I am grateful to Jeremy Reizenstein for pointing out that the miraculous appearance of the archives of Belogski could, in fact, be a proof for Gosse's Omphalos theory of the age of the universe! While Belogski has an archive going back to June 2001, the entire blog actually came into existence last week, with its history intact. For more information on Gosse, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Henry_Gosse.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Korach's Name (Korach 5766)
The Sedrah begins with a brief introduction to episode of Korach and his followers. Note the way in which Korach is named:
And Korach, son of Yitzhar, son of Kehat, son of Levi, took and Datan and Aviram, the sons of Eliav and On, son of Pelet, sons of Reuven. And they arose before Moshe and two hundered and fifty men from Beney Yisrael, princes of the community, called to the assembly, men of fame. They congregated over Moshe and Aharon and said to them - it is too much for you, for all of the community are holy and God is amidst them - so why do you lord it over the community of God? (BeMidbar 16:1-3)
The genealogy of Korach is unnecessary – we already know all this information from previous verses. The Talmud, recognising that the names are not needed for the narrative, assumes that rather than telling us from whom Korach was descended, they tell us about his character. However, why supply a four stage genealogy? Why not trace Korach’s ancestry still further, perhaps to Yaakov, or even beyond:
So let it also consider, ‘son of Yaakov’…. Said Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzhak - Yaakov requested mercy for himself, as the verse says, ‘Let my soul not come into their secret and with their gathering, let my honour not be unified.’ ‘Let my soul not come into their secret’ - these are the spies. ‘And with their gathering, let my honour not be unified’ - this is the gathering of Korach. (Sanhedrin 109b)
The reference is to the vision that Yaakov had on his deathbed, as recorded at the end of BeReishit. When speaking of the tribe of Levi, he saw that a descendant of his (Korach) would start a rebellion. He prayed that his name not be associated with the rebel; hence the genealogy of Korach stops at Levi, just short of Yaakov.
But how did this help Yaakov? Every child knows that Levi’s father was Yaakov; his absence from Korach ancestry hardly excludes his association from the rebellion. We already know that Korach’s great-great grandfather was Yaakov. The Maharal considers this question:
If you will ask - is it not a disgrace that such wicked descendants should emerge from the righteous one - for even though it is not written explicitly, do we not know that Korach was descended from Yaakov? We see that a righteous man may certainly spawn a wicked one - for there is some impurity in the righteous which manifests itself in the wicked one. There is no righteous man without some impurity, from which emerges the wicked one. But Yaakov prayed that he should have no portion in the wicked one, meaning that…. the impurity of that wicked one should not be rooted in Yaakov, rather in Levi. Therefore, it does not write, ‘ben Yaakov’, for Yaakov had no part in their dispute.... (Gur Aryeh BeMidbar 16:1)
The Maharal understands Yaakov’s prayer in a new way. Yaakov was concerned when he visualised Korach that he (Yaakov) might be responsible in some way for the rebel’s behaviour. Yaakov thought that Korach’s rebellion might be a manifestation of some flaw in himself, magnified through the generations into a full-scale attack on Moshe’s leadership. When God (as it were) consented to record Korach’s ancestry just to Levi, Yaakov was assured that the defect did not find its root in him, but could only be traced as far as Levi.
There is, however, a niggling difficulty. Assuming that Levi was the ‘root’ of the Korach problem, since Levi was Yaakov’s son he was therefore somewhat responsible for him. As such, the purpose of only tracing Korach’s family to Levi is unclear. The Shem MiShmuel suggests that while indeed the trait exhibited by Korach was traceable to Yaakov, its negative manifestation came from Levi. The pure trait of steadfastness in the face of adversity came from Yaakov, but was first misused by Levi (in the episode with Dina); this misuse reached its nadir with Korach, who stood brazenly in defiance of Moshe and his people. While in principle, steadfastness is a neutral trait, it may be used for good of bad. Yaakov was assured that while the essential trait came from him, any misuse started further down the line.
And Korach, son of Yitzhar, son of Kehat, son of Levi, took and Datan and Aviram, the sons of Eliav and On, son of Pelet, sons of Reuven. And they arose before Moshe and two hundered and fifty men from Beney Yisrael, princes of the community, called to the assembly, men of fame. They congregated over Moshe and Aharon and said to them - it is too much for you, for all of the community are holy and God is amidst them - so why do you lord it over the community of God? (BeMidbar 16:1-3)
The genealogy of Korach is unnecessary – we already know all this information from previous verses. The Talmud, recognising that the names are not needed for the narrative, assumes that rather than telling us from whom Korach was descended, they tell us about his character. However, why supply a four stage genealogy? Why not trace Korach’s ancestry still further, perhaps to Yaakov, or even beyond:
So let it also consider, ‘son of Yaakov’…. Said Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzhak - Yaakov requested mercy for himself, as the verse says, ‘Let my soul not come into their secret and with their gathering, let my honour not be unified.’ ‘Let my soul not come into their secret’ - these are the spies. ‘And with their gathering, let my honour not be unified’ - this is the gathering of Korach. (Sanhedrin 109b)
The reference is to the vision that Yaakov had on his deathbed, as recorded at the end of BeReishit. When speaking of the tribe of Levi, he saw that a descendant of his (Korach) would start a rebellion. He prayed that his name not be associated with the rebel; hence the genealogy of Korach stops at Levi, just short of Yaakov.
But how did this help Yaakov? Every child knows that Levi’s father was Yaakov; his absence from Korach ancestry hardly excludes his association from the rebellion. We already know that Korach’s great-great grandfather was Yaakov. The Maharal considers this question:
If you will ask - is it not a disgrace that such wicked descendants should emerge from the righteous one - for even though it is not written explicitly, do we not know that Korach was descended from Yaakov? We see that a righteous man may certainly spawn a wicked one - for there is some impurity in the righteous which manifests itself in the wicked one. There is no righteous man without some impurity, from which emerges the wicked one. But Yaakov prayed that he should have no portion in the wicked one, meaning that…. the impurity of that wicked one should not be rooted in Yaakov, rather in Levi. Therefore, it does not write, ‘ben Yaakov’, for Yaakov had no part in their dispute.... (Gur Aryeh BeMidbar 16:1)
The Maharal understands Yaakov’s prayer in a new way. Yaakov was concerned when he visualised Korach that he (Yaakov) might be responsible in some way for the rebel’s behaviour. Yaakov thought that Korach’s rebellion might be a manifestation of some flaw in himself, magnified through the generations into a full-scale attack on Moshe’s leadership. When God (as it were) consented to record Korach’s ancestry just to Levi, Yaakov was assured that the defect did not find its root in him, but could only be traced as far as Levi.
There is, however, a niggling difficulty. Assuming that Levi was the ‘root’ of the Korach problem, since Levi was Yaakov’s son he was therefore somewhat responsible for him. As such, the purpose of only tracing Korach’s family to Levi is unclear. The Shem MiShmuel suggests that while indeed the trait exhibited by Korach was traceable to Yaakov, its negative manifestation came from Levi. The pure trait of steadfastness in the face of adversity came from Yaakov, but was first misused by Levi (in the episode with Dina); this misuse reached its nadir with Korach, who stood brazenly in defiance of Moshe and his people. While in principle, steadfastness is a neutral trait, it may be used for good of bad. Yaakov was assured that while the essential trait came from him, any misuse started further down the line.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Speaking Ill Of The Land (Shelach 5766)
The majority of the Sedrah deals with the story of the spies, who brought a negative report of the Land of Israel to the Jewish people. Although the people who believed them were allowed to live (although they would now die in the desert), the spies themselves died a gruesome death:
And the men, whom Moshe sent to spy out the land, and who, when they returned, made all the congregation to murmur against him, by bringing up an evil report against the land, even those men that did bring up an evil report of the land, died by the plague before the Lord. But Yehoshua the son of Nun, and Caleb the son of Yephuneh, remained alive of those men that went to spy out the land. (BeMidbar 14)
The nature of the plague is not specified by the text, although the Talmud has a tradition as to its nature:
The spies had no share in the world to come, as it says: the men who spoke evil of the land died in a plague. They died - in this world, in a plague - in the world to come. (Sanhedrin 109b)
The men died who spoke evil of the land in a plague - said Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish: they died an odd death. Said Rebbi Chanina bar Popa: Rebi Shilo from the town of Tamrata expounded: to teach that their tongues extended and fell on their navels and worms emerged from their tongues and entered their navels and from their navels they entered their tongues. Rav Nachman bar Yitzhok said: they died from croup. (Sotah 35a)
In the plague - from the fact that it doesn’t says: in a plague, it implies that it was special, and they deserved it measure for measure. (Rashi)
Following Rashi’s lead, many of the commentators attempt to link their wrongdoing with their grisly deaths:
The prophet Ezekiel describes the Land of Israel as the ‘navel of the earth’ (38), since it is the focal point of the physical world. The fact that the spies spoke (with their tongues) against the Land (the navel) is clearly related to their punishment:
This absolutely measure for measure, as they spoke evil with their tongues about Eretz Yisrael, which is in the navel of the world, as it says in Yechezkel - upon the navel of the earth. The Radak explains there that Eretz Yisrael is called the navel of the world because it is in the centre of the world, like the navel is in the centre of the body. Therefore they were punished in this manner. Also the reason of Rav Nachman bar Yitzhak who explained that they died of croup, for this illness begins in the mouth and finishes in the intestines, which is the navel at the top of the intestines. (Iyun Ya’akov to Sotah 35)
Rashi, in his Talmud commentary, makes a similar observation. The Kli Yakar offers a slightly different explanation:
It writes: The wicked are estranged from the womb; the speakers of lies go astray as soon as they are born. When the child is inside its mother, then the navel takes the place of the mouth, for its mouth is closed and its navel is open. Since even in the womb the speakers of lies go astray, it is as though even in the womb their mouths are open to speak lies and falsehood, where the navel is in the place of the mouth. Therefore their tongues extended to their navels for with each mouth they consumed and destroyed the land with their falsehood, so the punishment was in both these places, which is the place of the sin. (Kli Yakar loc. cit.)
And the men, whom Moshe sent to spy out the land, and who, when they returned, made all the congregation to murmur against him, by bringing up an evil report against the land, even those men that did bring up an evil report of the land, died by the plague before the Lord. But Yehoshua the son of Nun, and Caleb the son of Yephuneh, remained alive of those men that went to spy out the land. (BeMidbar 14)
The nature of the plague is not specified by the text, although the Talmud has a tradition as to its nature:
The spies had no share in the world to come, as it says: the men who spoke evil of the land died in a plague. They died - in this world, in a plague - in the world to come. (Sanhedrin 109b)
The men died who spoke evil of the land in a plague - said Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish: they died an odd death. Said Rebbi Chanina bar Popa: Rebi Shilo from the town of Tamrata expounded: to teach that their tongues extended and fell on their navels and worms emerged from their tongues and entered their navels and from their navels they entered their tongues. Rav Nachman bar Yitzhok said: they died from croup. (Sotah 35a)
In the plague - from the fact that it doesn’t says: in a plague, it implies that it was special, and they deserved it measure for measure. (Rashi)
Following Rashi’s lead, many of the commentators attempt to link their wrongdoing with their grisly deaths:
The prophet Ezekiel describes the Land of Israel as the ‘navel of the earth’ (38), since it is the focal point of the physical world. The fact that the spies spoke (with their tongues) against the Land (the navel) is clearly related to their punishment:
This absolutely measure for measure, as they spoke evil with their tongues about Eretz Yisrael, which is in the navel of the world, as it says in Yechezkel - upon the navel of the earth. The Radak explains there that Eretz Yisrael is called the navel of the world because it is in the centre of the world, like the navel is in the centre of the body. Therefore they were punished in this manner. Also the reason of Rav Nachman bar Yitzhak who explained that they died of croup, for this illness begins in the mouth and finishes in the intestines, which is the navel at the top of the intestines. (Iyun Ya’akov to Sotah 35)
Rashi, in his Talmud commentary, makes a similar observation. The Kli Yakar offers a slightly different explanation:
It writes: The wicked are estranged from the womb; the speakers of lies go astray as soon as they are born. When the child is inside its mother, then the navel takes the place of the mouth, for its mouth is closed and its navel is open. Since even in the womb the speakers of lies go astray, it is as though even in the womb their mouths are open to speak lies and falsehood, where the navel is in the place of the mouth. Therefore their tongues extended to their navels for with each mouth they consumed and destroyed the land with their falsehood, so the punishment was in both these places, which is the place of the sin. (Kli Yakar loc. cit.)
Monday, June 19, 2006
How To Find Dr. Haym Soloveitchik's 'Rupture And Reconstruction'
I have been asked by a number of people to supply a link to the article by Dr. Haym Soloveitchik. It maybe found here: http://www.lookstein.org/links/orthodoxy.htm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
