Battle of Wills

On its face, the story of Korach V’Adaso may seem like a typical uprising. We can assume that Korach was jealous of the Gedulah found by his cousins, Moshe and Aharon, and he therefore staged a rebellion. As we know, however, there are many levels of depth to every story we find in the Pessukim, and we must try to uncover them. In this case, a unique connection between Korach and Sefer Tehillim may allow us to do just that.

Kapital 42 begins with the words “Lamenatzeach Maskil L’Bnei Korach”, and is the first of ten Perakim attributed to this group. There is a Machlokes among the Meforshim as to the presence of Bnei Korach in Sefer Tehillim, which is important to understand.

Rashi here explains that three sons of Korach—Asir, Elkana, and Aviasaf—were originally caught up in their father’s scheme, but separated themselves when the Machlokes erupted. Because of this, when the earth swallowed up the Adas Korach, a shelf was emerged for them on which they rested rather than descending into Gehinom. The Gemara in Sanhedrin explains that this is the meaning of the words “U’Bnei Korach Lo Meisu”. They were not left upon this earth, but they survived. The Gemara relates that they remained on the shelf singing Shira, and Rashi explains that this Shira became these Perakim of Tehillim.

Radak, on the other hand, explains that the Bnei Korach were not in fact involved in authoring these Perakim. Rather, Dovid Hamalech wrote them and gave them to the Bnei Korach who were Meshoririm—the Leviim who sang Shira—at the time. According to this approach, these Perakim are not that much different than many others in Sefer Tehillim which were written by Dovid, Al Pi Ruach Hakodesh, and given to the Leviim to sing as Shira in the Mikdash.

According to the view of Rashi, however, these Pessukim are unique: they were composed by the Bnei Korach as they sat below the earth’s surface, no doubt contemplating the circumstances that had led to their disposition. If we learn the Pessukim with this in mind, we can certainly gain insight into the Pessukim in this week’s Parsha.

In general, this Kapital is quite plain, and almost visceral. The Bnei Korach do not hide their feelings of longing for connection. They speak of a thirst for HKBH, “Tzama Nafshi L’Elokim”, and the tears they shed as they await his salvation, “Haysa Li Dimasi LEchem Yomam V’Layla”.

So raw are the emotions expressed in this Perek, and so full of desperation that the Meforshim understand them as the words of Yidden in Galus as well. As we find ourselves removed from Eretz Yisroel, bereft of the Mikdash, we too cry out “Masai Avo V’Eraeh Pnei Elokim”.

In contrast to the following Pessukim, however, the initial words of the Perek are given to metaphor. The Bnei Korach say: “K’Ayal Ta’arog Al Afikei Mayim Ken Nafshi Ta’arog Elecha Elokim”. The literal meaning of these words would seem to fit the theme of this Perek, comparing the cries for Hashem to cries for water emanating from a thirsty deer. Obviously, however, we must assume that the choice of this Mashal is, the “Ayal Ta’arog Al Afikei Mayim”, is intentional and conveys a deeper message.

Rashi explains that the Ayal is the “Chasida Shebichayos”, the righteous among animals. When the other creatures are thirsty, they gather around the Ayal and she raises her eyes to Shamayim. Then, she uses her horns to dig a deep hole, and then cries out and HKBH causes the water to rise, so that the animals may drink.

The words of Rashi are based on the Medrash Shochar Tov earlier in Tehillim, on the words “Lamenatzech Al Ayeles HaShachar”. The Medrash doesn’t mention the Bnei Korach at all, but tells us that Dovid Hamelech witnessed this act of Chesed of the Ayal and wrote a Perek of Tehillim refering to it.

If we take the view of Rashi on this Perek, however, we have to understand that the Bnei Korach were comparing their cries of longing for HKBH, to the cries of the Ayal as she tries to bring forth water for the other animals. How can we understand this comparison? As they sat on their “shelf” suspended between earth and Gehinom, they cried out to Hashem in the manner of the Ayal—how and why?

The way in which they express this longing is notable as well. They say “Ken Nafshi Ta’arog Elecha Elokim”, using the Shem Elokus. Now, we know that the various Shemos of HKBH each has its own meaning and connotation, and the name “Elokim” refers to Middas HaDin. If, as we have seen, the Bnei Korach were below the earth, they would need Rachmei Hashem to emerge, why do they seem to be asking for Din?

If we assume that the Bnei Korach, in situ, were reflecting on the events that caused them to be “Lo Mesu”, then perhaps we can explain their words if we better understand those events as well.

Although we learn the story of Adas Korach in this week’s Parsha, reference to the story is made much earlier in the Torah, in a way that is quite interesting.

In Parsha Vayechi we learn of the Brachos given by Yaakov Avinu to his sons just before he left this world. In some cases, these Brachos were accompanied by Tochacha, as Yaakov spoke about the times that his children had perhaps stumbled. This is especially true when it comes to Shimon and Levi, who were addressed jointly. Among Yaakov’s words to them are the following statement: “B’Sodam Al Tavo Nafshi B’Kahalam Al Techar Kevodi Ki B’Apam Hargu Ish U’BiRetzonam Akru Shor”.

The Medrash Rabah, there, explains that each of these four phrases refers to a different incedent: “B’Sodam Al Tavo Nafshi” to the Ma’aseh Zimri, “B’Kahalam Al Techar Kevodi”, to Korach V’Adaso, “Ki B’Apam Hargu Ish” to Ir Shechem and “U’BiRetzonam Akru Shor” to Mechiras Yosef. The intent of the Medrash seems to be that the foibles of their descendants—Zimri came from Shimon and Korach from Levi—was the result of the brothers’ actions in Shechem and Mechiras Yosef.

The Shem M’Shmuel in Parshas Vayechi reacts to this Medrash with one word: “Esmahah”. How are these incidents all related? Why did the fact that Shimon and Levi wiped out the city of Shechem, and sold Yosef, cause Zimri and Korach to be Choteh in the way they were?

He explains that these incidents are indeed linked, if we look at the root cause of each mistake.

After Shimon and Levi returned from the massacre in Shechem, their father expresses his anger at them, saying “Achartem Osi”. The Shem MiShmuel notes, however, that Yaakov knew they had instructed the men of Shechem to do Milah on themselves—and he must therefore have understood their intentions. Why, then, was he upset when they carried out their plan?

Based on the words of his father, the Avnei Nezer, he explains that it must be that Yaakov and the other Shevatim assumed that the Bris Milah would cause the inhabitants of Shechem to come “Tachas Kanfei Hashechina”, and they were waiting for that to come to fruition. Shimon and Levi, however, could not bear the notion that their sister had been violated, and they felt that there was no hope for the people of Shechem, and so they reacted in the way they did. This is why Yaakov was upset at them: there was a plan, but Shimon and Levi could not contain their feelings and acted in way worth of the words “Achartem Osi”.

A similar characteristic was seen in Mechiras Yosef as well: the Shevatim felt that Yosef was a Rodef and would prevent them from being connected to HKBH. They sold him not out of malice or hatred, but out of a Ratzon for Devaykus Hashem. This is seen in the words “U’BiRetzonam Akru Shor”: it was the Ratzon of the Shevatim that caused them to falter in Mechiras Yosef.

This trait was passed down and seen in the descendants of Shimon and Levi as well.

The Medrash notes that Zimri committed his Aveirah because he drew an incorrect conclusion from the Ma’aseh Tamar. It was his Ratzon to create Doros of Neviim that caused his Aveirah—similar to the way his great-grandfather had been victim to his own Retzonos.

The Shem MiShmuel explains that this was at the root of Ma’aseh Korach as well. Chazal tell us that Korach was an “Ish Gadol V’Kadosh” who had Ruach Hakodesh, we cannot assume that his actions were taken out of a base desire for Kavod or stature. Rather, he had an intense Ratzon to be closer to Hashem, to do the Avodah and even enter Lifnai V’Lifnim. His mistake was that he did not contain these Retzonos, but allowed them to dictate his actions—much to his detriment.

The lesson of all these events is that we cannot allow our Retzonos, pure as they may be, to control us. Rather, the Ratzon HaBorei must be our guide, dictating our actions in any given situation.

This was the lesson learned by the Bnei Korach expressed in the words “K’Ayal Ta’arog Al Afikei Mayim Ken Nafshi Ta’arog Elecha Elokim”.

The Ayal wants to bring forth water for her charges, and she lifts her eyes to the heavens only then acting, and only then crying out to HKBH. She has a desire to help the other animals, but cannot act unless it is within the parameters of the Borei Olam. She cries out once the hole is dug, having done her part, so that the Ratzon HaBorei can then come forth.

The Bnei Korach are saying that their desire to be close to Hashem will follow this pattern as well: they will look to Shamayim, deciding wether their Retzonos are in line with the Ratzon Hashem, only then acting. They will also see their Hishtadlus for what it is—just that—and recognize that they will be affective only if the Ratzon Hashem is so.

The use of the term “Elokim” is therefore appropriate as well. The concept of Din is related to constraints, to ensuring that everything fits into appropriate boundaries. The Bnei Korach are therefore expressing a desire for a relationship with “Elokim, based on containing their Retzonos and ensuring they are properly limited.

The lesson learned by Bnei Korach is one that is well-suited to us as well. In persuing Kedusha we must always ensure that our Retzonos are in line with those of the Borei Olam, so that we may indeed be Zoche to the connection we all desire.