Komentaryong Sumisipi para sa Mga Awit 99:6

Korach’s personal grievance was twofold. 1) He was “dressed” in jealousy, a negative character trait, a disease for which there is no known therapy. 2) He misinterpreted the meaning of the vision in which he had foreseen that his descendants would achieve outstanding greatness. Concerning the first reason, i.e. his jealousy, this is a very vicious disease. One starts by scheming until one achieves whatever it is that his fellow owns and he does not. Even if one achieves this goal and therefore should cease to be jealous, one has in the meantime become addicted to the craving for personal honour, a desire to lord it over others, a craving for power, until eventually all this becomes similar to עבודה זרה, a form of idolatry. On the other hand, if the jealous person fails in his attempt to equal the one he is jealous of, his whole life is one of frustration and it may, G’d forbid, result in his murdering the object of his jealousy. Solomon already referred to this phenomenon in Proverbs 14,30 when he said: “envy is like rottenness of the bones.” Also Eliphaz is quoted in Job 5,2 as saying: ”jealousy kills the fool.” If someone allows himself to be seduced by jealousy it will eventually kill him. Our sages in Avot 4,28 have said that the three traits “jealousy, greed, and the thirst for personal honour” contribute to man’s premature demise.”
When one displays jealousy of one’s fellow one will eventually hate him and possibly become guilty of murder. The Torah describes this graphically in Deut. 19,11: “if someone hates his fellow, sets an ambush for him, and rises up and slays him.” Concerning such saddening phenomena Solomon commented in Kohelet 4,4: וראיתי אני את כל עמל ואת כל כשרון המעשה כי היא קנאת איש מרעהו, גם זה הבל ורעות רוח, “I have also noted that all labor and skillful enterprise come from men’s envy of each other — another futility and pursuit of the wind.” When Solomon speaks of עמל, labor, he refers to the material possessions, honor, and the other exterior paraphernalia denoting personal power. When he speaks of כל כשרון המעשה, he refers to Torah, repentance, and good deeds.” The word “Hevel” is a reference to Kayin’s brother who had observed his older brother offer a sacrifice and wanted to outdo him as he was jealous of his having preceded him with a good deed. He therefore emulated his father Adam and offered a living creature (as opposed to Kayin who had only offered vegetable matter. compare Tanchuma Bereshit 9 and Bereshit Rabbah 22,15) [This is based on the Torah reporting Kayin as being the first of the brothers to offer the sacrifice, Genesis 4,4. It helps explain why G’d tolerated Hevel being murdered. Ed.] The jealousy led to Kayin and Hevel developing mutual hatred until Kayin murdered his brother. This character trait contains within it the potential destruction of the universe.
The trait of jealousy is not limited to human beings. Even the ministering angels are reported as having been jealous of Adam until they succeeded in seducing him into sinning and he was forced to exchange the “garments” of intelligence for garments made of inferior materials (Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 13). The word בגד “garment,” is related to בגד, “betray.” In other words man’s clothing may betray him. Adam’s superior “garments” were the cause of the angels’ jealousy. The result of this was that the Shechinah departed from him and therefore from mankind on earth.
Korach’s jealousy also resulted in his being expelled from the universe. The immediate focus of Korach’s jealousy and that of his sympathizers was the manner in which Israelites had been appointed to high office. He saw in this high-handed action by Moses, nepotism of a kind. When Moses, in answering Korach’s accusations, says כי לא מלבי, “I did not do these things arbitrarily” (verse 25), it is clear that this was his response to Korach’s accusation. Korach and company had even suggested that the appointment of all the Levites to their position and their replacing the function of the firstborn had only been a device by Moses to elevate members of his own tribe to a higher social status. If even Levites also took part in that uprising it was because they perceived that Aaron and his family, Moses’ closest relatives, had been given the highest rank of all. Korach also believed that Moses had appointed Elitzafan ben Uzziel as prince of the tribe of Levi seeing that Uzziel had been one of Moses’ uncles, though the most junior in age (Numbers 3,19). Korach was particularly irked by the fact that he felt he had been passed over in the sharing out of honors though he was senior to Uzziel, being a son of Yitzhar who was older than Uzziel. In his mind, Amram, Moses’ father had been the firstborn (an honor), whereas his two sons had taken for themselves the highest positions, King and High Priest. Korach felt that the second of these honors should have been his, seeing that he was the son of Yizhar, who was next in line to Amram. When he found that the next highest honour had been given to Elitzafan, son of the younger Uzziel instead, he started the uprising.
How did Korach secure support for his demagoguery? He assembled 250 heads of the respective tribal supreme courts, most of them from the tribe of Reuven; he clothed all of them in talitot made completely of blue wool, תכלת; this is the meaning of “Korach took”, i.e. he took his talit and came to Moses wearing it. The other 250 men did the same. They all asked Moses whether such a talit required tzitziyot in order for it to be fit to wear. When Moses said that indeed even a talit made exclusively of blue wool required tzitziyot these people all started laughing, saying: “if a white talit can be converted into an halachically sound garment by means of a single thread of תכלת, blue wool, surely a talit which is completely of blue wool does not need an additional blue thread in order for it to be fit to be worn!” They then asked a similar question pertaining to the affixing of a mezuzah on a house filled with sacred texts. Moses ruled that such a house too is not absolved from the need to have a mezuzah affixed to its entrance. Thereupon the rebels said that if affixing two paragraphs out of a total of the 275 paragraphs contained in the Torah can make such a house fit to live in, surely when the house contains all 275 paragraphs, seeing that there is a Torah scroll inside, this must be enough to absolve such a house from the need to affix another two of these paragraphs to its door post! They concluded that Moses’ ruling was arbitrary and could not represent instructions he had received from G’d. Korach had asked these questions using his intelligence to make Moses look ridiculous.
There is another nuance contained in these questions, i.e. Korach used the simile of the house full of sacred texts and the talit made completely of blue wool as a parable describing the Jewish people. He meant that seeing the Jewish people are all holy, there was no need to appoint a High Priest who would perform the function for the people which the tzitzit performed for the talit. He compared all the fringes to the religious dignitaries who are part of the oligarchy of the Jewish people. He implied that a nation such as the Jewish nation should be a totally egalitarian society with no special duties or privileges for anyone, especially no hereditary ones.
Korach’s second mistake, one which led him to vent his jealousy, was that he erred in interpreting the chain of prominent people who would be descended from him. Our sages (Tanchuma Korach 5 and quoted by Rashi), say. He was deceived by foreseeing that the prophet Samuel would be descended from him, a prophet who has been described as equal to Moses and Aaron combined, as we know from Psalms 99,6: “Moses and Aaron among His priests and Samuel among those who call upon His name.” He reasoned that he had to be saved as otherwise this prophecy could not be fulfilled. He also foresaw that 24 groups of Levites would be descended from him all of whom prophets, sons of Heiman (Chronicles I 6,18). Seeing that he foresaw such a brilliant future for his descendants he said to himself: “how can I remain silent and not challenge the present hierarchy?” He thought that his speaking up would ensure that the future he foresaw would materialise. This is why he tried to force the issue. He had heard from Moses that everyone of the present hierarchy would perish and only one would be saved. This is how he interpreted Moses’ words אשר יבחר ה' הוא הקדוש, “the one whom the Lord will choose he is the holy one (verse 9).” He thought there would remain only a single person fit for the description “holy,” i.e. himself.

כי שם ה' אקרא, If this is as I said, then you Israel who have received these words of wisdom, will appreciate that the thrust of my address is a prayer, a prayer that all of us, including myself, will experience the ultimate redemption after the last exile. [Moses includes this in his preamble in order to make sure that his listeners will not fail to see the forest by concentrating too much on the individual trees. Ed.] Our author first proceeds to quote examples of such formulations as Moses uses here meaning prayer. We find in Lamentations 3,55 קראתי שמך ה' מבור תחתיות, ”I have called on Your Name from the depths of the Pit.” Clearly, Jeremiah refers to his prayer. We read in Psalms 99,6 concerning the trio of Moses, Aaron, and Samuel, that they were known as קוראי שמו והוא יענם, “that whenever they prayed to G’d He would respond to them favourably.”
Moses therefore tells the people: “when I pray for the ingathering of the exiles I want G’d to orchestrate this so that it is like the eagle rousing his young and carrying them to a new destination on the back of his wings.” (verse 11) Moses continues, focusing in his prayer on the arrival of the Messiah by saying ה' בדד ינחנו, G’d will do this all on His own, without anyone’s assistance (verse 23). At the very end of his shirah, (verse 43) he exclaims הרנינו גויים עמו, which is equivalent to the instruction in our verse here of הבו גודל לאלוקינו, render glory to our G’d.

AND THOU SHALT COME UNTO THE PRIEST THAT SHALL BE IN THOSE DAYS — to the priest that shall be there in those days, for first-fruits, like all offerings, are given to the men of the [priestly] Division [who are assigned to the Sanctuary for a week at a time],¹⁰See Vol. IV, p. 17, Note 92. but he may not bring along a priest from his city in order to offer him his first-fruits.
Now, Rashi wrote: “You have none else than the priest who lives in your days as he is.” But I have not understood this, for in the case of an elder [of the Sanhedrin] it is proper to say [and thou shalt come …] unto the judge that shall be in those days,¹¹Above, 17:9. meaning that even though he is not as great and wise as the early judges in the ages which were before us,¹²Ecclesiastes 1:10. still he [the elder] is obligated to hearken to him [the judge], for “Jephtah in his generation is as Samuel in his generation.”¹³Rosh Hashanah 25b. The prophet Samuel is cited by Scripture as being equal to Moses and Aaron (Psalms 99:6). Elsewhere Jephthah is mentioned together with Samuel (I Samuel 12:11), thus teaching us that Jephthah in his generation was entitled to obedience just as was Samuel in his generation. But when bringing first-fruits, to whom shall he bring them if not to the priest that shall be in his days? Now, I have also seen the following text in the Sifre:⁵Sifre, Ki Thavo 298. “And thou shalt come unto the priest that shall be in those days. This is what Rabbi Yosei the Galilean says, And would it occur to you to come to the priest that is not in your days? Rather, [I must say that the verse requires one to come to] the priest who is considered by you to be established and fit in those days. Kinsmen who have ceased to be kinsmen are qualified.¹⁴This statement will be explained further on by Ramban as applying to a judge who was disqualified from rendering judgment involving a member of his family. This stricture does not apply to the bringing of first-fruits to a kindred priest who is ministering in the Sanctuary. And so it is also said, Say not thou: ‘How was it that the former days were better than these?’ ”¹⁵Ecclesiastes 7:10. The word days thus refers to “the judges of the former days.” Do not say that the judges of the former generations were better than those of the present, and therefore I would not listen to them. Instead you are to listen to them, for you are only concerned with them (Maharsha, Rosh Hashanah 25b). It appears that the Sages interpreted in this connection that if one brought first-fruits or a burnt-offering to a priest who was presumed to be qualified and afterwards it was discovered that he was the son of a divorced woman, [a defiled priest not entitled to perform the Divine Service, nor to receive the priestly gifts] the offerings are nevertheless valid, as is mentioned in the last chapter¹⁶In our text of the Gemara it is found in the third chapter of Kiddushin 66b. The tractate contains four chapters. of Tractate Kiddushin. Also included in this principle is [the rule] that a kinsman who has ceased to be a kinsman is qualified, this applying to an elder who may not be judged by a relative,¹⁷But if he ceased to be his kinsman — for example, a son-in-law [of the elder] whose wife died — he becomes qualified to judge. but it is not relevant to first-fruits.

רב לכם בני לוי means, “It is a great (an important) thing that I have told you, ye sons of Levi”). But were they not fools in that although he so sternly warned them they nevertheless undertook to offer! They, however, sinned against their own souls (i.e., they were regardless of their lives) as it is said, (17:3) “the censers of these sinners against their souls”. — But Korah who certainly was a clever (lit., open-eyed) man, what reason had he to commit this folly? His mind’s eye misled him. He saw by prophetic vision a line of great men (more lit., a great chain) descending from him, amongst them the prophet Samuel who was equal in importance to Moses and Aaron together (cf. Psalms 99:6: משה ואהרן בכהניו ושמואל בקראי שמו), and he said to himself, “On his account I shall escape the punishment”. And he further saw twenty-four Mishmars (shifts of Levites who formed the Temple Choir) arising among his grand-children, all of them prophesying by the Holy Spirit, — as it is said, (I Chronicles 25:5) “All these (prominent musicians) were sons of Heiman” (Heiman was a descendant of Korah; cf. I Chronicles 6:18—23). — He said, “Is it possible that all this dignity is to arise from me and I shall remain silent (be myself of no importance)?” On this account he joined the others in order to attain to that prerogative, because he had indeed heard from the mouth of Moses that all else of them would perish and one would escape: "He whom the Lord will choose will be holy". He mistakenly applied this to himself. But he had not seen correctly, for his sons repented of their rebellious attitude and therefore did not die at that time (cf. Numbers 26:11), and it was from them that Samuel and the Levitical singers were descended. Moses, however, foresaw this. (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 5).

But the satiety of the rich will not permit him to sleep. But the satiety of possessions of the rich man, who owns much merchandise, does not allow him to sleep because he thinks about it all night.¹⁶The same idea is expressed in Mishnayos Avos 2:7, “the more possessions, the more worry.” Another explanation: The year שָׁנָה שֶׁל=[שְׁנַת of the one who serves God is sweet; whether he has a short life or a long life, he will partake of his reward, the one [who lives few years] like the one who [lives] many [years]. [E.g.,] Moshe led Yisroel forty years, and Shmuel the prophet led them ten years, and Scripture equates them one to another, as it is stated, “Moshe and Aharon among His kohanim, and Shmuel among those who invoke His name, etc.”¹⁷Tehillim 99:6. So is it expounded upon in Tanchuma.