---

In this week’s Parashah, we read about Korach’s rebellion. But how did Korach come to rebel? asks R’ Ben-Zion Halevi Bamberger z”l (1920-1980; Mashgiach Ruchani of the Ponovezh Yeshiva in Bnei Brak, Israel). Our Sages describe Korach as an exceptionally wise man; he also merited to be one of bearers of the Aron / Holy Ark, and he possessed Ruach Hakodesh / Divine inspiration, so he must have been a great man. How could anyone, let alone such a great man, question the legitimacy of Moshe’s leadership after the miracles Bnei Yisrael had witnessed, as a result of which, the Torah tells us (Shmot 14:31), “They had faith in Hashem and in Moshe, His servant”? Moreover, Korach’s rebellion occurred after the incidents described in the previous weeks’ Parashot, when the various complainers suffered severe punishments. How did Korach not realize that a terrible fate awaited him as well?

R’ Bamberger answers: We learn in Pirkei Avot (4:28), “Jealousy, lust, and [pursuit of] honor remove a person from this world.” R’ Moshe ben Maimon z”l (Rambam; 1135-1204; Spain and Egypt) explains: As a result of these Middot / traits, or any one of them, a person necessarily will lose his belief in the Torah, and he will have neither intellectual attributes nor good character attributes.” In other words, R’ Bamberger writes, not only will a person not develop a refined character if he has those traits, he will lose whatever wisdom he has.

R’ Bamberger notes that these warnings likely sound far-fetched to us, for we are burdened with these bad character traits and are oblivious to their dangers; at the same time, we view ourselves as righteous. Nevertheless, he writes, these ideas help us understand Korach’s error. (Sha’arei Zion)

---

“They stood before Moshe with two hundred and fifty men from Bnei Yisrael, leaders of assembly, קראי / those summoned for meeting, men of renown.” (16:2)

R’ Yaakov Emden z”l (1697-1776; Central Europe) writes: The verse does not say, “leaders of the assembly,” for they were minor leaders (for example, “officers of thousands”), not princes of the tribes. For the same reason, the word “קראי” is written with a letter (“Yud”) missing and its pronunciation sounds like “Mikreh” / “incidental.” (Eim L’binah)

---

“Datan and Aviram went out and stood at the entrance of their tents, with their wives, children, and infants . . . The earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and their households . . .” (16:27, 32)

Midrash Rabbah teaches: Come and see how serious is Machloket / divisiveness! If one merely assists in fomenting Machloket, Hashem erases all memory of him, as we read (16:35), “A fire came forth from Hashem and consumed the two hundred and fifty men who were offering the incense.” [The commentary Etz Yosef explains: They did not merit to be buried, for then they would be remembered by those who would see their graves.] Rabbi Berechiah said: How serious is Machloket! Ordinarily, the Heavenly court punishes a person only after he reaches age twenty, and an earthly court, only when he reaches the age of thirteen. As a result of Korach’s Machloket, however, even one-day-old babies were consumed. [Until here from the Midrash]

R’ Yehonatan Eybeschutz z”l (Central Europe; 1690-1764) writes: Due to our many sins, the participants in every Machloket, no matter the subject or the context, claim, “My Machloket is L’shem Shamayim / for the sake of Heaven.” How can a person judge whether the Machloket in which he is engaged is, in fact, L’shem Shamayim?

R’ Eybeschutz answers: If the opposing sides in the Machloket love each other heart and soul, and they have no differences except for the specific subject of their Machloket, that is a sure sign that their Machloket is L’shem Shamayim. If, however, they hate each other or they act toward each other with enmity, then their Machloket is not L’shem Shamayim.

R’ Eybeschutz adds: Pirkei Avot (5:20) teaches that the paradigm of a Machloket L’shem Shamayim is a Halachic disagreement between the sages Hillel and Shammai. The Mishnah (Yevamot 1:4) relates that, notwithstanding the far-reaching Halachic disagreements between Hillel and Shammai, and their respective academies after them, the families of their students still intermarried with each other. Pirkei Avot teaches further that the paradigm of a Machloket that is not L’shem Shamayim is the disagreement Korach and his followers had with Moshe. Given the opportunity, R’ Eybeschutz writes, Korach’s followers gladly would have stoned Moshe. (Ya’arot Devash II, Drush 8)

---

“Tell Elazar son of Aharon the Kohen and let him elevate the fire-pans from amid the fire . . . they shall make them hammered-out sheets as a covering for the Altar.” (17:2-3)

R’ Yoshiyahu Pinto z”l (1565-1648; Chief Rabbi of Damascus, Syria) writes: It is Hashem’s way to create a cure out of the malady itself, as we read (Yirmiyah 30:17), “From your wounds I will heal you.” For example, when Bnei Yisrael encountered bitter water, Hashem instructed Moshe to sweeten it by throwing bitter wood into it (see Shmot 15:25). Similarly, here, when Korach’s 250 co-conspirators died after trying to offer pans of Ketoret / incense, which only a Kohen may do, Hashem commanded that those very same pans be made hammered into a plating for the Altar. This, writes R’ Pinto, was meant to demonstrate that it was not because of the pans of incense themselves that these men died; rather, it was because they engaged in Machloket / divisiveness.

Bnei Yisrael did not understand Hashem’s ways, however. When they saw that the pans had been made a part of the Altar, they thought this vindicated the 250 conspirators, and they said to Moshe and Aharon (17:6), “You have killed the people of Hashem!”--they died because you, Moshe and Aharon, were angry at them, not because they deserved to die. In response, Hashem brought a plague, which ended only when Aharon offered Ketoret (17:11), once again demonstrating that the malady, the Ketoret over which there was a disagreement, was itself the source of the cure. (Tzror Ha’kessef)

---

“Hashem spoke to Aharon, ‘And I--behold! I have given you the safeguard of My Terumah, of all the sanctities of Bnei Yisrael.” (18:8)

R’ Aharon Lewin z”l Hy”d (the Reisher Rav; killed in the Holocaust) writes: Perhaps this passage was said specifically to Aharon, not to Moshe, because this section deals with the gifts that the Jewish People are obligated to give the Kohanim, and the Gemara (Shabbat 10b) teaches: “When one gives a gift to another, he is obligated to tell him,” as we read (Shmot 31:13), “So that you will know that I am Hashem, Who makes you holy.” (Ha’drash Ve’ha’iyun)

---

Shabbat

The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 31a) teaches: On the sixth day of the week, the Levi’im would say in the Bet Hamikdash (Tehilim 93:1), “Hashem has reigned; He has donned grandeur.” The reason for this choice is that Hashem completed Creation on the sixth day and reigned over His creations. [Until here from the Gemara]

Midrash Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer (Ch.10) elaborates: When Adam was created, all the other creations saw him and feared him, thinking that he was their creator. Adam said to them, “Why should you bow down to me? Come, you and I, let us go and adorn in majesty and might, and acclaim as King over us, the One who created us.” At that hour, Adam spoke and all the creatures answered after him, and they adorned their Creator in majesty and might and acclaimed Him as King over themselves, saying, “Hashem has reigned; He has donned grandeur.” [Until here from the Midrash]

These sources explain why Psalm 93 is the appropriate Shir Shel Yom/ Song of the Day for Friday. Is it not odd, however, asks R’ Shlomo Gotal shlita (Israel), that the very same paragraph of Tehilim is recited again as part of Kabbalat Shabbat?

He explains: If not for Adam’s sin of eating from the Etz Ha’da’at on that fateful Friday, the world would have attained its perfection on the very next day--the first Shabbat in history. Had Adam made the proper choices, Creation’s crowning of Hashem as King on that Erev Shabbat (as the above Midrash describes) would have led directly to the state of eternal Shabbat and Menuchah / rest, which, instead, we are still awaiting.

R’ Gotal continues: In the world as we know it after Adam’s sin, Shabbat is not the “end,” it is the “beginning.” It is the day from which we draw the strength to sanctify the week that follows and work towards the ultimate goal. (Therefore, Shabbat now fulfills the role that Friday was meant to fulfill, so we repeat Friday’s Shir Shel Yom on Shabbat.)

R’ Gotal notes that these two aspects of Shabbat are reflected in the Gemara (Shabbat 69b), which teaches: Rav Huna said, “If a person was traveling in a wilderness and he does not know when Shabbat is, he should count six days and then observe Shabbat.” The sage Chiya bar Rav says, “He observes one day [as Shabbat] and then counts six days [until the next Shabbat].” What is the basis of their disagreement? the Gemara asks. It answers: One says, “Like Creation,” and the other says, “Like Adam Ha’rishon.” [Until here from the Gemara] In other words, R’ Gotal explains, one sees Shabbat as the culmination of Creation, as it was meant to be, while the other sees Shabbat as the preparation for mankind’s toil, as it is in reality after Adam’s sin. (Lechtech Acharai Ba’midbar p.134)

Find Other Issues

Hama'ayan's archives are being rebuilt. Check back soon.