Ethical Teachings of the Torah

Korach & Co. [9]

As all the stories in the Tanach, that of Korach and his congregation too, concludes with a note that puts the whole story in its true religious and spiritual perspective. The revolt centered around the role of Aharon, the Kohanim and the Leviyim in religion, in worship and in spirituality, and its story ends with G-d’s covenant with them and details their responsibilities regarding the Avoda of the Mishkan. Always they had to remember that G-d said, “I give you your priesthood as a matana, a free-willed gift” (Bamidbar 18:7).
In the aftermath of Korach, the people feared that everyone who came close to the Mishkan and its service would die; repeatedly the Torah cautioned, ‘that no stranger shall draw near nor perform any of its functions’. Yet here, it was made quite clear that proximity was not the issue rather the responsibility for any carelessness or forgetfulness in the service or treatment of the vessels; this responsibility was laid completely on the Kohanim and Leviyim; “You and your father’s house have to bear the iniquity against the Mishkan and the priesthood” (Bamidbar 18:1). Kohanim and Leviyim thereby became more a spiritual protection than the threat that Korach claimed.
No real wrong or sin is envisaged; rather carelessness such as forgetting the person who had brought the korban or not following the exact procedure and thereby showing disrespect for the Sanctuary and its Avoda. “If one cast the blood of the korban as required yet does not know in whose name it was done, or offered the cheilev as required but did not know in whose name, then the kohanim are guilty of sin” (Sifri). So we see that the fate of the house of Eli was only sealed because his sons shamed the offerings. “If the man bringing the korban would say to the young kohanim, ‘let the cheilev be made to smoke [as the din required] and then take as much as your heart desires, but the priest’s servant said, ‘give it to me now or I will take it by force’. And the sin of the young men was very great because they dealt contemptuously with the offering of the Lord” (Shmuel Alef 2).
“These examples of iniquities against the Sanctuary show that the Mikdash is not to be regarded as a building containing certain objects but as an institution for the spreading of Holiness, obtained principally through procedures of the offerings that express its demands for the way our lives are to be lived. So, avon hamikdash, iniquity against the Mikdash, is the misuse by the priesthood of their functions for their own selfish ends. Not only is there sin if a kohen were to presume to take something for himself which he is not entitled to, but even if he only takes something prematurely that which is to come to him later on. The whole meaning of the Mikdash and his Avoda must have escaped his attention; he must have forgotten that what he gets from the offerings of the people of Israel, are from G-d’s table” (S. R. Hirsch).
“G-d said to Aharon, ‘You shall have no inheritance in the Land nor shall you have a portion amongst them; I am your portion and your inheritance in the midst of Israel’” (Bamidbar 18:20). This portion and inheritance, is expressed in the apportioning of the Levitical cities out of the territories of Klal Yisrael; 3 cities in Eretz Yisrael and a parallel 3 across the Jordan plus an additional 42 throughout the Land. Through these cities the whole nation would be taught by this tribe that was dedicated to the service of G-d, how to grow spiritually and become elevated to a Holy Nation.
Together with the cities allocated to the Leviyim, came the ground surrounding them (Bamidbar 35:1-5): 2000 amot on each of side according to Rashi or according to Rambam, 3000. Irrespective of these sizes, is the teaching that there was to be a green belt around the city solely for beautification that could never be developed nor built on; surrounding this zone was an another area for agriculture and industry. Apart from the aesthetic and ecological implications, the fact that the townspeople could not decide to expand the city because of the green belt, meant that development and growth had to come through the establishment of new cities. These restrictions meant that the society was saved the congestion, alienation, pollution and social turmoil that accompany urbanization. Economic development of society is restricted so as too prevent abuse and waste just that of the individual is curbed to prevent immorality and injustice.
“‘The cities you shall appoint as refuge, so that the manslayer who kills through error, may flee there’ (Bamidbar 35:6). The cities of refuge had to constitute the small world of those exiled there for manslaughter. They had to provide for all the needs, even the special spiritual and intellectual requirements of the particular individual. Furthermore, the general population of the city had to represent all the national classes of Israel - Kohanim, Leviyim and Israelim” (S. R. Hirsch). Perhaps we may see a parallel between what constituted an iniquity of the Kohanim against the Kodshim and the conditions under which these cities gave refuge. The iniquity lay in carelessness and neglect of the prescribed ritual; the cities only gave sanctuary where a killing was unpremeditated and unintentional, where the possibility of accident should have occurred to the person and in which careful precautions may have prevented any death.
“One who kills that created like G-d’s Image, even accidentally, justifiably has no place in G-d’s world. However, G-d in His Infinite Mercy apportioned the cities of refuge as a place for him” (Chiddushei Harim of Gur) “Since the avoda of the Leviyim is through song, through hymns and ecstasy, their cities granted new life to one who killed accidentally and therefore would have lost his own ” (Shem MiShmuel).

• Other Ethical Teachings of the Torah
• Today is the Birthday of the World, whether as Children or as Servants [2] by Dr. Meir Tamari
• Funding Social Costs - Taxation [2]
• THE CHALLENGE OF MONEY - Funding Social Costs - Taxation [1]