What is the big deal of the break in Korach's lineage?

Friday, June 26, 2009

Divrei Chaim asks a nice question on Rashi on Korach:

The Torah usually does not trace back the lineage of heroes or villains all the way to the Patriarchs. Why here does Rashi see the omission of Ya'akov's name as significant? And even if Ya'akov's name is not mentioned, don't we all know that he is the father of Levi and therefore the great-great-grandfather ofKorach?
and gives a nice answer, Maharal based. But I think I am going to take the question and run with it. The pasuk states:
א וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח, בֶּן-יִצְהָר בֶּן-קְהָת בֶּן-לֵוִי; וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם בְּנֵי אֱלִיאָב, וְאוֹן בֶּן-פֶּלֶת--בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן.1 Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, with Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men;
and Rashi writes:
the son of Izhar the son of Kohath the son of Levi: [The verse] does not mention, “the son of Jacob,” because he [Jacob] prayed not to be mentioned in connection with their quarrel, as it is stated, “my honor, you shall not join their assembly” (Gen. 49:6). And where is his name mentioned in connection with Korah? In (I) Chron. (6:22, 23), where their genealogy is traced for the service of the Levites on the platform [in the Temple], as it says, “the son of Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, the son of Israel.” - [Midrash Tanchuma Korach 4, Num. Rabbah 18:5]
בן יצהר בן קהת בן לוי: ולא הזכיר בן יעקב, שבקש רחמים על עצמו שלא יזכר שמו על מחלוקתם, שנאמר (בראשית מט, ו) ובקהלם אל תחד כבודי. והיכן נזכר שמו על קרח, בהתיחסם על הדוכן בדברי הימים, שנאמר (ד"ה א' ו, כב - כג) בן אביאסף בן קרח בן יצהר בן קהת בן לוי בן ישראל:





The first question, before we address "what is bothering Rashi" (as stated above in the formulation of "Why here does Rashi see the omission of Ya'akov's name as significant?"), we should address what is bothering the midrash Tanchuma.

And what bothers a midrashist is not necessarily the same thing that bothers a pashtan. I would suggest a few things. First, for Korach it is not simply Korach ben Yitzhar, as we might expect. It goes back a whole bunch of generations. Now, on a peshat level, this may make sense for other reasons, such as that it is important to the narrative that he is a Levite (rav lachem bnei levi) as is to some degree his particular relationship to Moshe and Aharon (see the suggestions that he was upset at having been passed over, since he should rightfully have been first). And even if not, the point is to yield his tribe, just as Bnei Reuven is important to designate the tribe of the others.

But once you are tracing a lineage back all these generations, it seems a bit strange to stop one short. So it is not that we would expect every evildoer to have his lineage traced back to Yaakov, but that once a lineage is being traced back, it is strange to stop there. Indeed, elsewhere we see the lineage go all the way back to Yaakov, namely in Divrei Hayamim.

Secondly, it is possible that this by itself was not sufficient to cause a "problem." Rather, one could readily say, based on the wording in Midrash Tanchuma, that the spark was a pasuk in Vaychi. Thus:
בן יצהר בן קהת בן לוי
ולמה לא כתיב בן יעקב או בן ישראל?!
זה שאמר הכתוב: בסודם אל תבא נפשי וגו' (בראש' מט ו).
בסודם אל תבא נפשי, אלו המרגלים.
(ו)בקהלם אל תחד כבודי (שם), זה קרח.

אמר יעקב לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא: ריבונו של עולם, לא במרגלים ולא במחלוקתו של קרח ייזכר שמי על אותן רשעים שעתידים להכעיס.

ואימתי ייכתב שמי עליהם?
כשהם מתיחסין ועומדין על הדוכן, שנאמר: בן תחת בן אסיר בן אביאסף בן קרח בן יצהר בן קהת בן לוי בן ישראל (דה"א ו כב- כג).
This based on a pasuk which reads:
ו בְּסֹדָם אַל-תָּבֹא נַפְשִׁי, בִּקְהָלָם אַל-תֵּחַד כְּבֹדִי: כִּי בְאַפָּם הָרְגוּ אִישׁ, וּבִרְצֹנָם עִקְּרוּ-שׁוֹר.6 Let my soul not come into their council; unto their assembly let my glory not be united; for in their anger they slew men, and in their self-will they houghed oxen.
The pasuk in Yaakov's blessings is poetry, and cryptic, and like the rest of the blessings, seeks fulfillment in future events. Thus, the first half is associated with the spies and the second half with Korach.

There is a further connection, a gezera shava if you will, based on kehalam. Here it states "unto their assembly let my glory not be united", while in parshat Korach we see:

ג וַיִּקָּהֲלוּ עַל-מֹשֶׁה וְעַל-אַהֲרֹן, וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֲלֵהֶם רַב-לָכֶם--כִּי כָל-הָעֵדָה כֻּלָּם קְדֹשִׁים, וּבְתוֹכָם ה'; וּמַדּוּעַ תִּתְנַשְּׂאוּ, עַל-קְהַל ה'.3 and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them: 'Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?'
Sod meanwhile indicates secret, and can readily refer to the meraglim who are immediately previous in the Torah, who went on a spy mission, or who had an etza {parallel to sod} to do what they did.

And the mechanism of this midrash might have been to seek out a foreign pasuk and interpret it as applying to the local, then mustering the slight irregularity of the local pasuk to bolster that peshat. We see this elsewhere in midrash as well.

I would add that I am not certain how the sod part works. After all, if the pasuk in Vaychi is about Levi, then the tribe of Levi was not one of the ones which sent a spy. Though it is admittedly about Shimon as well. But then, none of the spies from any of the tribes has lineage all the way to Yaakov, just their father's name and their tribal affiliation.

So we have addressed (or attempted to address) what is bothering the midrash. But what about Rashi? What is bothering him? Is such a slight irregularity really a concern of a pashtan?

Maybe it is. It is a close reading of what the pasuk does not say.

But I am more inclined to ask the question of what is motivating Rashi. That is, I am not convinced that every time Rashi cites a midrash (more than 80% of Rashis), he is really bothered by a peshat concern. And since a midrash almost always had a textual hook, someone will be able to say that concern X was "bothering" Rashi.

But I do not think this is the case.

Rather, Rashi sometimes does dikduk, and sometimes chooses one possibility out of several as the meaning of a pasuk. But he also cites a whole lot of midrash. If he is not "bothered" by something, then why does he do it? Because he is using the wealth of midrashic material before him to paint a picture, to set a tone, to develop a theme.

This is the beginning of a parsha, and we are looking at yet another rebellion against Moshe. Let us turn a mere dry introduction into a condemnation, and a message that we should not act like him, and that in his actions he separated himself from the path of his ancestor.

And so Rashi is not really bothered by the sudden break in the lineage.

Posted by joshwaxman at 6:59 AM

Labels: ,



2 comments:

Chaim B. said...
Friday, June 26, 2009 11:57:00 AM

>>>So it is not that we would expect every evildoer to have his lineage traced back to Yaakov, but that once a lineage is being traced back, it is strange to stop there.

The Torah traces lineage back numerous times and never goes all the way back to the Avos (see Maharal).

>>>elsewhere we see the lineage go all the way back to Yaakov

The question should be the opposite - the pasuk in Divrei haYamim which traces back to Ya'akov is the anamoly and exception to the rule.

>>>Rashi is not really bothered

Whether there is a "kashe" hiding behind every Rashi is a machlokes meforshei Rashi, but here Rashi explicitly spells out the kashe for you.

>>>his actions he separated himself from the path of his ancestor

Too broad a generalization. 1. The same can be said of every other rasha as well - mah nishtana Korach? 2. The focus of the derash is Ya'akov disassociating himself from Korach, not the other way around.

 
joshwaxman said...
Friday, June 26, 2009 12:06:00 PM

"The Torah traces lineage back numerous times and never goes all the way back to the Avos (see Maharal)."
but how many times when introducing a person and going back several but stopping one short? can you give me another example?
also, it is different by korach, because we have another example specifically by korach where it does.

"The question should be the opposite - the pasuk in Divrei haYamim which traces back to Ya'akov is the anamoly and exception to the rule."
but it is not a question, it is a distinction, which causes the "darsheini."

"Whether there is a "kashe" hiding behind every Rashi is a machlokes meforshei Rashi, but here Rashi explicitly spells out the kashe for you."
he does not give it as a question, but as a statement, לא הזכיר בן יעקב, and this is directly channeling the wording of the midrash. if the midrash had not posed the question first i would be convinced that something was "bothering" rashi.

"Too broad a generalization"
i was trying to work it into vayikach of vayikach korach. but the point of the midrash is that Yaakov did not wish to associate himself with him in this instance.

"1. The same can be said of every other rasha as well - mah nishtana Korach?"
who says not? but here we have a midrash and a close reading to support it in this instance. who cares about other instances. they are beside the point.

in other instances, where they are available, we may have other midrashic statements to utilize.

"2. The focus of the derash is Ya'akov disassociating himself from Korach, not the other way around."
True enough, but I don't see that changing much in my analysis. It was more a throw-away line at the end.

good shabbos,
josh

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Widget by LinkWithin
Home security