Commento su Numeri 16:15

ויחר למשה מאד AND MOSES WAS VERY DISTRESSED — i.e. he was very much grieved.

RESPECT NOT THOU ‘MINCHATHAM’ (THEIR OFFERING). “According to its plain sense [the meaning of ‘their offering’ is] ‘the incense which they will offer up before You tomorrow — do not turn to it.’ The Midrashic explanation is that Moses said: ‘I know that they have a portion in the Daily Whole-offerings of the congregation; let not [their part in it] be accepted before You favorably.’” This is Rashi’s language. But it does not seem to me to be correct that it is referring to the incense, because it was with reference to Dathan and Abiram that Moses said this, because he became angered by their words, and they were not amongst the company who gathered together to burn the incense. But the plain meaning [of the verse] is that because these people wanted the priesthood, to be able to perform the service of the offerings, Moses said: “Respect not Thou their offering, meaning: respect not the offering which they want to bring before You, nor the prayer which they will pray unto You,” for all offerings, including prayer, are called minchah (offering) in Scripture. Onkelos also rendered [minchatham] as kurbanhon (their offering), meaning “anything that they will offer before You.”

אל תפן אל מנחתם, do not accept any kind of offering these people would You in order to atone for themselves. Moses chose the מנחה type offering as the example as this is usually the most welcome kind of offering to G’d, and we know that he referred to such gift offerings as being ריח ניחוח pleasant fragrance. He explains that the reason such offerings should not be accepted is that he, Moses, has not forgiven the insult fling at him. [In Samuel I 26,19 David explains to King Sha-ul that G’d is apt to be appeased by someone bringing an offering known as מנחה. Ed.] Here Moses conditions G’d accepting such an offering from Korach on he, Moses, first having been appeased by Korach before daring to ask G’d for atonement. We have a standing rule that even Yom Kippur, a day set aside for atonement, does not atone for sins committed between one person and another unless the offender had first reconciled himself with the party whom he had wronged. (Yuma 85). The prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 18,20-23) elaborates the same point also, asking G’d not to forgive the people for sins committed against fellow Jews until they had first been forgiven by those against whom they had sinned.

ויאמר אל ה׳ אל תפן, He said to G'd: "do not turn to their gift-offering." Moses now understood the depth of Datan and Aviram's hatred, that they were thoroughly wicked and actually hated anything or anybody who was good. He was aware that there are no people who do not have certain merits due to good deeds they have performed. He realised that G'd does not withhold the reward for such merits from anyone, and that if the people in question cannot be rewarded in the hereafter because they had forfeited their hereafter, G'd would compensate them in this life. This is based on Deut. 32,4 that "the Lord is one of faithfulness without iniquity." Sanhedrin 106 provides us with an example of the wicked Bileam, who had after all pronounced all the blessings on the Jewish people, collecting his fee for having the Moabites seduce the Israelites, prior to his being slain. Moses did not want G'd to accept even the good deeds Korach and associates had performed for whom they had not yet received a reward. This is what he had in mind when he referred to מנחתם.

אל תפן; the word תפן is derived from the root פנה, as in Genesis 43,34 ותרב משאת בנימין “Binyamin’s gift was more substantial,” after the Torah first described Joseph giving gifts to the other brothers, but introducing Binyamin’s gifts with the words מאת פניו, indicating a “turn around” by treating Binyamin differently than the other brothers. We must view the expression אל תפן as אל תפנה, seeing the vowel pattern under the letters תפ are tzeyreh followed by segol. If the Torah had written אל תפן with the vowel pattern segol, segol, it would have been tafneh, i.e. a causative mode “do not bring about a change.”

אל תפן אל מנחתם, “Do not turn to their gift-offering.” Rashi explains that according to the plain meaning the gift offering referred to was the incense that the rebels were to offer on the following morning. Nachmanides writes that this is not correct, as the words were said concerning Datan and Aviram, and Moses was especially angry at what they had said. Their reason for dissatisfaction had nothing to do with who would be privileged to offer incense at all. They had had their own axe to grind. The plain meaning of the verse is that Moses said to G’d concerning the people who had demanded the right to perform the priestly duties, that He should not accept their incense in order to demonstrate that they had not been chosen to do so. Moses meant that G’d should neither accept their incense offering nor accept their prayer with goodwill. Prayer is also referred to as מנחה in Scripture. Onkelos also supports this explanation when he writes קורבנהון, without specifying, i.e. any offering including prayer.

The incense which they will offer. Meaning: Even the smoke should not rise up before you. (Gur Aryeh) Ramban asks: Moshe was saying this regarding Dasan and Aviram, but they did not offer incense. The answer appears to be that although Dasan and Aviram did not bring any offerings, there is no difficulty, for we still could say that “the agent of a person is considered like [the sender] himself” (Kiddushin 41b). [Those who offered the incense could be considered agents of Dasan and Aviram] because the purpose of those who offered the incense was to say that they were fit to be Kohanim Gedolim, and a Kohen Gadol brings offerings on behalf of all the people, not for himself alone.

V. 15. ויחר וגו׳ eigentlich: dies brannte Mosche sehr, dass man es wagte, ihm den Vorwurf eines Missbrauchs seiner Stellung zu rechtloser Willkür zu machen, das schmerzte ihn tief. — אל תפן אל מנחתם, das Verständnis dieses Satzes hat erhebliche Schwierigkeiten. Es kann dies nicht auf das קטרת hinblicken, das morgen von den mit Korach verbundenen Empörern dargebracht werden sollte. Denn eben daran nahmen ja, wie wir bereits bemerkt, Datan und Abiram keinen Teil. Vielmehr glauben wir eben deshalb, es vielleicht also verstehen zu dürfen: Korachs und der Zweihundertundfünfzig Aufstand war eine direkte Auflehnung gegen Gott und den von ihm angeordneten, durch Aharon zu vollziehenden Opferdienst in seinem Heiligtum. Von diesem in Wahrheit Gott huldigenden Opferdienst sagte sich der Selbstdünkel los, mit welchem sie bereit waren, in eigener Überhebung Gott den Weihrauch ihres Beliebens darzubringen. An dieser priestertümlichen Seite des Aufstandes hatten Datan und Abiram keinen Teil. Mit ihrem "Mincha" frevelten sie nicht. Mit ihrem Mincha blieben sie auf dem normalen Boden der Gesamtnation, mit dem symbolischen Minchaausdruck ihrer Gotteshuldigung verharrten sie im legalen Anschluss an das Gesamtopfer der Nation im Heiligtum und suchten kein individuelles priesterliches Vorangehen für sich, — und gleichwohl אל תפן ל אל מנחתם: denn wenn sie auch im symbolischen Ausdruck der Gotteshuldigung nicht gefrevelt, so war dafür ihr konkretes Vorgehen ein um so tieferer Frevel gegen die Huldigung Gottes. Indem sie wegen des ihnen versagten Eintritts in das verheißene Land Mosche anklagten, diesen Eintritt auch für die Zukunft spöttisch in Zweifel zogen, in allem nur die Ohnmacht Mosche erblickten, der seine Verlegenheit hinter die angebliche Versündigung des Volkes maskierte, indem sie so Mosche als den gewissenlosen Betrüger seiner Nation darstellten und ihn zugleich der gemeinsten Herrschsucht und Gewalttätigkeit beschuldigten, hatten sie überhaupt die ganze Sendung Mosche als gemeinen Betrug erklärt und damit das ganze Göttliche seiner Sendung, sowie die ganze besondere Beziehung Gottes zu Israel, die ja eben nur durch diese Sendung und in ihr Tatsache geworden, geleugnet. Damit hatten sie aber, so weit es sie betraf, den ganzen Boden für nichtig erklärt, auf welchem ein durch Mosche überbrachtes Zeugnis für ein an Mosche und durch Mosche offenbartes Gottesgesetz und ein diesem Gesetze errichtetes Gottesheiligtum und ein diesem Gottesgesetzesheiligtum geweihter Opferdienst für sie noch irgend welche Bedeutung haben könnte. Datan und Abiram traten nicht darum nicht mit ihren מחתות unter die Zweihundertundfünfzig, weil sie damit dem legalen Heiligtum und seinem Opferdienst die Anerkennung belassen wollten, sondern weil sie zu allen diesen Beziehungen überhaupt sich negierend verhielten. Darum אל תפן אל מנחתם! Vielleicht liegt diese Auffassung auch der in במדבר רבה z. St. gegebenen Erläuterung zu Grunde: כך אמר משה לפני הקב׳׳ה רבונו של עולם יודע אני שיש מאלו חלק באותה מנחה שהקריבו ,מלבד עולת התמיד ומנחתה והיתה של כל ישראל קריבה ,הואיל ופירשו אלו מבניך אל תשתכל בחלקם תניחנו האש ואל תאכלנה.

אל תפן אל מנחתם, “do not turn to their gift offering!” The reason why Moses cursed Datan and Abiram, by asking G-d not to accept their offering if any, was because even assuming, as he did, that they would not retract even if G-d were to say, as He did, that He had chosen Aaron and not Moses, they would still challenge the hereditary nature of the priesthood;Korach and his followers, on the other hand, by each taking the censers in which to offer incense outside the Tabernacle, did not challenge the priesthood itself, only Aaron’s appointment as High Priest. Therefore he did not ask G-d not to accept the incense of these 250 men.

אל תפן אל מנחתם TURN NOT THOU TO THEIR OBLATION — According to its plain sense the meaning is: “In respect to the frankincense which they will offer before Thee tomorrow, I beg of Thee do not turn (pay regard) to them”. The Midrashic explanation is: He said, “I know that they have a portion in the continual offerings of the community; let not even this their portion be accepted favourably before Thee — let the fire leave it alone and not consume it” (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 7).

I HAVE NOT TAKEN ONE ASS FROM THEM. The meaning thereof is that Moses said: “What lordship am I exercising over them, for I have never taken from them even one ass to do my work, as is the manner of kings and princes?” For this is the manner of the kingdom,⁹⁵I Samuel 10:25. as it is written, and he will take your asses, and put them to his work.⁹⁶Ibid., 8:16. This is the meaning of Onkelos’ rendition: [“I have not taken one ass from them] sh’chorith (as a levy),” for [in Aramaic] the king’s levy is called shichvur. Thus Moses mentioned the smallest incident amongst the laws of royalty, and then he said, Neither have I hurt one of them by appointing him to my chariot⁹⁷See ibid., Verse 12. or to do my work, as is befitting for a king, or by perverting his judgment [in a lawsuit] or by treating him with disrespect, for [the phrase “hurting” in neither have I ‘hurt’ one of them] includes all kinds of injustice.

לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי, I have not even made use of things which any ordinary person would borrow from his neighbour without giving it a thought. This proves that my position of authority was exclusively used for their benefit and not for mine. Their present complaints prove only that they are extremely ungrateful, seeing that they have benefited from my leadership.

לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי, I have not even appropriated a single donkey of theirs (the entire people) as a form of taxation as do most others rulers from all of their subjects. Seeing that this is so, on what do they base their claim that I behave like a ruler, a despot? If the vowel pattern under the word אחד would not have been “segol” followed by “kametz,” but two successive vowels “patach,” the meaning would be: “I have not taken away a single one of their privately owned asses.” It would have been a construct mode as in Genesis 26,10 אחד העם, i.e. “one of the common people.”

לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי, “I have not taken a single donkey of theirs, etc.” Moses said this in response to the accusation that he had lorded it over the people. He had not levied any taxes on any of the people as is customary and willingly accepted by the subjects of any rulers. He had not even borrowed an animal to carry a load for him. When Onkelos translates this as שחרית, he refers to אנגריא, forced labour owed to the king, or even lesser dignitaries such as town-captains, known as שחוור.

That they have a portion in the continual communal sacrifices. Rashi is answering the question: The verse refers to a מנחה (normally referring to a meal-offering), however incense is not called a מנחה. Therefore he explains it as being a reference to the continual sacrifices, since a meal-offering was also offered with the continual sacrifices. (Nachalas Yaakov) The continual sacrifices provide atonement; the morning continual offering for sins committed at night, and the afternoon continual offering for sins committed during the day. However [Moshe prayed that] they should not provide atonement for them. The Torah mentions their meal-offerings rather than the continual sacrifices because it is considered the principle offering. This is in accordance with the teaching of the Rabbis that one who reads Shema without donning tefillin is like one who offers a burnt-offering without a meal-offering. R. Yona explains that one [who did not bring a meal-offering] also does not receive any reward for the burnt-offering, as the verse writes “[Aside from] the continual burnt-offering with its meal-offering” (Bamidbar 19:16).

You may well ask how Moses could expect G'd to change the rules of how He dealt with the wicked on account of himself?

:לא המור אחד נשאתי וגו׳hätte ich auch nur durch die geringste eigennützige oder gewalttätige Handlung meinen Charakter befleckt, sie hätten ein Recht, an der Göttlichkeit meiner Sendung nicht nur zu zweifeln, sondern sie geradezu zu leugnen. Deine Boten müssen menschlich rein sein. Du sendest keinen, dessen Charakter auch nur einen Anflug jener Richtung hat, in welcher die Bahn liegt für Schurken und Tyrannen. Charakterreinheit ist das erste Kreditiv deiner Sendung. Den Vorwurf, durch herrschsüchtige Willkür den Glauben an meine Botschaft erschüttert zu haben, verdiene ich nicht. Nicht nur keinem einzigen aus dem Volke, nicht einem Lasttier eines einzigen aus dem Volke habe ich meine Lasten zu tragen gegeben und habe nicht einem von ihnen mit Bewusstsein und aus Willkür wehe getan. —

לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי, “I have not appropriated a single donkey from anyone of them;” this remark by Moses is relevant to verse three, when he and Aaron had been accused of having elevated himself above the people. The vocalization of the word חמור corresponds to the plain meaning of the verse, whereas according to Rashi’s interpretation the word echad should have been achad, “one of,” as in Genesis 26,10.

לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי means, I have not taken the ass of any one of them; — even when I went from Midian to Egypt and placed my wife and my sons on the ass (Exodus 4:20), and I surely ought afterwards to have taken the price of that ass from their money, yet I took it only from my own (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 7). The translation given by Onkelos of the word נשאתי is שחרית: in the Aramaic language a forced levy made by the king is so called, viz., שחרור (cf. Rashi on Bava Batra 47a. The translation of Onkelos therefore is: I did not press into my service the ass of any one of them).

ולא הרעותי את אחד מהם, they cannot even accuse me of having wrongly convicted anyone of them in legal proceedings as they never brought any of their quarrels before me to have me adjudicate them.

ולא הרעותי את אחד מהם, “neither have I wronged a single one among them.” [This, if taken at face value, would be nothing to brag about. Ed.] The meaning is that Moses never requested from anyone that he perform some menial task for him that he considered it as beneath his dignity to perform himself.

לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי, “I have not taken the ass of any one of them.” It is usual for political leaders or rulers to arrogate to themselves the right to use other people and animals for their personal convenience and to let them perform chores on their behalf. This is why Moses in rebutting the accusations of Datan and Aviram that he had “lorded” it over the people had to point out that he done nothing of the kind. He had not even used such an animal to carry his personal belongings. Seeing he had not even used a beast of burden for his own personal use, how could he be accused of using people, i.e. his subjects, for such a purpose? How then had he “lorded” it over the people? We find that the prophet Samuel also could say of himself: (Samuel I 12,3) “here I am, come forward against me in the presence of the Lord and in the presence of his anointed one, whose ox or donkey I have taken and whom did I defraud or whom have I robbed? From whom have I accepted a bribe, etc.?”

One. The word “one” does not describe the donkey, meaning “one of them [as] a donkey” to serve me. Accordingly “them” refers to Yisroel, meaning [according to this explanation] that Moshe is referring to Yisroel as donkeys. [Heaven] forbid that he would have spoken in such a way! Rather, “donkey” is juxtaposed to “one” meaning “the donkey of one of them.” Rashi uses the word נטלתי ("I took") instead of נשאתי ("I sequestered") so that one not think that נשאתי is in the sense of “I raised up,” [which is an alternate meaning of the word].

Be aware that the righteous possess the power to annul merits which the wicked have accumulated when they observe that the potential recipients have become thoroughly wicked. This is the mystical dimension of Samuel II 23,3 צדיק מושל יראת אלוקים, "The righteous rules in matters of G'd-fearingness." This means that G'd has given the righteous leeway to cancel merits that the wicked have acquired. The idea is that although G'd Himself does not do this, He has allowed the righteous to be His surrogates in this respect. This is not so surprising as the same principle which has been adopted by a court in our world which has the right to deprive an accused of property he owns under the heading of הפקר בית דין הפקר, that when a Jewish court declares certain property as ownerless such a declaration is binding (compare Gittin 36).

Es ist zweifelhaft, in welchem Sinne das נשאתי hier zu verstehen sei. נשא kommt allerdings einigemal auch einfach als fortnehmen vor: ונשא שה מהעדר (Sam. I. 17, 34) נושא את פת בגם (Daniel 1, 16). Nachdem jedoch משאת ein Geschenk und zwar meistens ein Ehrengeschenk bedeutet (Bereschit 43, 34; Jirmij. 40, 5 und Esther 2, 18) und auch die einem Höheren zu leistende Abgabe, im Sinne wie תרומה, so die Schekelspende zum Heiligtum: משאת משה עבד ד׳ (Chron. II. 24, 69), so kann auch hier נשא: als Gebühr erheben heißen. Ich habe nicht einmal die Leistung eines Esels für mich als Frohn beansprucht. So auch לא חמרא דחד מנהון שחרית .ת׳׳א.

נשאתי, an expression meaning “I have taken.” It occurs in this sense also in Samuel II 5,21: וישאם דוד ואנשיו, “and David and his men took them.”

I could have justifiably taken [that donkey] from them. "Since I needed a donkey, nonetheless I did not take it." For if not so, how is this to his credit! Perhaps it was because he had no need [for a donkey] that he did not take it, but had he needed to, he would have taken one.

You may still ask why Moses demanded such an exceptional punishment for Korach and his associates? Surely the mere fact that they hated Moses was not enough of a reason for Moses to act in this manner? Moreover, did we not learn in Moed Katan 18 that when someone is accused of something, if he is not guilty of the whole accusation he is at least guilty of part of it, and even if he is not guilty of having carried out part of the evil deed attributed to him he may have planned to do so? In view of this how could Moses demand such a penalty? This is the reason that Moses began to justify himself publicly saying that he had never taken anything from anybody, i.e. he had not displayed any sign that he lorded it over the people. He had not been guilty of any of the things that kings normally do without being faulted.

לא חמור אחד מהם: nicht den Esel von irgend einem von ihnen. ולא הרעתי את אחד מהם: auch keinen Besondern unter ihnen, der es durch sein Benehmen, verdient hätte (siehe zu Bereschit 3, 22).

ולא הרעותי את אחד מהם, “and I have not done wrong to a single one of them.” Moses referred to the fact that Datan and Abiram had betrayed him to Pharaoh for killing the Egyptian who had first killed an Israelite without provocation. (Exodus 2,112,15)

He added ולא הרעותי את אחד מהם, "neither have I hurt anyone of them (in some other way)." Moses meant he had not been guilty of any act that would account for someone hating him for it.

When Moses said the words את אחד מהם, this included that he was not even involved when one Jew hurt another Jew in some way. He had never given a verdict in which the guilty had been exonerated, nor had he issued a verdict in which the innocent had been declared guilty. If, as a result of his decision, one party had to pay money to a second party this was not Moses' doing but the guilty party had caused that loss to the other. Seeing that Moses possessed sufficient prophetic insight not to make awards to people who did not deserve them from people who were innocent of wrongdoing, he could say of himself that he had not wronged anybody during his career as leader of the nation. Inasmuch as Datan and Aviram's hatred of him could only be the result of bad character, Moses felt entitled to ask G'd to deprive these men of any merits they might have accumulated in their lives and for which they had not yet been recompensed. I believe that the wicked people concerning whom Moses offered this prayer, i.e. Datan and Aviram, were not considered by him as part of the congregation of Korach concerning whom we applied the verse from Samuel I that their share in the resurrection had already been assured (compare Sanhedrin 108). The souls of these men (Datan and Aviram) must have had their roots in the קליפה, the spiritually negative domain of Satan.