Parshath Qorah (Numbers XVI,1-XVIII,32) 6/24/11

A.

This week’s parasha begins with the tragic account of Qorah’s revolt. Rashi recommends the Midrash Tanhuma to guide our understanding of the incident. Taking his advice (with a little help from the Talmud; סנהדרין ק"י.), we learn first that Qorah and the 250 men who sided with him were great men of huge intellectual and spiritual capacity, in many ways the natural leaders of Israel. If so, the obvious question is, what brought them to challenge Moshe’s authority?

That is the second thing we learn: Qorah was convinced that he should have been next in line after Moshe and Aharon for high office in Israel; when he was not so appointed, he took it very personally, and resolved to pull down the Torah society which Moshe was working to build. It would appear that the other 250 men were driven by similar fears or insecurities concerning their social positions.

Qorah’s tactic of choice was to pose insincere, leading questions and pounce on the answers which he knew he would hear, using his formidable intellectual powers to ridicule and belittle them. For example, the Torah rules that a four-cornered garment must have tzitziyoth on the corners of woolen threads twisted and tied in a specific manner, one of which must be dyed a shade of sky-blue, tëchéleth (Numbers XV, 37-41; Deuteronomy XXII, 12). Qorah asked Moshe if such a garment entirely of tëchéleth still required tzitzith with such a thread; Moshe’s affirmative answer drew Qorah’s mockery.

Qorah’s revolt has been characterized for ever after as the mishna’s classic example of a מחלוקת שאינה לשם שמים, a “dispute not for the sake of heaven”, i.e., one not centered on the sincere search for truth, and so divisive and destructive (עיי' אבות פ"ד מי"ד).

Moshe challenged Qorah’s band to appear before him with mahtoth (“censers”) filled with qëtoreth (“incense”) and the episode came to a decisive climax when an earthen mouth swallowed them up (XVI, 31-33).

The sudden, public loss of so many distinguished and popular men in such a strange and dramatic manner caused many of the bënei Yisra’él to become temporarily unhinged: וילנו כל עדת בני ישראל ממחרת על משה ועל אהרן לאמר אתם המיתם את עם ד': (“And the entire assembly [‘éda] of the bënei Yisra’él protested about Moshe and Aharon to say, 'You have killed the people of Ha-Shem!'”; XVII, 6). This outrageous demonstration of lashon ha-ra‘ on the heels of the previous incident elicited an immediate Divine response, and a deadly plague broke out amongst the bënei Yisra’él.

ויאמר משה אל אהרן קח את המחתה ותן עלי' אש מעל המזבח ושים קטרת והולך מהרה אל העדה וכפר עליהם כי יצא הקצף מלפני ד' החל הנגף: ויקח אהרן כאשר דבר משה וירץ אל תוך הקהל והנה החל הנגף בעם ויתן את הקטרת ויכפר על העם: ויעמד בין המתים ובין החיים ותעצר המגפה: (“And Moshe said to Aharon, 'Take the mahte and place upon it fire from the altar, and put qëtoreth, and go quickly to the ‘éda and atone for them, for the wrath has gone forth from Ha-Shem; the plague has begun. And Aharon took as Moshe had spoken and ran to the midst of the assembly [ha-qahal] and behold, the plague had begun amongst the people; and he placed the qëtoreth and atoned for the people. And he stood between the dead and the living, and the plague was stopped”; ibid., 11-13).

However, a careful reading of the above passage creates the impression that Aharon did not precisely “take as Moshe had spoken”; the sequence of events Moshe had commanded was: Take the mahte, lay on fire, then qëtoreth, then hurry to the ‘éda. Aharon, we read, took the mahte, ran over to the people, and only then placed the qëtoreth and atoned for the people, bringing the plague to an end.

Given that this event occurred immediately after a conflict whose entire basis was Moshe’s authority to detail the observance of the mitzvoth (as we have seen), how could Aharon depart from the order as Moshe had clearly ordered? The question acquires even more poignancy in light of the fact that Aharon’s two eldest sons, Nadav and Avihu’, had perished over just such a difference involving incense on the occasion of the installation of the kohanim in their office in the Mishkan (cf. Leviticus X, 1-3).

B.

A number of commentators address this question; we shall consider two of them here.

Rabbi Yitzhaq ‘Arama, in his ‘Aqédath Yitzhaq, says that Aharon did in fact follow Moshe’s precise instructions; however, on arriving where the people were, he discovered that the qëtoreth was of no avail. So Rabbi ‘Arama says that “placing” the qëtoreth entailed removing it from the mahte, not putting it in, whereupon he was mëchappér (“atoned”) for the people in a different way, through tëfilla and tëshuva.

The Rëma, for his part, calls our attention to another subtle difference between what Moshe instructed and what Aharon did. Moshe told Aharon to hurry el ha-‘éda; Aharon, however, ran el toch ha-qahal. He then calls our attention to the Talmud’s ruling that the qëtoreth is only mëchappér for lashon ha-ra‘ ba-hashai, (“in private”); the më‘il, the coat, part of the bigdei këhunna worn during the service in the Mishkan or Beyth ha-Miqdash, is mëchappér for lashon ha-ra‘ ba-qol, i.e., spoken out loud (as we would understand the protests to have been; זבחים פ"ח:).

With this in mind, we turn to another séfer, the Ohel Yoséf (חידושי ברכות), who asserts that one who draws out the enunciation of the final dalet in the first verse of the Shëma‘ can also be mëchappér for lashon ha-ra‘ ba-qol.

Turning back to our passage, we note that bënei Yisra’él “complained... to say.” The use of both verbs may perhaps be taken to imply that the lashon ha-ra‘ of which they were so manifestly guilty came in two forms, one “private,” i.e., a whispering campaign against Moshe and Aharon, and the other vocal and loud, the protests. If so, the qëtoreth was at most only a partially effective kappara, dealing with the whispering campaign only. Hence (as the ‘Aqédath Yitzhaq asserts) Aharon had to resort to other means to deal with the loud protests. The më‘il was of no help; Aharon could not wear the bigdei këhunna outside of the service in the Mishkan. So, he resorted to tëfilla and tëshuva, at least part of which (on the strength of the Ohel Yoséf’s assertion) must have been the Shëma‘.

Which implies some sort of relationship between the Shëma‘ and the atoning qëtoreth, if both were effective in some way in relieving lashon ha-ra‘....

C.

The recipe for the qëtoreth is preserved in a baraitha which we recite every morning as part of shaharith (הברייתא מופיעה בכריתות ו. ובירושלמי יומא פ"ד ה"ד בשנויים קלים שאין להם נ"מ לעניננו), in which the major (dry) ingredients are listed in three tiers by weight: The first four ingredients are tzori (“balsam resin”), tzipporen (“onycha”), helbëna (“galbanum”), and lëvona (“frankincense”), 70 mane each (a mane is equivalent to 480 g). The second tier is: Mor (“myrrh”), qëtzi‘a (“cassia”), shibboleth nerd (“spikenard”), and karkom (“saffron”), 16 mane each. And the third tier consists of qosht (“costus”), 12 mane, qillufa (“spicy tree bark”), three mane, and cinnamon, nine mane.

Now let us examine the text of the Shëma‘ as we read it twice daily. The first verse reads: Shëma‘ Yisra’él Ha-Shem Eloqeinu Ha-Shem ehad (“hear, Israel, Ha-Shem our G-d, Ha-Shem is one”; Deuteronomy VI, 4). In the séfer Torah, the ‘ayin of Shema‘ and dalet of ehad are written larger than the other letters. The gimatriya of ‘ayin is 70, and that of dalet is four; hence, it alludes to the first tier of four ingredients, by weight.

Now consider the Ohel Yoséf’s “prolonged dalet” (i.e., the last syllable of ehad). A “prolonged” number four is arguably 4² = 16, the weight of each of the next tier of four ingredients; here is our second allusion to qëtoreth.

Finally, the second verse of the Shëma‘ reads: Baruch shém këvod malchutho lë-‘olam va-‘ed (“Blessed is the name of the glory of His kingdom forever”). Both verses contain six words each, twelve in total, the weight of qosht used, and the total weight of qillufa and kinnamon. Herein lies the allusion to our third tier.

Having established a mathematical, as it were, relationship between qëtoreth and the Shëma‘, we can presumably infer therefrom the similarity in kappara between them. With this in mind, let us reconsider our passage.

D.

We have already posited that the verbs va-yillonu... lémor allude to the twin categories of lashon ha-ra‘ ba-hashai and ba-qol. This implies that Moshe knew precisely what Aharon would have to do: As the qëtoreth would serve as a kappara for one but not the other, either the me‘il or the Shëma‘, said with the proper kavvanoth was needed. Moshe knew Aharon could not don the më‘il; so he told Aharon to hurry el ha-‘éda; ‘éda means “testimony” as well as “assembly” (cf. e.g. Genesis XXI, 30). The letters ‘ayin-dalet spell the word ‘éd (“witness”); the Shëma‘ is our testimony to G-d’s unique ahduth, “unity.”

Aharon “took” the mahte and qëtoreth as Moshe told him, and when he arrived on the scene, likewise engaged in the other form of kappara, tëfilla incorporating the Shëma‘. So, Aharon did exactly as Moshe bade him.

The evil of lashon ha-ra‘, of course, is that it destroys the harmony and social cohesion necessary to Israel’s unity of existence and purpose, and provokes mahloqeth, “dispute, division.” As the uniquely unitary Deity’s representatives on earth, Këlal Yisra’él must be similarly unified under the umbrella of Torah. Sincere differences in detail in the search for true Divine service can and do occur; such are called by the mishna cited supra, mahloqoth lë-shém shamayim, “for the sake of heaven,” and they endure in Israel.

The function of the service of the qëtoreth, a lump of matter which is burnt completely and ascends heavenward with a sweet savor, is to effect the unification of the supernal realm with the alienated material world here below. This is why it is a kappara for the divisive and destructive lashon ha-ra‘, and why it served to highlight the destructive nature of Qorah and his followers. Hazal relate concerning the qëtoreth offered by a kohén: דאיהו פנימאה רזא דכהנא כדין "ויכפר על העם ויעמד בין המתים ובין החיים" בין אילנא דחיי ובין אילנא דמותא כו' דכהנא אית לי' חילא לעילא ואית לי' חילא לתתא והוא גרים שלמא לעילא ותתא וגו' (“For the innermost thing, the secret of a kohén is like this ‘and he atoned for the people and stood between the dead and the living,’ between the tree of life [the root of Torah in the supernal realm] and the tree of death [the entropic physical realm]... for a kohén has power above and power below, and he brings about peace above and below....”; זוה"ק ח"ג קע"ז: וע"ע נצוצי אורות שם אות ב', ולפע"ד זהו מה דאמרינן במשנה באבות פ"א מי"ב שאהרן הכהן הי' אוהב שלום ורודף שלום).

Parshath Qorah (Numbers XVI,1-XVIII,32) 6/11/10

A.

As suggested by its name, most of nour parasha concerns the revolt instigated by Qorah ben Yitzhar ben Qëhath ben Lévi. Rashi explains Qorah’s rationale: נתקנא על נשיאותו של אליצפן בן עוזיאל שמנהו משה על בני קהת על פי הדבור אמר קרח אחי אבא ארבעה היו שנאמר ובני קהת וגו' עמרם הבכור נטלו שני בניו גדולה אחד מלך ואחד כהן גדול מי ראוי ליטול את השני' לא אני שאני בן יצהר שהוא שני לעמרם והוא מנה נשיא את בן אחיו הקטן הרי אני חולק עליו וגו' (“He was jealous concerning the presidency [nësi’uth] of Elitzafan ben ‘Uzzi’él, whom Moshe appointed over the bënei Qëhath on [Divine] instruction. Said Qorah: Father had four brothers, as it is said: ‘And the bënei Qëhath were ‘Amram and Yitzhar and Hevron and ‘Uzzi’él’ [Exodus VI, 18]. Both sons of ‘Amram, the eldest, took greatness, one the king [Moshe] and the other the kohén gadol [Aharon]. Who is fit to take the second [rank]? Is it not I, for I am the son of Yitzhar, second to ‘Amram? And he has named the son of his youngest brother! So, I am rebelling against him....”).

Qorah gathered around himself other malcontents, including Dathan and Aviram, who had been unwilling participants in Israel’s mission since before the Exodus (cf. Exodus II, 13, Rashi ad loc.), with the rousing battle-cry רב לכם כי כל העדה כלם קדשים ובתוכם ד' ומדוע תתנשאו על קהל ד' (“It is much for you, for the entire community are all of them holy and amongst them is Ha-Shem, and why do you exalt yourselves over Ha-Shem’s congregation?’; XVI, 3).

Moshe saw in this not a challenge to his authority, but to G-d’s and that of His Torah, and so posed the rebels the ultimate test, reminiscent of the fate of Aharon’s sons Nadav and Avihu, who brought “strange fire” before Ha-Shem in the form of unauthorized incense (Leviticus X, 1-2). The rebels rose to the bait, and met a similar end (XVI, 16-35).

But the revolt was not yet quelled. So far had the rot spread that many ordinary bënei Yisra’él blamed Moshe and Aharon for the deaths of the 250 notables who had sided with Qorah. At this monstrous misrepresentation of the obvious, a Divinely ordained plague broke out, mitigated only by Aharon’s actions as kohén gadol in bringing, at Moshe’s urging, incense between the afflicted and those not yet afflicted (qëtoreth, incense, atones for lashon ha-ra‘, a secret which had been revealed to Moshe by the angel of death when he ascended Mt Sinai; עיי' זבחים פ"ח. ושבת פ"ט.).

There followed a miraculous reaffirmation of Aharon’s appointment, and G-d’s restatement of it: ואתה ובניך אתך תשמרו את כהנתכם לכל דבר המזבח ולמבית לפרכת ועבדתם עבדת מתנה אתן את כהנתכם והזר הקרב יומת (“And you and your sons with you will guard your këhunna for every matter of the altar and within the curtain, and you will serve; a service of gift [‘avodath mattana] I give your këhunna, and the stranger who approaches will be put to death”; XVIII, 7).

What exactly is an ‘avodath mattana?

B.

The Nëtziv, in his Ha‘améq Davar, offers the following summation: לפי הפשט באשר עבודת הלויים כתיב להלן "ולבני לוי הנה נתתי וגו' חלף עבודתם" היינו שאם לא הי' עסק הלויים לא הי' צריך להפריש מעשר כלל שהרי הוא חולין. אלא חלף עבודתם. ואם כן המה מושכרים מכלל ישראל. משא"כ מת"כ אפי' לא היו כהנים הי' ניתן הכל לגבוה. והי' הולך לים או נשרף. כו' מכש"כ שארי מתנות ממקודשים מתחלה לד' והכתוב נתנן לכהן. א"כ אינם מושכרים מישראל. ורק עבודת מתנה היא מהקב"ה וזה ראי' שעבודתם היא למעלה מכל עבודה שנעשית בשכר וגו' (“According to the simple sense, since it is written later on of the service of the Lëviyyim: ‘And to the bënei Lévi behold I have given... in exchange for their service’ [v. 21], i.e., that were it not for the employment of the Lëviyyim there would be no need to separate ma‘sér [a tenth of the harvest] at all, since it is hullin [not sacred], save ‘in exchange for their service’, that is, they are hired by the rest of Israel, which is not the case with the mattënoth këhunna [summarized in vv. 8-19]; even if there were no kohanim all [these things] would be given on High, and would then be dumped in the sea or burnt [since. being holy, they cannot be used for a mundane purpose].... In any event, the rest of the gifts are from things already sanctified to Ha-Shem, and Scripture grants them to the kohén, in which case they are not hired by Israel; it is purely an ‘avodath mattana from the Holy One, Blessed is He, and this is evidence that their service is exalted over any service which is performed for hire....”). As the Nëtziv goes on to point out, so is the fact that any non-kohén who attempts to approach is to be put to death evidence of the exalted status of the kohanim.

So, says the Nëtziv, the bërith këhunna with Aharon and his sons is an ‘avodath mattanoth because all of the “gifts” summarized in our parasha come from the shulhan ha-gavoah, the “exalted table” of sacrifices already dedicated to G-d; given by G-d to the kohanim as gifts to support them whilst they dedicate themselves single-mindedly to Divine service in the Mishkan and, later, the Béyth ha-Miqdash. hence, unlike the Lëviyyim, whose support comes from produce which would otherwise belong to Israel, the kohanim are not “hired” by Israel, but supported by G-d.

Therein lies the pëshat, the “simple meaning,” but, as we all know, the Torah is eternally relevant, even in our days when, through our many sins, we have no Béyth ha-Miqdash and the role of the kohanim is considerably diminished. What does this concept of ‘avodath mattana mean for us?

C.

The séfer Mënorath Zahav offers the insight דהנה בעבודתו יתברך שמו הנה עבודת העובדים יש נקרא עבודת משא ויש נקרא עבודת מתנה. דהנה האיש אשר לא נבדל לגמרי מחומריות העולם הזה הנה עבודתו עבודת משא נקרא כי העבודה עליו עדיין למשא. אבל עובד בעבור כי צוהו השם יתברך. אבל מי שנבדל לגמרי מן העולם הזה הנה גם בעולם הזה מטעימו השם יתברך מעין עולם הבא וזה סוד "עולמך תראה בחייך" והתענוג הגדול שבכל התענוגים הוא לו העבודה שבתורה ובמצות כמו בגן עדן וזהו נקרא "עבודת מתנה אתן את כהנתכם וגו' (“that [G-d’s] service, i.e. the service of those who serve [Him] is called either ‘avodath massa’ or ‘avodath mattana. For the man who is not divorced completely from the materialism of this world, his service is called ‘avodath massa’ [burdensome service], for the ‘avoda is still a burden on him; rather, he serves [only] because Ha-Shem has commanded him. But to someone who is completely divorced from this world, Ha-Shem gives, even in this world, a taste of the world to come, and this is the secret implied in ‘you will see your [share of] the world [to come] in your lifetime’ [עיי' ברכות י"ז.], and the greatest pleasure of all pleasures to him is service in the Torah and mitzvoth, just like Paradise, and this is called ‘I shall grant your office, your këhunna [as an] ‘avodath mattana...”).

The Qëdushath Lévi makes a similar point, noting דידוע דברי חז"ל "שכר מצוה בהאי עלמא ליכא" אבל יש שכר אחד שאדם מקבל אף בזה העולם והוא דשכר מצוה מצוה (“the words of Hazal are well-known, ‘There is no reward for a mitzva in this world’ [חולין קמ"ב.], but there is one reward which a person does receive even in this world, i.e. that the reward for a mitzva is a mitzva [ע"ע' אבות פ"ד מ"ב]”; פרשת ראה), by which the Barditchever means that the pure joy of performing the mitzva in this world and thereby giving pleasure and satisfaction to the Creator is its own reward; the reward for a mitzva is the mitzva itself.

This is perhaps most clearly evident when one considers the mitzva of talmud Torah. The pure joy when, at the end of a sustained effort, one finally arrives at a comprehensive understanding of a topic in Torah, or resolves what seemed an irreconcilable difficulty, can hardly be described to one who has not experienced it, but it can be sensed simply by looking into a typical béyth midrash in operation, and hearing the passionate arguments as pairs of students struggle to understand the texts before them. Truly אשרי צי שגדך בתורה ועמלו בתורה ועושה נחת רוח ליוצרו (“happy is he who has grown great in Torah, whose labour is in Torah, and who provides satisfaction to his Maker”; ברכות שם).

D.

But we all have to earn our livings; we all need to eat to live. How do we achieve this state of being “completely divorced from the materialism of this world”?

The answer, it seems to me, lies in how we live our lives, and the motivations with which we approach the mundane, material necessities. If, for instance, one dedicates hand, mind and heart to G-d by davening and laying tëfillin, if we consciously take the attitude that parnasa, our livelihood, is for the purpose of doing mitzvoth, educating our children in Torah and mitzvoth, in general to demonstrate that זה א-לי ואנוהו (“This is my G-d and I shall adorn Him”; Exodus XV, 2), and dedicate our time not involved in parnasa to learning and teaching Torah, then we are not really part of humriyuth ha-‘olam ha-zeh, the “materialism of this world,” and earn, as the popular zëmira and the Mënorath Zahav have it, our taste mé-‘éyn ‘olam ha-ba’, yom shabbath mënuha (“from the source of the world to come, the sabbath day of rest”).

Parshath Qorach (Numbers XVI,1-XXI,1) 6/27/08

A.

Our parasha deals with the challenge to Moshe’s authority which was mounted by Qorach and his sect: כל העדה כלם קדושים ובתוכם ד' ומדוע תתנשאו על קהל ד' (“...the whole congregation are all of them holy, and why should you exalt yourselves over Ha-Shem’s community?” XVI, 3).

Rashi quotes the midrash telling us how Qorach and his cohorts confronted Moshe: באו ועמדו לפני משה, אמרו לו, טלית שכולה של תכלת חייבת ציצית או פטורה? אמר להם חייבת. התחילו לצחק עליו, אפשר טלית של מין אחר חוט אחד של תכלת פוטרתה, זו שכולה תכלת לא תפטור את עצמה? (“They came and stood before Moshe; they said to him, 'Does a tallith which is entirely of t’chéleth require tzitzith?' He told them, 'It does.' They began to laugh at him, 'Is it possible that a tallith of another sort is redeemed by a single thread of t’chéleth; [and] this [tallith], which is entirely t’chéleth should not redeem itself?'”).

If we consider the matter in light of what we learnt in last week’s parasha concerning tzitzith, it becomes apparent that there is something odd about Qorach’s claim: The mitzva, after all, consists of hanging a knotted group of eight strands on each corener of a four-cornered garment, such that the sum of the eight strands, the five knots, and the gimatriya (“numerical value”) of the word tzitzith add up to remind us of the 613 mitzvoth in the Torah (cf. XV, 39, Rashi ad loc.). The single sky-blue (t’chéleth) thread is one detail of the mitzva. At present, when we have forgotten the identity of the sea creature (chilazon) which was the source of the dye, the common practice is to wear knotted strands which are entirely white; the lack of t’chéleth does not nullify the mitzva.

So what lies behind Qorach’s evident allegation that the whole point of the mitzva of tzitzith was the t’chéleth?

B.

We begin to unravel the matter by turning to a Tosafoth, where we learn דאמר במדרש כו' שהיו אומרים ישראל כיון שנגזר עליהן שלא ליכנס לארץ ממעשה המרגלים שוב אין מחוייבין במצות (“that it says in the midrash... that Israel were saying, since it had been decreed upon them not to enter the [holy] land because of the incident of the spies [in last week’s parasha], they were no longer obligated in mitzvoth”).

The Torah contains many mitzvoth whose observance is dependent upon residence in Eretz Yisra’él. Now that the débâcle of the spies had brought about the consequence that most of the yotz’ei Mitzrayim were going to perish in the desert, doubts began to arise in the hearts of many concerning the effectivity of the rest of the mitzvoth which they had been observing, until now, on their way to the Promised Land. The Chida writes that Qorach was amongst the doubters (ראש דוד המובא בספר תורת החיד"א על פרשתנו).

The mere existence of such a doubt, in and of itself, was not necessarily a fatal development.

There is a well known principle that ספק דאורייתא לחומרא, in case of a doubt concerning the written Torah we act stringently, as the Talmud illustrates with many examples (עיי' למשל ביצה נ: בען השאר וע"ע ספר ארעא דרבנן סי' קס"ו). The holy nation which had come into being a Sinai would surely have risen to the occasion.

Yet, there is one case in the Torah in which a doubtful observance cannot take place. That case is Shabbath.

The observance of Shabbath has two purposes: On the one hand, it proclaims, each week, that Ha-Shem created the world in seven days (Exodus XX, 8-11), and on the other, it commemorates Israel’s liberation from Egyptian bondage (Deuteronomy V, 12-15). Bnei Noach, who are not obligated to observe the Torah’s 613 mitzvoth, are not permitted to engage in Shabbath observance (Genesis VLLL, 22; ע"ע סנהדרין נ"ח:). The reason is that these demonstrations are the essence of Israel’s mission as the ממלעת כהנים וגוי קדוש (“kingdom of kohanim and holy nation;” Exodus XIX, 6) which necessitates all of the other mitzvoth. Clearly, if there is doubt concerning the obligation to observe them, there is doubt concerning Shabbath.

So, we can see, those who considered their status doubtful were in a quandary: How were they to behave? If they were still bnei Noach and not obligated in mitzvoth because they were not going to settle the Holy Land, they were forbidden to observe Shabbath; if, on the other hand, they had become fully obligated in the mitzvoth at Sinai despite the fact that they would never be able to observe many of them, they were obligated to observe Shabbath. What would be the right thing to do?

C.

In my comments on Parshath Va-Yéshev two years ago, I noted that the Chida establishes elsewhere that the dispute between Yosef and his brothers was really centered on their halachic status: The brothers believed believed that their voluntary observance of the Torah before it had been commanded rendered them בני ישראל גמורים, full bnei Yisra’él with a status equal to that which would be granted at Sinai, whilst Yosef believed that they were still bnei Noach (ספר פרשת דרכים, דרוש א' דה"מ הנראה אצלי).

If so, then Yosef had already had to deal with the question of how, as a ben Noach who voluntarily assumed the obligations of Torah, he was to handle the question of Shabbath.

A question very like this one once came before Rabbi Ya’aqov Ettlinger, the rabbi of Altona (Hamburg) in the mid-19th century and world-renowned poséq in his day. It seems that a certain man had presented himself for conversion to a béyth din in Jerusalem, where he had taken upon himself the mitzvoth, and undergone circumcision. Medical difficulties resulting from the circumcision precluded his going into a miqvah to complete the process for quite some time. The question arose: What was the fellow’s status concerning Sabbath observance? Was he to be considered Jewish already, or not quite yet?

The controversy divided the holy city, and someone thought to ask Rabbi Ettlinger. In his t’shuva, the rav responded שצווי שהיתת ישראל ואזהרת שביתת בני נח אינם מענין אחד שבזה תלוי בל"ט מלאכות ובזה תלוי במלאכת טורח ויגיעה מצאנו אפילו למי שלבו נוקפו לומר שגר שמל ולא טבל מותר לקיים שבת פשר דבר ע"י שיעשה מלאכת יגיעה שאינה מל"ט מלאכות כגון שישא משא ברה"י כן נראה לענ"ד (“that the commandment that Israel rest [on the Sabbath] and the admonition concerning resting for non-Jews do not concern the same subject, for the former relates to the 39 mlachoth [forbidden on the Sabbath] and the latter relates to troublesome or laborious work; we found that even for one whose heart inclines to say that a gér who was circumcised and not immersed is permitted to observe the Sabbath, the meaning of the thing is that he perform [some] mlecheth yegi’â which is not [one] of the 39 mlachoth, for instance, that he carry a load within a private domain; so does it seem, in my humble opinion;” שו"ת בנין ציון סי' צ"א).

Now, there is a general prohibition of carrting something from a private domain to a public domain on the Sabbath. Needless to say, this dows not apply to one’s attire, properly worn. Hence, bnei Yisra’él, who are obligated to wear tzitziyoth on the corners of a four-cornered garment, such tzitziyoth are an integral part of their attire, and may be worn from one domain to the other; for bnei Noach, who are not so obligated, wearing tzitziyoth from one domain to the other is arguably carrying. In this way, I suggested, the doubtful convert could deal with his doubt: If he was indeed a kosher convert, he was obligated in tzitzith, and going from one domain to the other wearing them was not problematic; if he was not yet a convert, then wearing tzitzith and moving from one domain to the other would be enough of a m’lacha to constitute a violation of Shabbath.

This, I suggested, is what Yosef was about when he returned to Potifar’s house לעשות מלאכתו (“to do his m’lacha;” Genesis XXXIX, 11); it was his way of coping with Shabbath.

D.

So the yotz’ei Mitzrayim who were in doubt concerning their status had an example from Yosef ha-tzaddiq telling them how to cope with the doubtful mitzvoth of Shabbath, and Qorach, as a member of the group, was aware of their considerations.

When he decided upon his rebellion against Moshe’s authority, and wished to decouple a sizable group of Israel from the Torah to constitute his sect, he could not deny that the Torah had been given; everyone, after all, had been at Sinai. What he could do, however, was to distort the mitzvoth, to dispute that Moshe was interpreting them correctly.

By seizing on the mitzva of tzitzith, and emphasizing the detail of t’chéleth over the strings themselves, he would be able to persuade his followers that a tallith made entirely of t’chéleth surely did fulfill the mitzva, and was therefore exampt from tzitzith. If so, in order to avoid illicit Sabbath observance, it would be necessary for them to do something else, some m’lacha clearly part of the thirty-nine forbidden categories. Once started down that path, he reasoned, עבירה גוררת עבירה, one violation leads to another (אבות פ"ד מ"ב), and they would be on the way to decoupling themselves from the Torah, and so from their teacher, Moshe, G-d forbid.

The alternate thesis, the same mishna tells us, is also true: מצוה גוררת מצוה, one mitzva leads to another. Where Qorach sought to apply the principle negatively, we can apply it positively, strengthen our observance, and come closer to the Torah and to G-d.

Parshath Qorach (Numbers XVI,1-XVIII,32) 6/15/07

A.

ויקח קרח בן יצהר בן קהת בן לוי וגו' ויקהלו על משה ועל אהרן ויאמרו אליהם רב לכם כי כל העדה כלם קדשים וגו' (And Qorach son of Yitzhar son of Qehath son of Levi took....And they gathered against Moshe and Aharon and said to them, It is too much for you, for the entire community are all of them holy....”; XVI,1-3).

Rashi quotes the midrash (במדבר רבה פי"ח סי' ג') to define the form which Qorach’s rebellion took: והלבישן טליתות שכולן תכלת, באו ועמדו לפני משה, אמרו לו, טלית שכולה תכלת חייבת ציצת או פטורה? אמר להם, חייבת. התחילו לשחק עליו, אפשר שטלית של מין אחר חוט אחד של תכלת פוטרה, זו שכולה תכלת לא תפטור את עצמה?! (“[Qorach] dressed [his followers in] tallithoth which were entirely of t’chéleth; they came and stood before Moshe [and] asked him, "Does a tallith which is entirely t’chéleth require tzitzith?" [Moshe] told them, "It does." They began to laugh at him: "Perhaps a tallith of another sort requires a single thread of t’chéleth to render it kosher, yet this, which is entirely t’chéleth should not render itself kosher?!”).

The Torah requires that tzitzith, threads tied in a prescribed manner, be attached to the corners of a four-cornered garment (tallith), and that one thread of each of the tzitziyoth be dyed a specific shade of light blue (t’chéleth; cf. Numbers XV, 37-41). This, then. was Qorach’s tactic: To select a mitzva, and make it seem ridiculous in the eyes of his audience.

The midrash continues where Rashi leaves off that Qorach’s next question was: בית מלא ספרים מהו שיפטור מן המזוזה? אמר לו חייב במזוזה. אמר לו כל התורה קע"ה פרשיות אינה פוטרת את הבית, פרשה אחת שבמזוזה פוטרת את הבית?! אמר לו קרח דברים אלו לא נצטוית עליהם ומלבך אתה בודאן (“Is a house full of sifrei Torah exempt from m’zuza?" [cf. Deuteronomy VI, 9]? [Moshe] told him, "It requires a m’zuza." [Qorach] told him, "The entire Torah of 175 chapters does not exempt the house from m’zuza, but a single chapter in a m’zuza renders the house kosher?! You were not commanded concerning these things; you are making them up!”).

The great Chida (Rabbi Chayyim Yosef David Azulai), in his Séfer Rosh David, quotes another séfer, the Pa’ânéach Raza, to the effect that a clue to Qorach’s motivations in challenging Moshe in this manner is contained in the fact that the last letters of the phrase כי כל העדה כלם קדשים (“for the entire community are all of them holy”) combine to form the word מיל"ה, “circumcision." But what in the world do the mitzvoth of tzitzith and m’zuza have to do with mila (“circumcision”)?

B.

Both of the mitzvoth of tzitzith and m’zuza have about them a certain protective quality, as is implied by the Talmud: חביבין ישראל שסיבבן הקב"ה במצות, תפילין בראשיהן ותפילין בזרועותיהן וציצת בבגדיהן ומזוזה לפתחיהן, ועליהן אמר דוד "שבע ביום הללתיך על משפטי צדקך" (“Precious are Israel, for the Holy One, Blessed is He, has surrounded them with mitzvoth, t'fillin on their heads and and t’fillin on their arms and tzitzith on their clothing and a m’zuza at their doorways, and concerning them David said, ‘Seven [ways] a day do I praise You for Your righteous judgments’" [Psalms CXIX, 164]”; מנחות מ"ג:). Rashi explains the seven: T’fillin on head and arm, four tzitziyoth, and the m’zuza.

The gmara goes on to tell us of David: ובשעה שנכנס דוד לבית המרחץ וראה עצמו עומד ערום אמר אוי לי שאעמוד ערום בלא מצוות, וכיון שנזכר במילה שבבשרו נתיישבה דעתו (“And when David would enter the bathhouse and see himself standing naked, he said, "Woe is me that I should stand naked without mitzvoth, and when he remembered the mila in his flesh, he was comforted”). Accustomed to being wrapped in mitzvoth, as it were, he felt even more naked at the thought he was not so protected, until he remembered that he bore the mark of a mitzva on his body.

In light of the above, let us think a little. קרח חכם גדול הי', Chazal tell us (במ"ר שם); Qorach was very intelligent. We may therefore assume that he had paid attention to and was fully cognizant of the Torah in which Moshe had been so intensively instructing Israel. We may also assume that he was aware of circumstances around him, to include the fact that Moshe was unique in his generation, a member of a very select group of men throughout history who had been born mahul, not in need of circumcision (סוטה י"ב. ,אבות דרבי נתן פ"ב סי' ה').

Now, it happens to be the halacha that a Jewish boy who is born mahul undergoes an alternate procedure, which is called הטפת דם ברית, roughly “shedding a drop of covenantal blood." But Moshe had not been, strictly speaking, born a Jewish child. True, as a member of the tribe of Levi he was certainly a lineal descendant of Yisrael the patriarch, but Israel the nation did not come into being until that fateful meeting at the foot of Sinai, when it was given its constitution, the Torah. At Mattan Torah, Moshe was in the category of a convert, taking on the mitzvoth voluntarily, and concerning a convert the halacha is א"צ להטיף ממנו דם ברית (“It is not necessary to shed from him a drop of covenantal blood”; לשון הטור, יו"ד סעיף רס"ח בשם העיטור).

So Moshe had not had any sort of operation performed “in his flesh," as David (and, of course, all the other bnei Yisra’él) had had. Hence, reasoned Qorach, perhaps Moshe had to “surround himself with mitzvoth” (to paraphrase the g'mara) for protection, but the rest of Israel, who had undergone circumcision, certainly did not, כי כל העדה כלם קדשים, the whole community was inherently holy, exhibiting the marks of mila.

Here is the connection between the mitzvoth with which Qorach tried to induce ridicule of Moshe and the Torah, and mila, as the Pa’ânéach Raza seems to suggest.

Yet we note that Rashi concentrates specifically on the mitzva of tzitzith, and leaves the rest of the midrash unquoted. Why?

C.

Examine exactly what Qorach says when he confronts Moshe with his t’chéleth-clad entourage, and you will see that something seems wrong: Does a tallith which is entirely t’chéleth need tzitzith? The question does not follow from the premise: He did NOT ask if it still needed a thread of t’ché’leth in the tzitziyoth, but if it needed tzitzith at all.

Yet, Chazal tell us קרח חכם גדול הי'; what was he getting at?

Tosafoth (בבא בתרא קי"ט: דה"מ אפילו בשם המדרש) tell us that at the time that Israel received the heart-breaking news that their sojourn in the desert would be extended until the entire generation of yotz’ei Mitzrayim had perished, a doubt entered their hearts: Perhaps this elaborate Torah with its mitzvoth which they had been studying so intensively ere now, was intended only for the Holy Land (certainly true of a large block of mitzvoth, such as shmitta, yovél, trumoth, and ma’sroth) and since they were no longer destined to settle there, it was now irrelevant to them. The Chida (op. cit.) tells us that Qorach was working on that doubt.

The purpose of the mitzva of tzitzith, with its elaborate count of knots and strands, is to serve as a constant reminder to us of the Torah’s 613 mitzvoth (cf. Numbers XV, 39-40, Rashi ad loc.). The sky-blue t’chéleth (suggests the Even Êzra) is to direct our attention heavenward, and remind us of the Divine source of those mitzvoth. But the îqqar, the main point, is the mitzvoth.

In our day, the precise identity of the chilazon, the shellfish from which the blue dye was derived, is a matter of controversy, and the precise shade of blue which the strand was dyed has been forgotten. For this reason, most of us are accustomed to wear plain white tzitzith. The colour t’chéleth is controversial, but not the rest of the mitzva.

This, I think, is what underlies what Rashi is telling us by concentrating on the reisha, the first clause, of the midrash. Qorach’s question only seemed to involve t’chéleth. "Does such a tallith require tzitzith?," he asked. Is it really necessary for Israel under these circumstances to remember all these tiresome, elaborate mitzvoth of yours, Moshe, now that they are doomed to die in the desert? Is it not enough that their hearts are directed heavenward, inspired by the colour of the tallith, without all those silly observances?

Moshe, even wiser than Qorach, understood his intent perfectly.

D.

Israel became a nation at the foot of Mt. Sinai with the acceptance of the Torah, and it is on this basis, and no other, that our nationhood rests.

It is not dependent upon a single ethnic stock, however dear to us our yuchasin (“genealogies”) are. Great Torah sages, Shmaya, Avtalyon, Rabbi Me’ir, Rabbi Aqiva, and Onqelos, converts or descendants of converts; who would not now boast of a lineage encompassing any of them?

It is not dependent upon a country, precious to us as the land of Israel is. Remember that it is the Holy Land because there are so many mitzvoth which can be performed only there, or with its produce, and nowhere else. Yet, Israel remains a nation, even in exile.

Blut und Boden, “Blood and Soil," are not the roots of our nationality, and nationalism is no substitute for Judaism. When Qorach said that כל העדה כלם קדשים, the entire community is holy, he was right; but it is the Torah which made, and makes, them so.