KORACH NUMBERS XVI – XVIII

The rebellion of the princes of our people against Moshe and Aharon is the focus of our weekly reading. Revolutions are usually spearheaded by those who fail to achieve leadership notwithstanding that they consider themselves fit and worthy of it. The one who leads this uprising is Korach, a cousin of Moshe, who also belongs to the tribe of Levi, to whom the labors of the cult had been entrusted. Korach manifeststhat too much power has been concentrated in the hands of two brothers.

The Chachamim believe that Korach wasa man of great fortune who now craves the recognition of society and seeks the political power of a leader. Korach gathers a group of about two hundred and fifty people, many of whom belong to the tribe of the firstborn Reuven, who defy the leadership of Moshe and Aharon. According to Ibn Ezra, we are facing a rebellion that took place at the time (after the episode of the Egel hazahav, the “Golden Calf”) when the firstborn were replaced for religious service by the tribe of Levi. To eliminate the thesis that this was a personal decision by Moshe, the Divine acceptance of sacrifices was used as a test. Korach andhis people prepare sacrifices, just as they used to do by being the firstborn.

According to the Midrash, Korach questions Moshe about a Talit shekulo techelet, which is a Talit made entirely of the blue thread requiredby the Torah only for the corners of a garment, according to the final chapter of the previous reading concerning Tsitsit. Korach’s question is, does this Talit that it is entirely blue, require an additional Techelet yarn?  Moshe’s answer is yes. Korach reacts ironically, by giving an argument from which it follows that no additional blue thread is necessary. Korach argues: if a single thread serves to comply with the law, it stands to reason that a Talit made exclusively with that blue thread, complies with the spirit of that same law.

Following this line of reasoning, Korach asks if a house containing many copies of the Torah   requires a Mezuzah on the door lintel. (The Mezuzah is a parchment that contains two specific paragraphs from the Torah).  Moshe’s answer to the need for a Mezuzah is also affirmative. Korach’s apparent intention istodemonstrate that Moshe’s authority isself-imposed and that the Laws he enacts are not of Divine origin because they lack all logic.

A different Midrash introduces us to Korach as a defender of the widow and the orphan. Korach raises the following case: when a widow and her two daughters set out to plow their only batch of land, Moshe warns them: “it should not be plowed with an ox and an ass together”. At the time of planting they are told that “two types of seeds cannot be sown”. At the time of harvest, they are reminded that “you cannot cut the fruits from the corners of the field, nor can you collect the forgotten”. When it came time to store the grains they were required to “set aside Terumah for the Kohen and tithe for the Levi.” 

Desperate, due to all the above demands, the widow sold the field and bought two sheep to dress with its wool. When the sheep gave birth, Aharon appearedrequesting the firstborn of the animals. At the time of shearing, Aharon demanded the first wools. The widow couldn’t take it anymore and decided to sacrifice the sheep. Aharon again appeared, demanding that the shoulders, jaws and stomach of the animal belonged to him. In such a case, the widow replied, let it all go to the sanctuary. Since a word-promise with reference to Hekdesh, items that belong to the sanctuary, amounts to a contractual action in other cases, Aharon took the whole animal, leaving the widow heartbroken.  

In our text of the Torah not all of the above details appear and, therefore, seem to be the fruit of the imagination of our Chachamim, according to Korach. What is the teaching of this Midrash? Our sages see in the Korach rebellion the prototype of Machloket she´enah leshem shamayim, a dispute that does not come from a genuine difference of opinion.

For our Chachamim, Korach is motivated by very personal reasons and only uses dialectics, takes advantage of the extreme case of a widow and her orphans, to discredit Moshe in order to provoke his dismissal. This would create a void that would give Korach the chance to come to power. It is the style of demagogues who pretend to defend the rights of the less fortunate for the sake of justice, but what they seek is the benefit of their own interest, their individual harvest. When they come to power, they forget their promises and only deliver abuse and outrage.

Assuming, like the Midrash, that the reasons that propelled Korach intoconfrontation were not altruistic, can the behavior of Moshe and Aharon be justified in the case of the widow in particular? Of course, we are talking about an exaggerated and therefore unrepresentative case. However, at least one important lesson can be inferred. In various chapters the Torah demands we develop special sensitivityfor the Ani, the poor, and for the Ger, the foreigner, who resides in our midst.

The same law of Pe´a, which requires the widow to refrain from collecting the harvest from the corner of the field, aims to allow the poor to benefit from the product of the field. The moral seems to be that the poor who require help from society cannot desist from participating in the Mitsvah from helping other poor people. There’s always someone poorer than one. The members of the tribe of Levi whowere the beneficiaries of Maaser, tithing, had to set aside a Terumah, a contribution to the Kohen.

There is a possibility, although remote, that in a house where there are numerous copies of the Torah, the Divine presence nevertheless not be felt. For example, there are those who study motivated by intellectual curiosity, which is a worthy endeavor by itself. There are those who are interested in the historical past of people and those who want to discover the origin of the social models by which we are governed. 

In the Jewish tradition there are different opinions about the relative importance of study and action. The decision in this case was in favor of study because it leads to action. (There is a very original interpretation of Netsiv about the affirmation of our ancestors of Naaseh venishma, which was their willingness to comply with the Torah even before they knew its contents. Netsiv says that in order to comply with the precepts of the Torah, some prior knowledge becomes indispensable. Naaseh venishma implies then that even after learning what is essential to comply with the Mitsvot, our ancestors affirmed their willingness to continue studying, because study itself is also a value, it is a Mitsvah).

The requirement to place the Mezuzah, which contains scrolls of the Torah, is due perhaps because, from the point of view of our sages, we must always be aware of Divine Providence, including at the very moment of study. We were also required to recite a Berachah before undertaking only the reading of the Torah to emphasizethat study is not an intellectual exercise, but to blend in with the Divine Wisdom and Will. Study is a religious activity, a very special expression of our faith in the Creator.

MITSVAH: TORAH ORDINANCE IN THIS PARASHAH

CONTAINS 5 POSITIVE MITSVOT AND 4 PROHIBITIONS

1. Numbers 18:4 Caring for the Temple
2. Numbers 18:3 Kohanim should not do Levite service and vice versa
3. Numbers 18:4, 22 Who is not Kohen cannot serve in the Temple
4. Numbers 18:5 Not to cease care for the Temple
5. Numbers 18:15 To redeem the firstborn son
6. Numbers 18:17 Do not redeem the firstborn of the domesticated animal
7. Numbers 18:23 The Service of the Levites in the Temple
8. Numbers 18:24 Set aside the first tithing for the Levites

396.    Numbers 18:26, 28 The Levites must give the Kohen a tithe of the tithing they receive