The Israel Koschitzky
Virtual Beit MidrashThe Israel Koschitzky
Virtual Beit Midrash
Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat
Har Etzion
PARASHAT KORACH
Rav David Silverberg
Parashat Korach tells the unfortunate story of Korach's ill-conceived and ill-fated revolt against Moshe and Aharon's authority. Upon being confronted by Korach and his cohorts, Moshe responded by suggesting a "test" to determine the legitimacy of Aharon's right to the kehuna (priesthood). The next morning, Moshe instructed, Korach's two hundred and fifty supporters would, together with Aharon, offer ketoret (incense) outside the Mishkan, and the one whose offering earned acceptance would be named the chosen kohen gadol.
The Midrash Tanchuma (5) raises the question of why Moshe chose to delay this event until the following day, and offers the following explanation: "Moshe said: Perhaps they spoke this matter as a result of eating and drinking He said: Perhaps in the interim they will perform repentance."
This comment by the Midrash presents us with a meaningful lesson as to how to properly respond to insults and antagonism by others. Rather than immediately responding with defensiveness and verbal counterattacks, one is perhaps best advised to Moshe's example of patience. As the Midrash records, Moshe's response was based on two possibilities that he considered. First, he suspected that the dissenters' comments resulted from "eating and drinking," a mood that suddenly overcame them and did not truly reflect their actual mindset and attitude. In more common, everyday terms, this would translate into thoughts such as, "Maybe he's had a bad day" or "He probably doesn't really mean it; he just spoke without thinking." One's initial reaction to an antagonistic remark from his peers should thus be to downplay the incident as a function of a temporary emotion which overcame the person and drove him to utter a comment that he would not normally make.
Secondly, Moshe considered the likelihood that "in the interim they will perform repentance." Even if Korach and his followers acted with firm conviction and sound reasoning, Moshe figured, they might, after further reflection, rethink their decision to launch this foolish campaign. Intelligent people such as Korach and his cohorts generally acknowledge their wrongdoing and work to correct their mistakes. Moshe felt that his adversaries deserved this opportunity, a day to carefully reexamine and rethink their misguided pursuit of priesthood. We, too, should learn to give our family members and peers an opportunity to reconsider the things they say and do. Rather than immediately countering with more antagonism, we should instead show some patience and tolerance for other people's mistakes, and trust their ability to recognize and rectify their wrongful conduct.
******
Yesterday, we discussed Moshe's initial response to the challenge posed by Korach and his fellow rebels. Moshe decided that on the following day, the two hundred and fifty self-proclaimed nominees for the high priesthood should, together with Aharon, bring a ketoret (incense) offering. The person whose offering earned God's acceptance would be confirmed as the Almighty's choice for kohen gadol. When the challengers ultimately offered their ketoret, a fire burst forth and consumed the entire group.
As we noted
(based on the Midrash Tanchuma), Moshe's decision to delay this event
until the following day serves as an instructive example of patience in the face
of adversity. Rather than
immediately responding, Moshe allowed his opponents the opportunity to rethink
their ill-conceived campaign and withdraw.
Interestingly enough, Shadal, in his commentary, writes that the two hundred fifty rebels chose not to wait until the following day. The straightforward reading of the verses indeed appears to support this view. The Torah tells that immediately after Moshe finished speaking with Korach and the two hundred and fifty followers, he proceeded to the tent of Datan and Aviram, two other rebel leaders. It was there where God miraculously opened the ground, which devoured Datan, Aviram, their families and property. Immediately after relating this episode, the Torah writes, "And a fire went forth from the Lord and consumed the two hundred and fifty men who offered incense" (16:35). Seemingly, as Shadal writes, this group preferred to offer the incense immediately, rather than wait until the following day, as Moshe had instructed.
If so, then these two hundred and fifty men provide the precise opposite model to that which Moshe established through his patience in handling this challenge. They conducted themselves in this episode with not only brazenness and unrestrained envy, but also with reckless haste and rashness. Moshe granted them the opportunity to reconsider and come to their senses, but they squandered this opportunity. The danger of strong emotions such as jealousy is that it often drives a person to act before it subsides and allows reason to prevail. One important lesson of this episode is thus the need to recognize this danger and to exercise patience and discipline during emotionally-charged situations. Patience under these circumstances can go a long way in helping one avoid the catastrophic consequences that could potentially result from rash, reckless decisions.
******
We read in Parashat Korach of the challenge posed to Moshe and Aharon's authority by Korach and his followers. Moshe responded by instructing his opponents to bring an incense offering the following morning, together with Aharon, so that the one whose offering is accepted by God would be determined to be the chosen leader. After issuing this instruction, Moshe remarks, "Rav lakhem benei Levi" (16:7). Rashi explains this to mean, "I have told you a great thing," referring, presumably, to the importance of the "test" Moshe suggested. Later, Rashi offers a different interpretation: "You have taken upon yourselves a great thing, to oppose God." According to this approach, Moshe warns Korach and his followers of the gravity of this campaign they have launched to challenge Moshe's authority.
The Gemara in Masekhet Sota (13b) draws a curious parallel between Moshe's remark to Korach and the response he received from God many years later, when he asked for permission to enter Eretz Yisrael. As we read in Sefer Devarim (3:26), God denied Moshe's request, and admonished, "Rav lakh" ("It is enough for you"). The Gemara comments, "He informed [Korach's followers] with [the phrase], 'Rav lakh,' and he was informed [by God] with the phrase, 'Rav lakh'." Apparently, Chazal saw some kind of link or association between Moshe's response to Korach's revolt and God's response to Moshe's request. What connection might there be between these two contexts?
Rav Yehuda Leib Ginsburg, in his Yalkut Yehuda, suggests an explanation based on Seforno's commentary to this verse. Seforno interprets Moshe's remark as a warning to Korach and his Levite followers that the consequences of their insurrection will be especially grave because of their stature. As Leviyim, the tribe that was designated for the lofty role of serving the Almighty in the Mishkan, they were held to a much stricter standard than the rest of the nation. Moshe warned that they ran the risk of incurring particularly severe punishment because they betrayed not only him, but also their special distinction and stature as Leviyim.
This interpretation of the Seforno, the Yalkut Yehuda suggests, easily explains the association drawn by the Sages between this verse and God's response to Moshe in Sefer Devarim. Moshe was denied the privilege of entering the land specifically because of his unique stature as leader and prophet, which made him accountable for what would otherwise constitute minor, excusable errors and misjudgments. However one chooses to understand the perplexing incident of Mei Meriva, Moshe's mistake in hitting the rock to produce water in the wilderness, the grave consequences of this incident is commonly attributed to his unparalleled stature of piety. More was expected from and demanded of Moshe than others, and he was therefore severely punished for a mistake that for lesser men would amount to a but minor infraction. Thus, the term rav lakh in both contexts with regard to Korach's uprising and Moshe's punishment refers to the higher level of accountability to which great people are held, the unique level of responsibility borne by those committed to more rigorous standards of avodat Hashem.
******
We read in Parashat Korach of the complaints advanced by Korach and his cohorts against Moshe and Aharon's authority. Korach and his following introduce their protest by proclaiming to Moshe and Aharon, "Rav lakhem" (16:3), which is generally translated as, "You have too much." Rashi, for example, explains, "You have assumed for yourselves far too much leadership ("Harbeh yoter mi-dai lekachtem le-atzekhem gedula"). According to this interpretation, Korach and his followers objected to the extent of Moshe and Aharon's authority, claiming that they have gone too far in asserting their power and authority over the people.
The difficulty with this explanation, however, lies in the fact that Korach and his followers seemed to have opposed Moshe and Aharon's authority altogether, and not merely the extent of their authority. They advanced the claim that "all the congregation they are all sacred, and the Lord is in their midst, so why do you raise yourselves over the congregation of the Lord?" It appears that they reject the need for Moshe and Aharon to assert themselves over the rest of the people in any capacity, and the question thus arises as to why they begin by complaining that Moshe and Aharon exerted too much authority.
Shadal explains the term rav lakhem differently, noting its
usage later in the Torah, when God commands Benei Yisrael to take leave
of Mount Seir: "Rav lakhem sov et ha-har ha-zeh" "You have surrounded
this mountain long enough" (Devarim 2:3).
In this verse, the phrase rav lakhem clearly means "enough," and
not "too much." Similarly,
Shadal claims, Korah and his followers charge not that Moshe and Aharon
assumed too much power and authority, but rather that their term of leadership
has expired. The people needed
their prophetic and spiritual guidance only during the nation's incipient
stages, when no one besides Moshe had access to God's instructions. But now that "all the congregation
they are all sacred, and the Lord is in their midst," there is no longer any
need for prophetic leadership: "So why do you raise yourselves over the
congregation of the Lord?" Korach
argued that once the Mishkan is erected and functioning, and sacrifices
could now be offered, every individual has the capacity to become a leader and
prophet. The Mishkan, in the view of Korach and his supporters,
enabled every person to instantly become equivalent to Moshe and Aharon, thus
obviating the need for any formal positions of leadership and
priesthood.
According to this approach, Korach's error related to the common
misconception that the Mishkan and sacrificial order facilitated a kind of
magical, instantaneous process of sanctity that automatically granted every
individual prophetic stature. They
failed to realize that there are no magical shortcuts to spiritual greatness,
that even the presence of the Shekhina in the Mishkan did not automatically endow the people with
kedusha.
Even if "the Lord is their midst," when the Shekhina visibly resided among the nation, the
people did not becomes equals to Moshe Rabbenu, and were still in need of his
spiritual leadership and guidance.
******
The opening verses of Parashat Korach tell of the insurrection spearheaded by Korach to challenge the authority of Moshe and Aharon. Korach and his followers argued that "khol ha-eida kulam kedoshim" "all the congregation they are all sacred, and the Lord is in their midst" (16:3), and there is thus no need for Moshe and Aharon to assert power over the rest of the people.
The Midrash Tanchuma, as cited by Rashi, explains this verse as a reference to the Revelation at Sinai. The entire nation, Korach and his cohorts recalled, had heard God proclaim the first two of the ten commandments, an experience that rendered them all "sacred." According to the Midrash Tanchuma, then, Korach's contention that all Benei Yisrael were "sacred," and thus above the need for spiritual leadership, was predicated upon their all having heard the first two commandments directly from God.
What prompted the Midrash to associate Korach's remarks with the event of the Revelation? What led the Sages to conclude that Korach referred specifically to this experience in affirming the people's lofty stature?
The Binyan Ariel (cited in Torah La-da'at) suggested that the Midrash Tanchuma sought to address the seeming redundancy in this clause "ki khol ha-eida kulam kedoshim." Korach and his followers repeat the term kol ("all"), arguing that "all the congregation they are all sacred." In an entirely different context, the Taz (O.C. 582:3) asserts that repeating the term kol serves to emphasize that one refers indeed to everything in the group, and not merely to a large majority. The Taz proposes this theory to justify the clause recited in the Rosh Hashanah liturgy, "Melokh al kol ha-aretz kulo" ("Reign over all of the entire world"). The emphasis implied by the two terms kol and kulo, the Taz explains, serves to clarify that we pray for God's rule to be recognized by each and every person on earth, and not merely by the majority of people on earth. The Midrash Tanchuma thus suggests interpreting Korach's remark in the same light. If he and his followers repeat the word "kol" in reference to the nation's "sanctity," he must refer to a quality that is shared by each and every member of the nation, bar none. The only such quality that the Midrash could identify is the experience of hearing the first two commandments, an experience that was indeed shared by all of Benei Yisrael, without exception.
We might suggest an additional understanding of this Midrashic passage,
namely, that Chazal seek to demonstrate the irony and obvious fallacy of
Korach's claim. The fact that the
entire nation heard the first two commandments serves only to prove Moshe's
superior stature. After all, as
Rashi writes in his commentary to Sefer Shemot (19:19), after Benei Yisrael
heard these two commandments, they became frightened and asked Moshe to hear
the rest and convey the information to them. True, "the entire congregation" heard
the first two commandments directly from God but Moshe heard all ten
commandments, and countless other laws, directly from God. The level of "sanctity" attained by the
people by hearing the first two commandments was far surpassed by Moshe, who
heard also the other eight and then remained for forty days to learn the rest of
the Torah. The Midrash Tanchuma perhaps seeks to observe that whatever
spiritual achievements Korach could have invoked as proof of the people's
prophetic stature paled in comparison to Moshe's credentials. While Korach's contention that "the
entire congregation they are all holy" was undoubtedly true, the conclusion he
reached "Why do you raise yourselves over the congregation of the Lord" was
fundamentally flawed. As "sacred"
as Benei Yisrael assuredly were, Moshe's stature far
exceeded theirs.
******
We read in Parashat Korach that after the ill-fated attempt by Korach and his followers to assert their right to the high priesthood, God commanded Moshe to collect the staffs of all twelve tribal leaders. The staffs were placed inside the Mishkan, and the following morning, Moshe retrieved the staffs and showed the people that Aharon's stick had miraculously "blossomed," proving the designation of his tribe for the priestly duties and privileges. In commanding this procedure, God tells Moshe, "It shall be that the man whom I choose his staff shall blossom, and I shall [thereby] relieve Myself of the complaints of the Israelites " (17:20). The purpose of this "test" was thus to prevent the possibility of further objections to the unique status afforded to Aharon and the tribe of Levi.
Interestingly, the Revid Ha-zahav (by Rav Yisrael Yitzchak Metz,
published in
According to the Revid Ha-zahav, the basis of, or motivation behind, these kinds of legislation is the miracle of Aharon's staff, as mentioned. God here acted before the fact to avoid subsequent dissent. Rather than simply allow additional "Korachs" to come forward and meet the same disastrous fate, God took the initiative, as it were, to create a situation where the risk of dissent is lowered from the outset. Chazal followed this example and similarly sought to establish systems that lessen the chances of controversy and conflict. They understood that it does not suffice to resolve conflicts when they surface; rather, leaders must make the proactive effort to implement arrangements that stop fighting before it ever begins, and thereby maintain a sense of warmth, friendship and camaraderie among the Jewish people.