“BiSodam Al Tavo Nafshi,” (in their stealth my soul shall not come), this is the act of Zimri, when the tribe of Shimon gathered and brought a Midyanite woman to Moshe. They said to [Moshe], ‘is she forbidden [to marry] or permissible? If you say she is forbidden, then who permitted you to marry [Tzipora,] the daughter of Yisro?’ [Yaakov’s] name should not be mentioned in the matter, as it says, ‘Zimri, the son of Salu, leader of the Shimonite household’ (BaMidbar 25:14) [but does not trace Zimri’s lineage to Yaakov].
“BiKhalam,” (in their gathering), when Korach, who is from the tribe of Levi, will gather the whole congregation against Moshe and Aharon, “Al Teichad Kevodi,” (my honor shall not join), my name should not be joined to them, as it says “Korach, the son of Yitzhar, the son of Kehas, the son of Levi’ (BaMidbar 16:1) but it does not [continue] ‘the son of Yaakov.’
Rashi, Beraishis 49:6
Before his death, Yaakov requests that his name not be mentioned in conjunction with Zimri and Korach, the sinful descendants of his sons Shimon and Levi. Yaakov’s request is odd. Why does he fear being associated with these two men? The Bnei Yisrael sinned several times in the Midbar. Yaakov should at least equally fear being associated with people like the Meraglim (1) or with sins like the Egel HaZahav. What stands out to Yaakov about Zimri and Korach?
Additionally, Rashi’s comment implies that Yaakov’s prayer was the very cause for the omission of his name. But when is Yaakov’s name ever mentioned in conjunction with his descendants? Whenever the Torah introduces an individual, that individual’s lineage is traced no farther back than to his tribe. Betzaleil ben Uri ben Chur LiMatei Yehuda. (Shemos 31:2) Ahaliav ben Achisamamch LiMatei Dan. (Shemos 31:6) Shlomis bas Divri LiMatei Dan. (VaYikra 24:11) Bnos Tzilophchad ben Cheifer ben Gilad ben Machir ben Menashe LiMishpachos Minashe ben Yoseif. (BaMidbar 27:1) To name a few. Why then would Yaakov suspect that his name would be mentioned in conjunction with any descendant? And why specifically in conjunction with these two?
The Gur Aryeh notes that Korach’s lineage is already clear from the pasukim in Parashat Va’Eira. (6:16,18,21) There is therefore no need for the pasuk in Parashat Korach to repeat this information, except to emphasize Korach’s greatness. Just as the two hundred and fifty men that Korach gathered were “Nise’ai Eidah Kriyai Mo’eid Anshei Sheim,” (leaders of the congregation, regularly called upon, men of stature), so too Korach was a celebrated individual. Therefore, it would make sense that Yaakov’s name appear in conjunction with Korach, for none of Korach’s descendants were of greater stature than Yaakov.
The Levush HaOrah takes the Gur Aryeh’s explanation one step further. On the words VaYikach Korach, Rashi explains that Korach ‘took himself,’ meaning that Korach separated himself from the rest of the nation to rebel against Moshe. The word “take,” however, does not normally mean to separate but rather to persuade. (2) In fact, the pasuk that Rashi quotes (Iyov 15:12) in support of his definition for the word Lakach, “Ma Yikcha Libecha,” (what does your heart teach you), connotes persuasion and not separation. (3) The Levush HaOrah instead understands Rashi’s comment to mean that Korach’s heart persuaded him to separate from the nation. Korach said to himself, “I am a son of Yitzhar, or Kehas, of Levi, and especially of Yaakov! I, not Aharon or Moshe, should be in charge!” There is therefore good reason for Yaakov’s name to appear in the pasuk, but Yaakov prayed that his name be omitted, and his prayer was answered.
The same can be said for Zimri. Rashi’s comments in Parahsat VaYechi refer to the “act of Zimri,” but Rashi then recounts the argument that Zimri and his tribe made to Moshe, not Zimri’s act of promiscuity. Why does Rashi focus specifically on Zimri’s argument with Moshe when Zimri’s true error seems to be his promiscuous behavior? Perhaps Yaakov did not worry that his name would be mentioned in conjunction with Zimri just because Zimri took a Midyanite woman to his tent. But the audacity that Zimri shows by contending with Moshe, by thinking ‘if Moshe can take a Midyanite woman, then so can I,’ suggests a level of arrogance similar to Korach’s. Perhaps Zimri too perceived himself as a great leader of the Jewish people, and one who descended from Yaakov. All that greatness went right to Zimri’s head. Again, there would be good reason for Yaakov’s name to appear in conjunction with Zimri, but Yaakov prayed that it should not.
There is another interesting parallel between the life of Yaakov and those of Korach and Zimri. Yaakov was the younger son in his family, but he stole the Bechorah, and the right to perform the Avoda in the Beis HaMikdash, from his older brother Eisav. Yaakov then fled from his home to the foreign land of Padan Aram, where he married Leah and Rachel. Perhaps Korach’s and Zimri’s rebellions were inspired by the actions of their ancestor. Korach’s father, Yitzhar, was the younger brother of Amram, Moshe’s and Aharon’s father. Perhaps Korach thought he was entitled to ‘steal’ the lofty titles of leadership from his older cousins, just as Yaakov was entitled to steal from Eisav. Perhaps Zimri thought he was permitted to marry a foreign woman, just as Yaakov did twice.
But Korach and Zimri were mistaken. Each one’s status as a Ben Yaakov did not entitle him to lead a life like Yaakov’s. In fact, each one’s status as a Ben Yaakov entitled him to nothing. Rather, the true role of a Ben Yaakov, or Ben Yisrael, is one of service.
And where is [Yaakov’s] name mentioned in conjunction with Korach? When tracing the ancestry of those who ascended [to sing in the Beis HaMikdash], as it says, “ben Aviasaf ben Korach ben Yitzhar ben Kehas ben Levi ben Yisrael”
Rashi, BaMidbar 16:1
The mention of Yaakov’s name is reserved for those descendants who, like Yaakov, devoted their lives to service of Hashem. Yaakov may have carried fame and stature wherever he travelled, but the life he led was never one of entitlement but rather one of tumult.
“VaYeishev,” (and he settled), Yaakov requested to settle in tranquility, but the tumult of Yoseif sprang up on him. The righteous request to settle in tranquility in this world, [but] Hashem says, ‘is it not enough for the righteous what is fixed for them in the World to Come that they request to settle in this world [as well]?’
Rashi, Beraishis 37:2
When Korach plots against Moshe and Aharon, he accuses them of assuming the two positions of greatness: one is the King and the other is the High Priest. Korach felt entitled to these roles. However, neither Moshe’s role or Aharon’s role were titles, and neither reflected a state of entitlement. Rather, these roles were responsibilities. The word Kehuna itself does not refer to a status but rather to the responsibility LiKahein, to serve. As a waiter would serve a patron at a restaurant, so would a Kohein serve Hashem.
At the root of all willful error lies a false sense of entitlement. Those distant from Hashem justify their lack of service in the toil of their own labor. For instance, when the Bnei Yisrael complain about the Man in Parashat BiHa’alosicha (BaMidbar 11:5), they remark, “We remember the fish we used to eat in Mitzrayim for free.” Rashi comments that the fish in Mitzrayim obviously cost money, for if the Egyptians would not supply the Jews with mortar and straw, then they certainly would not supply fish. Rather, Rashi explains, the fish were ‘free of obligation.’ In other words, as the Mizrachi explains, the Jews didn’t have to make Berachos on their food. All that freedom changed when their food began to rain from heaven.
There is a simple problem with Rashi’s explanation. If Moshe fed the people meat, then they would still have to make a Beracha. How then does the nation’s request for meat satisfy their desire to be free from obligation? But there is a simple answer to this question. A person who catches, slaughters and prepares his own game feels entitled to his food and can ignore Hashem’s obvious involvement in these activities. In contrast, how could one possibly feel a sense of entitlement when eating magical prepared food (4) that rained from heaven?
Those close to Hashem are susceptible too. Closeness to Hashem can support a false sense of entitlement, as indicated by Moshe in his parting speech.
And he will bless himself in his heart and say ‘I will have peace, for I will walk by the wont of my heart.’
Devarim, 29:18
Moshe directs his words at those who accept Hashem’s Bris and accept the calamitous consequences of straying from that Bris. Even among those people, there will still be some individuals who justify their sinful lifestyles. They will ‘bless themselves;’ they perceive themselves as blessed. Their hearts will tell them that they are close with Hashem, and they will become complacent with that sentiment. They will trust their hearts, but with little concern for the Torah knowledge they possess.
Such was the error of Korach, a man so touched by the experience of Har Sinai that the experience became the very basis of his rebellion. (5)
Avodas Hashem is the inherited responsibility of a Jew. May we merit to assume this responsibility with all due passion and zeal, but without a false sense of entitlement.
(1) According to the gemara in Sanhedrin (109b), “Bisodam Al Tavo Nafshi” refers to the sin of the Meraglim. Rashi omits this interpretation in lieu of the interpretation found in Beraishis Rabbah (98:5). See the Nachalas Yaakov for an in-depth discussion regarding Rashi’s partiality towards the Medrash’s interpretation.
(2) For instance, when Hashem commands Moshe to “take” Aharon and teach him to perform the Avoda, (VaYikra 8:2), Rashi explains that the word Kach in that context refers to Moshe’s need to “take Aharon with words and persuasion.”
(3) Although Onkelos translates VaYikach as “VaIspaleig,” (and he separated himself), Rashi explains the pasuk in Iyov to mean that one’s heart persuades him to separate from those around him. This in turn explains why the verb in Onkelos is reflexive while the word Lakach itself is active. The reflexive word refers to the actions of Korach on himself, but the active word refers to the actions of Korach’s heart.
(4) The name Man refers to the fact that the food was already prepared to be eaten when it fell. (Rashi, Shemos 16:15)
(5) Rashi explains that Korach’s seminal argument “the entire congregation is holy and Hashem is in their midst” (BaMidbar 16:3) refers to the fact that every Jew heard Hashem speak at Har Sinai.