Комментарий о цитате к Бамидбар 17:4

כאשר דבר ה' ביד משה לו. This phrase is a continuation of what had been introduced at the beginning of verse 4 concerning the pans used by the insurgents for their incense.

THAT HE BE NOT AS KORACH, AND AS HIS COMPANY, AS THE ETERNAL SPOKE BY THE HAND OF MOSES ‘LO.’ “The word lo [literally: ‘to him’] is like alav (‘about him’), that is, about Korach. And what is the meaning of by ‘the hand’ of Moses, and why is it not written ‘unto Moses’ [as is written elsewhere]? It is a hint to those who dispute the priesthood, that they will be stricken with leprosy, just as Moses was stricken [with it] on ‘his hand.’¹⁷⁰Exodus 4:6. It was for this reason that Uzziah [king of Judah] was stricken with leprosy [when he attempted to usurp the function of the priests and to offer incense].¹⁷¹II Chronicles 26:19. And according to the plain meaning of Scripture,¹⁷²This interpretation is not found in our texts of Rashi. It is mentioned, however, by Rambam in his Book of the Commandments (see my translation, “The Commandments,” Vol. II, the Eighth Principle, p. 393). [the interpretation is as follows: if anybody disputes the priesthood and claims it for himself, his punishment] will not be that of being swallowed up and burnt, as happened to Korach and his company; instead, [his punishment] will be like that which Moses received on his hand when it was stricken with leprosy. And some scholars¹⁷³This interpretation is brought [in our editions of Rashi], by Rashi himself in his own name at the very beginning of the verse. It is thus obvious that Ramban had a completely different text of Rashi before him here. interpret [the verse to mean]: that no common man, that is not of the seed of Aaron, draw near to burn incense before the Eternal¹⁷⁴Verse 5 before us. — as the Eternal spoke by the hand of Moses with regard to Aaron, that he and his sons should be priests, and not a layman.” This is Rashi’s language. The correct interpretation is that [the word lo (to him)] refers to Eleazar who is mentioned [at the beginning of the section], when Scripture said, Speak unto Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest etc.,¹⁷⁵Verse 2. and the correct order [in meaning] of the verses [before us] is as follows: And Eleazar the priest took the copper censers wherewith they that were burnt had offered, and they beat them out for a covering of the altar¹⁷⁶Verse 4. — as the Eternal spoke to him by the hand of Moses¹⁷⁴Verse 5 before us. — to be a memorial unto the children of Israel etc.¹⁷⁴Verse 5 before us.

ואת אשר יבחר בו יקריב אליו, “and the one whom He will choose, He will draw near to Him.” Nachmanides, pointing out that Moses said twice in the same verse that G’d would bring near to Him the one He had chosen, draws our attention to the fact that whereas the first time he added ואת הקדוש, “and the one who is holy,” sees in this a hint that the former refers to G’d’s accepting the incense offering of Aaron on the morrow while rejecting that of the 250 men The second time the words אשר יבחר בו refers to the status of the priests, descendants of Aaron, throughout the ages. The addition of the word מחר, “tomorrow,” in verse 7 means that this demonstration would occur only once and would settle the dispute once and for all. No other challenge would arise against the validity of the priests’ position. Ibn Ezra explains the words ויודע ה' את אשר לו as referring to the tribe that G’d had selected, i.e. the tribe of Levi. This was the answer to Datan and Aviram as well as to the dignitaries who also happened to be firstborns. He feels that all the people who had assembled in this rebellious demonstration were from the tribe of Levi hence the word הקדוש was meant to single out who amongst all these Levites was the one chosen to be the High Priest. Ibn Ezra uses the fact that Moses specifically addressed the members of the tribe of Levi, asking them if they had not already been honoured sufficiently that they now demanded even greater honours to support his explanation. Nachmanides writes that if, as Ibn Ezra claims, all the people ganging up on Moses and Aaron had been members of the tribe of Levi, how can we explain that on the day after Korach and supporters went down into the earth that all the tribes accused Moses of killing G’d’s people, and all of them presented their staffs to the test which staff would produce blossoms, etc.? As to Moses having said to the Levites רב לכם בני לוי, “it is much for you, offspring of Levi,” this reflects that Moses was aware that Korach was trying to fool the people into believing that he was a champion of the firstborns of each tribe who had been deprived of the privilege to perform service in the Tabernacle through the Levites having replaced them. This is why he had prefaced his incitement with the words כי כל העדה כולם קדושים, “for the entire Jewish community are holy.” Moses was intelligent enough to realize that Korach’s target was the priesthood, and Aaron, Moses’ brother being the High Priest, He hinted that if that were not so, it was strange that Korach, a member of the tribe of Levi, had not objected at the time when all the members of his tribe had been elevated to a privileged status. Korach had gladly accepted his elevation to a superior status, thereby contradicting his claim that all the Israelites were equally holy, seeing that Hashem had revealed Himself to all of them at Mount Sinai. This is why the Torah reports in verse 8 that now, instead of speaking to Korach and his rabble, he spoke to Korach in his capacity as their leader, when the latter did not have to posture in front of his cohorts. Moses, in his attempt to calm the situation and to bring about a פיוס, reconciliation, made his remarks to Korach part of his general remarks to the assembled rebels, instead of taking Korach aside, so that these people would become aware of Korach’s duping them into believing that he was championing their cause, and would not follow in his footsteps. Moses, personally, believed that his approach would work, and that is why he chose the offering of incense by lay Israelites as the litmus test rather than the offering of some other sacrifice. He thought that the fact that if even Aaron’s son Nadav and Avihu had died when offering unauthorized incense, surely that reminder would act as a brake on the eagerness of these 250 men when called upon to present incense in grounds not consecrated for such an offering. He permitted Aaron to participate in this test, basing his ruling on the concept of הוראת שעה, an immediate emergency. [We know that Aaron was specifically called upon to perform during such emergencies in Numbers 17,11-13 when Moses also demonstrated that incense was not necessarily what killed the people, but the reverse. Ed.] It is possible, however, that the time frame chosen by Moses for this test was when Aaron would offer the daily incense offering in the Tabernacle. Moses was confident that Hashem would support the initiative of His prophet on this occasion, although he had not yet asked for special permission to deviate from halachic norms. Personally, I do not think that Aaron’s offering of his morning incense could have played a part in this, seeing that the daily incense offering was presented on the golden altar inside the Sanctuary, a location beyond the view of anyone outside, seeing the Tabernacle did not even have any windows. Some commentators believe that the line וישמע משה ויפול על פניו, (verse 4) is the Torah’s way of describing how Moses turned to G’d to receive guidance as to how to deal with this rebellion. In response to Moses’ quest, Hashem answered that He would demonstrate on the following morning who were those chosen by Him and who were not. This would not be the only instance in which the Torah is very succinct, saving the details for another occasion. Sometimes we are told what G’d told Moses to tell the people, and the Torah hardly mentions that Moses conveyed the whole message. On other occasions we become aware of all that G’d had told Moses only when the Torah reports Moses as delivering G’d’s message to them. I have noticed that Onkelos who has translated the word קטורת in other places in the Torah as קטורת בוסמין, i.e. as קטורת הסמים, omits the word בוסמין, fagrances, when translating the word קטורת in our portion. [Our versions of Onkelos do not bear this out; maybe Nachmanides had a different version of Onkelos. Ed.] According to that version of Onkelos, he may have felt that the incense these 250 men were asked to offer in the test consisted only of לבונה, frankincense, and thus did not constitute the kind of affront with probably lethal consequences that the arrogant rebels subjected themselves to. Onkelos, according to that version, also understood the “incense” offered by Nadav and Avihu to have been of this variety. [Note that according to the Torah their capital sin was to bring אש זרה, man-made fire, on their censers. Nowhere does the Torah mention that the incense was what caused their death. Ed.]