Netvort Parshas Korach 5770: Nice Pshat
By
Rabbi Joshua (midrashically known as The Hoffer) Hoffman
In
memory of Rav Mordechai Eliyahu, zt'l, former chief rabbi of Israel,
who passed away this week. May his memory be a blessing.
Many
years ago, when I was studying in Yeshivas Brisk in Chicago, Rabbi
Aryeh Binah zt'l was a guest for Shabbos, and the Rosh HaYeshivah
(dean), Rav Aharon Soloveichik, zt'l, invited him to speak at seudah
shlishis (third meal), in addition to his own talk, we were thus
treated to what one student called a 'double dose' of Torah. Both
speakers opened their remarks by quoting Rashi to the parsha, who
begins his commentary to parshas Korach by saying that it is nicely
expounded in the Midrash Tanchuma. The obvious question is did Rashi
mean to suggest that other parshas are not nicely expounded in the
Tanchuma? Rav Aharon explained Rashi to mean that while, in other
parshas, the midrash expounds only a few Rav Binah explained Rashi
differently. He said that Rashi meant to say that the Tanchuma on
Korach conforms with the simple meaning of the verses, the pshat,
selected verses, the Tanchuma on Korach gives a through explanation
of the parsha. The Tanchuma on Korach fits well into the plain
meaning of the verses- the pshat- unlike midrashim on other parshas
which do not fit that well into the pshat. Since Rashi's stated goal
in his Torah commentary is to explain the pshat, or, sometimes,
instead, to bring midrashim which conform to the pshat, he is
telling us that the Tanchuma to parshas Korach fits this
criterion.
Rav Moshe Sternbach, in his Ta'am Va a'as, asks a
curious question on our Rashi. Why is it, he asks, that Rashi, after
extolling the Tanchuma for its treatment of the verses in Korach,
does not bring the Tanchuma in his commentary? This question is
strange, because Rashi actually does bring the Tanchuma several
times! However, I believe that Rabbi Sternbach's answer is very
insightful, and by rephrasing his question, we can offer a different
explanation of Rashi's comment on the quality of the Tanchuma on
Korach, and benefit from Rabbi Sternbach's answer, as well. The
question we may ask on Rashi is, why does he single out the Tanchuma
on Korach as giving a thorough explanation of the verses, or as
conforming to the simple meaning of the verses, when there are
undoubtedly midrashim on other parshas that have one or both of these
features, and yet we never find that Rashi says this about any other
midrash? Rav Sternbach's answer is that while the Tanchuma finds
reasons for Korach's rebellion as they emerge from the Torah's
account of his rebellion, the bottom line is that when someone is
engaged in a machlokes, in a controversy, there really is no reason
for it other than that he wishes to be contentious. This is why, as I
once heard from Rav Shimon Schwab zt'l, the Mishnah in Avos refers to
the rebellion of Korach as the argument of Korach and his group,
without mentioning Moshe. Rashi mentions that Moshe tried his best
to quell the controversy, because he wanted to avoid the negative
effects that machlokes has. Korach, on the contrary, was only
interested in spreading the machlokes, and had no interest in what
Moshe had to say. In a machlokes that is done 'leshem shamayim,' out
of pure motivations, such as a dispute between Torah scholars on the
parameters of a certain law, each side wants to hear what the other
side has to say, so that between them they will emerge with the
truth. In a dispute that is not leshem shamayim, there is no interest
in finding the truth, because the dispute is fomented for the sake of
the dispute. This was the real nature of Korach's rebellion against
Moshe.
Seen in this light, we can reinterpret Rashi's
statement on the Tanchuma as meaning that this midrash, by giving a
plausible explanation of Korach's rebellion that conforms with the
simple meaning of the verses, is explaining the parshas in a nice way
- yafeh nidrashes. However, in this case, a 'nice' explanation does
not reveal what is lying at the heart of the dispute. The famed Rav
Gavriel Zev (popularly known as Rav Velvele) Margolis
(1847-1935), rabbi of the Adas Yisroel shul on New York's Lower
East Side, was once asked by a newspaper reporter if he had anything
to say about Rav Shalom Elchanan Yafeh, a leader of the Agudas
Harrabonim, with whom Rav Velevele answered that if one looks at the
prayer 'emes veyatziv' recited after the morning Shema, he will
see that it starts with the word 'emes'- truth- and then has about
fifteen expressions until it mentions the word 'yafeh.' We see from
here, said Rav Velvele, how far Yafeh is from the truth. A
bit more seriously, Rav Chaim Yaakov Goldvicht, zt'l, founding
Rosh HaYeshivah of Kerem b'Yavneh, used to say that when someone
tries to give a 'nice' explanation of a Talmudic discussion, with
everything falling neatly into place, it is most likely as far from
the truth as emes is from yafeh. In a similar way, based on Rav
Sternbach's comment that the Tanchuma's explanation of the
motivation behind Korach's rebellion, while fitting in nicely with
the pshat, is far from the true, underlying cause behind his actions.
Archives are available at
http://www.yucs.org/heights/torah/bysubject/
In
addition, archives from 5764-5768 are now available at
yeshivasbrisk.freeservers.com/netvort.html