<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16481" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>*************************************************************<BR>
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER
[http://www.tanach.org]<BR>
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag<BR> Shiurim in
Chumash & Navi by Menachem
Leibtag<BR>*************************************************************</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
PARSHAT KORACH</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> What did Korach ‘TAKE’?
For some reason, the Torah<BR>prefers not to tell
us.<BR> Likewise, Korach definitely had many complaints,
yet<BR>Chumash never clarifies what he proposed
instead.<BR> In fact, as we study Parshat Korach, we
will notice how<BR>many other important details appear to be 'missing'! In
this<BR>week's shiur we attempt to explain why.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>INTRODUCTION<BR> Parshat
Korach opens with a pasuk that seems to be<BR>grammatically incorrect:<BR>
"Va'yikach Korach..." - And Korach, the son of Yizhar, the<BR> son of
Khat, the son of Levi, TOOK; and Datan and Aviram<BR> [the sons of Eliav]
and Oan [the son of Pelet] the sons of<BR> Reuven."
(16:1)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> This opening sentence
simply states that Korach TOOK,<BR>without explaining WHAT he took! In fact,
this pasuk is so<BR>ambiguous that almost every commentator offers a
different<BR>interpretation. For example:<BR> Rashi -
Korach took himself to a 'different side';<BR> Ramban -
he took an "eytzah" (counsel) into his heart;<BR> Ibn
Ezra & Chizkuni - he took 'other people';<BR>
Seforno - he took the 250 'national leaders'.<BR> [Note as
well how just about every translation of this<BR> pasuk
attempts to 'improvise' in some manner or other.]<BR>
<BR> However, no matter which interpretation is most
accurate,<BR>a more basic question remains, i.e.: Why does the Torah
begin<BR>this parsha in such an ambiguous manner? After all, one
would<BR>assume that the Torah's message would have been clearer had<BR>this
pasuk been written 'properly'!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> In the following shiur, we
will show how this ‘opening<BR>ambiguity’ may be intentional, as it will draw
our attention<BR>to the unique style that the Torah uses to describe
this<BR>incident – a style that the Torah uses deliberately - to<BR>convey its
underlying message!<BR> Let’s begin our study of
Bamidbar chapter 16 by paying<BR>careful attention to the various 'complaints'
that Korach<BR>raises.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>FIGHTING FOR A COMMON
CAUSE<BR> From a cursory reading of Parshat Korach it
seems that<BR>Korach, Datan & Aviram, and the 250 men all unite behind
a<BR>common cause. Their joint criticism of the leadership of Moshe<BR>and
Aharon, voiced in their opening protest, demonstrates this<BR>united
opposition:<BR> "...and they gathered against MOSHE AND AHARON saying:
You<BR> have taken too much - for the ENTIRE COMMUNITY IS HOLY
and<BR> God is in their midst, why then do you RAISE YOURSELVES<BR>
ABOVE God's congregation?" (16:3)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> However, it remains
unclear from this opening complaint<BR>precisely what they want
instead:<BR> * Are they calling for 'new democratic
elections'?<BR> * Do they want Moshe & Aharon to 'step
down'?<BR> * Do they themselves want to 'step
up'?<BR> * Are they simply demanding 'spiritual
equality'?<BR> * Are they just 'chronic' complainers, without
any goal?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> In response to this
opening complaint, Moshe offers a<BR>'test' that sounds (at first) like some
type of 'showdown'<BR>(see 16:4-7). By examining the details of this
suggested<BR>'test', we should be able to arrive at a more precise<BR>conclusion
concerning what they are truly complaining about:<BR>Let's carefully study the
psukim that describe Moshe Rabeinu's<BR>suggestion:<BR> "Come morning, and
God will make known who is His and who is<BR> holy... and he whom He has
chosen...<BR> This you shall do, take fire-pans, Korach and his
entire<BR> group, ... and put on them KTORET before God [i.e. at
the<BR> Mishkan]... and he [who's offering] God shall choose
will<BR> be established as "kadosh"... (see
16:5-7)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> As you review these
psukim, note how it remains rather<BR>unclear concerning the precise purpose of
this 'ktoret test'!<BR> First, let’s discuss what this
test cannot be!<BR> It can’t be a test to determine who
is God’s true choice<BR>to be the LEADER of Bnei Yisrael, for if so – then only
ONE<BR>offering could be accepted – and Moshe (as well as Aharon)<BR>should
participate!<BR> Furthermore, if this is simply a
'showdown' between Moshe<BR>and Korach, why should the 250 men
participate?<BR> More likely, the purpose of this 'test'
is to determine<BR>who is entitled to OFFER KORBANOT. This would explain
why<BR>Aharon (to the exclusion of Moshe) participates together with<BR>the 250
men, as one possible outcome of this test would be for<BR>God to accept the
offerings of all (or at least some) of these<BR>participants.<BR> In other
words, the purpose of the “ktoret” test is to<BR>determine the validity of
Korach’s claim that everyone in Am<BR>Yisrael is “kadosh” (see 16:3), and hence
everyone should be<BR>allowed to offer korbanot. Moshe is suggesting that
Korach &<BR>his 250 followers should 'give it a try'. If God accepts
these<BR>offerings, then Korach would be proven correct - if not, then<BR>Moshe
will be proven correct.<BR> <BR>SPIRITUAL
EQUALITY<BR> To support this interpretation, we simply
need to take a<BR>look at Moshe's second response to Korach (see 16:8-11),
i.e.<BR>in his additional censure to the Levites who have
joined<BR>Korach:<BR> "Hear me, sons of Levi - is it not enough that God
has<BR> designated you to come close [i.e. to assemble and carry
the<BR> Mishkan]... and now you and your fellow Levites DO YOU
SEEK<BR> THE KEHUNA [priesthood] as well.... - why then do you<BR>
complain AGAINST AHARON." (see 16:8-11)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> This censure of "bnei
Levi" - especially the phrase of<BR>'do you seek the priesthood as well - proves
that Korach and<BR>his 250 men are challenging the decision to limit the
offering<BR>of "korbanot" to Aharon and his sons. These dissidents
demand<BR>that anyone who so desires should be allowed to offer<BR>"korbanot",
for ALL members of Israel are 'spiritually equal'<BR>["ki kol ha'eydah kulam
kedoshim…" (see 16:3)].<BR> This also explains why this
extra censure is directed<BR>specifically to "bnei Levi". Moshe's
criticism focuses on the<BR>hypocrisy of these Levites - for if they were so
worried about<BR>'spiritual equality' why didn't they complain earlier
when<BR>they themselves were chosen over any other tribe to carry
the<BR>Mishkan!<BR> Apparently, these dissidents believe
that the limitation<BR>of offering korbanot to Aharon's family stems from
Moshe's<BR>nepotism, rather than from a divine command. [See
Chizkuni<BR>16:15.] Hence, this 'ktoret test', as Moshe suggests,
will<BR>determine who indeed is capable of offering korbanot - i.e. it<BR>may be
only Aharon, or possibly all (or at least some) of the<BR>250 men as well. [See
also 16:16-17.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>ENTER - GROUP TWO<BR> Up
until this point, we are left with the impression that<BR>everyone mentioned in
the opening two psukim - i.e. Korach,<BR>Datan, Aviram, and the 250 men -
join together in this<BR>protest. Hence, we should expect all of them to
participate in<BR>this 'showdown'.<BR> However, as the
narrative continues, a very different<BR>picture emerges. Note from 16:12 that
Datan & Aviram, for some<BR>reason, are singled out:<BR> "And Moshe
sent for DATAN & AVIRAM, but they answered: WE<BR> WILL NOT COME
UP..." (see 16:12-14)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Why must Moshe SEND for
Datan and Aviram? After all, were<BR>they not together with Korach & Company
when they first<BR>gathered against Moshe (see 16:2-3)? Furthermore, for
what<BR>purpose does Moshe call them? Does he want them to<BR>participate
in the 'ktotet test'? At first glance, it remains<BR>quite unclear
concerning what this summons is all about.<BR> However,
their response to Moshe - "we will not COME UP"<BR>- already suggests that Datan
& Aviram may comprise an<BR>independent group. Note how they remain in
their own camp<BR>[recall that they are from shevet Reuven] and refuse to
even<BR>come near the Ohel Moed (where the 'ktoret test' is
being<BR>conducted).<BR> Furthermore, from their censure
of Moshe that accompanied<BR>their response to his summons (see below), it
becomes quite<BR>clear that Datan & Aviram have a more 'political' agenda
(and<BR>aren't terribly interested in 'spiritual equality').<BR> "Is it
not enough that you took us out of a land flowing<BR> with milk and honey
[referring to Egypt!] to die in the<BR> desert and NOW - YOU CONTINUE TO
ACT AS LORD OVER US! You<BR> have not even brought us to a land flowing
with milk & honey<BR> (as Moshe had promised)... [therefore] we will
not come up!"<BR> (16:13-14)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> In this brazen defiance of
Moshe's summons, Datan &<BR>Aviram totally reject Moshe's political
LEADERSHIP. In their<BR>eyes, Moshe has failed as the nation's leader. After
all, when<BR>Bnei Yisrael first accepted Moshe as their leader in Egypt,
he<BR>had promised to bring them to a land flowing with milk and<BR>honey (see
Shmot 3:16-17, 4:30-31). Now that Moshe has<BR>informed Bnei Yisrael that
entering the Promised Land is no<BR>longer on the horizon, Datan & Aviram
(and most likely many<BR>others) reject the legitimacy of his leadership and
authority.<BR> Clearly, this complaint differs
drastically from Korach's<BR>initial objection to the KEHUNA! Korach and the 250
men<BR>challenge Aharon's exclusive status, but never question<BR>Moshe's
leadership. After all, they all agree to the 'test'<BR>that Moshe himself
initiates. Datan and Aviram, however,<BR>challenge specifically Moshe's
leadership.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>MOSHE'S PRAYER<BR>
Conclusive proof of this distinction can be found in<BR>Moshe's immediate
reaction to Datan & Aviram's complaint. Pay<BR>careful attention to
how Moshe turns to God in prayer:<BR> "And Moshe became angry and
said to God - 'al teyfen el<BR> MINCHATAM' - Pay no attention to
their 'oblation' - I did<BR> not take from them a single donkey, nor
have I wronged<BR> anyone of them." (see 16:15)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> At first glance, it
appears that Moshe now begs God not<BR>to accept the "ktoret" offerings.
However, this cannot be for<BR>two reasons:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> 1) Datan & Aviram chose not to
participate in the "ktoret"<BR> test, so why would Moshe request that God
not accept an<BR> offering that they aren't even
bringing?<BR>
[See Ramban!]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> 2) The Hebrew word "minchatam" refers
either to a 'meal<BR> offering' (see Vayikra chapter 2) or a gift of some
sort<BR> (see Breishit 32:13,18). Certainly, it is not another
name<BR> for "ktoret" (incense).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> [Note how the commentators dealt
with this problem. Even<BR> though the first opinion of Rashi
claims that "minchatam"<BR> indeed refers to the KTORET
offering, Ramban (rightly so)<BR> disagrees - suggesting that
it refers to any type of<BR> prayer (or offering) that they
may offer. See also Ibn<BR> Ezra & Seforno who
explain this pasuk in a similar<BR> manner.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Furthermore, the reason
that Moshe advances - "for I have<BR>not taken anything from them" - clearly
relates to Moshe's<BR>counter-claim that his leadership has been without
corruption.<BR>Therefore, this entire prayer relates to Datan &
Aviram's<BR>complaint against his leadership. Moshe simply turns to God
to<BR>affirm the legitimacy of his own [divinely appointed]<BR>leadership that
has now been challenged. Moshe reminds God<BR>that he has been a faithful leader
who never abused his power.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>TWO GROUPS - TWO
GRIPES<BR> Let's summarize what has emerged thus
far. We have<BR>identified TWO independent grievances, raised by
TWO<BR>independent groups, situated in TWO different locations:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> GROUP ONE - the 250 men ["adat
Korach"]- protest Aharon's<BR> exclusive rights to the KEHUNA. They
stand ready for their<BR> 'test' at the OHEL
MOED;<BR> [Note that
the Torah consistently refers to this<BR> group as
"adat Korach" (see 16:5,6,11).]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> GROUP TWO - Datan & Aviram (&
followers) - complain against<BR> the POLITICAL leadership of MOSHE.
They gather in the<BR> territory of shevet
Reuven.<BR> [This
location is later referred to as "Mishkan<BR>
Korach Datan v'Aviram" (see 16:24-27).]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Of course, it remains to
be seen where Korach himself<BR>stands on these two issues, but there can be no
doubt that<BR>there are two groups with two very different agendas.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>RE-ENTER GROUP ONE<BR> Up
until this point (i.e. 16:1-15), the narrative,<BR>although a bit complex, has
flowed in a logical order: it<BR>first presents both groups, followed the
presentation of the<BR>individual complaints of each faction. But now, for
some<BR>reason, the narrative begins to 'see-saw,' seemingly
randomly,<BR>between Moshe's confrontations with each of these two
groups.<BR> Note how in 16:16 the narrative abruptly
switches from<BR>Moshe's response to Datan & Aviram (group II) back to
his<BR>original confrontation with "adat Korach" (group I):<BR> "And Moshe
said to Korach, tomorrow, you and all your<BR> company [the 250 men] be
before God [at the Mishkan], you<BR> and they and Aharon..."
(16:16-17 / compare with 16:5-7)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Then the narrative
continues to describe this<BR>confrontation: The next morning, all 250 men
assemble at the<BR>Ohel Moed ready with their "machtot" (fire-pans) and
"ktoret"<BR>(16:18), while Korach rallies a mass crowd to watch (16:19).<BR>But
then, just as we expect to find out the outcome of this<BR>'showdown', again we
find an abrupt change in the narrative.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>RE-ENTER GROUP TWO<BR>
Precisely at this critical point in the narrative, we<BR>find a new 'parshia'
(note 16:20-22), which describes God's<BR>[first] direct intervention (in
relation to this incident),<BR>and Moshe & Aharon's reaction.<BR> "And
God spoke to Moshe & Aharon: 'Separate yourselves from<BR> among
this congregation, that I may consume them in a<BR> moment.' And they fell
upon their faces, and said: 'O God,<BR> the God of the spirits of all
flesh, shall - "ish echad" -<BR> one man sin, and You will be wroth
with - "kol ha'EYDAH" -<BR> the entire congregation?'
(16:20-22)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Review these psukim once again, noting how
it is not so<BR>clear concerning who "ish echad" and "ha'EYDAH" refer
to:<BR> Does "ish echad" refer to Korach, and hence the
"eydah"<BR>refers to the 250 men? Or, does "ish echad" refer to
the<BR>entire group of complainers - i.e. Korach, and his 250 men.<BR>If so,
then "eydah" must refer to the entire nation of Israel,<BR>or at least the large
group of followers who Korach had<BR>gathered to watch (see
16:18-19).<BR> Furthermore - what about Datan &
Aviram? Should they<BR>also be considered as part of the "ish echad" in
Moshe's<BR>prayer?<BR> Finally, if "eydah" refers to the
entire congregation -<BR>does this imply simply the 'gawkers', i.e. those who
gathered<BR>around to watch (see 16:19), or does it really imply the<BR>entire
congregation, including women & children etc.?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> How we understand these
words directly affects how we<BR>understand Moshe's prayer in 16:22. In
other words, is Moshe<BR>asking God to save the 250 men from Korach (if so, then
God<BR>doesn't answer this request), or is he asking God to save the<BR>entire
nation from Korach and his 250 men (if so, then God<BR>answers this
request)?<BR> To answer this question, let's see how God answers
this<BR>prayer, noting how it seems to totally confuse our<BR>understanding of
what is happening:<BR> "And God told Moshe, speak to the EYDAH and
warn them -<BR> WITHDRAW yourselves from the area of MISHKAN KORACH
DATAN<BR> V'AVIRAM." (16:23-24)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> To our surprise, God's
answer introduces a location that<BR>we have never heard of before: i.e. MISHKAN
KORACH DATAN<BR>v'AVIRAM. This cannot be the Mishkan itself, rather the
word<BR>"mishkan" in this context refers to their dwelling site, i.e.<BR>where
Datan and Aviram reside.<BR> Since Datan & Aviram
did not come to the "ktoret" test,<BR>we must conclude that their "mishkan" must
be located in the<BR>area of the Tribe of Reuven. Most probably, this site
served<BR>as 'party headquarters' for this group of people who have<BR>openly
rebelled against Moshe's political leadership.<BR> With
this in mind, let's attempt to identify whom "eydah"<BR>refers to in God's reply
to Moshe's prayer (in 16:24). To<BR>save the "eydah" from this "ish
echad", Moshe must instruct<BR>the "eydah" to evacuate the area surrounding
Mishkan Korach<BR>Datan & Aviram. Hence, the "eydah" must refer to a
group of<BR>people who have gathered around Mishkan Korach Datan v'Aviram<BR>in
the Tribe of Reuven. However, this conclusion is rather<BR>baffling, for
only five psukim earlier, the word "eydah" was<BR>used to describe a group of
people who had gathered around the<BR>OHEL MOED to watch the "ktoret"
showdown (see 16:19)!<BR> Once again, we find how the
narrative has 'jumped' from<BR>Group One [the 250 men offering ktoret] to Group
Two [Datan &<BR>Aviram].</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> To prove that there are
indeed two groups involved,<BR>simply note what takes place in the next pasuk,
as Moshe<BR>fulfills God's command.<BR> Recall that
Moshe must issue a warning to the EYDAH that<BR>has gathered around the campsite
of Datan & Aviram. As this<BR>"eydah" refers to Group Two, Moshe must now
LEAVE the area of<BR>the OHEL MOED (where Group One has assembled) and GO to
the<BR>area where Group Two is located - i.e Mishkan Korach, Datan
&<BR>Aviram:<BR> "And Moshe GOT UP and WENT TO Datan & Aviram...
and he said<BR> to the people: MOVE AWAY from the tents of these
wicked<BR> people... lest you be wiped out for all their
sins..."<BR> (16:25-26)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Note that Moshe must LEAVE
his present location (at the<BR>Ohel Moed) and GO TO "Mishkan Korach Datan
v'Aviram"<BR>(conclusive proof that two separate groups exist).
This<BR>location, to which the Torah refers as "Mishkan Korach
Datan<BR>v'Aviram", serves as 'party headquarters' for this rebellious<BR>group.
Most likely, an alternative leadership group has<BR>already formed at this new
center.<BR> [Note the Torah's use of the word "mishkan"
[dwelling<BR> place] to describe their headquarters. Most likely,
this<BR> term was specifically chosen to indicate that these
NEW<BR> headquarters stand in defiance of the Moshe
Rabeinu's<BR> leadership, whose headquarters are the "mishkan" at
the<BR> Ohel Moed!]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Because Group Two
challenges Moshe's leadership (and not<BR>Aharon's priesthood), it must be Moshe
himself (and NOT<BR>Aharon) who confronts this group. Note that Aharon does
not<BR>accompany Moshe (in 16:25). Instead, he remains at the Ohel<BR>Moed,
prepared for the showdown with the 250 men (Group One),<BR>i.e. the group that
questions his KEHUNA.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>TWO GROUPS - TWO
PUNISHMENTS<BR> At this point, God must prove to the
political dissidents<BR>that Moshe's leadership was by divine appointment.
Therefore,<BR>God Himself must 'create' a "beriya" - a new form of creation<BR>-
to punish this group. Those who distance themselves from<BR>this group are
saved (see 16:27-34). However, note that the<BR>ground miraculously
devours only the members of Group Two -<BR>i.e. Datan & Aviram and their
staunchest followers.<BR> But what happened in the
meantime to "adat Korach" (Group<BR>One), i.e. the 250 men. Note that the
last time they were<BR>mentioned was back in 16:17-19, as they prepared to
the<BR>"ktoret" showdown; but we were never told what happened to<BR>them!
For some reason, the Torah leaves us in suspense about<BR>their fate; until the
very last pasuk of this narrative (and<BR>in a very incidental
manner):<BR> "And a fire came forth from God and consumed the 250
men<BR> who were offering the ktoret." (16:35)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> This final pasuk proves
not only that there were TWO<BR>groups in TWO separate locations, but that there
were also TWO<BR>distinct forms of punishments:<BR> GROUP ONE
–<BR> the 250 men at the Ohel Moed -
CONSUMED by fire.<BR> GROUP TWO
–<BR> Datan & Aviram
& Co. - SWALLOWED by the ground.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> So where is Korach in all
of this? Was he consumed by<BR>fire in the Mishkan together with Group
One; or swallowed up<BR>by the ground - together with Group
Two?<BR> He couldn't be two places at the same time,
could he?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>KORACH - THE POLITICIAN<BR>
To appreciate the nature of Korach's involvement, we must<BR>understand his
connection to each of these two groups. Before<BR>we begin, let's use a table to
summarize our analysis
thus<BR>far:<BR> <BR>
GROUP ONE / GROUP
TWO<BR>
=========
==========<BR>Members: 250
men Datan
& Aviram + followers<BR>Claim :
priesthood new political
leadership<BR>Against:
Aharon
Moshe<BR>Reason: spiritual equality failure of
leadership<BR>Location: Ohel
Moed in shevet
Reuven<BR>Punishment: consumed by fire swallowed up by the
ground</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> At first glance, it
appears that each group has some<BR>basis for a legitimate
complaint.<BR> By challenging the restriction of the
KEHUNA to the<BR>family of Aharon, Group One asserts their right, as well
as<BR>the right of others, to offer korbanot.<BR> By
challenging the political leadership of Moshe, Group<BR>Two voices their concern
for the welfare and future of Am<BR>Yisrael. In their opinion, remaining in the
desert is<BR>equivalent to national suicide (see 16:13).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Although Group One has
little in common with Group Two,<BR>the Torah presents this story as if only one
group exists,<BR>under Korach's leadership. The narrative accomplishes this
by<BR>'jumping back and forth' from one group to the other.
The<BR>following chart (of perek 16) illustrates this 'textual
zig-<BR>zag':</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> PASUK
GROUP TOPIC<BR> 1- 4
both Introduction<BR> 5-11
ONE Complaint of those who want 'kehuna'<BR>
12-15 TWO Summons of Datan & Aviram &
their refusal<BR> 16-19 ONE The test
of the "ktoret"<BR> 20-22 both? Moshe's tfila that
God punish only the guilty<BR> 23-34
TWO earth swallows Datan & Aviram &
followers<BR> 25 ONE
fire consumes the 250 men</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Why does the Torah employ
this unusual style? How does it<BR>help us better understand Korach's
involvement with each<BR>group?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>KORACH - WHERE ARE YOU?<BR>
First, we must ascertain to which group Korach belongs.<BR>Clearly, he leads
Group One, which demands the "kehuna" (see<BR>16:6-8,16-19). Yet, at the same
time, he is so involved with<BR>Group Two that his name appears first on the
banner in front<BR>of their party headquarters - "Mishkan KORACH Datan
v'Aviram"!<BR> Furthermore, although Korach himself is
never mentioned<BR>in the punishment of Group Two (scan 16:23-34 carefully
to<BR>verify this), many of his followers, described by Chumash as<BR>"ha'adam
asher l'Korach", are swallowed up by the ground (see<BR>16:32) together with
Datan & Aviram.<BR> In fact, it remains unclear
precisely how Korach himself<BR>dies. Was he swallowed by the ground or consumed
by the fire?<BR> The 'last time he was spotted' was in
16:19 together with<BR>the 250 men (Group One) at the Ohel Moed. But from 16:25
it<BR>seems that only the 250 men were consumed, but NOT Korach<BR>himself! On
the other hand, 16:32 informs us that Datan &<BR>Aviram and ALL of Korach's
men were swallowed up - but Korach<BR>himself seems to be 'missing'! Did he
escape at the last<BR>minute from both?<BR> Apparently
not, for later in Sefer Bamidbar (see 26:9-10)<BR>we are told quite explicitly
that Korach was indeed swallowed.<BR>But to complicate matters even further,
Devarim 11:6 implies<BR>that only Datan & Aviram were swallowed
up.<BR> [Based on the complexity of these psukim, the Gemara
in<BR> Sanhedrin 110a suggests that he received both
punishments!<BR> First he was burnt by the fire at the Ohel Moed,
and then<BR> his bodied rolled to the area of Datan v'Aviram
and<BR> swallowed up by the ground. ] (See also Ibn Ezra on
16:35.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> So why does the Torah
describe these events in such an<BR>evasive manner? What can this manner
of presentation teach us<BR>about the nature of Korach's involvement?
Finally, why does<BR>Chumash attempt to give us the impression that Korach may
be<BR>in two places at the same time?<BR> One could
suggest that this 'zig-zag' style reflects the<BR>nature of the coalition that
exists between these two<BR>dissident groups, for they share only one common
denominator-<BR>KORACH.<BR> But what was Korach's
motivation in all of this?<BR> To answer this question,
let's return to the opening<BR>pasuk of this Parsha (see introduction). By
not telling us<BR>what Korach 'took', the Torah wants the reader to ask
this<BR>very question - what did Korach take?<BR> [If you didn't ask
yourself this question when you begin<BR> reading, you most probably
would have noticed the existence<BR> of these two groups as you
continue.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>COALITION POLITICS<BR>
Korach 'took' two ostensibly 'legitimate' protest groups<BR>and joined them
together to form his own political power base.<BR>[See Ramban 16:1.] Whereas
each group alone may have not dared<BR>to openly challenge Moshe and Aharon,
Korach encourages them<BR>to take action. Datan and Aviram, 'inspired' by
Korach,<BR>establish their own 'headquarters' - "Mishkan Korach, Datan,
&<BR>Aviram" - in defiance of Moshe's leadership. Likewise, the 250<BR>men,
including members of shevet Levi, are roused to openly<BR>challenge the
restriction of the KEHUNA to Aharon.<BR> Rather than
encouraging open dialogue, Korach incites<BR>these two factions to take forceful
action. Korach probably<BR>saw himself as the most suitable candidate to become
the next<BR>national leader. To that end, he involves himself with
each<BR>dissenting group. [Anyone familiar with political science<BR>(i.e.
current events and/or world history) can easily relate<BR>to this
phenomenon.]<BR> Korach is simply what we would call a
'polished<BR>politician'. His true intention is to usurp political
power.<BR>Towards that goal, he takes advantage of private
interest<BR>groups.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>A LESSON FOR ALL
GENERATIONS<BR> The Mishna in Pirkei Avot (5:17)
considers the rebellion<BR>of Korach as the paradigm of a dispute that was
"sh'lo l'shem<BR>sha'mayim" (an argument not for the sake of
Heaven).<BR> Why is specifically Korach chosen for this
paradigm?<BR>After all, the arguments presented by Korach ("for the
entire<BR>nation is holy", etc.) seem to imply exactly the opposite -<BR>that it
was actually an argument "l'shem shamayim" (for the<BR>sake of
Heaven).<BR> Pirkei Avot may be teaching us the very
same message that<BR>the Torah may allude to through its complex presentation
of<BR>these events. Precisely because Korach and his followers claim<BR>to be
fighting "l'shem shamayim," Chazal must inform us of<BR>Korach's true
intentions. Korach may claim to be fighting a<BR>battle "l'shem shamayim," but
his claim is far from the truth.<BR>His primary interest is to promote himself,
to build a power<BR>base from which he himself can emerge as the new
leader.<BR> This doesn't mean that any form of dissent
is evil. In<BR>fact, Korach's own great great grandson - Shmuel ha'Navi
(see<BR>Divrei Ha'yamim I.6:3-13) - also acted 'against the<BR>establishment' as
he initiated both religious reform [against<BR>the corruption of the "kehuna" by
the sons of Eli] as well as<BR>political reform [in the appointment of David as
King instead<BR>of Shaul]; however, his intentions and motivations were
pure<BR>and sincere.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Parshat Korach thus
teaches us that whenever a dispute<BR>arises over community leadership or
religious reform, before<BR>reaching conclusions we must carefully examine not
only the<BR>claims, but also the true motivations behind the individuals<BR>who
promote them. On a personal level, as well, every<BR>individual must constantly
examine the true motivations behind<BR>all his spiritual endeavors.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
shabbat
shalom,<BR>
menachem</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>===============<BR>FOR FURTHER IYUN</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>A. In 16:1-2, everyone is introduced: Korach,
Datan, Aviram,<BR>and the 250 men. Read 16:2 carefully! Who are the leaders
and<BR>famous people - just Korach, Datan, and Aviram, or also the<BR>250
men? How does this question affect your understanding of<BR>the magnitude
of the revolt against Moshe and Aharon?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>B. Note the appellation with which Moshe opens his
tfila: "kel<BR>elokei ha'RUCHOT l'chol BASAR" (16:22). Based on the
context<BR>of this tfila, relate this appellation to the story of
the<BR>"mitavim" and their punishment, as described in Bamidbar 11:1-<BR>35. How
does the "basar" sent by the "ruach" in chapter 11<BR>enable God to punish ONLY
those who are truly guilty In the<BR>sin of the "mitavim"? [Note
11:33-34.]<BR> Note that the only other use of this
appellation is in<BR>Bamidbar 27:16, when Moshe asks God to appoint a leader
to<BR>replace him. Relate that parsha and its context to
Bamidbar<BR>11:14-17!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>C. Although Korach challenges the 'kehuna' and the
political<BR>leadership for the wrong reasons, many generations later
his<BR>great-grandson, Shmuel Ha'Navi, repeats this very same reform<BR>for the
correct reasons. He challenges the corrupt 'kehuna' of<BR>Eli's sons,
Chofni & Pinchus, and then later reforms the<BR>political leadership of the
country by becoming a shofet and<BR>later establishing the nation's first
monarchy.<BR>1. Note the similarities between Parshat Korach and this<BR>week's
Haftara, especially Shmuel 12:3. See also 3:19-20, 7:3-<BR>17.<BR>2. What
similarities exist between Shmuel and Moshe & Aharon?<BR>3. In what manner
does Shmuel, who is a Levi, act like
a<BR>Kohen?<BR> (Relate to
Shmuel 3:1-3, 13:8-12)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>D. In earlier shiurim (Yom Kippur and Parshat
Tzaveh), we<BR>discussed the special nature of the ktoret and its purpose
as<BR>a protection from the consequences of "hitgalut shchinah".<BR>Recall also
the events which led to the death of Nadav &<BR>Avihu.<BR>1. Why do you
think Moshe suggests that the 250 men offer<BR>ktoret as proof that they are
chosen? Is this his idea or<BR>God's?
(16:5-7)<BR>
See Ramban (as usual).<BR>2. Do you think Moshe is aware of the potential
outcome- the<BR>consumption of all 250 men by fire, or was he merely trying
to<BR>convince them to withdraw from Korach's
revolt?<BR> Relate your answer to your answer to
question #1.<BR>3. Why do you think the nation immediately accuses Moshe
of<BR>causing their death (see 17:6-15)? Why is 'davka' the ktoret<BR>used to
save the people from their punishment?<BR>4. Why do you think 'davka' this type
of punishment is<BR>necessary?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>E. Recall that in Shmot 2:14, when Moshe admonishes
two<BR>quarreling Jews in Egypt, they answer: "mi samcha sar v'shofet<BR>...".
Chazal identify these two men as Datan & Aviram. Use the<BR>above shiur to
support this Midrash.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>F. Towards the end of the Parsha, the "mateh shel
Aharon" is<BR>chosen over the 'matot' of all other tribal
leaders.<BR> 1. Where is that 'mateh' to be kept
afterwards?<BR> For what
purpose? (see 17:24-25)<BR> 2. Is this 'mateh' ever used
later on for that purpose?<BR> 3. Before reading this
question, which 'mateh' did you<BR>think Moshe used to hit the rock at "mei
m'riva"?<BR> Now look carefully at
20:8-11.<BR> 4. How does this explain Moshe's statement
of<BR> "shimu na
ha'morim"? [cute?]<BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>