פרשת קרח תש"ג - קרח

ויקח קרח lit., AND KORAH TOOK — He betook himself on one side with the view of separating himself from out of the community so that he might raise a protest regarding the priesthood to which Moses had appointed his brother. This is what Onkelos means when he renders it by ואתפלג — “he separated himself” from the rest of the community in order to maintain dissension. Similar is, (Job 15:12) “Why doth thy heart take thee aside (יקחך)”, meaning, it takes you aside to separate you from other people (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 2). — Another explanation of ויקח קרח is: he attracted (won over) the chiefs of the Sanhedrin amongst them (the people) by fine words. The word is used here in a figurative sense just as in. (Leviticus 8:2) “Take (קח) Aaron”; (Hosea 14:3) “Take (קחו) words with you” (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 1).

ויקח קרח lit., AND KORAH TOOK — He betook himself on one side with the view of separating himself from out of the community so that he might raise a protest regarding the priesthood to which Moses had appointed his brother. This is what Onkelos means when he renders it by ואתפלג — “he separated himself” from the rest of the community in order to maintain dissension. Similar is, (Job 15:12) “Why doth thy heart take thee aside (יקחך)”, meaning, it takes you aside to separate you from other people (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 2). — Another explanation of ויקח קרח is: he attracted (won over) the chiefs of the Sanhedrin amongst them (the people) by fine words. The word is used here in a figurative sense just as in. (Leviticus 8:2) “Take (קח) Aaron”; (Hosea 14:3) “Take (קחו) words with you” (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 1).

ודתן ואבירם AND DATHAN AND ABIRAM — Because the tribe of Reuben had their place, when they encamped, in the South, thus being neighbours of Kohath and his sons, who, too, encamped in the South (cf. Numbers 3:29), they (the Reubenites) joined Korah in his quarrel. “Woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbour!” — And what induced Korah to quarrel with Moses? He was envious of the princely dignity held by Elzaphan the son of Uziel (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 1) whom Moses had appointed prince over the sons of Kohath although this was by the express command of God (Numbers 3:30). Korah argued thus: “My father and his brothers were four in number — as it is said, (Exodus 6:18) “and the sons of Kohath were [Amram and Izhar and Hebron and Uziel]”. — “As to Amram, the eldest, his two sons have themselves assumed high dignity, one as king and the other as High Priest; who is entitled to receive the second (the rank next to it)? Is it not “I” who am the son of Izhar, who was the second to Amram amongst the brothers? And yet he has appointed as prince the son of his (Amram’s) brother who was the youngest of all of them! I hereby protest against him and will undo his decision”. — What did he do? He arose and assembled 250 men, fitted to be heads of the Sanhedrin, most of them of the tribe of Reuben who were his neighbours, viz., Elizur the son of Shedeur, (the prince of the tribe of Reuben; cf. Numbers 1:5), and his colleagues, and others of a similar standing, — for here it states (v. 2) that they were “princes of the congregation, those who were called to the assembly (קראי מועד)”, and there (in another passage) it states, (Numbers 1:16) “these were they who were called to the congregation (קרואי העדה)” (amongst whom was also Elizur the son of Shedeur; cf. Numbers 1:5 and Rashi on Numbers 1:16), — and he attired them in robes of pure purple wool. They then came and stood before Moses and said to him, “Is a garment that is entirely of purple subject to the law of Zizith or is it exempt”? He replied to them: “It is subject to that law”. Whereupon they began to jeer at him: “Is this possible? A robe of any different coloured material, one thread of purple attached to it exempts it, and this that is entirely of purple should it not exempt itself (i.e. ipso facto be exempt) from the law of “Zizith”? (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 2).

רב לכם You TAKE TOO MUCH UPON YOU — i.e. much more than is proper have you taken for yourselves in the way of high Office.

כלם קדשים [FOR] ALL [THE CONGREGATION] ARE HOLY — they all heard the utterances on Sinai from the mouth of the Almighty (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 4).

ומדוע תתנשאו WHY THEN LIFT YE UP YOURSELVES [ABOVE THE ASSEMBLY OF THE LORD] — “If you have taken royal rank for yourself, you should at least not have chosen the priesthood for your brother — it is not you alone who have heard at Sinai: ‘I am the Lord thy God', all the congregation heard it!” (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 4).

Korach took. Rabbi Avraham (Ibn Ezra) wrote. “This event took place in the Sinai desert when the firstborn were exchanged for the Levites. The Bnei Yisroel thought that Moshe did this on his own accord, because he wanted to uplift his bother Aharon, the sons of Kehos, his relatives, and all the sons of Levi, his family. The Levites rose up against him because they were slated to be under the authority of Aharon and his sons. Dasan and Aviram rebelled because Moshe took away the rights of the firstborn from their father Reuven and gave them to Yosef. Korach was a firstborn as well.” In this, Rabbi Avraham follows his view that the Torah was written without regard to chronological order. However, I wrote (at the beginning of Parshas Acharei Mos) that in my opinion the entire Torah is written in chronological order, except for the places in which Scripture notes explicitly that it is out of order. In those places it is because of a certain need or suitable reason. Consequentially, the correct explanation here is that this event occurred in the Paran desert, at Kodeish Barnea, after the incident of the spies. The real reason for Korach’s rebellion is as explained in Midrash Rabbah and Tanchuma — Korach was angry about the appointment of Elitzafan to leadership. He was also envious of Aharon, as it says (v. 10), “And yet you ask to be kohanim as well?” Dasan and Aviram did not join with Korach because Moshe took away the right of the firstborn from the tribe of Reuven, for it was their forefather Yaakov who took it away from Reuven and gave it to Yosef. Rather, they stated their complaint (v. 13): “To kill us in the desert” and (v. 14), “Even into a land flowing with milk and honey you have not brought us.” As long as the Bnei Yisroel were in the Sinai desert, no bad event occurred, for even the very severe Sin of the Golden Calf resulted in relatively few deaths. The rest of the people were saved through Moshe’s prayers, which lasted forty days and forty nights (Devorim 9:28). Consequentially, the nation loved Moshe with all their soul, and obeyed him. If someone would have rebelled at that time he would have been stoned by the people. Therefore, Korach bided his time and refrained from reacting to Aharon’s appointment as Kohein Gadol. In the same way, the firstborn refrained from reacting to the elevation of the Levites and all of Moshe’s actions. However, when they arrived in the Paran desert many were burnt in Taveirah (11:1) and died in Kivros Hataavoh (11:33). When they sinned with the spies, Moshe did not succeed in annulling the decree with his prayer, and the leaders of the tribes died in a plague before Hashem. It was decreed upon the entire people to die in the wilderness. As a result, the people were embittered, and they began to feel that all their failures came as a result of Moshe’s leadership. Korach saw his opportunity now to dispute with Moshe, and he reasoned the people would listen to him. Thus, this is the explanation of Dasan and Aviram’s statement: “To kill us in the desert.” They claimed: You have brought us to this place, and you have not fulfilled the promise to bring us to a land flowing with milk and honey. You have not given us any inheritance at all. We will die in this desert and be annihilated here, and even our children will never leave this desert, for just as you have not fulfilled your promise to us, you will never fulfill your promise to our children.

... "And Moses heard and he fell on his face," to seek God, to know what to do. And then he was told, "In the morning, the Lord will make known, etc." However this was only mentioned in Moses' recounting to the people. And I have already showed you that [it is like this] in many places: One time it will be lengthy in the speech of God to Moses and brief in Moses' recounting, and one time the opposite; and sometimes one will not be mentioned at all - as with the story of the Children of Gad and the Children of Reuben. [There,] Scripture recounts the story with Moses himself, but it was done according to God, as it states (Numbers 32:31), "That which the Lord spoke to your servants, so shall we do." And it is [likewise] written in Joshua 22:9, "to the land of Gilead, the land of their own holding, which they had acquired by the command of the Lord through Moses." And if we were to say that [God's "command" here] is because of God's agreement, in the way that the matter is stated [specifically to exclude them from the actual command] (Numbers 34:13), "This is the land you are to receive by lot as your hereditary portion, which the Lord has commanded to be given to the nine and a half tribes" - and that this would be from the things that Moses did on his own and the Holy One, blessed be He, agreed with him (Shabbat 87) - [we would be wrong. For] it would not be right for Moses to do anything about dividing the land without authorization, as all of it was to be done upon the commandment of God - as it is written (Numbers 26:53), "To these shall you divide the land, etc." (which was spoken about Gad and Reuben as well).

... "And Moses heard and he fell on his face," to seek God, to know what to do. And then he was told, "In the morning, the Lord will make known, etc." However this was only mentioned in Moses' recounting to the people. And I have already showed you that [it is like this] in many places: One time it will be lengthy in the speech of God to Moses and brief in Moses' recounting, and one time the opposite; and sometimes one will not be mentioned at all - as with the story of the Children of Gad and the Children of Reuben. [There,] Scripture recounts the story with Moses himself, but it was done according to God, as it states (Numbers 32:31), "That which the Lord spoke to your servants, so shall we do." And it is [likewise] written in Joshua 22:9, "to the land of Gilead, the land of their own holding, which they had acquired by the command of the Lord through Moses." And if we were to say that [God's "command" here] is because of God's agreement, in the way that the matter is stated [specifically to exclude them from the actual command] (Numbers 34:13), "This is the land you are to receive by lot as your hereditary portion, which the Lord has commanded to be given to the nine and a half tribes" - and that this would be from the things that Moses did on his own and the Holy One, blessed be He, agreed with him (Shabbat 87) - [we would be wrong. For] it would not be right for Moses to do anything about dividing the land without authorization, as all of it was to be done upon the commandment of God - as it is written (Numbers 26:53), "To these shall you divide the land, etc." (which was spoken about Gad and Reuben as well).

ויאמרו לא נעלה, to be judged by you or your court. The expression עליה occurs frequently in conjunction with going to a court, to a judge. We find it in Deuteronomy 25,7 ועלתה יבמתו השערה, “his (the deceased’s) widow shall go up to the judges to protest her brother-in-law’s refusal to marry her.” It also occurs in this sense in Judges 4,5 where Boaz is reported as going up to the court to settle the matter of who will marry Ruth.

לא נעלה. This is the reason why we refuse to come up and be judged by you and your court. This is a typical construction known as כלל ופרט וכלל, stating a general principle, illustrating it with examples, and then reaffirming the general principle having supplied the reasons supporting the theory stated as a general principle.

We will not go up. It is possible that the Tent of Meeting was located on high ground within the camp, and therefore it was appropriate to use the language “go up.” Alternatively, it can be explained that one who goes to the service of Hashem or to the chosen place is going up.

Moreover thou hast not brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey, nor given us inheritance of fields and vineyards; wilt thou put out the eyes of these men? we will not come up.’

ותתן לנו (lit., thou hast given us) — The statement must he referred to the word לא, “not”, mentioned before, the meaning being: Thou hast not brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey, and thou hast not given us inheritance of fields and vineyards. — You told us, (Exodus 3:7) “I will bring you up from the affliction of Egypt” into a good land: from there (from such a land; cf. v. 13), indeed, you have brought us forth, but you have not brought us instead into a land flowing with milk and honey; on the contrary — you have passed a decree upon us to kill us in the wilderness, for you have said, (Numbers 14:29) “Your carcasses shall fall in this desert."

העיני האנשים ההם תנקר WILT THOU PUT OUT THE EYES OF THESE MEN etc. — This means: even if you were to send to put out our eyes if we would not come up to you we would not come up!

האנשים ההם THESE MEN — [They meant themselves, but spoke of other people’s eyes being put out], like a man who attaches to his fellow the curse which should come upon himself (cf. Rashi on Exodus 1:10).

?העיני האנשים ההם תנקר, “do you think that these people who have risen up against you do not have eyes with which they can see this trap that you led us into when you took us out of Egypt, a good land, to bring us to this miserable desert to die here? You certainly did not fulfill your promise to bring us to a land flowing with milk and honey which was the reason that we followed you from Egypt. All that awaits them now are 40 years in this desert in which to await their death.

And Moses was very wroth, and said unto the LORD: ‘Respect not thou their offering; I have not taken one ass from them, neither have I hurt one of them.’

לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי, I have not even appropriated a single donkey of theirs (the entire people) as a form of taxation as do most others rulers from all of their subjects. Seeing that this is so, on what do they base their claim that I behave like a ruler, a despot? If the vowel pattern under the word אחד would not have been “segol” followed by “kametz,” but two successive vowels “patach,” the meaning would be: “I have not taken away a single one of their privately owned asses.” It would have been a construct mode as in Genesis 26,10 אחד העם, i.e. “one of the common people.”

And they fell upon their faces, and said: ‘O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and wilt Thou be wroth with all the congregation?’

אל אלהי הרוחות O GOD, THE GOD OF THE SPIRITS [OF ALL FLESH] — i.e., “[O God] who knowest the thoughts of every man”. Thy nature is not like that of human beings: an earthly king against whom part of his country commits an offence, does not know who the sinner is, and therefore when he becomes angry he exacts punishment from all of them. But Thou — before Thee all human thoughts lie open and Thou knowest who is the sinner (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 7).