HOLY IDEALISM OR GOOD OLD MISCHIEF?
The Tell Tale Signs of Destructive “Machlokes”
By Rabbi Yoseph Kahanov Jax Fl.
The following mindboggling incident, involving the saintly Chafetz Chaim, is related in the name of Rabbi Berel Wein:
Two people have become embroiled in an obsessive argument. The ugly dispute grew so out of control that it consumed their very lives and affairs, yet there was no end in sight, even after the sudden death of some of the quarreling partners’ children R’L.
Upon learning of the mysterious deaths, the Chafetz Chaim saw fit to personally intercede. He is said to have engaged one of the partner’s pleadingly: "Do you not see how this is harming your children! Don't you think it is time to stop?"
The following is the answer that the man is purported to have given: "I will bury all of them, but I am going to win."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Leah had sadly been slipping in and out of a coma for several months.
Yet Izzy, her husband, had stayed by her bedside every single day. One day, when Leah came to, she motioned for Izzy to come nearer.
As he sat by her, she whispered, eyes full of tears, "You know what? You have been with me all through the tough times...
When I got fired from my job, you were there to support me.
When my first hairdressing business failed, you were there.
When I got hit by that car, you were by my side.
When we lost our dear Jonathan, you were right here.
When my health started failing, you were still by my side...
You know what?"
"What dear?" Tony gently asked, smiling as his heart began to fill with warmth.
"I think you bring me bad luck."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Are you of the belief that all is fair in love and war, or that the end justifies the means so long as the cause is holy – “For the sake of Heaven? Well if so, it’s time to think again!
The central narrative of this week’s Parsha, Korach, is both dramatic and tragic. A group of 250 prominent people, all heads of Sanhedrin, led by the brilliant charismatic Korach and three pathetic sidekicks, Dasan, Aviram and Ohn the son of Peles, picked a quarrel with none other than Moshe and Aharon; challenging their leadership and authority: "They gathered together against Moshe and against Aharon and said to them, 'It is too much for you! The entire community is holy, and G‑d dwells among them, why do you exalt yourselves over the congregation of G‑d?" (Bamidbar Chap. 16)
While not all quarrels are necessarily bad – one, for example, could only imagine how dry the Talmud would be in the absence of controversy, as argument and debate are its very lifeblood – still, this classic Biblical squabble was anything but good.
Korach’s campaign against Moshe is held up by the sages as the epitome of “Machlokes Shelo l’Shem Shamayim – an argument or controversy that is not for the sake of Heaven” (Avos 5:17). It is in fact remarkably perceived to be the prototype and example of all destructive conflict and contention . The number of identifiable traits and character flaws to which this infamous dispute is linked is nothing short of astonishing.
Given the deceptive nature of conflict and all its dubious guises, identifying a malignant form of argument and controversy can sometimes be tricky. However, there is no need for uncertainty, the various flaws and negative traits associated with Korach’s rebellion serve as a comprehensive handbook on malevolent conflict. The following is a list of such tell tale traits, albeit incomplete.
Selfishness
The foremost cause of unholy dispute, obviously, has to do with intention. If one's intention is truly for Heaven's sake then the Machlokes is possibly of the good variety. On the other hand, any Machlokes that stems from self interest is clearly not of the good assortment.
Hence, assert the commentary, Korach’s challenge against Moshe begin with the words “And Korach took (Numbers 16.1).” Why the word “Took” in the singular form, were there not many people together with him? Additionally, there is no direct object for the word “Took.” “What did Korach take?” The answer given, each person involved in the argument had his own selfish motive and agenda, hence the singular form.
The point of the Torah is then simply that Korach “Took;” he was a taker, or in today’s vernacular he was “On the take.” Accordingly, the first sign in determining whether a controversy is holy or malevolent, is the nature of the challenge, If it is of a selfless variety, then there is a fighting chance that it is for “The sake of Heaven. If on the other hand it is of the self serving, self rewarding variety, it is as Trief as Chazzer and should be abandoned at all cost.
Deception
Wholesome controversy and disagreement need not resort to deceptive tactics, truth is its best ally. The slightest degree of deception is thus proof of trouble.
From the outside it would appear that Korach’s rebellion was purely for "For Heaven's sake." After all, it was not money or riches that he and his men sought. All they asked for was "Equal opportunity” – the same level of Divine service as Moshe and Aharon – "For the entire nation is holy, why do you elevate yourselves over the congregation of Israel?” (16:4).
Compare this to the earlier rebellions against the Heavenly Manna, or entering the “Promised Land,” and it seems obvious that Korach and his followers were head and shoulders above the petty moaners and groaners that preferred "The [Farshmekte] free fish in Egypt.” Yet Korach was indeed deceptive; he hid behind high minded principles while in truth he was driven by jealousy, greed and self gratification.
Presenting himself as a spokesman for the nation, he pretended to demand nothing but equality and fairness, yet in reality he sought for himself the High Priesthood. His ostensible altruistic endeavor, was in reality nothing more than a veneer of truth and “Shem Shamayim.”
His flag of high principle was in reality a camouflage for self-triumph and aggrandizement. This, say the commentaries, is why the Mishnah singles out Korach and his group as the quintessence of Machlokes.
The sign is then once again clear. When the struggle for power and self- interest are guised in a fight for high principles, it is a most dangerous and contaminated form of Machlokes.
Confluence Of Interests
There is a saying that “Politics makes for strange bedfellows,” this can be said of Korach’s eclectic coalition as well. Korach’s dispute is referred to as the dispute of Korach and his followers. Many are the commentators who pose the obvious question: Seemingly, it should be referred to as the dispute between Korach and Moshe, or between Korach and his followers on the one hand and Moshe and Aharon on the other. Why the use of this misleading term — “The dispute of Korach and his followers”?
In answer to the question the commentators identify yet another characteristic belonging to the ungodly class of dispute. A dispute that is for the sake of Heaven, they assert, has clearly defined sides – each camp is united in their views and understanding of their position. With regards to the Machlokes that is not “For Heaven’s sake,” on the other hand, there is no unity even among the allied factions, for each faction of the same side possesses a differing agenda. They have become bedfellows out of a sheer sense of expediency.
Such was the case with Korach and his followers. All of them were united against Moshe and Aharon, but divided among themselves. Korach wanted to become the Kohen Gadol, for he felt that the position belonged to him. Dasan, Aviram and Ohn, on the other hand, were angry about the birthright that had been taken from Reuven, in addition to Dasan and Aviram being long time adversaries of Moshe and Aharon.
The 250 leaders had yet their own agenda – they each sought their own honor and aggrandizement. A marriage of convenience had brought them all together, but they were not in the least united. Thus, conclude the commentaries, this dispute is referred to as “The dispute of Korach and his followers.” The fact that Korach and his followers did not agree with one another regarding their opposition of Moshe and Aharon, is the ultimate proof that their argument was not for the sake of Heaven.
How prevalent is this characteristic in the world of Machlokes. How often do contestants of various backgrounds and interests flock together in defeat of a common enemy, convinced of the holiness and sanctity of their cause. Yet, they ought not be so certain. If the story of Korach is any proof, this type of alliance smells like rotten fish. The integrity of this type of alliance should to be treated with grave suspicion.
Playing On Weakness
Continuing along the same lines, the mutiny against Moshe, as stated, consisted of separate groups with divergent arguments and agenda’s. In fact, the story almost reads like two separate episodes occurring in succession. While Korach sought self aggrandizement and honor by way of spirituality, the notorious trouble makers, Dasan and Aviram, continued to advocate the "Riffraff” (Asafsuf) sentiment that had already spread through the nation and found expression in the sin of the scouts.
Their argument, that "You have not even brought us to a land flowing with milk and honey or given us possession of fields and vineyards," was the same old mischievous complaint advanced by those who "felt a gluttonous craving" at Kivros Ha-ta'ava (Bemidbar 11:4), as well as by the spies. Yet Dasan and Aviram, smelling new opportunity as a result of the ganging up factor, take another cheap shot at forcing their worn out agenda: "Let us appoint a leader and return to Egypt."
It does not take a brain surgeon to know that arguments that are for the “Sake of Heaven,” do not resort to exploitive tactics. Yet in our self delusion we sometimes convince ourselves that by exploiting weakness we can advance our Divine objective. The story within the story of Dasan and Aviram’s ganging up tactics, is a clear message that this is not the holy way of attaining spiritual victory.
Avoidance Of Direct Communication At All Cost.
The Talmud (Sanhedrin 110: a) derives from our Parsha that one must not perpetuate a Machlokes, and those who do are in violation of a negative command: “And you shall not be like Korach and his men” (Bamidbar 17:5).
In expounding this Talmudic statement, Rashi muses over which particular element of the narrative the Talmud bases this prohibition. Rashi concludes that it is from Moshe’s bold overture towards Doson and Aviram, who, in the midst of the bitter mutiny, gave-up on his own honor and prestige and stuck out his hand in peace to the very adversary that attacked him. (Bamidbar 16:12). This nuance contains its own powerful lesson.
Nowhere in the narrative is it related that Korach and company, or for that matter Doson and Aviram, have attempted to confrontMoshe and Aharon directly with their complaints. Quite the contrary, as it has just been noted, when Moshe takes the initiative and seeks to establish a face to face dialog, he is rebuffed in the most vulgar and insulting manner: “'We won't come! Is it not enough that you brought us out of [Egypt], a land flowing with milk and honey, just to kill us in the desert?! What right do you have to set yourselves above us? Even if you gouge out the eyes of those men, we will not go up.”
Instead of attempting to resolve the matter through dialog, or at least give their opponents a fair chance to explain their position, they, in classic Machlokes style, go behind their backs like snakes, spreading all kind of Lashan Hara and forming all kind of expedient alliances, only then do they spring their ambush.
The Torah is not a story book, it is rather a book of guidance and instruction. Nothing is recorded in the Torah that does not contain a clear and concise message. Accordingly, the reason the Torah includes all the details and side stories, within the general narrative, i.e. Dasan and Aviram’s joining the rebellion and their rebuff of a face to face dialog with Moshe etc., is because it contains invaluable lessons regarding our own Modus operandi.
One who engages in this type of warfare, believing that he is fighting the war of G‑d, must know that he is, beyond a scintilla of doubt, delusional. The Machlokes that is l’Shem Shamayim leaves no room for such underhanded, despicable tactics.
Those who are of the belief that “All is fair in love and war,” and that the end justifies the means, are not only flat out wrong but dangerous as well, as are those who mix politics and religion.
By taking to heart the keen lessons associated with our Parsha’s narrative, especially the critical event of Korach’s Machlokes against Moshe and all its surrounding details, we will certainly acquire precious insight into the proper service of the Almighty and thereby be better suited to fulfill our Divine mission in this world (beginning with “First do no harm”). This, of course will hasten the coming of Moshiach BBA.
