Korach

5783

Yahrzeit - Flowers and Fruit

The Kiddush this Shabbos was sponsored by Mr. Frank Menlo in honor of his mother, Bluma Bas Reb Ephraim, on her first Yahrzeit. In the Gemara, there is a concept of אם למקרא and אם למסורת. In today’s times, it’s more אם למקרא as people are more learned and they can teach מקרא. But in the olden days, women were primarily the ones who preserved the מסורה, the אם למסורת. Mrs. Menlo was from the old school. She didn’t go to Beis Yackov but she nevertheless kept up the מסורה in a firm way. She was one of the first women in Los Angeles to wear a shaitel, she was a kind person, and a big Baalas Chessed.

The Kiddush was also sponsored by Reb Naftali Kasorla in honor of his wife’s miraculous recovery five years ago.

The Pasuk in Mishlei 31:28 says קמו בניה ויאשרוה בעלה ויהללה. When it comes to a husband, the Pasuk says ויהללה that he can sing the wife’s praises. But when it comes to her sons, the Pasuk says ויאשרוה. What is the meaning of the word ויאשרוה? The simple explanation is that sons make their mother happy, אושר. But the word ויאשרוה can also have the meaning of אישור which means to verify. According to this, the children are the אישור of who the mother was. When a person sees Mr Frank Menlo and all the Chessed that he does, that is really the expression of who his mother was.

In the Parshah, there is the incident with the מטות and the Pasuk 17:23 says ויהי ממחרת ויבא משה אל אהל העדות והנה פרח מטה אהרן לבית לוי ויצא פרח ויצץ ציץ ויגמל שקדים. Rashi says ויצא פרח – כמשמעו, ציץ - הוא חנטת הפרי כשהפרח נופל, ויגמל שקדים - כשהוכר הפרי הוכר שהן שקדים. The simple explanation implies that this process was similar to the natural process and when the שקדים came out, the פרח fell off. However, the Daas Zekenim M’Baalei HaTosfos says as follows:

משמע דתרי עניני פרח היו שם דמצד אחד פרח ואותן פרחים עמדו ולא נפלו לעולם ומצד אחד ויצא פרח ונפל כדרך כל פרחי אילנות ויצץ ציץ ויגמול שקדים. וראיה מיומא ומפרק מקום שנהגו דמסיק על אותן דברים שנגנזו וי"א אף מקלו של אהרן שקדיה ופרחיה נגנזו מכלל דפרחים היו ועמדו לעולם ומצד אחד השקדים

They say that there was two types of פרחים. Some פרחים fell off like the natural process and some פרחים remained and never fell off. They bring a proof from the Gemara in Yoma that says the staff of Aaron, with the שקדים ופרחים was hidden, which implies that there were פרחים that remained forever. What could be the message that the פרחים remained on the מטה even after the שקדים came out which is contrary to the natural process?

The idea could be as follows. Later in the Parshah, by מתנות כהונה, the Pasuk 18:8 says וידבר ה' אל אהרן ואני הנה נתתי לך את משמרת תרומתי לכל קדשי בני ישראל לך נתתים למשחה ולבניך לחק עולם and Rashi write the following:

ואני הנה נתתי לך - בשמחה. לשון שמחה הוא זה, כמו (שמות ד, יד) הנה הוא יוצא לקראתך וראך ושמח בלבו, משל למלך שנתן שדה לאוהבו ולא כתב ולא חתם ולא העלה בערכאין. בא אחד וערער על השדה. א"ל המלך כל מי שירצה יבא ויערער לנגדך, הריני כותב וחותם לך ומעלה בערכאין, אף כאן לפי שבא קרח וערער כנגד אהרן על הכהונה, בא הכתוב ונתן לו כ"ד מתנות כהונה בברית מלח עולם, ולכך נסמכה פרשה זו לכאן

According to this, it turns out that the ערער of Korach ended up having something positive come from it which is the שמחה of giving the מתנות כהונה which will serve as a statement against all the מערערים. This is similar to the idea in the Gemara Ksubos 19b which says a שטר שיצא עליו ערער ונתקיים בב"ד, you can be מקיים other שטרות with that שטר. Meaning a שטר שיצא עליו ערער ונתקיים בב"ד is stronger than a שטר שלא יצא עליו ערער בב"ד. There is a positive side to the fact that it was יצא עליו ערער.

The idea is that once the כהונה is achieved, from here on, the perspective shouldn’t be that the process and journey to achieve the כהונה is forgotten. Rather it should always be that on one side, you see the finished product, the פרי and on the other side, you see the process, the פרח, where it’s coming from. Usually, the פרח falls off when the פרי comes out. But here, in the context of the כהונה, the פרח remains even once the פרי comes out which represents the process of getting to where one got. Therefore, in a sense, the ערער helped also in a פנימיות בחינה that the Kohanim should not experience their כהונה as self-understood rather they should always remember how they got there.

Sometimes, children forget where they are from. But if a person is זוכה, then the פרי always sees the process and you never take anything for granted. A person understands that where he is only because of where he came from. This is connected to name of the nifteres, “Bluma” which is a פרח. So the שקדים need to remember the פרח that was there in the process of making them what they became.

Leaders Can Make Mistakes

There are various opinions as to when the rebellion of Korach took place. Contrary to what the Ibn Ezra says that the incident with Korach actually took place right after the חנוכת המשכן right after Aharon and his sons were appointed, the Ramban is of the opinion that the story of Korach is in its correct place, meaning it took place after the חטא המרגלים. If this is the case, why did Korach wait until now to challenge Moshe, he should’ve done it the moment he did the various appointments that he was upset about, as the אבן עזרא actually explains.

The Ramban address this question and writes the following:

והנכון בדרש, שכעס קרח על נשיאות אלצפן כמאמר רבותינו (תנחומא קרח א), וקנא גם באהרן כמו שנאמר ובקשתם גם כהונה (פסוק י) וכו' והנה ישראל בהיותם במדבר סיני לא אירע להם שום רעה, כי גם בדבר העגל שהיה החטא גדול ומפורסם היו המתים מועטים, ונצלו בתפלתו של משה שהתנפל עליהם ארבעים יום וארבעים לילה. והנה היו אוהבים אותו כנפשם ושומעים אליו, ואלו היה אדם מורד על משה בזמן ההוא היה העם סוקלים אותו, ולכן סבל קרח גדולת אהרן וסבלו הבכורים מעלת הלוים וכל מעשיו של משה. אבל בבואם אל מדבר פארן ונשרפו באש תבערה ומתו בקברות התאוה רבים, וכאשר חטאו במרגלים לא התפלל משה עליהם ולא בטלה הגזרה מהם, ומתו נשיאי כל השבטים במגפה לפני ה', ונגזר על כל העם שיתמו במדבר ושם ימותו, אז היתה נפש כל העם מרה והיו אומרים בלבם כי יבואו להם בדברי משה תקלות, ואז מצא קרח מקום לחלוק על מעשיו וחשב כי ישמעו אליו העם.

The Ramban says that Moshe Rabbeinu led the Jews out of Mitzrayim and he did everything for them. Even when they sinned with the חטא העגל, he davened and saved them. They were אוהבים אותו כנפשם and if anyone would attempt to challenge the leadership of Moshe at that time, they would surely stand up for Moshe and suppress the opposition. But now that there was the incident with the Meraglim and they were punished (that which the Ramban writes that Moshe was not מתפלל on their behalf is difficult to understand what he means) that they were are all going to die, now they were מרי נפש and it was an opportune time for Korach to act on his own grudges.

The Rav added to the Ramban that it’s not only that they were upset about the consequences of the חטא המרגלים but in additionally, the episode of sending the Meraglim was the first time in his leadership that he had to make a decision on his own. Hashem said to him שלח לך לדעתך, that he wasn’t being commanded to send them rather Hashem was saying you do what you feel is best. As a consequence of Moshe’s decision, everything went wrong, so to speak, and changed the course of Jewish History. Therefore, this was the best time for Korach to launch his revolt. Now Korach felt it was the opportune time to challenge Moshe’s decision as to whether they were God given, or on his own.

An important message that could be learnt is that a Gadol, a leader, could make a mistake. Korach made this mistake because he set a very high bar. He thought a Gadol should be infallible and therefore he conclude if Moshe made a mistake such as sending the Meraglim, then it’s a sign that he isn’t a Gadol. However this isn’t true and Korach was mistaken. There is a story with the Beis HaLevi where someone came to ask him advice and he gave him some advice and it flopped. So the person came back to the Beis HaLevi all upset and he claimed that he misled him. The Beis HaLevi responded about who do you think the Pasuk in Yeshayah 44:25 משיב חכמים אחור ודעתם יסכל is talking about? A טפש like you?! Meaning to say that sometimes, the חכם makes a mistake.

There is another story about a bunch of Chassidim who were all saying over stories and מופתים about each of their respective Rebbes. There was one Lubavitch Chassid there, who was a Chassid of the Rashab, and he said there was a מופת with his Rebbe that was greater than all the other מופתים mentioned. He said that he deals in lumber and one time there was a ship with a lot of lumber and he had the chance to buy it for really cheap. However it depended on if the ice in the river would melt and then he would be able to ship it. If it would melt, then he would be able to make a lot of money but if it remained frozen, then he wouldn’t. He asked the Rebbe what to do and the Rebbe advised him to buy the lumber. But sure enough the river stayed frozen the entire winter and even when he was able to sell the lumber back at the same price in order to not have a loss, the Rebbe advised him to hold on to it. So he held on to it, and the prices went down and it ended of resulting in a large loss. So the Chassidim asked him if so what was the מופת, so the Chassid responded in spite of the fact that he lost all his money, he remained a Chassid. The מופת was that he remained a Chassid.

Dasan and Aviram

The Pasuk says וישלח משה לקרא לדתן ולאבירם, and Rashi explains מכאן שאין מחזיקין במחלוקת, שהיה משה מחזר אחריהם להשלימם בדברי שלום. We see how far a person needs to go in order to not be considered מחזיק במחלוקת.

Who were דתן ואבירם? דתן ואבירם were professional trouble makers who gave Moshe Rabbeinu difficulty from the beginning. About them, the Pasuk in Shemos 2:13 says שני אנשים עברים נצים and the Medrash Rabbah in the beginning of Shemos (פרשה א סימן כח) says the following:

אמרו רז"ל נוגשים היו מן המצריים ושוטרים מישראל, נוגש ממונה על עשרה שוטרים, שוטר ממונה על עשרה מישראל, והיו הנוגשים הולכים לבתי השוטרים בהשכמה להוציאן למלאכתן לקריאת הגבר, פעם אחת הלך נוגש מצרי אצל שוטר ישראל ונתן עיניו באשתו שהיתה יפת תואר בלי מום, עמד לשעת קריאת הגבר והוציאו מביתו וחזר המצרי ובא על אשתו והיתה סבורה שהוא בעלה ונתעברה ממנו, חזר בעלה ומצא המצרי יוצא מביתו שאל אותה שמא נגע בך אמרה לו הן וסבורה אני שאתה הוא, כיון שידע הנוגש שהרגיש בו החזירו לעבודת הפרך והיה מכה אותו ומבקש להרגו, והיה משה רואה אותו ומביט בו וראה ברוח הקודש מה שעשה בבית וראה מה שעתיד לעשות לו בשדה, אמר ודאי זה חייב מיתה, כמו שכתוב (ויקרא כד) ומכה אדם יומת, ולא עוד אלא שבא על אשתו של דתן על כך חייב הריגה, שנא' (שם /ויקרא/ כ) מות יומת הנואף והנואפת, והיינו דכתיב ויפן כה וכה וגו', ראה מה עשה לו בבית ומה עשה לו בשדה

Regarding the well-known incident with the מצרי that Moshe Rabbeinu killed, the Medrash adds that the Mitzri was בא על אשתו של דתן. How does the Medrash know that she was the wife of דתן? One commentary on the Medrash, the Yedei Moshe wants to be מגיה and write it as one word שלדתן meaning that in their law, such a person is חייב הריגה. However, the פירוש מהרז"ו explains as follows:

שבא על אשתו של דתן. שמ"ש וירא כי אין איש היינו שלא היה שם איש אחר רק המוכה לבדו שראה וידע מה שעשה משה למצרי ולמחר בהכרח שהוא אמר למשה הלהרגני אתה אומר כאשר הרגת את המצרי כי לא היה שם אדם אחר והוא דתן שהכה לאבירם

He says that since Chazal learned that it was דתן ואבירם who accused Moshe of wanting to kill them like he killed the Mitzri, it must be the מוכה was דתן because the Pasuk says וירא כי אין איש implying that the only person who saw was the מוכה himself. That is how the Medrash knows that this women who the Mitzri was בא עליו was the wife of דתן. According to this it comes out that although Moshe Rabbeinu killed the Mitzri in order to save the life of דתן, nevertheless it was דתן who was מלשין to Pharaoh about killing the Mitzri which resulted in Moshe having to flee Mitzrayim to Midian. Such behavior is so hard to imagine. דתן must have been a serious low life for him to be מלשין on the person that saved his life! Then, דתן ואבירם leave over the מן and they prove time and time again to be troublemakers always trying to undermine Moshe’s leadership. Yet, regarding them, it is said about Moshe שהיה משה מחזר אחריהם להשלימם בדברי שלום.

However, it could be that they weren’t such low lives but that they stood up for law and order. The human psych is very complex but it could be thatדתן really had such a high sense of justice to the point where he felt he had to tell Pharaoh about what Moshe did to the Mitzri because such an individual could potentially pose a major threat to society.But we see that misplaced justice can lead to horrible things.

This idea is further expressed in the Yalkut Shemoni in the beginning of the Parshah. The Medrash records a story that Korach was telling over a story to the people about a widow and her two orphaned sons who were struggling to survive. The story goes through how the widow attempts to make a living with a field, but runs into difficulty, as Moshe informs her of the various הלכות that pertain to a field, that make it difficult for her to make a living. She goes on to sell the field and to buy a sheep in order to make a living. However, she further encounters difficulty as אהרן informs her of the many הלכות that make him the rightful recipient of much of the produce such as ראשית הגז. The point of this story is to show how there are people such as Korach who manipulate a person’s kindness and sense of justice to incite the people to rebel against Moshe Rabbeinu. This is something that always happens to people who don’t have proper boundaries and הדרכה from the Torah regarding inclusivity and diversity. Some people can mean it with all their heart but when those positive character traits are taken out of proportion, it can lead to a חורבן עולם. Moshe Rabbeinu understood this about people and he understood that it could be דתן ואבירם weren’t evil at their core and therefore he was מחזר אחריהם להשלימם בדברי שלום.

5782

Korach and Tzitzis

The past few פרשיות, Rashi begins his commentary with למה נסמכה. Seemingly because the events that were being mentioned were not in the chronological order, and therefore there needed to be a logic to the order. However, when it comes to Korach, Rashi does not ask למה נסמכה. One could conclude from here that this is the right place chronologically for the story with Korach. This is reinforced by what Rashi says on the Pasuk ויפלו על פניו, the reason being because this was the סרחון רביעי, the third being the חטא המרגלים.

However, according to one of the explanations in Rashi in דברים א:א, it would indicate that the dispute with Korach actually occurred earlier than the חטא המרגלים. Rashi in the beginning of Parshas Devarim explains that Moshe hinted to Klal Yisrael their shortcomings by mentioning the places where these troubles occurred. Rashi writes regarding חצרות, that’s where מחלוקתו של קרח occurred. According to this, it’s possible that the next event chronologically after the incident with Miriam speaking Lashon Hara about Moshe was the dispute with Korach as it took place in חצרות. But it could also be that it took place before the מעשה מרים, because all we know is that they both took place in חצרות but we don’t know which happened first. So if the story with Korach happened after the מעשה מרים and not after the חטא המרגלים, then the order of the Torah is not in the chronological order and the question למה נסמכה is a good question. So what could be the connection between the incident with Korach and the end of Parshas Shelach?

The end of Parshas Shelach contains the Parshah of Tzitzis which has the Pasukלא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם and connects with the beginning of the Parshah, the incident with the Meraglim as Rashi writes כמו (לעיל יג כה) מתור הארץ. Rashi continues and says הלב והעינים הם מרגלים לגוף ומסרסרים לו את העבירות, העין רואה והלב חומד והגוף עושה את העבירות, that the heart and eyes are the מרגלים which bring the message to the self.

But the difficulty is that Rashi writes העין רואה והלב חומד והגוף עושה את העבירות that first the eyes see and then the heart desires which seems to be the opposite order from the Pasuk which first puts אחרי לבבכם and then אחרי עיניכם. So it must be that really what one sees is based on what he is looking for and where a person’s heart is affects what he sees. He sees what he wants to see and he sees things the way he wants to see them. But once he sees, then that brings him to a new level of הלב חומד which is not the אחרי לבבכם that the Pasuk is talking about. Rather the לא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם is talking about where the לב is a Hakdamah to the עין but after that when the עין is רואה, then לב is חומד which leads to והגוף עושה את העבירות.

The Pasuk in the beginning of the Parshah says רב לכם בני לוי and Rashi writesוקרח שפקח מה היה ראה לשטות זה, עינו הטעתו, ראה שלשלת גדולה יוצאה ממנו. We see from here that Korachs downfall was עינו הטעתו, his eyes caused him to err. Meaning, the bias of his heart is what brought him to be תתורו אחרי עיניכם. Because his heart was in the wrong place, that is why he saw the reality in the wrong way and he learnt from the שלשלת גדולה יוצאה ממנו that he must be right even though it wasn’t true.

Additionally, we see that Korach had questions on the Mitzvah of Tzitzis when he suggested that a טלית שכולו תכלת should be exempt from Tzitzis.

With this, it could be understood למה נסמכה the Parshah of Tzitzis to the rebellion of Korach.

Machlokes Anytime

According to the two explanations mentioned above in Rashi, the incident with Korach either took place in חצרות around the same time as the מעשה מרים (unclear if it was before or after), which was in חצרות as the last Pasuk says in Behaloscha ואחר נסעו העם מחצרות ויחנו במדבר פארן or it took place after the חטא המרגלים. The Ramban is of the opinion that the story of Korach is in its correct place, meaning it took place after the חטא המרגלים. And the Ibn Ezra offers a fourth opinion that the incident with Korach actually took place right after the חנוכת המשכן right after Aharon and his sons were appointed.

The fact that there are four different opinions as to when the incident with Korach took place could be teaching us the lesson that unfortunately, Machlokes can erupt at any given time. There is no specific and set time for Machlokes. The Pri Megadim, in his sefer תיבת גמא on Parshah, talks about this to explain the first Rashi in the Parshah which says פרשה זו יפה נדרשת and writes the following:

אומרים הלצה פרשה זו יפה נדרשת דבר בעתו מה טוב ושלא בעונתו לא נאה לדרוש בפסח דיני סוכת או יוה"כ וכדומה ופרשה זו מחלוקת יפה נדרשת תמיד כי אין שעה שאין מחלוקת וכו'.

Growth Between The Setbacks

Starting with Parshas Behaloscha, there are a series of פורענות, one after the next. Between the first two פורענות, the Torah writes the Parshah of ויהי בנסע הארן which is its own Parshah and the Gemara in Shabbos 116a says the reason it was placed there is כדי להפסיק בין פורענות ראשונה לפורענות שנייה. But when it comes to the סמיכות הפרשיות between the חטא המרגלים and the incident with Korach, there is no הפסק between the פורענות. The Re’em discusses this issue in the beginning of Parshas Shelach. But in general, an explanation needs to be given as to what the benefit of כדי להפסיק בין פורענות לפורענות is because in end, both פורענות appear. It’s not like it can’t be seen that Klal Yisrael sinned because the Torah is מפסיק בין פורענות לפורענות.

Furthermore, one could ask that ויהי בנסע הארן is not only its own Parshah but it’s even considered its own Sefer as the Gemara Shabbos 116a says that there are seven Seforim (Chumashim) of Torah because Bamidbar is split up into three. The first Sefer is up until ויהי בנסע הארן, then ויהי בנסע הארן is another Sefer, and then from after ויהי בנסע הארן until the end of Bamidbar is another Sefer. What is so important about הפסקות בין פורענות לפורענות that it deserves a Sefer בפני עצמו?

Even more so, the Gemara Shabbos 117a says ספר תורה שבלה, אם יש בו ללקט שמונים וחמש אותיות, כגון פרשת ויהי בנסע הארן מצילין מפני הדלקה. It’s clear from this Gemara that the minimum amount of letters required for a Sefer Torah to hold on to Kedushas HaTorah is 85 and the reason is because the Parshah/Sefer of ויהי בנסע הארן is 85 letters. What is this about?

It’s told that once the Chidushei Harim met the Radzyminer Rebbe, Reb Yaakov Aryeh Guterman (1792-1874) M’Radzymin and he saw that he looked sad and down. So he asked the Rebbe what was the matter. So the Radzyminer responded that during this time of the year, when the פרשיות of במדבר are read, he gets down because of all the mess-ups and setbacks the Yidden had in the Midbar. So the Chidushei Harim said to him, “from their Aveiros, Torah was created; Halevai from our Mitzvos”!

Although this is very deep and difficult for us to understand, on our level, it could be understood that Torah, which is מלשון הוראה, is teaching us the lesson that in spite of all these setbacks, we move forward. That is the meaning of from their Aveiros, Torah was created, because it becomes a lesson of not to give up.

The idea of the Sefer ויהי בנסע הארן being מפסיק בין פורענות לפורענות teaches us that it’s true we failed, and there is a real concern that we will fail again. However, there is a בין פורענות לפורענות. Today, is a day on its own and it’s independent of the failures that happened yesterday and of the failures what might happen tomorrow. So right now, today, seize the moment to move forward- ויהי בנסע הארן.

Our Minhag is to say ויהי בנסע הארן when the Aron is opened and we take out the Sefer Torah. The source for this Minhag is in the ספר מחכים written by Reb Nosson Ben Reb Yehuda who was a contemporary of the Rashba but he doesn’t explain why. This Minhag is later brought by other Rishonim but it’s not clear from anyone why we do this. The truth is that the Aron isn’t moving, rather the Sefer Torah is just be taken out of the Aron so why are we saying the Pasuk of ויהי בנסע הארן which had to do with the Aron moving?

In this context, the answer could be that Yidden take out the Sefer Torah to learn Torah. But a person might feel ולרשע אמר אלהים מה לך לספר חקי ותשא בריתי עלי פיך (תהלים נ:טז) that who are you, you aren’t fit to learn Torah. Therefore we say ויהי בנסע הארן ויאמר משה which is מפסיק בין פורענות לפורענות to express that even if a minute before we weren’t what we should be and who knows what’s going to be, but right now we are going to take out the Sefer Torah and try out best.

Winston Churchill once said “the definition of success is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm.” This is really the story of Klal Yisrael in the Midbar and it’s the same story Klal Yisrael experiences in the מדבר העמים (יחזקאל כ:לה). Just like in that desert, we experienced going from failure to failure without losing our enthusiasm, so to in the מדבר העמים of Galus, on the communal level and the individual level, we must remember that regardless of every setback, we can move forward and upward.

5781

Motivation for Machlokes

The Parsha begins ויקח קרח בן יצהר בן קהת בן לוי ודתן ואבירם בני אליאב ואון בן פלת בני ראובן. This coalition was made up of a group of individuals who were all seeking different things, some the נשיאות and some the כהונה. Although און בן פלת didn’t really have a claim, it could be that he was the man behind the ideological טענה of כל העדה כלם קדשים ובתוכם יקוק ומדוע תתנשאו על קהל ה'. About him, the Gemara Sanhedrin 109b says און - שישב באנינות which seems to say that he was a sad and miserable person.

דתן ואבירם were there as they seem to be professional trouble makers who gave Moshe Rabbeinu difficulty from the beginning. About them, the Pasuk in Shemos 2:13 says שני אנשים עברים נצים and in Pinchas 26:10 the Pasuk says הוא דתן ואבירם קרואי העדה אשר הצו על משה ועל אהרן בעדת קרח בהצתם על ה'. So we see that it’s one long trail of נצו with דתן ואבירם from start to finish.

But whatever each of their individual agendas were, they were all united for the sole purpose of rebelling against Moshe Rabbeinu. על דרך הצחות, this could be a meaning of the Gemara Brachos 64a that says תלמידי חכמים מרבים שלום בעולם, because people unite and find common ground in order to fight and challenge the תלמידי חכמים.

Regarding people fighting against Talmidei Chachamim, Reb Elazar Fleckeles, who was a תלמיד חבר of the Noda B’yehudah and a member of his Beis Din faced much opposition from his various Rabbanus positions. In his Hakdamah to his Sefer שו"ת תשובה מאהבה, he briefly describes his story and writes that his Bala Batim hated him much more than he was a Talmid Chacham. He then writes in Parentheses ובזה נתיישב לי קושיות התוס' and writes that Chazal say that the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed because of שנאת חנם. However Tosfos in Baba Metziah 30b asks that it says in many places that the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed because of עזבם את תורתי, meaning ביטל תורה. So Tosfos answers דהא והא גרמא, that they both were causes. He explains this based on the Gemara in Pesachim 49b גדולה שנאה ששונאין עמי הארץ לתלמיד חכם, יותר משנאה ששונאין אומות העולם את ישראל. An עם הארץ will hate a person who he thinks is a Talmid Chacham but he might not be one and it’s just the עם הארץ doesn’t know who is and who isn’t a Talmid Chacham. This leads to שנאת חנם because if he really isn’t a Talmid Chacham, then he doesn’t really have a reason to hate him. So now that the sin which caused the Churban is עזבם את תורתי, that results in people not being Talmidei Chachamim which causes שנאת חנם because now the עמי הארץ are hating them for no reason. That’s how both reasons, שנאת חנם and ביטל תורה, caused the Churban.

Smart and Successful

On the Pasuk רב לכם בני לוי, Rashi writes וקרח שפקח היה. It’s not so clear from where Rashi knew that Korach was a פקח but we could say jokingly that because he was very wealthy, as the Gemara in Sanhedrin says, and people assume that wealth and success comes with being smart. This idea is found in the מצודת ציון in יהושע פרק א פסוק . The Pasuk says למען תשכיל בכל אשר תלך and the מצודת ציון writes ענינו הצלחה וכו' כי המצליח נראה להבריות שעשה מעשיו בהשכל that people think successful people are smart. But the truth of the matter is that it’s not the case, and not that they are exclusive of each other, but just because someone is wealthy is not indicative of whether or not he is smart. There is a joke about the Gvir who lost his money and he says to himself that he understands why they don’t come to him anymore for money but how come they stopped coming for עצות.

On a side note, how do we know that Korach was wealthy? The velt says jokingly that usually when a rich person dies, people find out that he didn’t really have as much money as people thought he had. But by Korach, since he was buried with all his money, we still think he had money.

Disregarding the Obvious

Rashi says וקרח שפקח מה היה ראה לשטות זה, עינו הטעתו, ראה שלשלת גדולה יוצאה ממנו, שמואל ששקול כנגד משה ואהרן. אמר בשבילו אני נמלט. It must be that Korach had רוח הקודש for him to be able to see that his descendent would be Shmuel.

But how could it be someone as smart as Korach who had רוח הקודש could make such a mistake and create a rebellion against Moshe Rabbeinu? The answer could be because sometimes great people can see the future far head and they focus on that and turn a blind eye on the here and now. One of the חכמי אומות העוחם once said that the pitfall of great scholars is that they disregard the obvious. They get so attracted by all the different details and צדדים in the theory that they disregard the obvious. A person is a חכם when he is הרואה את הנולד but not when he is only רואה את הנולד. A real חכם could also see the here and now and that which is in front of him. So Korach had the ability to see the שלשלת גדולה that was going to come from him but he couldn’t see the here and now, right in front of him.

Absolute Truth and Relative Truth

The Rabbeinu Bachyeh writes in Parshas Korach (טז,כט) that there are many difficult things to explain logically such as why the babies had to dies as well when the ground opened up. So he says if we try to explain it בדרך הפשט, then there are many question and therefore the only way to explain it is בדרך הקבלה. He says that the people of קרח ועדתו were really גלגולים of the אנשי סדום and the דור הפלגה and he brings similarities between the Psukim in Parshas Korach and the Psukim that discuss אנשי סדום and the דור הפלגה as follows:

ואמנם אם בקשנו להלום פרשה זו בדרך הפשט יקשה עלינו כל זאת, אבל אי אפשר להולמה כי אם בדרך הקבלה הנאמנה. והנני רומז רמזים, שמענה ואתה דע לך. תמצא בדור הפלגה: (בראשית יא, ד) “הבה נבנה לנו עיר ומגדל וראשו בשמים ונעשה לנו שם”, וכתיב: בהם “וזה החלם לעשות”, ותמצא באנשי סדום: (בראשית יט, ד) “ואנשי העיר אנשי סדום נסבו על הבית”, ובאר הכתוב כי אנשי העיר והמגדל הם אנשי סדום, ואמר עליהם: (בראשית יט, יא) “ואת האנשים אשר פתח הבית הכו בסנורים”, ותמצא באנשי סדום, “ואנשי העיר”, ובפרשה זו בעדת קרח: “ויקומו לפני משה”, והיה ראוי לומר “על משה”, אבל רמז כי היו לפני משה, ומפני זה קראם “אנשי שם”, ותרגם אונקלוס: “ויקח” ואתפליג, רמז על דור הפלגה, והזכיר בכאן בענשם: “העיני האנשים ההם תנקר”, כמי שמפחיד חברו במכה שכבר באה לו וכו' כן דור הפלגה שכתוב בהם: “וזה החלם לעשות”, מה עשה, “הפיצם”, ואנשי סדום “הכם בסנורים”, ועדת קרח “נאבדו מן העולם” כי היו ראוין שיעקרו מן העולם, והנה כוונת הש"י שהוא עושה חסד לאלפים היתה בטלה בהם.

It must be understood what the connection is between what the people of the דור הפלגה did, what the אנשי סדום did, and what קרח ועדתו did.

In the beginning of the Parsha, the Pasuk says בן יצהר בן קהת בן לוי. On why the Pasuk doesn’t mention בן יעקב, Rashi writes the following:

ולא הזכיר בן יעקב, שבקש רחמים על עצמו שלא יזכר שמו על מחלוקתם, שנאמר (בראשית מט, ו) ובקהלם אל תחד כבודי. והיכן נזכר שמו על קרח, בהתיחסם על הדוכן בדברי הימים, שנאמר (ד"ה א' ו, כב - כג) בן אביאסף בן קרח בן יצהר בן קהת בן לוי בן ישראל

The Ohr HaChaim points out that the fact that Rashi needs to provide an explanation as to why it doesn’t go back to even a fourth generation to say בן יעקב indicates that really it should have gone back another generation. It’s just that יעקב was מתפלל and therefore he was spared. The question is why should it have gone back all the way to a fourth generation and mention בן יעקב? Rashi continues and asks והיכן נזכר שמו על קרח that where is Yaakov mentioned along with Korach to which he answers when the Psukim in Divrei Hayamim are discussing the descendants of Korach who were משוררים in the Beis Hamikdash, it says בן אביאסף בן קרח בן יצהר בן קהת בן לוי בן ישראל. What is the connection and significance of the fact that in Parshas Korach Yaakov isn’t mentioned but in Divrei Hayamim he is mentioned?

An explanation could be as follows. The reason why Yaakov Avinu should’ve and would’ve been mentioned in this context is because Yaakov is the Midah of אמת as the Pasuk in Micah says תתן אמת ליעקב and therefore there is room to attribute Korachs Machlokes to the תכונת הנפש of ביקוש האמת that was instilled within him from Yaakov Avinu. The basis of Machlokes is when a person is convinced that his truth is the only truth and it’s not flexible and that’s what he’ll fight for. If so, why was Yaakov Avinus Tefilah accepted that he should be mentioned?

There is a famous Medrash in Parshas Breishis that talks about the creation of man and says as follows:

א"ר סימון בשעה שבא הקדוש ברוך הוא לבראת את אדם הראשון, נעשו מלאכי השרת כיתים כיתים, וחבורות חבורות, מהם אומרים אל יברא, ומהם אומרים יברא, הה"ד (תהלים פה) חסד ואמת נפגשו צדק ושלום נשקו, חסד אומר יברא שהוא גומל חסדים, ואמת אומר אל יברא שכולו שקרים, צדק אומר יברא שהוא עושה צדקות, שלום אומר אל יברא דכוליה קטטה, מה עשה הקדוש ברוך הוא נטל אמת והשליכו לארץ הה"ד (דניאל ח) ותשלך אמת ארצה, אמרו מלאכי השרת לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא רבון העולמים מה אתה מבזה תכסיס אלטיכסייה שלך, תעלה אמת מן הארץ, הדא הוא דכתיב (תהלים פה) אמת מארץ תצמח

This Medrash is obviously סתרי תורה but there is an obvious question. The set up was two against two. חסד and צדק said to create man and אמת and שלום said not to create man. But it only says that Hashem threw the אמת away but the שלום remained and said אל יברא so how was man created. So the יפה תואר explains that once the אמת was dropped, its חד כנגד תרי and חד כנגד תרי is בטל. But in the same way that אמת was dropped in order for man to be created, שלום could’ve been dropped in order to create man as well. What was the significance of אמת specifically being dropped?

The Ketzos Hachoshen, in his Hakdamah, writes about the concept of ותשלך אמת ארצה. He explains that there are two types of truth. There is absolute truth and relative truth. Man couldn’t be created on the level of absolute truth because man isn’t capable of accessing absolute truth. ותשלך אמת ארצה was מחדש that אמת doesn’t need to be the absolute truth rather אמת is what is perceived by humans as true and that is the truth that man goes by. Therefore, man could be created with the אמת of ותשלך אמת ארצה. The Ketzos goes on to discuss Chidushei Torah how they don’t need to be absolute אמת and it becomes Torah as long as it is אמת to the one who being מחדש the חידוש. Of course this has parameters, but the idea is that within the parameters of אמת, there is room for different shades of truth.

שלום said אל יברא because דכוליה קטטה. Why is man כוליה קטטה? The reason is because every person thinks his truth is the only truth and that is the root cause of the קטטה. But when people deal with אמת as a relative truth, meaning my truth can be true to me and your truth can be true to you, we realize כשם שאין שני פרצופים שווים – כך אין שתי דעות שוות and then a Machlokes doesn’t become a קטטה. One can have an argument but it’s not a feud. So the ותשלך אמת ארצה accomplished that man isn’t כוליה קטטה because in the world of the relative truth, people can get along when they realize what is true to them is not necessarily what is true to another. So Machlokes doesn’t contradict Shalom and therefore man can be created.

According to this, it could be that Korach who only believed in the absolute truth, and didn’t believe in the ותשלך אמת ארצה where the relative truth exists, belongs underneath the ground as the Pasuk says ותפתח הארץ את פיה ותבלע אתם. But Yaakov Avinu, who is the Midah of אמת is also the Midah of תפארת. Avraham Avinu is the Midah of Chessed and Yitzhak Avinu is the Midah of Gevurah and these two are opposites. But Yaakov Avinu, who is the Midah of תפארת is able to synthesize these two Middos together. So Yaakov Avinus אמת is the אמת of ותשלך אמת ארצה because it’s created by synthesizing opposites which can only exist with a relative truth. Therefore, Yaakovs Tefilah was accepted because although Korach represented אמת, it was the wrong type of אמת because he represented absolute truth and Yaakov represents relative truth which is expressed by the fact that Yaakov is also the Midah of תפארת.

But nevertheless Yaakov is mentioned with Korach specifically על הדוכן because the descendants of Korach are the משוררים. שירה is about combining different notes and tones and each has its unique sound but nevertheless doesn’t stand on its own. It’s specifically the combination of the various tones that makes the beautiful music. The Ramak says that תפארת is the combination of colors that creates beauty because something that is one dimensional can’t be beautiful. Similarly, music is the combination of the various tones and therefore it’s על הדוכן that Yaakov Avinu is mentioned with Korach because that is the Tikkun of Korachs mistake because that is the אמת of Yaakov, the אמת of ותשלך אמת ארצה.

The Gemara in Megilah 32a says as follows:

אמר רבי יוחנן: כל הקורא בלא נעימה ושונה בלא זמרה - עליו הכתוב אומר וגם אני נתתי להם חקים לא טובים וגו'

This means that if a person learns without a sing song tune, he’s חייב מיתה because it says לא יחיו. The Gemara then asks מתקיף לה אביי: משום דלא ידע לבסומי קלא משפטים לא יחיו בהם קרית ביה? To which the Gemara then concludes אלא כדרב משרשיא, דאמר: שני תלמידי חכמים היושבים בעיר אחת ואין נוחין זה את זה בהלכה - עליהם הכתוב אומר וגם אני נתתי להם חקים לא טובים ומשפטים לא יחיו בהם. But how does this fit into the previous מימרא because it would seem that we are saying Pshat in the previous מימרא of כל השונה בלא זמרא?

The Rav said in the name of his father that the idea is because כל השונה בלא זמרא, he doesn’t understand that learning is really a song. If he would understand that learning is a song, then he would understand that everyone is playing a different note that makes up the symphony and therefore שני תלמידי חכמים היושבים בעיר אחת ואין נוחין זה את זה בהלכה - עליהם הכתוב אומר וגם אני נתתי להם חקים לא טובים ומשפטים לא יחיו בהם because he doesn’t understand this because really it’s this way and that way and together we make up the symphony. Therefore, this that the Gemara says its referring to two תלמידי חכמים היושבים בעיר אחת, is really an explanation to the מימרא of כל השונה בלא זמרא that when a person learns, he needs to learn in a singing way, meaning with an understanding that Torah is a Shira and each person adds his tune to the niggun.

Continuing in this theme, the קטורת appears twice in the Parsha. Once by ואש יצאה מאת ה' ותאכל את החמשים ומאתים איש מקריבי הקטרת which in this context the קטרת kills and again by ויקח אהרן כאשר דבר משה וירץ אל תוך הקהל והנה החל הנגף בעם ויתן את הקטרת ויכפר על העם: ויעמד בין המתים ובין החיים ותעצר המגפה which in this context the קטרת saves life. So does the קטרת kill or does it save life?

The קטרת has י"א סממנים and if one is missing, חייב מיתה. The smell of the קטרת is created through the combination of various smells, some of which, the חלבנה, independently would not be a pleasant smell. But when they are brought together, it creates a pleasant smell.

Regarding how Moshe Rabbeinu knew that the קטרת saves life, Rashi says רז זה מסר לו מלאך המות כשעלה לרקיע, שהקטרת עוצר המגפה. When Moshe went up to Har Sinai to receive the Torah, the Malachim objected and said the Torah should be given in Shamayim. However, once it was decided that it was to be given on earth, the Malachim gave Moshe Rabbeinu presents and the מלאך המות gave the present of the קטרת. The Ketzos in his Hakdamah, mentioned above, writes that the giving of Torah to humans is the ultimate expression of ותשלך אמת ארצה because Torah will be decided by the Chachamei Yisrael. Even if it’s not true on the level of absolute level, nevertheless, the Halacha becomes what appears true to us. So it’s in this context that the מלאך המות gave Moshe the קטרת because it expresses this idea that there is no one smell, color, or sound that is right. But rather truth is מארץ תצמח that it is achieved through the synthesis of various truths.
So Korach who doesn’t understand the ותשלך אמת ארצה, and views truth as one dimensional, and they don’t understand that the truth is really created by the different shades, colors, smells, tunes and sounds, then the קטרת wipes them out. However, the rest of Klal Yisrael is given life through the קטרת because the קטרת is our source of life because it brings out the idea that אלו ואלו דברי אלוקים חיים.

Getting back to the original question on the Rabbeinu Bachyeh, the explanation could be as follows. Regarding the sin of the דור הפלגה, although Rashi explains they were building the מגדל to war with the Hashem in which case they had an exaggerated sense of self, the Rashbam and the Rabbeinu Bachyeh have a different explanation. The Rashbam writes לפי הפשט מה חטאו דור הפלגה לפי שצום הק' פרו ורבו ומלאו את הארץ, והם בחרו להם מקום לשבת שם ואמרו פן נפוץ, לפי' הפיצם משם בגזרתו.

In contrast to Rashi, the Rashbam explains that the דור הפלגה underestimated their abilities and didn’t feel competent to spread out and carry out the divine mission. They wanted to lead a sheltered life, cuddled with each other similar to life in the Teivah. However, after the Mabul, Hashem commands Noach, with the second time, the ציווי of פרו ורבו ומלאו את הארץ because even after the great fall of the דור המבול, Man is once again entrusted with this divine mission. The Pasuk in Haazinu 32:8 says בהנחל עליון גוים בהפרידו בני אדם יצב גבלת עמים למספר בני ישראל. The way Hashem wants the world to be is בהפרידו בני אדם.

According to this explanation, the פילוג was not a punishment for what they did rather it was Hashem insisting on not allowing mankind to be cuddled up and lead a sheltered life behind closes doors. Hashem was telling them that they must go out and create many nations which will create many types and stripes and that is what will bring the world to its שלימות.

Comes along the people of Sedom, who were גלגולים of the דור הפלגה and they are a reaction to the people of the דור הפלגה. They believed that no one had any business interfering with divine providence. They believed that everything in a person’s life, whether he was rich or poor, successful or unsuccessful, tall or short, was directly affected by divine intervention and any situation a person found himself in was tailor made for him. Therefore, why should a person give Tzedaka or do chessed and help a person out. If a person is poor, then it must be Hashem wants him to be poor and it’s not my business to interfere on his behalf and he has to accomplish and act with the cards that he was dealt. They felt that each person needed to reach self-actualization of their own potential and that no one was to help another reach that potential.

So the אנשי סדום was a reaction to the people of the דור הפלגה because the דור הפלגה wanted everyone to be the same and they didn’t believe in the idea of variety. They didn’t believe in many languages, rather they wanted שפה אחת ודברים אחדים. They didn’t only believe in unity rather they also believed in uniformity. But the אנשי סדום, as a reaction, went to the opposite extreme. They said every person should be an individual so much so that no person should help another because then he is interfering with his ability to be his own way.

Now we come to the עדת קרח and they go back to the approach of the דור הפלגה. They see the approach of the אנשי סדום fail and they revert back to the מהלך of the דור הפלגה, the first extreme. The עדת קרח say כל העדה כלם קדשים ובתוכם ה' ומדוע תתנשאו, that there should be no hierarchy and everyone should be equal and the same. This was the approach of the דור הפלגה.

5780

No Pshat in Machlokes

Rashi begins his commentary on the Parshah by saying פרשה זו יפה נדרשת במדרש רבי תנחומא. The Taz in his sefer Divrei Dovid asks on Rashi that it would seem problematic for Rashi to write such a thing because the Gemara in Eiruvin 64a says כל האומר שמועה זו נאה, וזו אינה נאה - מאבד הונה של תורה and the Gemara proves this from the Pasuk in Mishlei-ורעה זונות יאבד הון. So how was Rashi able to write פרשה זו יפה נדרשת?

The Maharsha points out that it would seem אסור even to just say זו נאה without saying וזו אינה נאה because the Pasuk is only saying זו נאה when it says ורעה זונות. The reason is because by saying זו נאה, you are implying that there is a וזו אינה נאה even if not spoken out. However, the Rashash disagrees and says this איסור is only when saying זו נאה וזו אינה נאה. But to just say זו נאה is not a problem. Therefore, according to the Rashash, there is no question on Rashi how he wrote פרשה זו יפה נדרשת. But according to the Maharsha, the questions remains.

The Taz answers that usually there are two ways to learn something, either the פשט or the מדרש and Rashi always prefers the פשט over the מדרש. But regarding this Parshah, Rashi has no way to learn it על פי פשט therefore the מדרש is the פשוטו. So when Rashi is saying פרשה זו יפה נדרשת, the emphasis is on the נדרשת and not on the יפה, that it’s יפה only נדרשת because in פשט, Rashi has no way of explaining these Psukim.

על דרך הצחות, when it comes to Machlokes, there is no pshat. Even Rashi who usually explains פשוטו של מקרא, when it comes to Machlokes, there is no pshat but can only be explained על פי דרש. Before the First World War, Reb Chaim Brisker said that there wasn’t going to be a war. After the war broke out, they asked him what’s going on. He answered them that in cheshbon, he was right that it doesn’t make sense for any of the sides to go to war. But what could he do if Kaiser Wilhelm has no שכל. The Rav was bringing out the point that when it comes to milchama, על פי פשט it makes no sense, and nevertheless it takes place.

The following story comes from Reb Avraham Mordechai Hirschberg who was a Talmid of the Yeshiva Chachmei Lublin (Father in law of Reb Michel Shurkin) and was a big ilui. When he was eighteen he put out a sefer on Kodshim called מחשת הקודש and it had a Haskama from the Brisker Rav.

When the Second World War broke out in September 1939, the Brisker Rav happened to have been in Warsaw for medical reasons. This Avraham Mordechai Hirschberg came in to the Brisker Rav and he saw that he was distraught. So he asked him why the Rav is so uptight. He responded that he didn’t know what to do because his wife was back at home in Brisk and she wanted him to come home but it was a big סכנה and people were saying to just escape. His wife was telling him that by the First World War, Rabbanim who didn’t stay in their towns didn’t get their rabbanus back and therefore he should come back. So this Avraham Mordechai Hirschberg responded to him with a vort from his grandfather, the Rav in Biala. In Koheles, there are twenty eight עתים, when it says עת ללדת ועת למות וכו'. On all the עתים, Rashi has an explanation except on עת מלחה ועת שלום. So he said because Rashi is a Baal Pshat and in Milchama, you can’t say Pshat. Therefore, Avraham Mordechai Hirschberg as a bochur, said to the Brisker Rav that your derech is על דרך הפשט and therefore when it comes a Milchama, you can’t figure it out. Therefore he advised him to go and ask the Gerrer Rebbe to which he told him, don’t even think about and just escape, and so he did.

This is all woven into the idea that Rashi says פרשה זו יפה נדרשת that when it comes to Machlokes and Milchama, you can’t approach it with Pshat because it doesn’t have to make any sense and therefore the Psukim by Korach don’t have to make sense.

Moshes Leadership

The past few פרשיות, Rashis opening line has been למה נסמכה. Seemingly because the events that were being mentioned were not in the chronological order, and therefore there needed to be a logic to the order. However, when it comes to Korach, Rashi does not ask למה נסמכה. Therefore, it must be that this is the right place chronologically for the story with Korach. This is reinforced by what Rashi says on the Pasuk ויפלו על פניו, the reason being because this was the סרחון רביעי, the third being the חטא המרגלים. (See Rashi in דברים א:א that according to one of the פשטים, the dispute with Korach actually occurred earlier than the חטא המרגלים). If this is the case, why did Korach wait until now to challenge Moshe, he should’ve done it the moment he did the various appointments that he was upset about? In contrast to what the אבן עזרא explains in the beginning of the Parshah that really Korach did not wait and he protested immediately following the appointments in מדבר סיני and the only reason why the Parshah of Korach appears now is because אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה.

The Ramban says that it must be that up until this point, although he was upset, he couldn’t get anyone to join him in his revolt against Moshe Rabbeinu because Moshe Rabbeinu was delivering the good and everything was moving in the right direction. But now with the recent events and deaths that occurred at קברות התאוה and it being decreed that the current generation will die in the Midbar because of the sin of the Meraglim, now Korach felt it was an opportune time and the people would join him.

The Rav added to the Ramban that the episode of sending the Meraglim was the first time in his leadership that he had to make a decision on his own. Hashem said to him שלח לך לדעתך, that he wasn’t being commanded to send them rather Hashem was saying you do what you feel is best. As a consequence of Moshe’s decision, everything went wrong, so to speak, and changed the course of Jewish History. Therefore, this was the best time for Korach to launch his revolt. Now Korach felt it was the opportune time to challenge Moshe’s decision as to whether they were God given, or on his own.

But nevertheless we see, that in spite of the fact that Moshe Rabbeinu made a terrible mistake, he remained the רבן של ישראל and the אדון הנביאים. Moshe had to explain to them that the other decisions and things he did were not מלבי and on his own, rather they were על פי נבואה and were therefore not questionable. Only where he was functioning based on his own שכל, he might make a mistake.

But even after Moshe Rabbeinu is proven correct with the prediction of the opening of the ground, something never seen in the history of the world, one would think that he would have silenced the doubters. And yet, Klal Yisrael continue to challenge and question him. They exclaim את המתם את עם ה, accusing Moshe and Aaron of killing the People. As a result, a plague breaks out and Aaron has to run around with the קטורת to stop the plague. Following this incident, Moshe Rabbeinu further needs to prove the validity of Aaron HaKohen with the מטות. Throughout Moshe’s tenure as the leader of the Jewish people, he endured and received so much complaining. He led the people for forty years and experienced tremendous setbacks but that didn’t deter him from pushing on. It’s a lesson of perseverance and resilience.

Now not everybody is a leader of a nation but he is at least a leader to his family, and if not to his family he is at least to himself. The Pasuk in Koheles says עיר קטנה ואנשים בה מעט (ט,יד) and the Meforshim explain that this Pasuk is referring to the human being and his limbs. The Kuzari writes in מאמר ג compares a חסיד to a מושל because every person is in charge of his being. He decides what he looks at, what he hears, and where he goes and has to control them all and lead them in the right direction.

Yet, sometimes the various כוחות within us don’t cooperate, we lose control, and we could Chas Vshalom give up. But the lesson to be learnt is that the true leaders never give up. Like we see with Moshe Rabbeinu that even with all the setbacks and all the fault, he still managed to create a people like no other. Therefore, a person should never give up. As Winston Churchill once said “the definition of success is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm”. However, although success is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm, one should not keep on repeating the same thing over and over but rather he should learn from his mistakes. He should learn from his experiences and adjust the method. Because Einstein was attributed saying “insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result”. So one must keep on marching forward, while trying different things.

און בן פלת

When it comes to mentioning who is involved in the Machlokes, און בן פלת appears but in the later פסוקים he is not where to be found. The גמרא in סנהדרין קט ע"ב says that his wife convinced him to get out of the מחלוקת. She said to him מאי נפקא לך מינה אי מר רבה אנת תלמידא ואי מר רבה אנת תלמידא. The Gemara on the following page says חכמות נשים בנתה ביתה זו אשתו של און בן פלת. The question is what was the major חכמה that she displayed that she is the quintessential example of חכמות נשים if it was such a silly מחלוקת as Rashi says וקרח שפקח היה מה ראה לשטות זה that we are surprised at Korach that he got into such a silly מחלוקת?

Either one could deduce that it still must be a major חכמה to get someone out of a silly מחלוקת. A person who gets involved in מחלוקת can’t think straight and they get emotionally involved. However, it’s the lady who remains logical to pull the man out of it.

The other explanation could be that אשת און בן פלת could have fought her husband with קנאות and explained to him how clear that Moshe is correct in this argument. However, she understood that he wouldn’t have been convinced. Therefore she needed to convince him by going to the core and explaining that what is in it for you, either way you are going to be the same status. אשת און בן פלת understood one must read between the lines, and see what’s not being said. She was able to understand what קרח motive really was, and therefore was able to explain to her husband that nothing is really in it for him, because either way he’ll end up just a תלמיד.

Picking a Fight

The Pasuk begins with ויקח קרח and the Meforshim busy trying to explain the usage of the word ויקח in this context because what did he take. But it is interesting that in the English language, there is an expression that “he picked a fight”. But what exactly is such a person picking. Is he picking the option of a fight out of other options? Rather it could be that when picking a fight, you are picking something to fight about. But really, there is no argument and you just want something to fight about. So when you are picking a fight, you are picking something to hang your fight on. That’s the ויקח קרח that he picked a topic to fight about. But the topic wasn’t so relevant, because each party in the argument was fighting for something else. He had his topic of wanting to be the Kohen Gadol and the 250 men had another topic. So it was really just about picking something to fight about.

Not Settling

The first Pasuk in the Parshah begins ויקח קרח בן יצהר בן קהת בן לוי but doesn’t go all the way back to say בן יעקב. Rashi explains ולא הזכיר בן יעקב, שבקש רחמים על עצמו שלא יזכר שמו על מחלוקתם. The Ohr HaChaim points out that the fact that Rashi needs to provide an explanation as to why it doesn’t go back to even a fourth generation to say בן יעקב indicates that really it should have gone back another generation. It’s just that יעקב was מתפלל and therefore he was spared. The question is why should it have gone back all the way to a fourth generation and mention בן יעקב?

The truth is that Yaakov was really an individual who displayed the idea that a person should not settle and be satisfied with where nature places you. Yaakov was born second, and his place in nature was to be second to Eisav. However, through certain ways, perceived by Eisav as trickery as the Pasuk says ויעקבינו זה פעמים, he was able to move out of his class and what nature presented him and become the bechor. So in theory, Korach was attempting the same thing. He was acting just as his great zeide did, that he saw a person should not be satisfied with the class and status he was put in, but rather he should strive for more.

But we know obviously that Korach was wrong and therefore there must be a difference between Yaakov Avinu and Korach. It could be that Yaakov wanted to move classes but Korach wanted to remove classes, as the Pasuk says כולם קדושים. But that is wrong because a person has to understand where he is and where someone else, and he must understand where he ends and where the other begins. A classless society cannot function and not everyone is created equally. However, each individual must understand that he plays a specific and defined role in society.

Haftorah

The Haftorah for Parshas Korach discusses Shmuel and the people’s complaint and desire to have a king. The Rama Miphano quotes from the Arizal that Shmuel was a gilgul of Korach and he was a תיקון for him. The Arizal writes that when Bilam proclaimed מי יחיה משמו אל, he was saying מי יחיה משמואל, because he was lamenting how there would be know תיקון from him like Korach was going to have שמואל be a תיקון for him. How was Shmuel a תיקון for Korach?

When Shmuels mother came to Eli HaKohen to daven for a child, she davened that he should be normal and average. Not too short, but not too tall, not too dark but not too light, not too dumb but not too smart. Shmuel was described as מזרע אנשים, meaning average. Yet, we know that משה ואהרן בכהניו שומואל בקוראי שמו, that Shmuel was equal to Moshe and Aaron. How could it be, someone described as מזרע אנשים be equal to Moshe who was אדון הנביאים? The answer is because Shmuel, reached his ultimate potential. With what he was given, he maximized to the fullest and therefore he in considered to be of an equal to Moshe Rabbeinu. But Korach didn’t understand this. He thought, that in order to be great, he needed to be in a different class. He didn’t understand that where a person is, is where he is supposed to be and there is nothing wrong with being in second class. Just that a person must strive for the best he could be and maximize his potential in the class and with the talents he was given which is what Shmuel accomplished. Through this, Shmuel was able to be a tikun for Korach.

5779

Why Wait To Protest

The past few פרשיות, Rashis opening line has been למה נסמכה. Seemingly because the events that were being mentioned were not in the chronological order, and therefore there needed to be a logic to the order. However, when it comes to Korach, Rashi does not ask למה נסמכה. Therefore, it must be that this is the right place chronologically for the story with Korach. This is reinforced by what Rashi says on the Pasuk ויפלו על פניו, the reason being because this was the סרחון רביעי, the third being the חטא המרגלים. (See Rashi in דברים א:א that according to one of the פשטים, the dispute with Korach actually occurred earlier than the חטא המרגלים). If this is the case, why did Korach wait until now to challenge Moshe, he should’ve done it the moment he did the various appointments that he was upset about, as the אבן עזרא actually explains in the beginning of the Parshah that really Korach did not wait and he protested immediately following the appointments in מדבר סיני?

There two explanations are as follows. The first being that up until now, Moshe’s leadership was on a high. He performed the ten plagues, split the sea, and received the torah. But after the חטא המרגלים where he consented to sending the מרגלים and it turned out to be a major failure and the Jews wouldn’t enter the land but rather would wander for forty years, now he was down. Therefore Korach felt that now was the opportune time to cash in. But even more simply, we could say that after the חטא המרגלים, it was now decided that they will be wandering for forty years. Wandering unemployed people for forty years who are receiving מן משמים and don’t need to work is a recipe for מחלוקת. Without the reality of going into ארץ ישראל, they lost the sight and purpose and therefore מחלוקת was inevitable.

Classless Society Can’t Function

The גמרא in סנהדרין קי ע"א says כל המחזיק במחלוקת עובר בלאו שנאמר ולא יהיה כקרח וכעדתו. There is no mention that he was arguing about the כהונה, just that he was arguing. The idea is that people that are in involved in מחלוקת, they don’t even know what they are arguing about, because it doesn’t matter what they are arguing about, just that they are arguing.

But nevertheless how could we learn from here that a person who is עוסק במחלוקת is עובר the לאו of לא תהיה כרקח ועדתו? Maybe the Pasuk is only saying not to be like Korach and argue on כהונה? The answer could be as follows. The argument against כהונה is really an argument for equality which equals an argument for מחלוקת because if everyone is equal, then we are all claiming the same turf. But only if we recognize that we have different rolls can we get along with each other. Therefore Korach who was fighting for equality, when he says כי כל העדה כלם קדשים, was really fighting for מחלוקת. Korach is identified with מחלוקת because he was fighting against kahuna and fighting against kahuna is arguing for equality and equality equals מחלוקת.

On the other hand, אהרן, who was the כהן גדול, was the highest class. He represented the idea that there is a hierarchy and there are different classes in society and yet is known for אוהב שלום ורודף שלום. The idea is that a classless society cannot function and not everyone is created equally. However, each individual must understand that he plays a specific and defined roll in society. (Like we see in George Orwell’s book, Animal Farm).

מחזיק במחלוקת

As mentioned above the לאו is to be מחזיק במחלוקת, to hold on to argument. How far does a person have to go to in order to be considered not מחזיק? Dasan and Aviram were Moshe’s arch nemesis. From the start they gave him a hard time. Starting in Mitzrayim, they told on him to Pharaoh causing Moshe to flee Mitzrayim. They gave him a hard time when it came to the מן, as the Pasuk says ויותרו אנשים ממנו עד בקר (בשלח טז:כ) referring to דתן ואבירם who disobeyed him when it came to the מן and now this. Yet, the Pasuk says וישלח משה לקרא לדתן ולאבירם, and Rashi explains מכאן שאין מחזיקין במחלוקת, שהיה משה מחזר אחריהם להשלימם בדברי שלום. So we see how far a person needs to go in order to not be considered מחזיק במחלוקת. Although it could be a חומרא יתירא, nonetheless we could take something from it.

When it comes to mentioning who is involved in the Machlokes און בן פלת appears but in the later פסוקים he is not where to be found. The גמרא in סנהדרין קט ע"ב says that his wife convinced him to get out of the מחלוקת. She said to him מאי נפקא לך מינה אי מר רבה אנת תלמידא ואי מר רבה אנת תלמידא. The Gemara on the following page says חכמות נשים בנתה ביתה זו אשתו של און בן פלת. The question is what was the major חכמה that she displayed that she is the quintessential example of חכמות נשים if it was such a silly מחלוקת as Rashi says וקרח שפקח היה מה ראה לשטות זה that we are surprised at Korach that he got into such a silly מחלוקת?

Either one could deduce that it still must be a major חכמה to get someone out of a silly מחלוקת. A person who gets involved in מחלוקת can’t think straight and they get emotionally involved. However, it’s the lady who remains logical to pull the man out of it.

The other explanation could be that אשת און בן פלת could have fought her husband with קנאות and explained to him how clear that Moshe is correct in this argument. However, she understood that he wouldn’t have been convinced. Therefore she needed to convince him by going to the core and explaining that what is in it for you, either way you are going to be the same status. אשת און בן פלת understood one must read between the lines, and see what’s not being said. She was able to understand what קרח motive really was, and therefore was able to explain to her husband that nothing is really in it for him, because either way he’ll end up just a תלמיד.

There was an alter mirer who bought the newspaper the day after the Yeshiva got to Shanghai. Someone approached him and asked him why he bought it if he doesn’t understand Chinese. He answered that Reb Yerucham used to say that one must be able to read in between the lines, that which is not being said is really what’s important. Therefore he didn’t have to understand the language in order to read the newspaper.

Korach the Demagogue

The ילקוט שמעוני in the beginning of the Parshah comes to show how much of a demagogue Korach was. The מדרש records a story that Korach was telling over a story to the people about a widow and her two orphaned sons who were struggling to survive. The story goes through how the widow attempts to make a living with a field, but runs into difficulty, as Moshe informs her of the various הלכות that pertain to a field, that make it difficult for her to make a living. She goes on to sell the field and to buy a sheep in order to make a living. However, she further encounters difficulty as אהרן informs her of the many הלכות that make him the rightful recipient of much of the produce such as ראשית הגז. The idea of the מדרש is to show how Korach made up a story in order to incite the people against Moshe and אהרן. In spite of the fact that Korach really wanted to be the כהן גדול and therefore nothing would really change as far as all of these מתנות כהונה, nevertheless in order to get the support of the people he got them to think.

Videos

Thursday Night Parsha Shiur 5784 - Settling for Less or Striving for More

Thursday Night Parsha Shiur 5783

Thursday Night Parsha Shiur 5782

Thursday Night Parsha Shiur 5781

Thursday Night Parsha shiur 5780

Knowing Yourself 5772