What could the 250 have been Thinking?

 

R. Yaakov Bieler

Parashat Korach, 5766

 

One aspect of the Korach story in BaMidbar 16:1-17:26 that appears most counter-intuitive is what God Commands to be done with the firepans that Korach’s followers used, during their ill-fated attempt to serve along with Aharon in the position of Kohen Gadol.

 

BaMidbar 17:1-5

And HaShem Spoke to Moshe saying:

Speak to Elazar, son of Aharon the Priest, that he retrieve the firepans out of the burning[1] and scatter the fire[2] elsewhere, for they (the firepans) have become holy.

As for the firepans of these sinners against their own souls, let them make them into beaten plates for a covering of the altar; for they offered them before the Lord, therefore they have become holy, and they shall be a sign to the Jewish people.

And Elazar the Priest took the copper firepans, wherewith they that had been burned had offered, and they made them into beaten plates for a covering of the altar.

To be a memorial to the Children of Israel that no stranger, who is not a descendent of Aharon, come near to offer incense before HaShem, that he not be like Korach and his followers, as HaShem Said to him (the Children of Israel) by the hand of Moshe.

 

It is difficult to understand how the incorporation of the firepans can be an effective reminder of the Korach rebellion, as well as why implements used by rebels against God and Moshe should be honored rather than out-and-out destroyed.

 

Since the outer altar was composed of copper, at least to the visible eye, [3] why would an additional copper coating even be noticeable, let alone play the role of deterrent to future rebellion?  Furthermore, even if the generation during which the altar was originally built might detect some difference in the artifact’s appearance as compared to what it looked like before the additions were made, down through the ages, those alterations would almost certainly go unnoticed.

 

Perhaps reflecting upon the only manner by which the additional copper plating would serve as a reminder of the rebellion, i.e., explicit discussion and teaching on the part of the respected members of the Jewish community, draws attention to role that must be played by Jewish leadership to continually remind our people about the meaning and symbolism of their religious practices in general, and, in this case, the Korach rebellion in particular. Commemorations like the “Shalosh Regalim” (the pilgrimage festivals) will not necessarily automatically bring to mind ideas derived about the Exodus from Egypt, unless conscious attention is drawn to these historical lessons. Similarly, will a person wearing “Tzitziot” necessarily think of the entire system of Commandments and his relationship to God, or will a person observing Shabbat reflect upon the act of Divine Creation or the need to have consideration for one’s servants and animals, without explicit reminders as to what his ritual practices connote? Similarly the only way the subtly augmented “Mizbe’ach HaZahav”, could serve as a physical reminder of those earlier troubled times of conflict and rebellion is by overt instruction and contemplation.

 

But a more basic question is why the firepans of Korach’s followers were not destroyed, rather than recycling them into the Copper Altar? The Tora is quite explicit when it comes to what to do with the accoutrements of idolatrous practices:

 

Devarim 7:5

But this is how you will deal with them (the Canaanites): You shall destroy their altars, and break down their images and cut down their Asheirim (trees that were objects of idolatrous worship) and burn their carved idols with fire.

 

Is it appropriate to assume that when someone among the Jewish people defies God’s Directives concerning any aspect of the sacrificial rite, including not only the object of worship or the species, age, gender and quality of animal, but also the time, place and identities of who has responsibility to offer the sacrifice, the offering no longer is deemed holy and in compliance with Divine Will, but it turns into “Avoda Zora”, literally foreign, alien, unacceptable service. This is at least one way to understand what happened to Nadav and Avihu in VaYikra 10:1-2; by not being in full compliance with all of the details concerning how sacrifices in general, and in this case the incense offering in particular, they incurred the death penalty, as a result of  “Avoda Zora”.[4]Assuming that such a postulate is reasonable, then what the 250 men carried out in terms of offering incense improperly from the perspective of their not being authorized to do so, should result in their firepans being destroyed, rather than not only being preserved, but physically incorporated into the Copper Altar proper.

 

Is there a way to separate the attitudes and actions of the 250 followers of Korach from those of the leadership personalities, Korach, Datan, Aviram and Ohn ben Peles,[5] of the rebellion? While the Tora does not attribute to the individuals who bring their firepans to challenge Aharon’s exclusive status as High Priest any particular sentiment in terms of their ideological positions with respect to the overall dispute between their leader on the one hand, and Moshe, representing God, on the other, it is reasonable to assume, at least at first glance, that they shared either Korach’s or Datan and Aviram’s views as expressed in the Biblical verses.

 

BaMidbar 16:3 Korach

…You take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation is holy, every one of them and HaShem is among them. Why do you raise yourselves up above the congregation of HaShem?

 

Ibid. 13-14 Datan and Aviram

…Is it a small thing that you have brought us up out (ironically) of a land flowing with milk and honey to kill us in the desert and you also make yourself a king over us?

Furthermore, you have not brought us to a land flowing with milk and honey, nor given us an inheritance of fields and vineyards. Will you take out the eyes of these men...?

 

Korach, Datan and Aviram are therefore presented in the Biblical text as making three essential arguments:

 

a)  Distinctions of status among the members of the Jewish people in terms of respective levels of holiness are being made arbitrarily since the entire people are inherently equally holy;

b)  Moshe has harmed the Jewish people’s situation by extracting them from a materially prosperous environment, and then capitalized on the opportunity to aggrandize himself in terms of political power, filling a vacuum in leadership that he created by taking the people out of Egypt;

and  c)   Moshe has not lived up to the promises that he had made while the people were still in Egypt to the effect that he would lead them to a place that was at least materially the equal of their present location in Egypt (see Shemot 13:5).

 

It would seem that the only one of the three arguments that could be associated with the 250 men bringing incense offerings is Korach’s ( a) ). Bringing firepans does not appear to have anything to do with the physical and material conditions in which the Jews find themselves at this point in time. Wanting to serve as Kohen would seem to reflect the frustration of someone who feels that he is at least as good, if not better, than someone who apparently serendipitously happens to be related to Aharon; therefore a challenge to concentrating power within only Aharon and a portion of his relatives is patently discriminatory and even arbitrary.

 

It seems to me that the 250 followers of Korach were unable to draw the extremely fine line between desiring to serve HaShem at every opportunity by striving to create spiritual contexts that are ever more inclusive, al highly admirable religious quality, suggesting a “Derisha Achar HaShem” (an unceasing quest to draw ever closer to the Divine), on the one hand, and a type of solipsism that insists upon each individual  being afforded the completely identical opportunities that others are given, an attitude and weltanschauung that traditional Judaism roundly critiques within various types of formats. Even if the Choice of Aharon and his descendents was truly arbitrary, the fact that HaShem Issues such a decision should influence anyone possessing some modicum of Faith that the selection principle, even a discriminatory one, must be accepted and even embraced.

But commentators have in fact argued that choosing a particular family line to serve as Kohanim to the exclusion of all others, is in fact not arbitrary, but rather eminently susceptible to human understanding.

 

RaMBaM, Moreh Nevuchim, III:45

…In order to raise the estimation of the Temple, those who ministered therein received great honor; and the Priests and Levites were therefore distinguished from the rest. It was commanded that the Priests be clothed properly with beautiful and good garments, (Shemot 28:20) “Holy garments for glory and for beauty”. A Priest that had a blemish was not allowed to officiate; and not only those that had a blemish were excluded from the service, but also—according to Talmudic interpretation of this precept—those that had an abnormal appearance; for the multitude does not estimate man by his true form but by the perfection of his bodily limbs and the beauty of his garments, and the Temple was to be held in great reverence by all…

Again, the Priests, even when fit for service, and actually officiating in the Temple were not allowed to sit down, or enter it whenever they liked; the Holy of Holies was only entered by the High Priest four times on Yom HaKippurim, and on no other occasion. The object of all of these rules was to raise the estimation of the Sanctuary in the eyes of the people.  

 

Consequently, the argument can be made that “familiarity breeds contempt” and if everyone were equally able to serve as Priests in the Temple, the estimation of the Temple would not be as exalted as when it takes on more of the trappings of an “exclusive club.” Holiness is defined, at least on some level, as “Perisha” and “Havdala” (separation) and therefore distinctions have to be made not only between that which is Kosher and that which is not allowed to be eaten, between the ritually pure and the ritually impure, the Jewish people and those who are not Jewish, but also among Jews themselves, i.e., Kohanim, Levi’im and Yisraelim; men and women; adults and children, etc. In order to assure a sense of distinctiveness and focused dedication, exclusivity on some level becomes necessary. The question that is then being raised by the 250 followers of Korach who did not wish to forgo their own opportunity to serve in the Tabernacle, is: at what point in the interests of advancing the exclusivity of an enterprise, must one sacrifice his own initiative and desires for personal advancement and growth in the interests of the greater whole?

 

Intriguingly, RaMBaM himself offers an alternate explanation for the limitations entailed in the Divine Service associated with first the Tabernacle and then the Temple that results in a completely opposite conclusion!

 

Moreh Nevuchim, III:32

…As the sacrificial service is not the primary object of the Commandments about sacrifice, while supplications, prayers and similar types of worship are nearer to the primary object, and indispensable in attaining it, a great difference was made in the Law between these two types of service. The one kind, which consists of offering sacrifices, although sacrifices are offered to the Name of God, has not been made obligatory for us to the same extent as it had been before.  We were not commanded to sacrifice in every place, and in every time and to build a Temple in every place, or to permit anyone who desires to become a priest and sacrifice. On the contrary, all this is prohibited to us. Only one Temple has been appointed (Devarim 12:26) “…in the place that HaShem will Choose”. In no other place is it allowed to sacrifice; comp. (Ibid. 5:13) “Be careful lest you offer your whole burnt offerings in every place that you see.” And only members of a particular family were allowed to officiate as priests. All these restrictions served to limit this kind of worship, to abolish sacrificial service altogether. But prayer and supplication can be offered everywhere and by every person…

 

According to this perspective, limitations do not reflect extra holiness, but rather an attempt at de-emphasis and dismissal. The more something is accessible to all, the more central it must be and therefore ought to be emphasized. It is possible that these different explanations of RaMBaM can separately apply to entirely different contexts; the fact that he invokes both with respect to the sacrificial rituals engenders confusion.

 

Perhaps the incorporation of the firepans into the Copper Altar was intended to not only make a statement about the dangers of rebellion and defying Divine Authority, but also to force us to continuously revisit the tension between faith and striving for personal advancement, two essential qualities of the religious life.