KORACH

5th Tammuz 5769 ~ 27th June 2009

By Vicky Fox 

In this week’s parsha, we witness the rebellion of  Korach and his supporters against the leadership of Moshe and Aaron.  In a dramatic test, God demonstrates that Moses and Aaron are his chosen leaders.  The rebels are punished.

What was the basis of the rebellion? Korach and his 250 supporters visit Moses and Aaron saying,

“You have gone too far! For all the community are holy, all of them and the Lord is in their midst.  Why then do you raise yourselves above the Lord’s congregation?” (Numbers 16:3)

Jewish tradition in Pirke Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) teaches us that Korach’s challenge is a paradigm of the wrong sort of disagreement.  It is not immediately obvious why this should be so.  Korach’s challenge does not seem unreasonable; after all, why shouldn’t there be an equitable distribution of power among the community?  Disagreement and challenge are not inherently wrong in Judaism, as is evident in numerous episodes in Torah, and as seen on virtually every page of Talmud.

So what was different about Korach’s challenge? Why did God cause the earth to swallow him and all his possessions?

First, Korach’s accusation that Moses has set himself above the people is at odds with the reality. At his first encounter with God at the burning bush, Moses showed his reluctance to become a leader.  The Torah tells us that “Moses was a very humble man, more so than any other man on earth.”  Moses was happy to share power when, on the advice of his father-in-law, he appointed elders as judges.  The rabbis tell us that Korach was in fact advancing a selfish cause. He wasn’t protesting because of the injustice to other people. He was protesting because he wanted to inflate his own position.  He was jealous of Moses.

Pirkei Avot describes the ideal argument as being that between Hillel and Shammai. This is because their disagreement was “for the sake of heaven” i.e. it represented a battle for truth rather than for power or victory.  The Talmud explains why Jewish law usually follows the view of the school of Hillel:

“ … because they were kindly and modest, because they studied not only their own rulings but also those of the school of Shammai and because they taught the words of Shammai before their own”.

The problem with Korach is not that he challenged Moses, but his motivation for doing so.  There is a destructive nature to an argument for the sake of power – it’s about winners and losers and the result is that both sides suffer.  The opposite happens when the argument is for the sake of truth. In the search for truth, both parties are ultimately the winners because being defeated by the truth is also a victory.

The difference in these two types of argument is not difficult to understand but perhaps less easy to practice.  The story of Korach warns us of the negative nature of disagreement when fuelled by the wrong motives. The example of Hillel and Shammai remind us that there is an honourable way to disagree and seek out truth.

Vicky Fox is a member of NNLS

---

Torah Sparks

Now Korach, son of Izhar son of Kohat son of Levi, betook himself, along with Datan and Aviram sons of Eliav, and On son of Pelet, descendents of Reuben. (Bamidbar 16:1)

Rav said: On son of Pelet [who is not mentioned again after this verse] was saved by his wife. She said to him, “What does it matter to you? Whether the one [Moses] remains master or the other [Korach] becomes master, you are still no more than a follower.” He replied, “But what can I do? I have taken part in their counsel, and I have sworn to be with them.” She said, “Sit here, and I will save you.” She gave him wine to drink until he became intoxicated and put him to bed within the tent. Then she sat down at its entrance and loosened her hair. Whoever came [to summon him] saw her and retreated.

Meanwhile, Korah’s wife joined them [the rebels] and said to him [Korach], “See what Moses has done. He himself has become king; his brother he appointed High Priest; his brother’s sons he has made deputy High Priests. …. Moreover, he has had your hair cut off, and makes sport of you as though you were dirt, for he was jealous of your hair.” [The name Korach means “bald,” so this must have been a particularly touchy point.] He said to her, “But he has done the same to himself!” ..... Thus it is written, The wisest of women builds her house – this refers to the wife of On son of Pelet – but the foolish tears it down with her own hands (Mishlei 14:1) – this refers to Korach’s wife. (Sanhedrin 109b-110a)

The story of a pious man who was wed to a pious woman, and they did not beget children. Both said, “We are of no use whatever to the Holy One.” So he went ahead and divorced her. The husband then married a wicked woman, and she made him wicked, while the divorced wife went and married a wicked man, whom she made righteous. This proves that it all depends on the woman. (Bereisheit Rabbah 17:7)

The Holy One said to Moses, “Go speak to the daughters of Israel [and ask them] whether they wish to receive the Torah.” Why were the women asked first? Because the way of men is to follow the opinion of women. (Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, chapter 41)

Sparks for Discussion

These texts suggest that even though women (at that time) had no public role in the community or its religious life, nevertheless they had great moral authority and influence over their husbands.

• How do you feel about this?

• Do you believe this was true in previous generations?

• Do you believe it is true today?

• What determines the moral and religious character of a family?

• Mrs. On’s argument to her husband appears to be, “Do not get involved in politics unless you will benefit personally.” Do you think she said this only because her husband was involved in a rebellion or was it meant as a general rule?

• Do you agree with her?

• Do you think most people involved in politics have ulterior motives?

---

SHELACH LECHA

28th Sivan 5769 ~ 20th June 2009

By Alex Stein

Who'd be a spy? Damned if you do, damned if you don't, a life of intrigue seems to be a life of loneliness, far from the glamour with which the profession is depicted in the movies. The origins of spying are ancient, as is demonstrated in this week's parsha, in which the first Mossad agents strut their stuff. Moses sends Caleb & Co on a reconnaissance mission to Eretz Yisrael, hoping that they'll come back with encouraging news about the prospects of conquering it.

Their reports on returning from the land, however, are mixed. Caleb is confident, "We should go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it," the rest of the men less so: "We are not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we." Amidst stories of giants and the land devouring its inhabitants, the people begin to loose hope. God's punishment for this supposed lack of faith is severe – the whole generation of the spies, except for Caleb and Joshua, are condemned to dying in the desert. Who'd be a spy?

The traditional interpretation of this tale is that one should always have faith, even if the evidence sometimes suggests otherwise. However difficult the circumstances, one should always persevere in the knowledge that God will come through. What, then, was the point of them being sent to spy on the land? If faith is enough, why bother with intelligence, especially when the purpose of their mission seems to have been to rally the morale of the people, rather than to carefully plan for the attack?

In contemporary Israel, the dilemmas are no less acute. The critical question of the hour is what to do about Iran's nuclear programme. Is the only thing worse than a potentially disastrous attack on Iran a nuclear Iran? Or can we live with the Islamic Republic having the bomb? Should we have faith in the IAF's ability to do permanent damage to Iran's nuclear quest, or will this prove to be one mission too far for Israel's daring army?

Resh Lakish interprets Shelach Lecha to mean that Moses had discretion over whether to send the spies, and that God was not pleased by the decision. Again, faith should have sufficed. This is mistaken. The problem of the spies was a failure of interpretation, not of faith. They preferred to lose all hope rather than rationally assess the nature of the threat before them and respond accordingly. Whatever Israel (and the world) decides to do about Iran, it is to be hoped that they will be rational and wise. In doing so, we will be doing great honour to the traditions established by our people's first spies.  

Alex Stein is a former NOAM Movement worker and now lives in Israel

---

Torah Sparks

We saw the Nephilim there – the Anakites are part of the Nephilim – and we looked like grasshoppers to ourselves, and so we must have looked to them. (Bamidbar 13:33)

• The Holy One said to the spies: You don’t know what you have just let your mouths utter. I am ready to put up with your saying we looked like grasshoppers to ourselves. But I do take offense at your asserting, and so we must have looked to them. Could you possibly know how I made you appear in their eyes? How do you know but that in their eyes you were like angels? (Tanhuma, Sh’lah)

• This was one of the sins of the spies. We looked like grasshoppers to ourselves, okay, it is possible to understand [why they thought that], but and so we must have looked to them. What of it? What does it matter to you how you appear in the eyes of others? (Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk, 1787-1854, Poland)

• A person who worries about how others view him will have no rest. Regardless of what he does or does not do he will always be anxious about receiving the approval of others. Such a person makes his self-esteem dependent on the whims of others. It is a mistake to give others so much control over you. Keep your focus on doing what is right and proper... (Rabbi Zelig Pliskin, Growth Through Torah, 1988, p. 330)

Sparks for Discussion

All the commentators understand how a group of recently freed slaves would be terrified by the idea of fighting for their land and why they might consider themselves incapable of doing so. However, they define the assumption that the Canaanites shared that perception a sin. Why?

Is this simply a matter of self-esteem, how a person feels about him- or herself? Rabbi Zelig Pliskin says, “It is a mistake to give others so much control over you.” How much control does the opinion of other people (whether actual or projected) have over your behavior? Has “what will the neighbors think” ever caused you to do (or not do) something you might not have done otherwise? Do you believe other people’s opinions of you are likely to be positive or negative? Why? How do you judge other people?

---

BEHALOTACHA

21st Sivan 5769 ~ 13th June 2009

By Georgia Kaufmann

My daughter came home from Cheder last week and asked me why most Jews were right wing. She had formed this opinion after watching a succession of local, national and international elections. The question jolted me. If pushed I would say that Jews by default have a liberal, social conscience – as exemplified by the many Jewish activists who fought for black civil rights in the US in the 1960s. Take racism; we know where that leads, we live in the shadow of the gas chambers. But we are not immune to it ourselves.

In this week’s Sidrah Miriam is struck down by a disease and banished from the camp. This is God’s response to the following passage: When they were in Hazeroth, Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman he had married: "He married a Cushite woman!"[Numbers 12:1]

If Miriam and Aaron just stated a fact why is Miriam punished? Nehama Leibowitz wondered what was Miriam’s sin. The answer to that is that basically she spoke against Moses. Although you could ask how was saying he married a Cushite woman speaking against him? Rashi argued that Miriam was angry that Moses had separated from Zipporah. In Avot Derabi Nathan Rabbi Shimon postulates that Miriam is angry at Moses for thinking he can do what he wants i.e. separate from Zipporah because he has God’s ear. Maybe the sin was not Miriam’s anger but the word she used: Cushite. Various meanings are ascribed to it: beautiful (Saadya Ha Gaon), family of Ham, Ethiopian (Rashbam), Beautiful Woman (Onkelos). But Jospeh Kaspi, a medieval commentator, says this is all nonsense: What was the Onkelos’ warrant for rendering the Hebrew adjective Kushit (Black or Ethiopian) as “beautiful” the very opposite of what was stated, black being opposite to white?..... I therefore maintain that the text bears no other interpretation but that Moses took a Cushite or Ethiopian woman. .. After Moses married Zipporah, he took another wife, an Ethiopian woman for reason best known to himself and it is not our business to pry into his motives [Leibowitz, Bemidbar, 1980. WZO.pp.130-1]

I think that Kaspi holds the key. The problem is the word Kushit which means Black. Miriam and Aaron were not objecting to Moses marrying again, that would not have been exceptional in those times for a powerful man, but for marrying a Black woman. The rest of their conversation can be translated loosely as: what makes you think that you are better than us, what makes you think that you can do anything you want, like marrying a black woman and get away with it.

To me what is most significant is God’s response, it is swift and cruel. Miriam is struck with a disease that leaves her white, scaly and impure. God does not hesitate to punish her for her racism. Only after Moses’s intercession is her punishment shortened to seven days, rather than being permanently cast out. I told my daughter that there is a straight line between God’s reaction, Hillel’s golden rule and the social conscience which I associate with Jewish thought. For me this is what is meant by being a light unto the nations.

Georgia Kaufmann is a member of KNMS

---

Torah Sparks

Aaron did so; he mounted the lamps at the front of the lampstand, as the Lord had commanded Moses. (Bamidbar 8:3)

A. To declare the praise of Aaron, that he did not act differently. (Rashi [Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki, 1040-1105, France])

B. Would it occur to you to think that Aaron would change and not do as God commanded? So why praise him for not changing? Even though Aaron rose to the highest level, to the position of high priest, he didn’t change his behaviour but remained the man he had been: involved with others, mixing with people, making peace between friend and friend and between husband and wife. This is the “praise of Aaron that he did not act differently” – he didn’t change himself. (Rabbi Meir of Premishlan, 1780-1850, Poland)

C. Although he had been privileged to attain such great honors, Aaron never changed. He did not become conceited or arrogant, but remained humble and meek as he had been before. (Attributed to Rabbi Simcha Bunim of Przysucha, 1765-1827, Poland)

D. The Kotzker and the Gaon of Vilna explain that there was no difference between the way he performed the commandment the first time and the way he performed it thereafter for the following 39 years, day after day. Each time, he felt the same enthusiasm and the commandment never became a matter of rote to him. (Emet ve-Emunah [author unknown])

Sparks for Discussion

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Simcha Bunim understand that Aaron’s character and behaviour were not affected by his appointment as high priest – he remained involved with ordinary people and did not become arrogant.

• How common do you think this is? We see many people who achieve success and fame in business, politics, sports, or entertainment who then become arrogant, believing that they are entitled to special treatment, that rules and laws don’t apply to them.
• How can a person become a star without becoming arrogant? Emet ve-Emunah takes a different tack – Aaron never lost the enthusiasm for his position that he felt on the very first day.
• Do you believe it is credible that Aaron never had a bad day, never felt sick, never had a fight with his wife and just wanted to stay in bed and be left alone? Perhaps we should praise Aaron for behaving as if his enthusiasm never flagged.
• How does a person remain committed to a task or a relationship at those times when the enthusiasm is not there?
• How do you rekindle the original fire?

---

NASO

14th Sivan 5769 ~ 6th June 2009

By Norman Bar

In Sidrah Naso we read that Moses is commanded to speak to the Bnei Yisra’el: 6 …... A man or woman who commits any of man’s sins, by committing a trespass against God, and that person shall become guilty - 7 and they shall confess their sin …. and make restitution for their guilt in full and add a fifth, and give it to the one towards whom they are guilty.” [Numbers 5: 5-7]

This is generally taken to refer to specific wrongdoings, essentially (Hertz volume 4 p.47) compensation for wrongs to another’s property or (Soncino p. 818) “robbery by violence” and (Rashi) “false swearing about the robbery,” Rambam (Maimonides) (quoted by Miller: Gutnick Chumash, Bemidbar p 38) refers to transgression of “any of the (Torah) mitzvos ... or a prohibition, either intentionally or unintentionally …” The text has inspired a note on making good after wrongdoing. Rambam writes comprehensively (Laws of Repentance) apropos the single positive commandment to confess and return to God after sinning, laying down rules for inter alia [1] confession to God [2] the importance of repentance i.e.” … forsaking sins … removing such thoughts from one's … thinking … resolving firmly never to do it again …. ” [3] asking forgiveness [4] confessing in public [5] making restitution. Significantly, he counsels the victim (a fortiori surely the non-victims) against being harsh and unforgiving.

How should one teach this to children? By example: at home, in fact anywhere. At cheder you can employ rôle play. You imitate being rude or pouring ink on a pupil’s clothes. Pupils will say, “Apologise.” You do so, but truculently. “O.K.?” “No! You didn’t mean it.” You apologise contritely, followed immediately by another insult. “You didn’t really mean it because you did it again straight away.” Thus Rambam’s requirements are teased out in simple stages.

These rules are vital both in private life, with its many broygases, and in public. Public role models often flatly deny personal responsibility, perhaps admitting at most a fault “in the system”, followed by the deflective and reproving, “Don’t dwell on the past, we must draw a line and move on.”: as though asking for acknowledgement of personal wrongdoing and restitution betrays ipso facto an unhealthy preoccupation with the past: we are not helped by such vindictive and confrontational non-victims as the media and politicians, for whom such acknowledgment is almost invariably a derisible weakness.

Saying sorry meaningfully can be painful. Even so, are words enough? Should there not be some act, even where restitution to the wronged person may not obviously be required, e.g. a sincere apology for rudeness and a firm resolution not to repeat the misdeed? Perhaps we should always do more than apologise, do something, even if not for the wronged person, perform some act as our own, small, personal, additional contribution towards tikkun olam. We could perform an additional mitzvah, maybe a donation to charity over and above what we’d otherwise give, maybe do some voluntary work. And, if possible, anonymously – now that is hard!

Norman Bar is a member of NNLS

---

Torah Sparks

“May the Lord lift His face upon you and grant you peace” (Numbers 6:26)

Discussion

• God’s holy name appears in each of the three stanzas of the Priestly Blessing. Besides the Name (ha-shem is the Hebrew word for “the Name”), the only term repeated in the blessing is the word “face.” (In Hebrew, the word for face is panim. In this blessing, the word is panav, which means “His face.”) We ask God to cause His face to shine upon us, and then to lift up His face to us. But does God have a face?
• Of course, the blessing is based on a metaphor. God does not really have a face. But the word “face” is important. The first insight comes from the Hebrew. The word panim is always in the plural, literally “faces.” Why is that significant?
• Perhaps the reason is that none of us has just one face. We present the world with a certain face when we are happy, another when we are angry, another when we are frightened and yet another when we are sad. We often present one face to the world and another to our family. Perhaps we have one face for business and another for leisure. Each of us has many faces. Therefore, face in Hebrew is always plural.
• However, perhaps there is another reason why face is always plural. Faces always come in pairs because without another person (or a mirror) no one sees our face, we certainly don’t. Two people meet face to face. The word face is about an encounter with another. My face comes into being when it meets another face, when I really stand in the presence and see the other.
• The human face is meant to be encountered. That is why so many muscles control our smile. Scholars say we have eyebrows so people can recognize our expression from a distance. Why is being in the presence of another’s face so important for our human identity? Why do email users have emoticons which were modelled after faces? Have we lost something when we do most of our communication by phone or email?

---

MISHPATIM

Shabbat  Shekalim

27th Shevat 5769 ~ 21st February 2009

By Harriet Oppenheimer

Last week in Yitro Moses appointed leaders and judges of bnei Israel and this week in Mishpatim God gives bnei Israel, through Moses, the first volume of our laws on social justice. With judges and a legal framework we have the beginnings of our society.  And this legal framework in Mishpatim begins with the laws of how we deal with slaves.

The psychology of this is interesting – bnei Israel have only just escaped from slavery in Egypt, and have little in the way of belongings or wealth, and one might think that our primary concern is for survival.  Yet God understands that it is never too early in a people’s history to give them the laws of social justice; perhaps if God had waited until such laws were manifestly needed, it would have been too late.  God does, however, understand that the laws need to have some immediate relevance to bnei Israel, and one thing that bnei Israel know a lot about at this point in our history is slavery. Perhaps this is why the laws start with slavery.

And this is precisely the reason that is given for why we should not wrong or oppress strangers – for you know the feelings of the stranger, having yourselves been strangers in the land of Eqypt.  Why the repetition?  Why state both that we have been strangers, and that we know the feelings of being a stranger?  It is important not just to have events happen to us, but to really experience them.  It is this that enables us to see life from each others’ perspective, to walk in another person’s shoes, to see each person as equal at a fundamental, human level.
 

This is reflected in the rest of the laws of Mishpatim.  The defining principle of much of the legal framework that follows is justice for all. Restitution should be based on the value of what has been lost, rather than what can be extorted from the other party. God will not tolerate ill-treatment of the defenceless in society – widows or orphans.  In any legal dispute, we must not be biased towards either the party with the greatest social status or the weaker party.

Perhaps the reason why God only chooses to give us our legal framework once we have experienced slavery is that this inheritance is the beginning of our ability to see beyond our immediate selves. Before this we were not sufficiently mature as a people to take on this social responsibility. And it is also significant to look at the language of how bnei Israel accepts God’s laws.  We will do they say twice.  And then finally we will do and we will understand.  The implication is that the act of doing, of living through an experience, gives us the real knowledge to understand the principles underlying our framework of social justice.  Living life alongside our fellow people gives us the insight and empathy to see life from their perspective, which in turn reinforces our intention to uphold justice in all our dealings.

By Harriet Oppenheimer is a member of Assif

---

Mishnat Hashavua: Beitzah 2:1