Parshat Korach: The Seven Commandments

Korach: The Seven Commandments

                                                               Rabbi Claude Vecht-Wolf

“With some difficulty (for it is not easy for a pig to balance himself on a ladder) Snowball climbed up and set to work, with Squealer a few rungs below him holding the paint-pot. The Commandments were written on the tarred wall in great white letters that could be read thirty yards away. They ran thus:

 

THE SEVEN COMMANDMENTS

1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.

2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.

3. No animal shall wear clothes.

4. No animal shall sleep in a bed.

5. No animal shall drink alcohol.

6. No animal shall kill any other animal.

7. All animals are equal.”

(from Animal Farm by George Orwell, 1945)

 

The Seven Commandments composed by Napoleon and Snowball (before he was banished) were meant to be set in stone, to usher in the new phase in the animals’ desire to create an equitable and fair society, “reducing the principle of Animalism to Seven Commandments”.

It wasn’t too long before the first two commandments were combined to form the familiar refrain of “four legs good, two legs bad”. After a short while, Commandment No.5 was amended by adding the words ‘to excess’. The chilling statement that “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” needed little explanation.

The Seven Commandments had been desecrated and reframed. Animal Farm is a classic metaphor of how a political movement built on an idealistic basis can abuse its position and result in the creation of a society that is ruled by fear.  It will be ultimately doomed to failure in the long term.

Numbers 16:

(1) and he took, Korach, son of Izhar, son of Kohath son of Levi, along with Dathan and Abiram sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth, descendants of Reuben,

(2) to rise up against Moses, together with two hundred and fifty Israelites, chieftains of the community, chosen in the assembly, men of repute.

(3) They combined against Moses and Aaron and said to them, “You have gone too far! you (both) take too much upon you, seeing that the whole congregation (i.e. all of us) are holy and Gd is amongst them. Why do you set yourselves above the Lord’s assembly?”

Korach was Moses’ first cousin, a respected and by the sound of his description, highly influential man. However, the language in the first verse seems clumsy:

“and he took…”

What did Korach take?

Rashi tells us (the Midrash Tanhuma explains) that he set himself apart from the congregation to claim that Moshe had appointed the wrong person. Instead of Aaron HaKohen, he believed that the narrative should have referred to Korach HaKohen.

Korach, on the face of it appears to be genuinely aggrieved and feels that he has been overlooked as being the legitimate occupier of the Priestly Office.  However, he soon, reveals his true colours, conveniently sidestepping the issue of priesthood and says to Moses and Aaron:

“…you (both) take too much upon you, seeing that the whole congregation are holy and Gd is amongst them. Why do you set yourselves above the Lord’s assembly?”

It seems to have escaped Korach’s mind that Moses and Aaron have never ‘set themselves’ above anyone. Indeed, if we look at the beginning of the Book of Shemot (Exodus), Moses did everything he could to avoid leading the people:

Exodus 3:

(11) But Moses said to God, “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and free the Israelites from Egypt?”

Gd reassures Moses that He will accompany him.

He repeats his refrain later on….

Exodus 4:

(1) But Moses spoke up and said, “What if they do not believe me and do not listen to me, but say: The Lord did not appear to you?”

Gd reassures Moses again by transforming his staff into a snake and then turning his hand leprous. Despite these miracles, Moses refuses to follow Gd’s command and says:

(10) But Moses said to the Lord, “Please, O Lord, I have never been a man of words, either in times past or now that You have spoken to Your servant; I am slow of speech and slow of tongue.”

The dialogue continues and Gd becomes angry with Moses, telling him that his brother Aaron will initially speak for him.

These references serve to exemplify the very nature of Moses, whom the Torah refers to numerous times as being a beacon of humility.

A fortnight ago, in Parshat Beha’alotecha, we read:

Numbers 12:

(3) Now the man, Moses was very humble, above all the men that were on the face of the earth.

Taken at face value, Korach’s words don’t make much sense until you appreciate what is really taking place in this episode. Moses’ not-so-honourable cousin is effectively attempting to wrestle power from the man who is least interested in benefitting from his position. The difference between the two is that Moses is fully aware of his responsibility to lead the people, particularly in light of the seismic repercussions of the spies’ failed venture, which itself came on the back of plague that accompanied the Children of Israel’s lust for meat and their complaints about the food that they had received ‘for free’ in Egypt.

Korach has successfully rallied the disgruntled Dathan and Abiram, who themselves have managed to master the art of rabble-rousing to a professional level, whilst simultaneously shedding crocodile tears for injustices they felt have been meted-out on the tribe of Reuben.

If you recall, he was Jacob’s eldest son and witness his father’s description of him at the end of Sefer Bershit/Genesis which was far from being flattering (Chapter 49, verses 3 and 4).

Korach’s charisma has even extended to poisoning the minds of two-hundred-and-fifty ‘men of renown’ across the range of tribes.

He is a very dangerous individual.

One could picture him adapting the “Seven Commandments” to plead his case along the lines of:

1.    Whoever works in the current priesthood is an enemy

2.    Whoever is amongst the other Levites is a friend

3.    No Kohen shall be allowed to dress differently to the other Levites

4.    No Kohen or Levite shall be allowed to marry a divorcee

5.    No Kohen or Levite shall drink alcohol

6.    No Kohen or Levite shall kill another human being

7.    All Levites are equal.

How long would it be until some of the commandments are subtly altered?

·        When No 6. adds the word “animal” to its charter and directly contravenes Gd’s intricate laws regarding sacrifices.

·        When No. 7 states that all Levites are equal except for Korach and his chosen friends, who have become more ‘equal than others.’

And if we follow his train of thought, does No 1. imply that Aaron and his two sons are to be treated as an enemy which is to be vanquished by the ‘New Order’?

One can then understand why Moses immediately ‘fell on his face’ before recovering his composure and telling Korach that Gd will decide between the two, the next morning.

Rabbi Sacks, in this week’s ‘Covenant and Conversation’ writes:

“There was not the slightest attempt to set out the real issues: a leadership structure that left simmering discontent amongst the Levites, Reubenites and other tribal chiefs; a generation that had lost all hope of reaching the promised land; and whatever else was troubling the people. There were real problems, but the rebels were not interested in truth. They wanted power.”

Societies are shaped by the people who form them. They evolve and change, sometimes gradually and occasionally on the back of a populist movement, such as the historic dismantling of the USSR at the end of the 1980s. Could any of us fail to be moved by the site of Germans of all ages physically breaking down the Berlin Wall and thus allowing families to be reunited?

Contrast this with the mob violently tearing down the statue in Bristol and you realise how different these scenes are and how, in both cases, they can lead to very diverse outcomes.

If Korach had genuinely wanted to challenge Moses, he could have employed a different approach. Moses was a man who, like all others, did not always make the correct decisions, as we are going to be reading about next week when it comes to his sin of striking the rock.

The characters and events depicted in Animal Farm, though fictional, were very much based on personages and events before, during and after the Russian Revolution. The Tsarist model that the uprising replaced and the injustices that had been previously foisted on the Russian population could have been addressed, had the Bolshevik leaders really wished this to be the case. With the death of Lenin and introduction of Stalin’s brutal regime, hope of developing the USSR into a leading world power were all but lost. 

The laws that became ingrained in the makeup of the three-score-and-ten years that followed the revolution were focussed on subjugating the population and making their lives as restricted as possible. It is to Moses’ and Aaron’s credit that they were able (with Divine Intervention) to thwart Korach’s plans.

Had he succeeded; the very heart of the Jewish people would have been ripped asunder.

It is no coincidence that the separation of “Church” and “State” was enacted through the introduction by Gd of the Kohanim, Levites and Israelites. In this model, the Kohanim were able to focus on ritual and teaching whilst allowing the Levites to administer to them and provide a musical accompaniment, At the same time, they, along with the Israelites, produced the prophets and kings that would shape our future to this day. In later generations, when the Hasmoneans broke this golden rule and combined leadership and priesthood, the implosion of both the monarchy and Jewish State alongside it within the span of two hundred or so years, led to the destruction of the Second Temple along with the deaths of over a million Jews and the long, long painful diaspora that we still find ourselves in.

Thank Gd for all of us that Korach and his followers failed.

Shabbat Shalom.

Parshat Shelach Lecha: Symbols

I am writing this Drasha a few hours after we learned of the sad passing of Dama Vera Lynn at the venerable age of 103. A BBC website tribute page has described her as 'one of the country's most potent symbols of resilience and hope.' This is a fitting description of Dame Vera because she was a symbol of how one person can impact the lives of so many. Who can hear "We'll Meet Again" and not think about its deep resonance in the collective memory of anyone who either lived through the Second World War or learned about it in history? The song, like its singer is also a symbol of 'hope over adversity'.

A few weeks ago, at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, Dame Vera said, "Simple acts of bravery and sacrifice still define our nation." And the song for which she will always be remembered was even quoted by Her Majesty the Queen who told this nation in April: "We will be with our friends again, we will be with our families again, we will meet again."  Dame Vera, the person and the symbol, spoke to and for, all of us.

Imagine the plot to a Hollywood summer blockbuster movie.  Its tag-line on posters could read something along the lines of:

"12 Spies. 1 Country. 40 Days. Mission Possible!"

This would sit directly below a horizontal row of individual photos of twelve famous actors like Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Henry Cavill, Jake Gylenhaal, Orlando Bloom and others. An actor's name would be emblazoned over each photograph but for a reason which I still don't understand, the names and photos underneath wouldn't match each other!

Below the title, you would have colourful graphics depicting the spies in different precarious locations, with giants standing astride them impervious to their presence. Your eyes would be immediately drawn to the footer which would display an image depicting two poles bearing an oversized bunch of grapes, with eight men (two at the end of each pole) carrying the cluster.

Numbers 13:

(23) They reached the Wadi Eshkol, and there they cut down a branch with a single cluster of grapes. It had to be borne on a carrying frame by two of them and some pomegranates and figs.

Rashi

“And they cut down a branch with a single cluster of grapes : this means a vine branch with a cluster of grapes hanging from it (not as the text might suggest, that they cut a branch and they cut also a cluster of grapes). They also took the pomegranates and figs….it denotes with two poles. How is this possible? Eight carried a cluster (of grapes), one carried a fig and one a pomegranate.”

Can you imagine what it must have looked like when they returned to the camp?

The crowds of Israelites would have watched them with their jaws dropped to the ground, cartoon-like and their eyes protruding five feet in front of their faces in sheer astonishment. Not only had the men returned safely, but the land was so fertile that it was producing grapes that needed to be carried on two poles by eight men!

The Torah tells us that:

Numbers 13:

(26) They went straight to Moses and Aaron and the whole Israelite community at Kadesh in the wilderness of Paran, and they made their report to them and to the whole community, as they showed them the fruit of the land. (27) This is what they told him:

“We came to the land you sent us to; it does indeed flow with milk and honey, and this is its fruit…”

They didn't need to say any more. They had presented the symbol and it was there for all to see.

How much more proof do you need than showing the people ‘the fruit of the land’?

The symbol speaks for itself. The logical next step would be for the spies and the people to petition Moses to lead them to the land. They were not far off and could have been there within a very short time.

We expect this to transpire in the next few verses but instead we read that ten of the men said the following:

Numbers 13: (28) However, the people who inhabit the country are powerful, and the cities are fortified and very large; moreover, we saw the Anakites there. (29) Amalekites dwell in the Negeb region; Hittites, Jebusites, and Amorites inhabit the hill country; and Canaanites dwell by the Sea and along the Jordan.”

במדבר י״ג:כ״ח-כ״ט (כח) אֶ֚פֶס כִּֽי־עַ֣ז הָעָ֔ם הַיֹּשֵׁ֖ב בָּאָ֑רֶץ וְהֶֽעָרִ֗ים בְּצֻר֤וֹת גְּדֹלֹת֙ מְאֹ֔ד וְגַם־יְלִדֵ֥י הָֽעֲנָ֖ק רָאִ֥ינוּ שָֽׁם׃ (כט) עֲמָלֵ֥ק יוֹשֵׁ֖ב בְּאֶ֣רֶץ הַנֶּ֑גֶב וְ֠הַֽחִתִּי וְהַיְבוּסִ֤י וְהָֽאֱמֹרִי֙ יוֹשֵׁ֣ב בָּהָ֔ר וְהַֽכְּנַעֲנִי֙ יֹשֵׁ֣ב עַל־הַיָּ֔ם וְעַ֖ל יַ֥ד הַיַּרְדֵּֽן׃

Sforno, the famous Sephardic commentator expands on the keyword of ‘Efes’ (However):

“However, the people who inhabit the country: it is impossible to conquer the land since we cannot defeat its people. Not only are the people tough, but the cities are fortified. The inhabitants of the land, the Amelakites hate us fiercely. They will engage in a pre-emptive war against us so that we should not even get near their borders.”

I have always been bothered by the turn of phrase (‘however’) that introduces this next section. Within the last hour, the spies have re-entered the camp literally bearing the fruits of their labour. They have augmented their description with living, tangible proof of how bountiful the produce is. 

What would the spies achieve by spoiling the moment, particularly by referencing the sadistic Amalekites, whose recent attacks had wounded the nation so severely both physically and psychologically? It's as though they were determined to strip the varnish off the prize they had garnered during their brotherly walking trip.

Rashi underscores this point, quoting the Midrash Tanchuma (Shlach, 9)

“The Amalekites dwell in the Negev Regions: Because they had already been ‘burnt’ by Amalek, the spies mentioned him first in order to terrify them.”

Two of the spies, Joshua and Caleb tried their best to turn the crowd and remind the people that the same Gd who had split the sea, provided them with the Manna and quails, would similarly use His power to enable them to possess and conquer the land (according to Rashi’s commentary). This was to no avail and the resulting punishment led, quite literally to forty years of wandering around the desert.

Numbers 14:

(32) But your carcasses shall drop in this wilderness,

(33) while your children roam the wilderness for forty years, suffering for your faithlessness, until the last of your carcasses is down in the wilderness.

(34) You shall bear your punishment for forty years, corresponding to the number of days—forty days—that you scouted the land: a year for each day and you shall know my displeasure.

Sometimes, symbols as grand as they may appear are not enough. At this point, the Israelites had witnessed countless miracles, from the Exodus itself to the cluster of grapes that sat before them. The spies’ lack of faith, despite having been successful in infiltrating the land, travelling throughout within her borders and returning safely with glowing evidence of its uniqueness, amply proves this fact. A symbol without meaning is simply an attractive but ultimately empty container. 

In 'The Merchant of Venice', (Act 2, Scene 7) Portia hands the key to The Prince of Morocco and he opens the golden casket.  Looking inside he says:

" Damn it! What’s this? It’s a skull with a scroll in its empty eye socket. I’ll read it aloud.

(he reads) “All that glitters (originally written as 'glisters') is not gold..."

The symbol in this sad chapter might have glittered had the spies and the people realised that it was an example of Gd's golden blessings to the land, they could have referenced it positively to encourage the people to follow Moses as he led them, protected by Gd into Canaan.

All that glitters might have been gold.

Dame Vera Lynn could have spent the rest of her life after the war as a 'potent symbol of resilience and hope' and nobody would have begrudged her this honour. However, she sensibly shirked off the title, saw through its hollow nature and instead dedicated her life to helping others and being there for 'The Boys'.  Along with her a successful career in music and broadcasting, she founded the "Dame Vera Lynn Children’s Charity" which to this day helps children with Cerebral Palsy and other motor learning impairments. It does marvellous work and you can read about its services at www.dvlcc.org.uk 

The charity, like its owner is formed out of real gold and if you wish to remember her in the way that she would have wished, perhaps you would consider donating to this cause.

The spies and the people they influenced could have achieved so much if they had taken a moment to appreciate the meaning behind their symbol. At the end of the day, life is not simply about symbols but the humans that know how to utilise them and benefit others as a result.

The spies could have learned a great deal from the late and great, Dame Vera Lynn, may she rest in peace. Shabbat Shalom.

Parshat Beha'alotecha

Beha’alotecha - Hidden Agendas

There is an old adage that one can describe Jewish History in three sentences:

1. They tried to kill us.

2. We won.

3. Let's eat.

On the face of it, an episode in this week's Parsha seems to suggest our love of food is as ancient as our Nation itself. However, with a little investigation, this is not as straightforward as it may appear in the Torah.

Numbers 11 (4) The rabble that was among them felt a gluttonous craving; and then the Israelites wept and said, “Who will feed us meat?  (5) We remember the fish that we used to eat for free in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic. (6) Now our life is parched. There is nothing at all! We have nothing to anticipate but the manna!

במדבר י״א:ד׳-ו׳ (ד) וְהָֽאסַפְסֻף֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בְּקִרְבּ֔וֹ הִתְאַוּ֖וּ תַּאֲוָ֑ה וַיָּשֻׁ֣בוּ וַיִּבְכּ֗וּ גַּ֚ם בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ מִ֥י יַאֲכִלֵ֖נוּ בָּשָֽׂר׃ (ה) זָכַ֙רְנוּ֙ אֶת־הַדָּגָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־נֹאכַ֥ל בְּמִצְרַ֖יִם חִנָּ֑ם אֵ֣ת הַקִּשֻּׁאִ֗ים וְאֵת֙ הָֽאֲבַטִּחִ֔ים וְאֶת־הֶחָצִ֥יר וְאֶת־הַבְּצָלִ֖ים וְאֶת־הַשּׁוּמִֽים׃  (ו) וְעַתָּ֛ה נַפְשֵׁ֥נוּ יְבֵשָׁ֖ה אֵ֣ין כֹּ֑ל בִּלְתִּ֖י אֶל־הַמָּ֥ן עֵינֵֽינוּ׃

The Israelites have been wandering around the desert for over a year. They have been fed with the manna, which the midrash tells us could taste of anything they desired, watered through the miracle of Miriam's well, protected from the sun, sand, scorpions and snakes by the Ananei Hakavod, the Divine Clouds of Glory and had their every whim answered.

So why are they complaining and looking at the complaint, why do there seem to be some strange anomalies? Firstly, they are asking for meat and then immediately, they talk about the fish that they describe as eating 'for free' in Egypt. As far as I recall, they didn't get anything gratis there. They even had to make their own bricks!

Even if you can appreciate their complaints, the entire paragraph is quite puzzling…and who is this ‘rabble’?  Our Sages were also troubled by this passage and their first priority was to identify the rabble.

We have met these people before. Let's look at the Exodus from Egypt:

Exodus 12:38 (38) Moreover, a mixed multitude (‘erev-rav’) went up with them, and very much livestock, both flocks and herds.

שמות י״ב:ל״ח (לח) וְגַם־עֵ֥רֶב רַ֖ב עָלָ֣ה אִתָּ֑ם וְצֹ֣אן וּבָקָ֔ר מִקְנֶ֖ה כָּבֵ֥ד מְאֹֽד׃

Rashi explains whom the 'mixed multitude' were:

Rashi on Exodus 12:38:1

ערב רב - A mixed multitude/erev-rav were a mingling of various nations who had become proselytes.

When do we meet these people next? When Gd tells Moses to go back to the Israelites who are encamped at the foot of Mount Sinai.

Exodus 32

(7) The LORD spoke to Moses, “Hurry down, for your people, whom you brought out of the land of Egypt, have acted basely.

Rashi, quoting the Midrash (Shemot/Exodus Rabbah 42:6) informs us that:

‘Your people have corrupted themselves’. It does not say the people have corrupted but [it says] your people — "the mixed multitude whom you received of your own accord and accepted as proselytes without consulting Me. You thought it a good thing that proselytes should be attached to the Shechina/Holy Spirit — now they have corrupted themselves and have corrupted others"

If we look back at Beha’alotecha, we read the following:

Numbers 11 (4) The rabble in their midst felt a gluttonous craving; and then the Israelites wept and said, “If only we had meat to eat!

במדבר י״א:ד׳ (ד) וְהָֽאסַפְסֻף֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בְּקִרְבּ֔וֹ הִתְאַוּ֖וּ תַּאֲוָ֑ה וַיָּשֻׁ֣בוּ וַיִּבְכּ֗וּ גַּ֚ם בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ מִ֥י יַאֲכִלֵ֖נוּ בָּשָֽׂר׃

Rashi writes the following:

והאספסף/and the rabble: This was the mixed multitude that had gathered themselves to them (i.e. the Israelites) when they left Egypt (the word is from the root אסף, “to gather”) (Midrash Sifrei Bamidbar 86). The next words of the Biblical text must be inverted to read: 'and the children of Israel also wept together with them.'

Rashi has presented a watertight case for the prosecution against the erev-rav, the 'mixed multitude' whose constant desire was to cause the Israelites to rebel against Gd and Moses.

It wasn't enough for them to initiate the construction, idolatrous and immoral worship of the Golden Calf. They had seen the way Gd and Moses dealt with that situation. Now, they were actively causing the people to complain again, this time through the medium of food.

The eminent Medieval Sephardic commentator, Sforno (d.1150) tells us something revealing about their request for meat:

מי יאכלנו בשר? (who will feed us meat?), They said this to test if He would permit incestuous relations to His people...

 

So, according to the Sforno, the request for 'meat' was never really about the food. It was in addressing their lustful desires. He refers back to the first verse of this chapter:

Numbers 11 (1) The people took to complaining bitterly before the LORD...

במדבר י״א:א׳ (א) וַיְהִ֤י הָעָם֙ כְּמִתְאֹ֣נְנִ֔ים רַ֖ע בְּאָזְנֵ֣י ה'

 

‘Complaining’, on account of the difficulties of the journey. They did not actually complain in their hearts as they had nothing to complain about. They only voiced complaints as a form of testing Gd.

If we add up all the pieces, we can see that the erev-rav are not interested in the food per se. They are actively inciting the Israelites to test Gd and at the same time influence them to return to their idolatrous Egyptian ways. After all, these troublemakers were never really interested in converting - as Rashi quoting the Midrash writes about Gd's comments to Moses: "You thought it a good thing that proselytes should be attached to the Shechina — now they have corrupted themselves and have corrupted others."

And if we examine the strange comment about receiving "free fish" in Egypt, Rashi rounds off his argument by adding:

We remember the fish which we did eat in Egypt for free: If you say that they meant that the Egyptians gave them fish for nothing (without payment), then I ask, “But does it not state in Exodus 5:18: [Go, therefore, now, and work], for there shall no straw be given you”? Now, if they did not give them straw for nothing, would they have given them fish for nothing! — What then is the force of the word חנם? It means: free from (i.e. without us having been burdened with) heavenly commands (Midrash Sifrei Bamidbar 87).

Along with testing Gd and attempting to entice the Israelites, the 'coup-de-grace' were their attempts to wrest the Israelites away from the Torah and its commandments. Their grumblings were simply a calculated way to attack the very soul of the nascent Israelite Nation and how did they go about it? By appealing to their most basic instincts. Witness the continuation of the verse:

Numbers 11:5

.....the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic.

The best way to influence people is to appeal to their basic desires. By focusing on the various foods and mentioning them by name, they have succeeded in diverting the Israelites' attention away from the manna. Not only that, you make the food itself seem as unappetizing as possible. The Torah proves this by telling us in the next verse that:

(6) Now our gullets are shrivelled. There is nothing at all! Nothing but this manna to look to!” (7) Now the manna was like coriander seed, and in colour it was like bdellium [a fragrant resin related to myrrh which is used in perfumes].

(8) The people would go about and gather it, grind it between millstones or pound it in a mortar, boil it in a pot, and make it into cakes. It tasted like rich cream.

The Torah is reminding us of the miracle of the manna as a counterpoint against the argument presented by the erev-rav.

Gd was providing everything the Israelites could wish for, but they were trying desperately to deny the existence of Gd, His Torah and his ability to sustain the entire Nation, which underscores the commentators' explanations proving that this battle of wills never was focused on the food. At the heart of the conflict was a struggle for the very soul of the Israelites between Gd and the erev-rav.

These last few weeks have witnessed a similar situation in our times. Following the brutal and racist killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, the grassroots Black Lives Matter (hereafter referred to as 'BLM') movement have justifiably vented their anger and disappointment at their treatment by a number of Police Officers. 

Anyone who cares about equality and fairness can empathize with their feelings of resentment and frustration, particularly considering Mr Floyd's barbaric detention and murder. However, the modern-day equivalent of the erev-rav have attached themselves to the movement and in doing so, have deliberately and cynically used this discontent as an excuse to commit crimes. These include the burning of shops and looting; daubing a synagogue in Los Angeles; breaking the window of another in Richmond, Virginia along with cynically linking the murder of Mr Floyd to Israel by accusing the country of training the US Police Force in using in the kind of tactics that were employed against Mr Floyd. This is nothing short of a blood libel, the type employed frequently against Jews in the past.

Other branches of this contemporary erev-rav have used the death of Mr Floyd as an excuse to deface and destroy statues in this country. This includes daubing the statue of Winston Churchill in Parliament Square and covering a statue of Queen Victoria in pink paint in Leeds. In doing so, they are bringing the cause espoused by BLM campaigners into disrepute and flooding the fields as it were, instead of building the bridges that are so needed to heal our communities. It is therefore extremely gratifying to see that members of the BLM movement are doing their best to repair the damage and make amends for actions that took place in their name without their consent.

The Israelites of the past should have sent the erev-rav back to Egypt. Had they done this, the episode described in this week's Parsha could have been easily avoided. With the beautiful gift of manna provided by Gd Himself, they really had nothing to complain about.

In a similar vein, BLM possesses a genuine desire to improve the lives of the people they represent. If they wish to succeed, they must work stringently to distance themselves from those who seek to harm their cause.

Whilst we let these members of the erev-rav 'take over the show' in whichever guise they present themselves, we compromise the advances that we have made and set our agenda back significantly. A movement as important as BLM cannot afford to host those of its 'members' who have a hidden agenda. Not in the Arabian deserts described in Torah nor in any of our modern cities.

Shabbat Shalom.