Parashat Pinchas 5773, 2013

                Obtaining Authentic Peace in Our Time

                            Rabbi David Etengoff

Dedicated to the sacred memories of my mother, Miriam Tovah bat Aharon Hakohen, father-in-law, Levi ben Yitzhak, sister-in-law, Ruchama Rivka Sondra, sister, Shulamit bat Menachem, Shifra bat Chaim Alter, and Yehonatan Binyamin ben Mordechai Meir Halevi, and the refuah shlaimah of Yosef Shmuel ben Miriam.

Human history is filled with the horrors of war. Unfortunately, while peace is held up as the greatest of objectives, pragmatic reality is quite a different matter. Shalom (Peace) is thus an ideal goal that has proven elusive since time immemorial. As such, the following verses in our parasha (Sefer Bamidbar 25:10-12) become all the more fascinating:

The L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: “Phinehas the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron the Kohen has turned My anger away from the children of Israel by his zealously avenging Me among them, so that I did not destroy the children of Israel because of My zeal.” Therefore, say, “I hereby give him My covenant of peace.” (This and all Bible translations, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach)

Who gave Pinchas his “covenant of peace?” What exactly is the meaning of “My covenant of peace?” What is the content of this promise? These are substantive questions that deserve meaningful and thoughtful responses. It is to this task that we now turn.

Who gave Pinchas his “covenant of peace?” The straightforward answer is that Hashem gave Pinchas this reward. The translation above certainly seems to support this direct reading. It appears, in fact, to be a quid pro quo, a middah keneged middah, that follows directly from Pinchas having “turned My anger away from the children of Israel by his zealously avenging Me among them, so that I did not destroy the children of Israel because of My zeal.” Rashi (1040-1105) suggests precisely this interpretation when he states: “That it should be a covenant of peace for him [i.e. Pinchas]. Just as a man owes gratitude and favor to someone who did him a favor, so here G-d expressed to Pinchas His feelings of peace.” (Brackets my own)

The Gemara in Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 82b, however, suggests an entirely different approach as to who gave Pinchas this “covenant of peace,” namely, Moshe and not Hashem: “Amar lei Hakadosh Baruch Hu:’ Hakdame lo shalom, shenemar “lechan emor heneni notan lo et briti shalom.’” (“The Holy One Blessed Be He said to Moshe: ‘You [Moshe] should welcome him [Pinchas] in peace. Consequently, the Torah states: “therefore let it be said [in general and by you Moshe] behold there is given to him [Pinchas] My covenant of peace,’” translation and brackets my own). The Kli Yakar, (Rabbeinu Shlomo Ephraim ben Aaron Luntschitz, 1550–1619), in his commentary on our pasuk (verse), underscores this approach:

Therefore the Torah states: “lechan emor heneni notan lo et briti shalom” (“therefore let it be said [in general and by you Moshe] behold there is given to him [Pinchas] My covenant of peace”) instead of the expected phrase: “lechan emor lo” (“therefore [Moshe] say [directly] to him [Pinchas]”) since the correct explanation is that Hakadosh Baruch Hu said to Moshe: “therefore say to all of the Jewish people in reference to yourself that you [Moshe] are giving him [Pinchas] my covenant of peace.” This was necessary so that the Jewish people would not say that Moshe was upset with Pinchas for not directly asking him the halacha [prior to his act of killing Zimri and Kasbi while they were engaged in their illicit activity]. Therefore, this was made known to the public when Hashem told him [Moshe] “you should state on your own behalf “heneni notan lo…” this phrase clearly refers to Moshe [and not to Hashem]. (Translation and brackets my own)

It is important, too, for us to understand the meaning of G-d’s promise to Pinchas of His “covenant of peace.” What is the content of this pledge? Here, as well, we find at least two different approaches. The Ibn Ezra (Rabbeinu Abraham ibn Ezra, 1092 – 1167) explains the need for this promise in the following manner:

The reason for the phrase “My covenant, the covenant of peace” (“et briti brit shalom”) is similar in kind to the phrase “kisacha Elokim” (“Your throne, O judge, [will exist] forever and ever; the scepter of equity is the scepter of your kingdom, Sefer Tehillim, 45:7). There are many other examples [in the Bible] like this. The reason for this pledge was so that Pinchas would not be afraid of Zimri’s kinsmen since Zimri had been the prince of his family. (Translation and brackets my own)

This mode of interpretation is followed by the 12th century Northern French commentator Rabbeinu Bechor Shor (Rabbi Yosef ben Yitzhak): “He [Pinchas] had nothing to fear. Neither from Zimri’s relatives, even though he had been a prince, nor from Kasbi’s relatives even though she was a king’s daughter.”

The Netziv, (Rabbeinu Naphtali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin, 1817-1893), in his seminal Torah commentary known as the Haamek Davar, offers a unique and deeply psychological insight as to why “My covenant of peace” is promised to Pinchas. As noted above, both the Ibn Ezra and the Bechor Shor focus upon Pinchas’ potential fear of others and the revenge that they might have sought against him.  In contrast, the Netziv focuses upon the fundamental changes that could have affected Pinchas’ personality as a result of his heroic and halachically-mandated act. He suggests that Pinchas could have been changed forevermore by the experience of having killed Zimri and Kasbi, even though they were unquestionably subject to the death penalty for their horrific deed. This, therefore, was why he needed Hashem’s “covenant of peace”:

In reward for his having removed Hakadosh Baruch Hu’s anger and fury from the Jewish people, he was blessed with the quality of peace – in order that he should not have consternation and be mortally afraid. This was necessary since the nature of the act in which Pinchas had been engaged required him to kill someone with his own hands. This could have brought about a change in his personality that would have caused him to become vicious and unfeeling toward others. Since, however, everything he did was for the purpose of serving Hashem, based upon [his purity of intention and singular purpose of soul], he was rewarded with the blessing that he would live ever afterward in [psychological] comfort [and sensitivity toward others] and with the quality of peace. The action that he had undertaken would not, therefore, pervert his personality. (Translation, underlining, and brackets my own)

We live in a world of terrorism and war, replete with countless acts of man’s inhumanity to his fellow man. It is far too easy for us to become inured and insensitive to the body counts of United States’ and Israeli soldiers who die defending our countries, our freedom, and our way of life. We, therefore, no less that Pinchas, need Hakadosh Baruch Hu’s “covenant of peace” as interpreted by the Netziv. We need to be sensitive to the heartbreaking tragedy of the death or maiming of even one soldier or civilian. We need, in short, to remember the sanctity of life and the uniqueness that Hashem bestows upon each and every individual. In short, we too, need Pinchas’ blessing.

May we all merit Hashem’s “covenant of peace,” and may we become sensitive to our fellow man and recognize each individual’s unique place within G-d’s creation. If we can achieve this goal, then we, like Pinchas, will “live ever afterward in [psychological] comfort [and sensitivity toward others] and with the quality of peace.” Surely, this will help bring Mashiach Tzidkeinu (our righteous Messiah) soon and in our days. V’chane yihi ratzon.

Shabbat Shalom

Past drashot may be found at my blog-website: http://reparashathashavuah.org

The email list, b’chasdei Hashem, has expanded to hundreds of people. I am always happy to add more members to the list. If you have family or friends you would like to have added, please do not hesitate to contact me via email [email protected].

*** My audio shiurim for Women on “Tefilah: Haskafah and Analysis,” may be found at: http://tinyurl.com/8hsdpyd

*** I have posted 164 of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s English language audio shiurim (MP3 format) spanning the years 1958-1984. They are available here: http://tinyurl.com/82pgvfn.

** Follow new postings on my Twitter accounts: @theRavZatzal and @Torahtech613.

*** Interested in 21st Century Jewish Education? See my blog: http://21stcenturyjewisheducation.org

*** Interested in the latest Educational Technology stories? See my Educational Technology – Yeshiva Edition Page at: http://www.scoop.it/t/educational-technology-yeshiva-edition.

                            Parashat Balak, 5773, 2013:

                      Dare to Be Like Avraham

                              Rabbi David Etengoff

Dedicated to the sacred memories of my mother, Miriam Tovah bat Aharon Hakohen, father-in-law, Levi ben Yitzhak, sister-in-law, Ruchama Rivka Sondra, sister, Shulamit bat Menachem, Shifra bat Chaim Alter, and Yehonatan Binyamin ben Mordechai Meir Halevi, and the refuah shlaimah of Yosef Shmuel ben Miriam.

In a well-known Mishnaic statement found in Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) 5:19, Chazal (our Sages) compare Avraham, the embodiment of purity of soul, to the evil prophet Bilam, the main protagonist of our parasha:

Whoever possesses the following three traits is of the disciples of our father Abraham; and whoever possesses the opposite three traits is of the disciples of the wicked Balaam. The disciples of our father Abraham have a good eye, a meek spirit and a humble soul. The disciples of the wicked Balaam have an evil eye, a haughty spirit and a gross soul. What is the difference between the disciples of our father Abraham and the disciples of the wicked Balaam? The disciples of our father Abraham benefit in this world and inherit the World To Come, and as is stated, “To bequeath to those who love Me there is, and their treasures I shall fill” (Proverbs 8:21). The disciples of the wicked Balaam inherit purgatory and descend into the pit of destruction, as is stated, “And You, G-d, shall cast them into the pit of destruction; bloody and deceitful men, they shall not attain half their days. And I shall trust in You” (ibid., 55:24).
(Translation, http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=2099 with my emendations.)

Allow me to clarify the essential points of comparison between Avraham and Bilam, as presented in the Mishnah:

·      Avraham’s disciples have “a good eye” (Hebrew, “ayin tovah”). In contrast, Bilam’s students have “an evil eye.”

·      Avraham’s students have a “meek spirit,” whereas Bilam’s followers have a “haughty spirit.”

·      Avraham’s followers have a “humble soul,” while Bilam’s disciples have a “gross soul.”

The following discussion focuses upon the analysis of one of the stellar characteristics of Avraham Avinu (our Father Abraham), namely, ayin tovah.

Rabbeinu Ovadiah Bartenura (1450-1516), known as “the Rav” and “the Bartenura,” explains “a good eye” as referring to someone who is satisfied with what he has. Such an individual does not desire other people’s money or possessions. The Bartenura suggests that this middah (ethical characteristic) was clearly demonstrated by Avraham in Sefer Bereishit 14: 21-24, when he refused to accept any monetary payment from the King of S’dom. Note that this entire interchange took place prior to our role model’s name change from “Avram” to its complete form of “Avraham”:

The king of Sodom said to Abram, ‘Give me the people. You can keep the goods.’ Abram replied to the king of Sodom, “I have lifted my hand [in an oath] to G-d Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth! Not a thread nor a shoelace! I will not take anything that is yours! You should not be able to say, ‘It was I who made Abram rich.’ The only exception is what the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men who went with me, Aner, Eshkol and Mamre. Let them take their share.” (This, and all Torah translations, The Living Torah, by Rav Aryeh Kaplan zatzal.)

A different approach to the concept of “a good eye” was offered by Rabbeinu Shlomo Ephraim ben Aaron Luntschitz (1550-1619, known as the “Kli Yakar” after the name of his commentary on the Torah), in his glosses on Sefer Bereishit 24:22. Let us briefly examine the background verses found in 24:17-21:

The servant [i.e. Eliezer] ran toward her. “If you would, let me sip a little water from your jug,” he said. “Drink, Sir,” she replied. She quickly lowered her jug to her hand and gave him a drink. When he had finished drinking, she said, “Let me draw water for your camels, so they can [also] drink their fill.” She quickly emptied her jug into the trough and ran to the well again to draw water. She drew water for all his camels. The man stood there gaping at her. But he remained silent, waiting to determine for certain whether or not G-d had made his journey successful.

In his commentary, the Kli Yakar intimates that Eliezer had witnessed Avraham’s chane, v’chesed, v’rachamim (grace, kindness, and mercy) on a first-hand basis. Therefore, he knew that the most important middah that a potential wife for his master’s son, Yitzhak, could possibly possess was that of gemilut chasadim (loving kindness). When coupled with ayin tovah, such a woman would be the worthy successor to Sarah Emanu (our Mother Sarah). Hence, the Kli Yakar asserts that these qualities alone became the litmus test by which Rivka was tested:

Based on all of this, Eliezer did not examine Rivka’s character except in regard to whether or not she had an ayin tovah and if she was a gomelet chasadim. Therefore he said: “I will not ask anything of her other than to give me water to drink. If, however, she responds and says: ‘Drink and I shall also provide water for your camels,’ then I will know without a doubt that she is a practitioner of loving kindness, since she will give me more than that which I will ask.” (Translation and underlining my own)

Within the purview of Rav Luntschitz’s thought, ayin tovah emerges as the desire to do more for someone than what has actually been requested. It is, in a word, consummate kindness and ultimate compassion.

Rabbi Baruch Halevi Epstein (1860-1941), in his monumental commentary on the Torah entitled, “Torah Temimah,” focused upon the holistic nature of ayin tovah in his commentary on the first chapter of Shir HaShirim:

And the general interpretation of this matter is a metaphor for the innermost ethical characteristics of an individual. If his “eyes are good,” which means he has a positive valence in regard to all of man’s middot, then we can readily hope that he is in the category of one who has perfected his Torah and his ma’asim tovim (positive behaviors) in the manner in which he comports himself in the world at large. As it is written: “He has told you, O man, what is good, and what the L-rd demands of you; but to do justice, to love loving-kindness, and to walk discreetly with your G-d.” (Sefer Michah 6:8, translation, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach) – This should be interpreted as fulfilling G-d’s commandments as they pertain to Him, and to one’s fellow man.

Thus, for Rav Epstein, conscious and active development of an ayin tovah is the best way to fulfill the Torah’s dictum, “And you shall do what is proper and good in the eyes of Hashem…” (Sefer Devarim 6:18). This is especially apropos since the Torah, itself, employs the anthropomorphism of “the eyes of Hashem.” In other words, when we have an ayin tovah, we are ultimately modeling ourselves after our Creator.

Regardless as to whether we follow the approach of the Bartenura, the Kli Yakar, or the Torah Temimah, our task is clear: We must ever follow Avraham’s beacon of light amid the darkness and confusion of our world, and emulate his ayin tovah. May the Master of the Universe, and the Guardian of Israel, grant us the wisdom to walk in Avraham’s ways and be his true disciples. V’chane yihi ratzon.

Shabbat Shalom

Past drashot may be found at my blog-website: http://reparashathashavuah.org

The email list, b’chasdei Hashem, has expanded to hundreds of people. I am always happy to add more members to the list. If you have family or friends you would like to have added, please do not hesitate to contact me via email [email protected].

*** My audio shiurim for Women on “Tefilah: Haskafah and Analysis,” may be found at: http://tinyurl.com/8hsdpyd

*** I have posted 164 of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s English language audio shiurim (MP3 format) spanning the years 1958-1984. They are available here: http://tinyurl.com/82pgvfn.

** Follow new postings on my Twitter accounts: @theRavZatzal and @Torahtech613.

*** Interested in 21st Century Jewish Education? See my blog: http://21stcenturyjewisheducation.org

*** Interested in the latest Educational Technology stories? See my Educational Technology – Yeshiva Edition Page at: http://www.scoop.it/t/educational-technology-yeshiva-edition.

                               Parashat Chukat 5773, 2013:

                        The Will and Well of Miriam

                                 Rabbi David Etengoff

Dedicated to the sacred memories of my mother, Miriam Tovah bat Aharon Hakohen, father-in-law, Levi ben Yitzhak, sister-in-law, Ruchama Rivka Sondra, sister, Shulamit bat Menachem, Shifra bat Chaim Alter, and Yehonatan Binyamin ben Mordechai Meir Halevi, and the refuah shlaimah of Yosef Shmuel ben Miriam.

The entire congregation of the children of Israel arrived at the desert of Zin in the first month, and the people settled in Kadesh. Miriam died there and was buried there. The congregation had no water; so they assembled against Moses and Aaron. (Sefer Bamidbar 20:1-2, this and all Tanach and Rashi translations, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach, underlining my own)

The Babylonian Talmud (Ta’anit 9a) notes the connection of the phrases “Miriam died there and was buried there,” and “The congregation had no water …,” and comments in the following manner:

R. Jose the son of R. Judah says: “Three good leaders had arisen for Israel, namely. Moses, Aaron and Miriam, and for their sake three good things were conferred [upon Israel], namely, the Well, the Pillar of Cloud and the Manna; the Well, for the merit of Miriam; the Pillar of Cloud for the merit of Aaron; the Manna for the merit of Moses. When Miriam died the well disappeared, as it is said, And Miriam died there, and immediately follows [the verse], And there was no water for the congregation; and it returned for the merit of the [latter] two [i.e. Moses and Aaron].” (This, and all Talmud translations, The Soncino Talmud, underlining my own)

In sum, the Well (that flowed from the rock) that accompanied the Jewish people throughout their 40 years of wandering in the dessert was b’zechut Miriam (in the merit of Miriam). This idea is derived from the juxtaposition of our two highlighted expressions wherein we find that the Well ceased to exist upon Miriam’s demise. Rashi (1040-1105), basing himself on our above-cited Talmudic passage, therefore explains: “had no water: From here [we learn that] all forty years they had the well in Miriam’s merit. — [Ta’anith 9a]” (This, and all Bible and Rashi translations, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach)

Two other major sources, however, state unequivocally that the Well was not b’zechut Miriam but rather, b’zechut Avraham. The first dissenting view, also from the Babylonian Talmud, discusses three of Avraham’s actions that he performed for the wayfarers (i.e. angels) in the beginning of Parashat Vayera:

… the School of Ishmael taught likewise: As a reward for three things [done by Abraham] they [his descendants] obtained three things. Thus: As a reward for, “[and he took] butter and milk,” they received the manna; as a reward for, “And he stood by them, they received the pillar of cloud;” as a reward for, “Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched,” they were granted Miriam’s well. (Talmud Bavli, Baba Metzia 86b)

The contradiction between this Talmudic segment and Talmud Bavli Ta’anit, was addressed by the world-renowned Talmud commentator, Rabbeinu Shmuel Eliezer Ben-Yehudah Halevi Edels (1555-1631, known as the “Maharsha”) in his explanation of our passage:

One needs to be exact in their analysis: In the first chapter of Ta’anit our Sages said that the manna was in the merit of Moshe, and the Well was in the merit of Miriam, and the Pillar of Cloud was in the merit of Aharon. From that source we have a fundamental contradiction: “Why was the Well called the Well of Miriam?” [- if it was in Avraham’s merit?] One can answer this in the following manner: Based upon the merit of Avraham the Jewish people would have deserved all of these gifts for but a short period of time. Once, however, [Hashem added] the merits of Moshe, Aharon, and Miriam [to these wonders and miracles,] the manna, the Pillar of Cloud, and the Well lasted for a very long time – the 40 years [the Jewish people wandered in the desert]. Therefore, when Aharon passed away the Pillar of Cloud ceased, when Miriam died the Well departed, and when Moshe expired the manna was no more. (Translation, underlining, and brackets my own)

In sum, even though the Well came into existence because of Avraham’s numerous acts of kindness toward the angels, it was known as the Well of Miriam, since it was on account of her merit that it remained with our people during their desert wanderings.

The second source in opposition to Talmud Bavli Ta’anit is that of Midrash Bereishit Rabbah Bereishit 48:10. Here, too, the Well is stated as something created in Avraham’s merit:

Please take now a small amount of water: Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Simai: “The Holy One blessed be He said to Avraham: ‘You have said: “Please take now a small amount of water,’” I hereby swear to you that I will repay your children in the desert, in their habitation, and in the Messianic future [for your act of kindness]. Thus the Torah states [in reference to the Well]: “Then Israel sang this song: Ascend, O’ well sing to it!” This was the case in the desert… (Translation and brackets my own)

The difference that obtains between this Midrashic source and our Talmudic passage in Talmud Bavli Ta’anit is directly addressed by the second Sochatchover Rebbe, Rabbi Shmuel Bornsztain (1855–1926, known as the “Shem Mishmuel” after the title of his nine-volume work of Torah explication). Before undertaking this task, however, Rav Bornsztain noted that the link between the Well and Avraham Avinu (our father, Abram) was already explicitly stated by Dovid Hamelech (King David) in Sefer Tehillim 105:41-42: “He opened a rock and water flowed; in the desert ran rivers. For He remembered His holy word with Abraham His servant.” Given that this is the case, we are certainly mystified by the connection of the Well to Miriam. Undaunted, the Shem Mishmuel approached this significant difficulty in the following fashion:

…the physical aspect and hardness of the rock becoming softened and transformed into sponge-like matter – and like a pool of water – this was a result of Avraham’s merit when he declared to the wayfarers to “Please take now a small amount of water and wash your feet” in order to purify them from the filth of idol worship as Rashi has already stated… The rock, however, becoming a source that acted as a spring replete with flowing waters – this was in the merit of Miriam, since in her very nature she longed to connect to her Father in Heaven – from the earth to the celestial heights – just as a spring flows [from the depths of the earth to the surface]… (Translation and brackets my own)

In sum, in Rav Bornsztain’s view, Avraham’s zechut was the source of the rock’s physical change, while Miriam’s zechut was responsible for its continuous flow of water throughout the 40 years of our people’s desert journey.

What act(s) did Miriam do to deserve this marked degree of zechut? Once again, we can readily turn to the words of Chazal (our holy Sages) to answer our question:

·      Midrash Bamidbar Rabbah Parasha I, Midrash Tanchuma (Warsaw and Buber), Parashat Bamidbar II, and Midrash Yalkut Shimoni, Parashat Bamidbar suggest that Miriam’s merit stemmed from her having led the Jewish women in shira al hayam (in song at the Sea of Reeds)

·      Rabbeinu Bahye ben Asher ibn Halawa (mid 13th Century-1340, known as Rabbeinu Bachya) in his Torah commentary on chapter 20 of our parasha, opines that Miriam’s reward in regards to water derived from her having stood by her baby brother Moshe after he was placed in his reed basket into the Nile River: “His sister stood from afar, to know what would be done to him.” (Sefer Shemot 2:4)

·      Rabbeinu Shlomo Ephraim ben Aaron Luntschitz (1550-1619, known as the “Kli Yakar” after the name of his commentary on the Torah) in his glosses on Sefer Shemot, Parashat Beshalach 17, maintains that Miriam was deserving of such great merit since “… she provided food for the newborn baby boys. As the Torah states: ‘So the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, that you have enabled the boys to live?’” (Sefer Shemot 2:18) Miriam, thereby, demonstrated tremendous gemilut chasadim (bestowal of loving kindness), a point the Kli Yakar underscores in his commentary on our parasha. Thus, the Well was quite fittingly in her merit.

On measure, Miriam emerges as an amazing woman. Whichever approach we follow, she clearly had an indomitable will that was dedicated to serving the Master of the Universe. Moreover, she was the ultimate ba’alat chesed (master of kindness) who steadfastly protected her baby brother’s life and those of the many newborn males of the Jewish people whom she saved. Thus, it was through Miriam’s zechut that the Jewish people had sufficient water to survive in the wasteland of the Sinai desert. With Hashem’s help, may Miriam’s multifold merits continue to protect us, now, and forevermore. V’chane yihi ratzon.

Shabbat Shalom

Past drashot may be found at my blog-website: http://reparashathashavuah.org

The email list, b’chasdei Hashem, has expanded to hundreds of people. I am always happy to add more members to the list. If you have family or friends you would like to have added, please do not hesitate to contact me via email [email protected].

*** My audio shiurim for Women on “Tefilah: Haskafah and Analysis,” may be found at: http://tinyurl.com/8hsdpyd

*** I have posted 164 of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s English language audio shiurim (MP3 format) spanning the years 1958-1984. They are available here: http://tinyurl.com/82pgvfn.

** Follow new postings on my Twitter accounts: @theRavZatzal and @Torahtech613.

*** Interested in 21st Century Jewish Education? See my blog: http://21stcenturyjewisheducation.org

*** Interested in the latest Educational Technology stories see my Educational Technology – Yeshiva Edition Page at: http://www.scoop.it/t/educational-technology-yeshiva-edition

                            Parashat Korach, 2013:

           Korach and the Pursuit of Unlimited Power

                           Rabbi David Etengoff

Dedicated to the sacred memories of my mother, Miriam Tovah bat Aharon Hakohen, father-in-law, Levi ben Yitzhak, sister-in-law, Ruchama Rivka Sondra, sister, Shulamit bat Menachem, Shifra bat Chaim Alter, and Yehonatan Binyamin ben Mordechai Meir Halevi, and the refuah shlaimah of Yosef Shmuel ben Miriam.

Two words are commonly used in the modern lexicon to describe a state or a situation wherein two or more parties cannot agree. One word is “disagreement,” and the other is “conflict.” Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary defines the first as “difference; incongruity; discrepancy,” and as: “difference of opinion or sentiments [;] a disagreeing; a refusal to agree.” In addition, it is defined as: “a controversy; a contention; a quarrel; a difference.” In contrast, “conflict” is defined as: “a fight; battle; struggle.” Moreover it may be: “a sharp disagreement or opposition, as of interests, ideas, etc.; clash.” In practical everyday terminology, when a student and teacher, for example, fail to see “eye to eye” it is usually a disagreement; whereas when groups of people or nation states are prepared to go to war, they are in the midst of conflict.

This week’s parasha begins with the words: “V’yikach Korach ben Yitzhar ben Kahat ben Lavi v’Datan v’Aviram bnai Eliav v’On ben Pelet b’nai Reuven. V’yakumu lifnei Moshe v’anashim m’b’nai yisrael chamishim u’mataim…” (“Korah son of Izhar son of Kohath son of Levi separated himself, with Datan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth, the offspring of Reuben. They stood before Moses with 250 men from the Children of Israel…” Translation, Artscroll Tanach). A few verses later in Sefer Bamidbar 16:11 we find: “L’chane atah v’chol adatecha hanoyadim al Hashem…” (“Therefore, you and your entire assembly that are joining together are against Hashem…” ibid.) 

Clearly, the above-related events are not merely some sort of disagreement. This was a full-blown conflict of the highest order. In other words, Korach did not rebel against the authority of Moshe and Aharon alone; instead, he rebelled against Hashem, Himself! (“Sh’chilak al Moshe v’al haMakom,” Midrash Bamidbar Rabbah 18:1) How could Korach do this? What were the true motivational factors at play that drove him to relentlessly pursue his evil agenda?

My rebbi, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik zatzal (1903-1993), described Korach as “a demagogue motivated by selfish ambitions.” (Rabbi Abraham R. Besdin, Reflections of the Rav: Lessons in Jewish Thought, p. 140) As such, even though he was blessed with a prodigious intellect (Rashi, Bamidbar 16:7), tremendous wealth (Talmud Bavli, Pesachim, 119a and Midrash Shemot Rabbah 31:2), and nearly everything that was associated with this brilliance and affluence, it was simply not enough. Korach wanted everything. When he was denied the leadership of his tribe and was passed over in favor of his cousin, Elitzafon ben Uziel (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach I), Korach’s need for power suddenly knew no bounds and expanded to include control of the entire Jewish people. Even this, however, was not enough. Instead, he wanted to be recognized as the source of all power. In short, he not only wanted to replace Moshe, he wanted to supplant the Almighty, Himself. Korach, therefore, incited and directed a rebellion against all authority both earthly and heavenly.