Unstable Energy

Korach’s rebellion can be understood that he was objected to order, boundaries and divisions. His cry of כִּי כָל־הָעֵדָה כֻּלָּם קְדֹשִׁים was since h recognized the inner spark of holiness within everything and wanted that potential to be actualized.  His arguments of that a tallis totally made of techeles and a house full of seforim demonstrate his point that with a lot of spiritual energy one need not be bound by the strict parameters of the law.  Korach saw the spiritual energy around him and wished to tap into its power.  The argument against Moshe and Aharon is that if everyone can become in tune with their spiritual potential, there is no need for leaders.  

However, Korach’s failure lay in his denial of boundaries. The need for parameters for mitzvot, different levels of kedusha, separation between Kohanim and Leviim, between leaders and lay people, is because in order to properly access kedusha there must be a kli.  There must be order otherwise there is just chaos.  The divisions and boundaries due not serve as limitations, but as a vessel to hold and direct kedusha.

By denying boundaries, Korach essentially overexposed himself to uncontained energy.  His end is to fall into שאול.  The שאול is the underground, the strong forces of energy contained beneath the earth's surface representing the the abyss of unharnessed spiritual energy.  

Yet, the Kabbalists tell that in the future Korach's vision will be realized.  When the world will be purified, and all souls refined, we will be able to access the kedusha which is inherent in everything. 

As the Chassidic expression goes, to bring about the redemption it is necessary to use אורות דתוהו בכלים דתיקון.  Using chaotic force of energy must be necessary but it must be limited by the vessels to give it order. 

Machlokes About A Rebbe

The Malbim says וע"ז המליצו חז"ל שקרח שאל למשה טלית שמלה תכלת אם חייבת בציצית, ר"ל לעומת שהשיב משה שחייב בציצית, כי צריך חוט אחד מיוחד שבו תשכון הארת הקדושה שהתכלת מורה עליו אף שכל הטלית ממראה התכלת, וכן אף שכל העדה כלם קדושים צריך שיהיה אחד מהם הוא הקדוש שעליו ישכון ה' והוא יהי' השליח בינו ובינם והחוט שעל ידו תרד השפע אל העם, וקרח הכחיש זה שא"צ איש מיוחד אמצעי בין ה' ובינם אחר שכלם תכלת וכלם קדושים ובתוכם ה.  The fight of Korach was about the need for a Rebbe. 

The Chidushay HaRim says that Korach didn't understand that his greatness was only due to Moshe Rabbenu raising the level of everyone else. 

The Zohar says that Korach disagreed with the concept of piece.  Of course, everyone that argues is against peace?  The Rim explains that the tzaddik is able to take all the parts of Klal Yisrael and put them all together; to make one body out of all the different talents and capabilities.  Korach didn't see this function, he went against the very unity of Klal Yisrael. 

Korach did not understand that although everyone serves Hashem in their own way, there is a Rebbe who units everyone and elevates the entire nation that was Moshe Rabbenu. 

Oil

אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי לָמָּה חָלַק קֹרַח עַל משֶׁה, אָמַר אֲנִי בְּנוֹ שֶׁל שֶׁמֶן בֶּן יִצְהָר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ז, יג): וְתִירשְׁךָ וְיִצְהָרֶךָ שְׁגַר אֲלָפֶיךָ וְעַשְׁתְּרֹת צֹאנֶךָ עַל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לַאֲבֹתֶיךָ לָתֶת לָךְ. תִּירוֹשׁ, זֶה יַיִן. וְיִצְהָרֶךָ, זֶה הַשֶּׁמֶן. וּבְכָל מַשְׁקִים שֶׁתִּתֵּן אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן הוּא נִמְצָא עֶלְיוֹן,

How does a play on his ancestor's name convince Korach that he is right?  Korach was of the opinion that a leader must be like oil, rise above everyone else.  However, oil has another aspect to it and that it is that it permeates through everything it comes in contact with.  Korach felt he was suited to be the leader for he understood that he was able to be elevated and exalted above everyone else.  However, what he didn't eternalize is that a leader is not meant to detached from everyone else but has to be able to make an impression on everyone.  The leader has to be able to touch everyone and inspire them to be better people.  That was Moshe and Aharon.

Wise Woman

The Gemarah (Sanhedrin 110a) says that חכמת נשים בנתה ביתה זו אשתו של און בן פלת for she told her husband either way you lose, you are either under Moshe's leadership or under Korach's leadership.  What is the great חכמה exhibited in On's wife's statement, it seems like a simple argument?  I would like to share two approaches.

One approach is that her statement itself is not one of earth shattering wisdom but it was the timing which made it wise.  At a time of great upheaval, when the regular order is disturbed, people tend to lose sense of simple logic and do thinks based upon impulse.  Her ability not to lose her cool and ability to think in a time when the public was being stirred up was her wisdom.  Her ability to maintain equilibrium despite the challenges is her wisdom.  

A second approach is that her ability to discern Korach's intent was her great wisdom.  Korach put forth an ideological challenge to Mosh's leadership and many were swayed by his argument.  The wife of On realized that although Korach puts forth a noble argument, his intent is not based upon holy intentions but he is motivated by greed.  The Mishna in Avot (5:17) refers to the rebellion of Korach as a מחלוקת שלא לשם שמים.  The Alter Of Kelm points out that we see from the Mishna the issue with Korach is not that he was blatantly wrong, but that his motivation was not לשם שמים.  He put forth a good argument which swayed many but On's wife was able to see the motivation behind Korach was his own ego and that would not be successful.  

To Forgive Or Not To Forgive

Moshe Rabbenu is always ready to stand up to bat for Klal Yisroel and defend them no matter how egregious their sins may be be.  However, in Parshas Behaloscha, when they ask for meat at that point Moshe Rabbenu throws in the toil and tells Hashem he can't bear the burden of the people himself.  Why did Moshe find the request of meat to be too much to be forgiven?  Rav Dovid Cohen explains that Moshe Rabbenu was willing to stand up for Klal Yisroel if they were making an ideological error.  Whether, it be not wanting to go into Eretz Yisroel, the sin of the egel, etc. However, a mistake which is sparked by a physical desire he could find no recall for.  Klal Yisroel was expected to be above having such base desires and Moshe Rabbenu saw no redeeming merit for such a sin.  Similarly, says Rav Hirsch, that is why Korach and his entourage had to be wiped out.  The sin of Korach, although he claimed it to be due to righteous reasons, was really a sin due to Korach's desire to be appointed Kohan Gadol.  It was a sin caused by desire which Moshe Rabbenu could not overlook.  A sin of a mistaken thought can be forgiven but a mistake because one is strayed by their desires must be rooted out.  

Different Level

Why does Parshat Korach follow the episode of the meraglim?  Rashi says the meraglim should have learned from the episode of the tzarat of Miriam not to speak loshan harah about Eretz Yisroel?  How could such great people speak negatively against Moshe and Eretz Yisroel?  My wife's uncle explained that what Miriam and the meraglim did not understand what that there was a level of kedusha that was beyond their grasp.  Miriam thought that I'm a navi and Moshe is as well, maybe a greater navi, but we are in the same catagory and should have the same rules.  She couldn't understand that Moshe Rabbenu was in a category by himself and had his own rules.  Similarly, the meraglim thought we are living a holy existence here in the Midbar, there is nothing to be gained by entering Eretz Yisroel, so they were critical of it.  They failed to see the great kedusha present in the Land.  That may be the continuation to the parsha of Korach.  Korach recognized the kedusha in everyone and thought we are all holy, there is a hierarchy.  He did not understand there are levels to kedusha and just because one individual is kadosh does not put him in the same category as one whose kedusha brings them to a different plane. 

A Blossoming Staff

An article from Rabbi Y.Y. Jacobson.

It is a baffling story. The portion of Korach tells of the "Test of the Staffs" conducted when people contested Aaron's appointment to the High Priesthood. G‑d instructs Moses to take a staff from each tribe, each inscribed with the name of the tribe's leader; Aaron's name was written on the Levite Tribe's staff. The sticks were placed overnight in the Holy of Holies in the Sanctuary. When they were removed the following morning, the entire nation beheld that Aaron's staff had blossomed overnight and bore fruit, demonstrating that Aaron was G‑d's choice for High Priest.

In the words of the Torah (Numbers 16):  “And on the following day Moses came to the Tent of Testimony, and behold, Aaron's staff for the house of Levi had blossomed! It gave forth blossoms, sprouted buds, and produced ripe almonds. Moses took out all the staffs from before the Lord, to the children of Israel; they saw and they took, each man his staff.”

What was the meaning of this strange miracle? G-d could have chosen many ways to demonstrate the authenticity of Aaron’s position.

What is more, three previous incidents have already proven this very truth: the swallowing of Korach and his fellow rebels who staged a revolt against Moses and Aaron; the burning of the 250 leaders who led the mutiny; and the epidemic that spread among those who accused Moses and Aaron of killing the nation. If these three miracles did not suffice, what would as fourth one possibly achieve? What then was the point and message of the blossoming stick?

One answer I heard from my teacher was this: The blossoming of the staff was meant not so much to prove who the high priest is (that was already established by three previous earth-shattering events), but rather to demonstrate what it takes to be chosen as a high priest of G-d, and to explain why it was Aaron was chosen to this position. What are the qualifications required to be a leader?

Before being severed from the tree, this staff grew, produced leaves, and was full of vitality. But now, severed from its roots, it has become dry and lifeless.

The primary quality of a Kohen Gadol, of a High Priest, of a man of G-d, is his or her ability to transform lifeless sticks into living orchards. The real leader is the person who sees the possibility for growth and life where others see stagnation and lifelessness. The Jewish leader perceives even in a dead stick the potential for rejuvenation.

How relevant this story is to our generation, especially over this past year.  Following the greatest tragedy ever to have struck our people, the Holocaust, the Jewish world appeared like a lifeless staff. Mounds and mounds of ashes, the only remains of the six million, left a nation devastated to its core. An entire world went up in smoke.

What happened next will one day be told as one of the great acts of reconstruction in the history of mankind. Holocaust survivors and refugees set about rebuilding on new soil the world they had seen go up in the smoke of Auschwitz and Treblinka.

One of the remarkable individuals who spearheaded this revival was the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994), whose 27th yartzeit is this Sunday, the third of Tamuz (June 13). The Rebbe, together with other great Jewish sages and leaders from many diverse communities, refused to yield to despair. While others responded to the Holocaust by building memorials, endowing lectureships, convening conferences, and writing books – all vital and noble tributes to create memories of a tree which once lived but was now dead -- the Rebbe urged every person he could touch to bring the stick back to life: to marry and have lots of children, to rebuild Jewish life in every possible way. He built schools, communities, synagogues, Jewish centers, summer camps, and yeshivas, and encouraged and inspired countless Jews to do the same. He opened his heart to an orphaned generation, imbuing it with hope, vision, and determination. He became the most well-known address for scores of activists, rabbis, philanthropists, leaders, influential people, and laymen and women from all walks of life – giving them the confidence to reconstruct a shattered universe. He sent out emissaries to virtually every Jewish community in the world to help rekindle the Jewish smile when a titanic river of tears threatened to obliterate it.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe urged his beloved people to use the horrors of destruction as an impetus to generate the greatest Jewish renaissance and to create “re-Jew-venation.” He gazed at as dead staff and saw in it the potential for new life.

His new home, the United States, was a country that until then had dissolved Jewish identity. It was, as they used to say in those days, a “treifene medinah,” a non-kosher land. Yet the Rebbe saw the possibility of using American culture as a medium for new forms of Jewish activity, using modern means to spread Yiddishkeit. The Rebbe realized that the secularity of the modern world concealed a deep yearning for spirituality, and he knew how to address it. Where others saw the crisis of a dead staff, he saw an opportunity for a new wave of renewal and redemption.

The past year has been uniquely challenging for each of us. A lot of pain and agony have pierced the serenity of so many. Yet the Jewish people have emulated Aaron's staff: From crisis, our people have created opportunity; from darkness and loneliness, we have grown more confident, united, forgiving, and authentic.

Rabbi Yehudah Krinsky, one of the Rebbe’s secretaries, related the following episode.

“It was around 1973, when the widow of Jacques Lifschitz, the renowned sculptor, had come for a private audience with the Lubavitcher Rebbe, shortly after her husband's sudden passing.

“In the course of her meeting with the Rebbe, she mentioned that when her husband died, he was nearing completion of a massive sculpture of a phoenix in the abstract, a work commissioned by Hadassah Women's Organization for the Hadassah Hospital on Mt. Scopus, in Jerusalem.

“As an artist and sculptor in her own right, she said that she would have liked to complete her husband's work, but, she told the Rebbe, she had been advised by Jewish leaders that the phoenix is a non-Jewish symbol. It could never be placed in Jerusalem!

“I was standing near the door to the Rebbe's office that night, when he called for me and asked that I bring him the book of Job, from his bookshelf, which I did.

“The Rebbe turned to Chapter 29, verse 18, "I shall multiply my days like the Chol."  “And then the Rebbe proceeded to explain to Mrs. Lifschitz the Midrashic commentary on this verse which describes the Chol as a bird that lives for a thousand years, then dies, and is later resurrected from its ashes. Clearly then, a Jewish symbol.  “Mrs. Lifschitz was absolutely delighted. The project was completed soon thereafter.

In his own way, the Rebbe had brought new hope to this broken widow. And in the recurring theme of his life, he did the same for the spirit of the Jewish people, which he raised from the ashes of the Holocaust to new, invigorated life. He attempted to reenact the “miracle of the blossoming staff” every day of his life with every person he came in contact with.

A story:

Rabbi Berel Baumgarten (d. in 1978) was a Jewish educator in an orthodox religious yeshiva in Brooklyn, NY, prior to relocating to Buenos Aires. He once wrote a letter to the Rebbe asking for advice. Each Shabbos afternoon, when he would meet up with his students for a study session, one student would walk into the room smelling from cigarette smoke. Clearly, he was smoking on the Shabbos. “His influence may cause his religious class-mates to also cease keeping the Shabbos,” Rabbi Baumgarten was concerned. “Must I expel him from the school, even with the lack of clear evidence that he is violating the Shabbos?”

The Rebbe’s answer was no more than a scholarly reference: “See Avos Derabi Noson chapter 12.” That’s it.

Avos Derabi Noson is a Talmudic tractate, an addendum to the Ethics of the Fathers, composed in the 4th century CE by a Talmudic sage known as Reb Nasan Habavli (hence the name Avos Derabi Noson.) I was curious to understand the Rebbe’s response. Rabbi Baumgarten was looking for practical advice, and the Rebbe is sending him to an ancient text…

I opened an Avos Derabi Noson to that particular chapter. I found a story told there about Aaron, our very own High Priest of Israel.  Aaron, the sages relate, brought back many Jews from a life of sin to a life of purity. He was the first one in Jewish history to make “baalei teshuvah,” to inspire Jews to re-embrace their heritage, faith, and inner spiritual mission. But, unlike today, during Aaron’s times to be a sinner you had to be a real no-goodnik. Because the Jews of his generation have seen G-d in His full glory; and to rebel against the Torah way of life was a sign of true betrayal and carelessness.

How then did Aaron do it? He would greet each person warmly. Even a grand sinner would be greeted by Aaron with tremendous grace and love. Aaron would embrace these so-called “Jewish sinners” with endless warmth and respect. The following day when this person would crave to sin, he would say to himself: How will I be able to look Aaron in the eyes after I commit such a serious sin? I am too ashamed. He holds me in such high moral esteem, how can I deceive him and let him down? And this person would abstain from immoral behavior.

We come here full circle: Aaron was a leader, a High Priest, because even his staff blossomed. He never gave up on the dried-out sticks. He never looked at someone and said, “This person is a lost cause, he is completely cut off from his tree, of any possibility of growth. He is dry, brittle, and lifeless.” For Aaron, even dry sticks would blossom and produce fruit.

This is the story related in Avos Derabi Noson. This was the story the Lubavitcher Rebbe wanted Rabbi Berel Baumgarten to study and internalize. Should I expel the child from school was his question; he is, Jewishly speaking, a dried-out and one tough stick!

The response of an Aaron is this: Love him even more. Embrace him with every fiber of your being, open your heart to him, cherish him and shower him with warmth and affection. Appreciate him, respect him and let him feel that you really care for him. See in him or her that which he or she may not be able to see in themselves at the moment. View him as a great human being, and you know what? He will become just that.

Springboard For All Greatness

Harav Hagaon Yosef Elefant Shlita

In this week’s parashah, which discusses the machlokes of Korach va’adaso with Moshe Rabbeinu, there’s a side incident that seems a bit trivial but is actually very telling. We know that of Korach’s whole assembly, his own sons did teshuvah at the end. Chazal describe that the bnei Korach were already in the pit, and at the last second they had a hirhur teshuvah and they were saved.

What prompted them to do teshuvah? The Midrash, in this week’s parashah, explains that after Dasan and Aviram said לֹא נַעֲלֶה — we’re not going to Moshe Rabbeinu, Moshe Rabbeinu lowered himself and came to see them. Upon seeing this, the bnei Korach said to themselves, “Our father is busy saying that Moshe Rabbeinu is a baal gaavah, and all he wants is power and control, but we see that he’s mevater on his kavod and he’s prepared to come down to try to placate Dasan and Aviram.” This spurred them to say, “Wait a minute — something’s wrong with our father’s whole narrative. Moshe Rabbeinu is a true anav!”  That is what prompted their teshuvah.

Moshe Rabbeinu’s humility in lowering himself to go to Dasan and Aviram to placate them and not being makpid is not a side point about him, but a central point.

At the end of Parashas Behaaloscha, in middle of the Torah’s account of the tragic incident with Miriam and Aharon, Hakadosh Baruch Hu tells Aharon that Moshe is the greatest anav: וְהָאִישׁ מֹשֶׁה עָנָו מְאֹד מִכֹּל הָאָדָם. There’s something very interesting about the placement of this passuk, as we will explain.

The sefarim explain that Moshe Rabbeinu was mevatel himself by attributing everything to Hakadosh Baruch Hu, and that is what anavah is. Anavah is not something bein adam l’chaveiro, but is, rather, bein adam laMakom, as the Gemara (Sotah 5b) teaches regarding a baal gaavah: אין אני והוא יכולים לדור בעולם.

A baal gaavah attributes all his maalos to himself, whereas an anav recognizes that he has maalos and kochos, but he attributes them all to Hakadosh Baruch Hu.

The Meshech Chochmah, in Parashas Shemos, says that Moshe Rabbeinu’s supreme anavah was a sign of his constant dveikus in Hakadosh Baruch Hu, because the moment a person’s mind wanders away from awareness of Hashem, he automatically sinks into himself. The fact that Moshe Rabbeinu was the anav mikol Adam indicated that he was the most davuk in Hakadosh Baruch Hu of any human being, and his mind never wandered away from Hashem. That’s what kept him in his state of anavah.

Accordingly, say the sefarim, Moshe Rabbeinu’s zechus to receive the Torah, and his unsurpassed level of nevuah, were all the result of his anavah and total, constant hisbatlus to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. That explains why all the other nevi’im prophesied with unclear vision — באספלריא שאינה מאירה — while Moshe Rabbeinu’s prophetic vision was absolutely clear, like looking through a clear glass, because there was no “zich” in the way. Nothing was his own; he knew that everything he had was from Hakadosh Baruch Hu.

R' Chaim Volozhiner, in Ruach Chaim at the beginning of Pirkei Avos, says that Moshe Rabbeinu’s anavah was the cause of his being the one to receive the Torah — so much so, that if someone else in history would achieve as much anavah as Moshe Rabbeinu, that person would be mekabel Torah b’shleimus.

 If Moshe Rabbeinu’s anavah made him a suitable vehicle for receiving the Torah, then why would the Torah mention the critically important fact that he was the anav mikol adam — the only description in the Torah of this maalah — specifically in middle of the story of Aharon and Miriam denigrating him? Why not mention it in the context of Moshe Rabbeinu bringing down the Torah?

The answer can be found in the Rambam, at the end of Hilchos Tumas Tzaraas. The Rambam discusses the sin of Miriam, who spoke badly of Moshe, and he notes that her offense was relatively minimal, considering that she was his older sister, who was moser nefesh for him, and her intention was for his benefit. Her only mistake was to equate him with other nevi’im. The Rambam adds that in any case, Moshe Rabbeinu was not makpid about what she said, as the Torah states that he was anav mikol adam.

The Rambam is telling us something fascinating: that Moshe Rabbeinu’s anavah was the reason he wasn’t makpid. Presumably, the Rambam derives this from the Gemara (Shabbos 35) that states that a person should always be an anav like Hillel and not a kapdan like Shammai, which implies that anavah and kapdanus as polar opposites. In what way are these two attributes opposites?

Kapdanus means that a person is concerned with his own kavod (or perceived lack thereof), or their own opinion, or their own “zich,” while anavah means that a person has nothing of his own, so he has nothing to be makpid about. There’s no “me,” no “I think” or “I say.”

Unfortunately, many people walk around with k’peidos. Some people go as far as to declare that they are makpid in this world and in the next. I always wonder whether they really think that in the next world, when they’re basking in the radiance of the Shechinah, if they’re going to carry their k’peidos with them. In any event, the Rambam is teaching us a remarkable thing: that the reason the Torah stresses Moshe’s anavah in the middle of the story of Aharon and Miriam is to explain that although Miriam spoke negatively about Moshe, he bore no resentment toward her because of his anavah. Since he didn’t feel that he owned anything, there was nothing for him to be makpid about.

Miriam’s only mistake, says the Rambam, was to equate Moshe Rabbeinu to all other nevi’im. When a person hears that someone else considers him just a regular person, and not as great as he thinks he is, then he is typically filled with indignation: “What do you mean? How can you say that?” But because Moshe was such an anav, not owning any of his gadlus and not attributing it to himself, it made no difference to him if Miriam was mistaken about his true level. By mentioning that Moshe was the anav mikol adam in the context of this incident, the Torah is stressing that his anavah was the reason he was not makpid.

Moshe Rabbeinu’s anavah and total hisbatlus to Hakadosh Baruch Hu enabled him to receive the Torah, brought him to the level of פֶּה אֶל פֶּה אֲדַבֶּר בּוֹ, and earned him אספקלריא המאירה — yet the Torah left us to figure that all out. If not for the Maharal, the Sfas Emes, R' Yerucham, and R' Chaim Volozhiner, we wouldn’t know that this is what earned him those levels. But Moshe Rabbeinu’s ability not to be makpid on his own kavod due to his anavah is expressed openly in the Torah. This teaches us just how critical it is not to live with kpeidos and not to be busy with “zich.”

We find a similar idea reflected in last week’s parashah, when Eldad and Meidad were prophesying. Yehoshua’s response was: אֲדֹנִי מֹשֶׁה כְּלָאֵם, to which Moshe answered: וּמִי יִתֵּן כָּל עַם ה' נְבִיאִים — “Let everyone be a navi! What does it bother me that there’s competition, so to speak? I don’t own the nevuah!”

R' Chaim Volozhiner makes an incredible statement in Ruach Chaim, at the beginning of Pirkei Avos, based on the Gemara’s teaching (Bava Basra 75) that Moshe Rabbeinu is compared to the sun, while Yehoshua is compared to the moon. The moon, says R' Chaim, was the one that argued, during Brias Ha’olam, that the sun and moon could not be the same size, because אין שני מלכים משתמשים בכתר אחד. That’s why the moon’s size was reduced. In this sense, Yehoshua was similar to the moon, because he was opposed to Eldad and Meidad having their independent nevuah: אין שני מלכים משתמשים בכתר אחד. Moshe Rabbeinu, however, was not bothered by their having nevuah — just like the sun, which was not bothered by the moon being the same size. Due to his incredible anavah, he was not makpid when someone else also had the ability to prophesy.

Coming back to this week’s parashah, of all the mega-events of the parashah — Korach va’adaso, the ground swallowing them up, the 250 machtos — there’s a little incident that shook the world and changed history. Moshe Rabbeinu didn’t say, “What a chutzpah of Dasan and Aviram that I called them and they don’t come.” Instead, he went to them!

In today’s treifeh world, when a person is mevater and swallows his kavod, that is viewed as weakness. But Moshe Rabbeinu wasn’t weak; he was an anav. And an anav is not makpid, because he doesn’t consider anything to be his own. So Moshe Rabbeinu had no problem going down and trying to placate Dasan and Aviram. And that incredible incident, which on the surface seems trivial, shook the bnei Korach to the core. Upon seeing the true dargah of Moshe Rabbeinu, and recognizing that he was anav mikol adam, they understood why he was Moshe Rabbeinu: because his anavah enabled him to swallow the slight to his kavod and not be makpid on anything. He wasn’t makpid on Eldad and Meidad, he wasn’t makpid during the incident with Miriam, he wasn’t makpid on Dasan and Aviram. The bnei Korach understood that this was Moshe Rabbeinu’s essence, and that prompted their teshuvah: לַמְנַצֵּחַ לִבְנֵי קֹרַח מִזְמוֹר.

Far Sighted

 The Yismach Moshe at the end of ד"ה במדרש קרח שפיקח היה explains what it means that the eyes of Korach misled him.  ומה שאמר עינו הטעתו, יש עוד כונה עמוקה, דהא קרח השיג בגדולת הבורא, דאם לא כן מנין לו כל הכבוד הזה להיות סוכה ברוח הקודש, ומכל שכן לפי מ"ש לעיל דהיה משיג ענין פרה אדומה, רק בשפלות בן אדם לא ראה. ובהקדים מה שפירש הרב הקדוש מו"ה אלימלך זצק"ל על המשנה (חגיגה, ב' ע"א) סומא באחת מעיניו וכו', היינו שרואה בגדולת הבורא ב"ה ואינו רואה בשפלות עצמו, פטור מן הראיה, כלומר יותר טוב היה אם לא ראה ולא ידע כלל, כי תועבת ה' כל גבה לב (משלי טז ה). והיינו עינו דייקא הטעתו, ר"ל שראה רק בעינו אחת, דאלו היה רואה בשתי עיניו לא היה טועה, והבן. והיוצא מזה דאחר כל הכבוד והמעלה, צריך להתרחק מכל גאה וגאון. וכבר אמרנו הא דאמרו רז"ל (כתובות דף ס"ח.) כל המעלים עיניו מן הצדקה וכו', דהיינו דמעלים עיניו, הוא מחמת גובה וגאון שאין כבודו להשגיח בעניים ושפלים, לכך הוא כעובד ע"א, כמו שאמרו רז"ל (סוטה ד':) כל המתגאה וכו', על כן יש להשגיח על העניים והיה מעשה הצדקה שלום.

I would like ot say a slightly different take.  The parsha of Korach follows after the parsha of tzitzit.  The parsha of tzitzit teaches a person to see beyond the veneer of the world.  The techelet reminds one of  kisay hakavod and that  should be one's focus in life.  One learns from the tzitzit to take a long look at things and peel under the skin to see what really exists.  Korach indeed did that.  He looked far into the future and saw his great descendants.  He was a great philosopher and "saw" the kisay hakavod.  The problem of Korach was that he couldn't see what was right under his nose.  Maybe that's why he was swallowed by the ground right under his feet.  The Kabbilists teach that Korach in the future days will be right.  However, his message was too early to be recognized.  The nation needed a leader and class structure.  Korach failed to take into consideration the time and place of his message and realize that it could not be accepted.  The techelet do night directly remind one of the kisay hakavod but instead go through steps of similar things.  One can lose the נמשל for the משל at times.  The משל is also important. One must be cognizant of the ultimate goal but really that there is a process to  get there and not every message can be accepted by people that are not ready.

Enough Is (Not) Enough

רב לכם בני לוי. The Gemorah Sotah (13b) says Moshe was punished for that utterance. א"ר לוי ברב בישר ברב בישרוהו ברב בישר (במדבר טז, ג) רב לכם ברב בישרוהו רב לך ידדבר אחר רב לך רב יש לך ומנו יהושע טודבר אחר רב לך שלא יאמרו הרב כמה קשה ותלמיד כמה סרבן וכל כך למה תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל לפום גמלא שיחנא.  Moshe was trying to quite machlokes and protect the dignity of Aharon and yet he is punished? The Manchester Rosh Yeshivah says that although Moshe's intent was obviously correct the incorrect words were used.  One should never belittle another individual's desire to climb to greater spiritual heights and say you have enough already.  When it comes to רוחניות it is never enough!  

It is an interesting take because I would have thought that the whole lesson of the parsha is the total opposite. That Korach wanted more that he was entitled to and that even in matters of רוחניות one can't jump to grab more than they are entitled to.  It would seem that one the one hand one must always strive to grow and climb to higher spiritual heights but at the same time one must never lose sight of the fact that they have their own mission and can't use a Aharon Hakohan, their neighbor, chavrusa or other as the barometer of spiritual success. Any thoughts on the matter?

The Presents Of Torah

A new understanding of Torah is נקנית במח קנינים from Rav Yeruchem.

The 48 מעלות aren't prerequisites to acquiring Torah as we normally understand the Mishna, rather it means that one who learns Torah will be given the 48 middos which are necessary to be able to retain Torah.  One who lack is one of those aspects is because he is rejecting that which Hashem gave him, like a kohan rejecting terumah.  The way of obtaining the key to the middos is to sit and study Torah.

Equality = Division

The נועם אלימלך notes the Targum on ויקח קרח is ואתפלג instead of the normal Targum of the word, ונסיב.  He connects this with the possuk in Berashis (1:7) ויבדל בין המים אשר מתחת לקריע ובין המים אשר מעל לרקיע where the Targum of ויבדל is also ואתפלג, see there how he explains the connection.  The idea is already from the Zohar (17a.)

Korach's claim was that all men are created equal, כל העדה כולם קדושים, he screamed equality but that call to equality created the greatest divide.  Why does a call for equality create further machlokes and division?  The world is created to have divisions within it.  In fact, the source of division stems from the very creation of the world itself.  The creation of an entity that appears to be separate and devoid of G-d.  It is our job to unite the opposing forces, not to deny their existence.  As an example, the מדות of חסד  and גבורה are opposing forces.  Each one of these מדות has its positives and negatives and they must be deployed in different situations.  One who is a chesed or gevurah only individual will cause serios consequences.  It is the unity of the the two מדות, the middah of תפארת that paints a perfect picture.  The dichotomies in the world are necessary to be able to achieve a perfect balance and unity.  To argue equality without dichotomy leads to the destruction of unity itself.  True equality is to appreciate the talents and lacking in the individuals and to work together to fit everyone's jagged edges into one puzzle; denying the differences and forcing all to be clones only leads to bickering and strife.  This is the message of שני כתובים המכחישים זה את זה עד שיבוא הכתוב השלישי ויכריע ביניהם, it is important to understand the two opposing forces in their own right and only after that to connect them (see Toras Menachem 5751 Nasso.)

The Gemorah Bava Bathra (74a) recounts אמר רבה בר בר חנה: זימנא חדא הוה קאזלינא באורחא [פעם אחת הייתי הולך בדרך], אמר לי ההוא טייעא [ערבי אחד]: תא ואחוי [בוא ואראה] לך את בלועי מחלוקת קרח. אזיל חזא תרי בזעי דהוה קא נפק קיטרא מנייהו [הלך וראה שני בקעים שיוצא עשן מהם]. שקל גבבא דעמרא, אמשייה מיא, ואותביה בריש רומחיה, ואחלפיה התם, איחרך [לקח אותו ערבי גיזת צמר, הרטיבה במים, ושמה בראש רומחו, והעביר אותה שם, ונחרכה] להראותו כמה לוהט המקום.  (brackets is Steinsaltz translation.)  The Maharal notes that there are two holes.  Why two?  He explains that two lines can never form a closed space, you need a third line to complete the triangle.  That is representative of purgatory which is the definition of  a lack of wholesomeness.  That is why Korach's place in purgatory is represented by two holes.  That's why the division of the מים, of the upper waters and the lower waters occurs on the second day.

The Gemorah Shabbos (88a) says דרש ההוא גלילאה עליה דרב חסדא בריך רחמנא דיהב אוריאן תליתאי, לעם תליתאי, על ידי תליתאי, ביום תליתאי, בירחא תליתאי.  What is the significance of all the number 3's?
As the Maharal said, The number 3 represents the joining together of two apposing forces.  The giving of the Torah came to heal the greatest divide, that of the world and G-d.  The Torah given to mankind formed a bridge between G-d and the Infinite (see Shemos Rabbah 12:3.)  The number three highlights the point and goal of Mattan Torah and Klal Yisroel.

As discussed in the past, the number 4 (multiple of 2,) represents complete separation.  A box has 4 sides, it is a complete separate entity.  the number 2 is the beginning of the separation and in full form its represented by 4.  Tammuz is the 4^th month (counting from Nissan,) when we are distant from Hashem and that's why the road to churban starts in it.  We must take the lesson of 3 and bring it into the 4, to unite what appears separate with Hashem (see Toras Menachem Korach 5744.)

Kabbalah Please

The Bechai asks a couple of questions on the whole parsha of Korach.  He asks why did Moshe not pray for them and convince them to do teshuva?  Why didn't he just prove through a miracle that he was right and Aharon is the chosen one?  Furthermore, why were the kids punished?
What's interesting is that he says there is no good answer in peshat and it could be understood only through kabbalah.  ואמנם אם בקשנו להלום פרשה זו בדרך הפשט יקשה עלינו כל זאת, אבל אי אפשר להולמה כי אם בדרך הקבלה הנאמנה.  See there how he explains it (16:29.)

Conquering The Brain

 לֹֽא־יִ֠הְיֶ֠ה לַכֹּהֲנִ֨ים הַלְוִיִּ֜ם כׇּל־שֵׁ֧בֶט לֵוִ֛י חֵ֥לֶק וְנַחֲלָ֖ה עִם־יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל אִשֵּׁ֧י י״י֛ וְנַחֲלָת֖וֹ יֹאכֵלֽוּן.  What is the meaning of the possuk, why is the fact that the לוים partake in the אִשֵּׁ֧י י״י֛ וְנַחֲלָת֖וֹ a reason that they shouldn't receive a portion of the land?  There are two ways to understand this, either that its a reason that they can't get a נחלה or that they don't need a נחלה.  The possuk may mean that since they receive אִשֵּׁ֧י י״י֛ וְנַחֲלָת֖וֹ they feel no need for a נחלה because they are completely satisfied with their spiritual נחלה.  Another way of understanding is that they can't receive a נחלה for it will detract from their service of Hashem.  In order to serve in the Mikdash, one must be 100%, fully involved, in their service of Hashem and can't have any distraction, even of a נחלה (Rav Avrohom Gorvitz (Gateshead.))

The Mishne L'meleceh at the end of the Lasw of Shmittah brings the Smag that in the times of Mashiach then שבט לוי will get a portion in Eretz Yisroel.  The Achronim ask, this is a לאו for the לוים to get a portion, how will it be nullified?  The answer lies in the words of the Rambam in halacha 10, כָּל שֵׁבֶט לֵוִי מֻזְהָרִין שֶׁלֹּא יִנְחֲלוּ בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן.  What does the Rambam come to exclude with the words בארץ כנען?  He comes to exclude the additional lands that will be added in the times of Moshiach, the lands of קיני, קניזי, וקדמוני (see Laws of Rotzaoch 8:4.)  It is in those lands that שבט לוי will get a portion of in the future.  This will not be a violation of the  לאו, for the לאו is only to get a portion in Eretz Yisroel.  [This seems to run against Rashi's understanding of the Sifri (18:2,) however see Ramban and footnote 44 of the sicha.]

What needs to be explained is why this isn't included in the לאו, the possuk says the reason is אִשֵּׁ֧י י״י֛ וְנַחֲלָת֖וֹ יֹאכֵלֽוּן so that should apply even in the additional lands?  Chassidus says that the seven nations of Eretz Yisroel represent the seven middot.  Capturing Eretz Yisroel is to capture the seven middot to be used for Hashem.  This involves going to war and that isn't the task of the Leviem.  It is there job to be separate from the world and immersed purely in holiness.  The three additional nations represent the three aspects of the intellect.  That isn't won by war, rather as the possuk says, וְאִם־יַרְחִ֞יב י״י֤ אֱלֹקיך אֶת־גְּבֻ֣לְךָ֔ כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר נִשְׁבַּ֖ע לַאֲבֹתֶ֑יךָ, it is a gift from Hashem, it doesn't involve one to go to war and that won;t detract from the job of the Leviem so they can get a portion in it as well (based on Toras Menachem 5751 parshas Shlach.)

The Arizal asks why will there be additional ערי מקלט in the future (as it says 19:8,) there will be no more killing in the future?  The Shem M'shmuel uses this idea to answer the question.  It won't be necessary for killing, in the future it will be a place to go for kapparah for those that have a sin affecting the brain; זרע לבטלה.  Based upon this he explain the Gemorah in Makkos (12a) that the שר of עשו will run to a עיר מקלט.  The Gemorah says he is mistaken for he killed wantonly.  In light of this, we understand that in the future, even when the חטא is wanton, with the brain, there still can be a kapparah.  The mistake is that only the additional three can fix even מזיד, not the original ערי מקלט.

Tammid: Collective Or Private Ownership

Rashi (16:15) אל תפן אל מנחתם – לפי פשוטו הקטרת שהם מקריבים לפניך מחר אל תפן אליה.
והמדרש אומר יודע אני שיש להם חלק בתמידי ציבור, אף חלקם לא יקובל לפניך לרצון, תניחנו האש ולא תאכלנו.  We see from Rashi that every individual is considered to have a part in the korban tzibbur.  We don't just view it as belonging to the collective ownership of the klal.  (See Likutay Sichos volume 33.)  This seems to fit with Rashi in Arachin 4a ד"ה שלנו הוא (see Mishne L'melech Mielah 7:6.)

As an aside, the possuk in Yechezkal (46:13) says: וְכֶ֨בֶשׂ בֶּן־שְׁנָת֜וֹ תָּמִ֗ים תַּעֲשֶׂ֥ה עוֹלָ֛ה לַיּ֖וֹם לַי״י֑ בַּבֹּ֥קֶר בַּבֹּ֖קֶר תַּעֲשֶׂ֥ה אֹתֽוֹ.  The Radak says: כבש בן שנתו תמים – זהו קרבן התמיד שעושים בכל יום כמו שאמר בתורה את הכבש אחד תעשה בבקר והמנחה אינה כמו שנזכר בתורה הנה יהיה בזה חדוש לעתיד וקרבן הערב לא זכר נראה שלא יעשה לעתיד אלא עולת הבקר.  I saw quoted from the Mekor Chayim by the Chavas Yaer that this is the justification for the custom of those that pray Ashkenaz not to mention the korban tammid by Mincha.  But how can it be that the korban tammid will become nullified, its a din in the Torah?

A Few Thoughts From The Rebbe

This Shabbos is the yom helulah of the Lubavitcher Rebbe.  I would like to share a couple of his teachings on the parsha which I think shed light on his worldview. 

 After the episode of Korach the Torah tells us the laws of the gifts that must be given to the Kohan.  On a simple level this was to strengthen the kehunah belonging to Aharon.  However, possibly this sheds light on the whole debate of Korach.  On the words vayikach Korach, the Targum says vaespalag Korach.  The word espalag means to divide.  The Noam Elimelech connects this division to the division between the water in the heavens and the water on earth.  In the Torah of Chabad, they expand upon this Noam Elimelech.  If Korach was claiming everyone was holy and why should Aharon be chosen, then how could he and all his followers all desire to be kohanim, this seems hypocritical? Just like there was a separation between the levels of the water, so too Korach didn’t disagree that there were people on a higher level (he himself was a Lavi,) he just felt they should be on a separate pedestal.  His complaint was “why should you rule over the nation of Hashem.”  He felt Aharon shouldn’t affect everyone else, why should everyone have to be elevated through Aharon.  He desired that he should have kehunah completely divorced from bringing kedusha to the rest of the people.  That was his claim to kehunah.  He wanted a new kind of kehunah.  Therefore, the Torah tells us the laws of the priestly gifts for one designates part of his profits for the Kohan and that brings kedusha to the rest.  That is the job of the Kohan, to bring kedusha to everyone. (see LIkutay Sichos volume 18 sicha 5.)

Korach failed to understand the leadership expected of the Kohanim.  He thought if you are on a higher level that it should be self-contained.  The job of the Kohan, the leader of the Jewish people is to help bring kedusha to everyone.  This is what the Rebbe did.  He viewed it as his mission to bring out the sparks of kedusha within everyone’s soul.

Why would the 250 men offer the ketores if they knew that they would die? A similar question can be asked in regard to the Kohanim Gedolim in the times of the second Beis Hamikdash.  If they all died within the year (see Yomah 9a and the Yerushalmi,) why would people want to purchase the Kehunah gedolah?  The answer is that a Jew has a desire to come close to kedusha.  Therefore, the 250 people wanted to have the opportunity to offer the ketores and in Bais Sheni people wanted to be able to enter the Kodesh Kadashim to serve Hashem.  That is why the parsha is called Korach and not Vayikach Korach, for the word vayikach refers to the argument of Korach.  We want to focus on the positive dimension of Korach, to desire to come close to Hashem, to be like the Kohan Gadol.  This is the lesson to be taken from Korach, to desire to come as close to Hashem as possible (Likutay Sichos volume 18 sicha 1.)  

The Rebbe constantly stressed that one should not be happy with our avodah.  The Rebbe constantly encouraged people to add in their avodas Hashem.  There are always new missions and mitzvot that we can do or encourage others to do in order to come closer to Hashem.

Punishments

The Or HaChaim in Shlach (14:38) asks why does the possuk repeat that Yehoushu and Calev remained alive from the spies?  Furthermore, why does the possuk need to say from those that went to check the land, we know they went?  He explains that the possuk is describing that they merited to live because they stood out from amongst the meraglim.  Had they not have stood out, then even if they were righteous they would’ve been killed as part of Klal Yisroel.  In this week’s parsha (16:21) on the words הִבָּ֣דְל֔וּ מִתּ֖וֹךְ הָעֵדָ֣ה הַזֹּ֑את וַאֲכַלֶּ֥ה אֹתָ֖ם כְּרָֽגַע he says the possuk is referring to the tzaddikim,  but not to Moshe and Aharon for they would not be killed with everyone.  We see from the Or HaChaim there is a concept of collateral damage in the punishments from Hashem, but it will not apply to super tzaddikim like Moshe and Aharon.  In (17:10) the Or HaChaim says the same idea.  (See Babba Kamma 60a for the concept of collateral damage in heavenly punishments and Avodah Zarah 4a for the exclusion of super tzaddikim.)  The Ramban also questions why would the non-sinners be wiped away with Korach?  He answers that there would be a general punishment because the people had a leaning towards Korach.

According to the Or Hachaim, why is there a concept of collateral damage if Hashem’s judgement is complete truth?  I leave that for the reader to decide.

Another point on punishments in this weeks parsha.  Rashi (16:27) says that we see how difficult machlokus is for even the young children were killed in the rebellion of Korach.  The Maharal asks how can children be punished they aren’t responsible for their actions?  He explains that its not a punishment, it’s a natural consequence. There is an innate connection between machlokes and gehannim.  He says that both  the source of machlokes and gehannim were created on the same day because they are naturally connected.  He expands upon this idea further in Derech Chayim on Avos (5:16.)  We can explain this idea a little differently than he does.  When one is engaged in machlokes it leads to separation from the other individual.  Gehhenom is where one must be placed if the individual needs some additional time to achieve unity with God.   Both things share the common ground of a lack of unity.  One engaged in machlokes uses the sense to able to be in complete unity and that carries over to the individual's relationship with God as well, it isn't a punishment, its an outgrowth of the personality.

Two Aspects Of The Firstborn

There are two verses in this weeks parsha that tell us the rights of a kohan to the first born animal.  The first is (18:15) כׇּל־פֶּ֣טֶר רֶ֠חֶם לְֽכׇל־בָּשָׂ֞ר אֲשֶׁר־יַקְרִ֧יבוּ לַֽי״י֛ בָּאָדָ֥ם וּבַבְּהֵמָ֖ה יִֽהְיֶה־לָּ֑ךְ.  The second, 3 verses later, says וּבְשָׂרָ֖ם יִהְיֶה־לָּ֑ךְ כַּחֲזֵ֧ה הַתְּנוּפָ֛ה וּכְשׁ֥וֹק הַיָּמִ֖ין לְךָ֥ יִהְיֶֽה.  These two verses describe two aspects of the bechor.  It is as the first verse describes, one of the מתנות כהונה solely because it is the first born.  The second verse tells us a second aspect to the bechor, that it has the status of kadashim.

Tosfos Zevachim 75b ד"ה בכור holds that the temurah of a bechor is eaten by the owner when it gets a blemish and one doesn’t need to give it to a kohan.  The Rambam Temurah 3:2 holds it is given to the kohan.  Seemingly, they argue if the kohan gets the bechor because of its kedusha which exists on the temurah as well or because of it being the firstborn and hence one of the מתנות כהונה, which is not so regarding the temurah.  The Or Sameach asks that in Zevachim 9a entertains a הוא אמינא that if an animal was slaughtered with the intent of having the status of bechor that it is given to the kohanim.  We see even if it isn’t a literal firstborn, as long as it has the same kedusha and status as a bechor its given to the kohanim? 

The Briskor Rav (first piece on Laws of Bechoros) suggests that Tosfos also agrees that the din of kedusha obligates one to give the bechor to the kohanim.  Tosfos holds that such a din only occurs after it is slaughtered as a korban for than it falls under the rubric of the second verse and treated as a korban.  It is when the animal is still living that Tosfos holds one must give it to the kohan only because it is a firstborn so the terumah may be kept by the owner.

Guard Terumah

Rambam Terumot (12:1) מותר לטמא תרומת חוצה לארץ בטמאות של תורה ואף על פי שאינה טמאה אלא בארץ העמים שהיא מדבריהם מפני שעיקר חיובה מדבריהם.   The Rambam (7:8) says: תרומת ח"ל הואיל ועיקרה מדבריהן אינה אסורה באכילה אלא לכהן שטומאה יוצאה עליו מגופו והן בעלי קריין וזבין וזבות ונדות ויולדות וכולן שטבלו מותרין לאכילה אף על פי שלא העריב שמשן אבל טמאי מגע טומאות בין שנגע במת שאי אפשר לנו היום לטהר ממנו בין שנגע בשרץ אינו צריך לטבול לתרומת חוצה לארץ.  So why does the Rambam need to say that one can be metameh the terumah of חוצה לארץ because its only Rabbinic, one isn’t causing any loss to the terumah anyway because it can be eaten in tumah?

We see from here that that the commandment of וַיְדַבֵּ֣ר י״י֮ אֶֽל־אַהֲרֹן֒ וַאֲנִי֙ הִנֵּ֣ה נָתַ֣תִּֽי לְךָ֔ אֶת־מִשְׁמֶ֖רֶת תְּרוּמֹתָ֑י (18:8,) isn’t merely to avoid causing the terumah any loss, it is its own issur to cause tumah to terumah irrespective of effect.

Rambam (12:4) חבית שנשברה בגת העליונה והתחתונה טמאה אם יכול להציל ממנה רביעית בטהרה יציל ואם לאו יציל בידיו בלא נט"י ואע"פ שהוא מטמאה כמו שיתבאר בענין טהרות.  Rashi in Menachos 48b understands this Mishna (Terumah 8:7) to mean one can cause tumah to the terumah with vessels that are tamah even דאורייתא.  However, the Rambam understands that the Mishna only permits one to cause it tumah d’rabbanan even if all the terumah will be lost.  Why doesn’t he permit causing even טומאה דאורייתא if its not going to cause any loss to the terumah?  It fits with the above Rambam that holds there is a issur in it of itself to cause tumah to the terumah (Minchas Avrohom Menachos 48b in the name of Rav Beril Solevetchik.)

Walking Zombies

וירדו חיים שאולה - שגם בשאול חושבים שהם חיים.
הברכה בוירדו חיים שאולה, כמו בני קרח לא מתו, מקום נתבצר להם ועשו תשובה, כי תשובה מועלת רק כל עוד שהוא חי, וזוהי הברכה, שגם בשאול יהיו חיים ויוכלו לעשות תשובה  (Yom Yom 26 Sivan.)

This is a double-edged sword.  There are people that appear to be alive and living a normal life but really, they are in שאול.  There are people that are walking zombies and don’t realize it.  It isn’t the being inשאול  itself that is the problem, it’s the lack of realizing where one is holding.  This is the biggest problem as the Baal Shem Tov said on the possuk (Devarim 31:18) הסתר אסתיר פני, the biggest הסתר is when doesn’t even realize that there is a הסתר.  However, the upside is that the person is still alive and can fix things.