[Index of all Weekly Divrei Torah pages]

While traveling in the desert, the Jews were arranged in a specific order. To the south was the tribe of Reuven. About them, the sages said (and Rashi mentions), “Oy to the wicked, oy to their neighbors.” In other words, the evil of the wicked rubs off on their neighbors as well. In this case, the tribe of Reuven traveled just to the south of the Tabernacle, where the priestly family of Kehot was located. From the family of Kehot came the rebel Korach, who rebelled against the leadership of Moshe. When he was punished, two hundred and fifty people from the tribe of Reuven were punished with them. Thus, “Oy to the wicked (Korach), oy to their neighbors (the tribe of Reuven).”

Digging into the details, we find the same idea expressed in three different commentaries, with subtle variations:

1) The Midrash Tanhuma (Bamidbar 12) says, “And from the south, the sons of Kehot, and nearby to them the tribes of Reuven, Shimon and Gad. From here, the sages derived that ‘oy to the wicked, oy to their neighbors,’ applies to the three tribes who were the neighbors of Korach and his congregation to the south. They were lost together with him during the rebellionŔ
2) The Midrash Raba (Bamidbar 3:12) says, “The three in the south, who dwelt near the trouble makers, were destroyed with them. About this it is said, ‘oy to the wicked, oy to their neighbors.’ And who were the trouble makers? They were Korach ben Yitzhar ben Kehot, and since Reuven, Shimon and Gad were nearby them, they were all considered trouble makersŔ
3) Rashi (Bamidbar 3:29) says, “Nearby to them, the group of three tribes associated with Reuven, camping to the south, ‘oy to the wicked, oy to their neighbors,’ and therefore from among them, Datan and Aviram and two hundred and fifty others [were destroyed] with Korach and his congregation, since they were influenced by him in his quarrel.”

Among the variations between the commentaries are the following;
1) The Tanhuma says merely that the three tribes were “lost together with Korach,” without elaborating.
2) The Midrash Raba adds that since the three tribes were considered “trouble-makers,” they were all destroyed together Korach.
3) And Rashi says that the tribes were “influenced” by Korach, and that is the reason they were destroyed together.

Another difference; Rashi does not mention the names of the other tribes when discussing who was influenced. He mentions only the tribe of Reuven, while both the Tanhuma and the Midrash Raba mention all three tribes; Reuven, Shimon and Gad. Moreover, the Midrash Raba and the Tanhuma do not go into detail regarding who from the tribe of Reuven was destroyed in the quarrel with Korach (it certainly was not the entire tribe, just a relatively small number of people). Rashi though takes care to explicitly mention who was lost; Datan, Aviram and two hundred and fifty others.

By way of explanation, there are three different concepts regarding how neighbors may or may not influence each other and interact together;
1) Two or more neighbors happen to live in proximity, without there being any essential connection between them. Because of their proximity, they “rub off” on one another, but that is only because of their environment, not because they have any personal influence on one another. For example, just because one is the neighbor of a righteous man, the reward of the righteous may accrue to him as well, or vice verse in the case of a wicked neighbor.

2) The neighborly proximity may have an essential effect. That is, because they live so close to one another, one neighbor may have a powerful influence upon another neighbor. His influence may be so great that the two join forces out of a sense of shared purpose.

3) It could be that they are neighbors because they have similar outlooks, or opinions or approaches to life. That is, their neighborliness does not “cause” the influence that the two have upon one another, but it is a sign of it. In such a case, the proximity brings out and reveals the similar traits of the neighbors. They in any case have similar approaches, but the fact that they are neighbors brings them together to express it.

There is a halachic source for the three concepts above: When two neighbors share a common wall that divides their respective houses, and the wall becomes contaminated with a “plague,” both of them are required to deal with the situation, even though the plague may be on only one side of the wall (Torat Cohanim on Vayikra 14:40, and the Mishnah in Negaim 12:6). That is, even though the plague may only affect one of them, both neighbors are required to work together to uproot and eradicate it. Why? Because, “Oy to the wicked, oy to his neighbors;” the evil of the wicked rubs off on their neighbors.

There are three explanations of this halacha:
1) It has nothing to do with the wall, but with the neighbors themselves; quite simply, when there is a plague on either side, both neighbors are required to get involved in removing the stones, purifying them and replacing them.

2) The halacha applies to the wall, not only to the infected side, but also to the clean side. However this may occur in two different ways. According to Rashi, it applies to the cornerstone of the house, which is visible to both neighbors; when the cornerstone is afflicted with plague on one side, even the “clean” side must also be “purified.”
3) Or, the law applies not only to the cornerstone but to the entire wall

that separates between the neighbors; if there is plague on any part of
the wall on one side, the neighbor on the other side must also get
involved.

The three explanations correspond to the three concepts of neighbors described above. According to the first explanation, neighborly relations are only external; there is no intrinsic connection, but since the two parties are neighbors, they must act together to purify their common wall. According to the second, the plague has a more insidious influence – it is a problem that affects the cornerstone (not the entire wall), but since the cornerstone can be seen by both parties, both must participate in removing it. Only one neighbor is infected, but he has the ability to influence the other neighbor, and therefore both must participate. But according to the third explanation, the plague on one side of the wall means that there is plague on the other side as well, even though it cannot be seen. The very fact that it appears on one side indicates that the other side is also infected. The infected side does not have to influence the clean side; the very fact that it is present on one side is a sign that the two neighbors share a common affliction.

Now, we can return to the pshat – the simple meaning of the Torah text,
and explain it, also according to the three concepts described above. The three commentaries on relations between the tribe of Reuven and his neighbor Korach – the Midrash Tanhuma, the Midrash Raba and Rashi – also correspond to the three concepts, as follows;

The Midrash Tanhuma corresponds to the first explanation – that the effect that Korach had upon Reuven was only because they were physical neighbors – and not because there was any more meaningful connection between them. Because they lived near each other, the two hundred and fifty men from the tribe of Reuven were dragged into the dispute, even they were not really influenced internally by Korach. But because they were neighbors, the punishment that was meted out to Korach was visited upon the men from Reuven as well. This is why the Tanhuma uses the terminology of “lost” together with Korach, implying that they were only drawn into the dispute, but not that they were essentially involved.

Rashi, though takes the opposite approach; the influence of Korach over his neighbors to the south was essential and meaningful. According to Rashi, Korach truly persuaded Reuven of the justice of his rebellion against Moshe and its significance for them. That is why Rashi uses the term “destroyed” rather than “lost” (as in the Tanhuma), to emphasize that the men of the tribe of Reuven were punished because they were truly persuaded by Korach. They didn’t just “happen to be there,” they were involved in the dispute and persuaded of the justice of Korach’s cause.

The Midrash Raba takes the third approach; it wasn’t the environment (neighborhood) that led to Reuven’s involvement; it was the very nature of the tribes (Reuven, Shimon and Gad) themselves. They were in essence people who were prone to dispute and to argument. Their proximity to Korach was only the catalyst that brought out their argumentativeness, but their very nature was to quarrel. That’s why the Midrash Raba says, “They were trouble makers…men of strifeŔ as if to say that it wasn’t Korach’s influence that brought them into conflict with Moseh (as Rashi says, they were “pulled into the dispute”), but rather their own inner nature.

Based on this explanation, we can understand why Rashi mentioned only the tribe of Reuven, saying that they were “dragged” into the dispute, and neglected to mention the other two tribes of Shimon and Gad. According to Rashi, evil neighbors have the power to influence and persuade, and even change their neighbors. However, it is understood that this influence is not equal among all people. In our parsha, since it was the tribe of Reuven that was closest to Korach, it is they who were the most influenced. Moreover, Rashi indicates that it wasn’t the entire tribe, but only two hundred and fifty men who were influenced. Rashi singles them out for mention, because according to his opinion, the other tribes (Shimon and Gad) and even most of Reuven itself, were not drawn into the dispute. Korach’s ability to persuade was powerful, but not unlimited, and only those closest to him were swayed by his arguments.

The theme of neighborly relations is affected by another issue, and that is the issue of learning the Torah. Although there was strife among the southerly neighbors, the neighbors to the north (Moshe and Aharon, who were neighbors with Yehuda, Yissachar and Zevulun) lived in peace. The reason? Because Yehuda and his fellow tribes internalized the value and benefit of learning Torah, which they in turn absorbed from Moshe and Aharon. Their proximity to Moshe and Aharon influenced Yehuda to learn Torah and that brought peace to the entire northerly camp. The way to avoid strife and quarreling and to guarantee unity among Jews is by learning Torah. The entire purpose of the Torah is to bring peace to the world, and in a place where strife and quarreling occurs, the Torah can instill peace and unity. The job of a Jew is to have a positive effect upon other Jews, and one way to do that is by learning Torah, so that the positive effects “overflow” and become evident to other Jews, who then want to assimilate Torah, as well.

From Likutei Sichot of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, ztz’l, vol. 33, pp. 10-17
Rabbi David Sterne, Jerusalem Connection in the old city of Jerusalem