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.