A thought on Parshas Korach
"...emor el Elazar ben Aharon..."
"...tell Elazar son of Aharon..." (17:2)
After the unsuccessful coup of Korah and his band, the incense pans of those who wrongly sought to vie for rights of Kahuna lay amidst the smoke and ash. HaShem instructed that Elazar would gather those now-defiled pans.
A question is posed in a midrash: the thrust of Korach's rebellion was his objection to kahuna being vested in Aharon. Would it not have been wise to have Aharon himself come forth, demonstrating that he had been vindicated and, as Kohen Gadol, he was indeed the one to attend to the priestly tasks? This question is addressed by two luminary Rishonim. One is, of course, the Chezkuni, whose works I am studying this year and whom I generally cite in this year's parsha emails. The second is the Abarbanel.
The Chezkuni suggests that Aharon could not have undertaken the task of clearing the sacred area because he had been the target of the challenge. The message of HaShem incinerating the rebels which then made their pans impure, was to verify that Aharon alone was faultless, pure and sincere. To have him then engage in making contact with those impure utensils would have, in some ways, detracted from his deserved stature as a figure of holiness. Gathering up those defiled pans had to relegated a Kohen who was not at the center of the conflict, whose status would not appear jeopardized by making contact with tuma.
The Abarbanel has another angle. This was a tense moment for the Jewish nation. Whereas Aharon had been vindicated, a tragedy was nonetheless at hand. A large band of our brethren, whatever their intention was, were now dead. While the smoke rose and the ashes smoldered, there were still tense and uncertain feelings among the people who witnessed this miraculous sign. Were Aharon to have ventured into the rubble to gather the remnants, some might have perceived him as ch'v grandstanding or gloating over his "victory". This would have lowered his stature in the eyes of those bystanders. Thus, the task had to be relegated, decidedly, to someone else. Aharon could not be put in the line of reactionary fire.
There may be two important moral lessons here for us. The first one, based on the Chezkuni's interpretation, is that once a person has attained a level of sanctity, or of spiritual ascent, it is not fitting for him, or her, to engage in acts which might cast question on him, particularly if he will be viewed as a hypocrite. If you value tahara, keep away from tuma.
The lesson we might derive from the thought of the Abarbanel is that not only must one fight the temptation of being arrogant, but one must also be alert to the risk of being seen as arrogant. Shelomo haMelech (Mishlei 24:17 ) reminds us "binfol oyivcha al tismach" - do not gloat over your enemy's troubles. The lesson here is to avoid leaving the impression that you are benefiting from another's problems.
I'm sure we have all seen some hot blazes come down to smoke and ash. Good Shabbos. D Fox
"...tell Elazar son of Aharon..." (17:2)
After the unsuccessful coup of Korah and his band, the incense pans of those who wrongly sought to vie for rights of Kahuna lay amidst the smoke and ash. HaShem instructed that Elazar would gather those now-defiled pans.
A question is posed in a midrash: the thrust of Korach's rebellion was his objection to kahuna being vested in Aharon. Would it not have been wise to have Aharon himself come forth, demonstrating that he had been vindicated and, as Kohen Gadol, he was indeed the one to attend to the priestly tasks? This question is addressed by two luminary Rishonim. One is, of course, the Chezkuni, whose works I am studying this year and whom I generally cite in this year's parsha emails. The second is the Abarbanel.
The Chezkuni suggests that Aharon could not have undertaken the task of clearing the sacred area because he had been the target of the challenge. The message of HaShem incinerating the rebels which then made their pans impure, was to verify that Aharon alone was faultless, pure and sincere. To have him then engage in making contact with those impure utensils would have, in some ways, detracted from his deserved stature as a figure of holiness. Gathering up those defiled pans had to relegated a Kohen who was not at the center of the conflict, whose status would not appear jeopardized by making contact with tuma.
The Abarbanel has another angle. This was a tense moment for the Jewish nation. Whereas Aharon had been vindicated, a tragedy was nonetheless at hand. A large band of our brethren, whatever their intention was, were now dead. While the smoke rose and the ashes smoldered, there were still tense and uncertain feelings among the people who witnessed this miraculous sign. Were Aharon to have ventured into the rubble to gather the remnants, some might have perceived him as ch'v grandstanding or gloating over his "victory". This would have lowered his stature in the eyes of those bystanders. Thus, the task had to be relegated, decidedly, to someone else. Aharon could not be put in the line of reactionary fire.
There may be two important moral lessons here for us. The first one, based on the Chezkuni's interpretation, is that once a person has attained a level of sanctity, or of spiritual ascent, it is not fitting for him, or her, to engage in acts which might cast question on him, particularly if he will be viewed as a hypocrite. If you value tahara, keep away from tuma.
The lesson we might derive from the thought of the Abarbanel is that not only must one fight the temptation of being arrogant, but one must also be alert to the risk of being seen as arrogant. Shelomo haMelech (Mishlei 24:17 ) reminds us "binfol oyivcha al tismach" - do not gloat over your enemy's troubles. The lesson here is to avoid leaving the impression that you are benefiting from another's problems.
I'm sure we have all seen some hot blazes come down to smoke and ash. Good Shabbos. D Fox
posted by Rabbi Dr. Fox at 1:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home