Parshat Pinchas
by Rabbi Avi Billet
The plague is over, the Pinchas/Zimri story has reached its conclusion, and it is time for the Israelites to move on. God instructs Moshe to count the people, and in 26:4 he and Elazar tell the people, “(Count those) over 20 years old, just as God commanded Moshe and the Israelites who left Egypt.”
What is the point of comparing a new census to that of almost 40 years ago? One approach judges whether Moshe did a decent job as leader through handing over a similar size population. Chizkuni notes that the same formula of counting those 20 and up is utilized – though it is debated as to whether this current census was accomplished through counting heads or counting half-shekels. Of course, however it was done was by divine instruction, which assumes the method, in the end, does not matter. Alshikh notes that the count is being done for the sake of the new shepherd, Yehoshua, just as the count had been done for the new shepherd, Moshe, back in the day.
All of this got me thinking about who merited to enter the land. Put another way, who was included in the decree of the spies, and therefore was not entering the land, versus who was not included in the decree and has actually been around since the Exodus and will be venturing on after Moshe’s death?
In Parshat Shlach, at the episode of the spies, we were told that everyone over 20 would die, except for Kalev and Yehoshua, and that the children of those living at that time would also enter the land. Is that list exhaustive? (Baba Batra 121b also suggests people over 60 at the time were also not automatically subject to the decree)
At the end of the chapter here, verse 26:64, the Torah says, “Among those counted now, there was no man previously counted by Moshe and Aharon… [and they] had taken a census of the Israelites in the Sinai Desert.”
Rashi on that verse notes that the decree did not apply to the women (“no man…”)! So while there may have been a few women who passed away (think of Miriam, etc) the overwhelming majority of women merited to enter the land because they loved the land! See the story of Tzlafchad’s daughters to get a sense of the feelings women had for the land.
Using textual hints, the Midrash in Bamidbar Rabba 3 notes that the entire tribe of Levi was not subject to the decree. (See this point in Baba Batra 121b as well, and there it also says Achiyah HaShiloni and Yair Ben Menashe entered the land.) In simple terms, they were not counted from 20 and up in any census (they were even counted separately from the rest of the nation!) Part of the discussion there surrounds the person Elazar, and how he managed to enter the land. There are a few answers. He was under 20 at the time; he was from the tribe of Levi; he was exempt from the decree because he replaced his father as Kohen Gadol, entering on the merit of his leadership position.
Or HaChaim (26:4) wonders why a reference is made to those who left Egypt in the verse, and in particular wonders about the cryptic explanation given by Ibn Ezra. In his own analysis, Or HaChaim notes that plenty of people who left Egypt were slated to enter the land, as they were all under 20 at the time of the spies. This would mean that someone who was 18 at the time of the Exodus would be entering the land. It’s not a matter of being a child – it’s a matter of having been under 20 at the time of the sin of the spies.
Three groups: Levites, women and children. (See sixth paragraph here, and quote from R Samson Raphael Hirsch)
These are the people who avoided the decree of the spies, and these are the people who now, 38 years later, along with the new generation, are slated to enter the Promised Land.
What an incredible lesson in patience and perseverance!
Some things are not in the cards for everyone. But some things are in the cards for those who can only bide their time and wait.
Moshe and Aharon were excluded on account of the decree – Moshe makes this clear in the book of Devarim in several places (first in 1:35-36)! But their children (and those of all the tribes), their tribe, and almost all the women in their lives lived through one fated experience only to join with everyone else in entering the Promised Land.
It is true that for some people it seems there is no hope. But their hope can nevertheless live on in their children, who will hopefully live to see a better and brighter tomorrow and future.
I leave you with a thought question. If the men died, and the Levites, women (widows) and children (orphans – albeit grown up) are not subject to the decree, does this have any impact on the groups of people the Torah instructs us, so many times, to care for and not neglect, especially during holiday seasons?
Thursday, July 25, 2019
Tuesday, July 23, 2019
NINE DAYS RULES
Here are links to my summaries of the Halakhos of this period.
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2010/07/nine-days-i-laundry.html
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2010/07/nine-days-ii-music-and-celebrations-not.html
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2013/07/nine-days-iii-rules-of-eating.html
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2013/07/nine-days-iv-rules-for-tisha-bav.html
https://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2018/07/summary-of-nine-days-rules.html
https://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2018/07/when-tisha-bav-falls-on-shabbos-and-is.html
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2010/07/nine-days-i-laundry.html
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2010/07/nine-days-ii-music-and-celebrations-not.html
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2013/07/nine-days-iii-rules-of-eating.html
http://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2013/07/nine-days-iv-rules-for-tisha-bav.html
https://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2018/07/summary-of-nine-days-rules.html
https://arabbiwithoutacause.blogspot.com/2018/07/when-tisha-bav-falls-on-shabbos-and-is.html
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
Can We Live In Peace If We Did Before?
Parshat Balak
by Rabbi Avi Billet
by Rabbi Avi Billet
When I was in college I took some classes in film theory and design. I can only imagine how artistic film makers would set up the scene of Bilaam riding on his donkey in the moments when the donkey veers off the road and smashes Bilaam’s leg.
The verse describes an angel blocking the road, but then the angel moves, and we find this setup, “God's angel then stood in a narrow path through the vineyards, where there was a fence on this side and a fence on this side.”
Do you see the camera angling back, the music taking on an eerie, horror picture twang, and Bilaam slowly riding his donkey on a narrow path between two fences, where we all know something terrible is going to happen to him?
Don’t let the symbolism of "fence on this side and on this side" be lost, Hadar Zekenim argue, because that phraseology is reminiscent of the way the tablets given to Moshe are inscribed. (Shmot 32:15) For people who have that (the merit of the tablets) going for them, you (Bilaam) will not be able to overcome them.
As much as I appreciate that sentiment, I don’t give Bilaam a whole lot of credit for paying attention to what is going on around him. He will certainly not understand, “O there’s a fence on this side and on this side, and the tablets have writing on this side and on this side, so I am going on a fool’s journey.”
Better, I think, is for him to take the message of Targum Yonatan and Chizkuni who say that the fence Bilaam found himself next to was actually the pile of stones upon which Lavan and Yaakov had made an agreement they would not cross “l’ra’ah,” to do bad to the other. Bilaam is assumed to be a descendant of Lavan, and the fact that he is disregarding the peace treaty made so long ago, should not be ignored.
But it goes a little deeper. Because Rashi notes that the wall or fence which appears in this story is “a plain fence made of stone.”
Siftei Chakhamim explain that the word “kir” always means a wall of stone, even though this verse does not mention the material of which the fence is comprised.
I was a little more taken by the comment of R. Yochanan b"r Aharon Luria, in his commentary on Rashi, Meshivat Nefesh.
How would Rashi know that the fence is made of stone, over wood? There is an element of “gilgul” here, in that Bilaam is the reincarnation of [his ancestor?] Lavan. Lavan had made a promise to Yaakov long ago, “This pile [of stones] is a witness that I will not cross over it to do harm to you or your family,” and that pile has now evolved to be more of a fence.
R Luria continues, since Bilaam is crossing the border to do harm to Yaakov’s family, the fence itself harms him as the verse says “the hands of the witnesses should go against him first,” (Devarim 17:7). Furthermore, one of the blessings Bilaam gives is “It is a blessing that I have taken, and when there is such a blessing, I cannot reverse it” (23:20), and this is reflective of a different element of reality that Bilaam could not ignore.
Lavan had kissed his children and grandchildren and had blessed them. “And anyone who blesses someone can never curse them.”
Bilaam came from a family and a tradition of those who had had difficult encounters with Yaakov’s family, but who nonetheless departed from each other in peace.
That is the blessing we wish for all of Israel – both the enemies without and the enemies within. If indeed we once lived together in peace, we should merit to see such a day soon. Trying to curse another or destroy their existence does nothing for anyone, as all it really does is fuel the hatred within our own hearts. Having hatred in our own hearts only destroys our own souls.
And who can afford that kind of unhappiness?
Tuesday, July 9, 2019
Aharon's Greatest Nachas - Elazar Takes Over
Parshat Chukat
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Parshat Chukat contains the deaths of two great leaders, Miriam and Aharon. These transitions are the beginnings of the end of the time in the wilderness, as they set the stage for the mourning the Children of Israel will face over the coming year: Miriam dies in Nissan, Aharon dies in Av, and Moshe will die in Adar (there is an opinion that Moshe died on the 7th of Shevat – see Rabbi Eliezer in Mechilta of Rabbi Yishmael on Beshalach).
The mourning for Miriam is wholly inadequate (see Alshikh), and it opened the door for the unfortunate events of “Mei Merivah” (see Kli Yakar 20:2) which concluded with a need for different leadership to bring the people into the land (see Malbim).
Let us turn to Aharon’s death, which is described in a little more detail here (more is alluded to in Bamidbar 33:38), and the mourning which follows is much more fitting than what happens after Miriam’s death. Rashi gives a significant description of what took place, hanging it on the note God gives Moshe at the end of his life that “you will die in the manner that your brother Aharon died.” (Devarim 32:50) Of course, Rashi also notes that Miriam died in a similar manner, “with a kiss,” but that was hidden from the text for modesty reasons (20:1).
Many of the commentaries on 20:26 try to explain how “Divest Aaron of his vestments and place them on his son Elazar” could feasibly happen. Assuming one takes off outer garments first, how could they be put on Elazar in reverse order?
Ramban describes how Aharon had “Bigdei Shechina” (Divine garments) underneath his clothing, which allowed his clothes to be removed without exposure. He also mentions that burial shrouds were utilized, even though they are not mentioned in the text either.
Or HaChaim describes it slightly differently – that Aharon removed his clothing and then had another garment immediately upon him, namely he was clothed by the Clouds of Glory. (This might be an interesting explanation for what it means that the Clouds of Glory departed with Aharon’s passing – also mentioned in the Mechilta passage quoted above).
Concern is raised about how Aharon could wear the special garments of the Kohen Gadol outside of the Mishkan. Siftei Chakhamim suggests what should be obvious – that this was Divine instruction. Clearly the God who said these garments only belong in the Mishkan can also make an exception when Aharon is to die. In this way “Aharon would see that his son merits to become the Kohen Gadol in his place.”
Siftei Chakhamim further notes that Moshe was instructed to divest Aharon of his garments and dress Elazar even though both of them were fully capable of doing this themselves, “to demonstrate the kindness done to the dead, that Moshe was directly involved in all matters pertaining to tending to Aharon’s death.”
Seforno notes how Elazar had his own Kohen garments, which remained on him, while the four additional Kohen Gadol vestments are the only garments which exchanged bodies. Presumably, in this view, the remaining garments on Aharon, the “Bigdei Lavan” (white vestments) served as the burial shroud for Aharon.
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch took one of Siftei Chakhamim’s comments a step further when he wrote “thus before his own death, Aharon merited to see himself living on in the person of his son.”
Aharon’s death was most tragic for the Children of Israel. The idea of mourning for 30 days was introduced to us in the context of his passing, and there is no question of the impact it had on the people.
However, a few things come out of this narrative.
One, the idea that even the greatest leader is involved in tending to the dead is something we have always taken most seriously. Our watching Moshe tend to his brother shows how death is not only an equalizer when it comes to those who have passed, but it is also an equalizer in that everyone is obligated to tend to the dead in whatever way we can. There is no such thing as “it is not befitting my honor to tend to the dead.”
Two, Elazar’s status slowly rises in the course of the book of Bamidbar. He was the prince of Levi (3:32), he had his own commission when it came to the packing up of the Mishkan (4:16), he was given the task of hammering out the firepans in Parshat Korach (17:1-4), he was significantly involved in the instructions for the preparation of the Parah Adumah at the beginning of our parsha (19:3-4). It seems clear this path is the direction his life is taking, well before his father's death.
Finally, Aharon has the chance to see what every parent dreams to see. Not only does his son follow in his footsteps, as a religious Jew, as a God-fearing person, but as Rabbi Hirsch put it, he “saw himself living on in the person of his son.”
Maybe not every parent wants for their child to become them. Most parents want their children to be successful, to be able to make it on their own, to be blessed with a good and happy life, and to carve their own path.
But how many parents would object to their children following in their footsteps in every way – assuming that their son or daughter wanted that similar life?
May we be blessed to have a similar experience to the one Aharon had. We should see ourselves living in a manner in which we give all we can for the Jewish people, sacrifice ourselves for the Jewish people, and promote peace in our ranks to the degree Aharon did. May we merit to be missed when we are gone. And may we merit to see children and grandchildren living up to the bar and standard we set for ourselves in our Jewish lives – and may they even surpass our own dedication and commitment in Torah, mitzvot, and love and reverence of the Almighty.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Parshat Chukat contains the deaths of two great leaders, Miriam and Aharon. These transitions are the beginnings of the end of the time in the wilderness, as they set the stage for the mourning the Children of Israel will face over the coming year: Miriam dies in Nissan, Aharon dies in Av, and Moshe will die in Adar (there is an opinion that Moshe died on the 7th of Shevat – see Rabbi Eliezer in Mechilta of Rabbi Yishmael on Beshalach).
The mourning for Miriam is wholly inadequate (see Alshikh), and it opened the door for the unfortunate events of “Mei Merivah” (see Kli Yakar 20:2) which concluded with a need for different leadership to bring the people into the land (see Malbim).
Let us turn to Aharon’s death, which is described in a little more detail here (more is alluded to in Bamidbar 33:38), and the mourning which follows is much more fitting than what happens after Miriam’s death. Rashi gives a significant description of what took place, hanging it on the note God gives Moshe at the end of his life that “you will die in the manner that your brother Aharon died.” (Devarim 32:50) Of course, Rashi also notes that Miriam died in a similar manner, “with a kiss,” but that was hidden from the text for modesty reasons (20:1).
Many of the commentaries on 20:26 try to explain how “Divest Aaron of his vestments and place them on his son Elazar” could feasibly happen. Assuming one takes off outer garments first, how could they be put on Elazar in reverse order?
Ramban describes how Aharon had “Bigdei Shechina” (Divine garments) underneath his clothing, which allowed his clothes to be removed without exposure. He also mentions that burial shrouds were utilized, even though they are not mentioned in the text either.
Or HaChaim describes it slightly differently – that Aharon removed his clothing and then had another garment immediately upon him, namely he was clothed by the Clouds of Glory. (This might be an interesting explanation for what it means that the Clouds of Glory departed with Aharon’s passing – also mentioned in the Mechilta passage quoted above).
Concern is raised about how Aharon could wear the special garments of the Kohen Gadol outside of the Mishkan. Siftei Chakhamim suggests what should be obvious – that this was Divine instruction. Clearly the God who said these garments only belong in the Mishkan can also make an exception when Aharon is to die. In this way “Aharon would see that his son merits to become the Kohen Gadol in his place.”
Siftei Chakhamim further notes that Moshe was instructed to divest Aharon of his garments and dress Elazar even though both of them were fully capable of doing this themselves, “to demonstrate the kindness done to the dead, that Moshe was directly involved in all matters pertaining to tending to Aharon’s death.”
Seforno notes how Elazar had his own Kohen garments, which remained on him, while the four additional Kohen Gadol vestments are the only garments which exchanged bodies. Presumably, in this view, the remaining garments on Aharon, the “Bigdei Lavan” (white vestments) served as the burial shroud for Aharon.
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch took one of Siftei Chakhamim’s comments a step further when he wrote “thus before his own death, Aharon merited to see himself living on in the person of his son.”
Aharon’s death was most tragic for the Children of Israel. The idea of mourning for 30 days was introduced to us in the context of his passing, and there is no question of the impact it had on the people.
However, a few things come out of this narrative.
One, the idea that even the greatest leader is involved in tending to the dead is something we have always taken most seriously. Our watching Moshe tend to his brother shows how death is not only an equalizer when it comes to those who have passed, but it is also an equalizer in that everyone is obligated to tend to the dead in whatever way we can. There is no such thing as “it is not befitting my honor to tend to the dead.”
Two, Elazar’s status slowly rises in the course of the book of Bamidbar. He was the prince of Levi (3:32), he had his own commission when it came to the packing up of the Mishkan (4:16), he was given the task of hammering out the firepans in Parshat Korach (17:1-4), he was significantly involved in the instructions for the preparation of the Parah Adumah at the beginning of our parsha (19:3-4). It seems clear this path is the direction his life is taking, well before his father's death.
Finally, Aharon has the chance to see what every parent dreams to see. Not only does his son follow in his footsteps, as a religious Jew, as a God-fearing person, but as Rabbi Hirsch put it, he “saw himself living on in the person of his son.”
Maybe not every parent wants for their child to become them. Most parents want their children to be successful, to be able to make it on their own, to be blessed with a good and happy life, and to carve their own path.
But how many parents would object to their children following in their footsteps in every way – assuming that their son or daughter wanted that similar life?
May we be blessed to have a similar experience to the one Aharon had. We should see ourselves living in a manner in which we give all we can for the Jewish people, sacrifice ourselves for the Jewish people, and promote peace in our ranks to the degree Aharon did. May we merit to be missed when we are gone. And may we merit to see children and grandchildren living up to the bar and standard we set for ourselves in our Jewish lives – and may they even surpass our own dedication and commitment in Torah, mitzvot, and love and reverence of the Almighty.
Tuesday, July 2, 2019
Torah and Serving God - Available to All When Not Overstepping God's Rules
Parshat Korach
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Reading through the narrative portion of Parshat Korach, one finds a number of groups complaining against Moshe and Aharon. The first is Korach, the second is Datan and Aviram’s group, the third is the 250 presumed followers of Korach, and the fourth are those upset at the beginning of chapter 17 (17:6).
All of that is followed by the story of Aharon’s staff blossoming – to the exclusion of the staffs of all tribe leaders – to achieve God’s goal of “removing from Me all the complaints of the children of Israel that they complain against you [Moshe and Aharon]” (17:20)
The last of the four groups, in a sense, is most confusing. Who are they? What is their agenda? They are called “kol adat yisrael” and “ha’edah” – both of which refer to a gathered group, and their complaint, quite legitimately, is “you caused the deaths of the nation of God!”
Rashbam rightly notes that the people took no issue with the demise of Datan and Aviram. In fact, the way Moshe warned them publicly, over and over, and told everyone who doesn’t want to be associated with them to get away, because a supernatural event will take place, proved that Datan and Aviram’s complaint about Moshe was an unconscionable complaint against God!
But the 250 people! They were bringing k’toret! They were just trying to demonstrate their ability to serve God too, and Moshe, knowing the price k’toret could exact, set the 250 up to die!
Rabbi Yitzchak Caro (Toldot Yitzchak) addressed the confusion that emerges from this story. In addition to wondering about the complainers, he also wondered how the deaths of the 250 firepan bringers wouldn’t teach a lesson to the people regarding Moshe’s and Aharon’s chosenness, while the test of the sticks of the tribe leaders would teach this lesson.
Rabbi Caro divides the original groups into four: Korach, Datan and Aviram, Levites, First Borns. All of them wanted to be Kohanim (I take issue with this claim regarding Datan and Aviram, because it is most clear to me that their specific complaints were about Moshe’s failed leadership which has doomed them to all die in the wilderness and never to make it to the Promised Land – and they do not seek the Priesthood. However, I admit that the text is vague enough to allow for Datan and Aviram to seek the Priesthood as well).
In fact, first borns had brought offerings prior to the Golden Calf (see Shmot 24:5 and Zevachim 115b), and the 250 were seeking to reverse what they deemed an injustice in their all losing the right to serve, simply because some people, who had already been punished with death, had worshiped the Golden Calf.
The accusation of the first borns against Moshe was that he took first born rights away and gave them to his own tribe. The accusation of the Levites was that as their tribe was chosen, they should all be Kohanim, not just Moshe’s brother’s family (super nepotism). Datan and Aviram took issue because they were from the tribe of Reuven, the first born of Yaakov, and they perceived Yehoshua taking over for Moshe, and he was from the tribe of Efraim (Yosef). They felt, Yaakov may have had a personal affinity for Yosef and minor vendetta against Reuven, but that doesn’t mean that for all time Yosef gets the double portion and Reuven is no longer the first born! Moshe should have righted that wrong! We can lead in his place!
Korach sought the kehunah for two reasons: he was a Levite, and he was personally a first born to Yizhar. His 250 followers were all first-borns, and some of them were also Levites. (see 16:8-10). [Rabbi Caro argues that it is impossible that they are all Levites as the Levites in general conducted themselves with holiness, and there is no way they’d have 250 of them gather in a mini-revolt against Moshe or Aharon.]
Datan and Aviram being consumed by the earth proved that Reuven was not to be the Kohen of the tribes. The 250 being consumed by fire proved that the first borns of all the tribes, as well as all of the tribe of Levi (except Aharon’s family) were not Kohanim. Korach’s death proved both of his arguments – being a Levi and personally a first-born – wrong. He was undeserving of being the Kohen.
One problem remains: It has been proven that first borns cannot be Kohanim. But why can they not be Levites? They should be able to assist the Kohanim in the manner in which the Levites provide such assistance! The K’toret test was an unfair one, because all it proved was they could not be Kohanim.
As Rabbi Caro put it, were they to perform Levitical work, they were confident they would not die. So, Moshe, put it to the test! Have them perform Levitical work and see if they die!
Those leading the complaint against Moshe for his unfair test of the first borns were the fathers of these first borns (Kol adat yisrael). (Rabbi Caro does not address why 14,700 people died on account of complaining about the deaths of 250)
In this sense, Aharon bringing out the k’toret to stop the ensuing plague demonstrated that it is not k’toret which is dangerous; it is k’toret in the wrong person’s hands which is dangerous.
Which leads us to the final point, regarding the test of the tribal leaders’ staffs.
When only Aharon’s staff blossomed, it demonstrated that no first borns could serve simply on account of their being a first born, not even those of the tribe of Levi. The Levites could serve as Levites in their capacity of coming from Aharon’s tribe (his staff representing the tribe of Levi), and Aharon’s heroics with the k’toret and the fire pan demonstrated that only he was worthy of being a Kohen.
Were the 250 people all Levites, the entire “adat bnei Yisrael” would not have complained against Moshe – it must have been that representatives from the entire nation (firsborns) were all in the group of 250.
It is clear to me from all this that if all of the groups had come to Moshe to say “We want a place in the service of God” without challenging Moshe’s and Aharon’s divine appointments, that Moshe could have directed them differently.
They did not say “We want to learn Torah. We want direction in how we can personally serve God.” They wanted positions which were unavailable to them because of God’s rules!
The job of the Jewish people is to embrace and educate all Jews who want to learn Torah and personally serve God, without pre-conditions. Not everyone can be a Kohen. Not everyone can be a Levite. But every Jew should be allowed to have a portion in the study of Torah and in personally getting close to God.
The only ones excluded from a particular space are non-Kohanim entering places they are forbidden by God to enter.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Reading through the narrative portion of Parshat Korach, one finds a number of groups complaining against Moshe and Aharon. The first is Korach, the second is Datan and Aviram’s group, the third is the 250 presumed followers of Korach, and the fourth are those upset at the beginning of chapter 17 (17:6).
All of that is followed by the story of Aharon’s staff blossoming – to the exclusion of the staffs of all tribe leaders – to achieve God’s goal of “removing from Me all the complaints of the children of Israel that they complain against you [Moshe and Aharon]” (17:20)
The last of the four groups, in a sense, is most confusing. Who are they? What is their agenda? They are called “kol adat yisrael” and “ha’edah” – both of which refer to a gathered group, and their complaint, quite legitimately, is “you caused the deaths of the nation of God!”
Rashbam rightly notes that the people took no issue with the demise of Datan and Aviram. In fact, the way Moshe warned them publicly, over and over, and told everyone who doesn’t want to be associated with them to get away, because a supernatural event will take place, proved that Datan and Aviram’s complaint about Moshe was an unconscionable complaint against God!
But the 250 people! They were bringing k’toret! They were just trying to demonstrate their ability to serve God too, and Moshe, knowing the price k’toret could exact, set the 250 up to die!
Rabbi Yitzchak Caro (Toldot Yitzchak) addressed the confusion that emerges from this story. In addition to wondering about the complainers, he also wondered how the deaths of the 250 firepan bringers wouldn’t teach a lesson to the people regarding Moshe’s and Aharon’s chosenness, while the test of the sticks of the tribe leaders would teach this lesson.
Rabbi Caro divides the original groups into four: Korach, Datan and Aviram, Levites, First Borns. All of them wanted to be Kohanim (I take issue with this claim regarding Datan and Aviram, because it is most clear to me that their specific complaints were about Moshe’s failed leadership which has doomed them to all die in the wilderness and never to make it to the Promised Land – and they do not seek the Priesthood. However, I admit that the text is vague enough to allow for Datan and Aviram to seek the Priesthood as well).
In fact, first borns had brought offerings prior to the Golden Calf (see Shmot 24:5 and Zevachim 115b), and the 250 were seeking to reverse what they deemed an injustice in their all losing the right to serve, simply because some people, who had already been punished with death, had worshiped the Golden Calf.
The accusation of the first borns against Moshe was that he took first born rights away and gave them to his own tribe. The accusation of the Levites was that as their tribe was chosen, they should all be Kohanim, not just Moshe’s brother’s family (super nepotism). Datan and Aviram took issue because they were from the tribe of Reuven, the first born of Yaakov, and they perceived Yehoshua taking over for Moshe, and he was from the tribe of Efraim (Yosef). They felt, Yaakov may have had a personal affinity for Yosef and minor vendetta against Reuven, but that doesn’t mean that for all time Yosef gets the double portion and Reuven is no longer the first born! Moshe should have righted that wrong! We can lead in his place!
Korach sought the kehunah for two reasons: he was a Levite, and he was personally a first born to Yizhar. His 250 followers were all first-borns, and some of them were also Levites. (see 16:8-10). [Rabbi Caro argues that it is impossible that they are all Levites as the Levites in general conducted themselves with holiness, and there is no way they’d have 250 of them gather in a mini-revolt against Moshe or Aharon.]
Datan and Aviram being consumed by the earth proved that Reuven was not to be the Kohen of the tribes. The 250 being consumed by fire proved that the first borns of all the tribes, as well as all of the tribe of Levi (except Aharon’s family) were not Kohanim. Korach’s death proved both of his arguments – being a Levi and personally a first-born – wrong. He was undeserving of being the Kohen.
One problem remains: It has been proven that first borns cannot be Kohanim. But why can they not be Levites? They should be able to assist the Kohanim in the manner in which the Levites provide such assistance! The K’toret test was an unfair one, because all it proved was they could not be Kohanim.
As Rabbi Caro put it, were they to perform Levitical work, they were confident they would not die. So, Moshe, put it to the test! Have them perform Levitical work and see if they die!
Those leading the complaint against Moshe for his unfair test of the first borns were the fathers of these first borns (Kol adat yisrael). (Rabbi Caro does not address why 14,700 people died on account of complaining about the deaths of 250)
In this sense, Aharon bringing out the k’toret to stop the ensuing plague demonstrated that it is not k’toret which is dangerous; it is k’toret in the wrong person’s hands which is dangerous.
Which leads us to the final point, regarding the test of the tribal leaders’ staffs.
When only Aharon’s staff blossomed, it demonstrated that no first borns could serve simply on account of their being a first born, not even those of the tribe of Levi. The Levites could serve as Levites in their capacity of coming from Aharon’s tribe (his staff representing the tribe of Levi), and Aharon’s heroics with the k’toret and the fire pan demonstrated that only he was worthy of being a Kohen.
Were the 250 people all Levites, the entire “adat bnei Yisrael” would not have complained against Moshe – it must have been that representatives from the entire nation (firsborns) were all in the group of 250.
It is clear to me from all this that if all of the groups had come to Moshe to say “We want a place in the service of God” without challenging Moshe’s and Aharon’s divine appointments, that Moshe could have directed them differently.
They did not say “We want to learn Torah. We want direction in how we can personally serve God.” They wanted positions which were unavailable to them because of God’s rules!
The job of the Jewish people is to embrace and educate all Jews who want to learn Torah and personally serve God, without pre-conditions. Not everyone can be a Kohen. Not everyone can be a Levite. But every Jew should be allowed to have a portion in the study of Torah and in personally getting close to God.
The only ones excluded from a particular space are non-Kohanim entering places they are forbidden by God to enter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)