Biblical Parallels Index – Bemidbar 16-17/0
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
Biblical Parallels Index – Bemidbar 16-17
Overview
This index is meant to help the reader explore Biblical parallels, be they two accounts of the same event or law, stories with similar motifs and themes, or units of text which are linguistically similar and perhaps alluding one to the other. The page includes links to tools that aid in comparison, primary sources that touch upon the parallels, and summaries of and links to articles which analyze them in depth.Nadav, Avihu, Korach, and Uziyahu
The 250 followers of Korach, Nadav and Avihu (Vayikra 10), and King Uziyahu (Divrei HaYamim II 26) are all punished in connection to the bringing of unauthorized incense.
Tools
- The Tanakh Lab demonstrates that the chapter most linguistically similar to the story of the death of Nadav and Avihu is Bemidbar 16.1 Compare the two here.
Primary Sources
- See Ramban, who suggests that Moshe chose the test of incense because he was modeling it on the punishment of Nadav and Avihu.
- See Midrash Aggadah (Buber) which draws a connection between the punishment of the 250 princes and of Uziyahu.
- See Tanchuma which connects the sin and punishment of Uziyahu with that of Korach and his followers.
Articles
- See הקטורת ומחלוקת קרח, by Rabbanit Sharon Rimon, for analysis of the significance and symbolism of incense in light of these three narratives. All of these indicate the importance and centrality of the service of bringing incense. 2 Rabbanit Rimon suggests that the incense represents the holiness of man’s soul. As such, it refutes Korach’s argument that if everyone is holy, all should be equally able to serve by demonstrating that notwithstanding this fundamental holiness within all human beings, not all people are chosen for the same service. Those who are not worthy of bringing incense die.
- See Korach: The Incense Challenge, by R. Chanoch Waxman, which points out the numerous parallels between the stories of Korach and of Nadav and Avihu, and seeks to understand why Korach’s congregation would go down such a ruinous path after knowing what happened to Nadav and Avihu.
- See The Plague and the Incense, by R. Yaakov Medan, who reads the story of Uziyahu's bringing of incense and his ensuing punishment in light of the story of Korach's rebellion. He notes that the Bemidbar story teaches that unauthorized incense can cause death by fire, but that incense can also be used, even outside the Sanctum, as an emergency measure to save the nation. These two points might explain Uziyahu's punishment of tzara'at. R. Medan suggests that Uziyahu too was hit by fire from his firepan, and the burn itself is what caused his tzara'at. Uziyahu was only saved from death since there were extenuating circumstances; his intentions were perhaps positive, a desire to use the incense as an emergency measure to allow him to pray for the people in the Inner Sanctum.
Incense Throughout Tanakh
The bringing of incense is mentioned in both several legal and narrative sections of Torah , including Shemot 30, Vayikra 10, Vayikra 16, Bemidbar 7, and Bemidbar 16-17.
Tools
- Use the concordance to find all occurrences of the noun קְטֹרֶת.
Articles
- See משמעות הקטרות, by R. Yehuda Rock, for an attempt to identify a unifying theme of "קְטֹרֶת" that applies equally to all of the instances in which it is mentioned in Torah. R. Rock suggests that the incense represents Hashem’s presence. As such, offering incense is not meant to be one of man's acts of service to God, but a manifestation of God's acceptance of man's service, and especially of their sacrifices. Nadav, Avihu, and Korach might have erred in assuming that the bringer of incense can thereby control and direct God's presence to the one offering the incense. God taught them that though their actions did cause fire to emerge from before God, they were consumed by it , not in control of it.
- See Purpose and Placement of the Incense Altar for discussion of the purpose of the incense which takes into account its various mentions throughout Torah. On one end of the spectrum, the Tzeror HaMor views the incense altar as being second in importance only to the Ark, due to its special atoning capabilities. On the other end, Rambam minimizes the importance of the vessel, suggesting that it had no spiritual role and merely served to rid the Mishkan of unpleasant odors. Several modern scholars chart a middle course, suggesting that while the altar was secondary to the other vessels of the Tabernacle in that it did not serve to usher in the Divine presence, it nonetheless was crucial to man's encounter with Hashem. The cloud of incense acted as a protective barrier, blocking the impact of revelation, thereby ensuring a safe encounter between man and God.
The Spies and Korach
The sin of the spies and the rebellion of Korach are the two major debacles of Sefer Bemidbar and are contiguous to each other in the text. The following resources analyze the differences and common ground between them.
Articles
- Listen to The Rebellion of Korach, by R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, for contrast of these two sins. Whereas the sin of the spies represents a popular revolt of the mob, the rebellion of Korach represents a movement of the elite.
- See מה משותף ומה מבדיל בין פרשת מרגלים לפרשת קרח, by R. Menachem Bronfman, for comparison and contrast of the many differences in circumstances and motivation between the two sins,3 as well as the underlying similarity of an extreme lack of faith in Hashem.
- See Korach: The Incense Challenge, by R. Chanoch Waxman, for a comparison and contrast of the two sins. Whereas the spies were plagued by underestimating their own worthiness, Korach’s rebellion was motivated by a grandiose sense of self.
Kayin and Korach
In each of the stories of Kayin's killing of Hevel and the rebellion of Korach, the "earth opens its mouth", in one case to swallow the blood of Hevel, in the other, to swallow the rebel leaders.
Sources
- Bavli Sanhedrin 37b notes that these are the only two times that the earth opened its mouth, in one case for constructive purposes and in one case for evil.
Articles
- In From Kayin to Korah: The Fellow Founders of Foment, R. Shlomo Zuckier compares the acts of Kayin and Korach. Kayin seeks to kill his brother and thereby destroy his family, while Korach seeks to destroy the nationhood of Israel. Both of these represent such a fundamental tearing of the social fabric that the earth itself splits open.4
Overturning Leadership: Korach and Shemuel The
Tools
- When reacting to the request for a change in leadership, both Moshe and Shemuel use similar arguments to highlight their honest leadership. Use the Tanakh Lab to compare their words
- To compare the chapters as a whole see here. Interestingly, despite the overlap in content, there are hardly any linguistic parallels between the stories. This implies that the prophet is not intentionally trying to allude back to the story of Korach. The similarities stem from the similar circumstances.
Primary sources
- See Divrei HaYamim I 6:18-23 that Shemuel is a descendant of Korach, further connecting the stories.
- Bemidbar Rabbah 18:8 also connects Korach and Shemuel, suggesting that Korach's knowledge that a great figure like Shemuel was to descend from him led him to believe that he deserved a leadership position as well.
Articles
- See Korach: The Cycle of History, by R. Yehuda Shaviv, for exploration of why Hashem accedes to the people’s request in Shmuel Alef while rejecting their request in Bemidbar, and how Shmuel corrects the misdeeds of his ancestor.
- Listen to Korach and the Power of Democracy, by R. Alex Israel, for analysis of the shared commitment to democracy that is found in the approaches of both Korach and Shmuel, as well as the fundamental moral differences between their modes of leadership.
