Jüdisches Denken zu Könige I 22:15

Similarly, the criteria employed even by the most understanding minds may prove faulty when coming face to face with the superior logic of the Almighty. The prophets Samuel and Nathan are good examples of great minds being deceived. Samuel would have chosen Eliav as Saul's successor, since he belonged to the right family and possessed the physical attributes that distinguished Saul, whose physical attributes had been a factor in his selection as king. Samuel had to be reminded that whereas he looked only at the exterior, it was reserved for G-d to look into the heart of a person. At that particular time, physical attributes no longer mattered in the choice (Samuel I Chapters 10 and 16). Our so called logic is capable of rendering a distorted view of reality just as the eye that beholds an object partially submerged in water observes distortions in the shape of such object, though in reality such distortions have not occurred. The prophet Nathan's first reaction to David when the latter expressed the wish to build a temple, was affirmative. He had to be told by G-d that David was not the one who would be permitted to do this, but that his son Solomon would be chosen for that task. Here too, Nathan's mind without G-d’s revelation to him was inadequate to its task. In fact, G-d describes the very idea that it could have been David who would build the temple as quite inconceivable, seeing he had been a man of bloodshed (Chronicles I Chapter 22). Since the words that David was a man of bloodshed are put in his own mouth, i.e. are not reported as the reason given to Nathan by G-d, we can infer that Nathan's entire thought process was considered as faulty. David's request was perfectly reasonable; it was the prophet's reaction based on reasoning of a purely human nature that was faulty (compare version in Samuel II Chapter 7). In Kings I Chapter 22, we find another example of a prophet being misled by his own mind.

The Midrash on Psalms 55,16, describes Doag and Achitofel as examples of such apparent Torah scholars whose true colours did not come to light till later, though their hearts had always harboured their wickedness. When one observes the sudden death of such people,- David says,- it reveals that the evil essence had not lost its mastery over the characteristics acquired due to Torah study and absorption of its values. These people are punished by sudden death, since they did not use Torah to refine their characters, but abused Torah to advance their egotistical goals. Korach's argument was that since everybody was holy, no one should be a leader. On the contrary, if holiness is a way of emulating G'd in Heaven, everyone in Heaven is certainly not equal, there are certainly leaders there. Why then did Korach use such a patently specious argument? His argument makes no sense at all. If everybody had been granted a degree of prophetic vision at the time of the revelation, part of the reason had been to demonstrate Moses' superiority. It demonstrated how superior Moses' relationship with G'd had been. The people had even asked him to be their go between. Arguing in favour of a leaderless society was absurd then. Therefore, it is better to understand the line "for the entire congregation is holy" as a sarcastic reference to what is supposed to have taken place at Sinai. Midrash Shocher Tov on Psalms 1,1, "and has not sat amongst the scoffers," considers that statement as referring to the sarcastic comments Korach had made about the Jewish people. His comment then would read like this: "Enough already! have you peddled the idea of prophecy to the extent where you have convinced everyone that he is holy? Does everyone think that just because he heard the opening lines of the Decalogue from G'ds own mouth that they are prophets already? If this is indeed the message you have peddled, then why are you arrogating to yourselves superior status? The arbitrary appointment of a High Priest then is completely unjustified!" Korach's mockery is directed at three pillars of our faith then. 1) Rav lachem, enough already, questions the concept of prophecy altogether. 2) U-vetocham hashem, questions the Divine Presence, the concept of hashgachah peratit.) Madua titnassu? questions the authenticity of Torat Moshe, the specific commandments recorded in the Torah. Moses' reply, after he had been "floored," i.e. vayipol al panav, he "fell" on his face, by this challenge, is perfectly appropriate. Concerning denial of G'ds special Providence, Moses said "tomorrow morning you will see an example of that very Providence." boker ve-yauda hashem etc. (16,5) (2) Concerning the challenge to his own standing as a prophet, he says "whomsoever He will choose, He will bring close to Himself." (3) Concerning mockery of the institution of prophecy, Moses said "whosoever is holy, He will bring close." (referring to his older brother Aaron whose status as a prophet had preceded his own chronologically.) In his second statement, Moses addressed himself to the underlying motive of Korach's complaint in a more subtle manner. Ha-me-at mikem kee hivdil, are you not sufficiently aggrieved that the elevated position the Torah has granted you as Levites, prevents you from effective land ownership in the land of Canaan, that you want to assume the even heavier burden of the priesthood?" Besides, since you challenge the validity of priestly functions per se, your specific complaint against Aaron surely must hide a personal motive? Why else bother with this detail? Therefore, Moses continued, "I am convinced that you are in effect rebelling against G'd," i.e. ha-noadim al hashem, (16,11) not against us. Though you pretend to challenge our authority, you are challenging G'ds authority. The above is in keeping with what our sages taught in Avot, that any feud which is not designed to advance the cause of Heaven will not endure. However, when the objective of the argument is to further the cause of Heaven, both parties to the argument will endure. (Avot,5, 17) Since it is a fact that in either argument one side must be wrong, the statement of our sages is puzzling. Aristotele teaches that we use the terms "true" and "false" when referring to concepts of the mind. When we refer to physical phenomena or their absence, however, we use the terms "good" and "bad" respectively. Thus a statement that a triangle has three corners would be described as "true," whereas the statement that a particular triangle has four corners would be described as "false." The terms "good" or "evil" cannot be applied to such statements. We feel however, that when a concept lacks a basis in fact, it can be said to be bad. The three categories (a) true or false, (b) good or bad, and (c) extant or non-existent, are all closely intertwined. Mentioning Moses as a party to Korach's quarrel is inconceivable, since Korach had based his whole philosophy on the denial of G'ds authority, as we have explained. Since Shammai and Hillel based their respective disagreements on common ground, their respective opinions will endure, eyloo ve-eyloo divrey elokim chayim, the words of either party have been inspired by the Living G'd. Korach, whose argument was based on sheker, a lie, will, of course, not endure. The importance of the eyloo ve-eyloo concept just mentioned, is best demonstrated in Bamidbar Rabba 19, when G'd is portrayed studying the laws of the red heifer, and quotes a halachic interpretation by Rabbi Eliezer. The fact is that that opinion never became halachically accepted by the sages. Nonetheless, G'd Himself is shown as quoting it. This proves the dictum that any argument that is designed to further the cause of Heaven will endure, i.e. that even the opinion that had been rejected will merit being considered at all times. Korach's attack on the institution of prophecy proceeded as follows. He dressed the elders of the Supreme Court in garments dyed completely in techeylet azure blue, and asked Moses if these garments required tzitzit, "fringes." To Moses' reply that they did indeed require these "fringes," he scoffed, saying "how can a single blue thread accomplish something that an entire garment fails to accomplish?" What Korach was alluding to is this. Since man, nature's choicest creature, having been created in G'ds image, is equipped with the ability to know good from evil, to know what is beneficial and what is harmful, surely whatever any so-called prophetic insight could add to this knowledge would be so trivial as to be of no consequence. Moses' reply pointed out that logic, as characterised by Aristotele's concept of the golden mean, was not an infallible method to arrive at objective truths. Judaism is based on a Heavenly assist, which is symbolized by the single blue thread of tzitzit acting as the reminder that our inspiration derives from heaven. Korach's second question dealt with that of a house full of sacred texts. He wanted to know if such a house required a mezuzah, the traditional scroll containing part of the keriyat shma. Moses explained that in order for such a house to be considered sanctified, a mezuzah would still be needed. Only two passages out of a total of two hundred and seventy five passages had the power to sanctify the house. Korach challenged the authenticity of this statement, thereby challenging the principle of G'ds special Providence for the Jewish people, the second principle of Jewish faith. Korach and his sympathizers had known in advance the answer they would receive. They felt that when a group of highly placed men presented a challenge, such a challenge would be more formidable, and would be more likely to attract G'ds attention. This underlined the fact that they spurned the notion that G'd would concern himself with the wants or needs of any individual. Jewish philosophy does not hold that the whole is superior to its constituent parts, but rather that the whole is upheld by the merit of each constituent part. The story of Noach, for whose sake the earth was saved, is ample proof of the value of the individual part vis a vis the whole. Proverbs 10,25 puts it thus: "and the righteous is the foundation of the universe." The two passages contained in the mezuzah make the point that when we listen to Divine instructions, we will benefit by the special Personal Providence, and particular attention will be paid to our needs, superseding the normal bounty provided by nature. (Deut. 11, 13-21) The land of Israel will receive such special attention on a year round basis. (verse 11) There are many other such promises. The third argument presented by Korach and company, was intended to inflame the people's sense of outrage against Moses and Aaron. The subject matter was the method used to purify the Levites. Numbers 8,7, states that removal of body hair is a prerequisite for such purification. When Moses, personally, had performed this rite on Korach, he being the senior ranking Levite, the people had no longer recognised Korach minus beard etc. When asked who had done this to him, Korach accused Moses of having abused him personally in this fashion, whereas at the same time Moses had adorned his brother Aaron in the finery of the High Priest's garments. By portraying Moses as high handed, Korach hoped to convince the people that Moses had acted of his own accord. The survival of Korach's sons who did not share in their father's rebellion, demonstrated better than anything that Divine Providence acted selectively by picking only the guilty for the meting out of punishment. By demonstrating that even the most plausible sounding argument had been discredited, since those who presented it had been killed by Divine and supernatural action, the "father knows best" quality of Torah legislation was vindicated. The third point that was to be made, was to show that whereas Korach had intended to downgrade Moses and Aaron in the eyes of the people, their action had boomeranged, producing the opposite result. The greater the stature of the challenger, the more enduring the esteem in which the intended victim is held, after he has succeeded in defeating the challenge. We see therefore, that the reason the Torah first listed all the fine attributes of Korach and his assembly was to alert us to the fact that once this challenge had been disposed of, the "establishment" as it were, had emerged greatly strengthened. The twenty four types of gifts that priests are entitled to, are legislated immediately after this affair, since the prestige of the priests was now at a high, and no one would object when the latter were also rewarded for the duties they performed on behalf of the entire nation.