Еврейская мысль к Тегилим 29:11

It is commonly supposed that "peace" is the restoration of harmony between parties that have been at odds with one another. People who conceive of "peace" as being merely that, deprive the concept of much of its value. If "peace" does nothing more than restore a balance where there had previously been an imbalance, it can hardly be considered a blessing. Shame is not a virtue, since it presupposes that an unworthy act had been committed which the perpetrator is now ashamed of. Actually, peace is more like the silver thread that joins two people or two entities combining them into a unified whole. Why is one of the names of G'd shalom, peace? Because He ties together worlds, keeps them united and preserves their appearance and format. (Midrash Chazit chapter 1) When we read in Samuel II 11,7, "David enquired after the "peace" of Yoav, the "peace" of the people, and the "peace" of the "war," there is certainly no reference intended to the cessation of the war. This war was still very much in progress. David merely asked Uriah whether these people or affairs were all well and proceeding according to plan. The word "peace" in that context describes that there was a common bond between the people or the animals described. A city of people who do not quarrel with one another, who tolerate each other's idiosyncrasies, cannot be said to be at peace with each other as long as they do not share a common purpose or goal. Furthermore, when there is no bond joining people, there is a degree of separateness which may eventually lead to disintegration, decay etc. Isaiah 45,7, has this in mind when he contrasts "fashions light, or creates darkness, makes peace or creates evil, I the Lord do all these." The relationship of ra, evil, to shalom, peace, is like the relationship between darkness and light. Peace, i.e harmony, is the fruitful interaction of the various energies of different bodies, elements. It was Aaron's special talent to have understood that it is the task of a leader to weave that thread, the fabric that binds people to one another, and thus help them to establish harmony by desiring for them what one desires for oneself. Moses, on the other hand, was concerned primarily with the intellectual approach. He believed that without the benefit of Torah, whatever man does is of insufficient value to prolong our days on this earth. Without Torah, no degree of harmony can be achieved that would be capable of overcoming the dichotomy due to the fact that this physical universe has been made up of four distinctly different elements. The Talmud Shabbat 89, illustrates this line of thinking when it describes Moses' arrival on Mount Sinai before he had received the Torah. Moses is described as finding G'd "tying crowns to the letters." G'd asks him: "Moses, is there no "peace" in your city?" (are you people not in the habit of extending greetings of "peace be with you" where you come from?) Moses replies: "how can a slave contribute to the "peace"' of his Master?" G'd replies: "at any rate you should have assisted Me." Immediately, Moses said "now let the strength of the Lord become great as You have said." The lesson contained in that Midrash is, that even without the benefit of Torah, man's effort to weave the thread of togetherness, i.e. civilisation, is sufficient to improve his lot down here on earth. This is shalom; peace. When Hillel advised people to emulate the virtue of Aaron, namely to strive for peace, he was quite correct, inasmuch as this is a most positive character trait. Similarly, when Hillel said "do not separate yourself from the community," he was merely describing the other side of the coin. Tzibbur, community, after all, is what has been united by shalom, peace. The holiness of G'd depends on the community. Venikdashti betoch beney Yisrael, I will be sanctified within the community of Israel. When the community sins, one must abandon it. (Jeremiah 9,1) When only an individual sins, the community must see to it that the individual repents, or they must place him outside the tzibbur, into cherem quarantine. Since peace therefore is of vital importance to the existence of the community, it is clear that precisely at the time the tabernacle was put into service, G'd would pronounce the blessing of peace, as we have noted in our opening Midrash.

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.

When the Talmud Berachot describes G'd as also putting on phylacteries, the obvious question asked was what could possibly be written on the parchment in the phylaceries of G'd? The answer given is that that scroll of parchment contains the line "and who is like Your people Israel, a unique people amongst the nations on earth!" Clearly, the aggadah in the Talmud reflects this mutuality that we have described as Israel enthroning G'd, and G'd in turn enthroning Israel amongst the nations.