In the firepans. But not the fire that was on the altar, because if so, what is meant by “for they were sanctified”? How does the fire that was upon the altar affect their sanctification?

From the firepans. But not at a distance, because if so Scripture should have explained where [it was to be scattered].

The firepans. But not the fire, because if so, it should not have been thrown to the ground. Rashi afterwards explains why they were sanctified and thus prohibited from being used for personal benefit. It is because those who offered the incense had designated them as sacred service utensils and thus they had to be stored away.

They became willful sinners with their souls. Rashi is answering the following question: Surely Moshe warned them. If so, why did the Torah write חטאים (sinners) which has the connotation of unintentional sin? Therefore he explains that they were willful sinners, as it is written (v. 30) “That these men have angered…” which connotes rebellion, meaning that they willfully rebelled in disputing what Hashem had commanded. The reason why the Torah states חטאים (unintentional sinners) rather than פושעים (willful sinners) appears to be because most of them were from the tribe of Reuven, Korach’s neighbors, whom he incited. Similarly, the Rabbis say about them, “Woe to the wicked and woe to his neighbor.” This implies that initially it was not because of their own wickedness that they joined him, only because Korach was their neighbor. Therefore, they were considered as if they were unintentional sinners. R. Yaakov Triosh.

The copper altar. Not the golden altar, because the firepans were copper and one could not use copper on the golden altar. Re’m. Furthermore, I have found [further proof that this is so] because it is written “and they shall be a sign for Bnei Yisroel” and a Yisroel is not permitted to enter the area of the golden altar.

In order not to be. Meaning: The Torah is giving a reason, not a warning [indicating a negative commandment]. When the Rabbis say “anyone who strengthens a dispute transgresses the negative prohibition that states ‘Do not be like Korach…’” it is only a Scriptural allusion to a Rabbinic law.

About Korach. Even though the Torah often writes ביד משה (lit. ‘in the hand of Moshe’ but normally meaning ‘through Moshe’) as in Parshas Beha'aloscha where it writes “according to the word of Hashem in the hand of Moshe” (Bamidbar 9:23, 10:13) and similarly in Parshas Bechukosai (Vayikra 26:46) and Parshas Pinchos (Bamidbar 27:23). Nevertheless, Rashi is answering a question: What is the meaning of “in the hand of Moshe”? For one cannot answer that Hashem said through Moshe to Korach that he would be punished if he disputed the kehunah, since we do not find this in the Torah. Furthermore why would He have commanded Korach any more than the rest of Yisroel? The phrase “to him” certainly refers to Korach, according to the Midrash which says, “This alludes that those who enter a dispute,” a reference to Korach who disputed. Rather one must say that “in the hand of Moshe” comes for one to expound an “allusion that those who dispute…” meaning that it is written “in the hand of Moshe” and there (Shemos 4:6) it is written “Please place your hand in your chest.” Just as there the Torah refers to tzora’as, so too here, those who enter a dispute will be stricken with tzora’as.

Are stricken with tzora’as. Because the Midrash expounds the verse in this manner, we have proof that לו “to him” refers to Korach, the one who disputed the kehunah. For one cannot explain that it refers to Aharon, given that tzora’as has no bearing to him.

He grasped the angel. For if not so, what is the meaning of “Between the living and the dead”? Were the living on one side and the dead on another such that Aharon could stand between them? But if it refers to the angel then it is understandable, and means that they no longer died. (Kitzur Mizrochi) Rashi explains this before his following comment “Another interpretation…” because it appears to contradict his previous comment (v. 11) “This was the secret [the Angel of Death] conveyed to him.” For if this were so, why was the plague not stopped immediately instead of him having to go to the Tent of Meeting? Therefore Rashi explains that Aharon immediately held the angel against his will with the incense; however the Angel of Death did not want to believe that Hashem now wished to use this remedy, given that the plague came because of the gravity of the sin. This secret would only apply when a plague comes naturally and the generation does not have the merit to overturn it, for only then does the incense help. Therefore, they had to go to the Tent of Meeting. After answering this difficulty, Rashi returned to explain the alternative interpretation.

An alternative interpretation: Why with incense. Because according to the first reason there is a difficulty why did he not pray immediately so that the plague would not start, or at very least [why did he not pray] once it had started. Therefore, Rashi gives the alternative interpretation that it was a decree from Hashem. However, according to this alternative interpretation there is the difficulty that we do not find that Hashem said this to him. Therefore, Rashi also gives the first interpretation, “This was the secret…”

In the middle. Once the Torah writes “twelve staffs,” why is it necessary to say that “the staff of Aharon was among their staffs”? Rather this was to teach that before he placed them in the Mishkon, they arranged the staffs before them and Aharon’s staff was placed in the middle. Re’m writes that Rashi may have found Midrashic support for his words, and it is not that the word “among” indicates this.

When the blossoms drop. We find ציץ ("buds") mentioned before פרח ("blossom") as the verse states יציץ ופרח - "buds and blossom" (Yeshayahu 27:6) therefore Rashi explains “blossomed” as the plain interpretation. You might ask: Why does Rashi not explain ציץ ("bud") like its plain interpretation and explain that פרח is something that comes before the bud, for example the sap of the tree? The answer is that after mentioning ציץ ("buds"), the verse says “and bore ripe almonds,” and the budding of the fruit immediately precedes the ripening of the almonds. I have found a further explanation: Wherever there are two terms, such as here where the Torah states פרח ("blossom") and then states ויצץ ציץ ("and bloomed buds"), and the meaning of "blossom" is evident but the meaning of "buds" is not, then Rashi will explain “blossom” as its plain interpretation without the need for further explanation. However, since the meaning of ציץ ("buds") is not evident, he needs to explain “this refers to the budding of the fruit.” Similarly “their minchah-offerings, their sin-offerings and their guilt-offerings” (Bamidbar 18:9) where Rashi explains “like the plain interpretation” because it is evident what they are. However, he then has to explain that “which they return to me” refers to the proselyte’s stolen property because I would not know its meaning. This is unlike “their minchah-offerings, their sin-offerings and their guilt-offerings” the meaning of which is according to the plain interpretation, whether referring to the offerings of the congregation or to the offerings of an individual. Rashi in Parshas Vayeshev (Bereishis 40:10) writes that a פרח is the same as a נץ ("forming-fruit"), only that נץ is larger than the פרח. Accordingly, פרח would refer to a small forming-fruit while יוצא פרח ("a פרח came forth") here refers to a larger forming-fruit, given that both terms can be referred to as פרח. However, it is only when the blossom has not yet fallen that the נץ is also called a פרח. It refers to one which it is larger [than a normal פרח] which is termed a נץ קטן ("small forming-fruit"). But once the blossom falls, as here, the part remaining is called a ציץ ("[fruit]-bud").

Why almonds. (Gur Aryeh) Meaning: Once we have explained that “and bore ripe almonds” means “when the fruit was discernable…” why does the Torah say almonds and not a different species? It would have been understandable if the fruit was not discernable, merely standing in its blossom stage. Then one could have said that it was because this fruit blossoms most quickly, and even though it was a miracle, Hashem chose something that blossoms quickly, given that it produced the blossoms in one night. However if one says that the fruit was already discernable, there is a difficulty as to why this species in particular was chosen. For now there would be no difference between this fruit and another. Although this species blossoms quickly, it does not produce fruit that quickly. Since we must say that miraculously it produced fruit, it would have been possible to miraculously produce a different fruit. Rashi answers that this species was merely used as an allusion [that they will be punished quickly] given that it is the type of fruit which blossoms most quickly.

As a remembrance that I chose Aharon. The staff of Aharon sprouted for he was the one who gave over the staff, not his son Elozor who was the leader of the tribe of Levi. This was in contrast to the other leaders. With this they would know that Aharon was chosen, because the main dispute was over the kehunah and not over the elevation of the tribe if Levi. Thus a symbol of remembrance was only needed for the kehunah, and the blossoming of Aharon’s staff would be sufficient a symbol for the service of the Levites, given that there was only one staff for the tribe of Levi. This is a summation of the words of Re’m. It appears to me that the blossoming of the staff of Aharon, who was from the tribe of Levi, was testimony that Hashem chose Levi over the other tribes. This was because the blossoming was on Aharon’s name, rather than on another place on the staff, as I wrote, providing testimony that Hashem had chosen Aharon over the rest of the Levites.

Feminine [verbl noun]. For if not so, it should have said ותכלינה ("[their complaints] will end" in the plural). Rashi did not explain ותכל as a reference to Moshe, meaning that Hashem said to him that with this action you will end their complaining against Me, because to end the complaining was not Moshe’s task, rather it would occur on its own as a result of this action.

The courtyard of the Tent of Meeting. Meaning: The first הקרב ("anyone approaching") refers to the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting and the second הקרב refers to the inside of the Tent. And it is as if the verse had said, “Anyone who approaches the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting will die when he approaches the inside of the Tent of Meeting.” The verse did not say simply “anyone approaching the Mishkon of Hashem will die” because it would not be likely for one who is outside the courtyard to enter the Tent of Meeting. Thus there is no reason for them to be concerned about this and say “have we been consigned to die.” However those standing in the courtyard were close to entering the Tent of Meeting and they have reason to be concerned. Re’m.

[Perhaps] we have been abandoned to die. Not that they had already been consigned to death, because the hei prefix of האם (have…?) which denotes a question would not be appropriate. Furthermore, they did not actually die. Rather “perhaps…”