[Par-lite] for Parshat Korach
Menachem Leibtag
tsc at bezeqint.net
Wed Jun 18 15:40:21 EDT 2014
*********************************************
****************
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER
[http://www.tanach.org]
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem
Leibtag
*********************************************
****************
PARSHAT KORACH
What did Korach 'TAKE'? For some reason,
the Torah
prefers not to tell us.
Likewise, Korach definitely had many
complaints, yet
Chumash never clarifies what he proposed
instead.
In fact, as we study Parshat Korach, we
will notice how
many other important details appear to be
'missing'! In this
week's shiur we attempt to explain why.
INTRODUCTION
Parshat Korach opens with a pasuk that
seems to be
grammatically incorrect:
"Va'yikach Korach..." - And Korach, the son
of Yizhar, the
son of Khat, the son of Levi, TOOK; and
Datan and Aviram
[the sons of Eliav] and Oan [the son of
Pelet] the sons of
Reuven." (16:1)
This opening sentence simply states that
Korach TOOK,
without explaining WHAT he took! In fact,
this pasuk is so
ambiguous that almost every commentator
offers a different
interpretation. For example:
Rashi - Korach took himself to a
'different side';
Ramban - he took an "eytzah" (counsel)
into his heart;
Ibn Ezra & Chizkuni - he took 'other
people';
Seforno - he took the 250 'national
leaders'.
[Note as well how just about every
translation of this
pasuk attempts to 'improvise' in some
manner or other.]
However, no matter which interpretation
is most accurate,
a more basic question remains, i.e.: Why does
the Torah begin
this parsha in such an ambiguous manner?
After all, one would
assume that the Torah's message would have
been clearer had
this pasuk been written 'properly'!
In the following shiur, we will show how
this 'opening
ambiguity' may be intentional, as it will
draw our attention
to the unique style that the Torah uses to
describe this
incident - a style that the Torah uses
deliberately - to
convey its underlying message!
Let's begin our study of Bamidbar
chapter 16 by paying
careful attention to the various 'complaints'
that Korach
raises.
FIGHTING FOR A COMMON CAUSE
From a cursory reading of Parshat Korach
it seems that
Korach, Datan & Aviram, and the 250 men all
unite behind a
common cause. Their joint criticism of the
leadership of Moshe
and Aharon, voiced in their opening protest,
demonstrates this
united opposition:
"...and they gathered against MOSHE AND
AHARON saying: You
have taken too much - for the ENTIRE
COMMUNITY IS HOLY and
God is in their midst, why then do you
RAISE YOURSELVES
ABOVE God's congregation?" (16:3)
However, it remains unclear from this
opening complaint
precisely what they want instead:
* Are they calling for 'new democratic
elections'?
* Do they want Moshe & Aharon to 'step
down'?
* Do they themselves want to 'step up'?
* Are they simply demanding 'spiritual
equality'?
* Are they just 'chronic' complainers,
without any goal?
In response to this opening complaint,
Moshe offers a
'test' that sounds (at first) like some type
of 'showdown'
(see 16:4-7). By examining the details of
this suggested
'test', we should be able to arrive at a more
precise
conclusion concerning what they are truly
complaining about:
Let's carefully study the psukim that
describe Moshe Rabeinu's
suggestion:
"Come morning, and God will make known who
is His and who is
holy... and he whom He has chosen...
This you shall do, take fire-pans, Korach
and his entire
group, ... and put on them KTORET before
God [i.e. at the
Mishkan]... and he [who's offering] God
shall choose will
be established as "kadosh"... (see
16:5-7)
As you review these psukim, note how it
remains rather
unclear concerning the precise purpose of
this 'ktoret test'!
First, let's discuss what this test
cannot be!
It can't be a test to determine who is
God's true choice
to be the LEADER of Bnei Yisrael, for if so -
then only ONE
offering could be accepted - and Moshe (as
well as Aharon)
should participate!
Furthermore, if this is simply a
'showdown' between Moshe
and Korach, why should the 250 men
participate?
More likely, the purpose of this 'test'
is to determine
who is entitled to OFFER KORBANOT. This
would explain why
Aharon (to the exclusion of Moshe)
participates together with
the 250 men, as one possible outcome of this
test would be for
God to accept the offerings of all (or at
least some) of these
participants.
In other words, the purpose of the "ktoret"
test is to
determine the validity of Korach's claim that
everyone in Am
Yisrael is "kadosh" (see 16:3), and hence
everyone should be
allowed to offer korbanot. Moshe is
suggesting that Korach &
his 250 followers should 'give it a try'. If
God accepts these
offerings, then Korach would be proven
correct - if not, then
Moshe will be proven correct.
SPIRITUAL EQUALITY
To support this interpretation, we
simply need to take a
look at Moshe's second response to Korach
(see 16:8-11), i.e.
in his additional censure to the Levites who
have joined
Korach:
"Hear me, sons of Levi - is it not enough
that God has
designated you to come close [i.e. to
assemble and carry the
Mishkan]... and now you and your fellow
Levites DO YOU SEEK
THE KEHUNA [priesthood] as well.... - why
then do you
complain AGAINST AHARON." (see 16:8-11)
This censure of "bnei Levi" - especially
the phrase of
'do you seek the priesthood as well - proves
that Korach and
his 250 men are challenging the decision to
limit the offering
of "korbanot" to Aharon and his sons. These
dissidents demand
that anyone who so desires should be allowed
to offer
"korbanot", for ALL members of Israel are
'spiritually equal'
["ki kol ha'eydah kulam kedoshim." (see
16:3)].
This also explains why this extra
censure is directed
specifically to "bnei Levi". Moshe's
criticism focuses on the
hypocrisy of these Levites - for if they were
so worried about
'spiritual equality' why didn't they complain
earlier when
they themselves were chosen over any other
tribe to carry the
Mishkan!
Apparently, these dissidents believe
that the limitation
of offering korbanot to Aharon's family stems
from Moshe's
nepotism, rather than from a divine command.
[See Chizkuni
16:15.] Hence, this 'ktoret test', as Moshe
suggests, will
determine who indeed is capable of offering
korbanot - i.e. it
may be only Aharon, or possibly all (or at
least some) of the
250 men as well. [See also 16:16-17.]
ENTER - GROUP TWO
Up until this point, we are left with
the impression that
everyone mentioned in the opening two psukim
- i.e. Korach,
Datan, Aviram, and the 250 men - join
together in this
protest. Hence, we should expect all of them
to participate in
this 'showdown'.
However, as the narrative continues, a
very different
picture emerges. Note from 16:12 that Datan &
Aviram, for some
reason, are singled out:
"And Moshe sent for DATAN & AVIRAM, but
they answered: WE
WILL NOT COME UP..." (see 16:12-14)
Why must Moshe SEND for Datan and
Aviram? After all, were
they not together with Korach & Company when
they first
gathered against Moshe (see 16:2-3)?
Furthermore, for what
purpose does Moshe call them? Does he want
them to
participate in the 'ktotet test'? At first
glance, it remains
quite unclear concerning what this summons is
all about.
However, their response to Moshe - "we
will not COME UP"
- already suggests that Datan & Aviram may
comprise an
independent group. Note how they remain in
their own camp
[recall that they are from shevet Reuven] and
refuse to even
come near the Ohel Moed (where the 'ktoret
test' is being
conducted).
Furthermore, from their censure of Moshe
that accompanied
their response to his summons (see below), it
becomes quite
clear that Datan & Aviram have a more
'political' agenda (and
aren't terribly interested in 'spiritual
equality').
"Is it not enough that you took us out of a
land flowing
with milk and honey [referring to Egypt!]
to die in the
desert and NOW - YOU CONTINUE TO ACT AS
LORD OVER US! You
have not even brought us to a land flowing
with milk & honey
(as Moshe had promised)... [therefore] we
will not come up!"
(16:13-14)
In this brazen defiance of Moshe's
summons, Datan &
Aviram totally reject Moshe's political
LEADERSHIP. In their
eyes, Moshe has failed as the nation's
leader. After all, when
Bnei Yisrael first accepted Moshe as their
leader in Egypt, he
had promised to bring them to a land flowing
with milk and
honey (see Shmot 3:16-17, 4:30-31). Now that
Moshe has
informed Bnei Yisrael that entering the
Promised Land is no
longer on the horizon, Datan & Aviram (and
most likely many
others) reject the legitimacy of his
leadership and authority.
Clearly, this complaint differs
drastically from Korach's
initial objection to the KEHUNA! Korach and
the 250 men
challenge Aharon's exclusive status, but
never question
Moshe's leadership. After all, they all agree
to the 'test'
that Moshe himself initiates. Datan and
Aviram, however,
challenge specifically Moshe's leadership.
MOSHE'S PRAYER
Conclusive proof of this distinction can
be found in
Moshe's immediate reaction to Datan &
Aviram's complaint. Pay
careful attention to how Moshe turns to God
in prayer:
"And Moshe became angry and said to God -
'al teyfen el
MINCHATAM' - Pay no attention to their
'oblation' - I did
not take from them a single donkey, nor
have I wronged
anyone of them." (see 16:15)
At first glance, it appears that Moshe
now begs God not
to accept the "ktoret" offerings. However,
this cannot be for
two reasons:
1) Datan & Aviram chose not to participate
in the "ktoret"
test, so why would Moshe request that God
not accept an
offering that they aren't even bringing?
[See Ramban!]
2) The Hebrew word "minchatam" refers
either to a 'meal
offering' (see Vayikra chapter 2) or a gift
of some sort
(see Breishit 32:13,18). Certainly, it is
not another name
for "ktoret" (incense).
[Note how the commentators dealt with
this problem. Even
though the first opinion of Rashi claims
that "minchatam"
indeed refers to the KTORET offering,
Ramban (rightly so)
disagrees - suggesting that it refers to
any type of
prayer (or offering) that they may offer.
See also Ibn
Ezra & Seforno who explain this pasuk in
a similar
manner.]
Furthermore, the reason that Moshe
advances - "for I have
not taken anything from them" - clearly
relates to Moshe's
counter-claim that his leadership has been
without corruption.
Therefore, this entire prayer relates to
Datan & Aviram's
complaint against his leadership. Moshe
simply turns to God to
affirm the legitimacy of his own [divinely
appointed]
leadership that has now been challenged.
Moshe reminds God
that he has been a faithful leader who never
abused his power.
TWO GROUPS - TWO GRIPES
Let's summarize what has emerged thus
far. We have
identified TWO independent grievances, raised
by TWO
independent groups, situated in TWO different
locations:
GROUP ONE - the 250 men ["adat Korach"]-
protest Aharon's
exclusive rights to the KEHUNA. They stand
ready for their
'test' at the OHEL MOED;
[Note that the Torah consistently
refers to this
group as "adat Korach" (see
16:5,6,11).]
GROUP TWO - Datan & Aviram (& followers) -
complain against
the POLITICAL leadership of MOSHE. They
gather in the
territory of shevet Reuven.
[This location is later referred
to as "Mishkan
Korach Datan v'Aviram" (see 16:24-27).]
Of course, it remains to be seen where
Korach himself
stands on these two issues, but there can be
no doubt that
there are two groups with two very different
agendas.
RE-ENTER GROUP ONE
Up until this point (i.e. 16:1-15), the
narrative,
although a bit complex, has flowed in a
logical order: it
first presents both groups, followed the
presentation of the
individual complaints of each faction. But
now, for some
reason, the narrative begins to 'see-saw,'
seemingly randomly,
between Moshe's confrontations with each of
these two groups.
Note how in 16:16 the narrative abruptly
switches from
Moshe's response to Datan & Aviram (group II)
back to his
original confrontation with "adat Korach"
(group I):
"And Moshe said to Korach, tomorrow, you
and all your
company [the 250 men] be before God [at the
Mishkan], you
and they and Aharon..." (16:16-17 /
compare with 16:5-7)
Then the narrative continues to describe
this
confrontation: The next morning, all 250 men
assemble at the
Ohel Moed ready with their "machtot"
(fire-pans) and "ktoret"
(16:18), while Korach rallies a mass crowd to
watch (16:19).
But then, just as we expect to find out the
outcome of this
'showdown', again we find an abrupt change in
the narrative.
RE-ENTER GROUP TWO
Precisely at this critical point in the
narrative, we
find a new 'parshia' (note 16:20-22), which
describes God's
[first] direct intervention (in relation to
this incident),
and Moshe & Aharon's reaction.
"And God spoke to Moshe & Aharon:
'Separate yourselves from
among this congregation, that I may consume
them in a
moment.' And they fell upon their faces,
and said: 'O God,
the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall
- "ish echad" -
one man sin, and You will be wroth with -
"kol ha'EYDAH" -
the entire congregation?' (16:20-22)
Review these psukim once again, noting how
it is not so
clear concerning who "ish echad" and
"ha'EYDAH" refer to:
Does "ish echad" refer to Korach, and
hence the "eydah"
refers to the 250 men? Or, does "ish echad"
refer to the
entire group of complainers - i.e. Korach,
and his 250 men.
If so, then "eydah" must refer to the entire
nation of Israel,
or at least the large group of followers who
Korach had
gathered to watch (see 16:18-19).
Furthermore - what about Datan & Aviram?
Should they
also be considered as part of the "ish echad"
in Moshe's
prayer?
Finally, if "eydah" refers to the entire
congregation -
does this imply simply the 'gawkers', i.e.
those who gathered
around to watch (see 16:19), or does it
really imply the
entire congregation, including women &
children etc.?
How we understand these words directly
affects how we
understand Moshe's prayer in 16:22. In other
words, is Moshe
asking God to save the 250 men from Korach
(if so, then God
doesn't answer this request), or is he asking
God to save the
entire nation from Korach and his 250 men (if
so, then God
answers this request)?
To answer this question, let's see how God
answers this
prayer, noting how it seems to totally
confuse our
understanding of what is happening:
"And God told Moshe, speak to the EYDAH
and warn them -
WITHDRAW yourselves from the area of
MISHKAN KORACH DATAN
V'AVIRAM." (16:23-24)
To our surprise, God's answer introduces
a location that
we have never heard of before: i.e. MISHKAN
KORACH DATAN
v'AVIRAM. This cannot be the Mishkan itself,
rather the word
"mishkan" in this context refers to their
dwelling site, i.e.
where Datan and Aviram reside.
Since Datan & Aviram did not come to the
"ktoret" test,
we must conclude that their "mishkan" must be
located in the
area of the Tribe of Reuven. Most probably,
this site served
as 'party headquarters' for this group of
people who have
openly rebelled against Moshe's political
leadership.
With this in mind, let's attempt to
identify whom "eydah"
refers to in God's reply to Moshe's prayer
(in 16:24). To
save the "eydah" from this "ish echad", Moshe
must instruct
the "eydah" to evacuate the area surrounding
Mishkan Korach
Datan & Aviram. Hence, the "eydah" must
refer to a group of
people who have gathered around Mishkan
Korach Datan v'Aviram
in the Tribe of Reuven. However, this
conclusion is rather
baffling, for only five psukim earlier, the
word "eydah" was
used to describe a group of people who had
gathered around the
OHEL MOED to watch the "ktoret" showdown
(see 16:19)!
Once again, we find how the narrative
has 'jumped' from
Group One [the 250 men offering ktoret] to
Group Two [Datan &
Aviram].
To prove that there are indeed two
groups involved,
simply note what takes place in the next
pasuk, as Moshe
fulfills God's command.
Recall that Moshe must issue a warning
to the EYDAH that
has gathered around the campsite of Datan &
Aviram. As this
"eydah" refers to Group Two, Moshe must now
LEAVE the area of
the OHEL MOED (where Group One has assembled)
and GO to the
area where Group Two is located - i.e Mishkan
Korach, Datan &
Aviram:
"And Moshe GOT UP and WENT TO Datan &
Aviram... and he said
to the people: MOVE AWAY from the tents of
these wicked
people... lest you be wiped out for all
their sins..."
(16:25-26)
Note that Moshe must LEAVE his present
location (at the
Ohel Moed) and GO TO "Mishkan Korach Datan
v'Aviram"
(conclusive proof that two separate groups
exist). This
location, to which the Torah refers as
"Mishkan Korach Datan
v'Aviram", serves as 'party headquarters' for
this rebellious
group. Most likely, an alternative leadership
group has
already formed at this new center.
[Note the Torah's use of the word
"mishkan" [dwelling
place] to describe their headquarters.
Most likely, this
term was specifically chosen to indicate
that these NEW
headquarters stand in defiance of the
Moshe Rabeinu's
leadership, whose headquarters are the
"mishkan" at the
Ohel Moed!]
Because Group Two challenges Moshe's
leadership (and not
Aharon's priesthood), it must be Moshe
himself (and NOT
Aharon) who confronts this group. Note that
Aharon does not
accompany Moshe (in 16:25). Instead, he
remains at the Ohel
Moed, prepared for the showdown with the 250
men (Group One),
i.e. the group that questions his KEHUNA.
TWO GROUPS - TWO PUNISHMENTS
At this point, God must prove to the
political dissidents
that Moshe's leadership was by divine
appointment. Therefore,
God Himself must 'create' a "beriya" - a new
form of creation
- to punish this group. Those who distance
themselves from
this group are saved (see 16:27-34).
However, note that the
ground miraculously devours only the members
of Group Two -
i.e. Datan & Aviram and their staunchest
followers.
But what happened in the meantime to
"adat Korach" (Group
One), i.e. the 250 men. Note that the last
time they were
mentioned was back in 16:17-19, as they
prepared to the
"ktoret" showdown; but we were never told
what happened to
them! For some reason, the Torah leaves us
in suspense about
their fate; until the very last pasuk of this
narrative (and
in a very incidental manner):
"And a fire came forth from God and
consumed the 250 men
who were offering the ktoret." (16:35)
This final pasuk proves not only that
there were TWO
groups in TWO separate locations, but that
there were also TWO
distinct forms of punishments:
GROUP ONE -
the 250 men at the Ohel Moed -
CONSUMED by fire.
GROUP TWO -
Datan & Aviram & Co. - SWALLOWED by
the ground.
So where is Korach in all of this? Was
he consumed by
fire in the Mishkan together with Group One;
or swallowed up
by the ground - together with Group Two?
He couldn't be two places at the same
time, could he?
KORACH - THE POLITICIAN
To appreciate the nature of Korach's
involvement, we must
understand his connection to each of these
two groups. Before
we begin, let's use a table to summarize our
analysis thus
far:
GROUP ONE / GROUP TWO
========= ==========
Members: 250 men Datan & Aviram
+ followers
Claim : priesthood new political
leadership
Against: Aharon Moshe
Reason: spiritual equality failure of
leadership
Location: Ohel Moed in shevet
Reuven
Punishment: consumed by fire swallowed up
by the ground
At first glance, it appears that each
group has some
basis for a legitimate complaint.
By challenging the restriction of the
KEHUNA to the
family of Aharon, Group One asserts their
right, as well as
the right of others, to offer korbanot.
By challenging the political leadership
of Moshe, Group
Two voices their concern for the welfare and
future of Am
Yisrael. In their opinion, remaining in the
desert is
equivalent to national suicide (see 16:13).
Although Group One has little in common
with Group Two,
the Torah presents this story as if only one
group exists,
under Korach's leadership. The narrative
accomplishes this by
'jumping back and forth' from one group to
the other. The
following chart (of perek 16) illustrates
this 'textual zig-
zag':
PASUK GROUP TOPIC
1- 4 both Introduction
5-11 ONE Complaint of those who want
'kehuna'
12-15 TWO Summons of Datan & Aviram &
their refusal
16-19 ONE The test of the "ktoret"
20-22 both? Moshe's tfila that God
punish only the guilty
23-34 TWO earth swallows Datan &
Aviram & followers
25 ONE fire consumes the 250 men
Why does the Torah employ this unusual
style? How does it
help us better understand Korach's
involvement with each
group?
KORACH - WHERE ARE YOU?
First, we must ascertain to which group
Korach belongs.
Clearly, he leads Group One, which demands
the "kehuna" (see
16:6-8,16-19). Yet, at the same time, he is
so involved with
Group Two that his name appears first on the
banner in front
of their party headquarters - "Mishkan KORACH
Datan v'Aviram"!
Furthermore, although Korach himself is
never mentioned
in the punishment of Group Two (scan 16:23-34
carefully to
verify this), many of his followers,
described by Chumash as
"ha'adam asher l'Korach", are swallowed up by
the ground (see
16:32) together with Datan & Aviram.
In fact, it remains unclear precisely
how Korach himself
dies. Was he swallowed by the ground or
consumed by the fire?
The 'last time he was spotted' was in
16:19 together with
the 250 men (Group One) at the Ohel Moed. But
from 16:25 it
seems that only the 250 men were consumed,
but NOT Korach
himself! On the other hand, 16:32 informs us
that Datan &
Aviram and ALL of Korach's men were swallowed
up - but Korach
himself seems to be 'missing'! Did he escape
at the last
minute from both?
Apparently not, for later in Sefer
Bamidbar (see 26:9-10)
we are told quite explicitly that Korach was
indeed swallowed.
But to complicate matters even further,
Devarim 11:6 implies
that only Datan & Aviram were swallowed up.
[Based on the complexity of these psukim,
the Gemara in
Sanhedrin 110a suggests that he received
both punishments!
First he was burnt by the fire at the Ohel
Moed, and then
his bodied rolled to the area of Datan
v'Aviram and
swallowed up by the ground. ] (See also
Ibn Ezra on 16:35.)
So why does the Torah describe these
events in such an
evasive manner? What can this manner of
presentation teach us
about the nature of Korach's involvement?
Finally, why does
Chumash attempt to give us the impression
that Korach may be
in two places at the same time?
One could suggest that this 'zig-zag'
style reflects the
nature of the coalition that exists between
these two
dissident groups, for they share only one
common denominator-
KORACH.
But what was Korach's motivation in all
of this?
To answer this question, let's return to
the opening
pasuk of this Parsha (see introduction). By
not telling us
what Korach 'took', the Torah wants the
reader to ask this
very question - what did Korach take?
[If you didn't ask yourself this question
when you begin
reading, you most probably would have
noticed the existence
of these two groups as you continue.]
COALITION POLITICS
Korach 'took' two ostensibly
'legitimate' protest groups
and joined them together to form his own
political power base.
[See Ramban 16:1.] Whereas each group alone
may have not dared
to openly challenge Moshe and Aharon, Korach
encourages them
to take action. Datan and Aviram, 'inspired'
by Korach,
establish their own 'headquarters' - "Mishkan
Korach, Datan, &
Aviram" - in defiance of Moshe's leadership.
Likewise, the 250
men, including members of shevet Levi, are
roused to openly
challenge the restriction of the KEHUNA to
Aharon.
Rather than encouraging open dialogue,
Korach incites
these two factions to take forceful action.
Korach probably
saw himself as the most suitable candidate to
become the next
national leader. To that end, he involves
himself with each
dissenting group. [Anyone familiar with
political science
(i.e. current events and/or world history)
can easily relate
to this phenomenon.]
Korach is simply what we would call a
'polished
politician'. His true intention is to usurp
political power.
Towards that goal, he takes advantage of
private interest
groups.
A LESSON FOR ALL GENERATIONS
The Mishna in Pirkei Avot (5:17)
considers the rebellion
of Korach as the paradigm of a dispute that
was "sh'lo l'shem
sha'mayim" (an argument not for the sake of
Heaven).
Why is specifically Korach chosen for
this paradigm?
After all, the arguments presented by Korach
("for the entire
nation is holy", etc.) seem to imply exactly
the opposite -
that it was actually an argument "l'shem
shamayim" (for the
sake of Heaven).
Pirkei Avot may be teaching us the very
same message that
the Torah may allude to through its complex
presentation of
these events. Precisely because Korach and
his followers claim
to be fighting "l'shem shamayim," Chazal must
inform us of
Korach's true intentions. Korach may claim to
be fighting a
battle "l'shem shamayim," but his claim is
far from the truth.
His primary interest is to promote himself,
to build a power
base from which he himself can emerge as the
new leader.
This doesn't mean that any form of
dissent is evil. In
fact, Korach's own great great grandson -
Shmuel ha'Navi (see
Divrei Ha'yamim I.6:3-13) - also acted
'against the
establishment' as he initiated both religious
reform [against
the corruption of the "kehuna" by the sons of
Eli] as well as
political reform [in the appointment of David
as King instead
of Shaul]; however, his intentions and
motivations were pure
and sincere.
Parshat Korach thus teaches us that
whenever a dispute
arises over community leadership or religious
reform, before
reaching conclusions we must carefully
examine not only the
claims, but also the true motivations behind
the individuals
who promote them. On a personal level, as
well, every
individual must constantly examine the true
motivations behind
all his spiritual endeavors.
shabbat shalom,
menachem
===============
FOR FURTHER IYUN
A. In 16:1-2, everyone is introduced: Korach,
Datan, Aviram,
and the 250 men. Read 16:2 carefully! Who are
the leaders and
famous people - just Korach, Datan, and
Aviram, or also the
250 men? How does this question affect your
understanding of
the magnitude of the revolt against Moshe and
Aharon?
B. Note the appellation with which Moshe
opens his tfila: "kel
elokei ha'RUCHOT l'chol BASAR" (16:22). Based
on the context
of this tfila, relate this appellation to the
story of the
"mitavim" and their punishment, as described
in Bamidbar 11:1-
35. How does the "basar" sent by the "ruach"
in chapter 11
enable God to punish ONLY those who are truly
guilty In the
sin of the "mitavim"? [Note 11:33-34.]
Note that the only other use of this
appellation is in
Bamidbar 27:16, when Moshe asks God to
appoint a leader to
replace him. Relate that parsha and its
context to Bamidbar
11:14-17!
C. Although Korach challenges the 'kehuna'
and the political
leadership for the wrong reasons, many
generations later his
great-grandson, Shmuel Ha'Navi, repeats this
very same reform
for the correct reasons. He challenges the
corrupt 'kehuna' of
Eli's sons, Chofni & Pinchus, and then later
reforms the
political leadership of the country by
becoming a shofet and
later establishing the nation's first
monarchy.
1. Note the similarities between Parshat
Korach and this
week's Haftara, especially Shmuel 12:3. See
also 3:19-20, 7:3-
17.
2. What similarities exist between Shmuel and
Moshe & Aharon?
3. In what manner does Shmuel, who is a Levi,
act like a
Kohen?
(Relate to Shmuel 3:1-3, 13:8-12)
D. In earlier shiurim (Yom Kippur and Parshat
Tzaveh), we
discussed the special nature of the ktoret
and its purpose as
a protection from the consequences of
"hitgalut shchinah".
Recall also the events which led to the death
of Nadav &
Avihu.
1. Why do you think Moshe suggests that the
250 men offer
ktoret as proof that they are chosen? Is this
his idea or
God's? (16:5-7)
See Ramban (as usual).
2. Do you think Moshe is aware of the
potential outcome- the
consumption of all 250 men by fire, or was he
merely trying to
convince them to withdraw from Korach's
revolt?
Relate your answer to your answer to
question #1.
3. Why do you think the nation immediately
accuses Moshe of
causing their death (see 17:6-15)? Why is
'davka' the ktoret
used to save the people from their
punishment?
4. Why do you think 'davka' this type of
punishment is
necessary?
E. Recall that in Shmot 2:14, when Moshe
admonishes two
quarreling Jews in Egypt, they answer: "mi
samcha sar v'shofet
...". Chazal identify these two men as Datan
& Aviram. Use the
above shiur to support this Midrash.
F. Towards the end of the Parsha, the "mateh
shel Aharon" is
chosen over the 'matot' of all other tribal
leaders.
1. Where is that 'mateh' to be kept
afterwards?
For what purpose? (see 17:24-25)
2. Is this 'mateh' ever used later on
for that purpose?
3. Before reading this question, which
'mateh' did you
think Moshe used to hit the rock at "mei
m'riva"?
Now look carefully at 20:8-11.
4. How does this explain Moshe's
statement of
"shimu na ha'morim"? [cute?]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20140618/ef55ed38/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: korach1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 53416 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20140618/ef55ed38/attachment-0001.pdf>
More information about the Par-lite
mailing list