בּ״ה
Parshas Korach
Writes the Orchos Tzaddikim (Shaar HaGaavah): Gaavah (haughtiness) brings one to the pursuit of honor to lord it over people. And you already know what happened to Korach and his assembly because of his gaavah, for he sought to make himself great and to take greatness that had not been given to him from Heaven.1 And because of this, he entered into strife, and from the strife went forth jealousy and hatred. And all of these are very inferior traits.
--------------------------------------
1 The greatness mentioned here refers to positions of honor, etc.
<><><><><><><><><><>
If we see somebody getting something in life that we wanted; for example a promotion or a certain position, we must realize that to complain would be to complain against Hashem, because He runs His world, and if we didn’t get something, it is because He knew it wasn’t best for us!
And actually, from this we see a solution to the upsetness we feel at certain things in life: If we understood that everything that Hashem makes happen is truly for our benefit and for the best overall, then why would we complain? Not getting whatever it is we wanted to get was good for us in this scenario, apparently. As Rabbi Akiva zt”l said beautifully (Berachos 60a), “Everything the Merciful One does, He does for the good.” (See there).
(Tal U’Matar)
<><><><><><><><><><>
Rashi zt”l brings (16:7) from Midrash Tanchuma; why did Korach do the foolish thing that he did? The answer is that his eye, עינו, caused him to err, as he saw a chain of great people who would be descended from him. (See there).
In the sefer Likutei Yehoshua, the author tells that he heard an insight from a Gadol regarding the interesting singular language employed in the above Chazal that עינו, ‘his eye’ caused him to err, and not the plural עיניו, ‘his eyes:’
A person must try to serve Hashem with both their eyes. With one eye, they should (figuratively) see and recognize their own lowliness, and with the other, they should perceive the greatness of Hashem.
Korach was a very good person at first; but he was lacking in a major area. While the eye that was supposed to see the magnificence of HaKadosh Baruch Hu did so, and he definitely perceived that Hashem is very great, his other eye, the one with which a person should see their own smallness, he misused, and he thought of himself as very high up. Now we understand the singular expression עינו: It was this eye which caused him to err in the way that he did.
(Likutei Yehoshua)
<><><><><><><><><><>
The Mishnah in Pirkei Avos (ch. 5) tells us: Every dispute that is l’Sheim Shmayaim, for the Sake of Heaven, will endure. And one that is not for the Sake of Heaven, will not endure. What is an example of a dispute that is for the Sake of Heaven? The disputes of Hillel and Shammai. And what is an example of a dispute that was not for the sake of Heaven? The dispute of Korach and his entire assembly.
In what way does a dispute for the Sake of Heaven endure, and in what way does one not for the Sake of Heaven not endure?
Truthfully, it is quite clear: When people debate l’Sheim Shamayim, it means that they are not just arguing to prove their point. They are debating for a higher purpose, in order to bring out the truth of a matter, and each voicing Torah opinions. These words will endure forever; they are words of Torah! Furthermore, since they are debating l’Sheim Shamayim, there is a very good chance that in most cases, they will treat each other with respect, and not come to, Chas v’Shalom, try to insult one another. (See Ye’aros D’vash, vol 2, and Anaf Eitz Avos).
But people who argue merely from their own opinions, and for some selfish reason, whether it be to show that they are right, and the other person is wrong, or whatever it may be, those words are not going to last. Where is the specialness in them? And will this argument even shed light on the truth, or will it just cause unnecessary strife and feelings of enmity between people?
In an interesting, and slightly different tact, we can see another way in which a dispute l’Shem Shamayim will endure, while one that is not will not: Most people who have learned Mishnah probably recall seeing some sort of difference of opinion between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai, whose disagreements were surely l’Shem Shamayim, as well. And as we know, in almost all cases, the Halachah follows the opinion of Beis Hillel. However, according to Kabbalistic teachings, in the days of Moshiach, we will hold like Beis Shammai’s opinions. They both, therefore, endure! It’s amazing!
Whereas for Korach and his assembly, their dispute went down with them into the mouth of the earth. . .
(Tal U’Matar)
~ ~ * ~ ~
Why, asks HaRav Yehuda Lirma zt”l, does the Mishnah not say ‘the dispute of Korach and his entire assembly with Moshe and Aharon’? Afterall, Moshe and Aharon also disagreed with him, and it’s not like Moshe didn’t dispute him!
But, he explains, the Mishnah could not have said thus, as it is giving an example of an argument which was not for the Sake of Heaven, and the arguing which Moshe and Aharon did with Korach and his assembly surely was l’Shem Shamayim! The only people, therefore, whom it could mention, were Korach and his assembly, who weren’t arguing l’Shem Shamayim.
(Lechem Yehuda)
~ ~ * ~ ~
A similar, but different, question is asked by the Noam Elimelech {Rebbe Elimelech of Lizhensk zt”l}: Why does the Mishnah word it ‘the dispute of Korach and his assembly’?
And he elucidates the matter as follows: As we find in Rashi zt”l, all the 250 men of Korach’s assembly also desired the position of Kohen Gadol, just like he did. Thus, we see that their hearts were also separated, and in disagreement. And this is what the wording of the Mishnah hints to us: The hearts of Korach and his assembly were all truthfully disjointed with one another. It was literally the dispute of Korach and his entire assembly!
<><><><><><><><><><>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
‘And Moshe was very distressed,1 and he said to Hashem. . . I have not done bad to one of them.’ (Bamidbar 16:15)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
There are those, says HaRav Meir Simcha HaKohen of Dvinsk zt”l, who are praised as being humble, but really aren't very much so. These people behave very, very nicely towards, and humble themselves before, someone who is much lower than them in eminence. But when it comes to someone who is just as eminent as them, or perhaps more so -- where, if they were to humble themselves before them, people could legitimately think that it is not humility, but how they should be treating that person, because so-and-so is really higher than them in stature -- they push them away, degrade them, and glorify in their disgrace.
But Moshe Rabbeinu was not like this. He was actually, truly, humble! And therefore, he was never jealous of, or towards, people who were high up, or doing something that could have appeared like “competition”, like Eldad and Meidad, when they were prophesying in the camp, for example. This is what the words ‘I have not done bad to one of them’ mean: As we find in Rashi zt”l (to Bereishis 26:10), when the term ‘one of them’ is used in conjunction with a lot of people, it can denote the greatest individual among them. Even to such people, who were great in stature, Moshe Rabbeinu did not try to lessen their status -- on the contrary, he attempted to add to it and their honor.
(Meshech Chochmah)
-----------------------------------
1 Rashi zt”l from Tanchuma.
<><><><><><><><><><>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
‘And he will not be like Korach and like his assembly’ (Bamidbar 17:5)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My dear brethren! I beg of you -- and of myself; please, please, let us not be like Korach and his assembly! We musn’t cause unnecessary arguments and strife! Sometimes there will be differences of opinion, yes, but it doesn’t have to become an argument, or much worse, lead to anger and frustration! And if we must dispute something, or debate, it must be l’Shem Shamayim, as we saw above! It is imperative to try to maintain peace!
In Parshas Bechukosai (Vayikra 26:6), Rashi zt”l brings from Chazal that peace is equivalent to everything. And furthermore, the last Mishnah in all of Shas, Uktzin 3:12; the last Mishnah in all of Shas, Rabbosai(!) tells us: ‘Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta said: HaKadosh Baruch Hu did not find a vessel to hold blessing for Yisroel, except for peace, like it says, ‘Hashem will give strength to His People, Hashem will bless His People with peace.’
We find back in Sefer Bereishis, (Parshas Vayeira) the famous story of when the Angels in the guise of wayfarers came to Avraham Avinu and Sara Imeinu, and told them that they would bear a son. Sara laughed, commenting about her physical state, and saying that her husband was old. But when HaKadosh Baruch Hu asked Avraham Avinu about it, He left out the second part, and only mentioned that she had said that she was old. From here the Academy of Rabbi Yishmael (Bava Metzia 87a) says how great peace is, as even HaKadosh Baruch Hu changed the truth, to a certain extent,1 for it! It is incumbent upon us to learn from Hashem’s perfect ways, and go to great lengths to preserve peace!
Rabbosai, it isn’t for naught that we read Parshas Korach close before we enter the Bein HaMetzarim (Three Weeks). Why do we still have Tisha B’Av? Are we not in this long and bitter Galus mainly because of baseless hatred between fellow Jews?! It is incumbent upon each one of us to try to maintain peace as much as we can, and in the merit of this effort, may Hashem redeem us speedily and bring all of His Children back together, in Yerushalayim, Amein!
-------------------------------------
1 Actually, if we look closely, Hashem merely refrained from telling the second thing Sara Imeinu said, but did not alter the truth, Chas v’Shalom, as her comments about herself essentially implied that she was old.
<><><><><><><><><><>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
‘And behold! The staff of Aharon, of the House of Levi, blossomed; and it brought forth a blossom, and it sprouted a bud, and it grew almonds.’ (Bamidbar 17:23)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
We can glean from this passuk, says HaRav Moshe Feinstein zt”l, that on Aharon’s staff, the blossoms were left, as well as the almonds. In fact, the Gemara itself (Yoma 52b) tells us this, as it says that the staff of Aharon was hidden away with its almonds and blossoms. And the Tosafos Yeshanim notes the difficulty, that once it had almonds, then, by definition, the blossoms would be gone. But he brings that it was a miracle, and the blossoms remained.
Why, though, wonders Rav Moshe, did Hashem perform this miracle? And he explains beautifully: Blossoms represent the things which bring us to the performance of a Mitzvah, while the fruit -- the almonds, in this case, is like the actual act of the Mitzvah itself.
The remaining of the blossoms on the staff as well shows us that the “blossoms of holiness,” meaning all the toil, and all the pain we might go through to perform a Mitzvah or learn Torah, never fades away or is lost. Unlike in mundane matters where we only get paid for the result of what we do, and not the effort we put into it, in spiritual matters, our efforts last forever, just like the Mitzvah itself, and Hashem rewards us for them as well!
(Darash Moshe)
<><><><><><><><><><>
|~Maaseh~| At one point, there was a dispute in the Torah community -- mostly in Eretz Yisroel -- about chickens vs. braekel chickens. Regarding birds, we know which ones are Kosher through Mesorah, transmission from generation to generation, and being that a chicken is a bird, a disagreement arose about which type appeared to be the one which we had a Mesorah was Kosher -- the regular chicken, or the braekel chicken.
I had seen something about this dispute, and I wanted to write a paper or something of the sort on it, so I was going to contact different Rabbanim about it, and get their take on the matter.
In the end, I think I only contacted two regarding it: My Rebbe, HaRav Elyakim Rosenblatt zt”l, and my Rebbe, HaRav Daniel Yaakov Travis shlit”a. They both had very memorable responses: When I asked Rav Rosenblatt what he thought about the whole chicken vs. braekel debate, he asked, “What’s a braekel?” He simply stayed away from arguments and strife. And Rav Travis put an end to my idea of a paper on the subject, if I remember correctly. He replied with two words full of wisdom: “Stay away.”
~ ~ * ~ ~
HaRav Isser Zalman Meltzer zt”l used to give a weekly Talmudic lecture in his Yeshiva. One of the students who usually remained silent during the lecture once spoke up and said, “The Sfas Emes explains this section differently than what was just said.” Rav Meltzer, the Rosh Yeshiva, replied, “If the Sfas Emes explains the Gemara differently, I should really stop my lecture right away. But I ask of you a favor. I worked hard to prepare this lecture. Do me a chesed and give me permission to continue the lecture which I prepared with so much effort.” This statement of the Rosh Yeshiva seemed a bit strange. Even if another scholar explained the passage differently, he had a right to offer his own interpretation. As Rav Meltzer frequently said about similar situations, “He explains his way, and I explain my way.”
Immediately after the lecture, one of the top students ran to the yeshiva’s library and looked up the Sfas Emes’s commentary. He found that the Sfas Emes’s explanation was really consistent with the Rosh Yeshiva’s interpretation. The student ran over to Rav Meltzer and told him this. “I am familiar with what the Sfas Emes wrote,” said Rav Isser Zalman, “and you are right, there is no contradiction there to what I said.”
The student was very curious about the Rosh Yeshiva’s reaction and walked him home. On the way, Rav Isser Zalman explained, “During the lecture, I noticed a businessman who never before came to my lectures. Also, this fellow who asked the question usually does not ask questions during the lecture. I assumed that there might be a possible shidduch (marriage match) between the young man and the businessman’s daughter. I’m not certain that this man has a daughter, but most likely he does. Probably the fellow asked the question to impress the businessman that he knows how to learn. I replied the way I did to raise this student in the eyes of his prospective father-in-law.”
A few weeks later, the young man who had asked the question actually became engaged to that businessman’s daughter.
(Related in B’Derech Eitz HaChaim, vol. 1;
quoted in Growth Through Torah)
<><><><><><><><><><>
Gut and meaningful Shabbos to all!
No comments:
Post a Comment