Korah - The Heschel School

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the text here is vayiraqum tzipui. The word, r-q-‘a is the same word used to describe the way God fashioned the heavens in Genesis, raqia, the “firmament.” It specifically refers to the craft of taking a substance and beating it into a thin sheet, stretching it over an expanse. The message seems to be that a self-serving political rebellion in the name of liberal values is tantamount to an act of idolatry, since underlying the rebellion is a desire for power and control. Such a confrontation does not serve the vision or purpose of heaven on earth, hence God’s instruction to laminate the altar with a piece of heaven. Being swallowed by the earth, and making offerings to heaven, suggest a re-creation narrative, in which the nation’s purpose, and the translation of that purpose in the form of a governance structure, require re-newal and re-alignment, which is exactly what the remaining portions of the reading describe. If approached this way, the flowering of Aaron’s staff is a permutation of the life-granting tree of the Garden of Eden. The nation needs to move through the chaos of the wilderness with a sense of order and vision, traveling with heaven in its midst, always aware of their purpose, with Aaron’s flowering tree of life at the helm of leadership. In some ways, then, the most disturbing rebellion is the spontaneous, un-premeditated fourth rebellion of the parasha. Qorakh’s was the rebellion of the self-serving, corrupt politician masquerading as a humanitarian, egalitarian, democratic leader. Datan and Aviram’s rebellion was the rebellion of myopia, confusing the vision of a promised future with the physical realities and false securities of oppression and slavery back in Egypt. Theirs is a universe of no independence or responsibility. The rebellion of the 250 is the danger of coalitions not of principle but of opportunity. The fourth rebellion of the masses, however, is the rebellion of serious misunderstanding of purpose. You have murdered God’s people! They cry against Moses and Aaron, when in fact Moses had taken responsibility for re-asserting God’s vision at the center of the nation’s life. It is as if, at this moment, the people could not accurately answer the question, “Who are we, and what are we trying to accomplish?” When a group or a culture can no longer answer that question, or no longer wants to ask it of themselves, they have, indeed, lost their identity and their way. The plague ceased as Aaron, in authentic leadership fashion, stood between the living and the dead (17:13). That is the difference between asking the question, Who are we and what is our purpose, and not recognizing the centrality of that very question. Questions for thought and discussion: 1. What do you think of the model of four different types of rebellions? 2. Do these types of rebellions make sense to you? 3. Can you identify any features of any of these types of rebellions occurring in the Jewish world today—say, in or about Israel? 4. Read these verse describing Dotan and Aviram’s challenge of Moses. Their language is extremely strong. a. What do they mean by a land “flowing with milk and honey?” How could they describe Egypt that way? b. What do they mean by, “gouging out their eyes.” That is disgusting—do they mean this literally? 4
c. If this phrase is not literal, then what are they talking about? 5. Which rebellion, in your opinion, makes the most legitimate claim against Moses? 6. We do not believe that God governs a nation. People govern. But—the Torah does associate a divine vision with the structure of leadership. a. What if the words, “God assigned this structure of leadership” is the Torah’s way of saying, “this system leads us to a life and a system and a vision which is what God would want for the world.” Does this interpretation make sense to you as a way of reading the Torah? i. Why or why not? from the commentary by Rashi: ‏(יד)‏ ותתן לנו.‏ הדבר מוסב על לא האמור למעלה,‏ כלומר לא הביאותנו ולא נתת לנו נחלת שדה וכרם,‏ אמרת לנו אעלה אתכם מעני מצרים אל ארץ וגו'‏ ‏(שמות ג,‏ יז.)‏ משם הוצאתנו,‏ ולא אל ארץ זבת חלב ודבש הביאותנו,‏ אלא גָזַ‏ רְ‏ תָּ‏ עלינו להמיתנו במדבר,‏ שאמרת לנו במדבר הזה יפלו פגריכם ‏(במדבר יד,‏ כט.)‏ And given us. These words refer back to the word, “Not” in the phrase at the beginning of the sentence. In other words, “Neither have you brought us to a land of milk and honey, nor have you given us fields and vineyards; yet, you said to us, ‘I shall lift you up from the oppression of Egypt to a land flowing with milk and honey.’(Exodus3:17) You brought us from Egypt, just to kill us in this wilderness, for you decreed against us the following decree: “Your corpses shall fall in this wilderness…..” (B’midbar 14:29) Questions for thought and discussion based on the comments of Rashi: 1. Rashi clarifies that from their point of view, Moses has lied to the entire nation. He promised to take them from a bad situation and bring them relief in a paradiselike situation. In fact, the opposite has occurred! What do you think of their perspective now? 2. Dotan and Aviram say that Moses decreed against the people. Wasn’t it God who ordered the decree? a. Why doesn’t Moses just remind them of that? b. Or, just clarify that? 3. There was food in Egypt, and only manna in the wilderness. That makes the people feel their dependency even more keenly. Why doesn’t Moses just point that out? Mitzvoth in the Parashah. According to the Sefer haHinuch,* there are five positive commandments and four negative commandments. The five positive mitzvoth are: (i) the mitzvah to guard the sanctuary (ii) the mitzvah to redeem the firstborn human being (iii) 5
Page 1 and 2: Middle School Parashat haShavua Han
Page 3: Elitzfan, together with his brother

Korah - The Heschel School

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?