The Israel Koschitzky
Virtual Beit MidrashThe Israel Koschitzky
Virtual Beit Midrash
Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat
Har Etzion
PARASHAT
KORACH
Rav David
Silverberg
Towards the end of Parashat Korach, the Torah lists the various matenot kehuna, the "gifts" that Benei Yisrael are required to give to the kohanim. In introducing these laws, God declares that these gifts are given to the kohanim "le-moshcha," literally, "for anointing," or "for greatness." The Gemara in several places interprets this term as a reference to the kohanim's status of distinction that these gifts are intended to reflect. The halakhic implication of this term, as the Gemara establishes in Masekhet Chulin (132b) and elsewhere, is that the kohanim must partake of these gifts in a dignified, regal fashion. Portions of meat, for example, must be roasted and eaten with condiments. The Rambam codifies this halakha in his Hilkhot Bikurim (6:22).
Later in Hilkhot Bikurim (9:20), however, the Rambam issues a ruling that
appears to be in clear violation of this rule of le-moshcha. Namely, the Rambam maintains that
non-sacrificial matenot kehuna food may be fed to one's animals. A kohen may, for example, feed
his animals the fruits he receives as bikkurim or the parts of
non-sacrificial animals that are given to a kohen (zero'a
lechayaim ve-keiva).
The Maharshal, in his Yam Shel Shelomo (Chulin, chapter 10,
siman 11), raises the question of how this ruling accommodates the
requirement of le-moshcha.
If Halakha requires that the matenot kehuna be eaten in a
dignified manner, how is it permissible to feed it to one's animal? The Maharshal suggests that the Rambam
refers here to matenot kehuna food that became spoiled. One might have thought that it must be
burned, just like sacrificial meat that becomes inedible. The Rambam therefore establishes that
non-sacrificial matenot kehuna differ from sacrifices in this respect and
may be fed to animals.
Rav Shimon Diskin, in his Mas'at Moshe, explains that this issue hinges on the precise nature of the rule of le-moshcha. Theoretically, one could understand this rule as predicated upon a status of halakhic sanctity afforded to the matenot kehuna, similar to korbanot, or simply to the nobility and distinction of the priestly tribe that these matenot reflect. The Rambam clearly accepted the second possibility, whereby the matenot kehuna do not possess a status of halakhic sanctity. As such, when they cannot be eaten, in which case they in any event cannot serve as a reflection of the noble stature of the kohanim, they may be treated like ordinary food and fed to animals.
Another expression of this perspective, Rav Diskin notes, is a comment by
Rashi in Masekhet Bekhorot (27a) to the effect that if a kohen chooses to
sell his matenot kehuna food to a non-kohen, the buyer is not
bound by the rule of le-moshcha.
As he is not a kohen, the buyer may eat the food however he
wishes, even in a non-regal fashion.
This halakha, too, demonstrates the absence of a status of
intrinsic, halakhic kedusha.
The law of le-moshcha relates not to any intrinsic status of the
food, but rather to the noble stature of the kohanim. Thus, if the kohen decides not to
eat the food, but rather to sell it to somebody else, the provision of le-moshcha no longer obtains.
Likewise, Rav Diskin suggests, this issue may underlie the view taken by
Tosefot (Zevachim 75b) that the rule of le-moshcha does not apply
to a temura ("substitute") of a bekhor a firstborn animal given
to a kohen. If a person
attempts to transfer the kedusha status of a sacrificial animal onto
another animal, then the transfer is effective though the original animal
retains its status of kedusha.
In the case of a bekhor, Tosefot claim that the law of
le-moshcha is not transferred through the process of temura. Although the temura succeeds in
bestowing sacrificial status upon the second animal, it does not require that
its meat be eaten in regal fashion.
Once again, we see a clear distinction between le-moshcha and the
halakhic status of sanctity. Since
the second animal was not given to the kohen, as the original
bekhor had been, it is not subject to the rule of le-moshcha
despite its having been endowed with the halakhic status of kedushat
bekhor.
******
The Torah tells in Parashat Korach that Moshe summoned Datan and Aviram,
two central figures in the rebellion led by Korach against Moshe's authority, to
come before him. Datan and Aviram
refused, proclaiming, "ha-einei
ha-anashim ha-heim taneker, lo na'aleh" "Will you gore those people's eyes? We shall not go up!"
(16:14).
This difficult clause has been interpreted in a number of different ways
by the commentators. Rashi explains
it to mean, "Even if you gore the eyes of those people we shall not go up,"
and claims that "those people" is a euphemistic reference to Datan and Aviram
themselves. They emphasize their
stubborn rejection of Moshe's summons by declaring that even if Moshe threatens
to blind them for their refusal, they will not respond to his
summons.
Targum Yonatan Ben
Uziel translates this clause much
differently, as a natural continuation of the first half of the verse, where
Datan and Aviram exclaim, "You have not even brought us to a land flowing with
milk and honey or given us a portion of fields and vineyards." In this clause, they add, "Will you
blind the eyes of those men in that land and defeat them? We will not ascend to there!" According to this reading, "those
people" refer to the inhabitants of
Most commentaries, however, including Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, Chizkuni,
Abarbanel, Seforno and Malbim, explain much differently (though with minor
nuances). In their view, Datan and
Aviram refer here to what they perceive as a deliberate attempt by Moshe to
deceive the people. They say to
Moshe, "Are you going to blind those people?" They claim that Moshe and Aharon had
deceived the people all along into thinking that they would bring them to a
fertile land, solely for the purpose of asserting their authority over
them. Thus, the reference to
"blinding" or "goring" is a figurative description of the alleged conspiracy
designed by Moshe and Aharon, rather that to actual
blinding.
******
Parashat Korach tells of the rebellion led by Korach against the
authority of Moshe and Aharon.
Moshe instructed the two hundred and fifty rebels to bring an incense
offering together with Aharon the following morning to determine whom God had
chosen as the kohen gadol.
Tragically, Korach's followers accepted the challenge and were consumed
by a heavenly fire that descended when they offered incense
(16:35).
After this catastrophe, God instructed Elazar, Aharon's son, to retrieve
the metal fire pans used by the two hundred and fifty rebels and to use them to
form a covering for the altar. In
introducing this command, God mentions the reason why the fire pans must be
retrieved: ki kadeishu "for they have become sacred"
(17:2). Rashi explains that since
the fire pans had been used for an offering to God, they were endowed with
halakhic kedusha such that no personal benefit could be
derived from them. These fire pans,
Rashi comments, attained the status of keli shareit the sacred articles of the Mishkan from which no personal benefit may be
derived. God therefore commanded
that they be used within the Mishkan, as a covering for the
altar.
The Ramban questions Rashi's explanation, arguing that these fire pans did not obtain the halakhic status of keli shareit. After all, they were designated for use not in the mandated Mishkan rituals, but rather for a forbidden purpose for an offering outside the Mishkan, which is strictly forbidden. Certainly, the Ramban claims, utensils used for a forbidden purpose such as bringing an offering outside the Mishkan (or Beit Ha-mikdash) should not be endowed with any status of kedusha. In defense of Rashi's approach, the Ramban suggests that perhaps the fact that Moshe had commanded the rebels to offer incense, and that they did so with the expectation that God would accept their offering and invite them to serve as kohanim, sufficed to render their fire pans halakhically sacred. The Ramban then proceeds to suggest an entirely different approach, namely, that ki kadeishu refers to God's having designated these fire pans to serve as a reminder of this unfortunate event. Meaning, the Torah speaks here not of the formal, halakhic sanctity of keli shareit, but rather of the designation of these pans for the purpose of serving as an eternal reminder of the tragic consequences of Korach's revolt.
It emerges from this discussion that Rashi and the Ramban disagree
regarding the status of a utensil used for an unwarranted offering. Whereas Rashi maintains that these
utensils are endowed with halakhic kedusha, the Ramban denies this possibility,
arguing that utensils used for this forbidden purpose cannot obtain kedushat keli shareit.
The Minchat
Chinukh (40) notes that the Rambam
appears to follow Rashi's view, that such utensils are, in fact, endowed with
the status of keli
shareit. In Hilkhot Bi'at Mikdash (9:14), the
Rambam addresses the halakhic repercussions of an offering brought outside the
Mishkan, and rules that the utensils must be buried. Apparently, he held that these utensils
obtain the status of keli
shareit, such that they become
forbidden for personal use, and Halakha therefore requires that they buried, so
that they are never used.
Seemingly, then, the Rambam, like Rashi, held that utensils used for a
forbidden offering obtain the status of keli shareit and are forbidden for personal
use.
******
After the tragedy of Korach's rebellion, God instructs Moshe to prove the special designation of Aharon and the tribe of Levi by collecting the staffs belonging to the leaders of all the tribes, including Aharon's. Moshe placed the staffs in the Mishkan, and the following day he brought them to the people who saw that Aharon's staff had blossomed and produced almonds. God then commanded Moshe to place Aharon's staff inside the ark as an eternal reminder of Aharon's designation (17:16-26).
In describing the miraculous blossoming of Aharon's staff, the Torah tells that it produced flowers, a bud, and almonds (17:23). Rashi explains that the word tzitz ("bud") refers to the bud which appears when the flowers fall and then grows into a fruit. It appears from Rashi's comments that flowers blossomed on the staff and then fell to expose the fruit the same process that occurs on trees.
Some writers questioned this description in light of the Gemara's comment in Masekhet Yoma (52b), where it cites a view that towards the end of the First Commonwealth Aharon's staff was buried underground together with the aron. In presenting this view, the Gemara speaks of "Aharon's staff, its almonds and its flowers." Clearly, the Gemara presumes that the flowers had remained on the staff, and did not fall from the staff to reveal the almonds.
Tosefot Yeshanim there in Masekhet Yoma suggest that most of the flowers fell from the staff, like they do from fruit trees, but some petals remained. When the Gemara speaks of the flowers on Aharon's staff at the time of the staff's burial, it refers to those several petals that remained intact after most of the flowers fell.
The Raboteinu Ba'alei Ha-Tosefot commentary suggests a different explanation, claiming that flowers blossomed on two different locations on the staff. This reading is supported by the otherwise repetitive formulation of the verse: "Moshe entered the Tent of Testimony, and behold the staff of Aharon, from the house of Levi, flowered; it produced a flower and brought forth a blossom, and bore almonds." Raboteinu Ba'alei Ha-Tosefot suggest that the first phrase parach ("flowered") means that flowers grew on one side of the staff, whereas the later phrase va-yotzei perach ("produced a flower") refers to a development on the other side. The flowers that grew on the second side marked the initial stages of the almonds' emergence, and thus fell once the almonds sprouted. The first set of flowers, however, grew independently, not as the early stages of the growth of fruit, and they thus remained forever on the staff.
The Malbim disagrees with Rashi's interpretation altogether, and claims that the flowers never fell from the staff. Part of the miracle, the Malbim contended, was that the flowers did not fall as they normally do once the fruit sprouts and begins to grow (in addition to the more obvious miracle of vegetation growing on a detached piece of wood).
According to all these approaches, both flowers and almonds appeared and remained on Aharon's staff. What message might have been conveyed through the presence of both the almonds and the flowers?
The flowers on a fruit tree lend it an appearance of beauty and grandeur, but they do not signify the ultimate objective and final stage. They eventually wilt and fall to the ground to give way to the tree's truly significant feature the fruit. In the context of the aftermath of Korach's revolt, the flowers and the almonds perhaps symbolize, respectively, the honor and nobility associated with the priesthood, and the responsibilities and obligations of priesthood. Korach and his followers were attracted by the "flowers," by the aristocratic" aura of nobility and grandeur surrounding the kehuna, the honor and distinction afforded to the priestly class. The beauty and majesty of the "flowers" led them to overlook the "fruit," the essence and ultimate objective of the kehuna, the demands and responsibilities for which the kohanim were selected. They were designated not to serve as the nation's "flowers," to be just a privileged class of citizens, but rather for the purpose of tending to the Mikdash and providing spiritual guidance and leadership.
By producing from the staff both flowers and almonds, God perhaps sought to emphasize the contrast between the two: the flowers, which feature external beauty but play but a temporary, secondary role, and the fruits, the final stage and ultimate purpose for which the tree was planted.
******
The Gemara in Masekhet Sanhedrin (110a) tells that during Korach's revolt against the authority of Moshe and Aharon, false rumors spread about Moshe's involvement in an adulterous relationship. In addition to the accusations that Moshe had selfishly asserted his authority over the nation, which the verses record explicitly, the people concocted rumors about sexual misconduct, as well.
On one level, perhaps, these rumors are simply another device employed by Moshe's adversaries to undermine his right to leadership. These rumors contributed to the environment of mistrust that Korach and his followers bred throughout the Israelite camp to gain support for his cause.
There may, however, be a more specific reason why this kind of rumor
began circulating among Benei Yisrael. In the initial recorded confrontation
between Korach and Moshe, Korach and his followers declared, "For the entire
nation they are all holy; why, then, do you raise yourselves over the
congregation of the Lord?" (16:3).
This charge bears some similarity to Miriam and Aharon's derisive remarks
about Moshe, as recorded earlier, in Parashat Beha'alotekha (12:2): "Did the
Lord speak only to Moshe? Did he
not speak with us, as well?"
According to Chazal's interpretation (as cited by Rashi to
12:2), Miriam and Aharon questioned Moshe's separation from his wife, arguing
that prophetic stature does not require such a drastic measure. After all, they claimed, they, too,
experienced prophecy, and yet were permitted to maintain normal family
life. They were unaware that God
had specifically commanded Moshe to abstain from marital relations due to the
frequency and spontaneity of his prophetic visions.
Possibly, Korach's similar exclamation, "For the entire nation they are
all holy" likewise alluded to Moshe's separation from his wife. Korach insisted that there is no
inherent difference in stature between Moshe and the rest of the nation. The people thus naturally deduced that
Moshe separated from Tzipora not due to his unique stature as prophet, but
rather because of a new relationship that disrupted his
marriage.
Rav Gavriel Zev Margolies, in his Torat Gavriel (
Rav Menachem Kasher (Torah
Sheleima, chapter 16, note
46) cites a similar theory in the name of a work
entitled Chemdat Yamim.
The Gemara comments that after these rumors spread, husbands throughout
the nation began suspecting their wives and warned them not to seclude
themselves with Moshe. The
Chemdat Yamim explains that the women among Benei Yisrael generally supported Moshe and tried
persuading their husbands against joining Korach's revolt. In light of the rumors of Moshe's
personal misconduct, the husbands grew suspicious of their wives' ardent support
of Moshe, viewing it as a possible indication of
infidelity.
If so, then this event demonstrates the ill effects of machaloket (strife and controversy) on families and
marriages. The spillover effects of
political controversies and power struggles can often extend into the personal
lives of the participants and wreak havoc in their homes. When the flames of machaloket are kindled, they can be raging and
destructive, and can easily spread into all areas of the relevant parties'
lives.
*******
Towards the end of Parashat Korach we find the mitzva of ma'aser rishon, which requires farmers to give one-tenth
of their annual produce to a Levi (except during the year of shemita, when all produce is in any event deemed
ownerless). The Torah writes, "And
to the sons of Levi I have given all the tithe of Israel as an inheritance in
exchange for the service they perform, the service in the Tent of Meeting"
(18:21). Ma'aser rishon is given as a kind of "salary" that
Benei Yisrael pay to the Levi'im for the service they perform in the
Mikdash.
Surprisingly, two verses later the Torah reiterates the job assigned to the Levi'im as attendants in the Mikdash: "The Levi he shall perform the service of the Tent of Meeting " Why does the Torah repeat this role of the Levi'im?
Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch explains that the Torah seeks to emphasize the
Levi'im's unconditional responsibility towards the functioning of the Mikdash.
Even though they receive ma'aser rishon as payment for their work, their
responsibility is not dependent upon their receiving ma'aser rishon.
Farmers reserve the right to give their tithes to whichever Levi they choose, and so no Levi is ever guaranteed to receive an adequate
portion. For this reason, Benei Yisrael are admonished on several occasions to
charitably support the Levi'im, and the Torah even includes the Levi'im together with the other disadvantaged
members of the nation who depend upon the people's generosity (see Devarim
12:12, 14:27, 16:11,14). In this
verse the Torah conveys the message that the Levi'im's status is not always an enviable
one. They are bound by the demands
of the Mikdash regardless of whether they receive payment,
and, as the verse continues, "they have to bear their iniquity" they bear
accountability for the iniquities of the nation, should they unlawfully approach
the
This difficult position of the Levi'im is perhaps intended as a model for all
ovdei Hashem.
While we firmly believe that a life of Torah commitment is ultimately to
our and the world's benefit, not always will this be readily evident. All Jews, like the Levi'im, are obliged to loyally and devotedly
perform their religious duties regardless of whether or not we receive immediate
"payment." And just as a Levi cannot renounce his Levitical status by
foregoing on his rights to ma'aser while refusing to serve in the Mikdash, so are we not entitled to renounce our
religious obligations and turn down its reward. We must rather devote our lives
unconditionally to the loyal service of the Almighty, and, as the Mishna in
Pirkei Avot famously declares (2:16), "Your employer
can be trusted to pay you reward for your work."
******
Parashat Korach tells of God's miraculous intervention to foil the
attempt by Korach and his followers to challenge the authority of Moshe and
Aharon. Korach's two hundred and
fifty cohorts who demanded the right to the priesthood were consumed by fire
when they brought an incense offering, and Datan and Aviram, the other prominent
leaders of the revolt, were devoured by the ground.
Immediately following this incident, Benei Yisrael
approached Moshe and Aharon and cried, "You have killed the congregation of the
Lord!" (17:6). God responded very
harshly to this accusation, declaring to Moshe and Aharon, "Move away from
amidst this nation, and I will destroy them in an instant" (17:10). Moshe ordered Aharon to bring a special
incense offering to atone for the people, and Aharon's gesture succeeded in ending the
plague only after the tragic death of 14,700 members of Benei Yisrael.
Why did God regard the people's complaints as such a grievous sin,
deserving of a harsh, deadly response?
Several classic commentators explain that the people questioned the
legitimacy of the "ketoret test" that Moshe had conducted. Recall that upon hearing the demand of
Korach's followers for the rights to the priesthood, Moshe invited them to offer
incense together with Aharon the following morning to determine whom God had
selected for the role of kohen.
Aharon, of course, emerged unscathed, whereas Korach's two hundred and
fifty followers were consumed by fire.
The Rashbam and Seforno thus explain that the people now accused Moshe of
deliberately killing Korach's followers by instructing them to offer
incense. Ibn Ezra explains somewhat
differently, arguing that the people were unconvinced by the results of the
ketoret offering. They accused Moshe and Aharon of
"manipulating" the results through prayers or some kind of mystical powers, such
that the death of the two hundred and fifty rebels did not prove their exclusion
from the priesthood.
According to Ibn Ezra's approach, we can perhaps more clearly understand the Almighty's response. Essentially, the people here continue the campaign led by Korach against Moshe and Aharon. They rejected the "ketoret test" and insisted that Moshe and Aharon had no right to deny the rest of the nation the privileges of the kehuna. This incident is simply the continuation of Korach's revolt, to which God had initially responded by announcing to Moshe and Aharon, "Separate from this nation, and I shall destroy them in an instant!" (16:21). Moshe and Aharon had quelled God's fury by rhetorically asking, "Shall one person sin and you will be angry at the entire nation?" (16:22). But now, after the deaths of the leaders of the revolt, as the people persistently sought to perpetuate their campaign and their legacy, the revolt could no longer be attributed to a small handful of agitators. God therefore repeats (almost verbatim) his warning: "Move away from amidst this nation, and I will destroy them in an instant!"
Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch explains in a slightly different vein. Like Ibn Ezra, Rav Hirsch explains Benei Yisrael's complaint as a rejection of the "ketoret test." In his view, however, the people claimed not that Moshe had manipulated the results through some magical intervention, but rather that the deaths could have been averted had Moshe and Aharon reacted more indulgently to the challenge to their leadership:
They still imagined that the election of Aaron, admittedly at God's behest, nevertheless rested more as a personal distinction conferred on the brother of Moses. So that they took the sin of the two hundred and fifty as being punished by God for the personal insult to Moses and Aaron, which they thought could have been averted by Moses and Aaron forgiving this insult, and so they could and should have prevented the death of such a considerable number of fathers and families.
Benei Yisrael conceded that the incense offering proved God's selection of Aharon, but they viewed it as God's defense of Moshe and Aharon's honor. Had Moshe and Aharon been less concerned with their personal status of honor, they charged, the tragedy would have been avoided.
Rav Hirsch proceeds to explain on this basis God's response to the people's accusations: "Move away from amidst this nation, and I will destroy them in an instant." As the people had launched a personal attack against Moshe and Aharon, God offered to destroy the nation. But Moshe and Aharon demonstrated their genuine love for and loyalty to the people by quickly acting on their behalf to atone for their sin, despite the harsh accusations they had made against their devoted leaders.