Parashat Hukat 5775 Déjà vu – all over again?

Echoes of Eden

Rabbi Ari Kahn

Parashat Hukat 5775

Déjà vu – all over again?

It seems like déjà vu: a lack of resources leads to complaints, which brings about Divine intercession - and so it goes, again and again. But this time is different. This time, instead of the people suffering for their impatience and insolence, it is Moshe and Aharon who are punished. Remarkably, they are accused of a lack of faith in God:

God said to Moshe and Aharon, 'You did not have enough faith in Me to sanctify Me in the presence of the Israelites! Therefore, you shall not bring this assembly to the land that I have given you.' (20:12)

The punishment is sudden and shocking, but what was the transgression that brought the leadership of Moshe and Aharon to an end? How could they, of all people who ever lived, be accused of not believing in God?

By this point in the narrative, we are accustomed to the complaints - the lovely food they had in Egypt[1], the wisdom of having gone off to die in the desert rather than staying put in Egypt, where there were ample graveyards.[2] The complaints were taken to a new level by Datan and Aviram, who accused Moshe of having taken them FROM a land that flowed with milk and honey![3] Moshe reacts to this latest round of complaining in much the same way as he did when the people first began their complaints years before. [4]  The two instances seem so similar to us that we are not surprised when Moshe once again strikes the rock to draw out water, this time adding a verbal rebuke for good measure:

'Listen now, you rebels!' shouted Moshe. 'Shall we produce water for you from this rock?' (20:10)

In what seems to be an expression of frustration with the cumulative corpus of complaints and criticism, Moshe lumps the latest example of the peoples’ dissatisfaction together with all the previous episodes, calling them rebels. And yet, despite the general sense that this litany of complaints has been heard over and over, there is something different in this particular case.

The people did not have any water, so they began demonstrating against Moshe and Aharon. The people quarreled with Moshe. 'We wish that we had died together with our brothers before God!' they declared. 'Why did you bring God's congregation to this desert? So that we and our livestock should die? Why did you take us out of Egypt and bring us to this terrible place? It is an area where there are no plants, figs, grapes or pomegranates. [Now] there is not even any water to drink!' (20:2-5)

When we look at their words carefully and compare them to the earlier water crisis, a few significant but subtle differences come to our attention. In both cases, the perfunctory “Why did you take us out of Egypt and bring us to this terrible place?” is there, but other elements of their complaints are radically different: Now, the frame of reference has shifted. Rather than longing for the zucchini and watermelons of Egypt,[5] the people bemoan the lack of “figs, grapes and pomegranates” – the fruits of the Land of Israel. In other words, rather than demanding to return to Egypt, as they had in the past, they are complaining that they are not in the Land of Israel. Moreover, their complaint reveals a deep-seated God-consciousness: “'We wish that we had died together with our brothers before God!'” and, “'Why did you bring God's congregation to this desert?”

This is a new generation, and they have made great forward strides. Whereas their fathers lamented ever having left the security and familiarity of Egypt, the generation of the children laments the fact that they have not yet arrived in the Promised Land. Whereas the previous generation had the audacity to question whether or not God was in their midst, this new generation is acutely aware of God’s presence, and of their own unique status as a covenantal community. This is not the same complaint that we have heard time and time again -  yet Moshe fails to hear the difference between what they are saying and what their parents said. He fails to appreciate the nuances, and responds as if they are murmuring the same complaints. He accuses them of being “rebels” without pausing to consider the validity of this accusation: To be sure, they were unhappy with their lot, dissatisfied with life in the desert – but is this not as it should be? Should not every Jew who finds himself outside of the Land of Israel feel unsettled, dissatisfied, incomplete?  

When we read their complaints carefully, a new picture emerges: These people were not looking back with fond nostalgia, they were pining for the future. Far from attempting to shirk the destiny that awaited them, they were over-eager to embrace it. Rather than complaining about the demands that their peoplehood placed upon them, they sought out God’s presence. If they were to die, they preferred to die “in front of God.” These people thirsted for holiness – the holiness of the Land of Israel, and of proximity to God.

Moshe suffered from pre-conceived notions of what the people wanted. Rather than listening to what they actually said, he heard echoes of the past. It was Moshe who was looking backward, mistakenly attributing the mindset of the previous generation to the people who now stood before him. Moshe’s sin was one of missed opportunity. By responding to what he thought they had said, and not to what they actually said, he failed to sanctify God in the eyes of this new generation.

Part of belief in God is belief in the Jewish People; Moshe expresses a lack of faith in the new generation when he calls them rebels, and is therefore guilty of a lack of faith in God Himself. God reprimands him: The Jewish People - this new generation that stands before Moshe and demands holiness, the generation that expresses deep yearning for the Land of Israel and awareness of God’s involvement in their lives - has faith. It is Moshe, and not the young nation, who has failed to move ahead. Moshe hears the complaints of the past; in a very real sense, both he and Aharon are a part of the previous generation – the generation that would not merit the Land of Israel. Therefore, Moshe and Aharon were sentenced to stay behind with their own generation, while this new generation would make their way to the Land for which they longed, the land of their dreams.

For a more in-depth analysis see:

http://arikahn.blogspot.co.il/2015/06/audio-and-essays-parashat-chukat.html

                                            Echoes of Eden

---

[1] Shmot 16:3, Bamidbar 11:4,5

[2] Bamidbar 14:2,3

[3] Bamidbar 16:13,14

[4] Shmot 17:2-7.

[5] B’midbar 11:5.

Audio and Essays Parashat Chukat

Audio and Essays Parashat Chukat

New Echoes of Eden Project:

Parashat Hukat 5775  -Déjà vu – all over again?

http://arikahn.blogspot.co.il/2015/06/parashat-hukat-5775-deja-vu-all-over.html

Audio:

Déjà vu – all over again?

What was the sin that Moshe was guilty of? Why were Moshe and Aharon punished?

http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/837844/Rabbi_Ari_Kahn/D%D7%99j%D7%90_vu_-_all_over_again-

Implications of a Detour

How death permeates the Parasha, why Para Aduma is needed

http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/814776/Rabbi_Ari_Kahn/Implications_of_a_Detour

Parshat Chukat / Yiftach and Morality Haftorah – during usual years

http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/837804/Rabbi_Ari_Kahn/Yiftach_and_Morality_

Parshat Chukat

http://rabbiarikahn.com/audio?id=101

Parshat Chukat / The Sin of the People (Pushing Moshe over the edge)

http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/837805/Rabbi_Ari_Kahn/The_People-s_Sin

The Para Adumah and the Death of Moshe

http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/837806/Rabbi_Ari_Kahn/The_Para_Adumah_and_the_Death_of_Moshe

Essays:

Living the Dream; Ignoring Reality 

http://echoesofeden.rabbiarikahn.com/

The Ultimate Battle: Morality

http://arikahn.blogspot.co.il/2010/06/parshat-chukat-5770-ultimate-battle.html

To Truly Believe

http://arikahn.blogspot.co.il/2009/06/parshat-chukat.html

"Manna or Thistles"

http://rabbiarikahn.com/writing?id=176

Death

http://rabbiarikahn.com/writing?id=177

Korah - The Holy Grandfather

Who first called Korah “the heigle Zayde” (the holy grandfather). I have not found the idea in writing among the Hasidic masters but here are the candidates for the origin of the term:

 I had first heard this idea attributed to the Hozeh from Lublin (died 1815)

דער הייליגער זיידע קרח

I would assume it would have been a Levi – to have felt this kinship

The Hozeh’s last name was Horowitz – he was a descendant of the Shla Hakadosh

“Yaakov Yitzchak was a descendant of Isaiah Horowitz (Hebrew: ישעיה הלוי הורוביץ), also known as the Shelah ha-Kadosh (Hebrew: של"ה הקדוש), a prominent Levite rabbi and mystic.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaakov_Yitzchak_of_Lublin

Rabbi Naftali Zvi Horowitz of Ropshitz (died 1827) comes from the same family (on his maternal side) and would be another good candidate.

His mother Beila was the daughter of Rabbi Yitzchak Halevi Horowitz of Hamburg. Naftali Tzvi adopted the surname of his maternal grandfather.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naftali_Zvi_of_Ropshitz

If you look on the internet you will find many references to the Kotzker as the source of this saying  (died 1859), however based on a quick survey - most of these references can be traced back to Rabbi Riskin.

According to

Rabbi Riskin

J. Jonathan Schraub

It was the Kotzker

http://www.jewishledger.com/2012/06/torah-portion-korach-4/

https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/conservative_judaism/v065/65.3.schraub.pdf

https://kolshalom.com/sites/default/files/uploaded_documents/schraub_dvar_torah.pdf

Elli Sacks:

R. Zadok Ha-Cohen of Lublin, author of the Pri Tzadik, to refer to Korach in affectionately glowing terms as "Our Holy Grandfather."

http://mei-ha-shiloah.blogspot.co.il/2009/06/mei-ha-shiloah-on-parashat-korach.html

Michael Berg

Rabbi Naftali of Rufshitz (Rabbi Naftali Zvi Horowitz of Ropshitz)

http://www.michaelberg.net/articles/creator-desires-heart

R. Yehoshua Engelman

Hozeh from Lublin

רבי יעקב יצחק, המכונה "החוזה" מלובלין, מגדולי המורים החסידים, אמר, כמו שאמרו אחרים גם-כן, שאילו חיו בדור המדבר היו מצטרפים לעדת קורח. "דער הייליגר זיידא קרח" – הסבא הקדוש. 

http://www.kolot.info/heb/ContentPage.aspx?id=236

רבי יעקב יצחק, "החוזה" מלובלין, מגדולי המורים החסידיים בדור שלישי לחסידות, אמר, כמו שאמרו אחרים גם-כן, שאילו חיו בדור המדבר היו מצטרפים לעדת קורח. "דער הייליגר זיידא קרח" – הסבא הקדוש.

http://www.areshet.org.il/BRPortal/br/P102.jsp?arc=69419

זה נכון, כך אמר הרה"ק החוזה מלובלין זי"ע. 

כידוע קרח הי' מנושאי הארון ומבעלי רוח הקודש (עי' רש"י, שקרח ראה (ברוח קדשו) שלשלת גדולה יוצאה ממנו וכו') 
בכתבי האריז"ל מובא, הסופי תיבות של 'צדיק כתמר יפרח' הוא 'קרח'. ולעתיד לבוא יזכה קרח לכהן בכהונה גדולה. 
דהיינו שהוא הי' צדיק גדול וקדוש. ומה שעשה מחלוקת לכהן בכהונה גדולה הי' לו בזה כוונות גדולות לשם שמים, שאי אפשר לאנשים כערכנו לעמוד על סוד דעתו. מסופר שהרה"ק הישמח משה זי"ע אמר שהוא הי' בגלגול קודם בזמן מחלקותו של קרח. והוא עמד מן הצד ולא הלך לא נגד משה רבינו ולא נגד קרח. הי' 'נסיון' מאד גדול, היות שגם קרח הי' צדיק וגדול מאד, והי' מאד קשה לילך נגדו, ולהתערב במחלוקת זה. 
כנראה, לחוזה מלובלין זי"ע היו כוונות נעלות במה שאמר 'הייליגע זיידע קרח'. יכול להיות שעי"ז רצה להמתיק את הפגם של קרח, ולהחיש את תיקונו שיהי' בשלימות בביאת המשיח בקרוב 

http://www.bhol.co.il/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=1446906&forum_id=771

אין ספר החכמה מאין (אות ס') ווערט געברענגט אז הרה"ק ר' איציקל סטוטשינער ז"ל האט אמאל דערציילט אז הרה"ק המגיד מ'קאזשניץ זצ"ל האט זיך אמאל אויסגעדרוקט, "כ'קען נישט זאגען א גוט ווארט אויף קרח ווייל ער האט דאך מצער געווען משה רבינו, אבער איך קען אויך נישט זאגען שלעכטס אויף אים ווייל ער איז דאך געווען דער זיידע פונעם רבי'ן פון לובלין זצ"ל." (ווי באקאנט האט זיך דער רבי פון לובלין זצ"ל אמאל אויסגעדריקט, "דער הייליגער זיידע קרח") מערקווירדיג אז אין ספר "עבודת ישראל" פונעם קאזשניצער מגיד זצ"ל איז נישטא קיין חידושי תורה אויף פרשת קרח...

http://www.ivelt.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3825&mobile=on

Parashat Korah 5775 A Jealous Guy

Echoes of Eden

Rabbi Ari Kahn

Parashat Korah 5775

A Jealous Guy

There was once a man who was blessed in many ways: he was smart, he was wealthy and he came from a very good family. His name was Korah. From the outside it looked like he had everything going for him, but something went wrong: there was a tragic malfunction and his beautiful life crumbled.

Korah was a Levite, a blood relative of Moshe and Aharon and related to Nahshon by marriage – all significant leaders, each in his own right and in his own sphere; Korah was not. There was a time, when he was a young man, that things looked brighter for him: As a firstborn son, he was assured a position of service in the Temple – a position of exalted status and respect. But in the aftermath of the sin of the golden calf, the firstborn sons, who had participated in the sin, were replaced by the tribe of Levi.

And here was the irony: Korah’s cousin Aharon, who also hailed from the tribe of Levi, was arguably the only member of the tribe who was guilty of complicity in the golden calf debacle. In fact, it was the Levites – Korah’s and Aharon’s extended family - who “cleaned up the mess” and rid the world of those who had been active participants in that terrible sin. Why, then, was Korah “down-graded” from the position of kohen that was the birthright of the firstborn, and reduced to the status of “generic” Levite, while Aharon, whose hands were far from clean of sin, was awarded the supreme position of Kohen Gadol? Such was Korah’s view of the events, and the situation did not sit well with him.

And if this were not enough to raise Korah’s hackles, he did not need to look further than the next major sin committed in the desert, the sin of the spies. The Levites had not sent a representative to scout the land. The only member of their tribe who was involved in this sin, who had any level of complicity whatsoever, was Moshe, the man who had sent the spies on their mission in the first place.

The tribe of Levi had no part in the two major sins committed by the Israelites in the desert – with two notable exceptions: Aharon played no small role in the creation of the golden calf, and Moshe was the catalyst that set the sin of the spies in motion. Korah was incensed, infuriated, but what he perceived as the injustice of it all: He himself had been denied the position of service in the Temple that would now be taken by Aharon and his sons, while Moshe and Aharon seemed to be made of Teflon: The stain of these massive transgressions did not stick to them, and they slipped away unscathed. This may well be the background to Korah’s rebellion: He was driven to distraction by what was, in his opinion, the unfairness of it all.

Jealousy can be a powerful, self-destructive force; for Korah, it gave rise to self-righteousness, which he focused on issues of holiness - that is, the holiness of every member of the community other than Moshe and Aharon. He was capable of seeing and appreciating his own holiness, and the holiness intrinsic in every Jew who stood at Mount Sinai, but the holiness of Moshe and Aharon escaped him.  Another fact that seems to have slipped his jealousy-ravaged mind was the source of Moshe and Aharon’s authority. Who, indeed, had appointed them to the lofty positions they held? Surely, Moshe had not actively sought out the spotlight. He had neither campaigned for the job nor sought exclusivity in his various roles as leader, judge or teacher; quite the opposite: God had to cajole Moshe to take up the reins of leadership, and Moshe repeatedly expressed his desire to share responsibility with the elders, even encouraging others who showed that they were capable of prophecy.

Leadership comes with a price. The people will inevitably err, and the leadership will inevitably be blamed. Real leadership is not measured by the ability to avoid all mistakes, but by the ability to minimize them, to foresee and forestall them whenever possible, and to confront the mistakes that will inevitably be made, not cover them up. Real leadership learns from past mistakes and tries to create systems and processes that will prevent their recurrence. There will always be people lying in wait on the sidelines, the slings and arrows of criticism in hand, poised to take advantage of any misstep in order to promote the implicit message that they themselves could do a better job. Blinded by ambition or jealousy, what they often fail to consider is the mistakes and tragedies that were avoided thanks to the strong and steady hand of the leadership they are so quick to criticize. From the comfort of their secure positions on the sidelines, they see only the flaws.

Korah had been handed one of the most important supporting roles in the Israelite camp: He and his family carried the Holy Ark when the Mishkan traveled. Yet rather than embracing the sacred trust that had been placed in him, rather than reveling in the proximity he had been granted to what was literally the holiest thing on earth, Korah attacked the members of his own family: He wanted what they had.

Among the great gifts Korah had been given was his children. They were not tainted by their father’s jealousy, and when their father rebelled, they sided with Moshe and Aharon. They were more than content with the task assigned to them; they felt honored to have been entrusted with carrying the Ark of the Covenant. When their father fell into the abyss, they did not go down with him. They lived on, fulfilling their sacred role, and their descendants in turn lived on to serve and sing in the Temple. Korah’s descendants rose to the challenge of the task they had been assigned, and they brought honor to their service, which in turn brought them honor and distinction. They were holy people, from a holy family, whereas Korah lost everything: his honor, his wealth, the respect of his children, and his life. Such is the power of jealousy.

For a more in-depth analysis see:

http://arikahn.blogspot.co.il/2015/06/audio-and-essays-parashat-korach.html

Echoes of Eden