Korach answers



Korach 5720.

Alef.

במדבר פרק טז

(יט) וַיַּקְהֵל עֲלֵיהֶם קֹרַח אֶת כָּל הָעֵדָה אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וַיֵּרָא כְבוֹד יְקֹוָק אֶל כָּל הָעֵדָה: פ

(כ) וַיְדַבֵּר יְקֹוָק אֶל מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר:

(כא) הִבָּדְלוּ מִתּוֹךְ הָעֵדָה הַזֹּאת וַאֲכַלֶּה אֹתָם כְּרָגַע:

(כב) וַיִּפְּלוּ עַל פְּנֵיהֶם וַיֹּאמְרוּ קל אֱלֹקי הָרוּחֹת לְכָל בָּשָׂר הָאִישׁ אֶחָד יֶחֱטָא וְעַל כָּל הָעֵדָה תִּקְצֹף: פ

(כג) וַיְדַבֵּר יְקֹוָק אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:

(כד) דַּבֵּר אֶל הָעֵדָה לֵאמֹר הֵעָלוּ מִסָּבִיב לְמִשְׁכַּן קֹרַח דָּתָן וַאֲבִירָם:

(כה) וַיָּקָם מֹשֶׁה וַיֵּלֶךְ אֶל דָּתָן וַאֲבִירָם וַיֵּלְכוּ אַחֲרָיו זִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:

(כו) וַיְדַבֵּר אֶל הָעֵדָה לֵאמֹר סוּרוּ נָא מֵעַל אָהֳלֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָרְשָׁעִים הָאֵלֶּה וְאַל תִּגְּעוּ בְּכָל אֲשֶׁר לָהֶם פֶּן תִּסָּפוּ בְּכָל חַטֹּאתָם:

(כז) וַיֵּעָלוּ מֵעַל מִשְׁכַּן קֹרַח דָּתָן וַאֲבִירָם מִסָּבִיב וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם יָצְאוּ נִצָּבִים פֶּתַח אָהֳלֵיהֶם וּנְשֵׁיהֶם וּבְנֵיהֶם וְטַפָּם:

1. The essential question addressed by RaMBaN re BaMidbar 16:21 : The implication is prior to Moshe and Aharon’s supplications in v. 22, why was HaShem Prepared to destroy everyone? But if they haven’t done anything, why should they be in any danger?

Additional questions:

a) Why might the entire people initially had sympathy for Korach and his claims?

b) Just because they may have resented Moshe, does this necessarily mean that they were also negatively disposed towards HaShem?

c)  Why in the end were the people not judged in the same manner as Korach and his followers, if in fact they had all been sympathetic to the accusations?

d)  Is there a precedent for defending a group that had all come under attack by deflecting blame upon a single clearly guilty individual?

2.  Aside from the dispute over the implication of the word “Eida”, the basic disagreement between RaMBaN and Rabbeinu Chananel is whether God initially only was Angered against Korach and his followers, or whether God originally was Angry with everyone, and it was Moshe and Aharon who pleaded the Jews’ case and achieved their forgiveness.

3.  By virtue of the use of the general term “Kol HaEida” (v. 19) as opposed to “Adato” (his congregation), suggests that everyone was sympathetic to Korach’s arguments.

4. מהרהרים אחרי רבם והם כמהרהרים אחרי השכינה: By virtue of their attacking Moshe, it was tantamount to attacking HaShem, Whom Moshe represented.

על העם גם כחטאים שהי' להם לתת השקלים מעצמם, אם העונש ההוא על זה—The sin that David was punished for, was his directly counting the Jewish people rather than using some sort of indirect method, such as the Machtzit HaShekel system. RaMBaN is suggesting that even if David did not collect coins from the people, they could have voluntarily given the coins in order to protect David from punishment. By virtue of their not doing this, one could say that they have also participated in this sin.

Beit.

1.  It would appear that Klee Yakar is similar to but not exactly like R. Chananel.  They agree that “HaEida” refers specifically to Korach and his followers. However, with regard to the give-and-take between HaShem and Moshe: a) HaShem initially Wanted to punish only Korach and his followers. b) Moshe misunderstood and assumed that all of Israel was in jeopardy and therefore made his plea to save them. c) HaShem then Clarifies to Moshe what His Intention actually is, the disagreement concerns whether or not the Jews sinned at all. According to R. Chananel, only Korach’s group sinned and no defense for the rest of the people was required on Moshe’s part. According to Klee Yakar, the people did sin in the sense of being swayed, at least to some degree, by Korach’s argument. Yet because they were only responding relatively passively to the initiation of Korach, according to Moshe, they were not to be treated as sinners.

2.  Klee Yakar’s proof from Parashat BeHa’alotcha is as follows:

...כי מצינו שנאמר (במדבר יב א) ותדבר מרים ואהרן במשה ולא נענש אהרן לפי שמרים היתה ההתחלה לדיבור ואהרן טפל לה...

              While Aharon listened to Miriam’s slander of Moshe, he nevertheless was not punished (as severely?—see  Shabbat 97a) as Miriam who was the instigator of the sin.

3.  According to RaShI, since HaShem is Aware of what people are thinking, it should be clear that the rest of the people did not sin. According to Klee Yakar, HaShem should Recognize that while the people were swayed by Korach’s words, nevertheless it should be obvious to HaShem that the people’s sin cannot be treated in the same manner as the sin of Korach who was the initiator.

Gimel.

1.  According to Alshich, if indeed Moshe and Aharon were not swayed by Korach’s words, why did they have to remove themselves from the proximity of the tents of the rebels? Only those who had actually sinned should have been placed in jeopardy. HaShem must be Intending something other than to save us from being swept up in the punishment of Korach and his followers.

2.  The classical precedent vis-à-vis Moshe for HaShem Desiring that His Prophet intervene on behalf of the Jewish people is at the sin of the Golden Calf:

שמות פרק לב

(י) וְעַתָּה הַנִּיחָה לִּי וְיִחַר אַפִּי בָהֶם וַאֲכַלֵּם וְאֶעֱשֶׂה אוֹתְךָ לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל:

ברכות ל"ב א'

א"ר אבהו, אלמלא מקרא כתוב אי אפשר לאמרו,

מלמד שתפסו משה להקב"ה כאדם שתופס את חבירו בבגדו ואמר לפניו, רבש"ע, איני מניחך עד שתמחול להם

תורה תמימה הערות שמות פרק לב

י"ל בטעם הדרשה, דמפרש הניחה לי, כמו הניחו ויקלל (ש"ב ט"ז), אל תנח ידך, והכונה אל תעצור אותי, ומפרש ציור הענין איך עצרו משה, שתפסו כאדם שתופס את חבירו בבגדו:

              By HaShem Saying to Moshe, “Leave Me alone”, He was Implying that if Moshe did not leave Him alone, then He would not Destroy the Jewish people.

              An earlier instance of this same idea involves Avraham and the impending destruction of Sodom and Amora:

בראשית פרק יח

(יז) וַיקֹוָק אָמָר הַמְכַסֶּה אֲנִי מֵאַבְרָהָם אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי עֹשֶׂה:

(יח) וְאַבְרָהָם הָיוֹ יִהְיֶה לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל וְעָצוּם וְנִבְרְכוּ בוֹ כֹּל גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ:

(יט) כִּי יְדַעְתִּיו לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר יְצַוֶּה אֶת בָּנָיו וְאֶת בֵּיתוֹ אַחֲרָיו וְשָׁמְרוּ דֶּרֶךְ יְקֹוָק לַעֲשׂוֹת צְדָקָה וּמִשְׁפָּט לְמַעַן הָבִיא יְקֹוָק עַל אַבְרָהָם אֵת אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר עָלָיו:

              HaShem’s Rationale for Informing Avraham regarding what was to happen to Sodom and Amora was not merely informational, but also illustrated to Avraham his responsibility to pray on behalf of the inhabitants of these cities.

Daled.

אלשיך במדבר פרק טז

אמנם הנה היו ישראל מפותים מקרח ולא במהרה ינתקו. על כן אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא, דבר אל העדה דברים, כדי לאמר אחר כך העלו כו'. כי תקדים פיוס ופירוש הנאתם בהבדלם. ואחר כך אמור הצווי. וזהו וידבר אל העדה לאמר מה שנצטווה. ומה הקדים - לאמר הצווי שהוא העלו וכו' - הלא הוא סורו נא וכו' לאמר נא לשון בקשה. וזה להנאתכם, כי הם רשעים פן תספו וכו', וחושו על עצמכם:             

              Alshich interprets the redundancy that he detects in the following three verses:

(כג) וַיְדַבֵּר יְקֹוָק אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:

(כד) דַּבֵּר אֶל הָעֵדָה לֵאמֹר הֵעָלוּ מִסָּבִיב לְמִשְׁכַּן קֹרַח דָּתָן וַאֲבִירָם:

(כו) וַיְדַבֵּר אֶל הָעֵדָה לֵאמֹר סוּרוּ נָא מֵעַל אָהֳלֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָרְשָׁעִים הָאֵלֶּה וְאַל תִּגְּעוּ בְּכָל אֲשֶׁר לָהֶם פֶּן תִּסָּפוּ בְּכָל חַטֹּאתָם:

              In v. 23 HaShem Instructs Moshe to speak gently to the Jewish people in order to gain their attention, since they had been influenced by Korach’s words. This is followed by v. 24 in which the Divine Commandment is conveyed to step away from the tents of Korach and his followers. Finally in v. 26, the usage of the word “Na” (which could also mean “now”, but is taken by the commentator to mean “please”, a meaning that generally informs when a human being is pleading with God or with another human being, but not by God when He is Addressing His Creatures), suggests that there is a pleading with the people to comply with the Commandment for their own good in light of the impending punishment. (Perhaps according to Alshich, whether or not the people would step away would serve as a litmus test to the degree of their commitment to Korach. Those that did not remove themselves deserved the same fate as the ringleaders.)

Heh.

1.  According to Akeidat Yitzchak, the connection between v. 22-24 is:

(כב) וַיִּפְּלוּ עַל פְּנֵיהֶם וַיֹּאמְרוּ קל אֱלֹקי הָרוּחֹת לְכָל בָּשָׂר הָאִישׁ אֶחָד יֶחֱטָא וְעַל כָּל הָעֵדָה תִּקְצֹף: פ

(כג) וַיְדַבֵּר יְקֹוָק אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:

(כד) דַּבֵּר אֶל הָעֵדָה לֵאמֹר הֵעָלוּ מִסָּבִיב לְמִשְׁכַּן קֹרַח דָּתָן וַאֲבִירָם:

By virtue of the people creating a physical gap between themselves and the rebels, they will be indicating that they are not on the “same page. This will justify not painting them with the same brush and giving them the same punishment as Korach and his followers. If they do continue to identify with the rebels then they deserve to be punished like them in kind. (See my concluding comment to Daled above.)

2.  The story of Achan appears in Yehoshua 7. Achan had illegally taken spoils for himself from the destroyed city of Yericho. As a result, the Jews lost the next battle at Ai on the road to the conquest of Canaan. Until Achan was separated from the people and punished, the entire people bore collective responsibility for his action, in the spirit of Kol Yisrael Areivim Zeh BaZeh.  Once Achan is identified and executed, the stigma of his crime is removed from the collective nation and they can get back to the conquest of the land.

3.  The question being posed is even if there were a number of Tzaddikim living in Sodom and Amorra, by virtue of their remaining in these cities rather than removing themselves from them, creates guilt by association and they would then deserve the same punishment in store for the rest of the inhabitants.  Rather than saying that the presence of Tzaddikim justifies the saving of the cities, the opposite argument could be made that their presence in the midst of all of that evil impugns their righteousness and claim for being saved themselves. I suppose it is a question of who is more likely to influence whom. If there is no possibility that the example of the Tzaddikim will in any way improve the behavior of everyone else, and they nevertheless choose to remain there, then some guilt will have to be applied to them as well, despite their righteousness. On the other hand, if they are doing their best to try to change the moral and ethical conditions in their cities, despite the overwhelming odds against their succeeding, then as long as the situation is not one deemed impossible, shouldn’t they be given the opportunity to strive to make an impression on their surroundings? The case of Achan involved secret iniquity and for the society to be able to respond would obviously have been much more difficult—even Yehoshua did not know about the situation until HaShem Informed him. However, all descriptions of what was going on in Sodom and Amorra suggest that the iniquity was overt and not difficult to discern. What would a Tzaddik’s mandate be under such conditions? RaMBaM in Igerret HaShmad instructs people to leave such places if at all possible. From Avraham’s argument on behalf of potential Tzaddikim in Sodom, it would appear a different solution is being advanced.

4