민수기 16:10의 인용 해설

VAYIKACH KORACH’ (AND KORACH TOOK). “This section is explained in a beautiful way in the Midrash of Rabbi Tanchuma.¹The Rabbis of the Talmud composed two great exegetical commentaries on the Bible, whose aim was to spread moral, ethical and religious teachings, as they are derived from a study of the Scriptures. These are the Midrash Rabbah and Midrash Tanchuma, both works of Palestinian Rabbis. The Midrash Rabbah is on the Five Books of Moses and the five Scrolls. As its name Rabbah (Great), indicates, it is the largest homiletical work of the Rabbis of the Talmud. Next in importance is the Midrash Tanchuma on the Five Books of Moses, composed by Rabbi Tanchuma ben Abba, of the fourth century of the Common Era. This Midrash was very popular, and Rashi relies upon it for a great deal of Agadic material, which he often incorporates into his commentary. On the relationship of the Midrash Tanchuma to Midrash Yelamdeinu, see Volume II, Seder Bo, p. 131, Note 196. Vayikach Korach — he betook himself²Since the object of the verb [vayikach — “and he took”] is not mentioned in the verse, Rashi explains that it is reflexive in meaning, referring to Korach himself: “Korach betook himself to one side etc.” Ramban suggests a number of other possible interpretations. to one side in order to separate himself from the [rest of the] congregation so that he could contend for the priesthood [which Moses had conferred upon Aaron and his sons, and Korach claimed that it belonged to all Israel]. This is [also] Onkelos’ intention in translating [the word vayikach as] v’ithpleig — ‘he separated himself’ from the congregation to persist in his contention. Similarly, Why ‘yikachacha’ thy heart?³Job 15:12. These are the words of Eliphaz the Temanite, when criticizing Job for lack of trust in G-d. means: [Why does your heart] ‘carry you away’ to separate yourself from the rest of the people?”. Thus the language of Rashi.
But the opinion of the Midrash [Tanchuma quoted further on] is not in accordance with the Rabbi’s [i.e., Rashi’s] interpretation,⁴Ramban understood Rashi’s comment as meaning that Korach betook himself physically and left his tent, setting up his quarters outside the camp in order to gather people together to rally to him in his dispute with Moses. In Ramban’s opinion, however, the Midrash clearly means that Korach’s heart stirred him up to revolt (Mizrachi), but not that he betook himself elsewhere physically. See also my Hebrew commentary, pp. 254-255. for the Rabbis have said there: “The term vayikach always denotes ‘division,’ [and here it means] that his heart took control of him, in a similar manner to that which it says, Why ‘yikachacha’ thy heart?”³Job 15:12. These are the words of Eliphaz the Temanite, when criticizing Job for lack of trust in G-d. The verse thus does not mean to say that Korach betook himself [physically] to one side [of the camp]. Similarly, Why ‘yikachacha’ thy heart?³Job 15:12. These are the words of Eliphaz the Temanite, when criticizing Job for lack of trust in G-d. does not mean that it [your heart] takes you to one side to separate yourself [physically] from other people. Instead, the meaning of the [interpretation of the] Midrash on [the phrase] Vayikach Korach is that he took counsel in his heart to do that which [Scripture] relates [subsequently], for [the term] “taking” applies also to counsel and thought. Similarly, Why ‘yikachacha’ thy heart?³Job 15:12. These are the words of Eliphaz the Temanite, when criticizing Job for lack of trust in G-d. means: “What thought does your heart lead you to, that you should be thinking secretly: ‘There is no justice nor Judge,’ and you do not reveal it? Or, and why do thine eyes wink?,³Job 15:12. These are the words of Eliphaz the Temanite, when criticizing Job for lack of trust in G-d. for one can notice from your winkings that you deny G-d’s justice, but you do not utter [that belief] openly, but [instead] you complain [of injustice], as one who conceals his intent.” Eliphaz said this to Job before Job explained his thoughts in a clearly-expressed statement, [saying] that the Creator’s concern does not extend to the individuals of the lower beings [of each species]. Therefore Eliphaz said to Job: And thou sayest: ‘What doth G-d know? Can He judge through the dark cloud?’⁵Job 22:13. This is the true meaning of that reply [of Eliphaz to Job: Why ‘yikachacha’ thy heart? and why do thine eyes wink?³Job 15:12. These are the words of Eliphaz the Temanite, when criticizing Job for lack of trust in G-d. — as is apparent] to one who considers it carefully. Similarly we find the term “taking” used of “thinking”: ‘k’chu’ (take) my instruction;⁶Proverbs, 8:10. This clearly cannot refer to taking physically, but means: “think of my instruction and guide your conduct accordingly.” nor ‘kachath’ (to take) instruction.⁷Jeremiah 17:23.
The Rabbis have further said in the Midrash:⁸Bamidmar Rabbah 18:13. “Scripture does not state here: And Korach ‘quarelled,’ or ‘spoke,’ or ‘commanded,’ but it says vayikach (and he took). What did he take? He did not take anything; rather, it was his heart that took [control of] him, just as Scripture says, Why doth thy heart take thee?”³Job 15:12. These are the words of Eliphaz the Temanite, when criticizing Job for lack of trust in G-d. This [Midrash] coincides with what I have explained. And Onkelos who translated: [vayikach as] v’ithpleig (“and he separated himself”) explained the [expression according to its] general meaning, not according to its literal sense, as is his habit in many places. Thus also he translated [the expression] about ‘d’var’ (the matter of) Korach⁹Further, 17:14. as “about ‘the strife’ of Korach,” while ‘bi’dvar’ (the matter of) Balaam¹⁰Ibid., 31:16. he translated as “through ‘the counsel’ of Balaam,” because he mentions the [whole] subject-matter in his translation [rather than the literal meaning, as illustrated by the change in the translation of the word d’var in the above example].
And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote: “And Korach took [means he took] ‘men,’ the phrase being elliptical, as in: chamor lechem¹¹I Samuel 16:20. [literally: ‘an ass of bread,’ which means: ‘an ass laden with bread’].” Others¹²This interpretation I have found in the commentary of Chizkuni. See Genesis, Vol. I p. 298, Note 109, where the same expression “Others” also refers to Chizkuni. explain that [the word] v’dathan (and Dathan) [in the phrase: And Korach took … and Dathan] is like the verse, And these are the children of Zibeon: ‘and’ Ajah, and Anah¹³Genesis 36:24. See Vol. I, p. 440. [where the letter vav in the word v’ayah is redundant, and here too the vav in v’dathan is redundant], and its correct meaning is thus: “and Korach took Dathan and Abiram” [and they rose up before Moses]. But in my opinion there is no need for [these interpretations], for it is quite correct for the [Sacred] Language to say: “and Korach took and Dathan, and they rose,¹⁴Verse 2. and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron,”¹⁵Verse 3. because the [word] “taking” always occurs at the beginning of an event, being an expression of taking action to [do] that deed. Similarly, And Absalom in his lifetime had ‘taken’ and reared up for himself the pillar¹⁶II Samuel 18:18. [which means that “he bestirred himself” to set up the pillar]. And if you prefer to explain that the term “taking” refers to the object mentioned subsequently, [so that the verse quoted means]: “and Absalom took the pillar and reared it up for himself in his lifetime” — you may likewise explain [our phrase] “and Korach took” [as referring to] the men of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty,¹⁴Verse 2. and they rose up before Moses, and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron.¹⁵Verse 3.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that this incident [of Korach’s rebellion] happened in the wilderness of Sinai when the firstborns were exchanged [for the Levites]¹⁷Above, 3:44-51. and the Levites were separated [to do the Divine service in the Tent of Meeting],¹⁸Ibid., 8:5-22. for [some] Israelites thought that Moses our master did this of his own accord so that he could bestow greatness upon his brother [Aaron] and on the children of Kohath who were his relatives,¹⁹Kohath was Moses’ grandfather. Since Kohath had three other sons beside Amram — namely, Itzhar, Hebron, and Uzziel (above, 3:19) — some people thought that Moses gave the Kohathites special distinction in the Tabernacle service of his own accord (see above, Chapter 4:1-20) because they were his relatives. In actual fact, of course, he did everything by Divine command (see above, 3:40, 4:1 and 8:5). and on all the Levites, since they were of his family. The Levites [nevertheless] joined the conspiracy against him [Moses] because they were given to Aaron and to his sons,²⁰Above, 8:19. and Dathan and Abiram [who were of the tribe of Reuben] joined in the rebellion because Moses took away the right of the firstborn from their ancestor Reuben [and gave it to Joseph].²¹See (Genesis), Vol. I, pp. 570-572. Here the reference is to the fact that Moses considered Joseph’s sons, Ephraim and Menasheh, as two separate tribes, and Dathan and Abiram claimed that this distinction should have been conferred upon Reuben the firstborn. Korach too was a firstborn.²²Exodus 6:21 — And the sons of Itzhar: Korach, and Nepheg, and Zichri. — Now before the Tabernacle was set up, the service of the offerings was performed by any of the firstborn in Israel (Zebachim 112b), but afterwards it was performed only by priests. As a firstborn, Korach was thus personally amongst those deprived of his prerogative under the new order established by Moses. [Thus far are Ibn Ezra’s comments.] Now all this is based on the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra [himself] who has said in many places, as it pleases him, that there is no strict chronological order in the [narrative of the] Torah, but I have already written²³In (Exodus), Vol. II, pp. 252, 419, and in Leviticus 8:2. Here too, Ramban’s objection is that according to Ibn Ezra the rebellion of Korach took place when Israel was still encamped in the wilderness of Sinai although their departure from there has already been recorded long ago (above, 10:12)! Since then there had already been many other stages in their journey through the desert (see e.g. above, 11:35, 12:16)! that in my opinion the whole Torah follows the chronological sequence, except for those places where Scripture [itself] expressly states the “earlier” and the “later,”²⁴I.e., if the verses clearly state the dates. See, for example, the section commencing above in Chapter 9, where the date given is clearly before the date of the previous chapters (see Chapter 1, Verse 1). and even then it is [only changed] for a particular purpose and for good reason. But this matter [i.e., the rebellion of Korach] happened in the wilderness of Paran,²⁵Above, 12:16. in Kadesh-barnea,²⁶Deuteronomy 1:19. It is from Kadesh-barnea that they sent the spies, as related in the Book of Deuteronomy, ibid. after the incident of the spies [and not, as Ibn Ezra wrote, before the sending of the spies].
A correct interpretation by way of homiletic exposition is that Korach became angry because of the status of prince [of the Kohathites]²⁷Above, 3:30. bestowed [by Moses] upon Elizaphan, as our Rabbis have said,²⁸Said Korach: “My grandfather Kohath had four sons: Amram, Itzhar, Hebron and Uzziel (Exodus 6:18). The two sons of Amram, the eldest, namely Moses and Aaron, assumed the royalty and the priesthood. Who is entitled to the next rank — the prince of the Kohathites — if not I, the eldest of the second son of Kohath, Itzhar? And yet he [i.e., Moses] went and appointed Elizaphan, whose father was Uzziel, the youngest son of my grandfather!” (Tanchuma Korach 1, mentioned by Rashi). and he was also jealous of Aaron, as it is said, and seek ye the priesthood also!²⁹Further, Verse 10. Dathan and Abiram [who were of the tribe of Reuben] were attracted to Korach, but not because of the [loss of their] birthright, for it was their father Jacob who had deprived Reuben of it and given it to Joseph;³⁰Genesis 48:5. however, they too, voiced their complaint [by saying that Moses had taken the people out of Egypt] to kill us in the wilderness,³¹Further, Verse 13. and moreover thou hast not brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey.³²Ibid., Verse 14. Now as long as Israel was in the wilderness of Sinai no evil happening befell them, for even after the incident of the [golden] calf, which was a serious and well-known sin, those who died [as a punishment] were few, and the people were saved by Moses’ prayer when he fell down before the Eternal the forty days and forty nights.³³Deuteronomy 9:25. Thus they loved Moses as [they loved] themselves, and they obeyed him, so that had anybody rebelled against Moses at that time, the people would have stoned him. Therefore Korach endured the greatness of Aaron [when he was appointed High Priest], and the firstborns accepted [without protest] the high status of the Levites, and all [the other] acts of Moses. But when they came to the wilderness of Paran²⁵Above, 12:16. and [some people] were burnt in Taberah,³⁴Above, 11:3. and many died in Kibroth-hattaavah,³⁵Ibid., Verse 34. and when after sinning [in the matter of] the spies Moses did not pray on their behalf,³⁶See Ramban above, 14:17 (towards the end) who explains the reason for this. so that the decree against them was thus not annulled, and the princes of all the tribes died by the plague before the Eternal³⁷Ibid., Verse 37. and it was decreed that the whole people would be consumed in the wilderness and there they shall die,³⁸Ibid., Verse 35. then the mood of the whole people became embittered, and they said in their hearts that mishaps occur to them through Moses’ words. Therefore Korach found it an opportune occasion to contest Moses’ deeds, thinking that the people would [readily] listen to him. This was the intention of [the statement of Dathan and Abiram that Moses had taken the people out of Egypt] to kill us in the wilderness,³¹Further, Verse 13. meaning: “Behold, you have brought us to this place and you have not fulfilled that which you promised to give us, [namely to take us to] a land flowing with milk and honey,³²Ibid., Verse 14. for you have not given us any inheritance at all; instead we will die in the wilderness and be wiped out there, for our children will also never come out of the wilderness, and that which you promised our children will also not be fulfilled, just as it did not come to realization with respect to their parents.” This then was the reason why they murmured particularly at this juncture immediately after the [Divine] decree because of the spies. It is likely that all those who assembled [against Moses] were firstborns, and therefore they were annoyed about the priesthood [which was taken away from them],³⁹See Note 22 above. and that is why Moses told them to take censers [and put incense upon them]⁴⁰Further, Verses 6-7. as they used formerly to do, and it would become clear thereby whether G-d preferred them or the priests.

וכפר בעדו, “he will perform atonement for his personal sins;” he will recite a confession by mouth. If you were to assume that the Torah here refers to an atonement by means of the blood of a sacrifice, our sages understood, after looking at verse 10 where we read the words: לכפר עליו in connection with the scapegoat, where it is clear that a confession by mouth is described, that the same expression being used here is meant to draw a parallel, i.e. that he is to recite a verbal confession. In verse 21 the words: והתודה עליו “he will make a verbal confession,” are spelled out clearly. This confession was in addition to the blood of the animal being sacrificed. If you were to ask why the High Priest did not also recite a confession over the male goat whose blood was sprinkled inside the Sanctuary, the reason was that it was destined for G-d, and it would be unseemly to make use of it for the needs of creatures here on earth. The Torah had especially written that this animal had been chosen by lot to be G-d’s. (verse 9) (Sifra). [According to Malbim, the unnecessary word עלה in this verse may be the reason for the Sifra’s comment.]

והעמיד אותם לפני ה, “and he will make them stand in the presence of the Lord, etc.” Both of these he-goats were a gift for Hashem, both before the lots had been drawn as well as after the lots had been drawn. To make this point quite clear the Torah wrote that the High Priest is to present both of them to the presence of Hashem. Even after the lots had been drawn and one of these he-goats had now been described as לעזאזל, “for a rocky place (identified with Satan),” the Torah continues writing יעמד חי לפני ה', “that the he-goat is to stand alive in the presence of Hashem (verse 10).” In other words, one must not think that the scapegoat was addressed as a gift to Satan; it too was addressed to Hashem though by a different route. The principal difference between the two he-goats was that the one consigned to Azzazel was not slaughtered but was consigned live to the desert similar to one of the birds of the offerings of the person afflicted with tzoraat. (Compare author’s comment on Leviticus 14,7). There is a further similarity with the heifer consigned to virgin earth and killed in the process which was to atone for any negligence which might have contributed to the murder by a person unknown of the slain person described in Deut. 21,4. That heifer had to be “virginal,” had not been used as a beast of burden or otherwise made to perform tasks for its owner. It is most certainly not the intention of the Torah to suggest that this scapegoat be presented to Satan as an offering, a sacrifice. There simply is no sacrificial service performed in Judaism whose address is not Hashem, G’d’s essence, not even any of the lesser attributes of G’d [as the author has been at pains to point out repeatedly. Ed]. After all, what sense would Exodus 22,19 make where we are told that if someone offers a sacrifice to anyone other than G'd exclusively he would be guilty of death? Does then the Torah contradict itself in Leviticus reneging on what was written in Exodus? In Exodus the Torah was at pains to state that sacrifices that are addressed to a foreign deity or to an angel are prohibited. If even sacrifices addressed to G’d’s intermediaries are rejected, how much more so would an offering to Satan be rejected? Addressing a sacrifice to Azzazel, read Satan, would be violating the verse in Proverbs 21,27: “the sacrifice of a wicked man is an abomination.” Directing a sacrifice to the wrong address not only does not result in G’d’s grace but drives a wedge between man and G’d, is an abomination!
The fact that the Azzazel will become a beneficiary of a sacrifice which we presented to the Lord, i.e. to Hashem in accordance with His instructions, does not need to bother us as long as that secondary beneficiary is not the address of that sacrifice. The High Priest first offered the two he-goats as a gift to the Lord. The very fact that the decision which of these he-goats would arrive at its ultimate address via the detour of the Azzazel was determined by lot made it impossible to accuse the High Priest, i.e. Israel, as having aimed one of the animals as a gift, bribe, or whatever, to the Azzazel. It was as if G’d had determined by means of the lot, which of these two animals was to travel to its ultimate destiny via a detour. If the High Priest in sanctifying the two animals had said: ‘this one is for Hashem and this one is for Azzazel,” he would have compared the two, thus becoming guilty of performing a procedure which could be interpreted as offering an offering to an idolatrous destination. Seeing that the choice was determined by lot, it was as if G’d had decided which of the two animals was to make this detour via the Azzazel. While the animal was consigned to a location known as Azzazel, this was not the same as addressing it to the concept ”Azzazel.” (Compare Nachmanides on verse 8 in our chapter).
Our sages in Yuma 41 determined that in the event that the High Priest had failed to perform the procedure of drawing lots which of the two animals was to serve as the scapegoat and which was to be slaughtered for burning on the altar, the entire Yom Kippur service is voided. In other words, the drawing of lots was an integral part of the entire service.