๐พ Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to โบ scriptures โบ jewish โบ t โบ Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Numberโฆ captured on 2024-07-09 at 03:42:24. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1 โ[1] ** ืืืงื ืงืจื, Korach took, etc.** What did the Torah mean when it wrote ืืืงื, "he took," without telling us what it was that Korach took? Our sages in *Bamidbar Rabbah* 18 say that he took himself to one side. This implies that he diminished himself thereby. [I have not found this quote in that chapter of the *Midrash Rabbah* Ed.] When we think of Korach, we automatically think of someone who separated himself from the main body and lost out thereby. If the *Midrash* meant the same as Onkelos who renders the word as meaning that Korach seceded or differed, this is not accurate, philologically speaking. Clearly, Onkelos did not translate the word but explained its intent. Whereas both the *Midrash* and Onkelos are correct, there is yet a way to explain the word both as philologically appropriate and as reflecting an acceptable meaning. Furthermore, why did G'd list such great men as Yitzhar, Kehat and Levi, thereby associating them with Korach, when there was no need for this? This is especially puzzling since our sages say in *Bamidbar Rabbah* 18,5 that Jacob prayed on his deathbed that his name not be associated with that of Korach? This proves that under ordinary circumstances his name should have been associated with Korach and that he was spared this only on account of his prayer. Personally, I am amazed at the list of outstanding ancestors of Korach whom the Torah did list. Thirdly, why did the Torah write ืืืชื ืืืืืจื, in the same breath? What had they done to be lumped together with Korach? If the Torah meant to tell us that they too quarrelled, the Torah should have mentioned their names beside that of Korach, thus: ืืืงืื, "**they** took!" On the other hand, if the Torah meant that Korach took these men to join him in his quarrel with Moses, then their names should not have been preceded by the conjunctive letter ื. Fourthly, what did the Torah mean with the words "they rose up in the face of Moses and Aaron?" If it means that these people came to quarrel, the Torah has stated this already when it wrote ืืืงืืื ืขื ืืฉื ืืืืจื, "they assembled themselves together against Moses and Aaron?" If the words merely mean that Datan and Aviram assumed an upright posture vis-a-vis Moses and Aaron, why did the Torah write the two verbs ืืืงืืื and ืืืงืื in separate verses and separate them from the other 250 men?
โ[2] The Torah wanted to tell us about the root cause of the quarrel. Anyone who reads the Torah must ask himself how Korach could even have imagined that his uprising could succeed? Moses' stature as an outstanding prophet had been proven over and over again so that it is strange for Korach to have imagined that he could succeed before the people would simply stone him to death for his impertinence! This is why the Torah tells us that Korach, a very clever man "took," i.e. he took stock of the factors which would give him a chance to rally the people around him. First, the Torah tells us that he was a son of ืืฆืืจ older than his younger brothers Chevron and Uzziel. Kehat's younger sons could not present a claim against Korach seeing he was the oldest one surviving. [Amram was the oldest son of Kehat but may have died prior to the Exodus. Ed.] Secondly, he was a son (grandson) of Kehat the most illustrious of the sons of Levi, the ones entrusted with carrying the Holy Ark. Our sages say that Korach personally was one of the bearers of the Holy Ark. Thirdly, he was a descendant of Levi the most illustrious of the twelve tribes.
โ[3] The Torah goes on to say ืืืชื ืืืืืจื, to tell us that Korach took them with him in order to challenge Moses also on their behalf seeing that they were the most important members of the tribe of Reuven, Jacob's first born son. These were the factors which encouraged these three men ืืืงืื, to claim a superior status vis-a-vis Moses and Aaron who were descended only from the third of Jacob's sons. Datan and Aviram based their assessment on the fact that they were the foremost dignitaries of the tribe of Reuven, which itself was descended from Jacob's firstborn son. The word ืืื ืฉืื means that they took with them other dignitaries as support by such dignitaries strengthened their case in the eyes of the people. This is the reason why the line starting with ืืืงืื had to precede mention of the other 250 rebels.
โ[4] We may also explain the whole verse in terms of the opinion offered in *Bamidbar Rabbah* 18,2 that Korach's main quarrel concerned Elitzafan the son of Uzziel upon whom Moses had bestowed the honour of being the prince, i.e. the chief dignitary of the Kehatites (Numbers 3,30). According to this view Korach "took" a string of arguments to prove that Moses had acted in a high-handed and arrogant manner when he appointed Elitzafan. He pointed out that 1) he was the son of Yitzhar who was senior to Uzziel the youngest of Kehat's sons. If Moses considered seniority of birth as important and this is why he had appointed Aaron as High Priest seeing he was the son of Amram, Kehat's oldest son, then the office of prince of the Kehatites should have been given to him inasmuch as his father was second to Amram in order of seniority of birth. Seeing that this is not what Moses did, Korach construed this as evidence that Moses had not been influenced by considerations of seniority of birth. This raised the question why Aaron had been chosen to be the High Priest? Seeing Moses had not explained the rationale of appointing Aaron as High Priest, Korach challenged that appointment. He claimed that all the Levites were of equal status. The Torah alluded to this when it described Korach as a "son" of Levi.
โ[5] Korach was afraid that the only one of his arguments which might succeed was his challenge to the position of Elitzafan, whereas no one would take seriously his argument against giving preference to the sons of Amram over the descendants of Kehat as it was accepted that seniority of birth was a reason to accord someone precedence in rank. This is why he looked for allies among the members of the tribe of Reuven whose claims to superior status based on seniority had been ignored. This then justifies the letter ื preceding mention of Datan and Aviram, i.e. ืืืชื ืืืืืจืโฆืื ื ืจืืืื. He challenged Moses that if he would defend Aaron's appointment as based on seniority, why had he ignored similar claims to senior positions by members of the tribe of Reuven and had not given the position of High Priest to a member of that tribe? When the Torah wrote **ืืืงืื ืืคื ื ืืฉื ืืืืจื** this means that they rose up in order to present their arguments before Moses and Aaron. They took with them other dignitaries from various segments of the people to ensure that Moses would not dismiss his arguments based on his self-appointed status of authority.
โ[6] *Sanhedrin* 109 offers another reason why the Torah lists the various ancestors of Korach. The Talmud says that the name **ืงืจื** is a description of the man, i.e. he made a **ืงืจืื**, "a bald spot" i.e. a depopulation in Israel. **ืื ืืฆืืจ**, is a reference to midday, **ืฆืืจืื**. Korach caused the world to become even hotter at midday, i.e. to become angry at him during the normally hot part of the day. **ืื ืงืืช**, he *kiha* i.e. "blunted" or caused his ancestors to gnash their teeth," by making them ashamed of having such a grandson. **ืื ืืื**, "he made himself a companion to *Gehinom,* to hell. The Talmud asks that if we adopt this approach why was **ืืขืงื** not also mentioned in Korach's genealogy and the meaning would be that Jacob produced a descendant who was "hell-bent," **ืขืงื** ืขืฆืื ืืืืื ื? The answer given is that Jacob prayed that his name should not be associated with that of Korach. I fail to understand why the Talmud was at pains to associate negative connotations with the names of these righteous men who were Korach's ancestors, even going as far as trying to find negative connotations in the name of our patriarch Jacob? Besides, what point was there in trying to show that the fact that Korach was descended from Jacob paved the way to Gehinom, when the sage in the *Midrash* told us the same thing already when he explained why the Torah had associated Korach's name with Levi? Why did this association have to be repeated twice?
โ[7] Before answering these questions I must reveal two or three grains of the mystical dimensions of the Torah. 1) The branches of holiness which G'd confers upon the Israelites by means of the Torah are the paths [moral guidelines. Ed.] and the judicial elements of the Torah which G'd legislated and inscribed in the Torah by the hand of His servant Moses. Anyone who tampers with even the precise order in which these details have been recorded in the Torah is as if he were uprooting that particular branch of holiness associated with the nature of his soul, thereby turning this particular branch of holiness into something evil. This is so because he deprived this branch of its power to confer sanctity. This is also the reason why if someone had the wrong thought-association as to when or where he would eat the sacrificial meat of his animal-offering the entire sacrifice is considered impure, unfit and the person who eats from it is guilty of the *Karet* penalty.
โ[8] 2) The very branch against which the person committed a wrong is the first to exact retribution from the sinner, as we know from Jeremiah 2,19 "that the very evil you are guilty of will act as the instrument which disciplines you." The prophet tells us that the source of sanctity once perverted will turn into a source of harm, G'd forbid.
โ[9] 3) The very letters in the written Torah represent the various souls G'd has planted in His people. [This is the reason that Kabbalists insist that there are 600.000 letters in the Torah, something at variance with the count that we arrive at when checking the letters in the Torah. Obviously, Kabbalists use a different method of deciding what constitutes a "letter." Ed.]
โ[10] 4) When G'd created man He thereby created a single "plant" which comprised all branches of holiness. When man sinned, all the souls which were part of him became defective, flawed, and this is why all of Adam's descendants had flawed souls. This process was not reversed or even halted until the soul of Abraham emerged. His soul underwent ten trials, i.e. a tenfold process of refinement. The flawed parts of his soul departed from him through the birth of Ishmael. When Isaac's soul emerged, it was refined by means of the ืขืงืื, his preparedness to give his life for G'd at his father's bidding. Any residue of the flawed parts of his soul departed from him with the birth of Esau. As a result, when Jacob's soul emerged it no longer contained flawed parts. This is the meaning of *Baba Metzia* 84: "The spiritual beauty of our patriarch Jacob was akin to the spiritual purity of original man." Clearly, what the Talmud meant was the spiritual beauty of Adam before he sinned.
โ[11] From the foregoing it becomes clear that Jacob was perceived as a tree from which twelve branches emerged, one of which was Levi. This branch in turn produced three new branches, Gershom, Kehat and Merari. Kehat himself produced four branches, Amram, Yitzhar, Chevron and Uzziel. The branch produced by Yitzhar was Korach. As soon as Korach tried to tamper with the order of holiness which the Torah had laid down and tried to interfere with who was accorded the priesthood, all the branches of holiness going right back to the root of his soul became flawed. Up until this time all these "branches" had contributed positively to Korach's stature as a distinguished person. The process of these sources of Korach's stature (holiness) becoming flawed commenced with Korach himself and proceeded further and further into his ancestry. Originally, the name Korach (ืงืจื=ice) stood for purity. The name Yitzhar (ืฆืืจ) symbolised the light of the world when it is at its brightest, i.e. at noon. The name Kehat stood for people gnashing (ืงืื) their teeth in envy when they beheld the splendid stature of that man. The name "son of Levi" conjured up the image of a person equipped (ืืื) by G'd with numerous advantages since birth. Now the branch itself which had borne a complimentary name ืงืจื, had become defective so that its wearer had made a "bald spot," depilation, on this branch. Not only had he caused his own branch to become flawed but also the immediate root that he came from had become flawed, i.e. the name Yitzhar now represented something negative, causing fiery anger in the world. Not only this one immediate root of Korach's soul had become flawed but even that of the previous generation, i.e. ืื ืงืืช had become defective so as to cause the teeth of those who had sired them to gnash in anger at their being embarassed by their offspring. Even the root of the first branch which Jacob had produced, the root of Korach's soul, Levi, had become defective and flawed so that it turned on its descendant consigning him to Gehinom instead of afffording him the presence of the Divine. The reason that Jacob is not mentioned was that Jacob had not become aware of Korach's behaviour although Korach's flawed soul affected Jacob's soul also and it was doubtful if Korach's entire soul [his link with the holy soul of Jacob, Ed.] had thereby become irreversibly flawed or not.
โ[12] Remember that there is a disagreement amongst the sages in *Sanhedrin* 108 as to whether Korach and those who made common cause with him have a share in the hereafter or not. According to the view that through his action Korach's link to Jacob's soul had been irrevocably damaged, these people have no share in the hereafter. This is why the sage in the Talmud asked that if that is indeed so [that Korach and company have no share in the hereafter, Ed.] the Torah should have mentioned Jacob as an antecedent of Korach so that we would have known why he has no share in the hereafter. That sage was very precise in the wording of his question since he added the words ืฉืขืงื ืขืฆืื ืืืืื ื, "he made himself travel to Gehinom." The word ืขืงื must then be understood as derived from the root "heel," i.e. Korach backtracked morally all the way, winding up in Gehinom as a result. He reached moral rock bottom. We find that our sages employ this kind of terminology in *Sotah* 49 when speaking of ืืขืงืืืช ืืฉืืื, "at the tail end of the exile." When the sage in the Talmud answered that Jacob offered a prayer that his name not be associated with that of Korach this meant that but for that prayer Korach would have forfeited all claim to the hereafter. G'd did Jacob a favour, however, and the fact that the Torah does not mention Jacob as being an ancestor of Korach indicates that he had not been completely cut off from his holy root, i.e. Jacob. Alternatively, Jacob's prayer was concerned about what damage could happen to his own soul if he was connected to Korach and he prayed to be spared this negative fallout from Korach's rebellion. Clearly, Rabbi Eliezer who quoted Samuel I 2,6: "G'd consigns to Sheol and has raised them," used this verse to substantiate his opinion that Korach and company did not lose their share in the hereafter, as opposed to Rabbi Akiva (*Sanhedrin* 109). I believe that we must pay very careful attention to the wording used in the verse in Samuel, i.e. ืืืขื, in the past tense as opposed to the first half of the same verse which describes G'd as ืืืืช ืืืืื, "killing and reviving" in the present tense. Also the verse following the one we quoted from Samuel states ืืณ ืืืจืืฉ ืืืขืฉืืจ, "G'd disinherits or makes wealthy," is in the present tense. Why did Hannah change the tenses in this one instance where she referred to someone who had already been raised from Gehinom while still in the process of descending there? It appears clear that she must have referred to Korach who is the only instance of someone who had descended to Sheol while alive. Rabbi Eliezer felt that the verse proves that Korach's place in the hereafter had already been secured prior to his descent to the regions of Gehinom. This was in answer to Jacob's prayer that he not be associated with Korach.
Version: Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk
Source: http://www.urimpublications.com/or-hachayim-commentary-on-the-torah-5-vols.html
License: CC-BY