Chukas sources -- 2012 edition

מראי מקומות ללימוד פרשת חקת, תשע"ב

by aliyah

rishon (Bamidbar 19:1)

sheni (19:18)

shelishi (20:7)

revii (20:14)

chamishi (20:22)

shishi (21:10)

shevii (21:21)

maftir (21:34)

haftara, with Kli Yakar, Malbim, Ralbag (Shofetim 11)

by perek

perek 19

perek 20

perek 21

perek 22

meforshim -- מפרשים

Geonim (589-1038)

R' Saadia Gaon(882-942) -- see Wikipedia entry:

1. Arabic translation of Torah, here  at Temanim.org. This is a beautiful PDF, with the Chumash text, Rashi, Onkelos, and Rav Saadia's Tafsir. All of these have nikkud, which is a very nice feature. It also designates the Temani and standard aliyah breaks, and two commentaries, Shemen HaMor and Chelek HaDikduk, on the kriyah, trup, nikkud, and dikduk, on the basis of Yemenite manuscripts, which would be worthwhile even absent the other features. Quite excellent, overall.
2. The same Arabic translation, the Tafsir,     here at Google books. No nikkud, Chumash text, Rashi, or Onkelos. But there is a brief supercommentary by Yosef Direnburg at the bottom of each page. 
3. Collected commentary of Saadia Gaon on Torah, selected from the writings of various Rishonim and from his commentaries on other works.

Rabbi Yona Ibn Janach  (Spain, 990-1050) -- see Wikipedia 

Posts so far for parshat Korach

2012

1. Korach sources, 2012 edition -- more sources, explanation of approaches, and some photos.

2. Rav Mordechai Gifter on past and present kanoim.

3. Running commentary on Korach, part one.

4. YUTorah on parashat Korach.

5. The trup on לְמִשְׁמֶרֶת לְאוֹת, לִבְנֵי-מֶרִי -- Shadal suggests it should be like a variant version he found in some manuscript. I am not so convinced.

6. Why did the Sages change חֲמוֹר to chamud, in the Septuagint? My thoughts, that it is of course a scribal error, and the braysa which says otherwise is making a nice derasha based on existing facts. The Chasam Sofer has a detailed explanation, based on whether Moshe Rabbenu was entitled to a share in the spoils, and if not, at least a donkey to help carry the bones of Yosef.

2011

1. Korach sources -- further expanded. For example, many more meforshei Rashi.
   .
2. The one man's sin, and the Authenticity of the Zohar -- The word הָאִישׁ should likely be read as initiating a question, but that is against the nikkud. Shadal has no problem with that, but others do. They discuss. Finally, what this has to do with the authenticity of the Zohar. If nikkud is post-Talmudic, you can argue against it. Yet the Zohar, purportedly from Rashbi, discusses the orthography of nikkud. 
   .
3. What does Onkelos mean by שחרית? The Arabic cognate can help us out here.
   .
4. Did Rashi sin in saying פרשה זו יפה נדרשת במדרש רבי תנחומא?  The Taz brings up a prohibition Rashi might have violated in this regard, and explains why it was not forbidden in this instance -- something to do with the nature ofpeshat and derash on this pasuk. I analyze the topic in greater detail, and think I have a better explanation.
   .
5. Was Korach a Gilgul of Kayin or of Yisro? Also, the earliest Torah code, perhaps known to Rishonim!
   One kabbalistic source says Kayin, and one says Yisro. Can they be harmonized? Apparently so, as discussed in the comments. Also, while I don't put much stock in Torah codes, I correlate someone else's Torah code with a somewhat cryptic statement of Tziyuni.
   .
6. Should we be gores וסעודה or וסעורה in Onkelos? A daled or a resh at the end of the word? Different Rashi's through Shas suggest different girsaot. 
   .
7. YU Torah on parashat Korach.
   .
8. Some Minchas Shais:
1. The bare sheva in קהת -- Why should Minchas Shai take pains to point it out? It turns out that somesefarim had a chataf kamatz.
   .
2. Minchas Shai on קריאי -- and malei / chaser; understanding various masoretic notes.
   .
3. More Minchas Shai on Korach -- going through a few more pesukim. For instance, whether there should be a makef or a shofar illuy in ואל כל עדתו.
   .
9. Not from me -- here is Dvarman's Short Vort on Korach, a 4 minute dvar Torah:
   But see my analysis in #4 above, on whether Rashi sinned.
   .
10. Does אל תפן apply to Korach, or to Dasan and Aviram?  While Rashi interprets it, lefi peshuto, as referring to Korach, Ramban disagrees and asserts that based on context it should refer to Datan and Aviram. And he works it out. But Shadal chooses Rashi.
    .
11. Did Korach's sons go to Gehinnom, or did they become prophets?  Mizrachi shows a contradiction within Rashis. The Taz attempts to solve it. And I offer suggestions throughout, that Rashi didn't say it, or that Rashi means that their songs ascended, not that they physically ascended.

2010

1. Why it should not be lo *chamud* echad meihem nasasi --  Continuing a point from years past, I point out that the Samaritans also have chamud as opposed to chamor. But then explain why it is almost certainly incorrect. See also the posts from 2009, item 9, below.
   a
2. Ibn Ezra on deflecting curses -- I think that Rashi is absolutely correct in his explanation of העיני האנשים ההם, that it means Datan and Aviram, but that they are deflecting negative language towards others. Ibn Caspi agrees. Ibn Ezra does not, though lists it as one of several possibilities. Still, the way that he describes it seems to suggest that he does not "buy" into the idea that there is any point to such deflection.
   a
3. Korach sources -- revamped, with over 100 meforshim on the parashah and the haftarah.
   .
4. Does the recent sinkhole prove the plausibility of the incident with Korach? Only according to rationalists like Ibn Ezra. This ties into a dispute as to whether this hole in the ground was a brand new invention or something relatively commonplace.
   .
5. Tossing Korach -- out of the pit and into the fire -- a Samaritan emendation, to clarify Korach's death

2009

1. Korach sources -- links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraos Gedolos, as well as to many meforshim on the parsha and haftara.
   .
2. Who in the world was Bedan? Two closed-canon approaches, and one open canon approach. In defense of the masoretic text.
   .
3. Korach was מקהה the teeth of his forebears. Part of a discussion of what this phrase means, and what it means in the Haggadah.
   .
4. The healing ketores? The poisonous ketores? It seems that Ibn Ezra is saying that the ketores Aharon used to stop the plague was not the famous ketores, but rather some special herbs with natural properties to stop the death. And some supercommentators take it further, that he is saying that earlier, the ketores of Korach, the 250 men, and possibly that of Aharon was the same herbs, which could potentially cause death, and that this was the mechanism by which they worked. And that Chazal hint to this. Related, see Rabenu Bachya reject this latter idea, and see Avi Ezer whitewash this and a related comment by Ibn Ezra. And see what seems to be the correct interpretation of that other Ibn Ezra.
   .
5. Careful with you tipcha, or you may blaspheme Hashem! So Minchas Shai. I analyze what the pasuk is like with the tipcha in its place, or without it in its place, as a parse. But as an Anonymous commenter points out, his concern may just be one of juxtaposition, even if the entire sentence does not make sense. This may be so, but even so, the parsing argument may be a different and valid model, and valid counterargument for when the resulting pasuk is rendered nonsensical, such that one would never choose the heretical parse.
   .
6. Did Ibn Ezra endorse idols? What is his position on whether Aharon sinned, and whether it is appropriate to fashion molten symbols of symbols of the zodiac to counter potentially harmful astronomical / mystical forces?
   .
7. Why did Korach choose now to rebel? According to Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz, it was because before he was planning to wait it out, but now Moshe would rule for the next forty years.
   .
8. Did Moshe not take a single donkey? Or did he not take a donkey of a single one of them? Trying to resolve this machlokes rishonim on the basis of trup and dikduk.
   .
9. Moshe Rabbenu, accused adulterer? What are the textual sparks of this midrash?
   
   Also, how in the parallel statement of Shmuel Hanavi, he does NOT say chamud.
   .
10. What is the big deal of the break in Korach's lineage? What is bothering Rashi? What is the basis of the midrash? And what is motivating Rashi? (link and post to come)
    
    And as a followup, how atypical is Korach's lineage?
    .
11. Dasan and Aviram were at fault, much more than Korach -- a surprising perush of Ralbag, found on parshat Pinchas, about who precisely was the driving force behind the rebellion.
    a
12. Rav Yaakov Emden and Opponents of the Rebbe and Chabad: Like Korach and his Edah? and what could motivate such accusations.

2008

1. What was Korach's charge? Shadal suggests that he believed in Hashem and in Moshe's shlichut, but thought that Hashem was a deity that could be controlled and influenced by particular services He liked, such that once the mishkan was built and the laws of sacrifices known, anyone could step into Moshe and Aharon's roles.
   .
2. Why was Levi called Levi? The description of shevet Levi as "joining" the kohanim is a pun.
   .
3. Cross-listed from Naso: What was the nature of the "bitter" waters? Ibn Ezra's explanation of the waters of Sotah, and how he connects it to the incense used to stop the plague. And supercommentaries' attempts to smooth this peirush over.
   .
4. Did Moshe poison Korach's ketores?! Rabbenu Bachya goes out of his way to say no.
   .
5. The metaphor of the tzitzis and the mezuzah, in Korach's "halachic" complaint to Moshe.
   .
6. A parsha roundup on Korach, and my reaction to points in the divrei Torah.
   .
7. A followup to a 2006 piece on the reason for the different trup on similar phrases in two pesukim. A messed up this follow-up, though the point still stands. Also associated with parshat Balak.

2007

1. In part of his Vikuach, about the Age of Trup, Shadal notes an instance in parshat Korach in which Rashbam diverges from the trup, such that where Eleazar collects the fire-pans, כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר ה בְּיַד-מֹשֶׁה לוֹ refers to the instruction to collect them, rather than as the trups casts it, as the directive to Korach and his congregation.
   .
2. An important grammatical form -- evident in Vayikach Korach veDatan veAviram etc. The the singular verb can apply to a list of terms, and takes on the gender of the first term. This is important since others take this form as proof of multiple authorship in parshat Korach. But we see in parshat Ki Teiztzei and in parshat Behaalotecha how this form functions.
   .
3. The tzitzit mnemonic -- I discuss the Rashi on parshat Shelach about the tzitzis mnemonic. But I may run with it further in 2008 as it applies to the midrashic account of Korach's complaint.

2006

1. Why the Etnachta in the last pasuk of Balak? I take apart a devar Torah which makes a derivation based on the fact that there is an etnachta in a pasuk, where contrasted to the same phrase elsewhere, there is no etnachta -- when in fact there is really no other serious choice.
   .
2. Korach Minyan -- a hypothetical, with a lesson
   .
3. Aviram named for ancestor? that's the part of this post that bears relevance to parshat Korach. The idea would be that it is derived from Avraham.

2004

1. Nadav, Avihu, and Korach -- from Shemini. And how their actions, and ends are alike.
   .
2. Nadav and Avihu vs. Korach's Edah  -- a midrashic rejection of the above
   .
3. The Mouth of the Earth -- miracles and the natural order.
   .
4. Short-sighted foresight -- a pattern of seeing the future, through astrology or prophecy, but misperceiving.
   .
5. How Many Tents? I analyze trup. I consider the issues of Datan and Aviram vs. Korach's end, and the ambiguous pesukim. I resolve that the phrase mishkan-korach datan vaAviram is the Korachite tent of Dathan and Abiram, such that Korach does not enter the picture at all.
   .
6. Yirmiyahu's Multifunctional Almond Staff -- Besides other implications, perhaps the almond staff Yirmeyahu sees is related to Aharon's almond staff. The allusion would be to the purpose of highlighting Yirmeyahu's chosenness, just like that of Aharon.

to be continued...

Why did the Sages change חֲמוֹר to chamud, in the Septuagint?

Summary: My thoughts, that it is of course a scribal error, and the braysa which says otherwise is making a nice derasha based on existing facts. The Chasam Sofer has a detailed explanation, based on whether Moshe Rabbenu was entitled to a share in the spoils, and if not, at least a donkey to help carry the bones of Yosef.


Post: Also see this post, this post, and this post.

Consider Shemot 16:15:

טו  וַיִּחַר לְמֹשֶׁה, מְאֹד, וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל-יְהוָה, אַל-תֵּפֶן אֶל-מִנְחָתָם; לֹא חֲמוֹר אֶחָד מֵהֶם, נָשָׂאתִי, וְלֹא הֲרֵעֹתִי, אֶת-אַחַד מֵהֶם.

15 And Moses was very wroth, and said unto the LORD: 'Respect not Thou their offering; I have not taken one ass from them, neither have I hurt one of them.'

In the Septuagint {=Targum Hashivim}, instead of Moshe indignantly saying that he has not taken anyone's chamor, they have:
15 καὶ ἐβαρυθύμησε Μωυσῆς σφόδρα καὶ εἶπε πρὸς Κύριον· μὴ πρόσχῃς εἰς τὴν θυσίαν αὐτῶν· οὐκ ἐπιθύμημα οὐδενὸς αὐτῶν εἴληφα, οὐδὲ ἐκάκωσα οὐδένα αὐτῶν.
15 And Moses was exceeding indignant, and said to the Lord, Do thou take no heed to their sacrifice: I have not taken away the desire of any one of them, neither have I hurt any one of them.

and the Samaritans have an identical error, swapping the daled for a resh, with the Samaritan text on the left side.


This is a clear error, and we have confirmation when Shmuel echoes Moshe, in I Shmuel 12:3:

ג  הִנְנִי עֲנוּ בִי נֶגֶד ה וְנֶגֶד מְשִׁיחוֹ, אֶת-שׁוֹר מִי לָקַחְתִּי וַחֲמוֹר מִי לָקַחְתִּי וְאֶת-מִי עָשַׁקְתִּי אֶת-מִי רַצּוֹתִי, וּמִיַּד-מִי לָקַחְתִּי כֹפֶר, וְאַעְלִים עֵינַי בּוֹ; וְאָשִׁיב, לָכֶם.

3 Here I am; witness against me before the LORD, and before His anointed: whose ox have I taken? or whose ass have I taken? or whom have I defrauded? or whom have I oppressed? or of whose hand have I taken a ransom to blind mine eyes therewith? and I will restore it you.'

Note shor set opposite chamor.

While this seems to be a mere textual error, Megillah 9a-b sets it up as a deliberate change:

ותניא א"ר יהודה אף כשהתירו רבותינו יונית לא התירו אלא בספר תורה ומשום מעשה דתלמי המלך דתניא מעשה בתלמי המלך שכינס שבעים ושנים זקנים והכניסן בשבעים ושנים בתים ולא גילה להם על מה כינסן ונכנס אצל כל אחד ואחד ואמר להם כתבו לי תורת משה רבכם נתן הקב"ה בלב כל אחד ואחד עצה והסכימו כולן לדעת אחת וכתבו לו (בראשית א, כז) אלהים ברא בראשית (בראשית א, א) אעשה אדם בצלם ובדמות (בראשית א, כו) ויכל ביום הששי וישבות ביום השביעי (בראשית ה, ב) זכר ונקבה בראו ולא כתבו בראם (בראשית יא, ז) הבה ארדה ואבלה שם שפתם (בראשית יח, יב) ותצחק שרה בקרוביה (בראשית מט, ו) כי באפם הרגו שור וברצונם עקרו אבוס (שמות ד, כ) ויקח משה את אשתו ואת בניו וירכיבם על נושא בני אדם (שמות יב, מ)ומושב בני ישראל אשר ישבו במצרים ובשאר ארצות ארבע מאות שנה (שמות כד, ה) וישלח את זאטוטי בני ישראל (שמות כד, יא) ואל זאטוטי בני ישראל לא שלח ידו  (במדבר טז, טו) לא חמד אחד מהם נשאתי (דברים ד, יט) אשר חלק ה' אלהיך אתם להאיר לכל העמים (דברים יז, ג) וילך ויעבוד אלהים אחרים אשר לא צויתי לעובדם וכתבו לו את צעירת הרגלים ולא כתבו לו (ויקרא יא, ו) את הארנבת מפני שאשתו של תלמי ארנבת שמה שלא יאמר שחקו בי היהודים והטילו שם אשתי בתורה:

Or, in English:

"And it goes on to state, ‘R. Judah said: When our teachers permitted Greek, they permitted it only for a scroll of the Torah’.14 This was on account of the incident related in connection with King Ptolemy, 15 as it has been taught: ‘It is related of King Ptolemy that he brought together seventy-two elders and placed  them in seventy-two [separate] rooms, without telling them why he had brought them together, and he went in to each one of them and said to him, Translate16  for me the Torah of Moses your master.17 God then prompted each one of them and they all conceived the same idea and wrote for him, God created in the beginning,18 I shall make man in image and likeness,19 And he finished on the sixth day, and rested on the seventh day,20 Male and female he created him21 [but they did not write ‘created them’],22 Come let me descend and confound their tongues,23 And Sarah laughed among her relatives;24 For in their anger they slew an ox and in their wrath they digged up a stall;25 And Moses took his wife and his children, and made them ride on a carrier of men; 26 And the abode of the children of Israel which they stayed in Egypt and in other lands was four hundred years, 27 And he sent the elect of the children of Israel; 28 And against the elect of the children of Israel he put not forth his hand;29 I have taken not one valuable of theirs;1 Which the Lord thy God distributed to give light to all the peoples;2 And he went and served other gods which I commanded should not be served.3 They also wrote for him ‘the beast with small legs’ and they did not write ‘the hare’,4 because the name of Ptolemy's wife was hare,5 lest he should say, The Jews have jibed at me and put the name of my wife in the Torah."

If I recall correctly, very few of the changes listed here do we find in the Septuagint, but this is one of them. Despite this testimony, I am not convinced that this was not a mere scribal error, with the braysa speaking on a homiletic level. After all, it seems unlikely that the deliberate change, when translating into Greek, would also reflect a single change in letter, between ר and ד, which look extremely alike, and which the Samaritans indeed in their corrupted Hebrew text.

The Chasam Sofer writes about this topic as follows:

Chasam Sofer

"I have not taken away the ass of any one of them -- they changed it for Talmay the king into חמד (Megillah 9b). There is to say that חמור is not to be understood in its simple sense, but rather as Chazal said (in Pesachim? Bechorot 5b)

Moreover, they [the asses] helped the Israelites when they departed from Egypt, for there was not an Israelite who did not possess ninety Libyan asses laden with the silver and gold of Egypt.

And Moshe Rabbenu turned away to fulfill the oath to Yosef, and did not take anything. And so he rightfully could have requested from them the carrying of a single donkey, at least, for behold the oath was upon them, for 'he had certainly imposed the oath upon the Bnei Yisrael' {Shemot 13:19} upon all of them. And Chazal said (Sotah 9b) in our Mishnah at the end of the first perek, that upon the Gadol it was fitting to engage with Yosef. 

{Thus:
  WHOM HAVE WE GREATER THAN JOSEPH SINCE NONE OTHER THAN MOSES OCCUPIED HIMSELF WITH HIS BURIAL? MOSES EARNED MERIT THROUGH THE BONES OF JOSEPH AND THERE WAS NONE IN ISRAEL GREATER THAN HE, AS IT IS SAID, AND MOSES TOOK THE BONES OF JOSEPH WITH HIM.¹⁶  WHOM HAVE WE GREATER THAN MOSES SINCE NONE OTHER THAN THE OMNIPRESENT OCCUPIED HIMSELF [WITH HIS BURIAL], AS IT IS SAID, AND HE BURIED HIM IN THE VALLEY?¹⁷  NOT ONLY CONCERNING MOSES DID THEY SAY THIS, BUT CONCERNING ALL THE RIGHTEOUS, AS IT IS SAID, AND THY RIGHTEOUSNESS SHALL GO BEFORE THEE, THE GLORY OF THE LORD SHALL BE THY REARWARD.¹⁸

}

Upon this he said {in the continuation of the pasuk}  וְלֹא הֲרֵעֹתִי, אֶת-אַחַד מֵהֶם, 'neither have I hurt one of them'. Meaning, was there any of them who wished to engage, and I wronged him, saying 'you are not fit, and only I am fit'? And this was not so, but rather he was like a meis mitzvah, where there were none engaged with him, and I engaged with him. If so, by all rights, I should have borrowed from you a single donkey, and I did not take this from you. This, it appears to me, is the explanation of the verse.


However, it is known that the residents of Alexandria, of Egypt, complained about Israel before Alexander the Macedonian, and requested that Israel return to them the spoils of Egypt. And they {=the Israelites} answered that they owe them the wages of 600,000 for 400 years, see there, in perek Chelek {in Sanhedrin 91a}. 


{Thus:
On another occasion the Egyptians came in a lawsuit against the Jews before Alexander of Macedon. They pleaded thus: 'Is it not written, And the Lord gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, and they lent them [gold and precious stones, etc.]²⁰  Then return us the gold and silver which ye took!' Thereupon Gebiha b. Pesisa said to the Sages, 'Give me permission to go and plead against them before Alexander of Macedon: should they defeat me, then say, "Ye have merely defeated an ignorant man amongst us;" whilst if I defeat them then say, "The Law of Moses has defeated you."' So they gave him permission, and he went and pleaded against them. 'Whence do ye adduce your proof?' asked he, 'From the Torah,' they replied. 'Then I too,' said he, 'will bring you proof only from the Torah, for it is written, Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.²¹  Pay us for the toil of six hundred thousand men whom ye enslaved for four hundred thirty years.' Then King Alexander said to them, 'Answer him!' 'Give us three days' time,' they begged. So he gave them a respite; they sought but found no answer. Straightway they fled, leaving behind their sown fields and planted vineyards. And that year was a Sabbatical year.²²
}


It comes out, according to this, that the aforementioned is not so, for behold, Moshe was not in the work of Mitzrayim, such that not a peruta of the spoils was due to him. And since he could not rightly ask for silver and gold vessels, he went and engaged in the bones of Yosef. And so it was like a case of this one benefits and this one does not lose out.


However, it is known that this answer was only to push off the Egyptians with straw. For the spoils were not the wages of the work. And furthermore, they did not work for 400 years {but rather only were in Egypt for 210}. And if was only the spoils of war, such that it was for Moshe to take a portion at the head. (Like a king he takes a portion at the head of the spoils and conquered items.) And well did he say לֹא חֲמוֹר אֶחָד מֵהֶם. And yet, before Talmay king of Egypt, they were not able to reveal this secret, for then he would say, 'if it was not the wages of work, then I require it of you that you return to me those spoils, for behold he was the king of Egypt. Therefore, they changed it for him into 'not a single חמד did I take from them'. (One needs to say, as above, that a single chamor from them means that he did not take from those chamorim which they took out of Egypt laden with spoils.)"


I never had understood the claim in the gemara in Sanhedrin that it was wages for work. Rather, that it was a counterclaim, and that if the Egyptians would open up with this complaint, the Jews could respond and be owed much more money. Nevertheless, this is a very nice construction and interplay between sugyos.

The trup on לְמִשְׁמֶרֶת לְאוֹת, לִבְנֵי-מֶרִי

Summary: Shadal suggests it should be like a variant version he found in some manuscript. I am not so convinced.

Post: Consider the following pasuk in Korach (Bemidbar 17:25), together with its trup. The pasuk:

כה  וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, הָשֵׁב אֶת-מַטֵּה אַהֲרֹן לִפְנֵי הָעֵדוּת, לְמִשְׁמֶרֶת לְאוֹת, לִבְנֵי-מֶרִי; וּתְכַל תְּלוּנֹּתָם מֵעָלַי, וְלֹא יָמֻתוּ.

25 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Put back the rod of Aaron before the testimony, to be kept there, for a token against the rebellious children; that there may be made an end of their murmurings against Me, that they die not.'

And the trup:

Note the words lemishmeret leot livnei-meri. The words lemishmeret leot are joined together*, and is separated from livnei-meri. Thus: lemishmeret leot || livnei-meri.



Shadal writes about this:

"I found in a manuscript on parchment... [the trup as depicted above]... and it is correct."


That is, a tipcha on limishmeret and a mahpach on leot. The word lemishmeret is separate and leot livnei-meri are joined together**. Thus: lemishmeret || leot livnei-meri.


I can understand the impulse to promote this variant text, as it seems to work better with the logic of the pasuk. It is a mishmeret and it is an ot livnei meri. Or it is a mishmeret livnei meri and a ot livnei meri. But it is not a mishmeret leot.

Still, the mahpach on the word before the etnachta seems more than a bit strange to me. And perhaps the clustering of these two prepositions is understandable based on Wickes' syntactic dichotomy. That is, Wickes writes that in general, a prepositional phrase (such as "for a mishmeret") or adverbial expression at the beginning of a clause is separated off by itself. However, there are exceptions. And among the exceptions, he writes:

Maybe these form a similar cluster at the head of the clause.
________________
Footnotes:
* since mercha on lemishmeret is a joining trup, and tipcha on leot is a separating trup.
** since tipcha on lemishmeret is a separating trup, and mahpach on leot is a joining trup.

YUTorah on parashat Korach

Audio Shiurim on Korach Rabbi Chaim Brovender: Not a Single Donkey Rabbi Ally Ehrman: Moshe Emes Vi'Soraso Emes Rabbi Daniel Z. Feldman: The Issur of Machloket  Rabbi Joel Finkelstein: The Jewish Mistique  Rabbi Barry Gelman: Kvetchers VS. Conspiracy Rabbi Beinish Ginsburg: Pilug and Achdus  Rabbi Efrem Goldberg: Personal Autonomy vs. Centralized Authority  Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb: The Prohibition of Machlokes Rabbi Shalom Hammer: Stability and Structured Existence  Rabbi Aharon Kahn: Should we have built the Bais Hamikdash sooner? Rabbi Akiva Koenigsberg: Pidyon Haben on a Grown Son Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz: When There is a Rabbinic Willl... Rabbi Hershel Reichman: Torah Paradoxes  Rabbi Zev Reichman: The Chassidic View of the Story of Korach Rabbi Avraham Rivlin: Mahu am Kadosh  Mrs Ilana Saks: The Rebels Rabbi Hershel Schachter: The 24 Matnos Kehuna  Rabbi Dr. Jacob J Schacter: Rejecting the Challenge of Korach  Rabbi Avi Schneider: Knowing When to Let Your Hair Down  Rabbi Baruch Simon: Achdus Amitis viAchdus Kozeves  Mrs. Shira Smiles: The Thread of Truth  Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky: Material Possessions and The Path of Kal Yisrael  Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik: The Purpose of the Miracle of Aharon's Staff  Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik: The Rebellion of Korach  Rabbi Reuven Spolter: Leadership and the Power of the Ketoret  Rabbi Moshe Stav: התחבר לדעת תורה Rabbi Moshe Taragin: Korach vs The Institutionalists  Rabbi Michael Taubes: Eating before Maariv  Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner: Aharon's Almonds Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Weinberg: Rabbi Ari Zahtz: Why Was Korach Wrong  Articles on Korach Rabbi Asher Brander: For Heaven's Sake Rabbi Meir Goldwicht: Understanding Korach's Questions Rabbi Avraham Gordimer: What Was Korach Thinking? Rabbi Maury Grebenau: How To Have a Good Fight Rabbi Mordechai Greenberg: כי כל העדה כולם קדושים Rabbi Yehuda Henkin: Punishment and Education: What Did Korach Take? Rabbi Josh Hoffman: Some Are More Equal Than Others Rabbi David Horwitz: Aaron in the Midst of the Congregation Rabbi Avigdor Nebenzahl: Supporting Torah Scholars Rabbi Aaron Ross: The Role of Korach in the Punishment of Moshe Rabbis Stanley M Wagner and Israel Drazin: The Limitations Of Targum Onkelos And The Need For Supplementary Interpretations Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Korach See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Korach

New This Week The Mitzvah of Establishing the State of Israel Rabbi Chaim Druckman Surrogate Motherhood - Who is the Real Mother? Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb Honoring Parents in Dysfunctional Relationships Rabbi Ari Kahn A Brief History of Shemonah Esrei  Rabbi Uri Orlian Hafrashas Challah in bakeries  Rabbi Hershel Schachter Rosh Chodesh: A Women's Holiday  Shay Schachter Nichum Aveilim and Kaddish  Rabbi Ezra Schwartz Five Minute Halacha - Kavana for the Mitzva of Tzitzis Rabbi Michael Siev Chavakuk 1-2: Further Challenge, Divine Response Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner What the Students of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai Taught Us Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Weinberg Agunos, DNA, WTC, מים שאין להם סוף, כבשן האש  Rabbi Mordechai Willig Inyanei Yichud Rabbi Ari Zahtz

Interesting Posts and Articles #373

1. Yated Neeman, roughly translated, means Trusty Shovel. It is a reference to the pasuk in Devarim 23:14:

יד  וְיָתֵד תִּהְיֶה לְךָ, עַל-אֲזֵנֶךָ; וְהָיָה, בְּשִׁבְתְּךָ חוּץ, וְחָפַרְתָּה בָהּ, וְשַׁבְתָּ וְכִסִּיתָ אֶת-צֵאָתֶךָ.

14 And thou shalt have a paddle among thy weapons; and it shall be, when thou sittest down abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee.

which was used to deal with, and cover up, defecation. Similar to the newspaper. So it stands to reason that it would be perfect to line one's bat cage with.

2. Forbes Israel ranks Israel's richest rabbis. Among them are Nir Ben Artzi, Rabbi Pinto, Rabbi David Abuchatezeira and Rabbi Pinchas Abuchatzeira (at 1.3 billion shekels). (To be fair, the last inherited most of his great wealth from Baba Eleazar.) Last year, Mekubal was upset that people (meaning me) were not only speaking of his relative, Baba Elazar's praises. How could people be upset at the aggrandizement of someone who most likely took advantage of vulnerable people, using his fame and threats of the influence of his kabbalah to bilk people out of hundreds of thousands of dollars? And how could someone be upset that the famous rabbanim, in general, glossed over this and made him into one of the lamed-vav-niks, who saved the world by being murdered? This was lashon hara! And what is the toeles?! As he wrote:

In all honesty I have just lost a ton of respect for both those blogs. What kind of sinat hinam does it take to slander a dead man? There is no toelet to be had. This is simply lashon hara at best, motzei shem ra at worst of a person who, even if true, is far beyond any ability to continue such actions or to do teshuva.

Maybe one toeles is that, by promulgating this, and not letting the rabbinic leadership whitewash this, his relatives and others might not be so successful in becoming so wealthy at the gullible public's expense. And the gullible public might learn a lesson, or at least have a chance to learn a lesson.

A caveat: Note that I don't know how each of these rabbis became so wealthy, and just what their personal practices are. Maybe all these folks in this article are tzaddikim gemurim. But there are plenty of folks taking advantage of the gullible and superstitious.

Meanwhile, compare with a list of most influential rabbis.

3. At Mi Yodeya, why isn't Yemenite Jewry a sufficient eid echad to permit us to eat locusts. They probably are. But there is, IMHO, the separate issue of bal teshakatzu. It is disgusting to your typical non-Teimani, so they shouldn't do it. And they might be Biblically prohibited from doing so.

4. At Hirhurim, Modesty in Rus.

5. Blog in Dm does not think much of the new Miami Boys Chior Siyum Hashas video:


6. At Daas Torah, how a rav determines abuse allegations. And wondering whether Yehuda Kolko is supported by Rav Simcha Bunim Kohen.

7. At Circus Tent, passing the torch. He has the handwritten note from Rav Chaim Kanievsky. Also, a "true story" about the נצי"ב of Volozhin, זצ"ל, as told by הרב אברהם יהושע סאלאווייציק of Yerushalayim. Oh, snap!

8. At Havolim, respect for gedolim.

9. Haveil Havalim from last week and this week.

10. A view from under the bus.

11. Here at parshablog, I've greatly revamped my parsha source roundup. In addition to more sources than in previous years, I've added pictures, where available, of the people in question. Also, I've started organizing them in chronological order. I don't know how long I can keep this up, but I'll give it a shot.

Running commentary on parashat Korach, pt i

Parashat Korach begins:

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;

While the first words are וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח, it is unclear just what was taken. See Rashi, Onkelos, and other meforshim for their suggestions. I say that nothing was taken, and that וַיִּקַּח is a null verb, with no meaning, except to select those people for future action by a different verb. In this case, the וַיָּקֻמוּ לִפְנֵי מֹשֶׁה in the next pasuk. Close to this idea is that וַאֲנָשִׁים מִבְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתָיִם from the next pasuk are the ones being taken.


It is ridiculous to suggest multiple authorship or divergent stories (as some do) based on this disparity of singular וַיִּקַּח to plural actors. If it was just a single actor, there would be no need for a selection verb וַיִּקַּח in the first place! (Despite this, there does seem to be a blending of two rebellions, with different causes, perhaps, or perhaps not, which even took place at different times, but which are placed together for stylistic reasons.)

If all these in the first pasuk took, and not just Korach, then how come וַיִּקַּח is in the singular? This is not a problem, but is rather a feature of Biblical Hebrew, where in a list of actors, the gender and number of the first actor is taken to modify the verb. Consider from parashat Behaalotecha, Bemidbar 12:

א  וַתְּדַבֵּר מִרְיָם וְאַהֲרֹן בְּמֹשֶׁה, עַל-אֹדוֹת הָאִשָּׁה הַכֻּשִׁית אֲשֶׁר לָקָח:  כִּי-אִשָּׁה כֻשִׁית, לָקָח.

1 And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married; for he had married a Cushite woman.

Certainly Aharon is not feminine, and Miriam and Aharon collectively are not singular. But Miriam was mentioned first. So too here, Korach was mentioned first, and so the masculine singular is used.


Why mention Korach's lineage, all the way to Levi, and not further? See Rashi, that family position in terms of nesiut and kehuna may be in play. From a non-midrashic perspective, we want to mention the father and the tribe, just as we mention the respective father, and tribe of Reuven, for Datan, Aviram, and On. This accounts for "ben Yitzhar" and "ben Levi". Why mention Kehat, making it into a straight lineage? Because it is awkward to say "benei Levi" for a single person, and saying "ben Levi" will make someone believe that Yitzhar was a direct son from Levi. Therefore, put in Kehat and make it into a straight lineage. No need to mention Yaakov because obviously these are Israelites we are speaking of.


Also, it is important to mention that Korach is a Levite leading Levites, in preparation for רַב-לָכֶם בְּנֵי לֵוִי in  pasuk 7.


There is a famous midrash, cited by Rashi, that Korach gave the 250 men a tallis of all techeiles:
He dressed them with cloaks made entirely of blue wool. They came and stood before Moses and asked him, “Does a cloak made entirely of blue wool require fringes [’tzitzith’], or is it exempt?” He replied, “ It does require [fringes].” They began laughing at him [saying], "Is it possible that a cloak of another [colored] material, one string of blue wool exempts it [from the obligation of techeleth], and this one, which is made entirely of blue wool, should not exempt itself? - [Midrash Tanchuma Korach 2, Num. Rabbah 18:3]


So too a midrash with a question about whether a room full of sefarim needs a mezuzah. None of these are historically true. It is derech derash. The purpose is to highlight Korach's complaint, that all Israelites are holy (see pasuk 3 below), so why do Moshe and Aharon elevate themselves over everyone else?


Contrary to a suggestion I've seen, "Pelet" of On ben Pelet is not at all likely to be equal to Reuven's son Palu, despite the similarity of name and the nice parity between "ben Levi" referring (as well) to the individual son of Yaakov.


And Datan and Aviram, on a peshat level, do not recur elsewhere in Torah, despite interesting gezeira shavas that one might draw. Where it happens midrashically, it is an instance of the general midrashic Law of Conservation of Biblical Personalities. (That is, a closed-canon approach, in which any unnamed actor is one who is named elsewhere.)


I cannot account for On ben Pelet's disappearance henceforth, in both the action and punishment. I would speculate that he played a more minor role, despite being one of the leaders -- perhaps in helping organize Bnei Reuven -- and so did not directly oppose Moshe in the later action. He might have been present in the Mishkan-Korach, Datan vaAviram that was swallowed, or maybe not.


Next pasuk:

ב  וַיָּקֻמוּ לִפְנֵי מֹשֶׁה, וַאֲנָשִׁים מִבְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתָיִם, נְשִׂיאֵי עֵדָה קְרִאֵי מוֹעֵד, אַנְשֵׁי-שֵׁם.

2 and they rose up in face of Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty men; they were princes of the congregation, the elect men of the assembly, men of renown;

וַיָּקֻמוּ with the sense of opposition. And mentioning their societal importance helps underscore the threat / challenge. The people could very well listen to them, and follow their direction.


Ibn Ezra is not correct in interpreting קְרִאֵי מוֹעֵד as those called to the Ohel Moed.


Next pasuk:

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?'

Not too much trouble, but too much greatness. You have overstepped your bounds, while you are no better than the rest of us! See Shadal for a survey of the word רב.


Next pasuk:

ד  וַיִּשְׁמַע מֹשֶׁה, וַיִּפֹּל עַל-פָּנָיו.

4 And when Moses heard it, he fell upon his face.

Ouch!


Why does Moshe fall on his face? Is he daunted by their opposition? Is he pleading with Hashem to spare them? To not spare them? To whom does he fall on his face? I will highlight two interesting approaches.


Shadal says:
 דרך בקשה, שיניחוהו לדבר ולא יפסיקוהו, כמו למעלה י"ד ה .


If I understand him correctly, he is saying that he fell on his face before Korach and his Eidah, by way of pleading to Korach and his Eidah, so that they should hear him out. The link to the next pasuk is clear, where he addresses Korach et al.


Rashi says:

and fell on his face: because of the rebellion, for this was already their fourth offense. [When] they sinned with the calf, “Moses pleaded” (Exod. 32:11); by the episode of the complainers, “Moses prayed” (11:2); with the spies, “Moses said to God, ‘But the Egyptians will hear…’ ” (14:13), but now, at Korah’s rebellion, he became disheartened [literally, his hands were weakened]. This is comparable to a prince who sinned against his father, and his [father’s] friend placated the king on his behalf, once, twice, and three times. When he offended the fourth time, the friend became disheartened, and he said, “How much more can I trouble the king? Perhaps he will no longer accept my petition.” - [Midrash Tanchuma 4, Num. Rabbah 18: 6]

ויפול על פניו: מפני המחלוקת, שכבר זה בידם סרחון רביעי, חטאו בעגל (שמות לב, יא) ויחל משה, במתאוננים (במדבר יא, יב) ויתפלל משה, במרגלים (שם יד, יג) ויאמר משה אל ה' ושמעו מצרים, במחלוקתו של קרח נתרשלו ידיו. משל לבן מלך שסרח על אביו ופייס עליו אוהבו פעם ושתים ושלש, כשסרח רביעית נתרשלו ידי האוהב ההוא. אמר עד מתי אטריח על המלך, שמא לא יקבל עוד ממני:

This is a wonderful way of framing it. He is not discouraged personally by the challenge. He knows that he is in the right. But he is worried about his flock, the Israelites, and that Hashem may not spare them after this next 


This is along the lines of what Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz apparently said:

What sort of dispute was for the sake of Heaven? - the dispute between Hillel and Shammai. And which was not for the sake of Heaven? - the dispute between Korach and his entire company.

Why, asked R'Yonason Eybeschutz, does the Mishnah state: ''The dispute between Korach and his entire company''?  Wasn't the dispute between Korach and Moshe?

From here we learn, said R'Eybeschutz, that the dispute was not between Korach and Moshe at all; rather, it was really between Korach and his assembly, as each one of them was vying for leadership and power!  Moshe Rabbeinu, however, did not take up their quarrel; on the contrary, he tried his utmost to appease them so as not to carry on a dispute that would eventually lead to disastrous results.

Indeed, Moshe was not personally invested in this, but tried to dissuade them from pursuing this terrible course of action.


To me, the point of this pasuk seems to be to give emotional reaction. Thus, it leads with וַיִּשְׁמַע מֹשֶׁה. We should interpret וַיִּפֹּל עַל-פָּנָיו, however we do, with that in mind. I would take it that he is extremely discouraged by this. We could also say that this is consultation with Hashem prior to the test he proposes in the next pasuk. I don't think he needs such consultation. (See Ibn Ezra who prefers that it is ברצונו over it being דרך נבואה.) See Ibn Caspi on the sin of Moshe, how a navi is to promise without consultation with Hashem, trusting that Hashem will bring forth the neis. But also consider falling on faces before pleading to Hashem, in pasuk 22 below.


Next pasuk:

ה  וַיְדַבֵּר אֶל-קֹרַח וְאֶל-כָּל-עֲדָתוֹ, לֵאמֹר, בֹּקֶר וְיֹדַע ה אֶת-אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ וְאֶת-הַקָּדוֹשׁ, וְהִקְרִיב אֵלָיו; וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר-בּוֹ, יַקְרִיב אֵלָיו.

5 And he spoke unto Korah and unto all his company, saying: 'In the morning the LORD will show who are His, and who is holy, and will cause him to come near unto Him; even him whom He may choose will He cause to come near unto Him.

See Rashi for an account of the repetition. But the purpose here is not to detail the test. It is to tell them that he is throwing it up to God to decide. Because, the implication is that surely God will favor Aharon.

Next pesukim:

ו  זֹאת, עֲשׂוּ:  קְחוּ-לָכֶם מַחְתּוֹת, קֹרַח וְכָל-עֲדָתוֹ.	6 This do: take you censors, Korah, and all his company;
ז  וּתְנוּ בָהֵן אֵשׁ וְשִׂימוּ עֲלֵיהֶן קְטֹרֶת לִפְנֵי ה, מָחָר, וְהָיָה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר-יִבְחַר ה, הוּא הַקָּדוֹשׁ; רַב-לָכֶם, בְּנֵי לֵוִי.	7 and put fire therein, and put incense upon them before the LORD to-morrow; and it shall be that the man whom the LORD doth choose, he shall be holy; ye take too much upon you, ye sons of Levi.'

Is Moshe setting them up for their deaths? We know that those who took the censors are punished by fire from before Hashem. If so, isn't this rather... mean?


According to Rashi (channeling midrashim), Moshe is implicitly warning them here about their fates, if they do this:

Do this!…Take for yourselves censers: Why did he see fit to speak to them thus? He said to them, “Among the nations, there are various forms of worship and many priests, and they do not all gather in one temple. We, however, have only one God, one ark, one Torah, one altar, and one kohen gadol, but you two hundred and fifty men are all seeking the kehunah gedolah ! I too would prefer that. Here, take for yourselves the service most dear-it is the incense, more cherished than any other sacrifice, but it contains deadly poison, by which Nadab and Abihu were burnt. Therefore, he warned them, ”and it will be the one whom the Lord chooses-he is the holy one“ [meaning,] that he is already in his [state of] holiness. Is it not obvious that [the one] who is chosen is the holy one? Rather, Moses told them,”I am telling you this so that you should not be found guilty. For the one He chooses will survive, and the rest of you will perish." - [Mid. Tanchuma 5, Bamidbar Rabbah 18:8]

זאת עשו קחו לכם מחתות: מה ראה לומר להם כך, אמר להם בדרכי הגוים יש נימוסים הרבה וכומרים הרבה ואין כולם מתקבצים בבית אחד, אנו אין לנו אלא ה' אחד, ארון אחד ותורה אחת ומזבח אחד וכהן גדול אחד ואתם מאתים וחמישים איש מבקשים כהונה גדולה, אף אני רוצה בכך, הא לכם תשמיש חביב מכל, היא הקטרת החביבה מכל הקרבנות וסם המות נתון בתוכו שבו נשרפו נדב ואביהוא, לפיכך התרה בהם והיה האיש אשר יבחר ה' הוא הקדוש, כבר הוא בקדושתו. וכי אין אנו יודעים שמי שיבחר הוא הקדוש, אלא אמר להם משה הריני אומר לכם שלא תתחייבו, מי שיבחר בו יצא חי, וכולכם אובדים:

Or maybe explicitly. I suppose I agree that, given the previous experience of Nadav and Avihu, it might have been obvious that this would be the fate of those not chosen.


Or maybe this was never part of the test. But, just as ketzef breaks out, so does this break out. When Hashem becomes angry, He smites those who are in the act of rebellion. The punishment is for persisting in the rebellion, not specifically for bringing the ketores. As Moshe says, רַב-לָכֶם בְּנֵי לֵוִי.


Also, רַב-לָכֶם בְּנֵי לֵוִי is a clear reversal of the earlier assertion against Moshe and Aharon. Also, it is a reversal of  הַמְעַט מִכֶּם below in pasuk 9.