[Index of all Weekly Divrei Torah pages]
Parshat Bamidbar describes the census of the Jewish People and the arrangement of the camps of the tribes around the mishkan (tabernacle). Rashi, Midrash Tanhuma and Midrash Rabba all discuss how the location of the tribes within their camps helped determine which tribes became involved in Korach’s rebellion. Korach came from the tribe of Levi and didn’t think it was fair that Moshe was the leader of the Jewish people and that his brother Aaron and his sons should have the privilege of serving as priests. Korach thought that he should have a more important role. Korach’s rebellion met with stunning defeat, and those involved in the rebellion were punished.
Rashi notes the camp and flag of Reuven and Kehot (where Korach was located) were located at the South side of the mishkan (tabernacle). Concerning their involvement in the rebellion, Rashi commented “Oi to the rasha (wicked man), Oi to his neighbor.” Although the entire tribe of Reuven was not punished, certain individuals (Datan, Aviram and 250 others) were “dragged into” Korach’s rebellion and punished. Midrash Tanhuma’s account is slightly different; he commented that the tribes Shimon and Gad “got lost” with Korach and his machlokis (dispute), and the land opened up its mouth and swallowed them along with their houses and all of their possessions. This implies the tribes were swept away by the controversy and were helpless to stop it. However, the Midrash Rabba states the three tribes in the south were baalei machlochis (the type of people who by nature look for fights).
There are several ways one can be said to be influenced by his neighbor. A person may be affected only in an external way by the neighbor’s deeds. For example, the Gemarah at the end of Tractate Sukka describes the way in which guards in the mishkan were punished because of their association with a woman who converted to another religion. They were punished along with the woman, although they were not internally affected by her deeds. Second, a neighbor may be transformed to some extent by living with a good neighbor and exhibit traits resulting from this influence. Third, the fact that a man may have the same traits as his neighbor may be an indication that he was placed next to him because he has a similar personality. The neighbor brings out certain traits that existed as potential.
These three ways of being a neighbor are illustrated by the laws concerning leprosy when it strikes houses. There are three opinions regarding a person’s responsibility when his neighbor discovers leprosy on the wall they share. One opinion states that while the neighbor is not responsible for the leprosy, he is affected externally and should help his neighbor remove the stones. Rashi’s opinion is that the neighbor is partly responsible for the leprosy if it is discovered on the corner stone, that he is affected by his neighbor’s problem and should remove the stones. A third opinion says the neighbor is responsible if the leprosy occurs on any part of the wall, that the existence of leprosy indicates something about his character too, and he should also remove the stones from his wall.
Returning to the subject of Korach’s rebellion, we can see that Midrash Tanhuma’s opinion is that Korach’s “neighbors” were affected merely externally. They “got lost” in Korach’s machlochet (his controversy), and for that they were punished. Rashi takes it one step further, using the plural, machlochtan (their dispute) implying collective responsibility. According to Rashi, they didn’t just “get lost,” but they allowed themselves to get “dragged along” by Korach’s rebellion. Although they didn’t get totally involved and swept up in the same fury that affected Korach, they were nonetheless influenced by him. Midrash Rabba says the neighbors were baalei machlochis, that there was something in their nature that craved fighting, and that they were totally immersed in the dispute and just as responsible as Korach himself.
Looking at the positive side, we can see that Midrash Tanhuma and Rashi’s views apply also to good neighbors. On the East side of the mishkan, the tribes of Yehuda, Zevulun and Issachar camped alongside Moshe and Aaron. As a result, these tribes became very learned and great in Torah. In the words of the Midrash Tanhuma, “Leadership will not be removed from the Tribe of Yehuda.” This implies an external relationship, as if leadership is not an intrinsic quality, but can be removed and transferred from one tribe to another. However, Rashi quotes tehillim (psalms), which refers to Yehuda as “my lawgiver,” which expresses the intrinsic merit that he attained through the influence of his righteous neighbors.
We can learn from this that the way to avoid machlochet is to be occupied in Torah, and that a person can be great in Torah only when a person avoids disputes. We read Bamidbar before Shavuos, the holiday commemorating Mattan Torah (the giving of the Torah to the Jewish people), to emphasize the effect of peace and unity, since the Torah was given in order to bring peace to the world. The Tzaddik, or righteous person, influences those around him, bringing peace and unity to the world through his Torah study, and thus ushers in the coming of Moshiach.
Shavuah tov, have a great week!!
Rabbi David Sterne, Jerusalem Connection in the old city of Jerusalem