B parashat hashavua b parasha : korach

4 – RAV RISKIN

Rabbi Shlomo Riskin: http://www.ohrtorah.org.il/index.htm#top

Efrat, Israel - "What's in a name?", wryly asked the great English playwright William Shakespeare, denying any connection between the appellation and the essence "one's name defines one's persona "(k'shmo ken hu- literally as is his/her name, so is he/she), declared the Talmudic Sages, insisting that externals - and most certainly the term to which one is expected to answer and by which one is identified to the outside world - must influence one's internal state of being. The Biblical names certainly contained profound symbolic significance, with Moshe meaning he takes out, or he liberates and Yehoshua - one scout in the minority of two who was in favor of conquering Israel - meaning G-d will save. From this perspective, it is productive to query the meaning of the name Korach, an uncommon name which only appears in the Bible in the context of this week's Torah reading.

Moreover, a great deal seems to be made of the name Korach both in the more esoteric Kabbalistic - hassidic interpretations as well as in the more accessible midrashic commentaries. Rabbi Isaac Luria (known as the Holy Lion, who taught a path-breaking commentary to the sacred Zohar in 16th century Safed) cited the verse from the (Psalms 92:13), "The righteous blossom as the palm tree"(Zadik Katamar Yifrah), noting that the last letter of these three words spell the name KRH (Korach) and insisting that the Biblical Tamar (lit. palm tree) is the antithesis - and repair (tikkun) - of Korach. What is the significance of such last-letter acronym word-play on the name Korach? No less strange is the midrashic name-play in its interpretation of an ambiguous Biblical phrase "lo titgodedu v'lvo tasimu korhah" (Deuteronomy 14:1), taking the words to mean either "you shall not scratch (your skin) and you shall not make yourself bald." (In excessive mourning over the dead), or alternatively "you shall not create divisiveness or make an argument (which is not for the sake of heaven but rather for egoistic motivations) as did Korach." What does the name Korach actually mean and what does it symbolize?

The Hebrew word Karah means bald - there is a charming midrash about the frustrations of a man who had two wives, one older and one younger, with the older removing the black hairs from his head and the younger removing the white hairs, so that he was left completely bald (Kareah) from this one and from that one - as well as ice (in modern Hebrew, a Karhon is an ice pop. Both words have one idea in common: neither provides fertile soil for growth and development; hair does not grow on a bald head, and grass or flowers do not emanate from ground covered with ice (witness the devastation of plant life during the Ice-Age).

Rabbi Isaac Luria joined Korach to Tamar because the Biblical heroine had been twice married without her womb bearing fruit; in order for her to merit progeny in Israel and to develop Jewish destiny, she had to take matters in her own hands and become impregnated (fertilized, seeded) by Judah. As in every case of yibum, individuals must sacrifice themselves to a certain degree in order to be linked to Jewish eternity. The midrash understands that an argument which is based on egoistic motivations will not allow for compromise and will never bear the fruit of resolution; such a dispute can only lead to devastation and destruction (karhah).

An analysis of Korach's argument will quickly demonstrate the symbolic significance of his name. At first glance he seems to be a populist democrat, arguing in favor of the exalted qualities of every single Israelite who stood at Sinai: "The entire congregation are all holy and G-d is in their midst; why need you (Moses and Aaron) lift yourselves up above the community of G-d?" (Numbers 16:3). But when we remember that the Almighty never describes the Israelites as a holy nation as they are, by right and by privilege without striving and even suffering to achieve holiness, we begin to realize that Korach is more demagogue than democrat, more flatterer than educator. "You shall become holy," commands and demands our Torah (Leviticus 19:2); Moses and Aaron worked for and achieved their holiness not by right but by righteousness! Holiness is the result of a process, a growth, a development; it is not a gift bestowed automatically.

Indeed, the antithesis of the hairless bald head and the grass-less icy-ground is the palm tree, the Tamar, which - with proper nurture - will produce dates; so, teaches the Psalmist, will the righteous individual develop, just as the palm tree flourishes as a result of painstaking care and development - Korach is impatient; he wishes to usurp Aaron's (and perhaps Moses') place - without the concomitant effort which must be expended before one can be worthy of leadership. He is punished by being swallowed up by the earth - perhaps in order to teach him that before a seed develops into a fruit-bearing tree, it must first rot beneath the ground as a necessary part of the process of growth and fructification and our portion vindicates Aaron as the true leader chosen by the Divine; the staff of Aaron, the very antithesis of arid Korach, "brings forth flowers, develops blossoms, and bears almonds" (Numbers 17:23). True leadership can only emerge after a long and arduous process of selfless and sustained nurture and hard work.

HhHhHhHhHhHhHhHhHhHhH

5- UNITED SYNAGOGUE

Copyright 1999 United Synagogue Publications Ltd.

Sidra Lite

* Korach stages a rebellion against Moses and Aaron and is supported by

Datan, Aviram, On and 250 men of renown

* Moses intercedes and the rebellious mob are swallowed up by the earth

* Moses and Aaron are vindicated and their leadership is strengthened

* Details are given of the duties and emoluments of the Priests and the Levites

SIDRA INSIGHTS

By Rabbi Dr Jeffrey M Cohen, Stanmore & Canons Park Synagogue

We read this morning the episode describing the rebellion of Korach against the leadership of Moses. In spite of all the miracles that had been performed by G-d through Moses, Korach disseminated the philosophy that Moses and Aaron were not essential to the Divine plan.

We can well imagine what he told the masses, "Who appointed Moses as leader over us? Not us. Not G-d. Remember how he just appeared, out of the blue, in Egypt, to assume leadership of the nation, and how he appointed his own brother to be priest. What nepotism! The truth is that anyone can assume leadership of Israel because we are, as a nation, a Kingdom of Priests - a description of us used by God Himself! So, vote for me, and I'll show you real leadership, I'll solve all your problems and take you speedily into the Promised Land."

The Midrash, latching upon the connection between this week's sidra and the portion dealing with tzitzit at the end of last week's sidra, elucidates Korach's position by positing a halachic debate between Korach and Moses. Basing himself on the verse Venatnu al tzitzit hakanaf p'til, t'chelet, "They shall place on the corner fringes of their robes a thread of blue," Korach asks Moses whether a tallit made up entirely of blue wool still requires a thread of blue to be attached to its corners. When Moses answered that it does, Korach mocked his logic. Again, Korach posed the question about the mezuzah, which contains a couple of Biblical portions from the Shema inside it. "What," asked Korach," if you have a house that is chock-a-block full of holy books and Bibles which contain the Shema over and over again. Does that house still require a mezuzah? Again, Korach laughed in derision when Moses replied in the affirmative.

This Midrash is conveying here the precise psychological state of Korach's mind. For him, the house full of holy books or the garment entirely of ritualistic blue wool could not possibly require an additional holy symbol. Hence a community like Israel, invested with holiness by proximity with G-d himself, could not possibly need a pair of holy leaders to run its affairs.

But Korach was wrong. A house full of books still requires a mezuzah. The library represents only potential knowledge. It has the potential to instil learning and creativity, but will only do so if the books are taken out, read and used as a conduit for intellectual and spiritual growth. The mezuzah being driven into the doorpost symbolises the affixing of the potential knowledge, contained in the holy book, into the minds and emotions of the readers and the transmutation of potential into actual knowledge. Similarly, the robe made entirely of blue wool remains an ordinary robe until a distinctive symbolic thread of tzitzit is attached to transform it into a religious garment, a veritable priestly vestment.

And this was the essence of Moses' rebuttal of Korach, namely that potentiality, whether in the sphere of holiness or leadership, still requires to be nurtured under expert supervision. Without that, it will atrophy and die. And it was Moses and Aaron who had been selected for just such a task, while Korach had been overlooked. Indeed, the very names of the respective protagonists in this clash reflects their opposing approach. Moshe means "one who draws out [the potential of his people];" Aharon means "enlightener," from the word uhr or ohr. Moses and Aaron were committed, from birth, towards augmenting the spirituality of the nation.

Korach, on the other hand, is from the noun keire'ach, meaning "baldness." He was committed to frustrating the growth and development of the nation.

Korach's notion, that holiness is intrinsic, and does not require to be worked at, sacrificed for, and nurtured by expert guides, is quite fallacious. It certainly does not thrive on concession, compromise or neglect.

Judaism in Practice

Avoiding Arguments

by Rabbi David Lister, Muswell Hill Synagogue

In this week's Parsha, we read about the abortive Korach putsch. Korach and his friends brought incense to the Mishkan on firepans, in the hope of wresting the priesthood from Aaron. The scheme had an ignominious ending, with the protagonists being swallowed up in the ground or burnt in front of the Mishkan.

Shortly thereafter, the Almighty commanded that a commemorative ornament be made for the Mishkan, to serve as a reminder of a particular concept. Hashem ordered that Korach's and his friends' firepans be made into a cover for the altar "so that nobody will be like Korach and his followers." (Bemidbar 17:5).

The Sefer Mitzvot G'dolot and Rabbenu Yonah both list this as a Torah prohibition against inflaming an argument. It is forbidden to revive an argument that is about to come to an end, or to create one when there is no just cause.

This law can be obeyed or transgressed without uttering a word. If someone embroiled in an argument comes to one for support or merely to let off steam, the person listening must be careful to avoid even a facial expression that would indicate approval or encouragement of the fight continuing.

Consequently, the Chafetz Chaim recommends a show of displeasure or disinterest on hearing about this kind of situation, since this might dissuade one's interlocutor from continuing or encouraging the fight.

THE BIBLE SAID IT FIRST

By Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis

SHIBBOLETH

Shibboleth is a term used for a password or test of a party, faction or ethnic group. It can also mean slogan or catchphrase. The Hebrew word means, "an ear of corn" or a "stream in flood". So how did it take on its English meaning?

The origin of this term is fascinating. It goes back to the days of the Judges when Yiftach (Jephtha) waged a war against the Ammonites. Upon his victorious return, Yiftach did not only have to contend with his vow and its consequences for his daughter's life; he also faced a hostile tribe of Ephraim who felt they had been snubbed through not being invited to join Yiftach's army in defence of our people.

In a tragic civil war that ensued, the Gileadites were poised against the Ephraimites, who launched an incursion across the River Jordan to attack their brethren. The Gileadites triumphed and then sought to trap the Ephraimites, who wished to return back home across the river. But, how were they to know who was a genuine member of the tribe of Ephraim? It was well known that the Ephraimites could not pronounce "sh". Instead they said "s". The Book of Judges describes what happened next:

"And it was so, that when an Ephraimite who had escaped said, 'Let me go over' that the men of Gilead said to him, 'Are you an Ephraimite?' If he said, 'No', they then said to him, 'Say the word Shibboleth'. If he said 'Sibboleth', for he could not frame to pronounce it right, they took him and slew him at the passages of Jordan. There fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty-two thousand men."

This Biblical passage has left its mark on everyday English. It should remind us as well how, when facing external foes, we have sometimes been engaged in tragic internal strife. We are always at our strongest when we stand in unity.

Sites & Sources

A series linking aspects of the weekly readings with the Land and State of Israel, by Simon Goulden, United Synagogue Agency for Jewish Education

This week's Haftarah mentions the senior military leader, Sisera, who led "the host of Hazor".

Tel Hazor, which you can find on route 90, north of Lake Kinneret, sprawls over 180 acres (73 hectares), was a major commercial centre as early as the third millennium BCE. Joshua referred to it as "the head of all the nations" of the north that fought against the Israelites and made a point of burning the city to the ground. Nevertheless, it rose again and in time became one of the chief cities of the ancient kings of Israel.

The excavations, by world famous Professor Yigal Yadin, have revealed the remains of walls and gates from the days of the Canaanites, Solomon and the kings of Israel, as well as temples and other private and public buildings and a massive water system. Many of the artefacts found there can be seen at a museum in the nearby kibbutz Ayelet Hashachar.

RIDDLE OF THE WEEK

Last week's question:

set by Vivian Hurwitz of Leeds.

How can this be possible? There are two full blood brothers, children of the same father and mother. One is a Levi and the other is a Yisrael.

Answer: A Levi "married" a Non Jewish woman who bore him a son. The woman and her son subsequently converted to Judaism. The son, who is a convert, became a Yisrael. Following the conversion and Chuppa marriage, the woman, now Jewish, bore him another son, who was born Jewish and adopted his father's status as a Levi.

HhHhHhHhHhHhHhHhHhHhH

6 -PROJECT GENESIS

The Jewish Learning Network Email: [e-mail] URL: http://www.torah.org/

A). PG LIFELINE:

"They gathered together against Moses and Aaron, and they said to them, 'you have taken too much for yourselves, for the entire nation is comprised of holy individuals, and G-d dwells among them - why, then, have you lifted yourselves above the Congregation of G-d?'" [16:3]

This is what Korach and his group said to Moshe and Aaron. And you know what? For much of what he said, Korach was right: the Jewish people are indeed a holy nation, designated to serve G-d. All of us have a connection to G-d as human beings, and the Jewish people have a special responsibility and special connection as His Nation, the recipients of His Torah. As Korach put it in the original holy tongue, all of the nation are "Kedoshim," which means holy and also distinct, designated. We have a purpose to fulfill.

This, however, does not mean that we have no need for guidance. To say that because everyone is holy, everyone can decide for themselves what is correct, makes no sense. We need guidance, and teaching.

The best way to learn to use or program a computer is to simply try various things, with a manual close at hand. If something doesn't work, you just try something else. This approach works well because computers provide instant feedback -- if something doesn't work, you know very quickly. In addition, assuming you are working on a development platform, there are no major consequences if something fails. Do-it-yourself learning is a fine approach -- yet even so, one always benefits when we can ask advice of others with greater expertise.

Now imagine trying to learn to practice medicine the same way. If someone came in with a serious ailment, we would simply try one medicine after the other until one appeared to work. How many patients would die before we got it right? The feedback is not fast enough, and the consequences of wrong decisions are too grave, to attempt such an approach. In medicine, careful training and expert guidance are that much more important. One who approached this field with the arrogance of a hacker would be a murderer!

In spiritual matters, we are not sufficiently in touch with the higher realms to recognize immediate feedback from our actions. According to Jewish thought, there are certainly immediate ramifications. When we do mitzvos, we create angels. But, and this is very important, we don't see them. We don't know.

Are we doing G-d's will, or not? How do we know? The answer, of course, is through our teachers. The Torah guides us, but the Torah's wisdom is locked in a chain of tradition. If everyone decides how he or she will interact with G-d, then the result is no dialogue, but a monologue. Such a person ends up worshipping himself.

The Chapters of the Fathers, Pirkei Avos, teach us [1:6]: "Yehoshua ben Prachya says: make a teacher for yourself." This even precedes acquiring a friend or partner in learning and growth. Rabbeinu Yonah explains in his commentary that you should even acquire a teacher if you know as much as he. _Make_ someone your teacher nonetheless, he says, for a person is more likely to remember that which he has been taught, and may find that the other party has better understood a topic.

Moshe and Aharon did not lift themselves up; rather, G-d placed them in that position. The nation needed teachers, and we need teachers and guidance today, in order to rise to our full potential.

B). RAV FRAND:

The Measure of A Person Is How He Acts When He Is RighT

When Moshe Rabbeinu wanted to demonstrate that he was correct and that Korach was wrong, he made the following challenge: "If these men die a natural death, that means G-d did not send me. But if G-d will make a new creation such that the earth opens its mouth and swallows them alive, then this will prove that G-d did send me." [Bamidbar 16:29]

Let us analyze Moshe's statement. 250 people challenged Moshe. They questioned his leadership. Moshe maintained that he was the G-d chosen leader and that these challengers were phonies. Let us suppose that the next day, all 250 challengers had not woken up from their sleep. Wouldn't such an occurrence, in and of itself, be a strong proof as to who was right and who was wrong? Would we not have seen their death as Divine Retribution?

Moshe was not satisfied with that level of proof. He explicitly said that if they die in their sleep or of other natural causes, then that indicates that "G-d did not send me." Why did Moshe specifically need the creation of a miracle and an unnatural death to prove his legitimacy?

The Belzer Rebbe, zt"l, explained: Had they all died in their sleep or by some natural means of death, it would still have been possible to conjecture that Korach was right. Perhaps we would have said that they did not receive the punishment because they were wrong but rather because they acted improperly in shaming a Talmid Chachomim (Torah scholar). [One who shames another publicly is compared to a murderer (Talmud B.Metz. 58b); all the more so when the victim is a Torah scholar.]

Conceivably, Korach and his followers could have been 100 percent correct that Moshe was a power hungry nepotist who was appointing 'his people' and taking everything for himself. But even so, they would have been deserving of death for the disrespectful way that they presented their argument. They humiliated the greatest man of the generation and the leader of Israel.

A person can be 100 percent right and still be deserving of death for other reasons, such as shaming a scholar. Therefore, Moshe insisted upon ironclad proof that he was right -- a miracle to cause their death. Natural deaths would not have proven Moshe's legitimacy since they already deserved death -- right or wrong -- because of the way they presented their claim.

The mussar [ethical teaching] that we must learn from this insight is that even if one is right, he must know how to fight! A person must present arguments with tact and sensitivity, regardless of the cogency of those arguments.

A person can have a complaint about a friend, a spouse, sometimes even a Rabbi, but that does not give him the right to fight or argue or act improperly.

Suppose a Rabbi made a mistake. Perhaps he did not treat someone properly. Does that permit a congregant to chastise his Rabbi in the middle of shul? Heaven forbid! That would be shaming a Torah scholar. The congregant's complaint may be 100 percent valid, but that does not justify improper behavior on his part against his Rabbi.

Sometimes a person may have an argument with his wife. He might be 100 percent right. But nevertheless he must confront her in a proper manner. If he does not, he can be right on the merits, but all can be lost if his argument is not presented in the proper manner.

Sometimes we may be right regarding an issue with our children. But there is a way to talk to a child and a way not to talk to a child. Sometimes a child may owe his parent an apology. But the parent's reaction can be so bad that it makes the parent's sin worse than the child's sin.

The Belzer Rebbe says that the true measure of a person is to see how he acts when he is RIGHT -- not when he is wrong. If when he thinks he is right, he feels that he has license to act like an animal -- to yell what he wants and to act however he wants to act -- then he is in fact quite wrong! Even if Korach had been right in his original argument, he was already a 'dead man' because of the way he acted towards his teacher.

C). PARSHA PARABLES (Rabbi M Kamenetzky)

Stick Figures

The chronology of complaining and retribution in this week’s portion is not only disheartening, it seems almost endless. First, there is the terrible Korach rebellion where this prince of Israel challenges the authority of his cousins, Moshe and Ahron. A group of the 250 rabble-rousers are consumed by fire after offering the spiritually volatile k’tores sacrifice. Korach and his close cohorts are swallowed alive as the earth opened its mouth. Then the remaining group complained, and again there was a plague. Ahron had to actually tender the feared k’tores offering and walk through the camp in order to quell the Heavenly epidemic. And again the Jews complained. Finally, to establish the Divinity of Mosaic leadership and Ahron’s Priestly role, Hashem commanded Moshe to perform the ultimate sign.

"Speak to the Children of Israel and take from them one staff for each father's house, from all their leaders according to their fathers' house, twelve staffs; each man's name shall you inscribe on his staff: And the name of Aaron shall you inscribe on the staff of Levi, for there shall be one staff for the head of their fathers' house: It shall be that the man whom I shall choose -- his staff will blossom; thus, I shall cause to subside from upon Me the complaints of the Children of Israel, which they complain against you. Moshe spoke to the Children of Israel, and all their leaders gave him a staff for each leader, a staff for each leader, according to their fathers' house, twelve staffs; and Aaron's staff was among their staffs. Moshe laid their staffs before Hashem in the Tent of the Testimony. On the next day, Moshe came to the Tent of the Testimony and behold! The staff of Aaron of the house of Levi had blossomed; it brought forth a blossom, sprouted a bud and almonds ripened. Moshe brought out all the staffs from before Hashem to all the Children of Israel; they saw and they took, each man his staff.” (Numbers 17:16-24)

A question I discussed last year seems glaring. Of what importance is it that the other princes took their sticks back. Also, why did the other princes take their sticks back. Of what value to them were those sticks, each being the same dry piece of wood?

Last week my wife and I shared the goodness of Hashem’s blessings. My wife gave birth to a baby boy. As what has become almost a ritual with all my previous children, I visited my wife in the hospital together with all the newborn’s siblings, (those who are home and not studying away in Yeshiva). After leaving my wife’s room and our newborn son, my children stopped to peer through the large glass window of the infant nursery. All the newborns were lined up in their plastic bassinets. My older girls scanned the room “How adorable!” they whispered, balancing the excitement of the miraculous spectacle with proper hospital decorum.

My older daughters’ murmuring were muffled by the “I wanna see, I wanna see” coming a few feet below from my three-year old who was too small to reach the window of the nursery. I picked him up and he looked curiously from wall to wall at the twenty-five newborns who were each in their separate compartments.” “Hey, it’s all the same thing!” he declared. Perhaps, in defeat, in realizing that you are not endowed with greater power, one must still realize that he still has his own identity. Even if he looks outwardly exactly like all his cohorts, there is a unique character that makes him special. And those special attributes must be seized as well.

True, Ahron’s stick bloomed, while the others remained stagnant. But that is no reason to ignore them. And though they all may appear as the “same thing”, their owners knew that each one had a quality, a nuance, a growth pattern or a certain form that was unique to them. They may not have been blooming sticks, they may not have sprouted almonds or yielded fruit, but to their owners they were unique! And each prince came back to reclaim not only what was his, but what was his to cherish as well.

HhHhHhHhHhHhHhHhHhHhH