민수기 16:36의 Musar

לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי . The prophet Samuel also made a similar statement when he challenged the people asking "whose donkey have I taken, etc." (Samuel I 22,19)? I have elaborated on the lessons to be learned from theses statements in my commentary on מסכת ראש השנה.

Rabbi Joshua of Sakinin in the name of Rabbi Levi in Bamidbar Rabbah 19,5, says that there are four laws in the Torah described as חק which Satan focuses on when he wants to undermine our faith. One is the law that although one must not marry a sister-in-law, the legislation of the levirate marriage contradicts that principle. Another is the legislation of כלאים, the mixing, cross-breeding or grafting of certain fabrics, animals or seeds. A third is the scapegoat that is killed on the Day of Atonement; the fourth is the legislation involving the use of the ashes of the red heifer in our portion. In connection with the prohibition of marrying a sister-in-law it is written ושמרתם את חקתי, Lev. 18,5. Nonetheless, this prohibition is set aside when one's brother had died without children. The exception to the law of לא תלבש שעטנז, in Deut. 22,11, not to wear a mixture of wool and linen, is the permission to override that principle when wearing such a mixture as part of a prayer-shawl, טלית. The exception to the principle of the ashes of the red heifer purifying a person, is that the clothing of the person or persons who actually are involved in the procedure of preparing these ashes becomes defiled even though in a state of ritual purity (19,8). The ash of the red heifer itself purifies impure clothing. There is, of course, a lot that can be queried about the whole procedure of the scapegoat. Why did Rabbi Joshua not mention other instances where the expression חק is used, without contradictory aspects to such acts of legislation?

And we find also in Tanna d'bei Eliyahu 16: "Those who smite in secret 'i.e., speakers of lashon hara] and desecrators of the Name in the open and those who cheapen their friends with words, and those who instigate quarrels will, in the end, be like Korach [and his congregation] of whom it is written (Bamidbar 16:33): "And the earth covered them up." And sometimes the punishment for the sin of lashon hara, the gravest sin of all, is askarah [diphtheria], the gravest death of all, as Chazal have said (Berachoth 8a): "Nine hundred and three types of death were created in the world … askarah is the gravest of all." A sign is given here for all who enter the world, that their punishment is indicative of their sin, as stated in Shabbath 33b: The Rabbis taught: "Why does this death (askarah) begin in the intestines and end in the mouth? R. Yehudah b. Ilai answered: "Though the kidneys counsel, the heart deliberates and the tongue formulates, it is the mouth which consummates [the lashon hara]."

In order to explain somewhat the quality of peace, I shall adduce some of the apothegms of Chazal on this subject. This is from Ma'aloth Hamiddoth: "Know, my sons, that peace is among the highest qualities, it being one of the names of the Holy One Blessed be He, as it is written (Judges 6:24): And he called it [(the altar) 'the L-rd-Shalom.'" Wherever peace is found, fear of Heaven is found. Where there is no peace, there is no fear of Heaven. Great is peace before the Blessed One, our sages of blessed memory saying in the aggadah (Yevamoth 65b, Bava Metzia 87a): "Great is peace, even Scripture prevaricating to maintain peace between Abraham and Sarah. For whereas she said (Bereshith 18:12): 'And my lord [Abraham] is old,' G-d transmitted this to Abraham as (Ibid. 13): 'And I [Sarah] am old.'" Similarly (Ibid. 40:16-17): "and they had it reported to Joseph: 'Your father commanded before he died: "So shall you say to Joseph: 'Forgive, I pray you, the offense of your brothers and their sin, for they accorded you evil.'" Now nowhere do we find Jacob commanding any such thing at all, for he entertained no apprehension whatever of Joseph's conduct. My sons, come and see how great is the power of peace, for the Holy One Blessed be He said that even foes should be approached with peace as it is written (Devarim 20:10): "When you draw close to a city to wage war against it, call out to it for peace." Great is peace, for it consummates the priestly benediction, as it is written (Numbers 6:26): "And He shall repose peace upon you." Great is peace, for it is the consummation of prayer, as it is written (Psalms 29:11): "The L-rd will give His people strength; the L-rd will bless His people with peace." And what is more, in the day of Israel's consolation, the first report shall be of peace, as it is written (Isaiah 52:7): "How comely upon the mountains are the feet of the herald, announcing peace!" My sons, come and see how great is the power of peace, for the Holy One Blessed be He said that even foes should be approached with peace, as it is written (Devarim 20:10): "When you draw near to a city to wage war against it, call out to it for peace." It was stated of R. Yochanan b. Zakkai that no one ever preceded him in greeting, not even a gentile in the marketplace. And our sages of blessed memory have stated (Avoth 4:15): "Extend greeting to all men." What is meant by greeting "all men"? Even if you see that he is ill disposed towards you, extend greeting to him; for if you do so, you will cause him to love you. What is more, even if he will not condescend to make peace with you, the Holy One Blessed be He will deliver him into your hand and humble him beneath you, as it is written (Devarim 20:1): "And if it [the city] does not make peace with you, but wages war against you, then you shall besiege it, and the L-rd your G-d will deliver it into your hand…" And so we find with David, may peace be upon him, that he pursued peace with Saul, as it is written (Psalms 120:7): "I am for peace, but when I speak, they are for war." Not only was Saul not appeased, but he pursued David to do him injury, and the Holy One Blessed be He delivered him into David's hand in the cave and in the encampment. And even so, it never entered David's heart to do him wrong. For one must love peace and pursue peace, as it is written (Ibid. 34:15): "Seek peace and pursue it." Seek it with your friend and pursue it with your enemy. Seek it in your place and pursue it in other places. Seek it with your body and pursue it with your money. [Sometimes one must be liberal with his money to seize upon the "stronghold of peace."] Seek it for yourself and pursue it for others. Seek it today and pursue it tomorrow. And do not despair, saying: "I will never achieve peace," but pursue it until you do achieve it. And what is the pursuit of peace? Thus have our sages of blessed memory said (Sanhedrin 110a): "This is speaking peace at a time of dispute and sacrificing one's honor for the general good, as was done by Moses, as it is written (Numbers 16:25): 'And Moses arose and he went to Dathan and Aviram…,'" and suspending one's affairs to make peace between a man and his wife, a man and his neighbor, and a teacher and his student — even to the extent of arranging a meal for two to make peace between them.

What caused the destruction of Korach and his assembly? Only honor as scripture states explicitly: "do you also seek the priesthood?" (Bamidbar 16:10). Our sages told us that all this grew out of Korach's seeing Elitzafan ben Uziel promoted to head of the tribe, and he wanted to be head in his place (Bamidbar Rabbah 18:2).

Another problem is that Rashi writes that the prince Elitzur ben Shedeyur and some of his asscociates of the tribe of Reuben, was one of these two hundred and fifty men! Rabbeynu Bachyah writes on this subject that even the princes who had offered the 12 offerings described in Parshat Nasso were part of the two hundred and fifty men. Our sages further point out that in one place these men were described as קריאי מועד, and in another place as נשיאי העדה. In Parshat Bamidbar 1,16, they are referred to as קרואי העדה, נשיאי מטות אבותם. We know from Numbers 26,9, that the term קריאי העדה is used by the Torah for people who had provoked Israel into rebellion against G–d. It is certainly mindboggling to think that people of such calibre who had witnessed all these miracles should forfeit their standing as holy people by joining such a self-seeking rebellion. When we think of someone like Nachshon ben Aminadav who had risked his life being the first to enter the sea before it had even split, it is quite inconceivable that he should have lowered himself to such a degree! On the contrary, we find that Nachshon's merit even helped his descendants long afterwards, since our sages say that it did not prove helpful anymore to Elimelech the husband of Naomi in the book of Ruth, since the latter emigrated from the land of Israel (Baba Batra 91a).

From all of our elaborating until now on the greatness of the punishment for lashon hara in this world and the next, it should be understood how much we must distance ourselves from the sin of machloketh. For aside from the sin itself, which is a grave one, as we shall explain, it is a potent cause of other grave sins, namely: vain hatred, lashon hara, rechiluth, anger, verbal wronging, "whitening of the face" [in shame], revenge, bearing a grudge, vain curses, undermining a person's livelihood, and, sometimes, even desecration of the Name, G-d forbid, an extremely grave transgression. And it is also common to come through this to the sin of flattery, whereby one gains adherents for his quarrel, as we find with Korach, as Chazal have said (Sanhedrin 52a) on the verse (Psalms 35:16): "Because of the flattery of the quaffing of a draught, he has ground his teeth against me" — Because of the flattery they accorded Korach for the drinks that he plied them with, the plenipotentiary of Gehinnom ground his teeth against them." And machloketh also leads to levity, to mock the opposing party and thereby draw adherents to one's counsel. And all this was the conduct of the first man of machloketh — Korach, as we find in Midrash Rabbah, Korach. And it is known that the punishment for levity begins with suffering and ends with destruction, as Chazal have said. And more than this. It is found that when the yetzer entices one to strengthen the machloketh and to draw men to his counsel, and he fears lest they turn away from him and leave him by himself, the yetzer entices him to create a strong bond [of unity] by means of an oath. All this we find in the Midrash and in the Gemara in respect to Korach, Dathan, and Aviram. And see, my brother, how much blindness there is in this. For the oath is close to being a vain one, their having sworn to transgress a mitzvah [See Yoreh Deah 236:2, and the Shach there, section 4]. And even if he fulfills his oath, it still does not leave the category of "a vain oath" [See 238:5]. And the severity of the punishments for a vain oath is well known, the Holy One Blessed be He not absolving one for this, as it is written (Shemoth 20:7): "The L-rd will not absolve one who takes His name in vain" [See Shevuoth 39a]. I have written all of this only to show to all the great "blindness of the eyes" that inheres in this. And even if in the beginning he does not intend such evil, still, in the end, he will not be absolved of the aforementioned transgressions, as should be clear to anyone with a knowledge of the world.

This is the language of the Midrash Rabbah on Korach: "R. Berechiah said: 'How severe is machloketh! For the upper beth-din punishes only from twenty years and above, and the lower beth-din from thirteen and above; but in the machloketh of Korach, one-year-old infants were swallowed up in the depths of Sheol, as it is written (Numbers 16:27): '…and their wives and their sons and their infants… (Ibid. 33): …went down — they and all that was theirs, alive into Sheol.'"

And, in Yalkut Korach: "Come and see what machloketh does. For 'machloketh' acronymically (without the vav) is 'Makkah' [a blow], 'Charon' [wrath], 'Likui' [defect], 'K'lalah' [a curse], 'Tachgith' [destruction (klayah)] to the world." And according to the greatness of the eminence of the man of machloketh, so will be his punishment (as we find in Tanna d'bei Eliayhu 18). And, therefore, it is written in Parshath Korach (Numbers 16:2): "…chiefs of the congregation, designates of the time, people of name" — to emphasize the greatness of their sin.

Another difficulty in the instructions in 16,21, to separate themselves from Korach, etc, is Moses' comment: "one man has sinned and You are going to be angry at the whole congregation?" According to Rashi G–d changed His mind and agreed with Moses (16,22). Are we to assume that Moses was smarter than G–d? Some commentators have explained appropriately that originally Moses had misunderstood G–d's intentions, and that this is why he posed the question of "האיש אחד יחטא" G–d had meant that they should separate only from the community of Korach, whereas Moses had thought that G–d had meant for Moses and Aaron to separate themselves from the entire people. This answer is not satisfactory, since we know that G–d knows what goes on in our minds. Why then did He allow Moses to make such an error instead of expressing Himself in a manner Moses would understand correctly? When two human beings argue with one another, it is perfectly normal to say that one misunderstood the other, and that this is the reason they argued, but surely G–d knew how Moses would react to His comments?

One must also take care not to be among the abettors of machloketh so that he not be punished among them when their appointed time comes, as Chazal have stated (Makkoth 5b): "Scripture has punished the abettors of transgressors as the transgressors themselves." And in Midrash Parshath Korach we find: "Come and see how severe is machloketh. For if one abets machloketh, the Holy One Blessed be He destroys his remembrance, as it is written (Numbers 16:35): 'And a fire went forth from the L-rd and consumed the hundred and fifty men, the presenters of the incense.'" And, in Sanhedrin 110a: "Rav said: 'All who persist in machloketh transgress a negative commandment, viz. (Numbers 17:5): "And he shall not be like Korach and like his congregation."' R. Assi said: 'He deserves to contract tzara'ath.'" (And see above, Chapter VI, what is written in the name of Sefer Hakaneh, that sometimes the Holy One Blessed be He transforms the punishment of tzara'ath to poverty, so that he becomes dependent upon others.)

As we find with the sons of Korach, that because they were not drawn after their father, even though this caused him great shame, they escaped his fate. As we find in Yalkut Parshath Korach: "This is as Scripture writes (Psalms 1:1): 'Happy is the man' — the sons of Korach; 'who did not walk in the counsel of the wicked' — who did not walk in the counsel of their father, as it is written (Numbers 16:26): 'Depart now from the tents of these wicked men'; 'and in the way of sinners they did not stand,' as it is written (Numbers 17:3): 'the censers of these sinners.'" And, in Yalkut: "What merit was there 'in the hands' of the sons of Korach that they were rescued [from his punishment]? When they were sitting with Korach, their father, they saw Moses and lowered their faces to the ground, saying: "If we stand up for Moses our teacher, we will be spurning our father, whom we have been commanded to honor. And if we do not stand, it is written (Vayikra 19:32): 'Before the hoary head shall you rise' — Better that we stand before Moses our teacher, even though we are thereby spurning our father.'" At that time, they moved their hearts to repentance. About them David said (Psalms 45:2): 'My heart has stirred with a good thing.'" From this we learn that if one is not drawn after his father's counsel in his machloketh, he will not be ensnared in his net.

And all this, when he is powerless to protest and to quiet the quarrel. But if the son finds favor with his father and is able to quiet the quarrel and keeps silent, he is punished because of this. As we find in Tanna d'bei Eliyahu 21: "And a man should not look on when he sees his parents engaging in idle talk [(i.e., lashon hara and the like, and, how much more so, machloketh, which subsumes all)], and remain silent. And if he does, both he and they do not live out their days and years. And, likewise, it is a mitzvah for every man to make peace between the sides. And this [(making peace)] is one of those things whose fruits a man eats in this world, with the principal remaining for the world to come, as we find in Peah 1. And even if he sees that the din is not in accordance with one party and that they deserve to be punished for the machloketh, but he is able [to suppress it], even so, he should make every effort to make peace between the sides. And he should not be lax in doing so even if he is the most eminent man in Israel, as we find (Numbers 16:25): "And Moses arose and went to Dathan and Aviram [to make peace]." And Chazal have said (Sanhedrin 110a): "From here we derive that it is forbidden to persist in machloketh." And in the Midrash we find: "Because Moses went to the [tent] entrance of Dathan and Aviram, he merited rescuing four tzaddikim from the entrance of Gehinnom: the three sons of Korach and On ben Peleth." And it is written (Psalms 34:15): "Seek peace and pursue it," concerning which Chazal have said: "Seek it for your loved one and pursue it with your foe. Seek it in your place and pursue it in other places. Seek it with your body and pursue it with your possessions. Seek it for yourself and pursue it for others. Seek it today and pursue it tomorrow." The intent of the Midrash in "and pursue it tomorrow" is: Let one not despair of making peace, but let him pursue it today and also tomorrow and also the day after until he attains it. For even the stoutest of cart ropes, if it is constantly worn down, will weaken and snap in the end. Here, too. Even if one does not succeed the first or second time, let him not abandon this holy trait [of pursuing peace]. And even if his efforts do not succeed at all with the parties to the machloketh themselves, the trait of "triumphing" having overpowered them and their eyes having been blinded to the truth, still, this will deter the "outsiders," who are not parties in the machloketh, but who have been drawn into it by the evil counsel of the parties involved, and will save them from bitter punishment, as in the instance of Moses our teacher, may peace be upon him.

The Yalkut Shimoni quotes a Midrash Tehillim 1,15, on Psalms 1,1, that the person who is praised there as not following in the footsteps of the wicked, refers to the sons of Korach who did not follow in the footsteps of their father, since the Torah said: סורו נא מעל אהלי אנשים הרשעים, "Please stand clear of the tents of these wicked people" (16,26). The next statement in that same Psalm, i.e. ובדרך חטאים לא עמד, "and he did not stand in the path of the sinners," is a reference to the מחתות החטאים האלה בנפשותם, "the censers of those sinners who had forfeited their souls" (17,3). The third statement in that verse in Psalms is supposed to refer to Korach himself, i.e. ובמושב לצים לא ישב, "he did not sit amongst the scoffers," i.e. he who did not sit amongst those scoffers is to be congratulated. The latter had been scoffing at Moses and Aaron. The Midrash here quotes an example of the apparently oppressive nature of Torah legislation which Korach is supposed to have used to show that Moses and Aaron were insensitive to the plight of widows and orphans. Verse two of that same Psalm in which it says such a praisewothy person took delight in the teaching of the Lord, is applied to the sons of Korach, who sang the praises of G–d, refusing to quarrel with Moses, etc. The remainder of that verse extolling people who study Torah day and night is also applied to the sons of Korach. Verse three, which describes such people as comparable to trees planted near an abundant supply of water, is applied to the sons of Korach who after they saw what had happened to Korach, Datan and Aviram were found standing tall like the mast of a ship, since the Torah says ויהיו לנס, "and the became like a flag." [another meaning of that word could be "mast", at any rate something compelling one's attention. Ed.] Verse 4 in that same Psalm continues: "not so the wicked," which is again applied by the Midrash to Korach and his companions. The statement following in the Psalm in verse 6: "for G–d knows the way of the righteous," is applied to the sons of Korach also, and finally the end of that verse "the path of the wicked is doomed," is another reference to Korach and his congregation. So far the Midrash.

And now listen to this wondrous wisdom! Just as God is the Most High and rules over man and over all the world above and below, so does man, as long as he does the will of his Creator. For at the time of the making of the golden calf, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses, "Let me alone, that I may destroy them" (Deut. 9:14). And in the affair of Korah, the earth swallowed them and all that belonged to them, by the word of his mouth (Num. 16:28—32). And in the case of Elijah, of blessed memory, he swore that there would be no dew or rain except at his word (I Kings 17:1), and he brought on fire (I Kings 18:36—38, II Kings 1:10—12), and he slew the prophets of Baal (I Kings 18:40), and he resurrected the dead (I Kings 17:17 — 24), and he decreed concerning Elisha, that Elisha should have twice his spirit (II Kings 2:9—10, and see Sanh. 47a and Hullin 7b).

I have mentioned already that at the beginning of his career Moses was on the level of איש. When a person is referred to as איש, this means that he is someone of substance. Later on Moses rose to higher levels and became אלוקים. In his Moreh Nevuchim, Maimonides explains this as follows: All the prophets receive their prophetic inspiration by means of a go-between, i.e. angels who are called אישים, because they are the medium through whom men are granted prophetic insights. This rule did not apply to Moses, however. Moses enjoyed direct inspiration. Maimonides goes on to explain the words of our sages on Numbers 16,4 where the Torah describes Moses as falling on his face after hearing the accusations of Korach. According to Sanhedrin 110, Korach accused Moses of adultery. This seems a very strange accusation, seeing that Moses had been faulted by his own sister for separating from his wife, abandoning marital life, due to his calling as a prophet who had to be "on call" at all times in case G–d wanted to communicate with him (Numbers 12). Why would Korach level such an unreasonable accusation against Moses?

There cannot be a question of G–d intentionally misleading anyone. What is frequently the case is that someone deceives himself. Hosea 14,10, writes: כי ישרים דרכי השם, וצדיקים ילכו בם, ופושעים יכשלו בם, "For the ways of the Lord are upright, and the just walk on them, whereas the sinners will stumble on them." The prophet is quite explicit in placing the blame on the sinners, not on G–d or His ways. Here too G–d intended to enter into dialogue with Bileam when He asked him about "these men." Bileam the wicked, jumped to the conclusion that G–d did not know everything, else He would not have asked, and used this to try and deceive G–d. Rashi's comment here that G–d wanted to deceive Bileam seems to contradict his comment on Genesis 3,9, when G–d asks Adam: "Where are you?," and Rashi says that G–d knew full well where Adam was, but wanted to enter into dialogue with him without frightening him by punishing him without preamble. One must understand therefore, that when Rashi wrote on our verse: "in order to mislead him," the subject of "him" is not G–d but the invitation of these men to curse Israel. The invitation of Balak was the מכשול, the stumbling block which caused Bileam's sins to deceive him into thinking he could deceive G–d. He did not understand the truth of G–d's intentions when He asked him rhetorically: "who are these men?" This whole incident is similar to one recorded in the Talmud Yuma 87a, when the great scholar Rav went to the house of a butcher on the eve of the Day of Atonement in order to give that butcher a chance to apologise for something that had occurred between them. This was unusual, since the butcher should have come to Rav to beg his forgiveness for the wrong he had committed. On the way he met Rabbi Hunna his disciple who asked Rav where the latter was going. When told that he was on his way to reconciliation with a certain butcher, Rabbi Hunna said "Rav went to kill a person," for he could not imagine that a butcher who had insulted Rav should not be punished. When Rav arrived at that butcher's he found him busy cutting off the head of an animal. The butcher raised his eyes and exclaimed in wonderment "you are Abba! Go away! I do not want to have anything to do with you!" At that moment a bone from that animal hit the butcher in his neck causing his death. Therefore, if the butcher died, it was his obstinacy in refusing to accept Rav's offer at reconciliation that made him a candidate for death, since in such circumstances the Day of Atonement would not protect him from the judgment due him. Rabbi Hunna's having said that his teacher was on his way to kill someone certainly was not the cause of this butcher's death. The same explanation applies to Rashi's comment in Parshat Korach, 16,6 that the incense contained a lethal poison. Mistaking the function of incense would lead to the death of the person who willfully abused that instrument of service to G–d. G–d's intent in asking Bileam was fair.

Let us now explain our Parshah. There were three distinct groups of people involved in the quarrel. The central contender was Korach. He was the scoffer about whom the Psalmist had said that one should not sit in the company of scoffers, as we have explained earlier. Datan and Aviram were wicked people, as we know from Moses saying in Numbers 16,25/26: "Moses went to Datan and Aviram followed by the elders of Israel. He said to the congregation: "Please depart from around the tents of these wicked people, etc." Concerning Datan and Aviram, the Psalmist had said in the same verse: "Hail to whoever has not followed the counsel of the wicked people." The third group were the two hundred and fifty men who sinned against their souls, as we know from 17,3: "and take the censers of these people who have sinned against their souls, etc." Concerning those people our Psalm said "hail to whoever did not stand on the path of the sinful ones." The scoffer Korach, used matters connected with the soil as his subjects. Later, he made fun of Torah legislation involving sheep, etc., as mentioned in the Midrash quoted earlier. In all this he paralleled the behaviour of Cain, who had first brought a gift of פרי האדמה, the fruit of the earth. Abel, on the other hand, had brought an offering from the firstborn of his sheep. Cain had brought flax, Abel had brought wool. We know that there was a great deal of difference between the offering of Cain and the offering of Abel; G–d refused to accept the offering of Cain. This is why a mixture of wool and flax (linen), is considered כלאים, and is forbidden to be worn together in Jewish law (Leviticus 19,19). I have elaborated on this elsewhere.

Let us now explain our Parshah. There were three distinct groups of people involved in the quarrel. The central contender was Korach. He was the scoffer about whom the Psalmist had said that one should not sit in the company of scoffers, as we have explained earlier. Datan and Aviram were wicked people, as we know from Moses saying in Numbers 16,25/26: "Moses went to Datan and Aviram followed by the elders of Israel. He said to the congregation: "Please depart from around the tents of these wicked people, etc." Concerning Datan and Aviram, the Psalmist had said in the same verse: "Hail to whoever has not followed the counsel of the wicked people." The third group were the two hundred and fifty men who sinned against their souls, as we know from 17,3: "and take the censers of these people who have sinned against their souls, etc." Concerning those people our Psalm said "hail to whoever did not stand on the path of the sinful ones." The scoffer Korach, used matters connected with the soil as his subjects. Later, he made fun of Torah legislation involving sheep, etc., as mentioned in the Midrash quoted earlier. In all this he paralleled the behaviour of Cain, who had first brought a gift of פרי האדמה, the fruit of the earth. Abel, on the other hand, had brought an offering from the firstborn of his sheep. Cain had brought flax, Abel had brought wool. We know that there was a great deal of difference between the offering of Cain and the offering of Abel; G–d refused to accept the offering of Cain. This is why a mixture of wool and flax (linen), is considered כלאים, and is forbidden to be worn together in Jewish law (Leviticus 19,19). I have elaborated on this elsewhere.

The legislative details of the commandment of ציצית allude to the metaphysical symbol of "One," אחד, the letter ח representing the eight threads, the letter ד the four fringes, and the letter א referring to the upper knot which is a scriptural requirement according to הלכה; it also alludes to חדוש העולם, creatio ex nihilo. The four directions of the earth are represented by the four fringes which are suspended on the outer garment, a reference to Psalms 93,1, that "G–d is robed in grandeur;" all the directions are directly dependent on Him and emanate from Him. The total of thirty-two threads on the fringes are reminiscent of the thirty two times the name אלוקים occurs in the Torah's report of the creation. It also teaches that the Torah is of Divine origin, since the numerical value of the word ציצית plus the eight threads and 5 knots combine to make a total of 613, i.e. the number of commandments in the Torah. The commandment also alludes to the system of reward and punishment, as explained by scholars of the Kabbalah since תכלת, azure blue, is an allusion to the attribute of Justice, whereas לבן, white, refers to the attribute of Mercy. This is the true meaning of his statement in 16,3, ובתוכם ה', meaning "G–d is among them," i.e. "one of many," his denial of G–d's supremacy.

Jealousy caused Korach to "robe himself" in haughtiness, caused him to aspire to greatness. This is why the expression ויקח קרח, should be understood as "he took the fact that he was the son of Yitzhar into consideration, and decided he was entitled to higher rank than had been accorded him so far. We know that Bamidbar Rabbah quotes Rabbi Levi as saying that Korach considered the fact that he was the son of יצהר, [another name for oil], and that oil always floats on top. Furthermore, he considered the fact that he was also the grandson of Kehat who had been found worthy to found the family that would carry the Holy Ark. By dwelling on these points he convinced himself that the position of leadership of the Kehatites should have belonged to him, and not to Elitzafan who was only fourth in line. These were the considerations which resulted in his being deprived of his life and his future.

What were Datan and Aviram's considerations? They first considered that as descendants of Reuben, the firstborn amongst the tribes, they were entitled to high positions. As a result they perverted justice by denying that Moses was a prophet, i.e. his having been appointed as leader rightfully. Their sin was the greed which causes a person to lose his life in this world and the World to Come, the exact reverse of the recipe for riches: counting one's blessings, as we have learned from Ben Zoma in Avot. They had thought that Moses had secured his leadership position only to enrich himself and his family, that he appointed Aaron and his sons Priests and the members of his tribe as Levites only so they could live off the various gifts that the Israelites had to hand over to them. They also thought that they had wanted to monopolise these positions since the bringing of incense enriches those who offer it (Yuma 26). This is why they complained saying: "did you give us the inheritance of field or vineyard" (16,14)? This is the meaning of: "they assumed an upright position at the entrance of their tent, etc." (16,27). They failed to remember that the mezuzah's metaphysical dimension is sufficient to assure financial security, as pointed out earlier. I have already outlined that the three negative virtues of jealousy, greed, and the pursuit of personal honour, correspond to the problems associated with power, wealth, and wisdom respectively. The three areas in which man has to achieve a degree of perfection are his body, his financial resources, and his spiritual resources (his soul). The three commandments which provide help in achieveing these perfections are ציצית, מזוזה, and תפילין. By garbing himself in the mantle of jealousy Korach scoffed at the commandment of ציצית. Datan and Aviram who garbed themselves in greed had failed to pay attention to their מזוזה and what it stood for. The two hundred and fifty men erred in respect of the commandment of תפילין, as we shall explain.

We now understand Moses saying בוקר ויודע ה', "in the morning G–d will make known, etc." The regulations about the offering of the incense contain the phrase בבוקר בבוקר בהטיבו את הנרות יקטירון, "morning after morning, when cleaning out the lamps he shall burn it up" (Exodus 30,7). The sin of all these people was not intentional, they did not quarrel with the appointments Moses had made, were certain that these appointments had been approved by G–d Himself. However, they felt that originally, Moses had initiated the request to make these appointments, and G–d had complied with his wishes. The truth, however, is that these appointments had been made at the request of G–d. This is why Moses said "the man whom G–d will select, etc." (16,5). He stressed that the selection rather than the confirmation of the appointments had been made by G–d.

The two hundred and fifty men died because of their craving for personal honor. Theirs had been a well-intentioned craving for the kind of honor only scholars inherit at the end of their lives. They had meant to adorn themselves in phylacteries, the symbol of the Jewish people's glory. It is said of the תפילין של ראש, the phylacteries worn on the head, וראו כל עמי הארץ כי שם ה' נקרא עליך "and all the nations of the earth will see that the name of the Lord is proclaimed over you" (Deut. 28,10). This is what they had in mind when they said that "the whole community is holy." They had erred, however. They violated the principle not to aspire to what was to remained concealed from them, i.e. "מופלא ממך אל תדרוש, ובמכוסה ממך אל תחקור." This is why they died during their quest.

When the Talmud in Sanhedrin 108, debates whether Korach and family will be resurrected when the time comes, the expression עדת קרח used there does not include these two hundred and fifty men. They will certainly qualify for resurrection, seeing theirs had been a noble intention. We can deduce this also from the wording in the Mishnah there which reads: עדת קרח אינה עתידה לעלות, which is proven from the verse: ותכס עליהם הארץ, "the earth covered them," an expression of finality (which clearly refers only to those who were swallowed by the earth).

For this reason we must be wary when the other nations make feasts not to derive any benefit from them, as mentioned above. The only exception is when the non-Jew sends animals, poultry, fish and the like to the home of the Jew. Then it is permissible. But it is forbidden for a Jew to eat in the home of the non-Jew, even if he consumes only kosher food and drinks only kosher wine. Whoever is lax about this commits a grievous sin and incurs severe punishment. Moreover, the Shechinah cries profusely over such people. The proof is that it was on account of this sin that Israel was considered deserving of death in the days of Haman and Achashveirosh. That is why Mordechai alone refused to benefit from the feast of that evildoer in order that in his merit all of Israel would be saved. But even so, the attribute of judgment wished to strike against all the Jews of that generation. For just as Hashem said to Moshe, “I will consume them in a moment” (Bamidbar 16:21), and “I will make you into a great nation [in their stead]” (Shemos 33:10), so too the attribute of judgment wished to multiply Mordechai’s seed like the sand of the sea [in Israel’s stead]. But Mordechai nullified the decree with his prayer just as Moshe Rabbeinu had nullified the decree against the Jews of his day with his prayer.