“And Hashem spoke to Moshe saying: Say to Elazar, the son of Aharon, the Kohen,
that he should pick up the censers from the burned area and throw the fire
away, because they have become sanctified – the censers of these who sinned at
the cost of their lives. And they shall
make them into flattened out plates as an overlay for the altar, for they
brought them before Hashem and have become sanctified. And they shall be a sign for Bnai
Yisrael. And Elazar the Kohen took the
copper censers which the fire victims had brought, and they hammered them out
as an overlay for the altar, as a reminder for Bnai Yisrael, so that no
outsider, who is not a descendant of Aharon shall approach to burn incense
before Hashem. And one should not be
like Korach and his company, as Hashem spoke regarding him through Moshe.” (BeMidbar 17:1-5)
Parshat Korach describes the rebellion of Korah,
Datan, Aviram and their followers against Moshe. This group challenged Moshe’s leadership. The specific issues upon which the rebellion
focused are not described in detail.
However, it is apparent that Korach and his followers opposed the
appointment of a specific family to serve as Kohanim. They believed that the entire nation was endowed with sanctity
and that all members of Bnai Yisrael should be equal in their right to serve
Hashem in His Mishcan. Moshe’s
contention was that his appointment of Aharon and his descendents to serve as
Kohanim did not represent a personal decision.
Moshe followed the commandment of Hashem.
Moshe attempted to resolve the issue through
discussion. However, he suggested that
if Korach and his followers absolutely insisted on challenging Aharon’s
appointment, then the issue should be decided through a simple test. Aharon and the other aspirants for the
priesthood should each take a censer and offer incense in the courtyard of the
Mishcan. Hashem will demonstrate
through His response which of these individuals is His chosen Kohen Gadol.
Korach and his followers accepted this challenge. They brought their censers to the Mishcan’s
courtyard, added coals to their censers, and placed incense of the coals. Aharon’s offering was accepted. But a flame descended from the heavens and
consumed the pretenders.
Our passages deal with the aftermath of these
events. Hashem commands Moshe to
communicate a set of instructions to Elazar – Aharon’s son. There are two elements to these
instructions. Elazar is to proceed to
the area of the conflagration. The
first element is that he is to dispose of the contents of the pretenders’
censers. He to empty the contents to
the ground. Second, Hashem tells Moshe
that the censers used by Aharon’s opponents have been sanctified. Elazar is to take the censers and create
from them a covering for the altar.
This covering will be a reminder to Bnai Yisrael that no person who is
not a descendant of Aharon is authorized to offer incense – or other sacrifices
– to Hashem.
On the surface these instructions are easily
understood. Elazar is to create a permanent
reminder of these events. The censers
are perfect for this function. They can
be beat into flat sheets and fashioned into a covering for the altar situated
in the courtyard of the Mishcan. Bnai
Yisrael will see this covering each time they looked upon the altar. The covering will remind them that the
service performed through the altar – the offering of sacrifices – is preserved
for Aharon and the Kohanim.
However, a closer analysis of these instructions
suggests a number of problems. First,
Moshe is to instruct Elazar to fling the contents of the censers to the
ground. Why is this instruction
needed? Apparently, Hashem is
communicating to Moshe that the ashes of the offering do not require any
special treatment. What is this special
treatment? Why would Moshe think that
special treatment is required? Why is
this treatment not required?
Before considering any further problems, let us
answer this question. Each day,
sacrifices were offered on the altar.
These offerings generated ashes.
The ashes had sanctity. This
sanctity dictated that the ashes receive special treatment. They were removed from the altar and placed
in a predetermined place. Rabbaynu
Ovadia Sforno explains that Hashem was communicating to Moshe that the ashes of
the offerings of the pretenders have no sanctity. They do not require the special treatment afforded to the
remnants of sacrifices. Instead, they
should be unceremoniously flung to the ground.[1]
This explanation responds to the first question but
it creates a second problem. Hashem
explained to Moshe that the censers of Aharon’s opponents were sanctified. These were formed into a covering for the
altar. This is paradoxical. The offerings of the pretenders had no
sanctity and were treated disdainfully.
But the censers were sanctified and were used to create a covering for
the altar!
In order to resolve this paradox it is important to
understand it more fully. Moshe was
told that the remnants of the offerings of the pretenders did not have
sanctity. This implies that their
offerings were not regarded as legitimate acts of avodah – service to
Hashem. This status was a result of the
very nature of the test. All of the
contenders offered incense. Only
Aharon’s offering was accepted. This
demonstrated that his offering was regarded by Hashem as a legitimate act of
avodah. The other offerings were
rejected. The status of avodah was not
conferred upon them. Therefore, the
ashes of the offerings of the pretenders had no sanctity. They were the ashes from an activity of
pseudo-avodah. However, according to
this analysis, it follows that the censers the pretenders selected to use for
their offerings should also not have sanctity.
They selected these censers for an activity that was not truly
avodah. They should not have any
special status. However, this is not
the case. Hashem instructed Moshe that
these censers did have sanctity and should be used to fashion a covering for
the altar.
Sforno suggests a response to this paradox. He concedes that the selection of these
censers for use in this offering did not confer any sanctity upon them. However, he suggests that since these
censers did have sanctity, we must conclude that the pretenders had dedicated
them for other service in the Mishcan in addition to this offering. The use of the censers in this offering did
not confer upon them sanctity. However,
the dedication of the censers for more general use in the Mishcan was effective
in conferring upon them sanctity.[2] It must be acknowledged that it seems odd that
these pretenders designated their censers for other service in the Mishcan and
not simply for this specific occasion.
It seems that Sforno is forced to this conclusion. He reasons that if the censers were only
used in the Mishcan on this single occasion and they had not been designated
for any other service, they could not have become sanctified. Therefore, it must be deduced that the
censers had been designated for other service in the Mishcan.
Rashi does not seem to be bothered by our
problem. He seems to indicate that the
censers received their sanctity from this offering.[3] This is Nachmanides’ understanding of
Rashi’s position. Nachmanides asks the
obvious question on this position. The
offering was rejected. This means that
the only offering for which censers were designated was an invalid
offering. This should not confer
sanctity on the censers. Nachmanides
provides a response on Rashi’s behalf.
He explains that although the offering was rejected, the pretenders were
responding to Moshe’s challenge. They
were participating in a challenge commanded by Moshe. They believed that their offerings would be accepted. Therefore, the designation of the censers
for use in the challenge imposed by Moshe conferred sanctity upon them.[4]
Ultimately, Nachmanides rejects this explanation and
proposes an alternative. He argues that
Hashem is not telling Moshe that the censers acquired sanctity through the
designation of Aharon’s opponents.
Instead, Hashem is telling Moshe that He has conferred sanctity upon
them in order that they may become a reminder to Bnai Yisrael of the authority
of Aharon and his descendents.[5] In other words, any designation that these
opponents may have given to the censers was misguided and did not confer
sanctity. However, Hashem designated
these censers as a memorial. This
conferred sanctity upon them.
We can understand Sforno’s and Nachmanides’
resolution of the paradox. According to
both of these opinions, the offerings of the pretenders were not actual
avodah. Therefore, the ashes from these
offerings had no sanctity and the use of the censers in these offerings did not
confer any sanctity upon them. Their
sanctity was derived from some other source.
Sforno and Nachmanides suggest alternative possibilities for this source. However, even with Nachmanides’
clarification, Rashi’s resolution of the paradox is not evident. The censers acquired their sanctity when
they were selected and designated for use in this contest imposed by
Moshe. But if the censers acquired
sanctity in this manner, why were the ashes of the offerings not also
sanctified?
It seems that Rashi differs from Sforno and
Nachmanides in his basic understanding of the challenge imposed by Moshe. Sforno and Nachmanides seem to propose a
straightforward and obvious interpretation.
Aharon’s opponents believed that their authority of offer sacrifices was
no less than his own. Moshe suggested
that this thesis be put to a test. Let
them present their own offerings. If
their offerings are accepted, then their thesis will be proven. If their offerings are rejected, their
thesis will be disproved. Their
offerings were rejected. This disproved
their claims and indicated that their offerings were not avodah.
Rashi rejects this understanding. His understanding of the test is somewhat
more abstract and requires an illustration: A drug manufacturer wishes to test
a new medication for some disease. He
assembles a group of volunteers to participate in a test of the drug’s efficacy. All members of the group suffer from the
complaint the drug is designed to treat.
Some members of the group receive the medication. Other members of the group receive a
placebo. The members of the group that
receive the placebo experience some minor improvement in their conditions. However, the members of the group that
receive the medication experience marked improvement in their conditions. Which members of this group participated in
the test of the new medication? It
would be incorrect to say that only the individuals who received the proposed
medication participated. Even those who
received the placebo participated.
Without the administration of the placebo the test would be meaningless.
Rashi seems to propose a similar interpretation for
Moshe’s challenge. The challenge was
designed to affirm Aharon’s unique position and authority. This could not be accomplished through
Aharon alone offering a sacrifice. In
order for the demonstration to have meaning, Aharon’s offering needed to be
accompanied by the offerings of other individuals. If Aharon’s offering would be accepted and theirs rejected, then
Aharon’s claim to the priesthood would be established.
According to this understanding of the test, all of
the individuals who offered incense participated in Aharon’s offering. Their participation affirmed the unique
status of Aharon and his offering.
Certainly, this was only accomplished through the rejection of their
incense. However, the designation of
their censers for use in this test was effective in conferring sanctity. These censers were designated for use in a
single sacrificial service designed to affirm Aharon’s status.
In other words, according to Sforno and Nachmanides,
each person who participated in the test offered his own sacrifice. Of all of these sacrifices, one was accepted
– Aharon’s – and the remainders were rejected.
According to Rashi, all of these individuals participated in a single
service. Aharon’s service was only
significant because of, and through, the participation of the others. Therefore, their censers which they
designated for use in this service were sanctified through this designation.
[1] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar, 17:2.
[2] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar, 17:3.
[3] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar 17:2.
[4] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar 17:2.
[5] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar 17:2.