Parshat Korach

And they assembled against Moshe and Aharon and said to them,

"You have too much! For all the community are holy,

and in their midst is the Lord,

 and why should you raise yourselves up

over the Lord's assembly?"

(Bemidbar 16:3)

 

For all the community are holy, and in their midst is the Lord, and why should you raise yourselves up over the Lord's assembly. It seems to me that the proper interpretation is that Korach began to quarrel with Moshe only after the incident of the spies. See Ramban who writes that at that time all Israel was upset with Moshe for not having prayed on their behalf. In my humble opinion, the matter may be understood as follows. At the beginning, they were unable to protest [Moshe's leadership] even though they felt that that they, too, were capable and deserving to be leaders of Israel, because they had no proof that were deserving. They could not be certain if it was the greatness and righteousness of Moshe which facilitated the signs and wonders which he performed, and they could not deny that which he had done, or perhaps it was not Moshe's greatness which granted him his powers but rather the merit of Israel that provided him with backing, as we find in the midrash on the passage "Go down" (Shemot 32;7) "Go down from your greatness because your people have sinned", (see Berachot 32a), and they had no means of determining whether [Moshe's wonders] were in his own merit or in that of Israel, and therefore they could not challenge him. But after the spies, who were not saved though Moshe's merit and he did not pray for them, or perhaps [he did pray but] his prayers were of no avail, they then concluded that the reason why his prayers were not effective was that he unassisted was not deserving to pray and protect great men of Israel - the spies - who had sinned, and then they instigated quarrel and conflict with Moshe and Aharon and said "Rav lachem", understood by Rashi to mean 'you have taken too much greatness upon yourselves' - you are so great because the entire assembly is holy, and the merit of the congregation is your support, so why should you raise yourselves up over the Lord's assembly? Only the person elected by the public to be leader and administrator can benefit from the public merit.

(Ktav Sofer ibid., ibid)

 

The concluding section on Tsitisit, which also concludes the recitation of the Shema, is known by heart by every Jew who recites the Shema daily: "In order that you remember and perform all my commandments and be holy to your God", and immediately following: "And Korach took..." - What did they 'take'? They took in their hands the rebellion against Moshe and his leadership, and the basis of their claim against Moshe is "all the community is holy."

The difference between the two forms of holiness is the difference between faith and idolatry. The holiness mentioned in the tsitsit chapter is not a fact - it is a mission. There it says "you are holy"; there is demand (a demand perhaps beyond human capacity, but one should be aware that he is so commanded): "And you shall be holy". In the religious outlook of Korach and company, however, "all the community is holy"; holiness is something granted to us.

(Y. Leibowitz: Notes on the Weekly Parasha, p. 96).

 

When the earth opens its mouth - what is reflected in the mirror

Esti Melamed

The story of Korach and his congregation is a typical example of the widespread difficulty of reading the Bible as it is, without the exegetical baggage which Chazal and their successors loaded upon it. From childhood we have been taught that Korach is the villain of the piece, wicked, hypocritical and cynical. This is the image created by the midrash; his rebellion is presented as directed against the Lord and His Torah, and much less as a personal attack upon Moshe. Thus portrayed, his punishment is totally justified and proper.

In this essay, I propose an alternative reading of the story, one in which Korach is not a saint, but he is also not a complete villain; he raises a reasonable argument, logical and even justified. Moshe, on the other hand, is not a tallit of royal blue; on the contrary - the Torah expresses criticism (only alluded to but clear) of Moshe's reaction. In my opinion, the Torah, between the lines, describes Moshe as one who failed to cope properly in this situation and acted with unwarranted impulsiveness and aggression. One gets the impression that we have before us a case in which the Bible is more daring than its explicators.

A short summary of the story: a group of notables, led by a member of a very respectable family, challenges the oligarchic rule of Moshe and Aharon and offers a democratic alternative. The reaction is surprising, even shocking, in its severity; Korach and all his congregation, including his family and possessions, are swallowed up by the earth. Two hundred and fifty notables who joined in his demand and offered incense were consumed by fire which descended from God. What is even more difficult to understand is that, in this particular case, in contrast to other occasions, the harsh reaction is an initiative of Moshe who, as a rule, tries to convince the Holy One to forgo or at least to lessen the severity of punishment. It is true that here, too, he makes such an attempt, when the Holy One offers to wipe out the entire congregation and Moshe and Aharon argue: "God, Lords of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin yet His anger be directed at the entire assembly?" But only few passages later, when Moshe goes to the camp of Korach, Dathan and Abiram - who were neighbors - he proclaims the harsh edict: "If like the death of all human beings these die, and if the fate of all human beings proves their fate, it is not the Lord who has sent me. But if a new thing the Lord should create, and the ground gapes open its mouth and swallows them and all of theirs and they go down alive to Sheol, you will know that these men have despised the Lord." And that is exactly what happens.

Was the case that Moshe simply foretold the terrible punishment awaiting Korach and his congregation, or was it the case that he initiated the punishment and demanded its execution? Scripture seems to indicate that the second possibility did indeed exist; the midrash presents it explicitly, carrying it even further. Thus we read in the midrash in Bemidbar Rabba (18:12):

Moshe began to speak to the Holy One, Blessed Be He: If these die in their beds as do most people die, and the physicians come and examine them as most of the sick are examined, so do I deny and say "God has not sent me" and I have devised from my    heart […] Replied the Holy One to Moshe: What do you desire? He replied to Him: Master of the universe, "If a creation" - if you have already created a mouth for the earth, fine, but if not, "Let God create" let Him now create a mouth. Said to him the Holy One: "You will decree and it will be fulfilled, and light will shine upon your affairs." (Job 22;28)

The midrash has Moshe standing near God, as it were, "with His back to the wall", forcing Him to execute what he considers to be the proper sanction for the Congregation of Korach. We ask: What brought Moshe to demand so severe a chastisement? Why, in this particular case, is Moshe unwilling to forgo his honor and forgive?

One possible answer is that previous complaints were situation-based hardships - no water, no meat, insufficient variety... even in the two most serious incidents, the sin of the Golden Calf and that of the spies - some justification can be found for the people's complaints. Their complaints grow out human frailties, and are directed at "the situation", not necessarily against the Almighty or against Moshe. This time the situation is totally different. The complaint of Korach and his congregation is clearly directed against Moshe and Aharon personally. This, it seems, is what caused Moshe to react so severely.

But this is not all. We have already seen cases in which Moshe's total authority was - either explicitly or implied - threatened, yet in all those cases it seems that he was never afraid of decentralization and delegation of authority. So it was when Yitro suggested that Moshe appoint a judicial system of leaders of thousand, hundred, fifties, and tens, and Moshe willingly complied. An even more outstanding example is found in Parashat Behaalotcha, where Moshe himself asks the Holy One for people to assist him in leading the people; the Lord answers him and imparts of His spirit upon the seventy elders. Further on, Eldad and Medad, not included in the seventy, are also granted prophecy. Yehoshua fears for Moshe's standing and suggests "My lord Moshe, restrain them!" Moshe, humble and generous, answers: "Are you jealous for my sake? Would it that the entire nation of God be prophets, that God impart of his spirit upon them!"

Even when Miriam and Aharon, his closest relatives, criticize his behavior, saying "Is it only to Moshe that God spoke? He spoke also to us!" Moshe does not express anger. He turns to God and prays that Miriam be cured.

What, then, is happening here? What shocked Moshe, causing him to deviate from his usual behavior and demand such a severe punishment for Korach and his congregation? It seems to me that this very question troubled both the Bible itself, and, even more so, Chazal. This is probably the reason that Chazal tried so hard to attribute to Korach a profusion of negative characteristics and acts which would justify the punishment. But it will soon become clear that the Bible takes a different approach.

First of all, it is worthwhile to examine additional mention of the Korach incident in the Bible. In Parashat Pinchas, in the detailing of the descendants of the tribe of Reuven, the following appears: "And the sons of Elias [were] Nemiel and Dotan and Abiram, these are Dathan and Abiram, called forth from the community, who incited against Moshe and against Aharon in the community of Korach, when they incited against the Lord. And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and Korach when the community died, when the fire consumed two hundred and fifty men and they became a sign. But the sons of Korach did not die" (Bemidbar 26:9-11).

What do we see here? First of all, Korach is mentioned only incidentally to the mention of Dathan and Abiram, who are presented here as the main 'troublemakers'. Secondly, the Bible tells us explicitly that his sons did not die, - thus contradicting the disturbing description appearing in our parashah "And they went down, they and all that was theirs, alive to Sheol… and they perished from the midst of the assembly".

And so in Moshe's final speech of admonition before his demise: "…and that He did to Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab son of Reuben, when the earth gaped open with its mouth and swallowed them their households and their tents and everything existing that was at their feet...." (Devarim 11:6).

It is most surprising to note that Korach is not mentioned here at all, he is not even hinted at! Our surprise grows at the third mention of the incident, this time in Tehillim, Psalm 106: "There was envy of Moshe in the camp, and of Aharon, the holy one of the Lord. The earth opened up and swallowed Dathan, closed over the party of Abiram. A fire blazed among their party, a flame that consumed the wicked" (16-18).

Note two points: Korach is conspicuous by his absence. And there is no claim that the rebellion was directed against God; the story is construed as a conflict between Dathan and Abiram and their camp with Moshe and Aharon.

With each reference to the story, Korach's role is diminished. May I suggest that this is an indication that although Dathan and Abiram deserved their punishment - in our parasha they come across as particularly insolent and antipathetic - it may well be that Korach had different motives, and Moshe erred in this case and punished Korach disproportionately and unjustly. The Torah does not say this expressly, so as not to shame Moshe, but it employs a sophisticated literary technique, which Yair Zakovitz terms "The Reflection Story".(Prof. Yair Zackowitz of the Bible Studies Dept, in the Hebrew U. deals with the subject in his book "Mikraot B'eretz Hamaroth" (Hakkibutz Hameuchad, 2001)) A Biblical story is so fashioned as to have points of similarity - in terms of language, motive and plot - to another Biblical narrative. The stories reflect each other, and, as reflections do, the reflections present opposite images. The reader is expected to read the story before him in the light of the other story, and to reach conclusions regarding the value judgments of the protagonists.

Where is the 'reflection' of the Korach incident? Let us note the phrase "and the earth opened its mouth" which appears in our parasha. This phrase appears in only one other place in the Bible, and it is hard to believe that this is mere coincidence. We read in the Cain-Abel narrative: "Cursed shall you be by the soil that opened its mouth to take your brother's blood from your hand" (Bereishit 4:11). The literature of Chazal barely relates to the connection between the two stories; even when the lingual similarity is noted, it is referred to briefly and laconically (See Sanhedrin 36b, the discussion between Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Hiyyah and his brother Hizkiya).

The only explicit reference to a link between the two stories which I was able to find is from a relatively late period. Rabbi Hayyim ben Attar (18^th cent.), author of the commentary "Ohr HaHayyim", relates to the passage ""But if a new thing the Lord should create, and the ground opens its mouth":

Now let the Lord create again that creation, that it [the earth] should have a mouth, and it opened the mouth which it had before and it swallowed them up. And   perhaps this will be for it [the earth] a tikkun [atonement, lit. 'repair'] for having swallowed up a righteous person (Abel), now it will open its mouth to swallow enemies of the Lord.

The commentator did indeed note the connection between the two stories, but he resolved the problem by suggesting that the earth's act in the Korach story 'atoned" for its sin in the Cain-Abel story. This solution is, of course, possible, but it seems to me to be too simplistic. I should like to present a number of points of similarity between the stories and to demonstrate that we have here a reflection story.

A.     In both stories, the protagonists are relatives: in Bereishit they are brothers, here they are cousins; between the relatives of each set there is jealousy and competition.

B.     In both stories, a sacrifice is offered to God - there it is a minha (a gift offering), here it is ketoret - an incense offering.

C.     In each story, only one offering is accepted. There - "The Lord regarded Abel and his offering but He did not regard Cain and his offering"; here - "and he [Moshe] said to Him, Do not turn to their offering". (Note - the rejection of the offering is presented as a Moshe initiative!)                                                                                                                                                     

 In both cases there is a sharp emotional reaction by one of the parties: Here - "And Moshe heard and fell on his face […] and Moshe was very incensed", and there - "And Cain was very incensed and he fell on his face."

D.     In both stories one party causes the death of the other, and is assisted by the earth which opens its mouth.

E.      In both stories a voice rises up from the earth following the death: There - "The voice of your brother's blood cries out to me from the earth:, and here - "And all Israel that was about them fled at the sound".

F.      In both stories God assigns a sign to him who caused the death, in order to protect him; there - "And God placed a sign upon Cain so that whoever shall find him shall not smite him", and here - following the Israelites' cavil against Moshe and Aharon "You killed the people of God" God gives the sign of Aharon's staff flowering and commands Moshe to save it "as a sign for the rebels", in order to deter similar grievances in the future.

G.     In both cases, the party which caused the death is punished by not receiving an estate [nahalah]. Cain is destined to be "a wanderer on the earth"; Moshe will not enter the Land. Whoever exploited the land for his own need in such a fashion is not worthy of enjoying it and dwelling in it in tranquility.

I found support for this observation in a midrash that relates to Moshe's protestation to Korach and his party, "Enough for you, sons of Levi". And so is it written there (Bemidbar Rabba, 18;18): Said the Holy One to Moshe: You smote with the staff; by that with which you smote shall you be punished. You said "Enough for you", tomorrow you will hear "Enough for you". (See Devarim 3:26)

In summary. In my opinion, the Torah does not look favorably upon Moshe's reaction to Korach's complaint, but refrains from overt condemnation. Its criticism is revealed between the lines, by alluding to the story of Cain and Abel, in which the party rejected by God kills the party whose offering was accepted. In our parasha, we find an opposite picture: Moshe, God's chosen one, uses his power - perhaps unjustifiably--to kill Korach, Perhaps the purpose of the story is to demonstrate that no one - not even Moshe our teacher, the most humble of men - is not immune to impulsive reactions when his personal honor and status are affected; and if Moshe can stumble in such a situation, all the more so must each of us be especially careful in such situations, making certain that our reactions are to the point, not emotional and hasty.

I also suggest reading the Haphtara as a tikkun of the Korach story. Samuel was a descendant of Korach (II Chronicles 6:18-23), and he is compared to Moshe and Aharon - "Moshe and Aharon among His priests and Samuel among those who call in His name" (Tehillim 99:6). A number of Psalms are attributed to Korach's descendents. Thus, in contrast to Abel, who was killed leaving behind no remembrance, the sons of Korach who did not die were privileged to wear the crown of leadership and also the crown of song: even in a case of error, there exists the possibility of tikkun...there is hope.

Esti Melamed is occupied with motherhood and literary editing.

 

 

 

On the 15^th of Sivan, Yoske Ahituv passed away. Yoskeh was a member of Kibbutz Ein Tsurim, a founder of Yeshivat Hakkibutz Hadati and Merkaz Yaakov Herzog, a talmid chacham, thinker and educator who worked tirelessly for a Religious Zionism which promotes peace and justice. Shortly after notification of his passing, Rabbi Benny Lau penned the following words in his honor and in his memory:

           

There was man, and behold - he is no more!

Last night, Yoskeh Ahituv, member of Ein Tsurim, left us.

Not 'Rabbi' - even though he was a Torah giant.

Not 'Professor' - even though he was multi-faceted and erudite

Not 'Sir' - because he never lorded over another, even though he was a principal

Not "Mister" - for he was full of love and sweetness. [The Hebrew for 'Mister', mar, also means 'bitter']

Yoskeh was my mentor before 'mentoring' was invented. Through him I learned the depth of the religious life of Hakkibutz Hadati

Through him I learned the greatness of the teacher who is constantly at the service of his             students… it is not they who serve him.

Through him I learned the essence of Torah of ethical principles, primarily "Walk humbly before your God".

Through him I learned the secret of love of Man and the enchantment of the light hidden in every one of God's creatures.

In Yoskeh's circles one did not speak of "attitude to persons with limitations". We were all limited and he accepted us all equally - with love and shining countenance

Through him I learned how to order priorities in life. His intense passion for intellectual experience did not confuse his ladder of priorities not did it lessen the endless hours in which he helped everyone around him.

The love which permeated his being radiated to his surroundings.

Today, at 17:00, we will part with him in Kibbutz Ein Tsurim, from where he shed his light for decades.

With you is the fountain of life - by your light do we see light.

 

 

 

 

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts that have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.

4,500 copies of a 4-page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il.

Shabbat Shalom is available on our website: www.netivot-shalom.org.il

For responses and arranging to write for Shabbat Shalom: pleiser@netvision.net.il