The Nature of Kehilla
(Community)
R. Yaakov Bieler
פרשת
קרח, תשס"ח
Moshe
Rabbeinu encounters a type of opposition in Parashat Korach that
he has not previously had to deal with. Beginning in Sefer Shemot, when
the Jews complained about water, food, and being pursued by the Egyptian
cavalry, no names were ever associated with the disgruntled individuals voicing
their displeasure. They were always members of the anonymous masses, and
perhaps feared being singled out as the “opposition.” The reticence of the
complainants begins to change in last week’s Parasha, Shelach,
when the Tora lists the individual names of the spies who offer the
critical report that leads to the Divine Decree condemning the generation of
the Exodus to die over the course of forty years of desert wandering.[1] Nevertheless, a specific
spokesperson, a ringleader, of the ten dissidents is never identified.[2] Parashat Korach
escalates the disputes with Moshe to the point where they become quite
personal; not only do we know the name of the organizer, (BaMidbar 16:1)
“Korach ben Yitzhar ben Levi”, and his associates, (Ibid.) “Datan
VeAviram benai Eliav” and “On ben Pelet”, but we are witness to
Datan’s and Aviram’s audacious response to and disrespectful refusal to meet
with Moshe:
BaMidbar 12-14
And Moshe sent to
call upon Datan and Aviram, and they said, “We will not come up (to you).
“Is it a small
thing that you caused us to leave a land flowing with milk and honey (Egypt) to
cause our deaths in the desert, and you also insist upon ruling over us
(telling us what to do)?
You certainly did
not bring us to a land flowing with milk and honey to give us an inheritance of
fields and vinyards. Will you put out the eyes of those people? We will not
come up.”
Moshe’s frustration and anger as a result of
this new level of disrespect must have been extremely difficult for him to deal
with.
But
in addition to the personal challenges that Moshe is forced to face at this
point in his stormy relationship with the Jewish people, there is also a greater
theme transcending both Moshe and Korach, that underlies the entire biblical
story, one that is indicated by two key words. Modern Bible scholarship
regularly searches out “Milim Manchim” (lit. guiding terms) when seeking
out new approaches to the literal understanding of the text. Encountering
various forms of the same word as well as its synonyms draws attention to the
concept represented by such words, and forces the reader to relate the concept
in question to the particular story in
the biblical passage’s foreground. In this case, various forms of the words “Kahal”
(an aggregate of people) and “Eida” (a congregation) appear fifteen
different times in BaMidbar 16 and 17.[3] Consequently, Korach and his
followers were not only challenging Moshe personally, but simultaneously
bringing into question the nature of Jewish community—who and what constitutes
the “Kehilla”? Who actually leads it? What are/should be its goals and
aspirations?
This
past Shavuot, I spoke about how the Tora in the book of Devarim
refers a number of times to the day upon which the Tora was given as “Yom
HaKahal” (the day of the congregation).[4] The repeated use of this term
by Moshe when he recalls this most seminal event that occurred forty years
earlier, suggests that a Tora-based community, in order to not only
merit being given the Tora in the first place, but also to retain it as
its touchstone, must strive to become and remain a true Kahal.. And lest
one think that this was a one-time occurence relegated only to when the people stood
at Sinai, or at best only during their wanderings in the desert, we find the
terminology of “Kahal” noticeably mentioned again with respect to an
event that transpired hundreds of years later when Shlomo inaugurates the
Melachim Alef 8:1,2
Then Shlomo “Yikhal”
(gathered into a Kahal) the elders of
“VaYikahalu”
(and they gathered into a Kahal) to King Shlomo every man of
Midrash Yalkut Shimoni Melachim Alef #184 draws the following conclusion from the
appearance of the root “Kuf” “Heh” “Lamed” in these two
verses:
This comes to teach that the Divine
Presence will only rest upon a Kahal.[6]
Consequently, when Shlomo gathered the people
prior to the sanctification of the
Melachim Alef 8:10
And it was once the Priests had exited
from the
The
first instance when the word “Kahal” appears in the Tora is in my view
particularly significant with respect to appreciating a particular nuance that
is crucial to the concept. As part of his blessing to Yaakov, Yitzchak declares:
Beraishit 25:3
And the All-Powerful God will Bless you
and Make you fruitful and Make you multiply and you will become a “Kehal
Amim” (congregation of nations).
The phrase “Kehal Amim” would appear
to be an oxymoron:
Either
we are a Kehal, or we are many individual Amim?[7]
R. S.R. Hirsch addresses this paradox in the
following manner:
You, Yaakov, need take nothing with you
but God; He will Bless you, i.e., Give you the means to found a household, and
then give you the strength to beget children, and to bring them up in your own
spirit, that you repeat and multiply yourself in them,
and
you will have, what I, (Yitzchak) did not succeed in having, Amim children of different kinds, roots
of the future diverse tribes, but they will
still be a Kahal, form one united body, there will be no Pesul (disqualification) amongst them.
The commentator is keying upon the fact that
in reality, there can never be a Kahal that is comprised of a multitude
of individuals who are all completely alike. Human beings are inherently
different, which in turn makes it more likely that they will remain separate Amim
than ever become a single Kahal. However, if we assume that achieving
the state of a true Kahal is
necessary in order to function as a spiritual, Divinely Inspired community,
then that inherent diversity that seems particularly indigenous to the Jewish
people must per force be coordinated and integrated into something that is much
greater than what each group or individual might possibly be able to accomplish
on its or his own. Self-conscious effort must be expended by every Jew, whereby
each person decides that he will forego some of his own personal goals
and aspirations for the good of the aggregate, in order that the desired sense of Kehilla can be
achieved. The fact that Am Yisrael
has often appeared to be closer to an loose collection of Amim, nations,
tribes, individuals, than a great and united Kahal forces us to
interpret Yitzchak’s blessing to his son in the following manner: Your
offspring, as varied as they may prove to be, have at least the potential to
blend into a Kahal with proper motivation and leadership. It is when
this potential is finally realized that
the continual receiving of the Tora and the reconstruction of the
The source in Yalkut
Shimoni cited earlier with respect to Shlomo’s dedication of the
Tehillim 68:27
“BeMakheilot” (in groups) they
bless the Lord…
R. Hirsch, in his
commentary to the book of Psalms,[8] invokes a theme somewhat
similar to his interpretation of the phrase “Kahal Amim,” although this
time he notes that the plural “Makheilot” makes us think of
multiple Kehilot, rather than a single one:
When
Wherever since
that time ten men gather to worship God, they stand in spirit there where their
fathers stood bodily upon the banks of the
A
wonderful additional perspective regarding the concept of an ideal Kahal
is suggested in Robert Alter’s approach to this verse in his new translation of
Tehillim.[10] Alter understands the word “Makheilot”
to connote “choruses.” In fact, in Modern Hebrew, “Makhela” is the word
for chorus. Such a translation gains support in light of language in the Shabbat
and Yom Tov morning liturgy: “U’BeMakhalot Rivevot Amcha Beit
Yisrael BeRina Yitpa’er Shimcha Malkeinu BeChol Dor VaDor” (And in
groups [choruses?] of tens of thousands Your People, the House of Israel in
joy/song will glorify Your Name, our King, in every generation,) i.e.,
joyous praises are often raised within the context of song. What is significant
about such an understanding is that whereas the word “Kahal” might
simply suggest a group of individuals who are not necessarily particularly
coordinated with one another, a Makheila’s ability to produce beautiful
music is extremely dependent on how those making up the group interact in a
precise and predetermined manner. The members of a chorus do not sing a single
note in a single key sharing the same pitch. Great choral music depends upon
blending many different voices to produce exquisite harmonies. Sometimes even
the words of the libretto may not be recited simultaneously, but in rounds.
Consequently, while the members of this particular type of Kahal will be
acting in a certain manner as individuals, they also seek to share a bond and
relationship that requires them to take note of one another and act in unison,
even as each of their individual talents manifest themselves in markedly
different ways.
Alter’s
creative translation of “Makheilot” in Tehillim 68 and the reflection
that it evokes, is reminiscent of another of R. Hirsch’s comments with respect
to the ideal coordination of an individual’s diverse sensibilities, strengths,
emotions and cognitive abilities.
Beraishit 33:18
And Yaakov came “Shalem” (whole)
to the city of
“Shalem”—in full, harmonious and
undiminished completeness…
“Shalem” is the expression of
the most complete harmony, especially the complete agreement of external
matters with internal ones. All true peace, worthy of the name Shalom,
even of civil life is not one made according to stereotyped external patterns,
but must come out from inside, from the nature and ideal of the harmonious
order of the matters of life…
Achieving such a state of inner and outer
harmony is clearly an ideal, and one can imagine how difficult and even rare it
might be to successfully reach such a point on an individual level. When the
challenge of finding Shalom necessitates extending this state of mind to
include one’s spouse, i.e., the explicit and direct connotation of Shalom
Bayit, the order of magnitude of difficulty increases exponentially.
Include children into the equation, and additional complications of necessity
arise. The acute intensity of the challenge continue to increase when it
becomes necessary to coordinate the needs, attitudes and actions of additional
relatives, families, neighbors, communities, etc. to allow for true, harmonious
Shalom to be achieved. But can the members of an ostensible Kehilla strive to at least approach
anything less idealistic in order to be truly worthy of the name?
I
would like to think that in KMS’ 18 year existence, we have all worked to
create an exemplary sense of Kahal, recognizing and striving mightily to
account for as well as revel in our diversity, and accomplishments. We are obviously
comprised of different cohorts at different stages of life, varying levels of religious observance and
education, diverse political positions, professional activities, and family
challenges. And yet, while we may go off to our respective Minyanim, nevertheless,
just this past year, we have shared a number of experiences en masse, as a
great Kehilla. A few of these kinds of activities readily come to mind.
Just this past weekend, we were able to revel and take pride in a wonderful Run
for Israel program, and over the course of the previous months and weeks, we
experienced marvelous sessions with R.
Adin Steinsaltz and Natan Sharansky, watched films about the love of a boy for
prayer despite incredible odds, and a religious Israeli war hero who won the
country’s highest honor for valor. We joined together to engage in Chesed activities
and to send packages to our troops in
I
am confident that as KMS welcomes a new Executive Committee and Board, we will
continue to pursue those activities and approaches to both maintain our sense
of Kehilla as well as work constructively to take it to new and ever
greater heights.
[1] BaMidbar 13:4-5; 7; 9-15.
[2] Ibid., 13:27 contains two plural verbs, “VaYesapru” (and they told), “VaYomru” (and they said) suggesting that they all took part in the presentation, perhaps even simultaneously. This construct is carried forward in v. 31 with the verb “VeAmru” (and they said), as well as in v. 32, “VaYotziu” (and they brought forth), “Avarnu” (we passed), “RaInu” (we saw). V. 33 completes the presentation with the verbs “VeRa’inu” (and we saw), “VaNehi” (and we were), “BeEineinu” (in our eyes), “VeHayinu” (and we were.)
[3] “Kahal”—BaMidbar 16:3, 19, 33; 17:7, 12.
“Eida”—Ibid., 16:3, 9 (2x), 11, 16, 19, 21, 22; 17:6, 10.
[4] Devarim 9:10; 10:4; 18:16. In 4:10 Moshe attributes to God the Call to group the people into a “Kahal” prior to their receiving the Tora.
[5] One rationale for calling Tishrei by this name are the deeply significant holidays, i.e., Rosh HaShana, Yom HaKippurim, Sukkot, that occur during this month.
[6] This Midrashic source adds another dimension to the well-known Talmudic passage concerning the appropriate pre-requisites for the dwelling of the Divine Presence:
Shabbat 30b
This is to teach you that the Divine Presence does not dwell in the midst of laziness, in the midst of frivolity, in the midst of light-headedness, in the midst of conversation, nor in the midst of empty matters, but rather in the midst of the joy of fulfilling a Commandment…
Whereas the Talmud concerns itself with the state of mind of a particular individual, the Midrash raises the issue that even if particular individuals might achieve optimal states of focus and seriousness, if this does fnot take place within an aggregate of many individuals who have reached a similar cognitive and psychological state, no Presence of Shechina will be experienced. Such a perspective might then beg the question whether the individual who possesses the self-discipline to potentially reach the ideal religious level, by associating with a Kehilla, will he inevitably be thwarted from becoming spiritually inspired due to the presence in the greater group of some who not only have not reached a similar state, but who have absolutely no interest in doing so? Is it therefore better for such an individual to study a nd pray by himself? Or must he take a pro-active stance to attempt to share his understandings and approach with others to the point where they are deserving of welcoming the Shechina? This question parallels the argument among the commentators concerning the 10 individuals on whose behalf Sodom would have been saved had they been determined to exist: do they justify saving the city simply on the basis of their existence, or do 10 righteous people constitute a critical mass that has the potential to change their environment, and should they choose not to try to accomplish such a change, then even their existence will be deemed to be at risk.
[7] It was
this very dichotomy that Natan
Scharansky challenged during his recent
presentation at KMS, when he discussed his new book, Defending Identity: Its
Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy (Public Affairs,
[8] Feldheim
Publishers,
[9] “For they have seen Your Ways, Oh God, the Ways of ‘Keili’ (My God), My King in holiness.” The parallel between the use of “Keili” in this verse and in Shemot 15:2 probably precipitated R. Hirsch’s associations between verses in this chapter of Psalms and the Song of the Sea.
[10] The Book of Psalms, Norton, 2007.