Skip to main content

Accept No Substitutes

Parashat Behar-Bechukotai (Revised May 8, 2026) This week's double parashah, Behar and Bechuotai, bring to a close the book of Vayikra, a book the all-consuming focus of which is, undoubtably, KEDUSHAH, holiness. The last chapter is concerned largely with the kind of vows people make in dedicating something to the service of Hashem in the Mikdash. There are many laws regulating this seemingly noble motivation and its accompanying action, but my attention was taken this time around by the following law: "If (the devoted thing) is an animal of the kind from which an offering is brought to Hashem, any one which is given to Hashem shall be kodesh . One shall not exchange it ( lo yachalifenu ) nor shall one substitute for it ( yamir oto ), good for bad or bad for good; now if one DOES substitute for it, it will be that it and its substitute will be kodesh ." Vayikra 27:10-11  This mitzvah turns out to be very curious, because one is lashed for its intentional violation...
Post a Comment

The Human Black Hole

The Human Black Hole


Parashat Korach, 5767


I'm very taken with Korach. Oh, I know, if I start up with puns on "Vayikach Korach", we'll be here till carbon emissions decrease, but it still grabs me every time. The first two verses read, translated literally:

"And Korach took (son of Yitzhar son of Kehat son of Levi), and Datan and Aviram and On ben Pelet sons of Reuven.
And they rose up before Moshe and men from the sons of Israel two hundred and fifty, princes of the assembly, those called to meeting, men of renown"

The obvious and famous problem is - What did Korach take? There is no object to this transitive verb!
Here's a digest of some of the most well-known solutions to the problem:

  1. Rashi: He took himself to the other side, so as to be separated from the assembly to contest the (assignment) of the priesthood (to Aharon).
  2. Ibn Ezra: "He took men", the object being omitted (he gives an example of a similar occurrence) [ Hizkuni identifies the men he took: Datan and Aviram; Rashbam is similar, but he has Korah, Datan and Aviram taking the 250 men mentioned subsequently]
  3. Midrash (as interpreted by Ramban): He took counsel with himself.
  4. Ibn Jannach (a famous Spanish grammarian quoted by Ibn Ezra): He undertook to rise up against Moshe. After considering and rejecting other interpretations, Ramban himself explains similarly.
  5. Bechor Shor: Korah took, and then it relates all the events that transpired as a result.

Of course, there's another, much larger question looming. That is: what is Korach's beef? What does he want, what motivates his nearly seditious actions. Why, then, get hung up with grammar?

Unless, of course, the key to that larger question resides in how we understand that hanging word, vayikach! The Chachamim consistently understand the verb lamed-kuf-het as "to buy, to acquire, to gain possession of". Of course, you can only gain possession of something that you don't have. That is why the verb is purely transitive - it can ONLY act on something other than oneself (unlike some verbs which are both transitive and intransitive).

Now Korach was bald. How do I know this? Well, that's what his name means, as does the verb root, kuf-resh-het. That means, he has none of his own hair. The name, then, could be a reference to the fact that he, like all the other Levites, were shaved bodily a few parashiyot earlier upon their entry into their holy work (in fact, Ibn Ezra locates this dispute there, and the Midrash also brings the shaving as a motive for Korach's uprising). Or/And it could be because he was bald even before the ritual shaving. Or: it could have a deeper implication. Nothing comes out of Korach, nothing grows out of him.

If you look at the parashah, you'll see that Korach himself says nothing himself, he does nothing, unless perhaps it's as part of the larger group he/they assemble. Nothing comes out of Korach because Korach wants/needs/takes everything. There's no object to Korach's taking because, feeling himself to have nothing, he takes EVERYTHING. Hence the Jewish proverb, "As rich as Korach".

But what is it that he really doesn't have? Himself. Underneath everything that he does or is imputed to him, Korach is desperately trying to take (purchase/acquire/obtain) himself. Because he sees everything as an object, even himself (self measured by one's standing in relation to others), he must always be attempting to obtain it. Always intake, never output - he is the baldest man in the universe, a veritable human black hole.

Moshe, on the other hand, is the ultimate giver. When Yehoshua is zealous for his teacher's role as prophet, and wants Moshe to act against the apparently unauthorized "taking" of the holy spirit by Eldad and Medad, Moshe corrects him: "If only one would GIVE - all the people of Hashem - prophets, for Hashem gives His spirit upon them". Moshe, too, uses no object to his verb. Pure giving.

Thus, the source of Korach rebellion: The boundless jealousy, capable only in a man who identifies being with taking, of the man who has it all, because he gives it all.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Frontlet Lobotomy

The tefillin worn on the head (henceforth, “ shel rosh ”) differ in a number of respects from the tefillin worn on the arm (henceforth, “ shel yad ”). One of the differences is this: Though both must contain the four passages in the Torah which make mention of the mitzvah of tefillin, the shel yad has all four passages written on a single parchment, in the order they appear in the Torah, rolled up and placed in the single compartment of the shel yad . The shel rosh , however, is constructed such that it has four small compartments side by side. Though these compartments appear to be tightly bound to one another, in fact, they are almost actually completely separate from one another. They only join at a common base, like the fingers of one’s hand. Into each compartment is placed one of the four passages, written on four separate parchments. Here is a list of the passages, in the order they appear in the Torah: 1.        Kadesh Li – Shemot 13:1-10 ...
Post a Comment
Read more

You're Shofar Away

For this commandment which I am commanding you today is not too wondrous for you, nor too distant. It is not in the heavens, such that you should say, “who will go up to the heavens and take it for us and inform us of it that we may do it; Nor is it over the sea, that you should say, “who will cross for us to the other side of the sea and inform us of it that we may do it. For this thing is so very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart to do it. Devarim 30: 11-14. So, it’s that easy, says Moshe, over three thousand years before Nike: Just do it!! The only problem is: what is “it”? Not such an easy question. Many of us are most likely walking around, carrying out our daily tasks with a mixture of freshness and drudgery, but in background that question keeps asking itself, punctuated a bit differently: what is it? But although Rosh Hashanah is almost upon us, let’s not get too wistfully philosophical – at least not yet. Let’s ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Wiping the Disk and Saving the Animal

Why the animals, too? That’s the question I’ve always dreaded from my kids when it comes time for Parashat Noach – meilah , the sinful humans, but why the animals? What did they do? Why did everything need to be obliterated. At the end of Bereshit, Hashem “regrets” he created man, since his urge and thoughts are only evil all day. And therefore – all creation is exterminated?? What’s the connection? It’s true, we’re told that “all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth”, and the Midrash explains that everything had relations with everything else. But if this is true, why is man singled out for special mention? Did we lead the charge, seducing the ant and the elephant alike? And besides, isn’t this approach the complete antithesis of what we read not so long ago in Maftir Yonah, where Hashem has pity on Nineveh, where there are oh so many ignorant people AND EVEN LOTS OF ANIMALS!! So if he didn’t punish there, why does he punish here. And now f...
Post a Comment
Read more