Guest Post: Nathaniel Feingold - "On Korach"

Guest Post: Nathaniel Feingold's thoughts on Korach. Thank you Nathaniel, for allowing me to feature it here. 

Korah belonged to Am Yisrael, which was set apart from the rest of the peoples of the world.

Korah belonged to the tribe of Levi, which was set apart from the rest of the tribes of Yisrael.

Korah belonged to the family of Kehat, which was set apart from the rest of the families of Levi.

But none of this satisfied Korah, the son of Kehat's second son, Yitzhar.

Moshe was the youngest son of Kehat's firstborn son, Amram. He was chosen by God to be leader of the entire people of Yisrael. He was the closest thing Yisrael had to a human king at the time.

Aharon was the firstborn son of Kehat's firstborn son, Amram. He was chosen by God to be the Kohen Gadol, and for his sons and descendents to be Kohanim.

Elitzafan was the middle son of Kehat's youngest son, Uziel. He was appointed Nasi of the families of Kehat.

While Moshe and Aharon were the sons of Kehat's firstborn son, Elitzafan was a son of Kehat's youngest son.

Perhaps one could argue that Korah might have been satisfied not to lead Yisrael or to be Kohen Gadol if he had just been made Nasi of Kehat.

Perhaps it would not have been so unreasonable to Korah that the sons of the firstborn son of Kehat receive the first two offices, but to skip over him for the office of Nesi Kehat? Maybe this contributed to his discontent?

Yet Korah was already a Yisrael, he was already a Levi, he was already a Kehati, all special in their own way, and none of that satisfied him.

What reason is there to think that being Nesi Kehat would have satisfied him? Or being Kohen Gadol? Or even leading the entire nation?

What can possible satisfy someone who already has so much, and is nonetheless ready to rebel and attempt to overthrow the whole system over what he does not have?

Moshe, on the other hand, refused on at least two occasions for he and his descendants to be made "le-goy gadol" at the cost of the destruction of the rest of Am Yisrael.

One has to look very hard and carefully (Divrei HaYamim A' 23:14-17, 26:24-28) even to find out that Moshe's sons went on to make up two of the twenty-four divisions of the Levi'im.

And how easy would it have been for Aharon to assert that, being the firstborn of Amram, he should be leading the nation of Yisrael instead of his younger brother, Moshe?

We see shades of the rebellion of Korah later, in the days of Yarovam ben-Nevat.

While the tribes may have had legitimate gripes about the kingdom under Shelomo and Rehavam, Yarovam used their support as an opportunity to usurp the kingship from David, the priesthood from Aharon, the services from Levi, and the capital and chosen place from Yerushalayim and the Mikdash. And all of Yisrael who followed and supported him and his successors suffered from it.

How "fair" and "equal" of Yarovam to open up the kingship, priesthood, and service of the Levi'im up to any Yisreelite.

Yet it was God Who commanded the Levi'im to be set apart and carry out their services. Who decreed that Aharon and his sons be set apart as Kohanim and Kohanim Gedolim and to carry out their services. Who chose David and his descendents to be the legitimate kings of Yisrael. Who chose Yerushalayim and the Mikdash to place His name and for offerings to be brought.

Moshe did not choose himself to lead Yisrael. Moshe did not choose Aharon to be Kohen Gadol. Moshe did not choose the tribe of Levi. Just as David did not choose himself to be king of Yisrael.

What individual or group can decide what is "more fair" or "more equal" in Yisrael than the God, Who formed Yisrael and decreed these things? Everyone has their mission to carry out.

Korah had a mission to carry out within Am Yisrael, but he was not content to be Korah, and to do what Korah was meant to do for Am Yisrael.

Korah's descendant Shemuel HaNavi, on the other hand, spent his entire life serving HaShem and following His commands.

As Shemuel, the descendant of Korah, said when addressing all of Yisrael when they made Shaul king of Yisrael: "It is HaShem Who made Moshe and Aharon, and Who brought your fathers out of the land of Mitzrayim."

A few thoughts in response to “‘Response to “Jews are NOT indigenous’”

The Judean Hammer Commentary: From the incomparable Nathaniel Feingold.

"Avraham and his ancestors originated beyond the Euphrates River in the lands of Aram. Avraham and his earliest descendants sojourned in the land of Kena'an as strangers. Am Yisra'el received the Torah at Har Sinai and learned to observe much of it in the wilderness, all outside the land. Then Am Yisra'el conquered the land from the Kena'anim and established Torah law over the conquered lands and peoples. This is what the Torah, the Prophets, and the Sages unapologetically affirm.

The millennia of Jewish history as strangers before conquest and as rulers after, the centuries of Jewish kingdoms and Temples, the feeling of a deep connection to the land, Jews should know and be proud of these things, but none of it has anything to do with being indigenous. Jewish people, culture, language, etc. developed in Bavel no less than anywhere else, but that does not make Jews indigenous to Bavel either.

The idea that the Kena'anim were conquering Eretz Yisra'el from the descendants of Shem in the days of Avraham seems to find little support outside of Rashi's comment on Genesis 12:6, even elsewhere in his own commentary. For instance, in his commentary on Numbers 13:22, Rashi indicates that Hevron was built by Ham for Kena'an, rhetorically asking if it is possible that Ham built Hevron for Kena'an, his youngest son, before he built Tzo'an for Mitzrayim, his eldest.

More explicitly, in his commentary on Genesis 1:1 and Psalms 111:6, Rashi reminds us that HaShem, the Creator of the earth, gave the land to the Kena'anim before He took it from them and gave it to Yisra'el:

"Rabbi Yitzhak said, "It was not necessary to begin the Torah except from “This month is to you” (Exodus 12:2), which is the first commandment that Yisra'el was commanded. Now for what reason did He commence with “In the beginning?” Because of [the verse] “The strength of His works He related to His people, to give them the inheritance of the nations” (Psalms 111:6). For if the world should say to Yisra'el, “You are robbers, for you conquered by force the lands of the seven nations [of Kena'an],” they will reply, "The entire earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it and gave it to whomever He deemed proper When He wished, He gave it to them (the Kena'anim), and when He wished, He took it away from them and gave it to us (Yisra'el)." (Rashi on Genesis 1:1)

"When He gave them (Yisra'el) the inheritance of the nations (Kena'anim), He let them know His strength and His might. And Midrash Tanhuma (Buber, Genesis 11): He wrote for Yisra'el [about] the Creation to let them know that the earth is His and that it is in His power to settle in it anyone He wishes, and to move these out and settle others, so that the nations will not be able to say to Yisra'el, “You are thieves, for you conquered the land of the seven nations [of Kena'an].” (Rashi on Psalms 111:6).

This does not say that the nations will not say Yisra'el are thieves. They do, and will continue to say this. Just as they say it when it comes to the particular locations of the Cave of Makhpela, the tomb of Yosef, and the Temple Mount, which were purchased by Avraham, Ya'akov, and David. The point is that Yisra'el should know better than to be convinced by or get sucked into the arguments of the nations. Because it is to Yisra'el that HaShem relayed His creation of the world, and to Yisra'el that He chose to give the land with the conditions of the Torah.

That Avraham and his descendants dwelled in the land of Kena'an as strangers is explained in Rashi's commentary on 15:13: "It does not say, “[strangers] in the land of Mitzrayim,” but “[strangers in a land] that is not theirs,” and from the time Yitzhak was born (Genesis 21:34): “and Avraham sojourned, etc.” (Genesis 20:1): “And [Yitzhak] sojourned in Gerar.” (Psalms 105:23): “And Ya'akov sojourned in the land of Ham.” (Genesis 47:4): “To sojourn in the land we have come.” - [from Midrash Abchir]"

Ramban also explained that the Avot dwelled as strangers in the land in his commentary on Genesis 37:1: "The explanation for "and Ya'akov settled in the land of his father's sojournings" (Genesis 37:1) is that [Torah] is saying that the chiefs of Edom settled "in the land of their inheritance" (Genesis 36:43), the land that they took for themselves as an eternal inheritance, but Ya'akov dwelt as a stranger, as his fathers [Avraham and Yitzhak] did, in a land that was not theirs but Kena'an's. And the intention is to tell us that they [Ya'akov, Yitzhak, and Avraham] chose to sojourn in the chosen land. And it tells us that, "that your offspring shall be aliens in a land not their own" (Genesis 15:13) was fulfilled through them [Ya'akov and Yitzhak], and not Esav. For it was through Ya'akov alone that offspring was considered theirs [Avraham's and Yitzhak's]."

Contrary to the claim that Ramban explains the journey of Avraham's family to the land of Kena'an as a return to their homeland, Ramban explains in his commentary on Genesis 11:28 that Avraham and his fathers had always dwelled beyond the Euphrates River prior to Avraham:

"It is written, "Beyond the [Euphrates] River your forefathers always dwelled" (Joshua 24:2), and the word "always" (me'olam) implies that his forebears had always been there. And it is written, "I took your father Avraham from Beyond the River (me'Ever HaNahar)" (Joshua 24:3) ... Rather, the truth is that their native land was the land of Aram, in the area known as Beyond-the-River (Ever HaNahar), and that was [Avraham's] ancestral inheritence from antiquity. As Scripture says of the descendants of Shem, "Their dwelling place extended from Mesha going toward Sefar, the mountain to the east" (Genesis 10:30), the "mountain of the east" being a general name for a large area, as is written of the descendants of Shem, "in their lands by their nations" (Genesis 10:31). And it is written, "From Aram did Balak, king of Mo'av, lead me, from the mountains of the east" (Numbers 23:7). Thus you see that he (Avraham) and his fathers were from that land (Aram) from antiquity." (Ramban on Genesis 11:28)

And in his commentary on Genesis 14:18, Ramban brings up and dismisses Rashi's interpretation of Genesis 12:6 (that the Kena'anim were conquering the land from the descendants of Shem) based on the peshat of the Torah, which explicitly describes the land as belonging to the Kena'anim prior to Avraham:

"According to our Sages (TB Nedarim 32b), who say that Malki Tzedek was Shem ben-No'ah, he went from his land to Yerushalayim to serve HaShem there, and was a kohen to the Supreme God for them (the Kena'anim), because he was the venerated brother of their father (Ham), for Yerushalayim was always within the border of the Kena'ani. Rashi wrote above [regarding] "the Kena'ani was then in the land" (Genesis 12:6): "[the Kena'ani] was going and conquering the land of Yisra'el from the offspring of Shem, ancestor of Avraham, for it fell in the portion of Shem when No'ah apportioned the earth to his sons, as it says, "and Malki Tzedek, king of Shalem" (Genesis 14:18)." But this is not correct, for "the border of the Kena'ani extended from Tzidon [going toward Gerar, as far as Aza, going toward Sedom, Amora, Adma, and Tzevoyim, as far as Lasha]" (Genesis 10:19) encompassing all of the land of Yisra'el, while the border of Benei Shem was east of Mesha (Genesis 10:30), far from the land of Yisra'el. But if No'ah apportioned the lands to his sons, and gave the land of Yisra'el to Shem, it was as "one who apportions his possessions by his mouth [for distribution after his death]" (a phrase used in TB Bava Batra 126b), and Benei Kena'an would dwell in it until HaShem would endow it to the offspring [of Avraham] who loved Him, as I have mentioned [on Genesis 10:14]."

In other words, while HaShem always intended to eventually give the land to Shem's descendants, the land belonged to the Kena'anim in the days of Shem, Avraham, Yitzhak, Ya'akov, and his descendants, who went from their own lands to dwell in the land as strangers, until He brought Yisra'el out of Mitzrayim, and brought them into the land to conquer it from the Kena'anim. That Yosef refers to "the land of the Ivrim" in Genesis 40:15 does not change that he and his fathers all sojourned in the land as strangers, just as Yisra'el did in the land of Goshen, which was known to be their dwelling place in Mitzrayim.

But even if, for the sake of argument, the nations were convinced that Jews are indigenous to the land, what tangible results do those who push this argument envision? Do they expect these nations to then conclude that the descendants of pre-state and pre-modern aliyot non-Jewish communities are not indigenous, or are less indigienous than Jews? Do they expect the nations to accept the annexation of Yerushalayim and Golan? Do they expect the nations to expect continued military rule of Yehuda and Shomron?

A majority of voting nations supported the establishment of Jewish and Arab states between the Jordan and Mediterranean long before this indigenous fad, and they will continue to demand the establishment of an Arab state in Yehuda, Shomron, and Aza whether they argue that the Arabs are indigenous or not. No matter how you slice it, they demand an Arab state next to Israel, and will not be convinced otherwise by any argument. And those who demand an Arab state on Israel's ruins will not be convinced by any argument either."