Bamidbar: When Closeness Is More Than Geographic

Our Sages note that the flag of the camp of Reuven was located to the South,7 next to the descendants of Kehos who camped “on the southern flank of the Sanctuary,”8 and comment – “Woe to the wicked person and woe to his neighbor,” as Rashi quotes in his commentary on the latter verse.

We find this concept interpreted differently in several sources. Among them:

Midrash Tanchuma9 states:

“To the South – the descendants of Kehos.” Bordering on them were the tribes of Reuven, Shimon, and Gad. About them, it can be said, “Woe to the wicked person and woe to his neighbor.”

[The camp of] these three tribes bordered on [the camp of] Korach and his company on the South. [Some of the members of these tribes] perished together with [Korach] in his dispute [with Moshe and Aharon], as it is written,10 “The earth opened its mouth and swallowed them, their households, all that they owned, and all the people together with Korach and all [their] property.”

Bamidbar Rabbah11 employs slightly different wording:

[Some members of] the three [tribes who camped] in the South near the inciters of the dispute perished with them, and concerning them, it can be said, “Woe to the wicked person and woe to his neighbor.”

Who were the inciters of the dispute? Korach, the son of Yitzhar, the son of Kehos. Because they [camped] next to them, [the tribes of] Reuven, Shimon, and Gad were all [also considered] inciters of the dispute. This is reflected in the verse,12 “Korach, the son of Yitzhar… and… the descendants of Reuven.” Similarly, the descendants of Gad and Shimon were also inciters of dispute.

On the verse,² “the families of the descendants of Kehos will camp… on the southern flank…,” Rashi comments, “neighboring them was the flag of Reuven, who camped to the South. ‘Woe to the wicked and woe to his neighbor.’ Therefore, Dasan, Aviram,13 and 250 men from this camp were punished together with Korach and his company, because they were drawn into the dispute together with them.”14

Among the differences between these interpretations: Midrash Tanchuma states merely that the members of the tribe of Reuven who engaged in the dispute were punished together with Korach: “They perished together with him in his dispute.”15 (For this reason, as support, it cites the prooftext – “The earth opened its mouth and swallowed them, their households, all that they owned, and all the people together with Korach and all [their] property” – which speaks merely about their punishment.)

In his commentary, Rashi states that some members of these tribes “were stricken together with Korach and his company,” teaching not only that they were punished together with Korach, but also that “they were drawn into the dispute together with them,”16 i.e., the wicked ones also drew their neighbors into the actual transgression. (For this reason, Rashi omitted the prooftext cited by Midrash Tanchuma, “The earth opened its mouth…,”) because Korach’s influence on these individuals involved far more than the mere fact that they were punished together.

Bamidbar Rabbah goes a step further:17 There were members of the tribes of Reuven, Shimon, and Gad who were not merely drawn into the dispute by Korach, they “were all inciters of dispute…. they too were inciters of discord.”18

There are other points in Rashi’s commentary and questions regarding his divergence from his sources that require explanation. Among them:

a) Rashistates, “Neighboring them was the flag of Reuven, who camped to the South.” He – unlike Midrash Tanchuma and Bamidbar Rabbah – does not mention that this encampment also included the tribes of Shimon and Gad.

On the surface, it appears that Rashi was precise in the wording he chose, stating, “the flag of Reuven,” and not “the flag of the camp of Reuven,” as stated in the verse,¹ and as he states shortly thereafter in his commentary, “the flag of the camp of Yehudah.” This indicates that his words refer only to the tribe of Reuven and not the tribes who camped together with him.

The point is even more puzzling: Shortly thereafter, on the phrase,19 “Moshe, Aharon, and his sons,” Rashi comments, “Neighboring them was the flag of the camp of Yehudah and those who camped with them, Yissachar and Zevulun. [Concerning this encampment, it can be said,] ‘It is good for the righteous and good for his neighbor.’ Since [these tribes] were the neighbors of Moshe, who was occupied in Torah study, they [too] became great in Torah study.” Rashi’s source is in the passages from Midrash Tanchuma and Bamidbar Rabbah, loc. cit.20

When stating that “it is good for the righteous…,” Rashi mentions not only Yehudah, but also Yissachar and Zevulun. Why then when speaking about “woe to the wicked” does Rashi deviate from his source, mentioning only “the flag of Reuven”? On the surface, it can be said that according to a straightforward understanding of Scripture, the reason is that we do not find evidence that tribes of Gad and Shimon were drawn into the dispute initiated by Korach. However, it is necessary to understand the reason for this distinction. And it is also necessary to understand the difference between the approach of Rashi and the Midrashic sources: Was it only the tribe of Reuven who was drawn into the dispute or did being Korach’s neighbor also have an effect on the tribes of Shimon and Gad?

b) Midrash Tanchuma and Bamidbar Rabbah do not specify which of the members of the tribe of Reuven perished with Korach and his company. Rashi, however, specifies that this included “Dasan, Aviram, and the 250 men,” who by and large were from the tribe of Reuven.21

It is possible to clarify the above by first explaining the different ways in which a person influences and affects his neighbor:

a) A neighbor’s influence can be entirely external; a righteous person receives reward for his Divine service and that reward is also extended to his neighbor. Similarly, the converse is true; punishment to be visited upon a wicked person also affects his neighbor.22 This is reflected in the straightforward understanding of the Talmud’s wording at the conclusion of Tractate Sukkah23 that the entire priestly mishmar24 of Bilgah was punished because Miriam, a descendant of one of the families of that mishmar, abandoned her faith. To resolve the question why “the entire mishmar was punished” because of her, our Sages explain that they were punished because, “Woe to the wicked and woe to his neighbor.”25

b) There are times when the effect of a neighbor is internal. A person can affect the manner in which his neighbor conducts himself,26 and, indeed, can affect the neighbor’s internal being.27

c) The fact that two individuals or groups are neighbors is not the reason that “it is good for the righteous and good for his neighbor” or that “woe to the wicked and woe to his neighbor.” Instead, it is a defining characteristic of the neighboring people or groups, i.e., the fact that they are neighbors shows that they share a connection that reflects their nature, characteristics, and the like. The fact that one lives near the other reveals and brings the other’s similar characteristics into the open from a hidden state, enabling their potential – whether positive or negative – to be actually expressed.

It is possible to say that the source for these three ways in which neighbors can affect each other is reflected in the source for the concept, “Woe to the wicked and woe to his neighbor,” in halachah – specifically, the laws involving tzaraas blemishes on homes.28 Regarding a tzaraas blemish that appears on a common wall between two homes, the Torah states,29 “The kohen shall order that they shall remove the stones upon which the blemish is found.” Toras Kohanim comments on that verse:

“They shall remove” – this teaches that they both must [participate in] the removal. Based on this [source, our Sages] said, “Woe to the wicked and woe to his neighbor.” Both must [participate in] the removal; both must [participate in] scraping out [the remnants of the mortar]; both must [participate in] bringing [new] stones.

Similar statements are found in the Mishnah, Tractate Negayim.30

There are three interpretations of this law:

a) “If there is a [common] wall intervening between two homes, should a tzaraas blemish appear on the wall of one home, the owner of the other home must work together with the owner of the home with the blemish [to rid it of the traces of tzaraas], as [implied by] the plural [form of the verb in] the phrase, ‘They shall remove...’ ”31

According to this interpretation, the obligation does not apply to the object – i.e., the wall itself, which is referred to as the cheftza, belonging to the neighbor. Instead, the law applies to the actions of the gavra, the person himself – what he as a neighbor of the wicked person must do. He must work with the owner of the blemished wall to remove the stones, scrape out the mortar and bring new stones for that neighbor’s wall.

b) Alternatively, the obligation for them both to remove the objects on which the tzaraas blemish appeared applies not only to the gavra, but also to the stones. Even though the blemish did not appear on a stone or a portion of a stone located in the neighbor’s house, that stone or portion of a stone must also be removed.

c) Further, there are two interpretations of this obligation:

1) Rashi’s approach in his commentary at the end of Tractate Sukkah¹⁷ is that the law from Toras Kohanim – that both must remove the stone because, “Woe to the wicked and woe to his neighbor” – applies only to a stone in the corner. As Rashi explains in another source,32 in the interpretation of a second mishnah in Tractate Negayim,33 “[When there is] a blemished stone in a corner, when he34 removes it, he should remove it in its entirety.”

Rashi²⁶ interprets that mishnah, “ [When there is] a blemished stone in a corner and [the stone] is visible both in the first house and the second…,” and explains, “It is common to place large stones that strengthen the full width of the wall at the corner of a home; thus [such a stone] is visible from both sides.”35 Even though no blemish is visible on the other side of the stone, the stone must be removed in its entirety.36

2) There are other commentators37 who maintain that the requirement to remove the [blemished] stone(s) applies not only to a stone in the corner visible from both sides of the wall, but to all the stones across the entire span of the wall separating the two homes that are opposite the blemished stone(s) on the other side of the wall. This is the intent of the mishnah’s words,38 “If a wall intervenes between two homes and a tzaraas blemish appears on the wall of one home… they must both remove….” The obligation arises because, “Woe to the wicked and woe to his neighbor.”39 The neighbor is obligated to remove the stones on his side of the wall that are opposite the blemish.40

It is possible to say that these three rulings and approaches parallel the three ways in which neighbors affect each other as reflected in the interpretations of “Woe to the wicked and woe to his neighbor.”

According to the first approach, the effect of a neighbor is entirely external. Therefore, the blemish on one person’s home does not affect the wall or home of the neighbor. It only obligates him to work together with the person whose home is affected and help him remove the stones.

According to the second approach to understanding “Woe to the wicked and woe to his neighbor,” the blemish on a person’s home has a stronger and more internal effect on his neighbor’s home. Therefore, it is necessary to remove the entire stone in the corner of the home, even the portion on the neighbor’s side. It is as if the neighbor’s portion of the stone is also blemished.

According to the third approach, however, the neighbor of the wicked person must also remove all the stones on his side of the wall opposite the blemished stone. The reason is that his being the wicked person’s neighbor indicates that the two share a connection with each other. It is not only that the wicked person has an influence on him. Instead, it shows that they share a fundamental connection. Therefore, the appearance of a blemish on the side of the wall belonging to the wicked person shows that the stones on the other side of the wall belonging to the neighbor also are connected with the blemish – and, therefore, these stones must also be removed – even though the blemish is not visible on the stone(s) of the neighbor’s wall or part of it.

On this basis, it is possible to explain the reason for the difference between the three interpretations cited in sec. 1 – those of Midrash Tanchuma, Bamidbar Rabbah, and Rashi regarding, “Woe to the wicked and woe to his neighbor” and its connection to the location of the camp of Reuven next to the descendants of Kehos.

Midrash Tanchumah follows the first approach – that in this instance, the effect of a neighbor relates primarily to the concept of punishment: The punishment visited upon the wicked also extends to his neighbor. Even when the wicked one causes his neighbor to participate41 in his evil actions, the neighbor is merely drawn after him. His inner being has not changed as a result of his participation. Therefore, Midrash Tanchuma merely states that “they perished together with them [i.e., Korach and his company] in their dispute.”

Rashi views the effect of a neighbor as extending beyond causing collateral punishment and sees it as affecting and changing the neighbor’s character. Accordingly, Rashi not only states that the members of the tribe of Reuven “were punished together with Korach,” but also that, as a result of being the wicked person’s neighbor, “they were [themselves] drawn into the dispute together with them.”42

Moreover, it can be said that Rashi’s intent in saying, “Therefore, Dasan and Aviram… were punished together with Korach and his company, because they were drawn into the dispute together with them,”43 was not to emphasize two separate points: a) that they were punished with them, and b) they were drawn into the dispute together with them. Were that the intent, the order of Rashi’s statements should have been reversed: “They were drawn into the dispute together with them,” therefore, “they were punished….”44 Instead, the two points are in fact one; they were punished in that “they were drawn into the dispute together with them.” Their punishment was twofold: they became inciters of the dispute and they suffered the consequences.

On this basis, the difference between the wording employed by Rashi and Midrash Tanchuma is further clarified. Midrash Tanchuma uses the phrase, “perished together with him in his45 dispute.” Rashi, however, uses different wording, stating, “they were drawn into their dispute together with them,” using a plural form. It can be said that according to Midrash Tanchuma, the emphasis is that the neighbors were merely drawn after Korach. Accordingly, the emphasis is that it was only his – Korach’s – dispute, i.e., the evil activity is ascribed only to the one wicked person and not to his neighbors. By contrast, according to Rashi, the closeness to Korach and his company affected his neighbors to the extent that they “were drawn into their dispute together with them.”46 The wording implies that the dispute also became the neighbors’; it was not only Korach’s personal dispute, but that of all involved.

The approach of Bamidbar Rabbah follows the third interpretation mentioned previously – the fact that people are neighbors is a sign of a commonality shared by the neighbors, and that their inner natures are interrelated. This is reflected in the wording of Bamidbar Rabbah, “They were all inciters of dispute,” and “They were also inciters of discord.” Unlike Rashi, who states that “they were drawn into the dispute together with them” – i.e., initially, this was unnatural to them – Bamidbar Rabbah understands discord as being inherent to these tribes. Being Korach’s neighbors just revealed this tendency and brought it from its hidden state into expression.

Similar concepts apply regarding the positive tendency implied by the statements of Bamidbar Rabbah before that – the tribes in the camp of Yehudah who were the neighbors of Moshe and Aharon “were all great in Torah study.” The implication is that this was their natural trait; being the neighbors of Moshe and Aharon revealed47 that, in essence, “they were all (fit to be) great in Torah study.” Midrash Tanchuma and Rashi, by contrast, state merely that “they became great in Torah study,” i.e., this was not a natural trait, but an acquired tendency.

It is possible to say that this is the emphasis in the passage in Bamidbar Rabbah, which – when speaking about the positive qualities – states, “Fortunate is the righteous man and fortunate is his neighbor.” Midrash Tanchuma and Rashi place a lamed, meaning “to,” before the terms tzaddik, “righteous man,” and shecheino, “his neighbor,” implying that good fortune or goodness will be granted “to a righteous man and his neighbor.” According to these sources, good fortune and goodness are granted to a neighbor by virtue of a righteous man and his influence, while according to Bamidbar Rabbah, the good fortune is an inherent quality shared by both equally. It is possible to say that this is the precise intent in the statement, “Concerning them,48 it can be said, ‘Fortunate is the righteous man and fortunate is his neighbor.’ ”

Moreover, it could be said that this interpretation of the approach of Bamidbar Rabbah – that the fact that people or groups are neighbors indicates a fundamental and inherent connection – corresponds to the general approach of the interpretation of Bamidbar Rabbah here. That source begins with a description of the inherent qualities associated with the four directions, East, West, North, and South49 in which the four camps of tribes were located:50

The East – from there, light emerges for the world.51 In that [direction was located the camp of the tribes captained by the tribe of] Yehudah who were masters of kingship, masters of Torah, and masters of mitzvos. Therefore, next to them were camped Moshe, Aharon, and his sons, the masters of Torah and masters of mitzvos who would bring atonement to the Jewish people through their prayers and sacrifices.

Regarding their encampment, that text continues, “Concerning them, it can be said, ‘Fortunate is the righteous man and fortunate is his neighbor.’ These are the tribes that were neighbors of Moshe and Aharon…. They were all great in Torah [study].” The implication is that because of the inherent positive qualities of the tribes of the camp of Yehudah and their connection to the East, they camped in that uniquely favorable direction and, “therefore, Moshe, Aharon, and his sons [also] camped there.”

According to this interpretation of Rashi’s approach, it is possible to understand the reason why Rashi speaks only about “the camp of Reuven” but does not mention the tribes of Shimon and Gad.

As noted earlier (sec. 5), Rashi maintains that “woe to the wicked and woe to his neighbor” results from the influence of the wicked person on the conduct and nature of his neighbor. Obviously, the effect of such a person on his neighbor is not the same universally. Instead, the effect varies from neighbor to neighbor. Consequently, in the case at hand, all that can be said is what is specifically mentioned in the Torah: that, as explicitly stated, the tribe of Reuven was drawn into the dispute. Since they were the primary tribe associated with the flag of that camp, it is understood that they were the closest and most connected to the descendants of Kehos – and, specifically, Korach. By contrast, the tribes of Shimon and Gad are not explicitly associated with this dispute in Scripture. Accordingly, there is no need to say52 that the influence of being Korach’s neighbor affected them to the extent that they were drawn into the dispute with him and his company.53

Moreover, with regard to the members of the tribe of Reuven themselves, Rashi specifies that, “Of them, Dasan, Aviram, and 250 men were punished,” i.e., Korach did not influence the entire tribe of Reuven, only a small number of that tribe.

For this reason, Rashi specifies “Dasan, Aviram, and 250 men,” instead of saying, “Therefore, some of [the tribe’s members] were punished together with Korach and his company.” By mentioning Dasan and Aviram together with the 250 men, he intended to emphasize the nature of the effect on one’s nature that results from being the neighbor of a wicked person – that one’s nature is changed. Clearly, Dasan and Aviram were not merely drawn into Korach’s dispute; they were inciters of discord by nature.54 Similarly, being the neighbor of a wicked person had an effect on the nature of these 250 men, causing them as well to become inciters of discord.55

On the surface, a question can be raised regarding the concept that, according to Midrash Tanchuma, a neighbor merely brings about an external influence, leading to collateral punishment and the like. However, regarding the fact that the flag of the camp of Yehudah bordered on the place where Moshe and Aharon camped, that Midrash specifically states:

Concerning this, it was said, “Good fortune [will come] to the righteous and good fortune [will come] to his neighbor.” These three tribes who were close to Moshe and Aharon became great in Torah [study]: Concerning Yehudah, it is said,56 “The staff will not depart…”; regarding Yissachar, it is said,57 “From the descendants of Yissachar were those who had understanding [of the times…,”] and from Zevulon, “there were those who wield the pen of a scribe.” Since they were [Moshe’s] neighbors, they all became men of Torah.”58

Thus, we see that, even according to the Midrash Tanchuma, the fact that they were neighbors affected them internally – they became “great in Torah” and “men of Torah.”

It is possible to say that, according to Midrash Tanchuma, there is a difference between a good neighbor and an evil neighbor. The effect of an evil neighbor is only external, causing merely collateral punishment, or to the greatest extent, causing the neighbor to be drawn after him. By contrast, the influence of a good neighbor – concerning whom can be applied the axiom,59 “A good attribute surpasses an attribute of retribution…” – also affects the inner makeup of his neighbor, transforming it to good. Therefore, Midrash Tanchuma writes, “These three tribes who were close to Moshe and Aharon became great in Torah [study].”

Perhaps it can be said that according to Rashi, there is an advantage of the power of a good neighbor over that of an evil neighbor since “a good attribute surpasses….”60 For this reason, the fact that Moshe and Aharon were the neighbors of the flag of the camp of Yehudah had an effect not only on the tribe of Yehudah, the leading tribe of the camp, who were the closest to them, but also had a positive effect on the tribes of Yissachar and Zevulon who camped together with Yehudah. By contrast, the negative effect of the descendants of Kehos influenced only the tribe of Reuven, who was closest to Korach, as explained above.

A further point can be added: This concept is emphasized by the variation in the prooftext Rashi chose to demonstrate that the tribe of Yehudah became “great in Torah [study].” Rashi cites a phrase from Tehillim,61 “Yehudah is My lawgiver,”62 unlike Midrash Tanchuma, which cites the verse, “The staff will not depart from Yehudah, nor the lawgiver’s rod between his legs.”63 There are advantages to citing the latter prooftext: It is sourced in the Chumash itself, not merely in Tehillim and, moreover, it is stated prior to this Torah reading. However, Rashi cited a verse that explicitly relates how the tribe of Yehudah actually served as a “lawgiver”; it was not merely a promise and the blessing that “the staff would not depart.” Moreover, the verse from the Torah does not explicitly state that the promise involved the entire tribe of Yehudah. On the contrary, the meaning of the promise, “The staff will not depart from Yehudah, nor the lawgiver’s rod between his legs,” is that “the exilarchs from Babylon” and “the nesi’im from Eretz Yisrael”64 will descend from that tribe, i.e., it refers only to select individuals. By contrast, the phrase, “Yehudah is My lawgiver” refers to the name of the entire tribe, indicating that all its members possessed this quality. Therefore, Rashi deviates from his Midrashic sources and cites this prooftext to emphasize that neighbors affect and change each other’s inner nature.65

It is possible to say that this is implied by Rashi’s precise choice of the phrase, “It will be good for the righteous and good for his neighbors,” rather than “Good fortune [will come] to the righteous and good fortune [will come] to his neighbor,” as stated in Midrash Tanchuma. The word ashrei, translated as “good fortune,” also has the connotation of “praiseworthy.”66 These terms are appropriate67 even when a person receives reward because of his righteous neighbor or because he was influenced by the conduct of his righteous neighbor. By contrast, the word tov, “good,” can also be understood as implying that he underwent an inner change so that not only will goodness befall him, but he himself will become good.

On this basis, it is possible to add further explanation using a homiletic approach. The connection between these two concepts – “It will be good for the righteous and good for his neighbors” and “Woe to the wicked and woe to his neighbor” – in our Torah reading does not only relate to the effect neighbors have on each other, but also to the subjects concerning which these concepts are taught. The way one can prevent involvement in dispute68 (“woe to the wicked”) is through involvement in Torah study (“it will be good for the righteous…”). Conversely, for one’s Torah study to be desirable and enable him to become great in Torah, i.e., to become one with the Torah, he must separate himself from dispute to the furthest extreme.

It is possible to say that this is one of the explanations of the connection between Parshas Bamidbar and the festival of Shavuos, as reflected in our Rabbis’ statement,69 “Parshas Bamidbar Sinai is always read before Atzeres.” Just as in Parshas Bamidbar, both these concepts – greatness in Torah study and the need to rise above dispute – are emphasized, so too, they are both fundamental to the Giving of the Torah.

With regard to the Giving of the Torah, our Sages emphasize,70 “The entire Torah was given solely to establish peace in the world,” i.e., to create peace and unity in a place where dispute and division could have existed. Conversely, the reason G‑d was motivated to give the Torah is indicated by the verse,71 “Israel camped there opposite the mountain,” interpreted by our Sages72 to mean that, on Rosh Chodesh Sivan, the Jews joined “in unity, with one heart.” This made them fit to receive the Torah, as our Sages explicitly stated:73

At the time they came to Sinai, they camped in unity, [as implied by the singular form of the verb] ויחן , “camped”… The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Since Israel [has shown] hatred for dispute and love for peace, camping in unity, the time [has come] to give them My Torah.”

The combination of both these factors – the negation of dispute and greatness in Torah – results from being the neighbor of a righteous man: “It will be good for the righteous and good for his neighbor.” The Torah study of a righteous man is characterized by and leads to peace and unity.74 This is particularly true when Torah is studied for the desired intent – realizing the connection between the Torah to the Giver of the Torah.75 Therefore, being a neighbor of a righteous man and studying his Torah teachings brings about peace and unity among all those involved.

Ultimately, this will bring about the true and consummate peace that will accompany the coming of Mashiach.76 He will “teach Torah to the entire nation”77 in a manner characterized by unity. As a result, “In that era, there will be no… envy or competition…”78 – not even envy or competition in the realm of holiness79 – “for the world will be filled with the knowledge of G‑d, as the waters cover the ocean bed.”80

Adapted from sichos delivered on Shabbos Parshas Bamidbar, 5735 (1975), 5743 (1983), 5744 (1984), and Vav Tishrei, 5728 (1967)
Likkutei Sichos, Volume 33, P. 10ff.