Alshich's Thoughts on BaMidbar Perek Cuf-Chet

צו את בני ישראל ואמרת אלהם את קרבני לחמי לאשי ריח ניחחי תשמרו להקריב לי במועדו. ואמרת להם זה האשה אשר תקריבו ליי כבשים בני שנה תמימם שנים ליום עלה תמיד. (ב - ג):

 

ראוי לשים לב למה כפל צו ואמרת. וגם מה ענין ריבוי האת. וגם אומרו קרבני ואומרו לחמי. ועוד אומרו ואמרת פעם שנית. אך הנה בפרשת ויקרא כתבנו, כי עיקר הקרבן הוא מה שהוא חוץ למציאותו כתוספת עליו. הוא מה שיכוין האדם בהקריבו הקרבן, שהוא כי את עצמו הוא מקריב, ומי יתן והיה כדאי להיות הוא עצמו קרבן כיצחק. ולכן מעתה הוא מצדיק עליו את הדין, שכל מה שנעשה בבעל חי ההוא כשחיטה והפשט וניתוח וכל יתר עבודות, היה ראוי ליעשות בו. וכך הוא מקבל על עצמו, ומודה לו יתברך שנתן בעל חי תמורתו. נמצאו בקרבן שנידברים. אחד במחשבה. שנית המעשה. והוא מאמר הכתוב - ככתוב אצלינו במקומו - באומרו אדם כי יקריב מכם ממש, יעשה קרבן לה' במחשבתו. ואחר כך מן הבהמה וכו' תקריבו את קרבנכם, שהוא המעשה:

 

(ב) וזה יאמר פה, צו את בני ישראל דבר אחד, ואחר כך ואמרת אליהם דבר שני. הדבר הראשון הוא, את קרבני לחמי וכו'. והוא, כי יש קרבן בפועל. ויש קרבן נוסף, והוא מה שהאדם מקריב עצמו במחשבה, והוא רבוי האת. ואמר, מה שהוא את קרבני - הוא רבויהנוסף על הבעלי חיים - הוא הנקרא לחמי. שאני מקבל כלחם לי, שהוא הרצון טוב. שהוא מה שאדם מקריב עצמו במחשבה. ויש שניו הוא לאישי, הוא הניתן בפועל באש המזבח:

 

והנה ריח ניחוחי שאני מריח וערב לי שהוא הראשון, הוא מה שתשמרו להקריב לי במועדו. והנה זה הוא אשר עליו אמר צו את בני ישראל, שהוא מה שאני עושה עיקר. אך מה שאמרתי ואמרת אליהם - הוא מציאות הקרבן - על זה אני חוזר ומפרש ואומר, (ג) ואמרת להם זה האשה וכו', שהוא מה שהוא לאישי בפועל אשר תקריבו וכו':

In פרק כח, Alshich makes just one comment, but he makes it count. Alshich asks a question on פסוק ב: why does it say צו את בני ישראל ואמרת, a repetitive phrase used just twice in all of תנ"ך? Isn't the word ואמרת superfluous?

Alshich's answer is that צו and ואמרת are implying two different things. He says that צו is talking about the physical קרבן that you have to give, as we would expect, but the second is that just as important as the physical sacrifice is the mental sacrifice, the mindset that comes along with giving the קרבן in order to make it valid and have a real impact on your life. He quotes the opinion that when you bring a קרבן, it really should be you going on the altar, and instead you only have to give an animal. Alshich adds onto that opinion, saying that really giving the animal isn't enough- in your mind you have to think of it as though you're sacrificing yourself, and if you're not in that frame in mind, giving the קרבן is a complete waste of time because you're just going to do the same thing again.

Alshich's proofs seem pretty vague- he has going for him the double language, but there's no other mention of a mental component of bringing a קרבן. He tries to use the word לְאִשַּׁי- for me personally- as a proof, saying that you have communicate directly between you and Hashem, not through a medium like a קרבן, in order for the קרבן to be a ריח ניחוח.

And finally, Alshich inevitably inserts a few lessons for our everyday lives in his Peirush, talking about the importance of תפילה and specifically having כוונה and not simply going through the motions but truly making an impact on yourself through your תפילה. He also implies that just like the קרבן is a ריח ניחוח, Hashem wants us to do תשובה and it's sweet to him.

It's clear from his ideas here that Alshich is a member of the school that believes that there can't be repetition simply for emphasis and every word has to mean something different, and his Peirush accomplishes his goal of giving צו and ואמרת two different meanings. His idea is a very interesting look at the קרבן process- that there is not just a concentration needed when a קרבן is given but specifically an understanding that you really should be the one sacrificed and an impact that has to be made on you for the קרבן to have any effect. He also gives us something we can continue to apply in our davening today. All in all, it's a nice idea but I don't really buy it just because the text doesn't mention anything about a mental component at all. It's a vintage Drashic type of opinion where a seemingly extraneous word gives us a whole new idea, but Alshich is not exactly a Amora, and I think this is a stretch.

Alshich's Thoughts on Perek Cuf-Vuv

בני יהודה ער ואונן וימת ער ואונן בארץ כנען. ויהיו בני יהודה למשפחתם לשלה משפחת השלני לפרץ משפחתהפרצי לזרח משפחת הזרחי. (יט - כ):

ועל פי הדברים האלה, נשית לב אל מאמר הכתוב וימת ער ואונן בארץ כנען. מי הכניס דבר זה פה, ומהראוי לא יאמר רק ובני יהודה שלהופרץ וזרח, לשלה משפחת השלני כו'. ועוד שמהראוי יאמר כאשר בשאר שבטים בני פלוני למשפחותם, כן יאמר ביהודה בני יהודה למשפחותם:

אמנם להיותו יתברך בא להורות טהרת בניו מענין זמה. ראה והנה, לא יבצר מאשר לא הבין דרך ה', לדבר ולומר, איה איפה טהרת ישראל. ומילנו גדול מיהודה, ועיקר בניו מכלתו היו לו. ויחשבום לבני זנונים חלילה. כי גם שמה' יצא הדבר, לא גלה לנו זה הוא יתברך בתורה כי אם בזה.כי עדיין לא יבצר מדוברי רע לשים ביהודה תהלה. ועוד מעט יוסיפו לחטא ולומר, כי אשר נתן שכבתו בכלתו, מי זה ערב בעדו שלא עשה כן לאשת עמיתו, והוליד בנים בישראל אשר לא לבית אבותם המה. ואם הוא חטא בזה, מה יעשו ירודי האיכות ושלמות ממנו. על כן בא הוא יתברך ואמר בני יהודה כו'. והוא הנודע מרבותינו ז"ל (בראשית רבה פה ט) כי מה' יצא הדבר. ואדרבא לדרכו היה הולך, ואמר הקב"ה יהודה יהודה מהיכן יוצאים מלכים כו', ורמז למלאך הממונה על התאוה והחזירו. והוא מאמרנו במקומו, כי הדבר היה אז בפעם ההיא דרך יבום, ושהוצרך להיות על ידי יהודה, להביא יחד את ער ואונן, להקים את שמם והם פרץ וזרח. מה שאין כן אם היה מיבם שלה, שלא היהמביא רק את אונן הוא זרח ולא את ער, כי בית אחד הוא בונה ולא שני בתים. באופן שבניו משוללי פקפוק המה. וזה מאמר הכתוב בנייהודה ער ואונן, כלומר עדיין הם בניו ער ואונן. והוא, כי גם שוימת ער ואונן בארץ כנען, הנה חזרו ויהיו הם בני יהודה. וזהו וימת כו' ויהיו בני יהודה. כי ער ואונן חזרו והיו בניו כמאז, שהוא על ידי גלגול דרך יבום. כי שבו למשפחותם כי הם עצמם פרץ וזרח. ובכן שלשתן מיוחסים להטיל בהם שם יה. וזהו לשלה כו' לפרץ משפחת הפרצי כו':

In his commentary in this Perek, Alshich discusses why פסוק יט needs to be here. It says בְּנֵי יְהוּדָה עֵר וְאוֹנָן וַיָּמָת עֵר וְאוֹנָן בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן- why do we care about עֵר and אוֹנָן in our count of Bnei Yisrael from after the מגפה if they died over 200 years before back in ארץ כנען during the תמר story, and why especially do we need to mention that they died earlier?

Alshich gives two answers to the above question. The first is that חס ושלום we don't want to accuse עֵר and אוֹנָן of committing the sin of זמה that Bnei Yisrael committed here at בעל פעור. Alshich's other answer is that עֵר and אוֹנָן remind us of the story of תמר and one of the key characteristics uniquely of שבט יהודה: the ability to give in to indulgence and temptation but then return, something Bnei Yisrael have to figure out a way to do in wake of this tragedy.

Alshich's first proof is simply there would be no other reason to mention them since they weren't really involved. But other than that, earlier in the Perek, it mentions the story of דתן and אבירם for the same reason- they didn't die in that place, they died earlier during their rebellion alongside קרח.

Of course, embedded in Alshich's Peirush are manifold lessons for us to take to our everyday lives. Alshich emphasizes that there's almost nothing worse than accusing someone of a sin like זמה falsely. Even for people who are already dead, we learn elsewhere in the Torah not to curse a dead person, and Alshich is emphasizing that here. Alshich also talks about the importance of תשובה even after a tragedy like this and how leaders (like יהודה, the שבט of מלכות) have to step up to lead their followers to make that happen. Finally, Alshich talks about the importance of יבום, maybe not necessarily physically, but the general concept of allowing the souls of the deceased to live on.

The first idea from Alshich resounds with me because it fits perfectly in the text, and the second idea is a nice inspiring idea and it's cool in the second idea how Alshich is able to combine two negative stories and turn it into a positive message. He's able to remove עֵר and אוֹנָן from the equation and the bring them back as a source of motivation for the people to move on from the tragedy of בעל פעור and overcome the issues that have held them back for so long. Even after a disaster like that, Alshich's interpretation of these פסוקים remind us that even in the lowest places we can find inspiration.

Alshich's Thoughts on Perek Cuf-Zayin

ועל אשר צוהו יתברך והעמדת אותו וכו', אמר ויעמידהו לפני וכו' ויסמוך וכו'. ואחשוב כי משה אמר, הנה צוני יתברך שאסמוך ידי אחת, ובה שתים אשפיע בו. אחד, קדושה. שיוכל להשפיע ולרעות גם את הנקראים עם ה'. שנית, לתת בו הדר מלכות. ולא צוני שאסמוך את שתי ידי רק אחת, כי אם שאכוין גם לתת מהודי עליו. ובא לקנא עם שהוא תלמידי, אמר לו שלפני אלעזר הכהן יעמוד ושאל לו וכו', מה שאין כן אני שאיני צריך שאלת כהן. על כן אעשה את שלי, שמה שהיה לי לעשות שתים ביד אחת אעשה בשתים בשתי כוונות. אחת, למען תחול בחינת הקדושה בימין. ובחינת הדר מלכות ביד שמאל. כי חכמה בדרום שהוא הימין. ולתת מהוד מלכות עליו הוא בשמאל, כי מלוכה 

בצפון כנודע. כוונה שנית, להפליג השפע:

על כן ויסמוך את ידיו, הן שתי הידים, עליו. ועל ידי כן כאשר ויצוהו לנגיד על כלם, הופלג עד גדר שהיה כאשר דבר ה' בידמשה. שהוא, כאשר היה דבר ה' ביד משה, מדבר הוא יתברך לצורך ישראל. כאשר היו ביד משה, כן עתה בהיותם ביד יהושע. כי כאשר היה עם משה, היה עמו. כי על פי ה' שהיה מדבר עם יהושע, היה יוצא ובא הוא וכל ישראל כאשר בהיותם ביד משה. שלא הוצרך למשפט אורים ותומים כי נביא הוא, ואין צורך אורים ותומים רק למי שאינו נביא. כי גם דוד לא השיג רק רוח הקדש. ואילו היה סומך ידו אחת עדיין היה צריך לאלעזר. על כן טרם יסמוך ידיו העמידו לפניו, להורות כי קודם סמיכת שתי ידיו צריך עמידה לפניו אך לא אחרי כן:

By this דיבור המתחיל, Alshich looks to explain an apparent contradiction in the text. In Pasuk 18, Hashem tells Moshe וסמכת את ידו אליו, but when Moshe actually does it, it says in Pasuk 23, ויסמוך את ידיו אליו. Why did Moshe put two hands on Yehoshua's head instead of just one?

Alshich answers that Moshe was only required to put one hand, his right hand, on Yehoshua in order to give him קדושה but chose to put a second one upon him to give him מלכות as well. Alshich says that Moshe thought that Yehoshua might get jealous that Elazar got a whole ceremony when he was appointed כהן גדול while Yehoshua only gets this quick thing where Moshe gives him סמיכה, so in an attempt to rectify that, he gives Yehoshua a subtle but significant gesture that he full endorses him as the next leader of Bnei Yisrael and has all the respect in the world for him. Alshich goes on to say that because of this gesture of סמיכה with two hands, Yehoshua was able to lead Bnei Yisrael and have Hashem with him exactly the same way that it was with Moshe. Additionally, Elazar had the whole ceremony to give him the אורים ותומים, but Yehoshua actually got something greater as he never needed to use the אורים ותומים a single time throughout his leadership, instead receiving straight Nevuah from Hashem like Moshe did (if not on the same level of Nevuah).

Alshich's best proof for his ideas is that the אורים ותומים are not mentioned a single time throughout ספר יהושע, and his basic premise of Moshe wanting to make sure Yehoshua didn't get jealous fits well with the פשט as well.

In terms of lessons from this idea, Alshich does not dwell on them as much as he usually does, but a few of them that he's implying are not to show favoritism among your children as a parent or to your child (or nephew) compared to your other students as a teacher. Alshich also implies the importance of a leader supporting his successor. Other than that, Alshich makes a point at the end about how סמיכה is given, that if it's given with one hand, you don't have to stand up, but with two hands, you do (of course it was always given with two hands because of that).

This is a really cool פירוש as it gives a whole new perspective of the changing of the guard from Moshe to Yehoshua in that he's not just reluctantly listening to Hashem's command to appoint Yehoshua his successor but also choosing to bestow upon him additional merit to help him lead in the future. That's vintage Moshe, willing to be humble and pass on as much of his greatness as possible to his greatest student. The whole idea that Yehoshua might be jealous is a little off- why would Yehoshua be jealous?- but it does fit in with his character (at the end of ספר יהושע, he expected to live longer than he did even though he was 110 years old when he died). I still don't love that idea- I guess it's the פשט, but what's wrong with simply saying that Moshe wanted to pass down his greatness to Yehoshua? You could turn around his פירוש and say that Moshe didn't really want to give Yehoshua the two-handed סמיכה but only did it because he felt like he had to and was humble enough to do something he didn't want to do to keep Yehoshua happy. At the end of the day, I love the idea of how the second hand parallels and even overcomes the אורים ותומים and that will shine through for me even as the other idea falls short.

ָAlshich's Thoughts on Perek Cuf-Hei

ושם האשה המכה המדינית כזבי בת צור ראש אמות בית אב במדין הוא (טו:

 

הנה אומרו יחס האשה יראה לבלי צורך. כי אם הוא להודיע שהיתה בת מלך ואביה מסרה לזנות להחטיא, יותר היה צודקת הודעה זו למעלה בסוף פרשה הקודמת. וגם אומרו במדין הוא, שנראה כמודיענו היותו במדין, ומה צורך להודעה זו כלל:

 

ואחשוב, יהיה להורות, הפרש פגם העון שפוגם בהיות החוטא ישראל, אף בעולם הזה, שיורד מרום רקיעא עד תהומא דארעא. מה שאין כן באומות העולם, שחשיבותו טרם יחטא כחשיבותו אחר כך. שהוא כמשל השמן הטוב היורד על בגדי משי ורקמה, שימאסו בהם בעיני הכל, כימשחתם בהם מום בם. מה שאין כן בעירוני הלובש כתנות עור או סנדל כל אדם. כי אף אם שמן תורק עליהם כמים הנגרים, לא יגרע ערכם. ואדרבא הוא ישביחם ויצהיבם, כי לא חובל עור מפני שמן. כן הדבר הזה, הישראלי הקדוש נפגם בטומאת עונו אשר יטמא בו. מה שאין כן אוה"ע אף אם שר או גדול היה, כי טמא נזרו וכתרו ולא יטמאנו העון, כי מין במינו היה ובגוים לא נתחשב לגרוע. מה שאין כן בישראל, כי אף כל איש ישראל ימאסו באחיהם החוטא, והיה שפל ומאוס בעיניהם. וזהו, שאחר אומרו מה שגרע מכבוד זמרי והושוה אל המדינית. אמר כיאך האשה המוכה לא ירדה מיחוסה לא היא ולא אביה שמסרה, ולא נגרעה מעלתן. וזהו אומרו המדינית כו' ראש אומות בית אב כו'במדין הוא. כלומר עדיין במדין הוא ראש אומות. כמעלתו אז מעלתו עתה אחר מעשה בתו על ידו. וזהו ראש אומות במדין הוא

 

או יאמר בדרך זה, ויתיישב יותר אומרו במדין הוא. שהוא, אחר אומרו שאביה ראש אומות, כלומר שלא פגם במעלתו. שעדיין הוא ראש חמשת מלכי מדין. כמו שאמרו ז"ל (במדבר רבה כא ד), שהיה הוא ראש החמשה מלכים וזהו ראש אומות. וקשה על זה, שהרי הכתוב מנא ושלישי את אוי ואת רקם ואת צור. לזה אמר במדין הוא, כלומר מה שהוא ראש אומות שהוא ראש לחמשה מלכים, במדין הוא אך לאב עיניו יתברך. כי התורה תגנהו על מוסרו ותתו את בתו להזנותה, כמו שאמרו ז"ל (שם) שעל כן מנאו יתברך שלישי. אך לא בעיני מדין, כי ראש אומות 

בית אב במדין הוא:

In this פירוש, Alshich asks two related questions: why the Torah need to give the identity of the מדינית woman, and why is it said here instead of earlier in the Perek at the end of פרשת בלק when her sin actually happened?

In response to those question, Alshich gives two diverging but not mutually exclusive opinions. The first one is that even after what she did, כזבי does not lose her identity as a daughter of one of the kings of מידין. Alshich says that the Torah is comparing כזבי to בני ישראל. Just like כזבי remains the daughter of a king even after the terrible thing that she did, the same is true with Bnei Yisrael. Even after their sins, they remain the children of Hashem and will always have the opportunity to do תשובה. At the same time, though, sinners are sinners, and their status as Jews only means anything if they are willing to admit they were wrong and change their ways. 

Alshich's second opinion, which answers his second question, is that the פסוק says that her father was צוּר רֹאשׁ אֻמּוֹת בֵּית אָב בְּמִדְיָן הוּא, but elsewhere, in במדבר פרק לא, it lists צוּר as just the third מדני king as it says אֶת אֱוִי וְאֶת רֶקֶם וְאֶת צוּר. Why is that? The Alshich answers that צוּר really was the foremost king of מידין, but Hashem only viewed him as possessing the third-most authority because he allowed his daughter to do what she did. Alshich's comments can be expounded to a larger Torah concept that the order of lists and the names of people and many any things in the Torah can be different from their realities in order to teach us different things and to emphasize points.

As always, there are lessons abound in Alshich's Peirush. He talks about recognizing idea of Jews no matter how far astray they've gone while at the same time reminding his readers that we must still must have disdain for sins and the people who do them. Then in the second opinion, Alshich expresses how we must remember that the way that we view people and things may not be the way Hashem views them and we have to remind ourselves that our intelligence is limited and what we can comprehend is not always the full picture of the matter. Another thing is that even when someone is in authority, if they sin it degrades their status and we have to fight not to let that happen as Jews. Finally, for a sinful ruler, if we see them doing vile things and wonder why nothing is happening to them, Alshich implies that if they truly are sinful, they will be destroyed, as the Perek continues צָרוֹר אֶת הַמִּדְיָנִים וְהִכִּיתֶם אוֹתָם.

In terms of proofs, Alshich's second idea seems to fit better than the first because the comparison to Bnei Yisrael would have made a lot more sense had כזבי's identity been revealed right after the act while the second idea looks to work quite well with the words בְּמִדְיָן הוּא and the סמיכות פרשיות of the מדינים needing to be destroyed right after.

Reading this idea from Alshich, I like most of it but there are a couple overarching ideas that have major problems. Alshich draws a very fine line between sinners and בעלי תשובה, and if his comments were read the wrong way, he could very well be interpreted as saying that we should not accept them and should in fact hate them because of their sins. He definitely could have worded that section of his Peirush much better and come away with a more positive idea. Obviously as a Pulpit Rabbi (or whatever they were called back then), he had to give the occasional "condemn sinners" idea, but outside that context he really should have focused less on the sins and more on תשובה. 

The second issue is the way Alshich contradicts himself regarding whether sins can change someone's status as a person. You can try to get of it by saying that we don't really know what people's statuses are- only Hashem does- but that should have been elucidated more and it lowers the entire strength of the point- we should hate sinners, but we don't really know what's going on, so should we? Alshich's focus in his Peirush is on the lessons we can learn from just about every Pasuk in the Torah, and sometimes we have to understand that he tries too hard to make points and simply move on and take in the incisive analysis that is the rest of Peirush.

Alshich's Thoughts on Perek Zayin

ובבא משה אל אהל מועד לדבר אתו וישמע את הקול מדבר אליו מעל הכפרת אשר על ארן העדת מבין שניהכרבים וידבר אליו. (פט):

 

הנה, פסוק זה יראה בלתי מקושר, עם הקודם ועם המאוחר. ועוד, כי אמרו רבותינו ז"ל (תנחומא בהעלותך ה) על סמיכות פרשת בהעלותךאל חנוכת המזבח. ואמרו, שהיה אהרן מהרהר ומצטער, הנה כל השבטים הביאו חנוכת המזבח, ואני לא הבאתי מצד שבט לוי. ואמר לוהקב"ה, שלך גדול משלהם, כי בהעלותך את הנרות וכו'. והלא לפי זה לא היה ראוי להפסיק בפסוק ובבא משה וכו' בנתים. ועל פי דרכנו,נשים לב אל אומרו מדבר בחיר"ק המ"ם. והנה פרש"י, שהוא, כי אינו כבוד כלפי מעלה לדבר עם בשר ודם. על כן, היה הקול כמתדבר בינולעצמו, ומאליו שומע משה. ועל היות דוחק שבא לספר נגד משה רבינו ע"ה, גם אין לו ייחס פה:

 

ואחשבה, בשום לב אל אומרו אחר כך וידבר אליו. כי הנה בא לספר מעלת משה. כי בבאו לדבר אל השם יתברך רעד והיה בוש להתחיל.והיה צריך רשות, כדרך המלך שצריך תחלה רשות לדבר. אמר, כי הוא יתברך היה מתחיל, להורות כי חפץ בו לדבר אתו.

 וזה לא היה על ידי מלאך, רק היה שומע את הקול כמתדבר אליו דרך הקבלה טובה. ואחר כך וידבר אליו לנוכח אתו, כאשר ידבר איש אל רעהו. אך לאמתחלה. כי מה שהוא הכנה אל הדבור, אין ראוי ליעשות לנוכח. ודבר גדול היה ליעשות על ידי עצמו, וטרם יתחנן משה לפניו, כי אם היה הוא יתברך היה מתחיל:

 

והנה אמרו רבותינו ז"ל בויקרא רבה (א ט) כי גדול כח משה מאברהם. כי באברהם המלאך עשה ההכנה, ויקרא אליו מלאך ה' וכו' (בראשית כב יא). ואחר כך הוא יתברך דבר עמו, אל תשלח ידך וכו'. ובמשה, ויקרא אל משה על יד עצמו. ועל דרך זה הוא מה שכתבנו:

 

ונבא אל הסמיכות, והוא, כי הנה כאשר היה מהרהר אהרן, על שלא היה מחנך המזבח על שבט הלוי, הנה גם משה היה יכול להרהר על זה.לכן באה תורה ואמרה, הנה משה אין לו תלונה, כי מה לו יותר על השגתו והתקרבו אליו יתברך. כי ובבא משה וכו', שטרם יתחנן אל ה'ידבר אתו, מתחיל הוא יתברך, ועושה לו הקבלה אחרת וידבר אליו. ועל אהרן גם כן לא יהרהר, כי הנה וידבר וכו', בהעלותך אתהנרות וכו' כמו שאמרו ז"ל (תנחומא שם) שלך גדול משלהם וכו':

By this דיבור המתחיל, Alshich talks about the connection between במדבר פרק ד' פסוק פט and the פסוקים immediately before, the חנכת המזבח, and right after בהעלתך את הנרות. Alshich quotes חז"ל, who say that the סמיכות פרשיות between the חנכת המזבח and בהעלתך is that Aharon wondered why he wasn't a representative of שבט לוי in the dedication of the מזבח, and Hashem answers that as the כהן גדול, Aharon has his own special, more individualized task, lighting the מנורה on a daily basis. That's a great idea and all, but if that's the case, what is פסוק פט, which talks exclusively about Moshe, doing here? 

Alshich's answer is that Moshe really could have said the exact same thing as Aharon, but Hashem is showing in this פסוק how really he has his own special relationship with Hashem and no reason to worry. Moshe gets the opportunity to communicate with Hashem in a way that no person before or after ever did- as the פסוק says, לדבר אתו, to speak with him- and just like Moshe has this unbelievable opportunity, Aharon should learn that he has a unique privilege as well to light the Menorah and need not wonder why he wasn't part of the חנכת המזבח because he's far above that level.

In order to prove his answer, Alshich quotes the words of פסוק פט, and inevitably as he always does, there are several lessons involved. Alshich compares Aharon's question to the Nevuah of Moshe. He says that it starts as מִדַּבֵּר- notice the היריק which Alshich says is indicative of the fact that in the beginning Hashem and Moshe weren't really talking but Hashem was as though talking to himself and Moshe was listening. Then it progresses to the level of וַיְדַבֵּר אֵלָיו, which Alshich says is like when you come before a human king and you wait for the king to speak to you before you respond. But after that, Moshe talks to Hashem on the level of לְדַבֵּר אִתּוֹ, like a man talks to his friend, something no other Navi ever experienced (I think the Bar Ilan text has a mistake and the second וַיְדַבֵּר אֵלָיו should be לְדַבֵּר אִתּוֹ). Alshich compares the Nevuah of Moshe to the Nevuah of Avraham and it's clear that Moshe's is far superior as Avraham was called out to by a מלאך while Moshe was called out by Hashem himself. 

How about those lessons? The obvious one is at the end, where Alshich sets out to prove that Moshe was the greatest נביא to ever live. Other than that, he has underlying themes of the fact that Hashem is on a much higher level than human beings, that you must have extreme reverence whenever you "come before Hashem" in תפילה, that good things come to those who wait, and that you should never question Hashem knowing that everything will always work out in the end as long as you believe.

In this פירוש, Alshich sets out to clarify an idea from the גמרא and does so with flying colors in an intuitive idea that can also teach us a variety of things to apply in our lives. Sometimes Alshich's ideas are a little bit out there, but in this one he uses strong textual proofs seamlessly intertwined with his usual type of lessons in a lucid פירוש that was a quick yet influential read.