Psalm 106 is a chapter of national confession: the Psalmist recounts one after another the sins of Israel in the wilderness, set against Hashem's unending kindness. In the passage before us, we examine the rebellion of Korach, the sin of the Golden Calf, and the prayer of Moshe Rabbeinu that stood in the breach. We will follow the explanations of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Radak, and especially the Malbim, who characteristically rejects the notion of "repetitive phrasing with synonymous meaning," finding in every half-verse a distinct concept in its own right.
תִּפְתַּח־אֶרֶץ וַתִּבְלַע דָּתָן וַתְּכַס עַל־עֲדַת אֲבִירָם׃ - The earth opened and swallowed Datan, and covered the assembly of Aviram.
Anyone reading this verse wonders: where is the main protagonist of the affair? Where is Korach? Datan and Aviram are listed here, yet Korach - the instigator of the rebellion - is not mentioned at all.
Rashi explains: it appears that honor was shown to the sons of Korach by omitting their father's name, thereby attributing the disgrace primarily to Datan and Aviram. After all, the sons of Korach did not die; ultimately, they were among the singers in the Beit HaMikdash, and from them descended the prophet Shmuel. Honor was therefore accorded to them by not mentioning their father, naming only the notorious troublemakers, Datan and Aviram.
Radak offers another explanation: "He did not mention Korach because it is well known that he was the head of the dispute." There is no need to state what is already universally known. It is common knowledge that Korach headed the rebellion, so the verse saw no need to mention him explicitly.
Radak presents another fascinating explanation: "Or he mentioned the assistants, because the helpers of the wicked are more wicked than he, for without enablers, he could not carry out his wickedness." This aligns with the Talmudic adage, "It is not the mouse that steals, but the hole that steals" - the hole that provides refuge to the mouse is the true culprit; the assistants are the enablers without whom the wicked person could never bring his plots to fruition. Without such supporters, the evildoer could never act. It turns out that the actions of the enablers are what bring the evil to fruition, which is why the verse mentions the accomplices rather than the instigator.
From this stems a well-known adage: Where are the Vilna Gaon and the Baal Shem Tov? In Gan Eden. And where are the contentious disciples? In Gehennom. Where are the Yaavetz and Rabbi Yehonatan Eybeschutz? In Gan Eden. And where are their disciples? In Gehennom. Yet here, in the dispute of Korach, the leader himself is in Gehennom as well. How do we know this? From explicit verses in the Torah - our study does not begin in Tehillim, it begins with the Torah: "And it swallowed them and Korach." Korach was swallowed into the earth and cries out from beneath the ground, "Moshe is true and his Torah is true." Korach was unequivocally punished. Had he been righteous, he would have been spared, and only the disciples harboring ill intentions would have perished.
Our Sages explicitly clarify what Korach's problem was: Over what was he jealous? Over the leadership appointment of Elitzaphan ben Uzziel. "He said: I will nullify the words of Moshe" - this deteriorated into heresy, graveness of the highest order on Korach's part. We cannot offer any defense for Korach himself.
The Radak further explains: Korach was among both the burned and the swallowed. Here, the verse divided the punishments - "The earth opened and swallowed up Dathan, and covered the company of Abiram" on the one hand, and "A fire was kindled in their company" on the other, referring to the two hundred and fifty men who offered the fire-pans and were consumed by the fire. Therefore, it was impossible to mention Korach only regarding the swallowing, and impossible to mention him only regarding the burning - so he was not mentioned at all. Whom did it mention? Those who were swallowed - Dathan and Abiram, and "the company" - the two hundred and fifty heads of Sanhedrin who wished to be Kohanim, against whom the fire burned.
And should you ask: What about On ben Peleth, who is also mentioned there alongside Dathan and Abiram? To this the answer is: Chazal have already revealed to us that On ben Peleth repented and withdrew from the dispute, and his wife saved him. Therefore, he did not deserve to be mentioned - neither later in the parashah, nor here.
וַתִּבְעַר־אֵשׁ בַּעֲדָתָם לֶהָבָה תְּלַהֵט רְשָׁעִים׃ - A fire was kindled in their company; a flame burned up the wicked.
"A fire was kindled in their company" - the fire consumed the incense-offerers. The Radak explains: A fire burned among the two hundred and fifty men of the Children of Israel and consumed them. And in his view, "a flame burned up the wicked" is a poetic repetition in different words.
However, the Malbim, who does not accept repetitive phrasing of identical meaning, explains: The second punishment was that the fire burned the two hundred and fifty men - "A fire was kindled in their company." Afterward, the plague began, which was the third punishment - and this is "a flame burned up the wicked": as if from that fire a flame detached and raged from afar, which was the plague that spread among the people. According to his approach, Korach is not considered to have been judged with both swallowing and burning. Indeed, there are differing opinions on this in Chazal: whether Korach was among both the swallowed and the burned, or neither among the swallowed nor the burned.
יַעֲשׂוּ־עֵגֶל בְּחֹרֵב וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ לְמַסֵּכָה׃ - They made a calf in Horeb, and worshipped a molten image.
What is the emphasis on "in Horeb"? The Ibn Ezra states: In that very place where they heard the voice of Hashem. There you heard, "I am Hashem your God" - and right there you turn around and make a calf? The Radak similarly says: Specifically in Horeb, in the place where you received the Torah and with your own ears heard the Ten Commandments, "You shall not make for yourself an idol or any likeness" - and right there you went and made a calf?
The Malbim addresses a difficulty here: on the surface, the text places the later event earlier. The rebellion of Korach took place after the sin of the Golden Calf. The sin of the Golden Calf occurred right after the Exodus from Egypt - they arrived at Mount Sinai, received the Torah after fifty days, and after forty days of waiting for Moshe Rabbeinu, they made the calf. That was their first sin. Why, then, does the verse mention the rebellion of Korach first, and only afterward the sin of the Golden Calf?
The Malbim explains: Because with the affair of Korach, the sin of the Golden Calf was reawakened. For what did Korach claim? "For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and Hashem is among them; why then do you raise yourselves above the assembly of Hashem?" A garment made entirely of techelet does not require a thread of techelet; a house full of Torah scrolls does not require a mezuzah. If the entire congregation is holy - there is no need for Moshe, no need for Aharon, no need for a mezuzah; we are all holy, and Hashem is in our midst.
The moment he made this claim, the sin of the Golden Calf was instantly reawakened. For at the Golden Calf, what did they claim? "For this Moses, the man... we do not know what has become of him." And so what if you did not know what became of him - if everyone is holy, and if we are all techelet, why do you need a thread of techelet? Rather, this was their defense: Master of the World, Moshe was the intermediary between us and You; without Moshe we are as if without hands, without feet, and without eyes - we must have an intermediary. They were seeking an intermediary between themselves and Hashem. Along came Korach and said: It is all nonsense, there is no need for an intermediary, we are directly connected with the Creator of the world. If so, how did you make the calf? Back then you cried, "We need an intermediary, we need an intermediary," and suddenly you do not need intermediaries and you claim that everyone is holy?
Another explanation has been offered, also in the vein of reawakening the prosecution of the Golden Calf: Moshe Rabbeinu defended Israel by arguing - Master of the Universe, "You shall have no other gods before Me" was spoken in the singular; You commanded me and not them, so they bear no sin. But when Korach came to dispute Moshe, Chazal tell us that he argued: What do you think, that you alone spoke with the Shechinah and heard "I am" and "You shall not have" from the mouth of the Almighty? We all heard it from the mouth of the Almighty! And if you all heard it - then how could you make a calf? With this claim, Korach nullified Moshe's defense, and "they made a calf in Chorev and bowed to a molten image" was reawakened once again.
וַיָּמִירוּ אֶת־כְּבוֹדָם בְּתַבְנִית שׁוֹר אֹכֵל עֵשֶׂב׃ - They exchanged their glory for the likeness of an ox that eats grass.
The Malbim explains that "their glory" refers to the leadership of Moshe, which stems from the right side - the aspect of the face of man in the Heavenly Chariot. And what did they exchange it for? For the image of an ox. They were convinced that the Holy One, Blessed is He, was no longer leading them through Moshe - "for this Moses, the man, we do not know what has become of him" - and that He had consequently handed leadership over to the system, to the forces of nature. The forces of nature and the celestial order correspond to the aspect of the face of the ox, which in the celestial Chariot is on the left side, representing the governance of nature. At the Giving of the Torah, when the Holy One opened the seven heavens for them, they had seen the aspect of the face of the ox on the left, and they said: In the reality we now find ourselves in, this is the leadership fitting for us - through the power of the ox. Thus, they exchanged their glory - Moshe, who is from the right and represents the face of man - for the left side, the aspect of the ox, seeking to draw influence and manipulate outcomes through natural forces, as they had learned from the Egyptians.
And what is the meaning of "that eats grass"? It seems superfluous - did we imagine that an ox eats ice cream? It would have been enough to say "the likeness of an ox." Rather, Rashi explains in the name of Chazal: there is nothing more loathsome and repulsive than an ox while it eats, for it produces much dung and soils itself with it; some say its saliva soils everything. Either way, the ox eats in a filthy manner; other animals eat cleanly, whereas the ox drools and fouls all its food, to the point that a donkey cannot eat after it. It turns out that Israel exchanged their glory for the likeness of a loathsome ox - for an ox while eating is loathsome.
Ibn Ezra interprets differently: "their glory" is a euphemism for the glory of the Holy One, Blessed is He. Why does it say "their glory"? This is a euphemistic phrasing, just as Scripture avoids saying that a person blasphemed Hashem and instead says "he cursed himself," or uses the word "blessed" as a euphemism for its opposite. Similarly, regarding those who turned their backs to the Sanctuary, "with their faces toward the east, and they prostrated themselves toward the sun and sent the branch to their nose" - directed toward the Beit HaMikdash, Heaven forbid; it should have properly been written "to His nose," referring as it were to the Holy One, Blessed is He, but it is an emendation of the scribes (tikkun soferim).
The core principle is this: one who degrades the Holy One, Blessed is He, does not degrade Him, but only degrades himself. "And those who despise Me shall be degraded" on their own; no separate action is required to bring them low. It is like someone today who begins to revile the Chafetz Chaim - whom has he degraded? In time, people will say: look at the disgrace that person brought upon himself, how he exposed himself as an empty vessel; his family will not know where to bury themselves in shame, not daring to show their faces outside - "our relative, what disgrace he brought upon us!" The humiliation belongs entirely to him, not to the one he reviled. So it is toward Heaven: to say they "exchanged His glory" would imply that the Omnipresent's glory suffers harm, whereas it is only your own glory that you exchange. Therefore, Scripture used a euphemism: "They exchanged their glory."
Radak also explains that "their glory" refers to the Holy One, Blessed is He. Why is He called "their glory"? Because they saw His glory in the revelation at Mount Sinai.
שָׁכְחוּ אֵל מוֹשִׁיעָם עֹשֶׂה גְדֹלוֹת בְּמִצְרָיִם׃ - They forgot God their Savior, Who had done great things in Egypt.
Ibn Ezra says: They forgot that the Holy One, blessed be He, had saved them, even though the Exodus from Egypt and the splitting of the Yam Suf had just occurred - they forgot all of this and said, "These are your gods, O Israel." And the Malbim adds: They saw with their own eyes that their guidance was directed by the Cause of all causes. The Holy One, blessed be He, performed miracles for you in Egypt and upended all the orders of nature - why did you go looking for natural governance? Why did you exchange your glory for an ox that eats grass, which embodies natural governance? This is the indictment: How could you forget God your Savior, Who did great things in Egypt? From those great things He did there, from the miracles and wonders - "Through this you will know that I am Hashem" and there is none beside Him - and yet you go and seek help and support from the forces of nature in the form of an ox?
נִפְלָאוֹת בְּאֶרֶץ חָם נוֹרָאוֹת עַל־יַם־סוּף׃ - Wonders in the land of Ham, awesome deeds by the Yam Suf.
The verse enumerates three: great deeds in Egypt, wonders in the land of Ham, and awesome deeds by the Yam Suf. Radak says: "The land of Ham" - Ham was the father of Egypt, and Scripture refers to Egypt by different names to disparage it, since Ham too is remembered unfavorably. And why are they called "awesome deeds"? Because actions that the Holy One, blessed be He, performs contrary to nature inspire awe in people; when we see the upending of the laws of nature, we fear Him, blessed be He, and know that everything comes from Him.
And the Malbim, as is his way, differentiates: "Great deeds in Egypt" is not the same as "wonders in the land of Ham." The plagues spread throughout everything belonging to the territory of Egypt - there is the land of Egypt proper, which is a confined area, and there is "the entire land of Ham," which is a much wider region, and the plagues spread there beyond the borders of Egypt. He likewise showed them awesome deeds at the Yam Suf, as it is written, "and the people feared Hashem." All three correspond to "the great, the mighty, and the awesome": great deeds, wonders, and awesome deeds. And "awesome" means seeing that Hashem alone directs individual providence and there is none besides Him, that He alone made, makes, and will make all creations.
We likewise find three things that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed them in Egypt: "Through this you will know that I am Hashem" corresponds to the great deeds, showing that no one else can do as Hashem does. "That I am Hashem in the midst of the earth" corresponds to the wonders. "That there is none like Me in all the earth" corresponds to the awesome deeds. Whoever wishes to explore this further will find that the Malbim explains this matter at length in his commentary there.
וַיֹּאמֶר לְהַשְׁמִידָם לוּלֵי מֹשֶׁה בְחִירוֹ עָמַד בַּפֶּרֶץ לְפָנָיו לְהָשִׁיב חֲמָתוֹ מֵהַשְׁחִית׃ - He said He would destroy them, had not Moses, His chosen one, stood in the breach before Him to turn away His wrath from destroying them.
What is meant by "stood in the breach"? They made a breach, and Moshe Rabbeinu stood in it to seal it and shore up the wall, like someone standing where the fence is broken down so that none can enter or leave. Through his prayer, Moshe nullified the anger, for otherwise the Holy One, blessed be He, would have destroyed them. The Malbim explains: "He said He would destroy them" - a decree of destruction was issued against them.
The Malbim adds another wonderful possibility: "He said He would destroy them, were it not for Moses" - the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moshe: Were it not for Moshe, I would destroy them now. That is, He hinted to him that he had an opportunity to pray. Moshe immediately understood: Wait, an opening has been made for me here; it is in my power to nullify the decree - and he arose and prayed. It is just as in the Torah: "Let Me alone, that I may destroy them" - from which Moshe understood: "Let Me alone" - was I holding onto You? Rather, the Holy One, blessed be He, was telling him: Yes, it is in your power to hold onto Me; it is in your power to stop this. From this, Moshe Rabbeinu realized that the matter depended on him.
Therefore, he stood in the breach "to turn away His wrath (*chamato*)." Even though the outward anger (*af*) had already flared and the plague had already begun, with people beginning to die in the epidemic, know that this *af* was not combined with *cheimah*. What is the difference between *af* and *cheimah*? The Malbim explains this in many places: *Af* is external - "A fire has kindled in My nostril (*be'api*)"; when a person gets angry, the nose reddens, and if it is slightly cold, vapor even emerges from it, as though the nose were scorching and burning with fire, and the nose is the most prominent feature of a person's face. *Cheimah*, on the other hand, is always internal - "and his wrath (*chamato*) burned within him"; the fire is inside him. One does not always see *cheimah*, but *af* is visible to all.
And this is what the verse is saying: Moshe Rabbeinu stood in the breach to turn away His *cheimah*. The *af* had already gone forth and the plague had begun, but internal *cheimah* was not mixed into it - a wrath that destroys. This is "to turn away His wrath from destroying": there was no internal *cheimah* here, for had there been, it would have destroyed completely. But since there was only an external *af*, that was the end of the matter: the plague began and was halted.
In this section, the Psalmist enumerates three sins: the rebellion of Korach, in which those swallowed by the earth and those consumed by fire were punished, followed by the plague; the sin of the Golden Calf, which took place specifically at Chorev, the very site of the Giving of the Torah, and was reawakened by Korach's claim that "the entire congregation, all of them, are holy"; and the exchanging of "their glory" - the leadership of Moshe, which represents the aspect of the human face - for the image of a grass-eating ox, representing the base order of nature, after they forgot God their Savior Who had done great things, wonders, and awesome deeds for them in Egypt and at the Sea. Ultimately, what saved Israel was Moshe His chosen one, who stood in the breach: the Holy One, Blessed is He, Himself hinted to him that it was in his power to stop it, and Moshe seized the opening, prayed, and turned away wrath from destroying. From this we learn that a decree is never irrevocably sealed, and the power of a tzaddik's prayer stands in the breach and halts the plague.