"שִׁירוּ לוֹ זַמְּרוּ לוֹ שִׂיחוּ בְּכָל נִפְלְאֹתָיו" (ב)
Korach: Power Outage!
The lust for power can destroy a person. It is amazing how people who are otherwise very competent are blinded to reality when the smell of power is in the air. We need look no further than the central character of this week's parsha, Korach. As our Rabbis tell us (see Rashi Bamidbar 16:7), Korach was a smart man. What did he think he would gain by trying to oust Moshe and Aharon? Did he really think he would be successful?
Korach waited for the opportune time to challenge the leadership of his first cousins. The Jews had just been told that they were to die in the desert. Upon hearing this news, there was a movement to appoint a new leader and return to Egypt. They were about to stone Yehoshua and Calev for even suggesting that they could conquer Israel. If ever Moshe could be deposed it was now. Korach, the great opportunist, tried to seize the moment for his own personal glory.
Unfortunately, Korach's desire for leadership did not stem from a genuine belief that he could do an equal or better job of serving the people of Israel. The Rabbis (see Rashi Bamidbar 16:1) teach that it was jealousy, pure and simple, that drove his mutiny. Korach was upset that Aharon and his descendants were designated Kohanim, whereas he and his descendants were Levi'im who ‘only’ aided the Kohanim. When another younger cousin of his, Elitzafan ben Uziel was appointed to head the family of Kehat, Korach was outraged.
Instead of graciously accepting the fact that Moshe's appointment reflected the Divine will, Korach's true nature was revealed. If he could not lead, then everyone would suffer, he mused. Of course, Korach was more subtle than that, attracting followers by stating that "the entire community is holy" (16:13). While this statement is unquestionably true it is misleading. We may all be holy, but we are not all the same. Not everyone can or should be a leader: less "holy" people must defer to more "holy" people.
Korach attracted a diverse group to join his entourage, each with their own personal grievance. Those descended from Reuven claimed that the tribe of Levi, including Moshe and Aharon, had usurped their position. As the descendents of the eldest of the twelve sons of Yaakov, they demanded a leadership role. Elders among various tribes felt that they too were entitled to positions of leadership. And "the men of rank in the community" felt that hereditary pedigree should play no role in the choice of a leader, that only individual character traits should be the determining factor. While each group had some element of truth to their grievances, their motivation was insincere and hence doomed to failure.
It is Korach and his followers who are described (Avot 5:17) as the prime example of a controversy "not for the sake of heaven, which will not have fulfillment”.
In an "argument for the sake of heaven" both sides are united in purpose, both wish to implement the Divine will. There may be disagreement but ultimately both sides are working together. In an argument "not for the sake of heaven" (and unfortunately most,more likey all, disagreements today fall into this category) the unity is lost as each person has their own personal agenda. Their joining together may serve their purposes now, but when their union ceases to be useful to them, infighting is bound to occur. What starts as a mutiny against others soon turns into a mutinous group of malcontents.
It is for this reason the Mishna defines this controversy as one between Korach and his followers and not, as we would have expected, between Korach, his followers and Moshe. While there was controversy directed at Moshe, he took had no part in perpetuating it. Had Korach succeeded the real fighting would have begun with so many vying to be the leader.
Acting for the sake of heaven is a most difficult task. It requires strength of character and conviction, the ability to withstand social pressure and most of all humility. It is no coincidence that the greatest leader, Moshe Rabbeinu, is described by the Torah as one who was “exceedingly humble” (Bamidbar12:3). May we merit emulating his example if not for our sake, then for the sake of peace.
Courtesy of Torah in Motion - www.torahinmotion.org
The Letter Lamed and Akeidat Yitzhak
In Parashat Vayera, God orders the Binding of Yitzchak: “And bring him up as a burnt offering (le-ola)” (Bereishit 22:2).
Rabbi Yona ibn Janach (Ribag) notes one of the meanings of the letter lamed when it is added to the beginning of a noun may be “for” or “in place of.” He writes:
"For I believe that God, may He be blessed and praised, when He wanted to show to all creation the travails of Avraham, peace be upon him, and the rewards He gave him for his suffering, He spoke to him with a phrasing that encompassed two understandings. One of them is what the masses will understand, and the second is what individuals may understand in it, and this is what “And bring him up as a burnt offering” accomplishes.
The masses’ understanding is what is connoted by the verse’s simple meaning – that is, to offer him as a sacrifice… However, its individual meaning is the following: bring him up there, on one of the mountains, in place of a burnt offering — that is, God wants Avraham to bring Yitzchak up to the mountain to Him at the time that God will desire that Avraham bring him a sacrifice.
Avraham initially applied the masses’ meaning, and God foresaw that this common meaning was what would initially occur to him, but He wanted to show people his travail and the rewards He gave him for it, and when Avraham achieved the matter that God wanted from him, namely bringing his son up to the mountain, the Blessed One called from the heavens: That will do, Avraham."
In other words, it was never God’s intention for Yitzchak to be slaughtered. He commands, “And bring him up as a burnt offering,” knowing that Avraham will interpret the phrasing of the command in the usual meaning (what the masses would understand). However, the true meaning, God’s true intent in this command, is for Avraham to bring Yitzchak up to the mountain in place of an ola – that is, in such a way that he will be considered by God as an ola. Otherwise, it may be that God would have phrased the command without the lamed.
Ribag makes the following conclusion with regard to the eternal nature of the Torah:
"This is it, and may the Lord God grant you success in it, for in my mind, it is a pleasing matter, fine and wondrous, though no one else seems to have apprehended it… But this will negate the confusion of one who demands that we accept the Torah’s mutability."
There is no question that Ribag is responding here to a common Muslim claim that the incident of the Binding of Yitzchak proves that God changes His mind; just as God rethinks His command to sacrifice Yitzchak, they argue, so He may rethink the commands of the Torah, exchanging Moshe’s revelation for Muhammad’s. Ribag counters that, in actuality, God does not change His mind over the course of this story; He never commanded Avraham to kill Yitzchak.
This is a good example of a confluence and cooperation between the science of language, biblical exegesis, and the sphere of faith and philosophy.
Is the Nation to Blame for the Actions of Korach?
We read in Parashat Korach that after Korach confronted Moshe along with his followers to challenge Moshe’s leadership, he then succeeded in marshalling support from the entire nation: “Korach assembled the entire nation around them, at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting” (16:19). Rashi, citing the Midrash Tanchuma, explains that Korach worked throughout the night campaigning for his cause, spreading false accusations about Moshe and Aharon and convincing the people that he, Korach, would stand up for them and release them from the tight shackles of Moshe and Aharon’s leadership.
The Torah proceeds to tell that at that point, God informed Moshe and Aharon of His desire to annihilate the nation: “Separate from amidst this nation, and I will eradicate them in an instant” (16:21). Once the nation lent Korach their support, God condemned the entire nation to annihilation. Moshe and Aharon immediately pleaded on the people’s behalf, turning to God in prayer and asking, “Shall just one man sin, and You will be enraged at the entire nation?!” (16:22). They defended Benei Yisrael by noting that the current situation was precipitated by just one man – Korach – who used persuasive rhetoric and lies to generate support for his nefarious campaign. It was thus he, and not the rest of the nation, who should be punished.
God accepted Moshe and Aharon’s prayer, but with one condition. He replied, “Speak to the nation, saying: Rise from around the tent of Korach, Datan and Aviram” (16:24). In order to be spared, the people would need to show that it is indeed just one person, or small group of people, who are guilty of insurrection. If the people would now separate from Korach and his fellow leaders, then God would limit His anger to that small group. Sure enough, the people heeded Moshe’s call to withdraw from Korach’s headquarters, and only the leadership was devoured by the ground.
This incident demonstrates that we are accountable for our decisions and actions even if we were lured by misleading, persuasive arguments. The fact that the insurrection was instigated by Korach did not suffice to absolve the followers he attracted of guilt. They were punishable for following his lead, despite the fact that they fell prey to his convincing campaigning. We cannot excuse ourselves from wrongdoing by blaming those who tempted and lured us.
This message resurfaces later in Sefer Bamidbar (25), in the tragic story of Ba’al Pe’or. The Torah tells that many among Benei Yisrael worshipped the deity of Moav and slept with women from that nation, resulting in a plague that killed 24,000 members of the nation. Chazal explain that this incident was orchestrated by the people of Moav, who, at the advice of Bilam, sent their young women to entice the men of Benei Yisrael to sin. Yet, despite the fact that the people’s sin resulted from an intentional campaign of seduction, they were nevertheless held accountable and were severely punished. We cannot blame our faults and failings on other people, even on people who intentionally tried drawing us to wrongdoing. Ultimately, we are solely responsible for our actions, we are endowed with the power of free will, to choose between right and wrong, and thus we must take responsibility for our actions without trying to cast the blame elsewhere.
Courtesy of Yeshivat Har Etzion - www.etzion.org.il
ברכי נפשי את ה'
"בָּרְכִי נַפְשִׁי אֶת ה'
ה' אֱלֹהַי גָּדַלְתָּ מְּאֹד הוֹד וְהָדָר לָבָשְׁתָּ
עֹטֶה אוֹר כַּשַּׂלְמָה נוֹטֶה שָׁמַיִם כַּיְרִיעָה" (א-ב)
תפילה לעני כי יעטוף
"תְּפִלָּה לְעָנִי כִי יַעֲטֹף וְלִפְנֵי ה' יִשְׁפֹּךְ שִׂיחוֹ
ה' שִׁמְעָה תְפִלָּתִי וְשַׁוְעָתִי אֵלֶיךָ תָבוֹא
אַל תַּסְתֵּר פָּנֶיךָ מִמֶּנִּי בְּיוֹם צַר לִי ..." (א-ג)