1

During the reading of this week's parsha ( Tetzaveh) I noticed that the Me'il is referred to as a cloak complete of techeiles. Then I remembered that Korach had an issue with a beged that was full of techeiles that it forsure shouldn't need techeiles based off logic that if a small string of techeiles paturs a full beged then a full beged of techeiles should certainly not need .

Then I thought that Korach was speaking of the Me'il specifically. I reasoned that Korachs issue was that the Me'il wasn't required in tzizts (techeiles) and so certainly any full beged of techeiles wouldn't need techeiles and the fact that the Chachamim (Moshe Rabbeinu) said that a full beged does need then why doesn't the Me'il need,must be they are making things up (Korachs reasoning). Has anyone seen a peirush which has such an idea that Korach was talking about the Me'il? I do believe the Tanchuma which brings this story uses the lashon of beged זו , meaning Korach had a specific beged as an example.

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

The Midrash Tanchuma when explaining Korach's argument calls it a טלית שכולה תכלת, a garment made entirely of techeiles. Later it says לקח טליתו which may indicate that he confronted Moshe with his own garment. That said, there are some who have explained his argument as referring to the me'il.

R. Yisrael Ariel suggests this in Ma'alin Bakodesh Vol. V p. 24:

לאור האמור ניתן להבין באופן שונה את שאלתו של קורח בפני משה בעניין טלית שכולה תכלת שתהא פטורה מציצית שכן בא לקנטר ולומר מדוע מעיל התכלת של הכוהן הגדול אין מטילים בו ציצית למרות שיש בו ארבע כנפות ואילו טלית התכלת של הלויים דווקא היא תתחייב בציצית במה שונה הלוי מן הכוהן הגדול האם אין בכך עוד קיפוח ללויים והעדפה לאהרן הכוהן

R. Yosef Yechiel Album suggests similarly in Hama'yan Vol. XXV Issue 2 p. 49:

ומה נעים לפרש דברי המדרש הנודע בפרשת קורח טלית שכולה תכלת חייבת בציצית וכו' שכלפי מעילו של אהרן נתכוון ובא עליו משני צדדין היינו שאם אמנם חייבת מפני מה אהרן עוטה מעיל בלא ציצית ועיין מנחת חינוך מצוה צ"ט כן נראה בס"ד בדרך פרפראות לחכמה

Improve this answer
1
  • 2
    Interesting. If he claims why does mine need strings and Aaron's doesn't ... that shows how he's missing the point. The reason Aaron's doesn't need fringes is precisely because it's not Aaron's: it's communal property. But Korach thinks about every opportunity in terms of personal greed ... so he can't comprehend that concept.
    – Shalom
    Feb 17, 2019 at 20:14

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .