Moshe's earth shattering request

1) How could Moshe could have asked for the earth to swallow up Korach and his followers?  Even were we not speaking about Moshe, who is always melamed zechus on Klal Yisrael, the gemara tells us (Shabbos 149b) "ר יעקב בריה דבת יעקב כל שחבירו נענש על ידו אין מכניסין אותו במחיצתו של הקב"ה   It could be that this is exactly why Bn"Y later complained and accused Moshe and Aharon of causing the death of those who rebelled, thinking that had Moshe been willing to be mochel on his kavod, had he willing to daven for them, they might have lived.  Why wouldn't Moshe just leave things up to Hashem?  

Secondly, why did Moshe asked for this specific punishment of the earth swallowing up Korach?  What's the midah k'neged midah? 

To start with a more basic question, what's the earth shattering news about what occurred here?  The words וְאִם־בְּרִיאָ֞ה יִבְרָ֣א imply that the punishment Moshe called for upon Korach was something new and unheard of.  Is that really true?  Were there no earthquakes before this point in time?

Ibn Ezra writes that we shouldn't read the word יִבְרָ֣א here as implying a yesh m'ayin creation that never before existed, but rather, read it like the pasuk in Yechezkel (23:47) וְרָֽגְמ֨וּ עֲלֵיהֶ֥ן אֶ֙בֶן֙ קָהָ֔ל וּבָרֵ֥א אֽוֹתְהֶ֖ן בְּחַרְבוֹתָ֑ם, as meaning cut down.  Ramban answers that of course there were earthquakes where the earth opened up and people sank in, but never before was there a situation of וּבָֽלְעָ֤ה אֹתָם֙ וְאֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר לָהֶ֔ם, where the earth closed up again on top of those who sank. R' Yosef Shaul Nathanson in Divrei Shaul offers what he thinks is a better answer.  He suggests that the chiddush here is  וְיָֽרְד֥וּ חַיִּ֖ים שְׁאֹ֑לָה.  The gemara in Baba Basra writes that Hashem allowed the satan to afflict Iyov, but the satan had to make sure to keep him alive.  (Kind of like when people say Israel has a right to defend itself, just not to drop bombs and actually kill the bad guys)  The satan  viewed this as an almost impossible job.  The Divrei Shaul doesn't quote that gemara, but it's the same idea.  There have always been earthquakes, but in this case Hashem arranged for the earthquake to miraculosuly swallow up Korach and his followers in way that they remained alive.   

 

This perhaps helps explain why Moshe made this request.  The Belzer Rebbe (R' Yisachar Dov) is quoted as explaining that Moshe's tefilah was not to call punishment down on Korach, but rather aderaba, to give him the greatest chance possible to change his mind and escape.  So long as a person has even a moment of life left, change is possible; therefore,  וְיָֽרְד֥וּ חַיִּ֖ים שְׁאֹ֑לָה.

 

I think therein is the explanation of the midah k'neged midah as well. Moshe argued to Korach וַיַּקְרֵב֙ אֹֽתְךָ֔ וְאֶת־כָּל־אַחֶ֥יךָ בְנֵֽי־לֵוִ֖י אִתָּ֑ךְ וּבִקַּשְׁתֶּ֖ם גַּם־כְּהֻנָּֽה   So what if you are not kohen gadol?  A glass half full is still something to appreciate.  You have riches, you have an honored position; celebrate what you have!  Korach didn't get it.  For him, it was all or nothing.  Therefore, when Korach was falling into the earth, וְיָֽרְד֥וּ חַיִּ֖ים שְׁאֹ֑לָה, he had a chance to appreciate that lesson.  When everything is slipping away and you are staring at the abyss, mere existence becomes the most precious thing in the world. Just being alive is a gift, even if you have nothing else.  

2) וַיִּחַר לְמשֶׁה מְאֹד. (16:15)  Rashi explains   נִצְטַעֵר עַד לִמְאֹד.  Why was Moshe upset now more than when he first heard Korach's complaints?  Earlier (16:4) we read וַיִּשְׁמַ֣ע משֶׁ֔ה וַיִּפֹּ֖ל עַל־פָּנָֽיו:, but not more than that.

 

Hadar Zekeinim, Chizkuni, and others explain that when Moshe heard Korach's complaint he reacted to the challenge: וַיְדַבֵּ֨ר אֶל־קֹ֜רַח וְאֶל־כָּל־עֲדָתוֹ֘... Moshe called for a test with the ketores; וַיֹּ֥אמֶר משֶׁ֖ה אֶל־קֹ֑רַח שִׁמְעוּ־נָ֖א בְּנֵ֥י לֵוִֽי Moshe argued that Korach's followers have the honor of serving as Leviim, etc.  Moshe does all the talking, but we don't find any response on Korach's part.  The only response came from Dasan and Aviram, but they were just along for the ride whenever there was trouble.  

If two people disagree, even if they engage in a heated argument, so long as they are talking, even arguing, there is hope that things will work out.  If they are not talking, then things will never be resolved.  When Moshe got no response from Korach, when all his words amounted to talking to the wall, then נִצְטַעֵר עַד לִמְאֹד because it meant there was no hope.

Dasan and Aviram

Aside from Korach himself, the only other members of his rebellion that Moshe addressed directly were Dasan and Aviram. וַיִּשְׁלַח מֹשֶׁה לִקְרֹא לְדָתָן וְלַאֲבִירָם בְּנֵי אֱלִיאָב וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֹא נַעֲלֶה.  Not the 250 people נְשִׂיאֵי עֵדָה קְרִאֵי מוֹעֵד אַנְשֵׁי שֵׁם, who were, as Netziv explains נשיאי עדה: מנהיגי הדור. Not On ben Pelet (granted, the Midrash explains his absence, but al pi peshuto?) Not anyone else. Why is it that Dasan and Aviram alone captured Moshe's attention? Why were they worthy of being the focus of Moshe's attentions?

Before we can answer that question, we need to first understand how we got to this point and what the backround to Korach's rebellion was. Ramban writes it was Moshe's failure to attain full kaparah for the people in the meraglim episode, which resulted in the decree that they die in the midbar, which set the stage for his leadership to be:

וכאשר חטאו במרגלים לא התפלל משה עליהם ולא בטל הגזרה מהם, ומתו נשיאי כל השבטים במגפה לפני ה׳ (במדבר י״ד:ל״ז) ונגזר על כל העם שיתמו במדבר ושם ימותו, אז היה נפש כל העם מרה, והיו אומרים בלבם כי יבאו להם בדברי משה תקלות. ואז מצא קרח מקום לחלוק על מעשיו, וחשב כי ישמעו אליו העם. וזה טעם: להמיתנו במדבר (במדבר ט״ז:י״ג) – אמרו: הנה הבאת אותנו אל המקום הרע הזה ולא קיימת בנו מה שנדרת לתת לנו ארץ זבת חלב ודבש, כי לא נתת לנו נחלה כלל, אבל נמות במדבר ונהיה כלים שם

We see this same theme echoed in Dasan and Aviram response to Moshe's peace overture toward them:

הַמְעַט כִּי הֶעֱלִיתָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ לַהֲמִיתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר כִּי תִשְׂתָּרֵר עָלֵינוּ גַּם הִשְׂתָּרֵר

You brought death upon us and yet you still want to serve as our leader?

The Sefas Emes in Likkutim takes a different approach, one which is very creative and original. Sefas Emes also turns our attention back to the episode of the spies, but he focusses on the description of what happened as related in parshas Devarim (1:22)

וַתִּקְרְבוּן אֵלַי כֻּלְּכֶם וַתֹּאמְרוּ נִשְׁלְחָה אֲנָשִׁים לְפָנֵינוּ וְיַחְפְּרוּ לָנוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ

Rashi comments:

ותקרבון אלי כולכם – בערבוביא. להלן הוא אומר: ותקרבון אלי כל ראשי שבטיכם וזקניכם (דברים ה׳:י״ט) ותאמרו הן הראנו וגו׳ (דברים ה׳:כ׳) – אותה קריבה היתה הוגנת: ילדים מכבדים את הזקנים ושלחום לפניהם, וזקנים מכבדים את הראשים ללכת לפניהם. אבל כאן: ותקרבון אלי כולכם – בערבוביא: ילדים דוחפים את הזקנים, זקנים דוחפים את הראשים.

The clamoring to send spies came from the youth, who jumped forward to present the idea.  They forced the elders, the roshei ha'matos, to stand back, while they took charge.

Rashi interprets Moshe's response וַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינַי הַדָּבָר, to mean בעיניי, ולא בעיני המקום, but Sefas Emes suggests that perhaps the meaning is בעיניי, ולא בעיני הזקנים.  The idea to send spies found favor in Moshe's eyes, but not in the eyes of the other leaders, those זקנים who had been shunted aside.

If correct, this explains why although the spies as described in last week's parsha were כֻּלָּם אֲנָשִׁים רָאשֵׁי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הֵמָּה, the list of their names does match any earlier list of roshei matos/nesiim. Abarbanel observes שלא היו הנשיאים האלה אותם שהקריבו בחנוכת המזבח כי אלו היה נשיאים אחרים and he writes:

אם שנאמר שהראשונים מתו גם הם בתבערה ונמצא שלא חיו אחרי חנוכת המזבח אלא כמו שלשה חדשים. או שמנו אלה להיות מרגלים בלבד נשיאים כראשונים. ולא הלכו אותם שנמנו בראשונה בחנוכת המזבח.

According to Sefas Emes, it makes perfect sense. The original roshei matos/nesiim were the ones who had been pushed aside when the mob demanded that spies be sent. ילדים דוחפים את הזקנים means that the original elders lost their power and were usurpsed. The young upstarts replaced the original leaders with their own slate, and these were the people chosen to be sent.

Who were those original zekeinim? When Moshe asked Hashem for help with his job in Be'haaloscha, Hashem told him (11:16) אֶסְפָה לִּי שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יָדַעְתָּ כִּי הֵם זִקְנֵי הָעָם וְשֹׁטְרָיו Rashi comments:

אשר ידעת כי הם וגו׳ – אותם שאתה מכיר שנתמנו עליהם שוטרים במצרים בעבדת פרך והיו מרחמים עליהם ולוקין על ידם, שנאמר: ויכו שטרי בני ישראל (שמות ה׳:י״ד), עתה יתמנו בגדולתן כדרך שנצטערו בצרתם

These were the people who took the hit in Mitzrayim when there was a demand for more bricks. Now they got their reward. 

Lets look back at that episode in Mitzrayim and see who these people are. The Torah tells us that when these officers came to complain to Pharoah that his demands were unjust and he sent them away, they met Moshe and Aharon on the way out, and gave them a piece of their mind (Shmos 5:19). וַיִּפְגְּעוּ אֶת מֹשֶׁה וְאֶת אַהֲרֹן נִצָּבִים לִקְרָאתָם בְּצֵאתָם מֵאֵת פַּרְעֹה Rashi there comments: ורבותינו אמרו: כל נצים ונצבים דתן ואבירם היו. Among those leaders, among the people who took it on the chin (or in this case, the back), were Dasan and Aviram!

There is an amazing Targum Yonasan in parshas Beshalach. וְאָמַר פַּרְעֹה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נְבֻכִים הֵם בָּאָרֶץ סָגַר עֲלֵיהֶם הַמִּדְבָּר (14:3) Most of the meforshim explain that Pharoah was not talking TO Bnei Yisrael, as they had all left. He was speaking ABOUT Bnei Yisrael. But the Targum Yonasan translates וימר פרעה לדתן ולאבירם בני ישראל דמשתיירין במצרים מיטרפין הינון עמא בית ישראל בארעא Dasan and Aviram stayed behind, and it was to them that Pharoah was speaking. How did they survive makkas choshech? How were they zocheh to cross Yam Suf? Maharil Diskin answers that it was in the zechus of their taking it on the chin for others. If you suffer so that someone else doesn't have to, Hashem is willing to overlook a lot.

Sefas Emes concludes with a genius pshat in Dasan and Aviram's complaint הַמְעַט כִּי הֶעֱלִיתָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ לַהֲמִיתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר We all read it like Abarbanel reads it, המעט בעיניך שהעליתנו מן הארץ שהיא היתה בעצם ואמת ארץ זבת חלב ודבש שהיא ארץ מצרים להמיתנו במדבר, meaning Dasan and Aviram were referring to Mitzrayim as their "land of milk and honey," a truly horrific statement.  What else could they be referring to? Where else had they lived?  But Sefas Emes disagrees. Dasan and Aviram were in fact referring to Eretz Yisrael. They were telling Moshe that they had been the leaders, and had they been asked, they would have said the idea of sending spies is a terrible one and bound to result in tragedy. Eretz Yisrael was in our hands! אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ was ours!  In their mind, it was like they were living there already.  But, הֶעֱלִיתָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ , you, Moshe, snatched it away from us. You listened to the young upstarts who displaced us, and thereby got us stuck in the midbar.

Dasan and Aviram, make no mistake about it, were not nice people. That being said, you cannot take their redeeming qualities away. They suffered in order to spare others. Even before stepping foot in Eretz Yisrael, they viewed it as if it was theirs already -- not just some unrealized dream.  Hashem spared their lives despite their wickedness, took them through the midbar despite their flaws, until this point. Is it therefore any wonder that Moshe would make the extra effort to reach out to them in particular, to see if he could bring them back from the brink?

There are a lot of people who sadly may not be as religious as we would like, who dont hold to our standards of kashrus or shmiras shabbos.  But while we sit at home and enjoy our cholent and kugel, some of those people are taking it on the chin for Klal Yisrael sitting in a tank or a bunker in Gaza or elsewhere.  They suffer so we don't have to.  And for them, Eretz Yisrael is not just a dream, but it's a reality, it's their home, which they treasure and fight to hold on to, for all of our sake.  If Hashem could overlook the wrongs of Dasan and Aviram, surely He can overlook their faults too.  And if Moshe can go the extra mile to extend a hand to them, maybe we can do the same.  Dasan and Aviram did not have a happy ending, but that doesn't mean every story like theirs has to end the same way.

korach and the lesson of rosh chodesh

The gemara (B"B 74a) among the aggadic stories of Rabbah bar bar Channa recounts the following episode that relates to events in our parsha: 

אָמַר לִי: תָּא אַחְוֵי לָךְ בְּלוּעֵי דְקֹרַח. חֲזַאי תְּרֵי בִּיזְעֵי, וַהֲווֹ קָא מַפְּקִי קוּטְרָא. שְׁקַל גְּבָבָא דְעַמְרָא וְאַמְשִׁינֵּהּ בְּמַיָּא, וְדַעֲצִיתֵהּ בְּרֵאשֵׁהּ דְּרוּמְחָא וְעַיְּילֵיהּ הָתָם, וְכִי אַפֵּיק, הֲוָה אִיחֲרַךְ אִיחֲרוֹכֵי. אָמַר לִי: אַצֵּית מַאי שָׁמְעַתְּ, וּשְׁמַעִית דַּהֲווֹ אָמְרִין: ״מֹשֶׁה וְתוֹרָתוֹ אֱמֶת, וְהֵן בַּדָּאִין״. אֲמַר לִי: כֹּל תְּלָתִין יוֹמֵי מַהְדַּר לְהוּ גֵּיהִנָּם לְהָכָא כְּבָשָׂר בְּקַלַּחַת, וְאָמְרִי הָכִי: ״מֹשֶׁה וְתוֹרָתוֹ אֱמֶת, וְהֵן בַּדָּאִין״. 

Sefaria's translation (from Steinsaltz):

Rabba bar bar Ḥana continues his account. The Arab also said to me: Come, I will show you those who were swallowed by the earth due to the sin of Korah. I saw two rifts in the ground that were issuing smoke. The Arab took a shearing of wool, and dipped it in water, and inserted it on the head of a spear, and placed it in there. And when he removed the wool, it was scorched. He said to me: Listen to what you hear; and I heard that they were saying: Moses and his Torah are true, and they, i.e., we in the earth, are liars. The Arab further said to me: Every thirty days Gehenna returns them to here, like meat in a pot that is moved around by the boiling water as it cooks. And every time they say this: Moses and his Torah are true, and they, i.e., we in the earth, are liars.

Rashbam comments: כל תלתין יומין - כל ראש חדש

It seems from Rashbam that this is not some random 30 day cycle, but it is rosh chodesh in particular that brings those who were swallowed by the earth in Korach's rebellion back to the place where they sinned, where they again recant and admit that Moshe is true and that they are liars.  R' Nachman has a hesber why this should be true (Likutei Moharan 10:9), but since understanding R' Nachman is beyond me, let me offer two other suggestions.

Rav Soloveitchik in one of the yahrzeit derashos develops the idea that beis din serves two functions: sometimes B"D acts on their own authority and power, and sometimes B"D acts as representatives of Klal Yisrael, as reflecting the will of the people as a whole.  The Rambam in Sefer haMitzvos sees kiddush hachodesh as reflecting the power of B"D in this second role.  The Rambam writes that there must always be a Jewish presence in Eretz Yisrael because the will of the tzibur of Klal Yisrael means the tzibur in Eretz Yisrael.  B"D that enacts the calendar are just the representatives of this community.

The tragic mistake of Korach is in thinking that the power of the community to create law based on their decisions has no bounds.  The din by kiddush hachodesh is אתם אפילו שוגגין אתם אפילו מזידין אתם אפילו מוטעין.  Even if B"D, as representative of the community, errs, their decision is binding.  Their will, which is the will of the people, is absolute.  

Every Rosh Chodesh the followers of Korach revisit their error. אתם אפילו שוגגין אתם אפילו מזידין אתם אפילו מוטעין works for mistakes made within the framework of halacha, but not to uprooting the system completely.

I saw a different hesber that is based on a yesod of the Maharal.  The korban chatas in the musaf of rosh chodesh in unique in that the Torah describes it as   וּשְׂעִ֨יר עִזִּ֥ים אֶחָ֛ד לְחַטָּ֖את לַה׳.  Why the extra word  לַה׳?  Rashi quotes from Chazal ומדרשו באגדה: אמר הקב״ה: הביאו כפרה עלי שמיעטתי את הירח.  Rashi here is alluding to the Midrash he quotes in Braishis (1:16).  The Torah describes the creation of the sun and the moon as שְׁנֵ֥י הַמְּאֹרֹ֖ת הַגְּדֹלִ֑ים, equal in size.  However, the moon complained that you can't have two kings sharing one crown, and as a result, Hashem knocked it down in size, as Rashi there comments, שוים נבראו, ונתמעטה הלבנה על ידי שקיטרגה ואמרה: אי איפשר לשני מלכים שישתמשו בכתר אחד.  The Midrash Rabbah there comments:

אָמַר רַבִּי פִּינְחָס בְּכָל הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת כְּתִיב שְׂעִיר עִזִּים אֶחָד חַטָּאת, וּבְרֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ כְּתִיב (במדבר כ״ח:ט״ו): שְׂעִיר עִזִּים אֶחָד חַטָּאת לַה׳, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הָבִיאוּ כַּפָּרָה עָלַי שֶׁמִּעַטְתִּי אֶת הַיָּרֵחַ, שֶׁאֲנִי הוּא שֶׁגָּרַמְתִּי לוֹ לְהִכָּנֵס בִּתְחוּמוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ, וּמָה אִם זֶה שֶׁנִּכְנַס בִּרְשׁוּת כָּךְ פְּגָמוֹ הַכָּתוּב, הַנִּכְנָס שֶׁלֹא בִּרְשׁוּת עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. רַבִּי לֵוִי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אִלְּעָאי אָמַר, דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ הוּא שֶׁיְהֵא הַגָּדוֹל מוֹנֶה לַגָּדוֹל, וְהַקָּטָן מוֹנֶה לַקָּטָן. עֵשָׂו מוֹנֶה לַחַמָּה, שֶׁהִיא גְּדוֹלָה, וְיַעֲקֹב מוֹנֶה לַלְּבָנָה, שֶׁהִיא קְטַנָּה.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן וְהוּא סִימָן טַב, עֵשָׂו מוֹנֶה לַחַמָּה שֶׁהִיא גְּדוֹלָה, מַה חַמָּה הַזֹּאת שׁוֹלֶטֶת בַּיּוֹם וְאֵינָה שׁוֹלֶטֶת בַּלַּיְלָה, כָּךְ עֵשָׂו יֵשׁ לוֹ חֵלֶק בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְאֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. יַעֲקֹב מוֹנֶה לַלְּבָנָה שֶׁהִיא קְטַנָה, מַה הַלְּבָנָה הַזּוֹ שׁוֹלֶטֶת בַּלַּיְלָה וּבַיּוֹם, כָּךְ יַעֲקֹב יֵשׁ לוֹ חֵלֶק בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְלָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר כָּל זְמַן שֶׁאוֹרוֹ שֶׁל גָּדוֹל קַיָּם אֵין אוֹרוֹ שֶׁל קָטָן מִתְפַּרְסֵם, שָׁקַע אוֹרוֹ שֶׁל גָּדוֹל, מִתְפַּרְסֵם אוֹרוֹ שֶׁל קָטָן. כָּךְ כָּל זְמַן שֶׁאוֹרוֹ שֶׁל עֵשָׂו קַיָּם אֵין אוֹרוֹ שֶׁל יַעֲקֹב מִתְפַּרְסֵם, שָׁקַע אוֹרוֹ שֶׁל עֵשָׂו מִתְפַּרְסֵם אוֹרוֹ שֶׁל יַעֲקֹב, הֲדָא הוּא דִּכְתִיב (ישעיהו ס׳:א׳-ב׳): קוּמִי אוֹרִי כִּי בָא אוֹרֵךְ. כִּי הִנֵּה הַחשֶׁךְ יְכַסֶּה אֶרֶץ וגו׳.

Many years ago there was a certain Rosh Yeshiva that visited the community we were living in and on Friday night they had an oneg Q/A session where you could ask anything you wanted to the R"Y.  Someone chose this topic to ask about.  What does it mean that Hashem needs a korban as a kaparah for himself?  Does Hashem sin?  Does Hashem need to offer korbanos?  Who is He offering them to?  This R"Y was a big Brisker style lamdan, but this was not his cup of tea, and he told the guy that he has no idea what it means.  The guy then pressed and asked what he is supposed to tell his little kid who asked about this Rashi and thinks that his Tatte should have all the answers, to which the R"Y responded that the kid will now learn his Tatte doesn't know everything.  That too is an important lesson even if it doesn't explain the Rashi.  Brisker lomdus may not help you here, but the Maharal will (Be'er haGolah ch 4 among other places, and see the Ishbitzer in Mei HaShiloach as well in parshas Pinchas).  

Maharal explains that the idea behind a korban, from the root קרב, is to draw closer.  The moon was made smaller in physical size by Hashem, and was left wanting.  Hashem therefore said that in order to make it up to the moon, he will offer a korban, i.e. he will draw the moon closer to Him.  Hashem dwells among the humble and the small.  

We find the same idea by mattan Torah.  Of all the great mountains available, Hashem chose to give the Torah davka on Sinai, the smallest of the lot.  

That's what Chazal mean when they say that Hashem asked for a kapparah.  The korban, the drawing closer of the moon, is the kapparah, is the answer to the complaint of the moon, because what it lost in physical size was more than made up for by its gain in spiritual greatness.  

What Chazal are telling us is that Korach did not absorb the lesson of Rosh Chodesh.  The sun appears to be much bigger than the moon, which is why Eisav reckons the calendar according to the sun -- the biggest and brightest.  Korach too, was attracted to the trappings of the office of kohen gadol.  With such a position comes wealth and authority and respect, all the greatness olam ha'zeh has to offer.  All the talk about kedusha was just posturing, just a sales pitch.

We follow the moon, because we know that external appearances aren't everything; we know that the meausure of "bigness" in olam ha'zeh's yardstick is not accurate -- there is "bigness" in spiritual greatness too.  Every Rosh Chodesh the followers of Korach come back and proclaim this truth, and acknowledge that ״מֹשֶׁה וְתוֹרָתוֹ אֱמֶת, וְהֵן בַּדָּאִין

you're wrong even if you're right - the lesson of Korach's rebellion

Moshe told Klal Yisrael that if Hashem makes a hole in the ground to swallow up Korach, that proves Korach is a rasha and guilty of instigating rebellion.  But,  אִם ־כְּמ֤וֹת כׇּל ־הָֽאָדָם֙ יְמֻת֣וּן אֵ֔לֶּה וּפְקֻדַּת֙ כׇּל ־הָ֣אָדָ֔ם יִפָּקֵ֖ד עֲלֵיהֶ֑ם לֹ֥א ה׳ שְׁלָחָֽנִי, if Korach dies a normal death, then that proves Moshe is in the wrong. It sounds like either way, Korach is going to die.  The only question is whether he is going to die a normal death like anyone else, or whether he is going to be swallowed up by the earth.  

If Korach was in the right and not guilty of rebellion, why should he be chayav misa?  The test should be whether Korach is swallowed up or whether he lives l'arichus yamim v'shanim?  (See Malbim)  

The Yitav Lev answers that we see from here that even if all of Korach's claims against Moshe had merit, he was still chayav misa.  You can have taanos, arguments, machlokes, but there is right way and a wrong way to disagree.  Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel had many arguments, but they fulfilled הָאֱמֶת וְהַשָּׁלוֹם אֱהָבוּ.  They argued with civility.  Korach argued in a way that disrespected and undermined the kavod of Moshe Rabeinu.  Therefore, he was chayav.  The only question is whether his chiyuv was purely for the lack of respect, or whether the complaint itself was invalid and kefira.

Korach wrapped his arguments in idealistic rhetoric, "ki kol ha'eidah kulam kedoshim...," and may have even thought his rebellion was a mitzvah.  On some level he may have sincerely wanted to serve Hashem as kohen gadol.  The same is true of many misguided people who think their campaign, whatever it may be, is a mitzvah, but in reality, it's the exact opposite.  How can a person know when what they are advocating is truly mitzvah and truly l'shem shamayim vs when they are just fooling themselves or being fooled by the yetzer ha'ra?  

Agra d'Kallah writes:

 והנה הסימן על זה אם הוא באמת מצוה או אם הוא מתרמית היצר, הוא כשיבחין האדם בעצמו אם גדלה תשוקתו כל כך לשאר המצות גם כן, לאותן העניינים שהם בודאי מצוה כגון ציצית ותפילין ותורה אזי הוא טוב. אך אם רואה שאינו משתוקק כל כך לשאר המצות, יבין לאשורו שהתשוקה הזאת שמדמה בדעתו לאותו ענין הנרצה לו למצוה, הוא מפיתוי היצר להפילו במכמורת, ותחתיה תעמוד הבהרת, כך קבלנו.

If a person has equal enthusiasm for all mitzvos and all good causes, then they can rest assured that the particular cause they are fighting for at that moment is just.  However, if a person has their one hobby horse, their one cause, to the exclusion of other good causes that are not on their radar, then that's their own fight, it's not a l'shem shamayim fight.  

Agra d'Kallah goes on to give some other good advice about the dangers of jumping too zealously on that hobby horse.  David haMelech says in Tehillim (86:2) שָׁ֥מְרָ֣ה נַפְשִׁי֮ כִּֽ ־חָסִ֢יד אָ֥֫נִי  The simple pshat in the pasuk is that David was asking for Hashem's protection in the merit of his being a chassid and going above and beyond.  The Agra d'Kallah derech derush suggests a different interpretation.  A regular person can measure whether they are doing the right thing by looking in the shulchas aruch. For the chassid, who goes lifnim mi'shuras ha'din, that's not good enough.  If you tell him that it says in shulchan aruch X, he can always answer that that's just the letter of the law, but he wants to do more.  Agra d'Kallah gives an extreme example of someone who is so machmir on chameitz that no matzah is kosher enough for him, and as a result he never fulfills the mitzvas aseh.  שָׁ֥מְרָ֣ה נַפְשִׁי֮ כִּֽ ־חָסִ֢יד אָ֥֫נִי says David haMelech, because davka a chassid needs extra protection to make sure he doesn't get carried away with his zeal and enthusiasm.  Davka someone who operates outside the lines, outside the shuras ha'din, needs protection to make sure it is done in a positive way for a positive and just cause.

Korach's sin -- machzik b'machlokes

After the miracle of Aharon's mateh sprouting flowers and almonds while everyone else's remained bare, Moshe told the leaders of the other tribes to take back their matos, וַיֹּצֵ֨א מֹשֶׁ֤ה אֶת ־כׇּל ־הַמַּטֹּת֙ מִלִּפְנֵ֣י ה׳ אֶֽל ־כׇּל ־בְּנֵ֖י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וַיִּרְא֥וּ וַיִּקְח֖וּ אִ֥ישׁ מַטֵּֽהוּ (17:24)  Why did Moshe have to instruct them to take their matos back?  Netziv gives a technical answer, that one might have thought that since the matos were placed in the Ohel Moed it means they have kedusha, otherwise it would be a problem of chulin ba'azara.  Kah mashma lan Moshe that the matos had no holiness and their placement in the azarah was just a hora'as sha'ah; therefore, they could be taken back.

R' Mordechai Eliyahu suggests that there is a message Moshe was giving the Nesi'im.   When the NY Times makes an error on the front page, you are lucky if a few days later they stick a correction on the bottom of some back page in section D in the smallest font possible.  Bnei Yisrael here had made a terrible mistake and misjudged the worthiness of Aharon to be kohen gadol.  The test done with the matos proved that they were wrong.  Moshe therefore told the Nesi'im not to be like the NY Times.  "Take back your matos," show them to Bnei Yisrael and publicize the miracle.  Let the correction be headline news just like the accusation was, not hidden on the back page.

R' Yerucham, the great mashgiach of the Mir, is medayek in Rashi at the beginning of the parsha, where he describes the rebellion of Korach as נחלק משאר העדה להחזיק במחלוקת.  It was not starting the machlokes which did Korach in.  Machlokes per se is not inherently bad.  There is machlokes l'shem shamayim, machlokes Hillel and Shamai.  Korach may also have at first may have had an element of l'shem shamayim to what he was doing and may have wanted the kehuna gedola so as to serve Hashem on the highest level.  What did Korach in is, as Rashi writes, is להחזיק* במחלוקת*, continuing the fight.  Most people, like Korach, when confronted with facts that undermine their opinion, don't retract.  Instead, they double-down.  That's the Korach attitude, stubbornly clinging to the same idea even when all evidence shows the contrary to be true.  That's why Moshe commanded the Nesi'im  וַיִּרְא֥וּ וַיִּקְח֖וּ אִ֥ישׁ מַטֵּֽהו.  The flowering of Aharon's staff proved them wrong, but being proven wrong too often does not end an argument.  Admitting publicly that they got it wrong does.  The taking back of the matos and publicizing the retraction, as R M. Eliyahu explains, is thus a tikun for the underlying sin of Korach's rebellion.

The Imrei Emes quotes from R' Bunim m'Peshischa a different spin entirely on this pasuk.  Everyone in life has his/her burdens and bit of suffering.  Everyone has his/her own "mateh."  Sometimes a person can think, "If only I could trade places with Ploni and have what they have..."  But as we all know, the grass only looks greener until you get there.  Trading places just removes one set of problems for different set that may be no easier to bear.  The Chovos haLevavos in Shaar Cheshbon haNefesh writes that a true believer chooses as his lot exactly what Hashem has already chosen for them to receive -- no more and no less.  They don't dream of trading places because if Hashem put them in the position they are in, that must be for the best.  Moshe took the matos from all the tribes and put them together in the Ohel Moed in a jumble.  When it came time to take the matos back, each Nasi saw what was there, וַיִּרְא֥וּ, they looked at all the portions,  וַיִּקְח֖וּ אִ֥ישׁ מַטֵּֽהו and they just took back the very mateh they put in.  They did not look to trade with anyone else.  Each person accepted their lot, their fate, and the challenges that went with it.

who were the ringleaders of Korach's rebellion

At the end of the parsha (11:6) special mention is made of Dasan and Aviram having been swallowed up by the earth:

 וַאֲשֶׁ֨ר עָשָׂ֜ה לְדָתָ֣ן וְלַאֲבִירָ֗ם בְּנֵ֣י אֱלִיאָב֮ בֶּן־רְאוּבֵן֒ אֲשֶׁ֨ר פָּצְתָ֤ה הָאָ֙רֶץ֙ אֶת־פִּ֔יהָ וַתִּבְלָעֵ֥ם וְאֶת־בָּתֵּיהֶ֖ם וְאֶת־אׇהֳלֵיהֶ֑ם וְאֵ֤ת כׇּל־הַיְקוּם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בְּרַגְלֵיהֶ֔ם בְּקֶ֖רֶב כׇּל־יִשְׂרָאֵֽל

Why mention Dasan and Aviram, asks Ramban, but omit Korach, the ringleader?  Ramban answers that the focus of the parsha is the miracles that occurred in the midbar.  That someone who offers ketores improperly is punished is not a miracle unique to the desert -- that's what is supposed to happen l'doros as a punishment for that sin.  (See Netziv as well and see this post).

The Ohr haChaim does not mention his answer to Ramban here, so you need to look back or remember what he wrote in Parshas Pinchas.  In the middle of recounting the lineage of all the families at the beginning of that parsha, the Torah mentions the punishment of Dasan and Aviram.  Why single them out, asks Ohr haChaim?  If they were the end of their family line, then just by omitting their names we would know they had no future decedents.  Why rehash the story of what happened in Parshas Korach, and only with respect to their fate?

Here's what he writes (26:9):

ונראה כי לא בא הכתוב כאן אלא לומר שהן הנה היו סיבה לכל מעשה קרח, כי יחפוץ ה׳ לפרסם הרשעים שהם סיבה לרשע הנעשה, והוא אומרו הוא דתן וגו׳ אשר הצו וגו׳ פירוש את אחרים על ה׳ ומשה עבדו, וכן פרש״י, הא למדת שהם המחטיאים העדה הנועדת, ואפשר שגם את קרח הם החטיאוהו, והגם שאמר הכתוב ויקח קרח שנראה שמעצמו עשה, אפשר שהיה למה שקדם לו מהם ולעולם הם הצו אותו. ואומרו ותפתח וגו׳ אחר שהדברים כבר כתובין בפרשת קרח, נתכוין לומר שגם בליעת קרח ואכילת האש ר״ן איש הם היו סיבה למאורע מתחלה ועד סוף, הא למדת שהגם שנקהלו היהודים על משה ועל אהרן היו חוזרים בהם אם לא היו ב׳ הרשעים.

וזה לך האות כי האיש משה לא היה משתדל לרצות אלא להם דכתיב (ט״ז י״ב) וישלח משה לקרא לדתן וגו׳, וכתיב (שם כ״ה) וילך משה אל דתן וגו׳ שהרגיש שבהם הדבר תלוי, מעתה נפשות כל המתים תלויים בב׳ הרשעים ההם, ויש בזה לימוד זכות על קרח ועל הר״ן איש וכן תמצא שאמר הכתוב בפרשת עקב (דברים יא) ואשר עשה לדתן ולאבירם וגו׳ שאינו מונה המאורע אלא לדתן ואבירם, וכפי זה יכולין אנו להעמיד סברת האומר (סנהדרין קח.) עדת קרח אין להם חלק לעולם הבא בדתן ואבירם, ולהעמיד סברת האומר עליהם אמר הכתוב מוריד שאול ויעל בשאר העדה חוץ מהם.

It was Dasan and Aviram, not Korach, who were the ringleaders!  That is why Moshe sent messengers to them in particular to try to dissuade them from rebellion.  That is why, as Ohr haChaim there goes on to say, the Torah mentions them and not Korach in our parsha.

My wife asked a simple question.  We don't have a parsha called Parshas Dasan V'Aviram.  It's called Parshas Korach --  וַיִּקַּ֣ח קֹ֔רַח בֶּן־יִצְהָ֥ר בֶּן־קְהָ֖ת בֶּן־לֵוִ֑י וְדָתָ֨ן וַאֲבִירָ֜ם בְּנֵ֧י אֱלִיאָ֛ב וְא֥וֹן בֶּן־פֶּ֖לֶת בְּנֵ֥י רְאוּבֵֽן׃.  VaYikach in the singular, implying he was the one who pushed the others and instigated.  

chut shel chessed

Back in 2012 I wrote:

Rashi writes that Moshe was asking Hashem to not count Dasan and Aviram's portion of the korban tamid, which was a korban tzibur. (It seems from this Rashi that the korban tzibur was a type of large shutfus, a partnership among all members of Klal Yisrael, such that an individual share could be excluded. See Ramban at the beginning of VaYikra who discusses whether this is indeed the case, or whether a tzibur is a whole that transcends its individual parts and cannot be sliced and diced.) 

B'pashtus there is a difference between a shutfus and a tzibur.  A tzibur is like a corporation -- it exists as an entity in its own right, distinct from the individuals of which it is comprised.  How then are we to understand Moshe's request?  10 years later I see R' Moshe Tzvi Neriah in Ner LaMaor writes in a footnote:

תמה מו"ר הגרי"מ חרל"פ זצ"ל: והרי על פי דברי הרמב"ן אין בקרבן ציבור דין שותפין - חלק פרטי - ומהו חלקם של עדת קורח בקרבן? [ועיין משנת ראשונים לחתנו הר"י בארי ז"ל - ירושלים תש"י - עמ' רעג]. אכן המעיין במדרש רבה [יח ט] שהוא מקור דברי רש"י, ימצא תוספת לשון: "הואיל ופירשו מבניך", ונראה לבאר שכיון שעדת קורח פרשו מכלל ישראל, לא היה להם חלק בכלל ישראל, ואם כן נשאר חלקם רק כשותפות, ובכהאי גוונא ניתן לומר שחלקם הנבדל לא יקובל. ומצאתי שכן כתב ב"שם משמואל" [דברים, לקוטים עמ' רנו]: "מאחר שהם פגמו בכללות ישראל ונדבקו בכללות כתרי דמסאבותא, ועל כן הם ממילא נדחין מכלל ישראל, חזר חלקם כחלק שותף, על כן "תניחנו האש ולא תאכלנו".

Korach and his followers chose to cut themselves off from the klal, and therefore, they participated in the korban tamid only as shutfim, as partners WITH the tzibur, rather than members OF the tzibur.  

Perhaps Korach's point in arguing "ki kol ha'eidah kulam kedoshim" is that Klal Yisrael is a partnership of equals.  Everyone gets a say and has a voice.  However, in reality, Klal Yisrael is a tzibur, not a shutfus.  

2) The Midrash writes that as a reward for Avraham telling the King of Sdom that he will not take even "mi'chut v'ad sroch naal," even a single threat from him, his descendents were given the mitzvah of a thread of techeiles.  Avraham chose to do 100% chessed for Sdom; there was no gain at all for him.  Techeiles represents the chut shel chessed that Hashem in turn guarantees us.  No Jew is totally cut off.  He may be hanging by a thread -- the thread of techeiles, that chut shel chessed -- but that thread will not be broken.

This is why we put on tzitzis before tefillin.  First comes the chut shel chessed, the fact that Hashem will hold on to us no matter what.  Only then do we put in tefillin and tackle what we can accomplish ourselves with our ability and brains, the shel yad and shel rosh. 

Korach rebelled against the idea of a chut shel techeiles.  Sefas Emes (5642) explains that Korach argued that there are no free gifts.  The idea of Aharon being chosen simply for who he was rather than what he accomplished was foreign to him.  Korach felt that it was the Leviim who had not sinned in cheit ha'eigel who should be in charge, and he should replace Aharon, as unlike Aharon, who had a hand in making the eigel, his hands were clean.  Moshe's response was that "boker v'yoda Hashem es asher lo v'es ha'kadosh v'hikriv eilav," there certainly is a place for those who were "asher lo," i.e. those responded when he called at at Sinai, "Mi la'Hashem eilay."  They had earned their place and position.  But there was also a place for "es asher yivchar bo yakriv eilav," Hashem sometimes reaches out and chooses someone even if we don't understand or appreciate why.  

oy la'rasha oy l'shecheino

1) I saw a vort in the Ohev Yisrael this week that I was about to post and then I found I had posted it already back in 2012.  I hate recycling, but it's worth repeating.  The Ohev Yisrael comments on the pasuk: וַיִּשְׁלַ֣ח מֹשֶׁ֔ה לִקְרֹ֛א לְדָתָ֥ן וְלַאֲבִירָ֖ם בְּנֵ֣י אֱלִיאָ֑ב וַיֹּאמְר֖וּ לֹ֥א נַעֲלֶֽה׃  Everybody knew Dasan and Aviram were troublemakers.  They had a history.  There are certain kids that the teacher has heard about even before he/she walks into the classroom and the second trouble starts, he/she knows where to look for the root cause.  Moshe tried to undo that.  Moshe said, "From now on Dasan and Aviram should be called by everyone 'Bnei Eliav.'"  How we refer to people shapes their identity.  Call a kid troublemaker, a no-good-nik, and k'shmo kein hu, that's exactly what he will be.  Call them 'Dasan and Aviram the troublemakers' and that's who they will be and remain.  Call them Bnei Ploni the Tzadik and you've given them a different identity to live up to. 

This may also explain  רַב־לָכֶ֖ם בְּנֵ֥י לֵוִֽי.  Moshe was saying, "You are bnei Levi - you are the descendants of great people; this rebellion is not who you are." 

Unfortunately, Dasan and Aviram chose to respond, "lo naaleh," and reject Moshe's advances.  

In light of the Ohev Yisrael's vort, perhaps the way to read their response is, "Lo," we don't want to just be 'Bnei Eliav' and follow in our father footsteps. Rather, "Naaleh," we will be even greater than our father.  We know better and can do better.  Lots of children think that if they just do the opposite of their parents they will accomplish so much more than their parents did, they will be more successful, they will not fall into the same pitfalls.  Eventually they figure out that the path they choose has its own pitfalls.

Even though we know Dasan and Aviram were troublemakers, it seems that they might have sat this one out.  Rashi comments  ודתן ואבירםג – בשביל שהיה שבט ראובן שרוי בחנייתן תימנה, שכן לקהת ובניו החנים תימנה, נשתתפו עם קרח במחלוקתו, אוי לרשע אוי לשכנו.  If not for oy la'rasha v'oy l'shecheinu, if not for Dasan and Aviram living in close proximity to Korach and thereby falling under his influence, they might not have participated in this rebellion  As bad as Dasan and Aviram were, Korach was a step too far even for them.

The Sifsei Chachamim quotes that the Maharashal had a kabbalah from his father that this statement of Rashi is a continuation of Rashi's previous comment: בן יצהר בן קהת בן לוי – ביעקב בקש רחמים על עצמו שלא יזכיר שמו על מחלוקתן, שנאמר: בקהלם אל תחד כבודי Rashi explains that Korach's yichus goes back to Levi but not to Yaakov because Yaakov, in his final message to Levi, davened that his name should not be mentioned in the context of Korach's machlokes (we've discussed this in the past we well, see Maharal).  This is well and good in so far as why the pasuk gives Korach's yichus only back to Levi and not back to Yaakov, but why does the pasuk give the yichus of Dasan and Aviram only back to Reuvain and omit Yaakov's name there?  בקהלם אל תחד כבודי was not said about Reuvain?  Answers Rashi (according to the Maharashal's reading), אוי לרשע אוי  לשכנו .  

R' Chaim Elazari points out the chiddush implicit in this Maharashal.   אוי לרשע אוי  לשכנו is not just a warning to avoid negative influences as they MIGHT have a detrimental effect.  Were that the case, then Yaakov's tefilah would have applied to Levi alone and Dasan and Aviram and the bnei Reuvain getting involved was their own bad choice.  Yaakov's tefilos applied to sheivet Reuvain as well as Levi because negtive influences INEVITABLY lead to harm.  It's like a psik reisha, not a davar she'aino miskavein.  When Yaakov davened not to have his name mentioned in connection with Levi/Korach's machlokes, Reuvain was implicitely included because there was no chance of Reuvain not being involved given his proximity to what was going on. 

2) The Kozhiglover quotes from Mishnas Chassidim that ketores is a segulah for teshuvah.  He explains that this is why the greatest offering of ketores done during the year was the offering of ketores in the kodesh kodashim on Yom Kippur, as Yom Kippur is the day designated for teshuvah.  All the offerings the entire rest of the year are just a preparation to be able to offer ketores properly on that day.  This is why, says the Kozhiglover, Moshe suggested to Korach to bring ketores as a test.  Moshe was hoping that the segulah of ketores would influence Korach and he would do teshuvah and regret the whole machlokes.

I would add that when Moshe said to Korach that tomorrow they will offer ketores, meaning tomorrow will be like Yom Kippur, it implies that right now, the day before the big test, is like erev Yom Kippur.  There is a din before Yom Kippur of piyus, of asking people for mechila, of mending wrongs.  Maybe Moshe was alluding to this as well, offering Korach a final chance at reconciliation.  

Today erev Shabbos is Rosh Chodesh Tamuz, roshei teivos זמני תשׂובה ממשׁמשׁין ובּאין. Yom Kippur is right around the corner! 

arei leviim and nachala in Eretz Yisrael

The gemara in Brachos (20) raises the question of whether women are obligated in birchas hamazon or not.  It's not a mitzvas aseh she'hazman gerama, so why should they not be obligated?  Rashi explains that when you say birchas ha'mazon you thank Hashem for Eretz Yisrael, and since women did not receive a portion in Eretz Yisrael, they are therefore exempt.  Tos. does not like that sevara because kohanim also do not receive a portion in Eretz Yisrael, and yet we don't find that they are exempt from reciting birchas hamazon.  Tos suggests that women are not obligated for a different reason.  Since in birchas hamazon we thank Hashem for bris milah and for Torah and women are not obligated in either of these mitzvos, they therefore are exempt.  (The meforshim talk about what about the other brachos of birchas hamazon besides "nodeh lecha..." that do not mention bris or Torah).

In defense of Rashi, achronim point out that the kohanim and leviim had the arei ha'leviim, so they did have a portion in the land.  Obviously Tos was not moved by that consideration, and the question is why not.  

It could be the shoresh of the machlokes here is what we mean by getting a portion of land.  Rashi acknowledges that there were women who did in fact receive a cheilek in Eretz Yisrael, e.g. Bnos Tzelafchad, but he explains that they did not receive that cheilek as a nachala the way men did, but rather as a yerusha from a parent.  When it comes to the arei haleviim, do we look at these cities as the nachala of sheivet levi, or perhaps they are really the nachala of the other shevatim, just those shevatim have a mitzvah to surrender some of their portion to the leviim to live in in exchange for the leviim and kohanim's service in the mikdash? 

The Minchas Chinuch has a different safeik that I think may hinge on this same point.  Kohanim and leviim do not receive a portion of land in Eretz Yisrael because they are supposed to devote themselves to working in the mikdash instead of farming.  They receive terumos and maasros, as we read in our parsha, for the same reason.  Rambam (Hil Shemita ch 13) has a chiddush din that kohanim and leviim can receive a portion in future lands conquered by a king that expand the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael, but Rambam holds (see Raavad) that the mitzvah of teru"m still applies in that territory.  Minchas Chinuch (408:1) wonders whether the same applies to arei leviim: will the leviim receive additional cities designated as arei leviim in these future territories, or not?  I would say that if arei leviim are the nachala of leviim, just like Reuvain and Shimon and every other sheivet gets a nachala, then in those future territories where the leviim are getting a regular portion of land like everyone else anyway, there is no need for the special nachala of arei leviim.  But if arei leviim are really the nachala of the other shevatim, just there is a mitzvah upon the shevatim to surrender part of their portion to the leviim in exchange for their work in the mikdash, then perhaps that mitzvah applies irrespective of whether the leviim get their own portion of land or not.  

issur terumah and kedushas terumah

Rashi in Yevamos (86a) writes that the issur of tevel occurs because terumah is mixed into the food and terumah is not allowed to be eaten מה תרומה טובלת. שכל זמן שלא הופרשה חייבין מיתה על אכילתו של טבל דהא מיתה כתיב ביה: 

Tos asks: if Rashi is correct, then a kohen should be allowed to eat tevel, since a kohen can eat terumah.  Since that is not the case, we see that tevel is an independent issur, not just a result of not having terumah yet removed.   ופי' ריב"ן משו' דדרשי' בפ' הנשרפין (סנהדרין פג. ושם) ולא יחללו את קדשי בני ישראל אשר ירימו בעתידים לתרום הכתוב מדבר ויליף חילול (א) מתרומה:

R' Wahrman z"l suggests (inyanaim ketzarim siman 4 in the back of She'eiris Yosef vol 3, see also vol 2 siman 47) that there are two dinim in terumah: there is 1) the issur termunah, i.e. terumah cannot be eaten by just anybody; 2) and there is kedushas terumah -- terumah requires shemira, it has specific dinim with regards to tumah and taharah, someone who eats it b'shogeg pays an additional 1/5 penalty, etc.  

Perhaps tevel is prohibited because the the issur terumah is inherent in the mixture, as Rashi writes, but the kedushas terumah does not kick in until after hafrashas terumah, and therefore, since there is not yet kedushas terumah, tevel cannot be eaten by a kohen.

united we stand

1. Yesterday we discussed the idea that Korach thought his greatness was a product of his ability, but in reality he was like the cows that carried the aron and were able to sing shirah -- whatever gifts he had were a bracha that stemmed from the role he filled, not from any innate talent.  Some meforshim explain that this is the idea behind the Midrash's question, "Korach, who was one of the carriers of the aron -- how did he fall into the stupidity of this machlokes?"  Why does the Midrash stress in its question that Korach carried the aron?  Chazal tell us that the aron was "nosei es nos'av."  A casual observer who saw the aron being carried might have thought it took great strength, but in reality it took no strength at all. The aron carried itself, and shlepped along those who were "carrying" it for the ride.  Korach should have known from first hand experience that in life sometimes it seems that we are doing the driving, but in reality, we are just being carried along for the ride.  Just like his ability to carry the aron was not due to his great strength, so too, he should not have assumed his ruach ha'kodesh or any other talent he had was because he was better than anyone else, but rather was just a gift from Hashem.

2. Korach ben Yitzhar ben Kehas ben Levi.  Rashi comments that the Torah omits tacking on "ben Yaakov" at the end because Yaakov did not want his name associated with Korach's rebellion.

We all know that Levi is "ben Yaakov" even if the Torah doesn't mention it explicitly, so what did Yaakov accomplish by davening that his name not be mentioned?  (See Maharal in Gur Aryeh that we discussed back in 2009, and last year we discussed R' Baruch Sorotzkin's approach, but there is always something new to add : )

The Midrash on our parsha writes as follows:

(משלי יח)אח נפשע מקרית עוז ומדינים כבריח ארמון, זה קרח שפשע בתורה שהיא עז, שנאמר: (תהלים כט)ה' עוז לעמו יתן ה' יברך את עמו בשלום.

Korach is called a "poshei'a ba'Torah."  What are Chazal trying to tell us?  Shem m'Shmuel asks: Isn't anyone and everyone who commits an aveira a "poshei'a baTorah?"

My wife this week on her blog made an interesting observation.  Korach claimed  "Ki kol ha'eidah kulam kedosham."  It sounds very noble, echoing the words we heard by mattan Torah, "V'Atem tihiyu li mamlechos kohanim v'goy kadosh," but there is one important difference, and this difference gets to the very heart of what Korach got wrong.  At Har Sinai we were called a "goy kadosh" in the singular.  We were united -- one people, k'ish echad b'lev echad.  Korach, however, saw us as "kulam kedoshim," in the plural -- every one is holy, but it's every man and woman to him/herself.  

Every chotei is a poshei'a in the sense that there is a system of law, but the chotei chooses to disregard the rules.  That's not Korach.  Korach is poshei'a **baTorah** -- he is undermining the system itself.  Torah was given not to a collection of individuals, but to a single entity called Klal Yisrael.  Torah itself unites us with Hashem as one -- oraysa, KB"H, and Am Yisrael is one unit.  Without unity, the whole system falls apart.

"VaYikach Korach" -- "ispalig" the Targum says.  Korach set himself apart.  Korach's message was the antithesis of unity.

What Korach set out to do deliberately many other people do out of ignorance, laziness, etc.  Your average American Jew who lives somewhere in Anytown, USA and spends Saturday at the mall or eating out in some treif restaurant identifies more as an American, a New Yorker, etc. rather than as a Jew.   They don't feel as one with the hassid in Williamsburg.  They wont interfere with what others do -- kulam kedoshim, you do your holy thing, I'll do mine -- but to feel like one with them?  Sorry, not happening.

What Yaakov Avinu, the amud haTorah, davened for was that no matter how far you check out of Klal Yisrael, no matter how much you try to separate yourself, whether by choice, like Korahc did, or by not knowing any better, there should be a little bit of him left within that can never be totally severed.  There should always be something that remains apart from machlokes.  That little something is the spark that can lead to return.

shogeg does not apply to midos

Rashi quotes from Chazal that Korach was led astray because he saw b'ruach ha'kodesh that Shmuel haNavi would be among his descendants.  R Shteinman asks in Ayeles haShachar that if so, Korach was shogeg and should have been judged more leniently (Maharasha on Sanhedrin 110 holds this is in fact why Korach was neither from those burnt or those swallowed by the earth.  The pashtus, however, is that he was the ringleader and more guilty than others, not less.)  

I don't understand the question.  Shogeg usually means there is necessary and sufficient conditions to cause a sin in error.  If you think you are allowed to water your lawn on Shabbos, that error alone is sufficient to cause chilul Shabbos.  There being a Shmuel haNavi who is shakul k'Moshe v'Aharon does not seem to be a sufficient condition in and of itself to cause any rebellion.  It may have caused Korach to feel confident in his chances of success, but is that enough to warrant his being called shogeg?  Maybe R' Shteiman just meant that there are mitigating circumstances here.

R' Shteinman answers that the sin of Korach stemmed from midos ra'os.  You can claim shogeg when it comes to doing a maaseh aveira like chilul shabbos or not putting on tefillin, but when the sin is one of bad midos, all bets are off.  A person has a responsibility to double and triple check to make sure they are acting properly and therefore there is no claim of shogeg.  

How is it that a rasha like Korach was zocheh to see b'ruach hakodesh that Shmuel would come out of him?  See the Tiferes Shlomo, and we once discussed a R' Tzadok on this (here and here).  The Shem m'Shmuel quotes the gemara's derasha (A"Z 24) that the oxen that carried the aron back after it was captured and then returned by the Plishtim sang shirah.  These oxen were certainly no more brilliant than other oxen and were not otherwise capable of speech.  It is the role they served as carriers of the aron that made them special and gave them special power.  Korach was also one of the bearers of the aron.  It was the role that he served that elevated his soul to where he could catch a glimpse b'ruach ha'kodesh of the future.

R' Shteinman (I dont know why I keep coming back to his sefer this week) comments on "boker v'yoda Hashem es asher lo" that Moshe's message was that even though originally avodah was supposed to be done by the first born, the election of the kohanim and the election of Aharon in particular should not be viewed as an accident of history, but rather as an inevitable outcome built into the laws of creation, much like day and night are built into the laws of creation.  It is an immutable fact, not a historically conditioned conclusion.

Aharon and Korach are the perfect foils for each other.  Korach thought he was great man, but in fact his greatness was not inherent in his character but was rather a product of the circumstance of his being a carrier of the aron.  Aharon, in contrast, was in fact a great person.  It was not the role of kohen gadol that made him who he was, but rather it was who he was that caused Hashem to choose his as leader.  

the "segulah" of ketores

The parsha tells us that Aharon tried to stop the plague that came upon Bnei Yisrael as a punishment by offering ketores.  Rashi comments 17:13

יעמוד בין המתים וגו׳ – אחז את המלאך והעמידו על כרחו. אמר לו: הנח לי לעשות שליחותי. אמר לו: משה צוני לעכב על ידך. אמר לו: אני שלוחו של מקום, ואתה שלוחו של משה. אמר לו: אין משה אומר כלום מלבו אלא מפי הגבורה, ואם אין אתה מאמין, הרי הקב״ה ומשה אלא פתח אהל מועד, בא עמי ושאל, וזהו שנאמר: וישב אהרן אל משה וגומ׳

The malach ha'maves did not want to stop, claiming that he was doing G-d's shlichus and Aharon was only doing Moshe's shlichus.  Aharon had to show the malach that Moshe did not initiate this tactic of offering ketores of his own accord -- everything that Moshe said came from Hashem.

R' Shteinman asks: Rashi two pesukim earlier tells us that at mattan Torah the malach ha'maves revealed to Moshe the secret that ketores stops a plague.  So why now was the malach putting up an argument?  Why was the malach not responsive to the segulah of ketores?  

We learn from here an important yesod: a segulah is not a magic trick.  The ONLY way to stop the midas ha'din is by a kiyum mitzvah, by doing the ratzon Hashem.  

The malach said to Aharon that true, ketores has the power to stop a plague, but in this context its being offered is not a kiyum of ratzon Hashem.  To the contrary, he, the malach, is carrying out Hashem's command and Aharon was just doing Moshe's shlichus.  Aharon had to prove to the malach that his offering was in fact a mitzvah as well, that it was a fulfillment of ratzon Hashem, and then it worked to stop the plague. 

Don't put your trust in magic tricks!  Don't think that by mumbling through saying the parsha of ketores, even if you do it from a klaf, then you will be immune from illness or magically cured.  The best segulos are Torah, tefilah, mitzvos, teshuvah. 

Not a chip off the ol' block

1) Rashi writes that Yaakov davened that his name not be connected to  the yichus of Korach. What difference does not mentioning his name make -- we all know  Korach came from Yaakov?  Maharal in Gur Aryeh (discussed back in 2009) explains that with great yichus comes great responsibility -- you have to live up to the privilege you have been afforded.  Had any Ploni started a rebellion, it would be bad, but when you are "ben Kehas ben Levi" and start a rebellion, it's even worse.  Yaakov did not want to be associated with condemning any Jew, even Korach.  Therefore, he asked that his name be omitted from the chain of yichus that served to highlight the severity of his sin.

R Baruch Sorotzkin has a different hesber.  Eisav was born first and should have been the bechor charged with the responsibility for avodah. Yaakov realized this would have been a disaster and therefore, when the opportunity presented itself, he demanded  that Eisav sell his birthright.  Under the guidance of Rivka, Yaakov later went ahead and took the brachos that Eisav might have gotten.  Korach might have been thinking to himself that he was a chip off the old block of great grandpa Yaakov -- he too would seize the privilege of avodah from his relatives and restore it to himself, to the person most worthy.  Yaakov davened that the kochos he used in his struggle against Eisav not be taken and perverted and used improperly by Korach.

2) Last post we discussed Ramban's view that even though there is an issur of offering ketores outside its proper place, and even though Moshe was not commanded by G-d to do so, Moshe took the initiative of suggesting it as a test to prove that Korach and co. were wrong. It could be that Moshe did so as a horaas shaah, similar to Eliyahu offering a korban outside the Mikdash in order to prove the prophets of Baal false.  The gemara (Sanhedrin 89) writes that you should obey a Navi who tells you to do something wrong as a horaas shaah only if that person is muchzak as a true Navi.  The very fact that the 250 people accepted Moshe's horaas shaah suggestion in effect validated him as a Navi and undermined Korach's argument (Chasam Sofer).

3) Why was the punishment of Korach's followers that they descend "chaim she'ola," to gehenom while still alive?  See Maharal in Tif Yisrael ch 18.  The second Belzer Rebbe suggested that Moshe, like Yaakov, as we discussed above, did not want any Jew to suffer at his behest.  So long as a person has life in him, there is the possibility of teshuvah.  Therefore, Moshe asked that the rebellious plotters remain alive even as they had to go to gehenom, so as to keep the possibility of repentance open.

Ramban or printer's error / addition?

Where did Moshe get the idea that Korach and co. should offer ketores as a test?

Ramban writes:

והנה משה מעצמו חשב המחשבה הזאת ורצה בקטרת יותר משאר קורבנות, כי ראה כבר בנדב ואביהוא כי
בהקריבם קטרת זרה לפני ה' נשרפו, והתיר לאהרן להקטיר אותה לצורך השעה

Ramban says Moshe thought of the idea himself (he has another answer as well, ayen sham.)

Ramban says it a second time later in the parsha.  When the people complained to Moshe that he was the cause of the death of those who rebelled, Ramban explains their argument:

יפתור, כי יאשימו אותם על שנתנו העצה הזאת להקטיר קטורת זרה לפני ה', מדעתם שהמקריבים אותם נשרפים. כי השם לא אמר למשה להקריב הקטורת הזאת, והוא לא אמר לישראל בשם ה' לעשות כן, אם כן מעצמם נתנו העצה הזאת אשר מתו בה העם, והיו יכולין לתת אות ומופת אחר במטה או בזולתו. 
The people blamed Moshe because it was his idea to offer the ketores -- it's not something that he was instructed to do by G-d.

In the sefer Kol Rom, thoughts on chumash from R' Moshe Feinstein that were collected and written up by someone else, R' Moshe is quoted as saying that this Ramban is inexplicable.  How could Ramban say Moshe acted of his own volition?  We know that "Shechina m'daberes mi'toch grono," that Hashem "spoke" through Moshe. When Moshe gave a command, it was as if G-d himself was speaking, albeit using Moshe's voice to communicate.  If Moshe said to offer ketores, it was if G-d himself said to do so. 

Furthermore, later, when Aharon, at the behest of Moshe, offered ketores to bring to a stop the plague that had broken out in the camp, there was no command from G-d to do so.  Rashi writes that Moshe heard the secret that ketores stops the plague from the Malach ha'Maves.  Offering ketores outside the Mishkan, outside it's proper time and place, is an issur.  How could Moshe have done so?  We don't find any other case where ketores was offered to stop a plague. e.g. David haMelech did not suggest doing so when there was a plague in his time.  Why did only Moshe Rabeinu come up with this idea?  It must be because only he was commanded to do so; only he had a hora'as sha'ah to do so. 

According to the sefer, R' Moshe was so convinced that this pshat cannot be correct that he thought it was a printers error!  Ramban never said it.  

Amazing -- Ramban says it two times in the parsha, yet because of his kashe, R' Moshe gets rid of the whole thing.  

(P.S. Should I ask whether Artscroll includes this Ramban in their edition, given their treatment of Rashbam in Braishis?) 

(P.P.S. Another interesting idea from that sefer on this week's parsha: R' Moshe said that just like we finish reading Torah sheb'ksav annually, one should ideally keep one's Torah sheba'al peh learning in sync and finish sha"s annually as well.

Huh?  We don't really finish Torah sheb'skav annually -- we finish the first 5 books.  And what does that have to do with Torah sheba'al peh?  I'm missing something here.  )

a one eyed monster

The sefer She'eiris Menachem quotes from the Shem m'Shmuel (the same idea is quoted in other seforim as well) that a person who is blind in one eye is patur from the mitzvah of re'iya on the shalosh regalim because a person who comes to the beis hamikdash needs to see the world with two eyes: one eye focused on the gadlus of Hashem, and one eye focused on his own person shortcomings.  A person who sees with only one eye, i.e. someone who sees and appreciates the gadlus of Hashem but is blind to their own faults, will not benefit from coming.

Rashi writes about Korach that "eino hit'aso," his eye deceived him.  Korach saw the world with only one eye -- he saw the gadlus in ruchniyus that Aharon achieved, and maybe even was sincere in his desire for that same level of closeness with Hashem.  "Boker v'yoda Hashem es asher lo" -- Rashi explains that Moshe told Korach that just like Hashem created boundaries in nature between morning and night, so too, Hashem created boundaries in ruchniyus and not everyone could be kohen gadol.  The Emunas Moshe (Rebbe of Aleksander)  explains that Korach was a big ma'amin.  Who cares if there are rules in teva that way?  A tzadik can rise l'ma'alah min ha'teva!  Korach saw with his one eye that in ruchniyus everything is possible; Hashem has no boundaries.  Korach had 20/20 vision in that eye and got it right.  But when it came to seeing with his other eye, the eye that should have seen his own faults, he was completely blind.  He failed to see that he was not Aharon; he lacked the lofty traits necessary to rise to the madreiga to which he aspired.

bracha on pidyon ha'ben

At the recent pidyon ha'ben made by my nephew for his bechor, my BIL RYGB started discussing with me why you have to make a bracha on the mitzvah of pidyon ha'ben.  Rashba writes in a teshuva that we don't say a bracha on mitzvos like tzedakah where the fulfillment depends on other people -- since the poor person can turn down your gift, you risk it being a bracha l'vatala.  Since pidyon ha'ben depends on the kohen taking the money (you are not yotzei just by doing a hafrasha -- you have to actually give the kohen the money), it too should be classified as a mitzvah that is taluy b'yad acheirim and not require a bracha.

I asked my son what he thought, and he immediately remembered the Ketzos (243:4) has a chidush that nesina ba'al korcho works when it comes to paying off a debt and matnos kehunah.  You don't need the kohen to cooperate -- you can force him to take the money.

I thought you could distinguish between tzedakah and pidyon ha'ben.  When it comes to tzedakah, if the poor person does not want/need the money, there is no chiyuv.  With respect to pidyon ha'ben, the chiyuv exists whether the kohen cooperates or not.  His refusal to accept payment deflects the kiyum mitzvah, not the chiyuv.

RYGB wanted to say a bigger chidush and suggest that the kohen has a mitzvah to accept the payment.  I did not believe this (see Pesachim 121 where the gemara says with respect to pidyon that the father has the mitzvah; the kohen gets hana'ah) but I found that R' Noson Gestetner in his sefer on chumash on last week's parsha compares the role of the kohen to that of a woman in the process of kidushin -- there is a hechsher mitzvah or a kiyum of some sort, even if there is not a full chiyuv.  He writes that m'sevara this has to be the case.  How could a yisrael be commanded to do pidyon if every kohen in the world could theoretically turn down his money?  How would he do the mitzvah?  It must be that the kohen has an obligation of some sort to participate.

Let's test the theories by applying them to another mitzvah: mishloach manos.

You can't force someone to accept mishloach manos, so it makes sense according to the sevara of the Ketzos that there is no bracha.

According to my approach, it's a little trickier.  I have a chiyuv of mishloach manos irrespective of someone else's need for my gift, so isn't it like pidyon ha'ben?  

The Manos haLevi writes that the purpose of mishloach  manos is to engender friendship between people.  That seems to be the logic behind the view of the Rama that the recipient can be mochel the gift -- it's the thought that counts, not the actual present.  If so, perhaps no bracha is recited because the essence of the mitzvah -- friendship and collegiality -- is devarim she'b'lev, and no bracha is recited on devarim she'b'lev.  

According to RYGB's sevara, it's also a little trickier.  If you hold like the Rama, you could simply say that there is no mitzvah on the recipient to accept anything since he can be mochel.  But I wonder how you would resolve this question if you don't hold like the Rama.  Using R' Noson Gestetner's logic, since I have to give mishloach manos to somebody, doesn't there have to be some mitzvah on the recipient to accept it, or theoretically at least I would never be able to fulfill my mitzvah?  (I did not discuss this last point with RYGB.)