This
week's Parasha features a central episode in the forty-year wilderness journey,
the rebellion of Korach (Korah), Da’tan (Dathan), Aviram
(Abiram), On and 250 other leaders… princes of the congregation, the elect men of the
assembly, men of renown who… assembled themselves together against Moses and
against Aaron…" (Num.16:2, 3). The above quotes, as well as the language
employed in the rest of the discourse between the malcontents and Moshe, contain
words and expressions which we have already encountered elsewhere. The usage of
the very same words (or ones emanating from the same roots), albeit in
different contexts, as well as the protagonists' method of echoing each other's
expressions, intensify the story line and animate the characters and the issues
at hand.
“And Korah the son of … took” are the opening words of the Parasha, continuing with the names of those who joined him. Although it does not say explicitly what Korach “took”, the list of the others who joined him and their cooperate action underscores an underhanded opportunism, in an attempt to grab that which did not belong to Korach, or to any of the other men with him.
The
"princes", with whom we commence the study, are called here
"nesi'im" ("nasi" - singular, of the root n.s.a, meaning to
"lift up"), just as were the leaders in Parashat Nasso (Num. 4:21ff).
In the latter we noted that "nasso", "lifting, carrying,
raising", also means "to bear" and in 5:31 (of the same Parasha)
it was used as the "bearing of sin" (in reference to "being
guilty"). However, the verb "bearing" may also indicate the
bearing of another's sin in a sense of forgiveness, as is seen in Parashat Ki
Tissa (whose title also means "lifting", being connected, in that
case, to the census of the People). In the said Parasha (in Ex. 32:32), Moshe
pleaded with YHVH on behalf of the people, in the wake of the Golden Calf
episode, saying, "If you will forgive…"(or literally "bear"),
in Hebrew: "eem tissa". In Bamidbar (Numbers) 11:11,12
(Parashat B'ha'alotcha) Moshe complains about "bearing" and
"carrying" the people of Yisrael. “…You lay the burden (
Korach and company are also described here as "elect men of the assembly" (ref. 16:2), or "k'ru'ey mo'ed". In Parashat Emor (Lev. 23:2-4), we recognized that the root k.r.a is to “call" and that "mikra" means "a called (out) assembly, a congregation, or a convocation". Thus, these leaders were not only "lifted up", but were also honored by being "called out" (translated here "elect"). However, their "calling" does not stop there. They are also the "called out" of the "mo'ed", which is translated "assembly", but if we refer again to Va’yikra (Leviticus) 23 we see that "mo’ed” stems from the root y.a'a.d (yod, ayin, dalet) and means "appoint, design, or designate". Thus YHVH's special appointments, His feasts, are called "mo'adim", plural, and "mo'ed”, singular. When we reviewed those concepts, we noticed that the people who are appointed and designated are collectively called "edah" (of the same root). Thus, the "nesi'im" (the “elevated ones”) are the "princes of the congregation", which is the "edah", or the "appointed assembly". How ironic that these "lifted up" individuals of the "appointed assembly", who have been "called", or "singled out", by "appointment" for special "YHVH-designated" occasions, and who are also men of renown ("shem", i.e. "name"), are the very ones now "gathered… against Moshe and A'haron" (16:3)! These men did not understand that it was not for vainglory that they had been raised up. Although described as "men of name" (translated "renown"), it was not their own names that were to be lifted, but the name of the One who had called and appointed them for His name's sake. Let us take note, though, that in spite of their flagrant behavior their "company" (16: 5, 11,16, 21) is still termed here "eda" which is, as mentioned, an “appointed assembly".
These
"nesi'im", in their blinded fury and haughtiness decry YHVH's leaders
of choice and dare challenge them saying: "Why do you lift
yourselves up [“tit'nas'u”] above the congregation of YHVH?" (16:3b italics
added). Prior to that, they maintain: "This is too much
["rav"] for you, since all the congregation are holy, every one of
them, and YHVH is among them" (16:3a literal translation, italics added).
Moshe's initial response to these words is to fall on his face, after which he
says: "In the morning YHVH will show who are His, and him who is
holy, and will cause him to come near to Him; even him whom He has chosen, He
will cause to come near to Him. Do this, take fire-pans, Korah and all his
company, and put fire in them, and put incense in them before YHVH tomorrow.
And it shall be the man whom YHVH chooses, he shall be holy. This is too
much ["rav", again] for you, sons of Levi!” (16:5-7
literal translation, italics added). "This is too much for you" -
"rav la'chem" - is the expression employed by the rebels. Moshe was
not unaware of their every word, and answered them ‘tit for tat’. As he continues,
he says, "Is it a small ("m'at" - opposite of
"rav") thing to you that the Elohim of Israel has separated you from
the congregation of
The sad story continues… Again, notice the wording, "And Moses sent to call Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab. And they said, 'we will not come up. Is it a small thing that you have brought us up out of a land that flows with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, but must you also seize dominion over us?'" (16:12, 13 italics added). In their defiance, Da’tan and Aviram are determined to not "come up" ("na'aleh"), while this is followed by their accusation, "is it a small thing…" – ham'at" - echoing Moshe's words in verse 9, "is it a small thing to you that the Elohim of Israel…?" Their excuse for "not going up" (“lo na’alea”) is that it was Moshe who "brought them up" ("he'e'li'tanu", again of the root for “going up") from "a land flowing with milk and honey", and has not brought them into "a land flowing with milk and honey" as he had promised (v. 13, 14; see Ex. 3:8). In this way, these two are responsible for twisting YHVH's promises and substituting truth for a lie by portraying the land of their slavery and bondage as a dreamland of the past, while their supposed grim present holds no promises for the future. They choose to make their point by not only repeating and twisting Moshe’s own words, but also by employing the verb for “going/bringing up” (root a.l.h) in a way that imbues their statement with thick sarcasm. They maintain that the purpose for having been "brought up" to the desert was in order to "cause them to die", and so that Moshe could "dominate them with dominion" – tis’ta'rer hista'rer". "Sar" is the root of "dominion", while it also constitutes another word for "prince", from whence the term "Prince of Peace" ("Sar Shalom") is derived, as well as the names Sarah and Yisrael. They seal their harangue by accusing Moshe of not having given them "inheritance in fields and vineyards", adding: "Will you put out the eyes of these men? We will not come up ["lo na'aleh", again]" (16:14, italics added). Their ultimate end - of "descending/going down alive into Sheol" (v. 30) - sheds an eerie light on their repeated refusal to “go up". Moreover, by stating so emphatically their refusal to go up, they were actually pronouncing their own doom. Indeed, “death and life are in the power of the tongue” (Proverbs 18:21).
Moshe's next comment, "I have not taken one donkey from them, neither have I hurt one of them" (16: 15) is reminiscent of Shmu'el's soliloquy in Shmu’el Alef (1st Samuel) 12:3: "Whose ox have I taken? Or whose donkey have I taken? Or whom have I defrauded? Whom have I oppressed?" The accusations hurled against Moshe are in stark contrast to his description in Parashat B'ha'alotcha. Miriam and Aha'ron's slander against their brother was met there by the words: "Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all the men on the face of the earth" (Num. 12:3). In light of this statement, the present malicious words against him seem even more unjust and deplorable.
Now Moshe is angry - "(va)yichar le-Moshe"! (16:15). In Parashat B’ha’a’lotcha we encountered the same term for anger, which was appended to the nose (ref. Bamidbar 11:1), and thus it was the “burning of/in the nose”. Moshe's anger here is followed by the injunction to the band of rebels to “light up” incense on their fire pans and to let YHVH judge them and the situation (v. 17). YHVH commands Moshe and Aha'ron to separate themselves from this "eda" (congregation, assembly), so that the latter may be "consumed" or "devoured" as by fire (v. 21). Finally, after Korach, Da’tan and Aviram, and some of their company is swallowed up, "a fire came forth from YHVH and consumed the two hundred and fifty men who offered incense" (16:35, literal translation, italics added). In Bamidbar 26:11, it says, quite curiously, that “the children of Korach did not die”. Indeed, the sons of Korach are recorded as the writers of 11 of the psalms (although quite possibly they were of a later generation of Korach’s children).
In 16:9 we read that the Elohim of Yisrael had separated Korach and his band in order to "bring you near Himself to do the service of the tabernacle". "Separated" there was "hivdil", being of the root b.d.l (bet, dalet, lamed), "to divide, separate, set apart, exclude, and single out". Later on, before punishment is meted out to this group, YHVH tells Moshe and Aha'ron to "separate" themselves from “this congregation" (v. 21). There too the root b.d.l is used ("hibadlu"). Thus, when those who have been called and separated out by YHVH, according to His order and method of selection, oppose His ways they become separated and set apart from the rest of the community, but this time for reproof of the severest kind. Further, YHVH says to the congregation (of Yisrael): "Turn away from the tents of these wicked men" (v. 26). "Turn away" is "suru", of the root "sur" (samech, vav, resh), whereas in verse 15 Moshe asks YHVH to “not turn" to these men's offerings, using the root panoh (with "panim – face” being its derivative). We have dealt with "p.n.h" a number of times, and found that it indicates a "turning toward", in contrast to "sur" which is a "turning away from". A "sorer" (again, of the root “sur”) is a stubborn rebel (e.g. Deut. 21:18,20) – an apt description of these 250 and some individuals.
Interestingly, the bronze fire pans used by the sinners were to be salvaged from the fire, and were to be reshaped and made into plates for covering the altar, thus rendering these objects sanctified. This was to be a visible sign and a warning to and for the Children of Yisrael, so that in the future no one who was not of the seed of Aha'ron would attempt again to “come near” and offer incense before YHVH, “so that he may not be as Korah and as his company” (16: 40).
Only one day goes by and the people begin to complain again, saying to Moshe and Aha’ron: "You have brought death [“ha'mitem”] on the people of YHVH" (v. 41, italics added), thus echoing the words of Da’tan and Aviram to Moshe in 16:13 ("you have brought us up here… to cause us to die - le'hamitenu"). In both cases the root is "ma'vet", that is, “death” (m.v.t - mem, vav, tav). Once again the cloud covers the Tent of Meeting and the glory of YHVH appears (ref. 16: 42), much like the description in verse 19, where the same thing took place in front of Korach and company. This time YHVH admonishes Moshe (and Aha'ron) to stand back, as He is about to “consume” the congregation, using the very same verb which we encountered above (in 16:21). Moshe and Aha'ron fall on their faces, as they did previously (see V. 22), and what starts out as a plague is halted by Aha'ron's action of kindling the incense on fire pans, with fire obtained from the altar. He then runs through the camp, holding on to the fire pans to "make an atonement… for wrath has gone out from YHVH" (v. 46), brining the plague to an end (standing “between the dead and the living” v. 48). The "wrath" described here is termed "ketzef", k.tz.f. (kof, tzadi, fey), which is also found in verse 22, when Moshe and Aah'ron display their concern for the entire congregation of Yisrael upon the mutiny of Korach and his band, saying: "Shall one man sin and will You be angry [“tiktzof”] with all the congregation?" (Italics added). Thus, the entire congregation of Yisrael, far from learning the lesson displayed before them the previous day, re-enacted the mutinous scenario.
Following the major affront dealt to the office of the priesthood and the roles of the Levites, the rest of the Parasha is devoted to reconfirming their uniqueness, by the blossoming of Aha'ron's rod, which is the ultimate evidence, witness, and testimony of YHVH's choice. It was for this reason that another title is being accorded here to the Tent of Meeting. Ohel Ha’edut, that is, Tent of the Testimony/Witness replaces its usual title of Ohel Mo’ed (17:7). A female witness happens to be “eda”, being the same as the word for “band or congregation” employed so often in our Parasha. This new term may be hinting at the (poor) ‘testimony’ of the assembly “eda”, as compared to YHVH’s true witness, represented by the Tent of the Testimony (Ohel Ha’edut).
Aha’ron’s dead rod "had budded and had brought forth buds, and had bloomed blossoms, and had yielded almonds" (17:8). This is a display in front of the entire nation of the miracle of life, as it sprouts out of death - death that has been so characteristic of these last episodes. As we have already noted (in Parashat Trumah, Ex. 25:31-40 regarding the Menorah), almond is "sha'ked", which is of the root sh.k.d (shin. kof. dalet) meaning to “watch and to be diligent". The famous passage in Yirmiyahu (Jeremiah) 1:11, 12 teaches us of YHVH's watchful determination to perform His word. Here too, after a line of incidents and insurrections, complaining and disciplinary measures, YHVH is pointing to His irreversible will (marked by resurrection power) in carrying out His word and accomplishing it, despite and in face of all opposition.
The cynical tone which accompanied the dialogues between Moshe and the rebels does not cease, even to the very bitter end that finds the protagonists. The Hebrew text which describes the horrifying scene of their death refers to it thus: “And if YHVH creation will create [translated ‘will do a new thing’] and the earth will open up its mouth and will swallow…” etc (16:30). How is it that an act of “creation” is appended to this most morbid scene of death and annihilation? Yes, the “creation” here is referenced as a new action by the Almighty, albeit a negative one. But, as the same time, the root b.r.a (bet, resh, alef) for “bara”, create, is also used in the verb “ba’reh”, which means to “remove” (such as in Yehoshua 17:15,18 where it is “to clear” and “to cut down”). Thus, the “removal” of the rebels in this most unusual way was being underscored by the usage of an equally unusual term.
