as in Yeshayah, 27:6. (S.C.)
135 He matured so that he was
recognized separately from his mother.
136 Yeshayah, 18:5.
137
When he tried to unsurp the kehunah, he was immediately stricken
with tzora'as. (Divrei Hayamim 2, 26:19)
138 Ramban disagrees, contending that the miracle of the staff
symbolized only the choice of the Levites, but not of Aharon. Rashi's
opinion is that since Aharon's name was inscribed on the staff, the
miracle indicated that he was chosen as well as his tribe. (G.A.)
139 Do not misinterpret {Hebrew Ref} as "you [Moshe]
will end their complaint." Moshe was not involved in ending the
complaint. (M.) The proper interpretation is "their complaint will
end."
140 Where the {Hebrew Ref} is verbalized with a {Hebrew Ref} .
141 Or only one.
142 A single extra step will lead
to death. Without their presence in the courtyard, however, the
probability of entering the Tent was remote, and they would not have
complained. This is derived from the repetition, {Hebrew Ref} ,
meaning, "anyone approaching [the courtyard], who comes close to the
Mishkon..." (M.)
143 Not to a death which already occurred, but to die in the
future. (M.)
144 The people complained to Moshe (17:27), who
certainly asked G-d. In replying, G-d would not have ignored him and
spoken to Aharon. (Minchas Yehudah)
145 Mechilta, 1:4.
146 Not
Aharon's father, Amram, but his grandfather, Kehos. The children of
Kehos were in charge of the Ark and the other sacred vessels. Our
passage, which instructs that those vessels be protected (Rashi below),
was obviously addressed to them. (M.)
147 Not in warning against approaching the kohanim,
but in warning against approaching them during their service. (M.)
148 But not by actually assisting the kohanim in
performing their Sanctuary services. Only the kohanim were
authorized. (M.) Nor did the Levites serve the personal needs of the
kohanim. They assisted only in Sanctuary affairs. (G.A., from v. 6)
149 Sifri, 18:6.
150 Like the rest of the parshah,
our passage is addressed to the kohanim. (G.A.)
151 Verse
1 admonishes the kohanim to prevent the Levites from taking part
in their services, the aim of our verse is to prevent the Israelites
from taking part in their services. (M.)
152 Rashi here explains
that the admonishment was directed at the Kohanim; but
153 Sifri, 18:11.
154 V.4.
155 Sifri, 18:6.
The "gift" was that they relieved the kohanim of the
obligation to perform the administrative duties at the Sanctuary. (M.)
156 The interpretation is not that your service is a gift to
G-d---it is an obligation to serve him. Rather, it is a gift to you.
(G.A.)
157 It is yours absolutely, to everyone's exclusion. This
is why the passage concludes, "and the commoner who approaches shall
be killed." (Ramban)
158 "Behold" denotes zestful anticipation, indicating joy.
Even "behold, I am bringing the flood waters on the earth to destroy
all flesh" (Bereishis, 6:17) indicates a degree of joy, in destroying
the wicked. (G.A. from Sifri. See his commentary.)
159 Shemos,
4:14. Aharon will rejoice when he sees Moshe.
160 Chulin, 133b,
lists them.
161 Verse 19. Just as salt remains eternally fresh,
so will the gifts be given to the kohanim eternally. (G.A.)
162 Sifri, 18:20.
163 You must take care not to defile them
with ritual uncleanliness. But the kohanim are not obligated to
guard terumah from unauthorized persons, as with the Sanctuary
services above [vs. 1,4]. (M.)
164 Sifri, 18:20. Not "for
annointing." Terumah is given from grain and wine, which cannot
be used for annointing. (M.)
165 Not literally "from" the fire, which would indicate that
the kohanim are to receive a portion of the parts burnt on the
altar, for those parts are forbidden for human use. Rather, "after"
the fire. The kohanim may partake of their gifts only after the
fire has consumed the parts placed on the altar. (M.)
166 They,
too, are categorized as "supremely sacred" [above, in our passage].
(G.A.)
167 Zevachim, 44b. From {Hebrew Ref} here and {Hebrew Ref} above, 5:8. Scripture there declares that when a robbery
victim without heirs---i.e., a proselyte with no relatives---died
before the stolen property was recovered, the property is given to the
kohein.
168 The minchah- sin- and guilt-offerings,
described as "supremely holy" in verse 9, and in Vayikra, 6:10.
169 As specified in Vayikra, 6:19.
170 The courtyard was
entitled "the holy," the inner chamber of the Mishkon "the
supremely holy" (Shemos, 26:33), yet our verse seems to refer to the
courtyard as "the supremely holy." Evidently, the translation here is
not "you shall eat it 'in' the supremely holy [place]," but "you
shall eat it 'by the rules of' the supremely holy [sacrifices]"---in
the courtyard. (Ramban) Or, the courtyard is referred to here as "the
supremely holy" by comparison with the area outside, which was
sanctified as the Israelite camping site, but was not as holy as the
courtyard of the Mishkon. (G.A.)
171 Sifri, 18:22.
172 The breast, thigh, and four of the forty thanksgiving
loaves were set aside for the kohein. (M., from Vayikra 7.)
173 The breast and thigh. (Ibid)
174 The breast, thigh, and
foreleg. (Above, 6:19.)
175 The breast, thigh, loaves (Vayikra,
7), and foreleg (6:19). "Of all the wave-offerings" identifies them
as the terumah gifts mentioned here. (M.)
176 Sifri,
18:25. By stating that the pure should eat, our passage implies a
prohibition against those who are impure. (M.)
177 Ibid, 29.
178 The very first of all the gifts to be set aside, to be given to
the kohein. Then, a tenth is set aside and given to the Levite,
who, in turn, sets aside a tenth as his terumah gift for the
kohein. The levite's terumah gift is not referred to as
"the major terumah," but as "a tenth of a tenth." Our
passage does not refer to this gift.
179 Which, like the firstborn, is {Hebrew Ref} , of
minor sanctity, but not like the breast and thigh of the sin-offering,
which is eaten only for one day and one night. The sin-offering, unlike
the firstborn, is {Hebrew Ref} , supremely sanctified, and,
therefore, cannot be compared. (M., from Sifri.)
180 Zevachim, 57:1.
181 I.e., the additional phrase, "it
shall be yours." (G.A.)
182 Instead of comparing the firstborn '
bechor' sacrifice with the voluntary peace-offering, perhaps
compare it with the thanksgiving 'todah'-offering, which, like
the bechor, is of minor sanctity. And the todah is only
eaten for a day and a night. The Torah, therefore, adds "it shall be
yours," implying that the kohein may partake of the bechor
for an additional day. (M.)
183 Zevachim, ibid. Rashi to
Devorim, 15:20 cites another opinion, deriving this from a different
source. (G.A.)
184 V. 8.
185 Our verse.
186 Sifri,
18:43.
187 Ibid.
188 Not only in the land, as mentioned above, but even in the
spoils of war.
189 The exclusion from the spoils is compared to
the exclusion from the inheritance, and, therefore, did not apply until
they entered the land. Thus, the Levites shared in the spoils of the
victory against the Midianites (31:30) later in the wilderness. (M.)
190 'They' refers to the Levites. 'Their' sins refers to the
Israelites. (G.A.)
191 Verse 28 refers to the portion of the Levites as a tithe,
while our verse calls it terumah, generally used to describe the
kohein's gift. (M.)
192 The Levite must separate a
portion of his tithe, and present it to the kohein as a
terumah gift (V.26). Until he has done so, the tithe is entitled "
terumah" because of the terumah gift it contains.
193
Sifri, 18:53.
194 Given by the levite to the kohein.
195 How is it considered like grain from the granary? It is
prohibited, etc. (M.)
196 If eaten intentionally by an
unauthorized person, from Vayikra, 22:9.
197 If eaten
unintentionally, an additional fifth must be paid to the kohein,
from Vayikra, 22:14.
198 The very first gift set aside from the
crop.
199 It is taken directly from the granary. Terumah of
the tithe, however, is taken after the tithe was removed from the
granary and given to the levite. (G.A.)
200 Zechariah, 14:10.
201 Our verse extends from verse
29. 'As grain from the granary and fully ripened fruit from the
cistern---so must you, too, set aside ... etc. (M.)
202
Verse 27 taught that the tithe terumah and the major terumah
are subject to the same restrictions. Our verse adds that both
gifts are from the donor's inheritance. (G.A.)
203 But not
terumah of the tithe, already specified in verse 28. (M., from
Sifri)
204 But if the kohein already received his major
terumah from the land owner, no obligation rests on the Levite
aside from the tithe terumah already mentioned in verse 28. (M.)
205 After threshing, when the land owner is obligated to set
aside the kohein's terumah. Before threshing,
however, no terumah obligation rests on the owner. If the Levite
should then take his tithe, he is exempt from major terumah. (M.)
206 Shabbos, 127b.
207 Verse 24.
208 Even the
remainder after the terumah was given.
209 The remaining part.
210 The remaining part.
211
Sifri, 18:70.
212 Where both the tithe and the eater are rendered
ritually unclean. Terumah would be prohibited, but the tithe is
permitted.
213 Ibid, 71.
214 The passage seems
redundant---of course there is no sin for setting aside terumah.
Obviously, the teaching here is in the inference; if you do not set
aside, etc. This applies to Rashi's next comment as well. (M.)
215
Yevamos, 89b.
216 Bechoros, 26b.
Chapter 16 - Text Notes
Chapter 17 - Text Notes
Chapter 18 - Text Notes
Return to Main Search Form
Sources