Tzaraat or Death? Disastrous Results of Haughtiness and Denying God

Parshat Korach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

 After the Korach episode, Moshe is told by God to tell his nephew Elazar to take the fire pans of those who perished bringing the k’toret, and hammer them out in order for them to become covers for the miz’be’ach.

 “And Elazar the Kohen took the copper pans that were offered by those who were burned, and he hammered them into covers for the miz’be’ach. [It was to serve as] a reminder to the Children of Israel, in order that no stranger – who is not of the seed of Aharon – will come close to burn the k’toret before God. And he will not be like Korach and like his cohorts, as God spoke, in the hand of Moshe, to him.” (17:4-5) 

Many commentaries note that the last phrase, “as God spoke, in the hand of Moshe, to him,” seems out of place. Some, such as the Da’at Zekenim, suggest that though these words appear at the end of 17:5, they refer directly to Elazar’s actions of 17:4.

 The phrase “And he will not be like Korach and like his cohorts” is also enigmatic. It could refer to Elazar who, unlike Korach, will be doing exactly what God instructed; it could refer to the non-Kohen who, unlike Korach, avoids bringing k’toret; it could refer to the punishment itself (as opposed to the behavior), that no perpetrator will be swallowed by the ground!

 Rashi (and many others) focuses on the strange phrase “B’yad Moshe” (in the hand of Moshe), suggesting that the verse is teaching us that those who argue over Kohanic rights will be punished with Tzara’at, just as Moshe was punished “in his hand” with tzara’at in Shmot 4:6. This suggests that being swallowed by the ground or consumed by a fire is not a punishment which will be assigned to any future k'toret burners.

 Rashi supports this teaching using the example of King Uzziah (Divrei Hayamim II:26:19) who was afflicted with tzara’at for the rest of his life after he approached the Temple to burn k’toret, despite not being a Kohen.

 But there are problems with Rashi’s teaching. The phrase “B’yad Moshe” appears over 15 times in the Torah. It usually refers to how Moshe presented the law, which descended from the mountain “in Moshe’s hand,” and it doesn’t seem to ever refer to the “punishment” Moshe received at the burning bush. One could even argue that the tzara’at that Moshe received at the burning bush wasn’t even a punishment, as it only lasted for 5 seconds, and was meant to be a sign that God had sent him! Furthermore, where at the burning bush does Moshe burn k’toret or covet the Priesthood?

 Rashi is likely referring to the passage in the Talmud Sanhedrin 110a that says

“someone who hangs on to ‘machloket’ (the need to maintain a fight) violates the rule to not be like Korach and his cohorts. Rav Ashi says, he deserves to get tzara’at – because in this case it refers to [a punishment literally] in the hand of Moshe, and in Shmot Moshe was told to bring his hand into his shirt [in order to receive the tzara’at].”

 How is one parallel to the other? Even if Moshe was punished, how is his circumstance similar to Korach’s?

The Kli Yakar advances this question further, suggesting that if we’re going to try to learn a punishment of tzara’at for challenging authority, we’d be better off learning it from Miriam’s story, when she spoke about her brother’s leadership, claiming similar strengths as a prophetess, and got tzara’at as a result!

 We know that tzara’at was a punishment for seven sins: lashon hora, murder, swearing in vain, immorality, haughtiness, theft and stinginess. (Arakhin 16a) Note that wanting the Priesthood is not on the list.

 Kli Yakar notes that God’s worldview of punishment is “measure for measure.” The Talmud (Shabbat 97a) says, we learn from Moshe that one who suspects others unjustly is punished on his body. Moshe suspected that the Israelites would not believe he was sent by God (Shmot 4:1), assuming he had made everything up. This is exactly what Korach accused Moshe of – fabricating a law that serves his own purposes and makes him (and Aharon) important, without any real Divine instruction.

 Were Moshe’s accusation at the burning bush true, the people would have been subject to tzara’at. Since it was not true, that punishment was put on Moshe, measure for measure. The Kli Yakar explains that this sort of pronouncement fits in with the sins of lashon hora and haughtiness, which the Israelites would have been displaying had they indeed not believed that Moshe was sent by God.

 The reason why Korach and his cohorts met the end that they met was because in addition to bringing k’toret, they denied God completely. They were culpable for two punishments, (tzaraa'at and death) and they received the greater one (death) following the principle of “Kim leh b’d’raba mineh.”

 The strange conclusion of our verse, therefore is teaching the following: the flattened out pans are meant to serve as a reminder for all non-Kohanim not to bring k’toret, because while we are confident they will not be like Korach and his cohorts who denied God’s law and were guilty of all kinds of sins, they are still challenging Moshe’s prophesy that the Priesthood belongs to the family of Aharon alone, as they are thinking their worthiness trumps the priestly bloodline. This is a sin of haughtiness which is punishable with tzara’at. 

Elazar’s role, therefore, is significant only in that he is a Kohen who is representing that Moshe’s prophesy of the Divine assignment of the priesthood is true.

 For everyone else, the lesson is clear. There are different ways of challenging authority. Asking legitimate questions in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding is not only valid. It is significantly important. And if there is something wrong with the authority, it is imperative to find the truth and to bring it out.

 On the other hand, saying Moshe or Aharon are unworthy because “I am more worthy” or because “I deny God’s role in appointing you,” is an offense that is beyond the pale. It is not only arrogance which drives such an approach, but it comes from a place that is far deeper and darker than a respectable desire to understand.

 There are no Moshes and Aharons today. No one is given Divine Authority for any position. When we need to challenge leadership, we must always come from the first approach – a genuine pursuit of truth aimed towards understanding, in order to know how to proceed.

 Korach and his cohorts wanted to bring Moshe and Aharon down simply because they didn’t like them. We dare not look to destroy anyone’s life on account of any hateful vendetta.

Fighting Divides, Peace Unites

Thoughts and prayers go out for the safe return of Eyal Yifrach, Naftali Frankel, and Gilad Shaar to their families. ה ישמור צאתם ובואם מעתה ועד עולם - ה' ישמרם מכל רע

Parshat Korach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

The Kozhnitzer Maggid was known to be a pursuer of peace.

            

It happened that a terrible fight broke out amongst the Jews living in a city close to Kozhnitz, which caused some kind of “breakaway” in the community .

            

The Maggid gathered the leaders of the rabble-rousers, the hotheads of one of the fighting groups, and told them the following:

            

“There are three cardinal sins in the Torah – such as idolatry, murder, etc… The Torah spells out the devastating punishments for these sins.  But there is never a warning in the Torah to separate ourselves from those who commit these terrible sins.

            

“Only one time do we find a warning in the Torah to, ‘Separate from this group of people,’ and that is specifically when it comes to the story of Korach and his congregation.

            

“All they wanted to do, as Onkelos translates, is to make a fight, to stoke the coals of machlokes.

            

“People who want to foment machlokes (fights) in the community – from them we are warned and obligated to separate.”

            

In this past week, since the kidnapping of three teenagers in Israel, we have seen a unity in the Jewish community that has surpassed any reasons we may otherwise have for disagreeing with one another. This is a beautiful thing.

            

What is sad, however, is that it takes such a troubling episode to unify the Jewish people. This has happened before. In more recent history, the captivity of Gilad Shalit, the kidnapping of Nachshon Wachsman, and a hundred years ago, through the blood libel tales surrounding the personalities of Mendel Beilis and Leo Frank.

            

While the Jewish people as a whole may understand God differently and view Torah and/or observance differently from one another, Jewish Peoplehood is one thing that we cannot afford to break apart on account of fights.

            

The OU’s recent Jewish Action magazine had a number of articles responding to the Pew Research Center’s recent survey of Jewish Americans. One of the themes raised by a number of the contributors is that the Orthodox community – while it has a remarkably high in-marriage and retention rate – hasn’t done enough for Jews of other denominations. The synagogue is too intimidating and not inviting enough to those who are not “in the know.”

            

The “kiruv world” has its merits, as it reaches, in some cases, the unaffiliated and the marginally affiliated. But the rest of us have a lot of work to do to spread positive feelings about our faith and our peoplehood, as well as about Torah and inclusivity.

            

Rabbi Efrem Goldberg quoted Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein who wrote in Tradition of Spring 1982, ”Can anyone responsibly state that it is better for a marginal Jew in Dallas or in Dubuque to lose his religious identity altogether, rather than drive to his temple?”

            

The Kozhnitzer Maggid would explain that it is better to have peace that is not for-the-sake-of heaven (a cold peace) than a machlokes-lshem-shamayim (a fight for the sake of heaven – i.e. for the honor of God). If people would just extend a hand of unity and peace, the Maggid would explain, the hands would join together and reach the Heavenly Throne.

            

Let us fight against the appeal of the Korachs who will fight tooth and nail for every detail of what they stand for in order to disenfranchise Jews who view things differently. By all means we need to know what we stand for and we must have standards and lines we don’t cross. But we must also have lines we do cross and barriers that need not be so high, so that we can engage with our Jewish brothers and sisters in a manner that promotes peace in our ranks, not just in troubling times or in times of challenge, but when things are going well as well.

            

We wish, hope, and most importantly pray for a positive outcome from the evil kidnapping which took place in Israel. May God bless the IDF, the incredible families that are experiencing what no family should ever have to endure, and of course the boys themselves – Gilad, Eyal and Naftali, that the IDF should meet with success and the families should be reunited in safety and peace.

            

And may the nation of the Jewish people find the strength to be united as one at all times as we learn the ultimate lesson from Korach. Fighting divides a people, and Peace unites a people. Amen.

                

The Wealth of Korach

After writing the dvar Torah, this article came to my attention - about the percentage of Israel's millionaires

Parshat Korach

In addition to being one of the more colorful characters in the Torah, Korach is even more colorful as he is portrayed in the Talmud and Midrash.

            
A simple look at the commentaries brings one to understand his brilliant mind, his ability to twist Torah, mitzvot, and halakha to conform to his agenda of criticizing Moshe's leadership (which is less apparent in the Torah) and Aharon's role as Kohen Gadol – his primary objection.

            
One of the more seemingly inconsequential details raised is that Korach was exceedingly wealthy. (Pesachim 119a)

            
We know that when the ground swallowed up those who had burned the K'toret on the copper firepans the Torah states, "The earth opened its mouth and swallowed them, and their homes, and all the people that were with/belonged to Korach, and all of the property." (16:32)

            
With the exception of when a person takes property that is unavailable – such as Achan taking from the "cherem" (Yehoshua 7) – property is not generally subject to the punishment that befalls a sinner. "You can't take it with you" because it goes to your family.

            
If Korach's property was not ill-gotten, as the Talmud assumes, and if Korach's children did not participate in their father's rebellion (Bamidbar 26:11) – Radak on the first verse in Shmuel explains (based on Divrei Hayamim I:6) that Korach's children were prophets – they should have by all right inherited their father's possessions. Why was the property swallowed with the evil doers?

            
One line of thinking follows the passage in the mishnah towards the bottom of Sanhedrin 54a which punishes a seemingly blameless animal for a sin committed by a human (based on Vayikra 20:15-16). The reasoning? Because a human was brought to the lowest level of sin on account of the animal.

            
On a parallel plane, Nachshoni suggests Korach's wealth did the same thing to him. The Talmud describes the number of keys to Korach's treasures as being equivalent to the loads carried by three hundred mules (might not be a number meant to be taken literally). This tremendous wealth brought him to a level of unsurpassed arrogance, in which he felt he should have whatever he wanted, and was willing to go to whatever extreme necessary in order to get it.

            
Since his wealth caused him to sin, commentators argue, his wealth was punished as well. It wasn't taken from his inheritors – it was destroyed for bringing about his downfall.

            
The history of mankind in general, and of Jewish communities specifically, has always included individuals on all ends of the financial spectrum. That more people have less and fewer people have more is a reality just about everywhere.

            
What do the minority who are blessed with more do with their wealth? Do they go the Korach route? Do they confront leadership, dictate policy, expect the world to bow to them? Do they try to run the schools they support, the shuls they support, the organizations they support, etc. in their image? Are they seeking the "kavod" that comes from being the giver?

            
Or do they give to reflect their appreciation to their God? Do they give back to the community? Do they give magnanimously, with grace and charm? Do they sometimes give anonymously? Do they let those in the trenches use their skills to do their jobs best, while the donors stand on the sideline shouting words of encouragement and support, ever ready with the blank check to help out in whatever way possible?

            
Korach failed and perished because he let his wealth get to his head. He felt he was more suited to be the Kohen Gadol, and he was so arrogant that he could not accept that God might have chosen someone else over himself.

            
We tremendously appreciate the philanthropists and the givers who enhance our lives. We recognize that God has blessed them, and we wish them to find continued success so they may continue to do so much good with their wealth.

            
And those of us who are "not yet" philanthropists continue to pray that were the tables ever to turn, we be blessed not only with the ability to do good for others, but with the level-headed thinking that will keep us out of the Korach camp and in the camp of those who are magnanimous, gracious, and giving simply because we can.

            
May God bless us with opportunities to do amazing things with His gifts. May we merit to keep our priorities in order, to make the gift about how we can help and about how those on the other end of the spectrum can benefit from our generosity.

Moshe's Bumper Sticker

Parshat Korach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

An unofficial theme of the book of Bamidbar is that the string of narratives are connected thematically. The most quoted example of this is the first critique given to the spies of Parshat Shlach, who did not learn from the episode of Miriam's tale-bearing punishment. After seeing what happened to her for speaking about Moshe, they did not check themselves before speaking ill of the land they had scouted.

I think a similar lesson can be applied to the Korach narrative – from the perspective of the leadership.

Throughout the Torah, whenever people did something wrong or complained and triggered God's anger, Moshe was always the stalwart defender, telling God a thing or two about the leadership role he has accepted (to bring these people as far as he can) versus the one he has not accepted (to watch them all die as a new nation is created from Moshe).

Through it all, Moshe has averted a few disasters and has saved countless lives. This is why it is decidedly odd that Moshe says the second half of his final challenge to Korach and company. "If you die a natural death, God did not send me. But if a creation is created and the ground opens up and swallows them up and they go down, alive, to Sheol, then you know they have challenged God."

How could Moshe offer two options for death – natural or supernatural? Is there no room for teshuvah (repentance)? What happened to the ultimate defender, who views life as the most precious gift? Could it be, perhaps, that Moshe is taking Korach's challenges as a personal affront (as well he should!) and he is taking revenge in the most spiteful we he could? היתכן - Is this possible?

If we look back at the two most recent narratives in the Torah – the spies and the wood gatherer – we see people being punished with death on account of their actions. And, in both cases, the view from the top is the same.

Rabbenu Bachaye posits that Moshe took the stance against God in defense of the people when he said, "Egypt will hear that you took the nation out of their land, but were unable to defeat the Gods of Canaan" because Moshe was concerned for the desecration of God's name. Why give Egypt the opportunity to speak ill of You?

Similarly, Rabbenu Bachaye addresses the wood-gatherer story using a literal interpretation of the word used to describe his action, "M'koshesh," (מקושש) as opposed to "M'laket" (מלקט) (which mean the same thing, but the former is normally used to describe a gathering of straw, while the latter is normally used to describe the gathering of wood), to suggest that in his Shabbat-desecrating activities the wood-gatherer was denying God and the Six Days of Creation and was thus desecrating God's name in the worst possible way.

If we can say about Moshe that his personal bumper sticker was "Desecrating God's Name Stops Here!" then we can begin to understand why Korach was doomed (as were Datan and Aviram) once the challenge to Moshe and Aharon is understood for what it really was: a challenge to God, and a desecration of God's Name. In 16:5-11 and 16:28-30, Moshe makes it clear that this is not about him. This is all about God. It is only about God.

The Kli Yakar points out the use of the words "Briah yivra" – if a creation is created, which is reminiscent of the account of Creation in the Torah. Stringing together two thoughts which appear in Pirkei Avot, he suggests that they were denying God's role in the world. Firstly, the mouth of the earth was created in the final hours of the Six Days of Creation (Avot 5:6) – a denial of this is a denial of Creation. Secondly, they did not want any leader, for they thought “all of the people are holy, and God is among them – so why should you raise yourself over God’s people?” The anarchist's view contradicts the mishnah (Avot 3:2) that says "Were it not for fear (of a king), men would swallow their friends alive."

The different denials of God and His ways served as indicators to Moshe that the people in question were following the same lines of perverted logic that brought down the spies and the wood-gatherer. As such, the precedent set by their respective punishments helped Moshe come to the easy and unfortunate realization (for Korach and co., that is) that their immediate death was pending.

For Moshe, the writing was so clearly on the wall that he did not need to do much. He had learned the lesson of the previous stories, and Korach and all the followers received the punishment that followed the recently confirmed precedents – the "measure for measure" for anarchists is that the ground swallowed them alive.

The relevant lesson for us is threefold: 

• Remember, as always, that the most regular affirmation of our appreciation of Creation comes from a commitment to Shabbos. 
• We must defend against the desecration of God's name as best we can. 
• We must strive to sanctify God's name in all that we do.

The Reality Check of the Staff Test

Parshat Korach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

It is hard to understand how the people of Metropolis can not see that the only difference between Clark Kent and Superman is a pair of glasses. Then again, Superman is a comic book superhero.

It is similarly hard to understand how the people who participate in the test that "proves" that Aharon and the tribe of Levi were respectively chosen by God can not see that the entire sequence is a contrived setup! And here, it comes directly from God's instruction

In 17:17-18, Moshe is instructed to tell leaders of twelve tribes, each to place his name on his staff. Aharon's name is to appear on the tribe of Levi's staff.

Is Levi's staff in addition to twelve others, or is Levi one of the twelve? Yaakov had twelve sons, but usually Yosef's progeny is divided into two tribes, Efraim and Menashe, and Levi is out of the count.

If the tribe of Levi, as represented by Aharon, are in addition to the twelve tribes, why doesn't the Torah instruct there to be thirteen staffs? And if Levi is to be counted as part of the twelve, then Efraim and Menashe will not have specific representation. Will the person who represents Yosef be from Efraim or Menashe?  How could this be a fair test if Levi participates and either Menashe or Efraim is left out?

In the instructions to Moshe, Levi seems to be included as an afterthought. At the same time, Levi's ultimate triumph looks like a foregone conclusion. "Take the twelve, and make sure Aharon's staff is included in the bunch."

Apart from God's instruction, it seems strange that anyone would participate in the rouse, unless we suggest no one really cared about the outcome. This is how the e end of the story plays out. After Aharon's staff blossomed, "They saw and they took – each man his staff." (17:24) Apparently, the results were not a surprise. Maybe the whole arrangement was just a perfunctory motion to prove once and for all that Aharon and the Levites had been chosen.

This is still problematic, however, because in the end the stick test proves something no one disagreed with. Korach and his followers, all of whom were of the tribe of Levi, claimed only that others of their tribe should be allowed to serve as kohanim as well (16:6-11). Datan and Aviram and their gang – all from different tribes - challenged Moshe's leadership. They had no concerns about the role of the tribe of Levi and who should serve as kohanim.

Ramban claims there are only twelve tribes included in the test because the Torah does not rise above a hard number twelve when counting the tribes. (See his commentary on Devarim 33:6.) I would argue the possibility that the Torah can be in a manner suggesting thirteen staffs were included in the test: twelve plus Aharon's.

In the verses quoted above, twelve staffs are mentioned followed by Aharon's staff.  17:21 says, "Moshe told the Israelites to have their princes each give their staffs, one per tribe to make twelve staffs; and Aharon's staff is among their staffs." Perhaps, in addition to their staffs.

When Moshe places the staffs in the tent of the testimony, it says "He placed the staffs there," without specifying how many he carried in.

It could be everyone knew Levi would "win," and it could also be that everyone knew the test was a rouse to satisfy those of little faith. But every tribe needed to have a representative to give an image of a fighting chance to be chosen.

Human leadership does not exist in a vacuum. Yehoshua is clearly from Efraim, not from Yosef. Some of the kings in the book of Kings are clearly from Menashe, not from Yosef.

Here too, while not diminishing from the magic number twelve, we ought to consider the possibility that each tribe – including Efraim and Menashe – were aptly represented. Aharon's leadership – especially after the k'toret incident – may or may not have been contested once Korach and Co. were gone. Levi's place in the nation may have also been quite clear.

The roles we experience in our lives are either of the type we inherit, fall into, acquire or are appointed to. In some cases they are changeable, while in others they are not. The challenge is to make the best of our circumstances, and when possible, to advocate a change that is in the realm of the possible.

There is always room for civil conversation and civil debate. And, when necessary, every side should have a representative. But like Aharon and the Levites, there are sometimes when the conclusions are apparent even before the conversation begins. Somehow, we must learn to live with and grow to accept such realities.