Parshat Korach 5776
Kehilath Jeshurun
Shabbat Parshat Korach
3 Tammuz /July 9
Two Jews, three opinions is a classic punchline to many Jewish jokes. Or the overused and over told anecdote about the Jew who was discovered after years of living alone on a deserted island and when his rescuers arrived they noticed that he had built two huts adjacent to the one he lived in. When questioned about the use of the huts, the Jew replied, “they are synagogues: one is the one I go to, and the other is the one I would never step foot into”. We are a nation gifted with the need to question, debate, argue and banter. The need for machloket is the bedrock of our Halakhic system. The Talmud itself is a monumental testament to this value, represented by divergent views and opinions, conversations, banter and heated debates. The expressions of controversy are healthy and variance of opinion adds to the diverse fabric that make up the Jewish people. Opinions and thoughts lead to intellectual stimulation and constant striving for truth and knowledge. The Mishna in Masechet Avot in the fifth perek, speaks to the importance of machloket, while providing guardrails of the ethics of machloket.
Any dispute that is for the sake of Heaven is destined to endure; one that is not for the sake of Heaven is not destined to endure. Which is a dispute that is for the sake of Heaven? The dispute between Hillel and Shammai. Which is a dispute that is not for the sake of Heaven? The dispute of Korach and all his company. The Mishna presents the typology of constructive and destructive conflict. Hillel and Shammai represent the prototype of ‘lishem shamayim’ and ‘sofa li’hitkayem’ and Korach and his congregation stand on the opposite end, as the paradigm of ‘she’eino lishem shamayim’ and ‘ein sofa lihitkayem’. We are left with an elusive question, what was it about Korach and his argument that he has become the exemplar of ‘she’eino lishem shamayim’? What was it about his platform or mission that classified his argument as ‘not for the sake of heaven’? The commentators range in their assessment of his argument. Some suggest that his motives were based on jealousy, hunt for power and personal glory, while others propose that it was the timing of his argument; he was opportunistic after the sin of the spies, playing upon the broken spirits of the nation, when morale was at an all-time low following the edict that the entire generation was to die in the desert. Rashi explains that Korach marginalized himself, put himself on the other side to intentionally incite and create controversy. He was seeking to create conflict. “Ki KOL haedah kulam kedoshim” ‘aren’t we all holy, one big happy family, Moshe, do we really need this kind of hierarchy?’ It was an arrogance that presented like humility? Interestingly, the Mishna is not exactly synonymous in its comparison. Hillel and Shammai, the ‘arguing parties’ should be compared to Korach, adato and Moshe, the ‘arguing parties’. But the Mishna states only Korach and adato, implying that Korach was not even aligned within his own team. Korach’s platform and position bifurcated the community and created divisiveness. He turned his own platform of jealousy and fight for power into a lofty ideology packaged and positioned as altruistic, leading to mob incitement and mutiny. Korach knew that the casualty for his rebellion would be the national fiber of the Jewish people and solidarity of the Jewish people. Korach was willing to let the community fall into disrepair, discord and descent, in order to promote whatever plan he had. When conflict is divisive and corrodes the community, it has entered into the domain of “eino lishem shamayim”. And our Parsha teaches us the zero tolerance policy for the kind of conflict that Korach incited. The swiftness and force of the response to Korach make it eminently clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt that Korach’s challenge to Moshe had no basis and would not be tolerated. Rachel Kraus
1
Kehilath Jeshurun
Shabbat Parshat Korach
3 Tammuz /July 9
First, the earth itself rejected Korach, “vatiftach haaretz et piha, va’tivla otam”, the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them. The magnitude of this response is an unquestionable demonstration of Moshe as the chosen leader. It would not seem that anything else would be necessary to reinforce Moshe’s authority. But after the swallowing, a second demonstration occurs: “A fire came forth from the Lord and consumed the two hundred and fifty men.”
ם ֙ ִ " ֵ ֵ֥אׁש ָיָֽצ ָ ְָ֖אה מֵ ֵ ֵ֣את י ְה ֹ ָוָ֑ה ו ַֹּ֗ת ֹאכַל ֵ ֵ֣את ַהָֽחֲ מִ ִ ִּׁ֤שים ּומָ אתַַ֨ י ":אִִ֔ יׁש
Two striking proofs of Moshe’s authority, unprecedented demonstrations of this nature, and yet a third demonstration occurs: “For wrath has gone forth from the Lord, and the plague has begun."
":"כִּֽי־י ָ ָָ֥צאִּֽהַ ֶ ֶּ֛ק ֶצףִּֽמלפְ ֵ ָ֥ניִּֽי ְה ָָֹ֖והִּֽהֵ ֵ ָ֥חלִּֽהַ נָ גֶף
Three Divine expressions depicting the total acceptance of Moshe and total rejection of Korach. There is no question as to who Hakadosh Baruch Hu favored and no doubt as to what Hakadosh Baruch Hu thinks about corrosive and divisive machloket that Korach created. And yet, a final and fourth sign occurs: “Take from them a staff for each father's house from all the princes according to their fathers' houses; and inscribe each man's name on his staff.” “The staff of the man whom I will choose will blossom,”
֙ו ַ ְֵ֣קח ֵמָֽאִ תָָּ֡ ם מַ ֶּ ֵ֣טה מַ טֶּ ה֩ ְל ֵַ֨בית אָָ֜ ב מֵ ֵ ִּׁ֤את כָל־נ ְִשָֽיאֵ הֶּ ם ל ֵ ְֵ֣בית אֲ ב ֹתִָ֔ ם ׁשְ ֵנֵ֥ים עָ ָ ָ֖שר מַ ָ֑טֹות ִ ֵ֣איׁש אֶּ ת־ׁשְ ִ֔מֹו תִ כ ְָ֖ת ֹב :עַ ל־מַ ֵטָֽהּו "ר־בֹו מַ ֵ ֵ֣טהּו י ִפְ ָ ָ֑רח ָ֖ ַ"והָ ָֹּ֗יה הָ ִ ִ֛איׁש אֲ ֶּ ֵׁ֥שר אֶּ בְח
Sure enough it was Aharons staff that blossomed. Why was this necessary? After the drama of the previous miracles. Perhaps the flowering staff, as anti-climactic and unnecessary as it may seem in comparison to the Broadway level drama of the earth opening up and swallowing the rebels, is one of the most remarkable symbols and representative of how we can proactively and productively learn from the Korach conflict; learn what it means to be lishem shamayim, and what surrounds the ethics of controversy. There is a fundamental distinction between first three demonstrations and the final one. The first three all had one common thread, they were all destructive. For one to win, meant absolute destruction of the other. Acceptance for Moshe, was total and utter rejection of the other. This was not the case in the final symbol demonstrated by the mateh. The flowering of one, ‘victory’ for one, did not result in the absolute negation of the other. One blossomed, but the other sticks were not destroyed. It is possible for one party to be vindicated without destroying and crushing the opponent. Sometimes there is a need to clearly define a victor, while simultaneously leaving space for respect and dignity for other parties. We may paskin like Hillel, majority of the time, but it never negates the validity and search of truth of the Shammai position. A machloket Lishem shamayim, as depicted in the Mishna is perhaps reflecting the fourth sign within our Parsha and may answer the question as to the need for that fourth and final sign at all. Machloket doesn’t need to crush the opponent. The Gemara in Masechet Eiruvin daf 13b states,
Rachel Kraus
2
Kehilath Jeshurun
Shabbat Parshat Korach
3 Tammuz /July 9
Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai argued for years, each fervently standing their ground for what they thought was right. A heavenly voice said, ‘eilu vielu divrei Elokim chaim’! You are both right, there is such thing as multiple truths! And yet, the Gemara continues, “VIHALACHA KIBEIT HILLEL”! We only paskin like one. Choosing Hillel does not negate the authenticity and validity of the opposing argument, the platform, the position, the search for truth demonstrated by Beit Shammai. And the Gemara continues, commenting on the character of Beit Hillel, they were kind and modest, they studied their own rulings and those of Beth Shammai, and were so humble as to mention the actions of Beth Shammai before their own. An argument that leaves the other party standing, with respect, with dignity and with an understanding that there can be room for multiple truths; room for conflict that does not divide us, but unites us. Another source in the Gemara in Masechet Yevamot daf 14a states,
Although Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed, Beit Shammai never abstained from marrying women of the families of Beit Hillel, nor did Beit Hillel refrain from marrying those of Beit Shammai. This is proof that in-laws are meant to get along. Their arguments, while heated and fierce, never stopped them from respecting each other, they never stopped marrying into each other’s families. Their arguments didn’t corrode the integrity of the community that is so central to our identity and Jewish values. Their conflict did not bifurcate and create hatred. The events of this week are tragic demonstrations of the destructive forces of confrontation. Racial confrontation with lives shattered this week, religious conflict about conversion directed at our beloved Rabbi Emeritus and the conflict demonstrated in Parshat Korach. The machloket examples of this week alone are confrontations that corrode, bifurcate, incite animosity and divide community. These conflicts destroy and uproot the values of society. There is a desperate need for peace, but peace should not be misinterpreted as the antithesis of conflict. Peace is not about unanimity of ideas and uniformity of opinion. Peace is represented by the fourth symbol, it means there is no crushed opponent, but rather a state of friendship, constructive building, mutual respect even while differences of opinions are welcomed and encouraged, even during controversy, even during dispute. To achieve equilibrium of machloket and peace; dispute and respect, we need to frame it within the ethics of controversy as defined by ‘lishem shamayim’ and ‘sofa lihitkayem’. The tragic bifurcation of this week’s events are certainly not walking the line of equilibrium in an effort to build and strengthen. If we can follow the exemplary standard of Hillel and Shammai and learn from the symbolism of the staff that blossomed, it is not about the utter destruction of the opponent, or as beautifully articulated by Wharton Professor Adam Grant, “argue like you are right and listen like you are wrong”, it is not about destroying others, dividing and corroding the integrity of the fabric of community. There is and can be constructive conflict. As we beautifully chant and sing Mizmor 29 every Shabbat as we return the Torah to the ark, we end with the words “hashem oz liamo yiten”, we are a strong nation, “oz” strong headed, strong willed, opinionated, but the latter half of the pasuk, “hashem yivarech et amo bashalom,” should ring true as a guiding principal. We can be strong in our virtues, steadfast in our positions, constantly strive for truth with authenticity and sincerity, but not without shalom, not at the expense of division, not at the price of destruction. May we witness a stronger week ahead, a more cohesive week, one that bridges the divisiveness and discord caused by ‘eino lishem shamayin’ and truly witness “hashem yivarech et amo bashalom.”
Rachel Kraus
3
Shabbat Parshat Korach
3 Tammuz /July 9
Two Jews, three opinions is a classic punchline to many Jewish jokes. Or the overused and over told anecdote about the Jew who was discovered after years of living alone on a deserted island and when his rescuers arrived they noticed that he had built two huts adjacent to the one he lived in. When questioned about the use of the huts, the Jew replied, “they are synagogues: one is the one I go to, and the other is the one I would never step foot into”. We are a nation gifted with the need to question, debate, argue and banter. The need for machloket is the bedrock of our Halakhic system. The Talmud itself is a monumental testament to this value, represented by divergent views and opinions, conversations, banter and heated debates. The expressions of controversy are healthy and variance of opinion adds to the diverse fabric that make up the Jewish people. Opinions and thoughts lead to intellectual stimulation and constant striving for truth and knowledge. The Mishna in Masechet Avot in the fifth perek, speaks to the importance of machloket, while providing guardrails of the ethics of machloket.
Any dispute that is for the sake of Heaven is destined to endure; one that is not for the sake of Heaven is not destined to endure. Which is a dispute that is for the sake of Heaven? The dispute between Hillel and Shammai. Which is a dispute that is not for the sake of Heaven? The dispute of Korach and all his company. The Mishna presents the typology of constructive and destructive conflict. Hillel and Shammai represent the prototype of ‘lishem shamayim’ and ‘sofa li’hitkayem’ and Korach and his congregation stand on the opposite end, as the paradigm of ‘she’eino lishem shamayim’ and ‘ein sofa lihitkayem’. We are left with an elusive question, what was it about Korach and his argument that he has become the exemplar of ‘she’eino lishem shamayim’? What was it about his platform or mission that classified his argument as ‘not for the sake of heaven’? The commentators range in their assessment of his argument. Some suggest that his motives were based on jealousy, hunt for power and personal glory, while others propose that it was the timing of his argument; he was opportunistic after the sin of the spies, playing upon the broken spirits of the nation, when morale was at an all-time low following the edict that the entire generation was to die in the desert. Rashi explains that Korach marginalized himself, put himself on the other side to intentionally incite and create controversy. He was seeking to create conflict. “Ki KOL haedah kulam kedoshim” ‘aren’t we all holy, one big happy family, Moshe, do we really need this kind of hierarchy?’ It was an arrogance that presented like humility? Interestingly, the Mishna is not exactly synonymous in its comparison. Hillel and Shammai, the ‘arguing parties’ should be compared to Korach, adato and Moshe, the ‘arguing parties’. But the Mishna states only Korach and adato, implying that Korach was not even aligned within his own team. Korach’s platform and position bifurcated the community and created divisiveness. He turned his own platform of jealousy and fight for power into a lofty ideology packaged and positioned as altruistic, leading to mob incitement and mutiny. Korach knew that the casualty for his rebellion would be the national fiber of the Jewish people and solidarity of the Jewish people. Korach was willing to let the community fall into disrepair, discord and descent, in order to promote whatever plan he had. When conflict is divisive and corrodes the community, it has entered into the domain of “eino lishem shamayim”. And our Parsha teaches us the zero tolerance policy for the kind of conflict that Korach incited. The swiftness and force of the response to Korach make it eminently clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt that Korach’s challenge to Moshe had no basis and would not be tolerated. Rachel Kraus
1
Kehilath Jeshurun
Shabbat Parshat Korach
3 Tammuz /July 9
First, the earth itself rejected Korach, “vatiftach haaretz et piha, va’tivla otam”, the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them. The magnitude of this response is an unquestionable demonstration of Moshe as the chosen leader. It would not seem that anything else would be necessary to reinforce Moshe’s authority. But after the swallowing, a second demonstration occurs: “A fire came forth from the Lord and consumed the two hundred and fifty men.”
ם ֙ ִ " ֵ ֵ֥אׁש ָיָֽצ ָ ְָ֖אה מֵ ֵ ֵ֣את י ְה ֹ ָוָ֑ה ו ַֹּ֗ת ֹאכַל ֵ ֵ֣את ַהָֽחֲ מִ ִ ִּׁ֤שים ּומָ אתַַ֨ י ":אִִ֔ יׁש
Two striking proofs of Moshe’s authority, unprecedented demonstrations of this nature, and yet a third demonstration occurs: “For wrath has gone forth from the Lord, and the plague has begun."
":"כִּֽי־י ָ ָָ֥צאִּֽהַ ֶ ֶּ֛ק ֶצףִּֽמלפְ ֵ ָ֥ניִּֽי ְה ָָֹ֖והִּֽהֵ ֵ ָ֥חלִּֽהַ נָ גֶף
Three Divine expressions depicting the total acceptance of Moshe and total rejection of Korach. There is no question as to who Hakadosh Baruch Hu favored and no doubt as to what Hakadosh Baruch Hu thinks about corrosive and divisive machloket that Korach created. And yet, a final and fourth sign occurs: “Take from them a staff for each father's house from all the princes according to their fathers' houses; and inscribe each man's name on his staff.” “The staff of the man whom I will choose will blossom,”
֙ו ַ ְֵ֣קח ֵמָֽאִ תָָּ֡ ם מַ ֶּ ֵ֣טה מַ טֶּ ה֩ ְל ֵַ֨בית אָָ֜ ב מֵ ֵ ִּׁ֤את כָל־נ ְִשָֽיאֵ הֶּ ם ל ֵ ְֵ֣בית אֲ ב ֹתִָ֔ ם ׁשְ ֵנֵ֥ים עָ ָ ָ֖שר מַ ָ֑טֹות ִ ֵ֣איׁש אֶּ ת־ׁשְ ִ֔מֹו תִ כ ְָ֖ת ֹב :עַ ל־מַ ֵטָֽהּו "ר־בֹו מַ ֵ ֵ֣טהּו י ִפְ ָ ָ֑רח ָ֖ ַ"והָ ָֹּ֗יה הָ ִ ִ֛איׁש אֲ ֶּ ֵׁ֥שר אֶּ בְח
Sure enough it was Aharons staff that blossomed. Why was this necessary? After the drama of the previous miracles. Perhaps the flowering staff, as anti-climactic and unnecessary as it may seem in comparison to the Broadway level drama of the earth opening up and swallowing the rebels, is one of the most remarkable symbols and representative of how we can proactively and productively learn from the Korach conflict; learn what it means to be lishem shamayim, and what surrounds the ethics of controversy. There is a fundamental distinction between first three demonstrations and the final one. The first three all had one common thread, they were all destructive. For one to win, meant absolute destruction of the other. Acceptance for Moshe, was total and utter rejection of the other. This was not the case in the final symbol demonstrated by the mateh. The flowering of one, ‘victory’ for one, did not result in the absolute negation of the other. One blossomed, but the other sticks were not destroyed. It is possible for one party to be vindicated without destroying and crushing the opponent. Sometimes there is a need to clearly define a victor, while simultaneously leaving space for respect and dignity for other parties. We may paskin like Hillel, majority of the time, but it never negates the validity and search of truth of the Shammai position. A machloket Lishem shamayim, as depicted in the Mishna is perhaps reflecting the fourth sign within our Parsha and may answer the question as to the need for that fourth and final sign at all. Machloket doesn’t need to crush the opponent. The Gemara in Masechet Eiruvin daf 13b states,
Rachel Kraus
2
Kehilath Jeshurun
Shabbat Parshat Korach
3 Tammuz /July 9
Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai argued for years, each fervently standing their ground for what they thought was right. A heavenly voice said, ‘eilu vielu divrei Elokim chaim’! You are both right, there is such thing as multiple truths! And yet, the Gemara continues, “VIHALACHA KIBEIT HILLEL”! We only paskin like one. Choosing Hillel does not negate the authenticity and validity of the opposing argument, the platform, the position, the search for truth demonstrated by Beit Shammai. And the Gemara continues, commenting on the character of Beit Hillel, they were kind and modest, they studied their own rulings and those of Beth Shammai, and were so humble as to mention the actions of Beth Shammai before their own. An argument that leaves the other party standing, with respect, with dignity and with an understanding that there can be room for multiple truths; room for conflict that does not divide us, but unites us. Another source in the Gemara in Masechet Yevamot daf 14a states,
Although Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed, Beit Shammai never abstained from marrying women of the families of Beit Hillel, nor did Beit Hillel refrain from marrying those of Beit Shammai. This is proof that in-laws are meant to get along. Their arguments, while heated and fierce, never stopped them from respecting each other, they never stopped marrying into each other’s families. Their arguments didn’t corrode the integrity of the community that is so central to our identity and Jewish values. Their conflict did not bifurcate and create hatred. The events of this week are tragic demonstrations of the destructive forces of confrontation. Racial confrontation with lives shattered this week, religious conflict about conversion directed at our beloved Rabbi Emeritus and the conflict demonstrated in Parshat Korach. The machloket examples of this week alone are confrontations that corrode, bifurcate, incite animosity and divide community. These conflicts destroy and uproot the values of society. There is a desperate need for peace, but peace should not be misinterpreted as the antithesis of conflict. Peace is not about unanimity of ideas and uniformity of opinion. Peace is represented by the fourth symbol, it means there is no crushed opponent, but rather a state of friendship, constructive building, mutual respect even while differences of opinions are welcomed and encouraged, even during controversy, even during dispute. To achieve equilibrium of machloket and peace; dispute and respect, we need to frame it within the ethics of controversy as defined by ‘lishem shamayim’ and ‘sofa lihitkayem’. The tragic bifurcation of this week’s events are certainly not walking the line of equilibrium in an effort to build and strengthen. If we can follow the exemplary standard of Hillel and Shammai and learn from the symbolism of the staff that blossomed, it is not about the utter destruction of the opponent, or as beautifully articulated by Wharton Professor Adam Grant, “argue like you are right and listen like you are wrong”, it is not about destroying others, dividing and corroding the integrity of the fabric of community. There is and can be constructive conflict. As we beautifully chant and sing Mizmor 29 every Shabbat as we return the Torah to the ark, we end with the words “hashem oz liamo yiten”, we are a strong nation, “oz” strong headed, strong willed, opinionated, but the latter half of the pasuk, “hashem yivarech et amo bashalom,” should ring true as a guiding principal. We can be strong in our virtues, steadfast in our positions, constantly strive for truth with authenticity and sincerity, but not without shalom, not at the expense of division, not at the price of destruction. May we witness a stronger week ahead, a more cohesive week, one that bridges the divisiveness and discord caused by ‘eino lishem shamayin’ and truly witness “hashem yivarech et amo bashalom.”
Rachel Kraus
3
