B parashat hashavua b parasha : korach

7 - HAR ETZION (VBM)

Virtual Beit Midrash, Alon Shevut, Gush Etzion 90433 e-mail: [e-mail],

Home Page: http://www.virtual.co.il/education/yhe

A) INTRODUCTION TO PARSHAT HASHEVUAH

The Blossoming Staff of Aharon

By Rav Michael Hattin

INTRODUCTION

Parashat Korach introduces us to Moshe and Aharon's infamous cousin, who seeks to unseat the two brothers from their positions of leadership. Blessed with a true demagogue's sense of timing, Korach steps into the fray in the immediate aftermath of the catastrophe of the Spies. The people of Israel, recently denied entry into the Promised Land, condemned instead to perish in the inhospitable wilderness, are seething with disappointment, and Korach quickly seizes upon that discontent to advance his own narrow and personal political aspirations. Claiming to represent the people's best interests, he gathers around himself a disgruntled kaleidoscope of malcontents, some of them upset at the election of the tribe of Levi in place of the firstborn, others distressed by Aharon's seemingly selfish cornering of the priesthood, and still others dissatisfied with Moshe's perceived ineffectiveness in averting God's wrath concerning the Spies.

Quickly, things come to a head. Korach and his cohorts promptly answer Moshe's challenge of the firepans, and two hundred and fifty of them are summarily incinerated by Divine fire. Datan and Aviram, two of Korach's most ardent supporters and Moshe's most bitter opponents, are miraculously consumed in a sudden earthquake that swallows them, their families, and all of their worldly possessions. The people of Israel, those who had thrown their support behind Korach and his men and now bemoan their unnatural demise, are stricken with plague, and many perish before Aharon arrests the death by supplicating God with an offering of incense.

THE SIGN OF THE BLOSSOMING STAFF

The people, however, still suspecting the brothers of nepotism, remain unconvinced of God's appointment of the tribe of Levi as His ministering servants and of Aharon as High Priest, and so He provides them with one more sign:

God spoke to Moshe saying: Speak to the people of Israel and take a staff from each of their tribal princes; these twelve staffs shall each be inscribed with their respective names. As for Aharon's name, inscribe it upon the staff of Levi, for there shall be only one staff for each chief of their clans. Deposit them in the Tent of Meeting, before the testimony where I meet with you. The staff of the man whom I have chosen will blossom, and thus will I bring an end to the complaints of the people of Israel who rail against you. Moshe spoke to the people of Israel and each one of their princes gave him a staff, one staff for each tribal prince, and Aharon's staff was among theirs. Moshe deposited the staffs before God in the Tent of Meeting. On the next day, Moshe entered the Tent of the Testimony and behold the staff of Aharon from the tribe of Levi had bloomed, it gave forth blossoms, and made flowers, and then produced young almonds. Moshe removed all of the staffs from before God's presence and brought them to the people of Israel, and each one saw his staff and took it (BeMidbar 17:16-24).

The reading of the above episode is straightforward enough. The people of Israel had questioned the veracity of the election of the tribe of Levi, and had ascribed it to Moshe's despotic whims rather then to Divine command. For similar reasons, they had doubted Aharon's appointment to the priesthood. The sign of the staffs was therefore meant to counter both of their reservations. On the one hand, it was the staff of the tribe of Levi that came to life. On the other hand, that very staff was inscribed with the name of Aharon (see commentary of the Ramban, 13th century Spain, to 17:17), thus affirming his appointment to the priesthood.

At the same time, the sign of the staffs does raise a number of queries. Why did God choose to reinforce Aharon's election with a display of blossoms? What is the significance of the drawn-out description of the flowering process ("…behold the staff of Aharon from the tribe of Levi had bloomed, it gave forth blossoms, and made flowers…")? Why, of all possible things, does the staff produce almonds?

THE INTERPRETATION OF RASHI

Rashi (11th century, France), while only addressing one of the above issues, posits that there was special significance about the fruit of the staff:

…and why did the staff produce almonds? Because it is the fruit that blossoms before all of the others. So too, one who criticizes the priesthood, his punishment is swift in coming. Thus we find concerning Uzziyahu (9th century King of Judea who attempted to usurp the role of the priesthood – see Divre HaYamim 2:26:16-20) that the verse states that: "the tzara'at suddenly shone upon his forehead…."

Rashi correctly surmises that the sign of the almonds is a metaphor for haste. Of all of the fruit-bearing trees that are prevalent in the lands of the east, the almond is first to bloom. The cold and wet rainy season has not yet come to an end in the land of Israel when its bright white blossoms suddenly appear towards the end of January or the beginning of February (roughly corresponding to the Hebrew month of Shevat). While there are typically five months or so that elapse between the first appearance of the almond blossoms and the final ripening of the nuts, in the fertile environs of the Tent of Meeting, the process was vastly accelerated: "On the next day, Moshe entered the Tent of the Testimony and behold the staff of Aharon from the tribe of Levi had bloomed, it gave forth blossoms, and made flowers, and then produced young almonds." In other words, the haste here is twofold. On the one hand, the staff of Aharon produces almonds, in and of themselves powerful symbols of suddenness and speed. On the other hand, the staff does so overnight, further reinforcing the theme of alacrity.

Therefore, what had appeared initially as a drawn-out and unnecessary description of the blossoming process is now revealed to be another emphatic note of speed. When the verse indicates that "behold the staff of Aharon from the tribe of Levi had bloomed, it gave forth blossoms, and made flowers, and then produced young almonds," it is not simply tracing the well-documented botanical process for us, but actually highlighting the fact that all of the steps that incrementally transpire from the first appearance of the blossom until the final completion of the fruit were here wondrously accelerated. Taken together, though, Rashi reads in the episode not only a straightforward statement of miraculous speed, but a threatening note of caution as well: those that rise up against the priesthood and deny the ascendancy of Aharon and his descendents risk not only eventual retribution, but swift and severe doom.

THE THEME OF SWIFT RETRIBUTION

It is instructive to note that Rashi's identification of the almond blossoms with the theme of haste can now be understood as informing the larger context as a whole. Considering the rebellion episode in its entirety, we now note that the theme of haste seems to underlie it from beginning to end. Thus, while Korach quickly gathers followers and rallies the people against Moshe and Aharon, Moshe just as quickly responds: "Thus shall you do: Korach and his assembly shall take firepans. Place fire in them and incense upon them and present yourselves before God TOMORROW, and the one whom God shall choose shall be deemed holy…" (16:6-7). When Korach and his men prepare on the morrow and gather a threatening throng, God bids Moshe and Aharon to separate themselves from them: "for I shall destroy them IN AN INSTANT!" (16:21). Although the brothers forestall God's wrath, it soon remanifests itself in the form of the sudden earthquake that consumes Datan and Aviram without a trace, "AS SOON AS HE (MOSHE) FINISHED HIS WORDS…" (16:31). Again, when the congregation of Israel bitterly bemoans the fate of Korach and his people, God's threat is repeated, this time with more sinister consequences: "God spoke to Moshe saying: separate yourselves from tcongregation for I will destroy them IN AN INSTANT!" Quickly, Moshe bids Aharon to take his own firepan and to offer supplicatory incense before God to stave off the destroyer: "take the firepan and place fire and incense upon it, and RUN QUICKLY to the congregation to atone for them…" (17:11). Aharon does as Moshe commands him, for "he RAN to the midst of the congregation…" (17:12). Finally, the matter is conclusively decided by the speedy sign of the staffs as discussed above.

It is as if Korach's attempts to quickly and irreversibly whip up the people's frenzy to depose Moshe and Aharon are an initiative that he undertakes fully aware that time is not on his side. Students of history recognize that rebellions and coups are most successful when they are swift and unexpected. The end of many a provocateur has been spelled by their hesitation at the moment of destiny, thus granting the ruling power the time that it needs to respond and then to regroup, to muster its usually superior (but often more cumbersome) forces and then to decisively react. Here, however, it is God who meets Korach's challenge, by repeatedly insisting upon a quick resolution of the conflict. In this way, the Torah indicates that God will intervene to protect His chosen ones, Moshe and Aharon, and will not suffer the abuse of His selected servants.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE ALMOND BLOSSOM

Significantly, the "shekedim' or almonds of our passage, also occur elsewhere as symbols of haste, as well as of Divine retribution. The prophet Yirmiyahu, who was active during the final decades of the First Temple, was invested into his mission with a startling vision:

God's word came to me saying: "before you were formed in the womb I already knew you, and before you were born I already selected you, for as a prophet to the peoples I have destined you." I said: "Woe, Almighty God, behold I know not how to speak, for I am but a lad!" But God said to me: "do not say that 'I am a lad' for wherever I shall send you, you shall go, and whatever I command you, you shall speak"…God's word came to me saying: "what do you see Yirmiyahu?," and I responded "I see a staff blossoming with almonds." God said to me: "you see well, for I am determined ("shoked") to soon fulfill My word…for from the north shall the evil soon break forth upon all of the inhabitants of the land!" (Yirmiyahu 1:4-14).

In the prophet's revelation, God's resolve to soon bring an end to the Kingdom of Judea at the hands of the Babylonians ("the north") is signified by the appearance of the blossoming almond staff. For Rashi at least, there is no doubt that this vision was inspired by the episode of our Parasha, in which the blooming almonds indicated that God meant business. While in their natural surroundings, almond trees are greeted as welcome harbingers of the springtime, here they have metamorphosed into more ominous heralds.

THE VERB FORM

Additionally, the passage from Yirmiyahu demonstrates another dimension of the matter. We note how the almond staff ("ShaKeD") of the vision, a typical NOUN by grammatical standards, becomes a VERB in God's response: "I am determined ("ShoKeD")…." In fact, the verb form that was inspired by the almond blossom carries elsewhere as well the meaning of fortitude, resolve, and tenacity, and just as often in a positive light:

Therefore, a lion from the forest has struck them down, a wolf of the valley has robbed them, a leopard watches over ("shoked") their cities to tear any who venture forth, for their iniquities are great and their backslidings massive (Yirmiyahu 5:6).

Just as I watched over them ("shakadeti") to uproot and to knock down, to destroy, to demolish and to afflict, so too I will now watch over them ("eshkod") to build and to plant, says God (Yirmiyahu 31:27).

A song of ascents by Shelomo: if God will not build a House, then its builders have labored in vain, if God will not watch over the city, then its guards stay alert ("shakad") in vain…(Tehillim 127:1).

Happy is the man who hearkens to Me, to daily stand with resolve ("lishkod") at My gates, to wait at the posts of My doors (Mishlei 8:34).

THE READING OF CHIZKUNI

In light of the above, there is another way. As Chizkuni (13th century, France) perceptively explains, the blossoming almond staff signified that "from him (Aharon) young priests ("pirchei kehuna") would emerge, from him would descend priests who would wear the crown of the holy headband ("tzitz"), from him would issue priests who would perform their service with resolve (shokdim)…" (commentary to 17:23). In contrast to Rashi, therefore, who saw in the symbol of the almond staff intimations of impending destruction for all who would oppose the priesthood, the Chizkuni succeeds in interpreting the matter in accordance with its more organic optimism. The various stages of blooming that the Torah describes – "perach" (flowering), "tzitz" (blooming), and "shekedim" (almond fruit) – are connected with their priestly analogs. Thus in Rabbinic literature, the young apprentice priests are called "pirchei kehuna," the holy headband of the High Priest is referred to by the Torah as the "tzitz" (see Shemot 28:36), and the loving resolve that is often indicated by the verb "ShaKeD" is associated with their loyal and dedicated service in the Mishkan. In other words, Chizkuni detects in the entire episode not a warning to the opponents of the priesthood but rather a positive charge to its members to perform their service with determination and love.

Perhaps, both views can be harmonized. There is, of course, a duality associated with the respect due to Aharon and his descendents, and by extension to all those who labor in God's service. On the one hand, as God's ministers, they are to be respected and appreciated. Those that would oppose them must in turn be opposed. But on the other hand, that respect is not an entitlement that must be extended even in situations when it is so obviously undeserved. Those who outwardly align themselves with all that is holy and upright, demanding the respect due to their august position but themselves failing to internalize and to uphold its Divinely inspired dignity, are not God's dedicated ministers but rather only hollow and empty pretenders. Moshe and Aharon merit God's swift and determined support because they themselves embody that very same resolve to serve God and Israel with utter dedication. And those are the qualities that no Korach can ever challenge.

B) INDEPTH PARSHAT SHEVUAH

Datan and Aviram

By Rav Elchanan Samet

A. "I AM FOR PEACE, BUT WHEN I SPEAK - THEY ARE FOR WAR"

(12) "And Moshe sent [messengers] to call for Datan and Aviram, sons of Eliav…"

Why does Moshe send messengers to call for them? Rashi explains (and similarly Ramban):

"From here we learn that one should not prolong a dispute; Moshe pursued them in order to try and appease them with words of peace."

But this was not how Datan and Aviram perceived Moshe's attempts. Rashbam interprets their reaction to Moshe's invitation as follows:

"'And they said, We shall not come up' - to you, for judgment. The term 'coming up' (aliya) is customarily used to denote going before judges."

They believe that Moshe has sent for them in order to stand before him in judgment as rebels. Indeed, Rashbam's interpretation of their words, "We shall not come up" is borne out by the continuation of their speech in verse 13: "…for will you then lord over us?" In Moshe's invitation, they perceive his "lording" over them, since they understand this as a summons to court, where he intends to judge them.

Rashbam is not disagreeing with Rashi here, for Rashi is explaining Moshe's motivation for calling upon them, while Rashbam is explaining the way in which Datan and Aviram perceived this invitation. They judge Moshe by their own standards, and therefore it never enters their minds that Moshe wishes to appease them.

Now we must ask: what was Moshe's real intention in inviting them? Was it meant to appease them with words of peace, or was it in order to judge them as rebels (which would have been an entirely legitimate course of action, considering the circumstances)? This is a strange debate over Moshe's intentions: Rashi and Ramban vs. Datan and Aviram.

How do Rashi and Ramban arrive at their interpretation? They deduce it from what is written in the Torah, not from their own imagination. Moshe's intention in sending for Datan and Aviram is discernible both in what the Torah describes prior to that mission and from what it tells us thereafter. The mission is preceded by Moshe's attempt at negotiating with Korach and his cohorts. From what he says in verses 9-10, we recognize his desire to establish talks with them and to cause them to back down from their position, using peaceful words: "He urged Korach to retract his claims, and spoke to him with soft words" (Tanchuma 6). But Moshe received no response: "With all these words Moshe [tried to] appease Korach, but nowhere do we find any response. Since Korach was clever in his wickedness, he said… It is better that I have nothing to do with him" (Tanchuma, ibid.). Having had no success in his attempt to communicate with this group, Moshe sends for Datan and Aviram in order to try and talk with them: "When Moshe saw that he was getting nowhere [with Korach], he left him alone, 'and Moshe sent to call for Datan and Aviram'" (ibid.).

Ramban deduces Moshe's intention from the connection between his two attempts:

"Moshe SPOKE TO KORACH and to all his company, and ... spoke to Korach first, for he was the leader among them. Similarly, the company of Datan and Aviram were rebelling against God, and therefore HE NOW HURRIED (in verse 12, by sending emissaries to call them) TO SPEAK TO THEM TOO."

But Datan and Aviram, as we have explained, mistook Moshe's good intentions, for they judged him by their own standards. They therefore accused Moshe - who was inviting them for the purposes of peace and appeasement - of lording over them. Now we can understand Moshe's reaction to this accusation: (15) "And Moshe became very angry." Why was he so angry? Midrash Tanchuma (6) explains (quoted here in abbreviated form):

"They, too, remained steadfastly wicked and did not deign to respond to him; they said, 'We shall not come up.' 'And Moshe became very angry' - he was greatly troubled. To what may this be compared? To a person who is talking with his friend and they are arguing: if his friend answers him, he has some satisfaction; if he does not answer him, he is greatly troubled."

It was this (second) refusal to communicate with him that so troubled Moshe. But from what Moshe says thereafter we find that there was also another reason for his anger:

"And he said to God: Do not pay attention to their offering! I have not taken even a single donkey from them, nor have I caused harm to any of them!"

What angers Moshe is the accusation that he is lording over them - an accusation that is exactly the opposite of what he is trying to do. Moshe never lorded over the nation, and to attribute such intentions to Moshe NOW, in this midst of his attempts to appease those rebelling against him, is an inexcusable perversion of his character and his actions. This is what so angers him.

Thus, the interpretation of Rashi and Ramban arises from the verses and the context. The dispute concerning Moshe's true intentions in calling upon Datan and Aviram is not between Rashi and Ramban, on the one hand, and Datan and Aviram, on the other. Rather, it is between Moshe himself - who explains his intention both in his words to Korach and in his complaint to God - and Datan and Aviram, who interpret his invitation as the opposite of his real intention. "I am for peace, but when I speak, they are for war" (Tehillim 120:7).

B. "IS IT NOT ENOUGH THAT YOU HAVE BROUGHT US UP FROM A LAND FLOWING WITH MILK AND HONEY…"

With these words Datan and Aviram complain that Moshe led them out of Egypt - "the good land" - to the wilderness, where they have been sentenced to die. In her essay "Datan and Aviram," Nechama Leibowitz z"l notes the surprising turn in these words:

"Their chutzpa reaches a climax in their use of the title of honor, reserved for the promised land - 'a land flowing with milk and honey.' When was this description first used in relation to the land of Canaan? It was at a most auspicious moment: these are God's words to Moshe in His first revelation at the burning bush, when He first introduces the imminent redemption… (3:8): 'And I shall go down to save them from the hand of Egypt, and to bring them up from that land to a good and spacious land, to A LAND FLOWING WITH MILK AND HONEY….' This description of the destined land… is used here by Datan and Aviram for a land of abomination, the house of slavery, the iron furnace - Egypt. … Bnei Yisrael already praised Egypt as a 'fleshpot' immediately after leaving there, and longed for the place where they ate 'fish freely' even before that. But now we have something new, something that we have not yet seen. We are presented here with a total reversal, a reversal of the order of values, with everything upside down. What was slavery is now labeled as freedom; the land of impurity is awarded the title reserved exclusively for the Holy Land."

The expression, "flowing with milk and honey," appears twenty times in the Torah: in nineteen of them it describes Eretz Yisrael, and only in one verse - the one we are discussing - does this expression describe Egypt. Why is this praise reserved specifically for Canaan? It would appear to have no connection to the land's sanctity, nor even to its being the land of freedom, but rather expresses the land's natural : it is a land whose produce is plentiful, tasty and freely available. But Egypt, too, has natural resources. Why, then, should Egypt not likewise be described by its admirers - Datan and Aviram - as a land offering bountiful, delicious food?

In Devarim 11:8-12 the Torah sings the praise of the promised land (semy shiur on Parashat Ekev in 5760). Seven times in this section we find the leading word "land," but the fourth time that the word appears - the central appearance - it is used in relation to Egypt:

(Devarim 11:10) "The land to which you are coming to inherit it, IT IS NOT LIKE THE LAND OF EGYPT, from which you came out, where you would sow your seeds and water it with your foot, like a vegetable garden."

The praise of Eretz Yisrael is contrasted in this section to the false goodness of Egypt. It is for this reason that the central appearance of the word "land" refers to Egypt - "NOT like the land of Egypt," while the praise of Eretz Yisrael is arranged around this verse in three pairs of appearances of the word "land." Each of these three pairs is connected by some linguistic or thematic connection.

The second pair presents a geographical-climatic and economic difference between the two lands:

(9) "A LAND flowing with milk and honey… (10) it is NOT LIKE THE LAND of Egypt… where you would sow your seeds and water it with your foot like a vegetable garden… (11) A LAND of mountains and valleys; you will drink water from the rain of the heavens."

What is the "land of milk and honey"? The "honey" here is honey from bee-hives, which is like milk in that it is produced by an animal. Honey is the result of blossoming fields, while milk is the result of rich pastures. This description of the land therefore indicates that its natural goodness is of such a standard that even in the absence of organized agricultural activity, it produces bountiful honey and milk for its inhabitants.

Eretz Yisrael is a land "flowing with milk and honey" precisely because it is a "land of mountains and valleys" that are nourished from THE RAIN OF THE HEAVENS, as explained in the parallel verse of this pair. The arid Egypt, nourished only by the water of the Nile, may be a land of intensive and highly developed agriculture - "and you water it with your foot, like a vegetable garden" - but it is not naturally a land "flowing with milk and honey."

Thus, Datan and Aviram spoke falsely in awarding to Egypt the title reserved for Eretz Yisrael - A TITLE MEANT TO DISTINGUISH IT FROM EGYPT AND TO HIGHLIGHT THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THEM. By doing so, they apparently intended to belittle and heap scorn on the promised land.

Nechama Leibowitz is therefore correct in connecting the praise of Eretz Yisrael as a "land flowing with milk and honey" to the fact that it is the land of freedom and the holy land - "a land that God your God cares for; the eyes of God your God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year until the end of the year" (Devarim 11:12).