Join our weekly Peninim on the Torah list!

Category

Back to Home -> Korach -> 5753


“An eternal covenant of salt.” (18:19)

How is Hashem’s gift of the priestly blessings to Aharon and his sons to be compared to a covenant of salt? Rashi presents an analogy. Just as salt does not rot– and even acts as a preserving agent for many things — so, too, this covenant maintains its virility in order to preserve Aharon’s dynasty forever. Horav D. Feinstein, Shlita, derives a powerful implication from this pasuk. Even if some Kohanim deviate from the prescribed path of service to Hashem, some will always stalwartly uphold the covenant. Thus, just as salt never rots, maintaining its ability to preserve foods, so,…

Continue Reading

“And Korach took.” (16:1) – “For all the congregation is holy.” (16:3)

Referring to the controversy stimulated by Korach and his henchman, the Mishnah in Avos (5:20) remarks, “Any controversy that is L’shem Shomayim” (for the sake of heaven) will have a constructive outcome. Which controversy is considered L’shem Shomayim? This is the controversy between Hillel and Shamai. And which is considered not L’shem Shomayim? This is the controversy of Korach and his entire company.” The Malbim questions the use of “Korach and his company” as a paradigm of a “machlokes she’lo l’shem shomayim.” Surely there were other infamous conflicts more appropriate to be mentioned. The disputes surrounding the lack of water…

Continue Reading

“And Korach took . . . and Dasan and Aviram . . . the sons of Reuven.” (16:1)

Rashi notes that the Torah mentions Dasan and Aviram’s lineage. He explains that, since the tribe of Reuven encamped on the south in close proximity to Korach, they developed an association with Korach. This relationship enabled their involvement in Korach’s dispute. This seems puzzling. Throughout their sojourn in the wilderness, we find Dasan and Aviram described as Moshe’s archenemies who instigated every incursion. Their incessant bickering and complaining resulted in many tragic consequences. Horav Chaim Elazary, z.l., suggests the following difference between the insurgent attitude of Korach and Dasan and Aviram’s orientation. Even though Dasan and Aviram undoubtedly exhibited flagrant…

Continue Reading

“And Korach took.” (16:1)

Korach’s downfall at least partially originated in his own logistic approach to Torah law. His lack of respect for Moshe, which was a result of his overwhelming jealousy, caused him to judge right and wrong without consulting his teachers. This divergence from the halachic process contributed to Korach’s total rejection of the Torah way. Rashi cites an example of Korach’s distorted approach to Torah law. He clad his followers in garments made entirely of techeles, blue wool. They came before Moshe, questioning if a garment made entirely of blue wool requires tzitzis. Moshe undoubtedly responded that tzitzis is a requirement…

Continue Reading

“And Korach took.” (16:1)

The Targum Onkelos interprets Korach’s “taking” as “and Korach separated (himself).” The Sfas Emes applies this concept in the following manner. In Tana D’vei Eliyahu 25, Chazal teach that one must always strive to attain the standard established by his ancestors. He must always ask himself, “When will my actions reach those of my ancestors?” One who is consistent in this self-expectation demonstrates the motivation which is so essential for continued spiritual development. The Sefas Emes cites R’ Simcha Bunim of Paschischa who states that the behavior of a Jew must be in consonance with that of the Jews throughout…

Continue Reading

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our weekly Peninim on the Torah list!

You have Successfully Subscribed!