From: Netvort@aol.com
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 2:19
AM
To: JoshHoff@aol.com
Subject: Netvort : parshas Korach,
5766
We Can Work it
Out
By Rabbi Joshua (reasonably known as The Hoffer) Hoffman
This
week’s parsha records the rebellion of Korach and his followers against the
leadership of Moshe, including his choice of his brother Aharon to serve as
kohein gadol, and the demise of these rebels. As a test of who is right, Moshe
tells the two hundred fifty people who joined Korach to take firepans and place
ketores, or incense, in them, to see if their offering would be accepted by God.
They did so, and, after Korach himself is swallowed up by the earth together
with his family and Dasan and Aviram, a fire comes from heaven and consumes the
two hundred fifty people. God then tells to command Aharon’s son Elazar to
take the firepans of these men and make them into thinned-out sheets to serve as
a covering for the altar. This covering the Torah tells us, will serve as a
reminder for non-Kohanim, to refrain from bringing the incense so "and he shall
not be as Korach and his company" (Bamidbar 16:5). The author of the Halochos
Gedolos actually counts this as a Torah prohibition, not to get involved in
machlokes, or disputes, in the manner in which Korach and his company did.
Although disputes, in certain contexts, such as Torah learning, can be
exhilarating and productive, the dispute of Korach and his company is
considered, by the Torah, as the kind of dispute that is forbidden. We need to
understand, then, why the firepans used for the test of the ketores were chosen
to symbolize forbidden disputes. What is it about the ketores that reminds one
of the wrong way to approach a disagreement with somebody ?
The mishneh tells us, " Any dispute that is for the sake of heaven will have a
constructive outcome, but a dispute that is not for the sake of heaven will not
have a constructive outcome. Which dispute was for the sake of heaven ? The
dispute of Hillel and Shammai. And which was not for the sake of heaven ? The
dispute of Korach and his company." (Avos 5:20). The mishneh does not seem to
explain the difference between the two types of disputes it mentions. Why was
one considered as being for the sake of heaven and not the other ? Rabbi Shimon
Schwab zt"l found a hint to the difference in the mishneh itself. In
contrast to the dispute between Hillel and Shammai, in which both sides are
mentioned, in connection with Korach, the mishneh refers to the dispute as being
that of Korach and his company, rather than that of Korach and Moshe. Rabbi
Schwab explained that both Hillel and Shammai were interested in the truth, and,
thus, each was willing to listen to the other side. Korach and his company,
however, were not interested in what the other side had to say, and therefore,
Moshe’s side is not mentioned in the mishneh. A dispute that is for the sake of
heaven in which the truth is sought, takes into consideration all possible sides
of an issue, in an effort to uncover the truth. A dispute that is not for the
sake of heaven is not a quest for truth, but rather for personal advancement.
That is why the dispute of Korach and his company is taken as a paradigm of a
dispute that the Torah forbids.
Actually, if one looks at
Moshe’s reaction to the arguments of Korach, he can discern that Moshe himself
was, in fact, interested in determining the truth in respect to this dispute.
The Torah tells us that Moshe’s initial reaction was to fall on his face
(Bamidbar 16:3). R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi, the author of the Tanya, explained
that Moshe, in his humility, did not dismiss Korach’s complaints outright. He
considered the possibility that he was, in fact, at fault, and for that reason
prostrated himself and engaged in some serious soul-searching. Rav Yerucham
Levovitz, mashgiach ruchani, or spiritual guidance counselor, of the Mir
Yeshivah in Europe before the second World War, pointed out that it was for this
reason that Moshe told God that had not taken a single donkey of any one of them
(Bamidbar 15:16). Moshe advanced this argument because the accusations of
Dasan and Aviram that he was interested in his own power caused him to engage in
self-introspection, and he felt a need to demonstrate that the charges were not
true. On a different level, perhaps Moshe was trying to show his disputant that
the proper way to handle a dispute is to consider both sides of the case.
Although Dasan and Aviram were not interested in conducting their dispute in
this way, the Torah, by recording Moshe’s argument, is teaching us that, in a
dispute, all sides must be brought out.
The need to bring out all
aspects of a dispute is especially important when it comes to Torah study. Rav
Avrohom Yitzchok haKohein Kook explains that this is why the Talmud tells us
that Torah scholars bring peace to the world (Berachos 64a). Even though they
are constantly arguing with each other, they emerge as friends, because true
peace comes about only when all sides of a dispute are brought out, and the
truth among all the various arguments is filtered out. Perhaps that is why
Moshe, the greatest Torah teacher, who is often referred to as Moshe Rabbeinu,
or Moshe our teacher, felt it necessary to consider all sides when it came to
the dispute against him carried out by Korach and his followers. In this
context, we can understand the imagery of the ketores. The ketores was made of
eleven different spices, including one, the chelbanah, which had a bad smell.
All of these elements had to be brought together in order to produce the
ketores. In the same way, in a genuine dispute, engaged in for the sake of
heaven, all sides must be considered in order for a constructive outcome to
emerge. Korach and his co-conspirators were not interested in engaging in this
kind of dispute, and therefore suffered the fate described in the Torah.
Please
address all correspondence to the author (Rabbi Hoffman) with the following
address - JoshHoff @ AOL.com.
To subscribe to Netvort, send a
message with subject line subscribe, to Netvort@aol.com. To
unsubscribe, send message with subject line unsubscribe, to the
same address.