Regarding the verse, “The Levites shall encamp around the Tabernacle of the Testimony and there shall be no wrath upon the assembly of the Children of Israel...,” Rashi cites the words “and there shall be no wrath” and explains: “If you will act according to My commandment, there shall be no wrath; but if not, that strangers {non-Levites} shall enter this service of {the Levites}, there shall be wrath.”
This explanation must be clarified: Rashi has previously cited on numerous occasions the general rule that “from the implication of the negative you infer the positive.” Thus, once the verse informs us that if we fulfill this command, “there shall be no wrath,” it’s self-understood that if we were to not fulfill it, then “there shall be wrath.” What is Rashi adding with his explanation?
Even if we were to propose that Rashi {spells this out because he} is trying to highlight (not just the fact that “but if not... there shall be wrath,” {for that can indeed be deduced without him,} but rather) in clarifying who “and there shall be no wrath” is referring to: At first glance we could assume that these words are a continuation of the beginning of the verse, “The Levites shall encamp....” Thus, the verse is informing us that if they were to act in this way {and encamp around the Tabernacle}, then “there shall be no wrath,” “but if not (and the Levites do not encamp) there shall be wrath.” {Addressing this possible misunderstanding} Rashi negates this interpretation and explains, “but if not, that strangers {non-Levites} shall enter this service of {the Levites}.” He clarifies that “and there shall be no wrath” is actually a continuation of the earlier verse, “and a stranger who approaches shall die”; and that if they “shall enter this service of {the Levites},” that would bring “wrath upon the assembly of the Children of Israel.”
However, this explanation must also be clarified:
- As per our earlier question: Why does Rashi use such lengthy wording at the beginning of his explanation, “If you will act according to My commandment, there shall be no wrath”? He should have opened with the “negative” — “but if they do enter... there shall be wrath”!
- Even if Rashi must state the “positive,” why must he use the vague wording of “If you will act according to My commandment” (without specifying which mitzvah he is referring to)? He should have stated a “positive” that matches the “negative”: “If strangers do not enter (or something similar) there shall be no wrath; but if not, that strangers shall enter... there shall be wrath.”
- Even Rashi’s wording “that strangers shall enter this service of {the Levites}” must be addressed: Generally, Rashi adheres to the verse’s wording. Why then does he replace the wording of the earlier verse, “a stranger who approaches (to this service of {the Levites})” with “that strangers shall enter (into this service of {the Levites})”? Additionally: Why does Rashi use the plural form, “that strangers shall enter”?
