The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit
MidrashThe Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit
Midrash
Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion
PARASHAT KORACH
By Rav David Silverberg
Parashat Korach begins with the narrative of Korach's uprising against the leadership of Moshe and Aharon. Moshe responds to this challenge by ordering Korach's two hundred and fifty followers to come the next day with firepans to the Mishkan, where they and Aharon would together bring an incense offering to God. The one whose offering would be visibly accepted by God would be proven the divinely chosen candidate for the high priesthood.
Did Moshe arrive at this idea independently, or had God instructed him to respond to Korach's complaints by conducting this "incense test"?
Rashbam and Chizkuni (16:4; see also Rav Saadia Gaon), commenting on the Torah's account of Moshe "falling on his face" upon being confronted by Korach, claim that this description refers to a prayer that Moshe offered to God at this point. Moshe immediately prayed to God for guidance, and God indeed responded by ordering Moshe to invite Korach's cohorts to offer incense with Aharon in the Mishkan. According to this interpretation, Moshe did not act here independently at all; he merely followed the instructions he prophetically received from the Almighty.
The Ramban, however, disagrees, and claims that Moshe initiated this idea in response to Korach, confident that God would approve.
Rav Avraham Yitzchak Sorotzkin, in his Rinat Yitzchak, understands the Ramban to mean that Korach's followers were obligated to obey Moshe's command to bring incense, despite the fact that he did not issue this command in the name of God. Tosefot, in two contexts (Sanhedrin 89b, Yevamot 90b), express the view that the obligation to obey a prophet's instructions extends even to orders issued by the prophet independently, not on the basis of prophecy. Rav Sorotzkin contends that the Ramban followed this view, as well. According to the Ramban, Moshe independently conceived of the idea to have Korach's followers offer incense, and they were bound by the Torah to obey this command by virtue of the mitzva to obey all of a prophet's instructions even those that were not conveyed by God.
Rav Sorotzkin infers from the Rambam's comments in Hilkhot Yesodei Ha-Torah (9:2-3) that he held a different view, restricting the obligation to obey a prophet to instructions he conveys specifically in God's Name. Nevertheless, even the Rambam could accept the Ramban's approach here in Parashat Korach, that Korach's followers were obliged to obey Moshe's instruction despite the fact that he contrived of the idea independently. Rav Chayim of Brisk, as cited in the Haggada Mi-Beit Levi (185), advanced the theory that Moshe differed from all other prophets in that all his instructions had the status of binding prophecy. Therefore, even if the Rambam would generally not consider a prophet's instructions binding if it was not conveyed through prophecy, this rule would not apply to Moshe, all of whose instructions had the formal, halakhic status of binding prophecy.
******
The Torah in Parashat Korach tells that Korach and his followers
confronted Moshe and Aharon demanding the right to serve as kohanim. In response, Moshe, as we discussed
yesterday, ordered Korach's followers to appear before the Mishkan the
following day with an incense offering, through which God would publicly
determine the chosen candidate for the priesthood. Moshe then adds, "Rav lakhem benei
Levi" ("This is much for you, O sons of Levi!" 16:7). Rashi explains this remark to mean, "You
have done a monumental thing" by challenging the Almighty's authority. Others, including Ibn Ezra, explain this
remark as an introduction to what Moshe tells Korach and his followers in the
next verse: "Is it not enough for you that the God of Israel has separated you
from the community of
The Gemara in Masekhet Sota (13b) draws a curious association between Moshe's response to Korach rav lakhem and God's response to Moshe some thirty-eight years later, when Moshe requests permission to cross the Jordan River into Eretz Yisrael: "Rav lakh" (Devarim 3:26). The Gemara comments, "He [Moshe] informed [Korach and his followers] with [the word] rav, and he was informed [by God] with [the word] rav." It appears, at least at first glance, that the common expression used in the two contexts alludes to the fact that God's harsh response to Moshe served as a punishment for his harsh response to Korach's uprising. This of course raises the question of where precisely Moshe erred in his response to Korach. Should he have accepted Korach's claims, and offered the privilege of the high priesthood to him and his followers? Why did the Gemara find fault in Moshe's response?
The Imrei Shefer (cited in Rav Shmuel Alter's Likutei Batar
Likutei to Masekhet Sota) suggests that the Gemara criticizes the specific
manner in which Moshe responded to Korach's challenge. Moshe essentially told them that they
should already feel content with their stature as Levi'im, and should feel no
desire to serve as kohanim.
This response could easily be interpreted to mean that a person should
feel content with the mitzvot he performs, and should not strive for the
opportunity to perform additional mitzvot. Though in this specific instance of
Korach's rebellion this was likely not the issue Korach and his cohorts seem
to have been motivated by greed and lust for power, rather than a genuine desire
to perform more mitzvot Moshe should not have responded in this
manner. He spoke as if the
kohanim have no advantage over the rest of the nation, as if a person
should not experience the desire for additional mitzvot. God therefore used this same expression
in responding to Moshe's request to cross into Eretz Yisrael. Chazal famously comment that
Moshe desired to enter the land so that he could fulfill the mitzvot that can be observed only there. In denying Moshe's request, God subtly
alluded to Moshe's inappropriately-worded response to Korach, which appeared to
criticize this longing to perform more mitzvot.
An entirely different reading of this Talmudic passage was suggested by
Rav Chayim Yitzchak Aharon Rappaport, in his work Einei Yitzchak to Masekhet Sota (cited in the work
Ke-motzei Shalal Rav).
He claims that the Gemara does not criticize Moshe for his response to
Korach, but to the contrary, lauds the refined manner in which he spoke to his
opponents. Rather than angrily
dismissing their charges and sending them away, Moshe calmly and politely tries
to assuage their alleged concerns.
He emphasizes their important role among Am Yisrael, serving as God's attendants in the
Mishkan.
He speaks to them with respect and sensitivity, rather than with anger
and disgust. We might compare
Moshe's response as understood by the Einei Yitzchak to an episode told in Sefer Shoftim
(beginning of chapter 8) regarding the aftermath of Gidon's successful campaign
against Midyan. We read that the
people of Efrayim complained to Gidon for not enlisting them when launching his
offensive against Midyan. Gidon,
rather than responding angrily, lauds their efforts in capturing the Midyanite
officials Orev and Ze'ev who tried fleeing across the
And so, when Moshe must be told by God that he may not cross into
Eretz Yisrael, God speaks to him with same patience and
sensitivity that he had shown to Korach and his followers, and responds,
"Rav lakh."
According to one interpretation cited by Rashi in his commentary to that
verse, God here tells Moshe of the immense reward that awaits him in the
afterlife, thereby soothing to some extent his disappointment over the
denial of his request to proceed to the
******
The Torah tells in Parashat Korach of the death of the two hundred and
fifty supporters of Korach's rebellion.
They had confronted Moshe and Aharon demanding the right to perform the
service of the kohen
gadol in the Mishkan, and so Moshe conducted a "test" whereby
they and Aharon would together bring an incense offering, to which God would
respond to determine the chosen kohen gadol.
We read (16:35) that God responded by sending a fire that consumed the
two hundred and fifty rebels.
Immediately thereafter, He tells Moshe to instruct Elazar, Aharon's son,
to collect the firepans used by the two hundred and fifty men, and to produce
from the metal a special covering for the altar that would serve as a reminder
and warning to any person who considers challenging Aharon's right to the
priesthood in the future.
A number of writers wondered why God summoned specifically Elazar for
this job, rather than Aharon himself.
Meiri, in his commentary to Masekhet Berakhot (27b), advances a
particularly insightful explanation, based on a comment by Rashi there in
Masekhet Berakhot. The Gemara tells
the famous story of Rabban Gamliel's dismissal from his post as head of the
academy in Yavneh. The Sages ousted
Rabban Gamliel in objection to his harsh treatment of Rabbi Yehoshua, who had
taken issue with Rabban Gamliel on a number of important halakhic issues. The Gemara tells of the Sages'
considerations in selecting a successor, and we read that they dismissed the
idea of naming Rabbi Yehoshua to the post, because he was Rabban Gamliel's
disputant on account of whom this entire affair unfolded. Rashi explains that the appointment of
Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabban Gamliel's adversary, as head of the academy in Rabban
Gamliel's stead would add further insult to Rabban Gamliel, who had already
suffered the humiliation of being discharged.
Similarly, Meiri contends, it would have
been insensitive to appoint Aharon to collect the burnt firepans that had been
used by Korach's followers, whose campaign was directed specifically against
Aharon's designation as kohen
gadol. Korach's supporters had already suffered
defeat and degradation as a result of their error rightfully so, of course
and should not be compelled to endure any more shame. Had Aharon been selected for the task of
collecting the firepans and producing from them a reminder of the folly of
Korach's revolt, this would have caused unnecessary, additional embarrassment to
those who had supported this revolt.
God therefore saw to it that somebody else Elazar would perform this
task.
What this demonstrates, of course, is the
extent of the sensitivity required towards the feelings of others. Once Korach's rebellion was defeated,
there was no purpose served in causing its supporters additional
aggravation. Even when it is
necessary to struggle against the forces that seek to oppose the Torah,
sensitivity is required to minimize the hard feelings as much as
possible.
******
Yesterday, we discussed the command issued by God to Elazar, Aharon's
son, to collect the burnt firepans used by Korach's followers who offered
incense in challenging Aharon's authority and were consumed by a heavenly
fire. Elazar was to use the metal
from these pans to make a special covering for the altar, which would serve as a
visible reminder to anyone who might consider challenging the right of Aharon
and his progeny to the high priesthood (17:1-5). We addressed the question raised by
several writers as to why this task was assigned specifically to Elazar. Intuitively, we might have expected that
this job be given to Aharon, who held the position of kohen gadol.
A number of scholars, including the Panim Yafot and the Imrei Emet, suggest a halakhic reason for Elazar's
designation for this task. The two
hundred and fifty rebels died, presumably, as they held their incense pans, and
therefore at that instant the pans contracted tum'at meit (ritual impurity resulting from contact
with a corpse). Now there is a
provision in the laws of ritual impurity known as cherev harei hu ke-chalal, which says that when a metal object comes
in direct contact with a corpse, that object attains a status of tum'a equivalent to that of the corpse
itself. This provision yields
several important halakhic ramifications, primarily the fact that if a person
touches that utensil, he is tamei for seven days and requires purification
through the ashes of para
aduma, as if he had come in direct
contact with a corpse. Though there
is considerable discussion concerning the scope of this halakha (see, for example, the Ramban's commentary
to Bamidbar 19:16), Rabbenu Tam (cited in Tosefot, Nazir 54b) extended it to the
prohibition of tum'at
kohanim the Torah law forbidding
a kohen from coming in contact with a dead
body. Meaning, Rabbenu Tam held
that just as a kohen may not come in contact with a corpse, so
may he not come in contact with a metal utensil that had come in direct contact
with a corpse.
According to Rabbenu Tam, then, it was forbidden for any kohen to collect the firepans used by the two hundred and fifty deceased rebels. Since these firepans had come in direct contact with the corpses, they contracted a degree of tum'a similar to that of a corpse, such that a kohen may not touch it. This prohibition was suspended in this case, however, presumably because it resembled a situation of a meit mitzva, where a kohen comes upon a dead body with nobody to tend to the burial, in which case the prohibition of tum'at kohanim is suspended. The Almighty, for whatever reason, saw it fitting that specifically a kohen tend to the firepans and produce from them the altar-covering, and He had to decide between Aharon and one of his sons. Now the Rambam rules (Hilkhot Avel 3:9) that if the kohen gadol walks with another kohen and they come upon a dead body in need of burial, the regular kohen, rather than the kohen gadol, should perform the burial. Since the regular kohen possesses a lower level of sanctity than the kohen gadol, he should "defile" his priestly status through contact with a corpse before we force this "defilement" upon the kohen gadol. Therefore, God chose specifically Elazar, rather than Aharon, for the task of collecting the firepans.
The Netziv, in his Ha'amek Davar, suggests a much simpler reason
why Elazar was selected for this task.
As we know from earlier in Sefer Bamidbar (see Rashi to 4:16), Elazar
held the position of supervisor over the work performed by Kehat the family of
Levi'im who transported the sacred articles of the Mishkan including both altars during travel. It thus stands to reason, the Netziv
claims, that all responsibilities involving the altars were under Elazar's
charge, and therefore he very naturally should assume responsibility for
preparing the altar-covering from the firepans of Korach's
followers.
******
Upon reading the narrative of Korach's rebellion against the authority of
Moshe and Aharon, one cannot but notice a stark contrast between Moshe's
attitude towards the actual participants in the revolt, and the Israelites who
merely gave Korach their backing and support. Moshe responds to Korach's challenge by
ordering that his followers bring an incense offering to the Mishkan, fully aware of the grave consequences of
this offering. He also invoked
God's supernatural intervention in having the ground devour the other
participants, Datan and Aviram. To
the nation, however, Moshe reacts far more compassionately.
God responds to the
rebellion by informing Moshe and Aharon of His plan to destroy the entire
nation, and Moshe and Aharon plead, "Shall a single man sin and You will be
angry at the entire nation?" (16:22).
God accepts their prayer (see Rashi), and killed only the active
participants in the rebellion.
Likewise, the Torah later tells that after the dramatic death of Korach's
followers, the nation protests against Moshe and Aharon, accusing, "You have
killed the nation of the Lord!" (17:6).
Once again, God sentences Benei Yisrael to annihilation, and Moshe has the sentence
revoked by instructing Aharon to offer an incense offering to atone on the
people's behalf.
Thus, whereas the two hundred fifty men who demanded the privileges of
priesthood were consumed by fire, and Datan and Aviram were devoured by the
ground, the rest of the nation was spared on two occasions in this narrative
through Moshe's intervention.
The difference between Moshe's attitudes towards the active participants
on the one hand, and to the rest of the people on the other, likely stems from
the difference between malice and ignorance. Korach and his followers challenged
Moshe's authority out of sheer envy, arrogance and resentment. Though they may have clothed their
campaign in altruistic slogans "For the entire nation they are all holy, and
the Lord is in their midst!" (16:3) they were clearly driven out of a lust for
power and authority. The rest of
the people, it appears, were simply misled and fed misconceptions about Moshe
and Aharon. Midrashim speak at length of Korach's shrewd means of
persuasion, the speeches he delivered depicting Moshe and Aharon as selfish
fiends manipulating the innocent minds of the masses for their own
aggrandizement, wealth and power.
This is likely what Moshe and Aharon meant when they cried, "Shall a
single man sin and You will be angry at the entire nation?" Seforno explains that Korach actively
rallied the people around him, and they were innocently misled. Moshe therefore petitions God to spare
the people the punishment that He would visit upon Korach.
This also explains Moshe's efforts on the people's behalf when they faced
annihilation after protesting the deaths of Korach's followers. According to one view cited by Rashi
(17:13), the people mistakenly thought that the ketoret (incense offering), which Moshe ordered the
two hundred and fifty rebels to bring to the Mishkan, possessed some magical power to kill. This misconception naturally led them to
the erroneous conclusion that Moshe killed the rebels with a magical force to
which he and his brother enjoyed exclusive access. As Rashi explains, Moshe instructed
Aharon to offer incense on the nation's behalf to demonstrate that it can
function as a life-preserving mechanism, as well, and is not endowed with some
otherworldly deadly force. Once
again, the people erred as a result of a misconception; they were misguided and
uninformed, and were not consumed by resentment and spite. Moshe reacted by coming to their defense
and seeking to correct the misconception that precipitated their inappropriate
complaints.
This distinction is an important one to consider when determining our
response and attitude to the opponents of traditional Judaism. An important distinction must be drawn
between those who act out of malice, and those who oppose us due to ignorance
and basic misconceptions about that which, and those whom, they oppose. Those who speak against traditional
Judaism out of ignorance must be responded to with patience and sensitivity,
rather than with resentment and contempt.
Furthermore, we, like Moshe, bear the responsibility of dispelling
misconceptions and correcting the many distortions that currently circulate
regarding traditional Judaism.
Moshe took a strong, unforgiving stand against those who challenged him
out of contempt, but displayed remarkable humility and sensitivity towards those
who were innocently misled. We,
too, must stand firmly by our principles and defend them against those who
actively challenge their validity, while at the same time showing patience and
tolerance to those who are simply misinformed and have been given a distorted
picture of the Torah way of life.
(Based in part on a devar Torah by Rabbi Moshe Silverman of Phoenix, in the
National Council of Young Israel's Words of Torah, 1999.)
******
We read in Parashat Korach of the "test" conducted by Moshe in response
to the objection of Korach and his two hundred and fifty followers against
Aharon's selection as kohen
gadol. Moshe ordered all two hundred and fifty
protestors to bring an incense offering together with Aharon in the Mishkan, and God's response to this offering would
determine the suitable candidate for the high priesthood. Indeed, a Heavenly fire descended and
consumed the two hundred and fifty rebels, while Aharon, of course, emerged from
this affair unscathed.
Several different approaches have been taken to explain why Moshe chose
specifically the ketoret as the means of resolving this
situation. Rashi (16:6) comments
that the ketoret was the most chaviv, or beloved, of the rituals performed in
the Mishkan, and it was the offering most coveted by
Korach's followers who pined for the privileges of kehuna.
The Ramban (16:5) explains that Moshe chose the ketoret because of the deadly consequence of its
misuse, as manifest in the tragic story of Nadav and Avihu. Moshe used the ketoret specifically because he and, presumably,
the two hundred and fifty rebels knew of its deadly "power," and in this way
he could resolve the conflict very clearly and
definitively.
Dr. Meir Tamari, in his work Jewish Values in Our Open Society (2000), suggests a different approach based
on a symbolic understanding of the meaning underlying the ketoret offering. The incense was the most abstract and
intangible of all the offerings; it consisted of finely ground spices that were
burned on coals and instantly transformed into a fragrant smoke. In this sense, the ketoret may be seen as symbolic of religious
feeling and emotion, spirituality without substance or form. It represents spirituality in the
abstract, that is not expressed through structured, formal, concrete
action.
Korach's followers objected to the formal, structured system associated
with the service in the Mishkan.
"For the entire congregation they are all holy, and the Lord is in
their midst; why, then, do you elevate yourselves over the community of the
Lord?" (16:3). There is no need,
they contended, for the formal institution of kehuna; anyone should be allowed at any time to
come and bring an offering as an expression of their religious feelings and
emotions. They saw no need for
practical, legislated actions, arguing that spiritual motivation and feeling
suffice in the service of the Almighty.
The ketoret was therefore the most suitable offering to
serve as a response to their objection.
The tragic fate of Korach's followers, their death at the hands of the
ketoret, underscores the point that genuine
spiritual feeling and emotion important components of the Jewish experience as
they are must find expression within the formal, structured framework of
Halakha.
The Torah does not believe in free, unrestrained religious expression,
the right to chose and initiate a mode, method and means of serving God. The ketoret a person's inherently sacred feelings of
love and closeness to God must be merged into the formal system of law and
ritual established by the Torah, rather than remain unrestrained in the realm of
abstract emotion.
******
The Yalkut Shimoni to Parashat Korach (752) tells that
Korach's sons were with their father when Moshe approached his tent, and they
deliberated as to how they should react to Moshe's arrival. On the one hand, the obligation to
respect parents would dictate standing behind their father in his conflict with
Moshe, and thus they should perhaps refuse to stand in Moshe's honor. On the other hand, Moshe certainly
deserves their respect no less than their father. Ultimately, Korach's sons decided to
stand in Moshe's honor, and this act, the Yalkut tells, triggered a process of teshuva whereby they disavowed their support for
their father's campaign against Moshe.
As the Torah emphasizes later in Sefer Bamidbar (26:11), Korach's sons
were spared the punishment that was visited upon their
father.
This account of course depicts the quandary a person faces when a close
confidant or relative seeks his support for an evil cause. A person in such a situation must
struggle between his conflicting loyalties to his close friend or family member,
on the one hand, and, on the other, to his strongly-held beliefs and
values. The heroism of Korach's
sons in discontinuing their support for their father serves as a model of
loyalty to values triumphing over one's fealty to family.
The Chafetz Chayim, however, in his Shemirat Ha-lashon (Sha'ar Ha-zekhira section, chapter 17), derives a more
specific halakha from this account of Korach's sons, viewing
it within the particular context of the prohibition of machazik be-machloket instigating strife. The Gemara famously comments in Masekhet
Sanhedrin (110a) that one who instigates strife transgresses the prohibition
introduced later in the parasha (17:5), when God says, "he shall not be
like Korach and his following."
Korach's campaign is seen as the paradigm of the sin of machloket, of instigating unnecessary contention and
discord, and the Torah enjoins us not to follow this
example.
If so, then the Midrash's account of Korach's sons' decision is perhaps
instructive concerning the proper response to a machloket instigated by one's parent. A person whose parent instigates
controversy faces enormous pressure to join and support the parent's cause. The Yalkut Shimoni seeks to emphasize the point that it is
forbidden for the child to do so.
The Chafetz Chayim comments that this halakha is but a natural application of the general
rule that the obligation to honor one's parents does not override other laws of
the Torah, or even laws enacted by Chazal.
Since the Torah forbids instigating strife and controversy, it is
forbidden for a child to support his parent who leads such a campaign, even if
his refusal to participate would bring shame and disgrace to his parent. The child must therefore stay to the
side and not get involved in his parent's machloket.
The exception to this rule, as the Chafetz Chayim emphasizes, is when the child has the
ability to exert influence on the parties and help resolve the conflict. In such a case, he bears an outright
obligation to get involved and invest maximum effort to resolving the
controversy.