Difference between revisions of "Korach's Rebellion/2"
m |
m |
||
Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><b>Challenging Aharon and the priesthood</b> - Most of these sources assume that Korach was jealous of and desired Aharon's position. Ibn Ezra adds that the Levites as a whole might have resented having to serve the priests. According to Netziv and Hoil Moshe, in contrast, it was the lay Israelites who wished to be priests.<fn>See discussion below about the identity of the 250 men.</fn></li> | <li><b>Challenging Aharon and the priesthood</b> - Most of these sources assume that Korach was jealous of and desired Aharon's position. Ibn Ezra adds that the Levites as a whole might have resented having to serve the priests. According to Netziv and Hoil Moshe, in contrast, it was the lay Israelites who wished to be priests.<fn>See discussion below about the identity of the 250 men.</fn></li> | ||
− | <li><b>Protesting the selection of the Levites</b> – Ibn Ezra, Ramban, Chizkuni and Abarbanel present this complaint as emanating mainly from the firstborns<fn>Ibn Ezra claims that Korach, too, was a firstborn and, incensed by the switch, spearheaded the rebellion.</fn> who had originally played a role in the cultic service<fn>In this they follow <multilink><a href="BavliZevachim112b" data-aht="source">Bavli Zevachim</a><a href="BavliZevachim112b" data-aht="source">Zevachim 112b</a><a href="Talmud Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink>.  It seems that though these sources speak of resentment against the Levites, what the firstborns really wanted was not just the secondary position of "serving the priests" but also to resume their original positions as active priests. </fn> but were then displaced by the Levites, while the Netziv and Hoil Moshe, in contrast, claim that the Israelites at large were bothered by the monopoly of the tribe. </li> | + | <li><b>Protesting the selection of the Levites</b> – Ibn Ezra, Ramban, Chizkuni and Abarbanel present this complaint as emanating mainly from the firstborns<fn>Ibn Ezra claims that Korach, too, was a firstborn and, incensed by the switch, spearheaded the rebellion.</fn> who had originally played a role in the cultic service<fn>In this they follow <multilink><a href="BavliZevachim112b" data-aht="source">Bavli Zevachim</a><a href="BavliZevachim112b" data-aht="source">Zevachim 112b</a><a href="Talmud Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink>.  It seems that though these sources speak of resentment against the Levites, what the firstborns really wanted was not just the secondary position of "serving the priests" but also to resume their original positions as active priests. </fn> but were then displaced by the Levites, while the Netziv and Hoil Moshe, in contrast, claim that the Israelites at large were bothered by the monopoly of the tribe.</li> |
<li><b>Challenging Moshe</b> - According to Ramban and Hoil Moshe, Datan and Aviram challenged Moshe's overall leadership, blaming him for taking them to die in the Wilderness.<fn>According to both Ramban and Hoil Moshe, this complaint was not aired during the original discussion in verses 3-11.</fn> According to Ibn Ezra and Abarbanel, in contrast, they<fn>See note below, that according to Abarbanel, there was an entire contingent of Reubenites, in addition to Datan and Aviram.</fn> were upset about their tribe losing its firstborn status to Yosef as regards inheritance, and to Yehuda as regards leadership.<fn>As Moshe would seem not to be responsible for either of these, this approach must explain why the rebels would blame him.  Abarbanel implies that these points were emphasized during the division of the camp, when Yosef clearly received two portions (Ephraim and Menashe each had their own encampment) and Yehuda was chosen to travel first. This might have led the people to believe that Moshe was involved in the decision. Ibn Ezra adds that maybe they suspected Moshe of favoritism, as his loyal servant, Yehoshua, was also from the tribe of Yosef</fn></li> | <li><b>Challenging Moshe</b> - According to Ramban and Hoil Moshe, Datan and Aviram challenged Moshe's overall leadership, blaming him for taking them to die in the Wilderness.<fn>According to both Ramban and Hoil Moshe, this complaint was not aired during the original discussion in verses 3-11.</fn> According to Ibn Ezra and Abarbanel, in contrast, they<fn>See note below, that according to Abarbanel, there was an entire contingent of Reubenites, in addition to Datan and Aviram.</fn> were upset about their tribe losing its firstborn status to Yosef as regards inheritance, and to Yehuda as regards leadership.<fn>As Moshe would seem not to be responsible for either of these, this approach must explain why the rebels would blame him.  Abarbanel implies that these points were emphasized during the division of the camp, when Yosef clearly received two portions (Ephraim and Menashe each had their own encampment) and Yehuda was chosen to travel first. This might have led the people to believe that Moshe was involved in the decision. Ibn Ezra adds that maybe they suspected Moshe of favoritism, as his loyal servant, Yehoshua, was also from the tribe of Yosef</fn></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
<point><b>"העיקר חסר מן הספר"</b> – A weaknesses of this approach is the fact that the firstborns are never mentioned in the text. If they played a significant role in the rebellion, one would have thought that they would be discussed explicitly in the chapter.</point> | <point><b>"העיקר חסר מן הספר"</b> – A weaknesses of this approach is the fact that the firstborns are never mentioned in the text. If they played a significant role in the rebellion, one would have thought that they would be discussed explicitly in the chapter.</point> | ||
<point><b>"כׇל הָעֵדָה כֻּלָּם קְדֹשִׁים"</b> – Ibn Ezra suggests that these words support the idea that the rebellion revolved around the replacing of the firstborns by the Levites, for this statement hints to the firstborns' sanctified status, as Hashem said of them, "<b>קַדֶּשׁ</b> לִי כׇל בְּכוֹר".</point> | <point><b>"כׇל הָעֵדָה כֻּלָּם קְדֹשִׁים"</b> – Ibn Ezra suggests that these words support the idea that the rebellion revolved around the replacing of the firstborns by the Levites, for this statement hints to the firstborns' sanctified status, as Hashem said of them, "<b>קַדֶּשׁ</b> לִי כׇל בְּכוֹר".</point> | ||
− | <point><b>Prior role of firstborns</b> – Most of these sources follows <multilink><a href="BavliZevachim112b" data-aht="source">Bavli Zevachim</a><a href="BavliZevachim112b" data-aht="source">Zevachim 112b</a><a href="Talmud Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink> in assuming that the firstborns were involved in the sacrificial service, acting as priests, until they were replaced by the tribe of Levi.  However, this is never explicit in Torah. We are told that the firstborns were sanctified in the aftermath of the Plague of Firstborns, but not what form that sanctification took. | + | <point><b>Prior role of firstborns</b> – Most of these sources follows <multilink><a href="BavliZevachim112b" data-aht="source">Bavli Zevachim</a><a href="BavliZevachim112b" data-aht="source">Zevachim 112b</a><a href="Talmud Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink> in assuming that the firstborns were involved in the sacrificial service, acting as priests, until they were replaced by the tribe of Levi.  However, this is never explicit in Torah. We are told that the firstborns were sanctified in the aftermath of the Plague of Firstborns, but not what form that sanctification took.</point> |
<point><b>Purpose of incense test</b> – According to the sources, the test was meant to discern both who was worthy of the Levites' position and who merited priesthood.<fn>Abarbanel further claims that, at least originally, it was also meant to test the claims of the Reubenites against Yehuda/Yosef. It is not clear, though, why this would be proven via the offering of incense, a cultic rite.  It is further difficult how, practically, the same test could simultaneously choose those worthy of being Levites and those worthy of ruling, considering that these would be different groups. Regardless, see below that Abarbanel posits that in the end, there was a change of plan and the Reubenites did not participate in the incense test.</fn>  However, as bringing incense is a priestly, rather than Levite, function, it is not clear why the same test was used for both groups.</point> | <point><b>Purpose of incense test</b> – According to the sources, the test was meant to discern both who was worthy of the Levites' position and who merited priesthood.<fn>Abarbanel further claims that, at least originally, it was also meant to test the claims of the Reubenites against Yehuda/Yosef. It is not clear, though, why this would be proven via the offering of incense, a cultic rite.  It is further difficult how, practically, the same test could simultaneously choose those worthy of being Levites and those worthy of ruling, considering that these would be different groups. Regardless, see below that Abarbanel posits that in the end, there was a change of plan and the Reubenites did not participate in the incense test.</fn>  However, as bringing incense is a priestly, rather than Levite, function, it is not clear why the same test was used for both groups.</point> | ||
<point><b>"וְיֹדַע י״י אֶת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ וְאֶת הַקָּדוֹשׁ וְהִקְרִיב אֵלָיו וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר בּוֹ יַקְרִיב אֵלָיו "</b> – Most of these sources suggest that the doubling in the verse matches the dual purpose of the test.  It was to discern "אֶת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ" as far as the Levite position,<fn>See Ramban who notes that the language of "אֶת אֲשֶׁר <b>לוֹ</b>' is reminiscent of earlier statements of Hashem relating to the selection of the Levites: "וְהָיוּ <b>לִי</b> הַלְוִיִּם", and the firstborns: "כִּי <b>לִי</b> כׇּל בְּכוֹר" (Bemidbar 3:12-13). The test is meant to demonstrate which of these two groups is truly His (<b>לו</b>). Cf. Netziv who suggests that the phrase "אֶת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ' alludes back to Moshe's cry "מִי לה' אֵלָי" at the Sin of the Golden Calf and therefore hints to the Levites who answered Moshe's call and proved themselves to be Hashem's.</fn> and "אֶת הַקָּדוֹשׁ" as regards the priesthood.<fn>Abarbanel further claims that, at least originally, it was also meant to test the claims of the Reubenites against Yehuda/Yosef.</fn></point> | <point><b>"וְיֹדַע י״י אֶת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ וְאֶת הַקָּדוֹשׁ וְהִקְרִיב אֵלָיו וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר בּוֹ יַקְרִיב אֵלָיו "</b> – Most of these sources suggest that the doubling in the verse matches the dual purpose of the test.  It was to discern "אֶת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ" as far as the Levite position,<fn>See Ramban who notes that the language of "אֶת אֲשֶׁר <b>לוֹ</b>' is reminiscent of earlier statements of Hashem relating to the selection of the Levites: "וְהָיוּ <b>לִי</b> הַלְוִיִּם", and the firstborns: "כִּי <b>לִי</b> כׇּל בְּכוֹר" (Bemidbar 3:12-13). The test is meant to demonstrate which of these two groups is truly His (<b>לו</b>). Cf. Netziv who suggests that the phrase "אֶת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ' alludes back to Moshe's cry "מִי לה' אֵלָי" at the Sin of the Golden Calf and therefore hints to the Levites who answered Moshe's call and proved themselves to be Hashem's.</fn> and "אֶת הַקָּדוֹשׁ" as regards the priesthood.<fn>Abarbanel further claims that, at least originally, it was also meant to test the claims of the Reubenites against Yehuda/Yosef.</fn></point> | ||
− | <point><b>"וַיִּשְׁלַח מֹשֶׁה לִקְרֹא לְדָתָן וְלַאֲבִירָם"</b> – According to Abarbanel, Moshe recognized that Datan and Aviram's grievance was distinct from the others (as it did not relate only to cultic practices).<fn>According to many of these sources, Datan and Aviram had joined in the original complaints against Aharon and the tribe of Levi as well.  They simply had additional grievances which also needed to be addressed. See Ibn | + | <point><b>"וַיִּשְׁלַח מֹשֶׁה לִקְרֹא לְדָתָן וְלַאֲבִירָם"</b> – According to Abarbanel, Moshe recognized that Datan and Aviram's grievance was distinct from the others (as it did not relate only to cultic practices).<fn>According to many of these sources, Datan and Aviram had joined in the original complaints against Aharon and the tribe of Levi as well.  They simply had additional grievances which also needed to be addressed. See Ibn Ezra who explains the doubling in Datan and Aviram's words, "כִּי תִשְׂתָּרֵר עָלֵינוּ גַּם הִשְׂתָּרֵר" to refer to the power held by <i>both</i> Aharon and Moshe.</fn> He, therefore, called them individually to address their specific complaints and perhaps to appease them, hoping to separate them from the rest of the rebels. They, however, refused to negotiate, saying "לא נעלה".</point> |
<point><b>Datan and Aviram's speech</b></point> | <point><b>Datan and Aviram's speech</b></point> | ||
<point><b>"אַל תֵּפֶן אֶל מִנְחָתָם"</b></point> | <point><b>"אַל תֵּפֶן אֶל מִנְחָתָם"</b></point> |
Version as of 23:45, 26 June 2019
Korach's Rebellion
Exegetical Approaches
Against Aharon
The whole rebellion revolved around one main issue, the choice of Aharon as priest.
- Levites – R. Chananel maintains that the 250 people were all from the tribe of Levi.9 They, like Korach, were not satisfied with "serving the priests" and aspired to be priests themselves.
- Reubenites – According to Rashi, the men were mainly from the tribe of Reuven. Rashi suggests that their joining the rebellion was a technical result of their living close to and being swayed by Korach, but it is possible that the tribe as a whole felt that they deserved priestly status due to their ancestor's being the firstborn to Yaakov (see R"Y Bekhor Shor above).
- All of Israel – Alternatively, it is possible that this group was comprised of people from all the tribes. This position might maintain that before the sin of the Calf and the building of the Tabernacle, every individual Israelite had been allowed to sacrifice on private altars, and the people were hoping to return to this status quo.10
According to this approach, Datan and Aviram are not really bothered by Moshe's leadership as a whole, only by (what they perceive as) his nepotism in choosing his brother. Their words "כִּי תִשְׂתָּרֵר עָלֵינוּ גַּם הִשְׂתָּרֵר" are an accusation that Moshe is abusing his power for self-interest.13
- Moshe might have been hoping to weaken the coalition, trying to influence individual members to change course. Thus, after (unsuccessfully) trying to convince the Levites that they had no good cause for rebelling, he turned to sway Datan and Aviram, but they refused to come before him.
- According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, instead, Datan and Aviram might have left the original discussion when talk turned to the incense test. Though they agreed with Korach's challenging of Aharon, they were against the test itself. Moshe had called them, not to influence them, but to invite them to join the larger assembly in the test. The brothers refused, claiming that they did not need a test to prove who was in the right.
Against Aharon and Moshe
The rebellion had two focal points. Korach and his 250 followers objected to Aharon's priesthood, while Datan and Aviram challenged Moshe's leadership.
- Two complaints – The arguments of Korach and the 250 men and the complaints of Datan and Aviram are totally distinct, one focusing on the cultic realm and one on political issues.
- Two locales – Physically, the two groups are located in different places. The fact that Moshe must send for Datan and Aviram (v. 12) implies that they were separate from the other rebels.21
- Two tests / punishments – The two groups are proven wrong and meet their deaths in different ways. While the 250 men are burned by Divine fire, Datan and Aviram are swallowed by the earth.22
Against Aharon, Moshe and the Tribe of Levi
The rebellion was multi-faceted, with groups complaining about both spiritual and political status. Some protested the priestly class, others challenged the choice of the Levites, while yet others had issue with Moshe.
- Challenging Aharon and the priesthood - Most of these sources assume that Korach was jealous of and desired Aharon's position. Ibn Ezra adds that the Levites as a whole might have resented having to serve the priests. According to Netziv and Hoil Moshe, in contrast, it was the lay Israelites who wished to be priests.30
- Protesting the selection of the Levites – Ibn Ezra, Ramban, Chizkuni and Abarbanel present this complaint as emanating mainly from the firstborns31 who had originally played a role in the cultic service32 but were then displaced by the Levites, while the Netziv and Hoil Moshe, in contrast, claim that the Israelites at large were bothered by the monopoly of the tribe.
- Challenging Moshe - According to Ramban and Hoil Moshe, Datan and Aviram challenged Moshe's overall leadership, blaming him for taking them to die in the Wilderness.33 According to Ibn Ezra and Abarbanel, in contrast, they34 were upset about their tribe losing its firstborn status to Yosef as regards inheritance, and to Yehuda as regards leadership.35
- Firstborns – Ibn Ezra, Ramban, Chizkuni and Abarbanel assume that the 250 men were composed mainly of firstborns who protested the selection of the Levites and their being ousted from cultic service.
- Noble Israelites – Hoil Moshe, in contrast, assume that the 250 men were noblemen from throughout Israel, who questioned the monopoly on sacrificial service held by both the priests and tribe of Levi as a whole. They wished to return to the state which existed before the Sin of the Golden Calf, when all could partake in the service.40 Netziv even presents them as holy men, with noble and sincere, though misguided, motives.41