The uncontrollable dynamics of the controversy fire
The Parasha in the everyday Life - Parashat Korah - Rabbi Eliezer Shenvald – 5780
On Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu's 10th year Yortzait.
The Korah dispute, after which our Parasha is named, is a historical model for a dispute 'not for the sake of Heaven':
כָּל מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, אֵין סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם . אֵיזוֹ הִיא מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלֹקֶת הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלֹקֶת קֹרַח וְכָל עֲדָתוֹ:
"Every dispute that is for the sake of Heaven, will in the end endure; But one that is not for the sake of Heaven, will not endure… And which is the controversy that is not for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Korah and all his congregation. ". (Pirkei Avot 5:17)
In this dispute, Dathan and Abiram are partners and are joined by two hundred and fifty men offering the incense. Each one and his causes.
The controversy ends tragically: Dathan and Abiram are swallowed up in the earth and at the same time, the incense offering men are burned" (Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch Bamidbar 17:35).
As for Korah, the Sages were divided: whether
לא מן הבלועין ולא מן השרופין - אלא במגפה מת
"Korah was neither among the swallowed nor among the burned; he died in a plague" or whether
מן הבלועים ומן השרופין היה
"Korah was both among the burned and among the swallowed. He was among the swallowed, as it is written: “And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them with Korah” (Bamidbar 26:10). He was among the burned, as it is written: “And fire came forth from Hashem and devoured the two hundred and fifty men that burned the incense” (Bamidbar 16:35), and Korah was with them. (Sanhedrin 110a- Rashi)
Why was there a difference in the punishments? What did the Scripture see in the two hundred and fifty incense offering men that were consumed by fire?
ומה ראה בדתן ואבירם שנדונו במיתה חמורה שירדו חיים שאולה
And why were Dathan & Abiram punished so harshly that were swallowed by the earth? (Harivah - Rabotenu Ba'ale ha-Tosafot, ibid)
The Maharsha- מהרש"א (Rabbi Shmuel Eliezer HaLevi Eidels) replied: "The two hundred and fifty people did not dispute Aharon's Priesthood, they wanted to bring incense as well, etc. But Dathan and Abiram disputed Moshe's merits too. Therefore, the 250 were punished with the burning of their souls… But Dathan & Abiram sinned with their whole body and their whole strength so they were swallowed up, etc. (Sanhedrin ibid).
There is an opinion that Korah was "neither among the burned nor among the swallowed": "He did not sin as much as he was mistaken. So, we say: for he had foreseen that great men would descend from him in the future, and thus was not punished in all this, but died in the plague, for he calumniated Moshe and Aharon, etc. And why is it said that he was 'among the burned and among the swallowed' because he was the one who acted and the sin of many lays on him". (Ibid)
מדותיו של הקב"ה מדה כנגד מדה
"G-d matches the punishment to the crime. Seeing that Korach had demanded to be elevated to a position in life which he did not deserve he was punished by being relegated instead to a position below the earth". (Rabbeinu Bahya Bamidbar 16:35)
What was the matching here?
There is a characteristic dynamic on the spread of public controversy, especially when it comes to fundamental issues. While a 'dispute that is for the sake of Heaven' is a significant dispute, aimed at reaching the truth, a 'dispute that is not for the sake of Heaven' comes on the grounds of personal or public interests.
It often starts out with a personal interest and one of the parties tries to turn it into an ideological public controversy to adjudicate it to himself. He seeks to empower himself and his influence by mobilizing public opinion alongside him and recruiting supporters to join in the controversy. Many times, there is a tendency to use manipulations, demagogic agitations against the owners of the dispute, make a bad name and disseminate false information.
Usually, things are said when the dispute is against the leadership or those with authority. A contrarian tends to show that it is not a matter of personal interest but a matter of principles or public interest, and they seek to recruit more people who will join in the dispute and increase their power.
The dynamics of the controversy are on many sides like the dynamics of space combustion propagation and 'fire damage'. The fire starts in a certain location and it tends to spread to other places:
כי תצא אש וגו'. פרוש (ב''ק כב, ב) תצא משמע אפילו יצאה מעצמה, ובא להזהיר שאפילו המדליק בתוך שלו ויצאה מעצמה והזיקה שחיב, לפי שלא שמר גחלתו, שהאדם חיב לשמר אשו שלא תצא ותזיק, שדרך האש ללכת מעצמה אף על פי שאינו בעל חיים.
"If a fire goes out, etc." The understanding of "goes out" implies even if it went out on its own (Bava Batra 22b), and it comes to warn even if one lit [a fire] on his own [property] and it went out on its own and it damaged, that he is liable - since he did not watch his coals. As a man is obligated to watch his fire that it not [spread] and damage, since it is the way of fire to spread on its own, even though it is not a living being." (Sefer HaChinukh 56)
There are situations where the fire is ignited in a controlled way with the intention of limiting it. But it goes out of control and spreads out. It can also burn things that were not intended to be burned. Sometimes it also turns against those who lit the fire:
והיינו שנמשל נזק מחלוקת לנזק אש כמש"כ להלן כ"א כ"ח, וכידוע הלשון אש המחלוקת, ללמד כי כמו שנזק אש איתא בב"ק דף י' שמועד לאכול בין שראוי לה בין שאין ראוי לה, כך מחלוקת עושה דברים שאינו ראוי מצד השכל, וקולט אנשים יקרים שאינם ראוים לכך
There is an analogy between the damage caused by fire and damage caused by disagreements: "And, it is well known that the 'fire of controversy' is like real fire, the one responsible for it is considered forewarned with regard to its consuming both something that is fitting and something that is not fitting, so too controversy, it does things not fitting and unworthy of the intellect, and absorbs precious people who are unworthy of it". (Haamek Davar ibid)
Even within the controversy firelighters, there are some who rely on their ability to control the flames but lose control over their height and spread. It often hits them back as a boomerang.
(Note: Any attempt to associate with a particular dispute is the responsibility of the reader).
Humility and not a Personality Ritual
Parsha and its Implementation - Korach - Rabbi Eliezer Shenvald- 5779
In the midst of the crisis with Dathan and Abiram it is said:
"וַיָּ֣קָם מֹשֶׁ֔ה וַיֵּ֖לֶךְ אֶל־דָּתָ֣ן וַאֲבִירָ֑ם וַיֵּלְכ֥וּ אַחֲרָ֖יו זִקְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
Moses rose and went to Dathan and Abiram, the elders of Israel following him". (Bamidbar 16:25)
In spite of his high status, Moshe, the humble man, dismissed his honor, and went to Dathan and Abiram to try to extinguish the flames of the dispute: "Moses rose and went," Rav Ashi said: It teaches us that there is no reason to keep a dispute. "(Sanhedrin 110a) "For if Moshe had not gone to them, they would have continued in their dispute, and he tried to go to them, perhaps he would put out the fire of dispute, etc." (Torah Temimah on Torah ibid).
It is said of Moshe Rabbeinu:
וְהָאִ֥ישׁ מֹשֶׁ֖ה עָנָ֣יו מְאֹ֑ד מִכֹּל֙ הָֽאָדָ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֖ר עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הָאֲדָמָֽה׃
"Now Moses was a very humble man, more so than any other man on earth" (Bamidbar 12: 3). In addition to the expressions of humility in the spiritual and interpersonal spheres, his modesty shaped his leadership patterns and the way he dealt with the national crises in the desert: "The man, Moshe [was] most humble. The meaning of humble is that Moshe paid no attention to his honor or pains. This was not because he felt lowly and did not realize that such a lack of respect and pain was not worthy of him. Rather, it was because he conducted himself without concern for honor" (Haamek Davar on Bamidvar 12:3).
Already at the outbreak of the first crisis, the crisis of the Slav (quail) and the Manna, a month after the exodus from Egypt, Moshe answered in his humility to the people's complaints: וְנַ֣חְנוּ מָ֔ה כִּ֥י תַלִּ֖ינוּ עָלֵֽינוּ׃ "For who are we that you should grumble against us?" (Shmot 16:7). "lit., and we, what? means and we, what are we accounted (of what importance are we?) " (Rashi ibid.) "And this is a humble way, for who are we to blame us that we have brought you out of the land of Egypt?" (Ramban, ibid.).
Moshe's humble saying does not mean negativism - the lack of recognition of his unique self-worth as a prophet and no one else like him, who had only just taken them out of Egypt. And it does not ignore his status as a superior leader of the people with all the control in his hand".
Humility is a positive approach - it is an insight that accurately identifies that most human talents, powers, and abilities were not created by the man himself, but were given as a gift from G-d at birth. Although man tends to ignore this fact and appropriate all his talents to himself and make them seem as they depend only on his efforts and his own right. As if he created himself. Humility is an approach that is especially necessary for those who are in positions of leadership and are given over-authority, so that they will not be mistaken to think that they are above the people and possess super-human qualities, for which they deserve it.
"אמר להם הקדוש ברוך הוא לישראל חושקני בכם שאפילו בשעה שאני משפיע לכם גדולה אתם ממעטין עצמכם לפני נתתי גדולה לאברהם אמר לפני (בראשית יח, כז) ואנכי עפר ואפר למשה ואהרן אמר (שמות טז, ז) ונחנו מה לדוד אמר (תהלים כב, ז) ואנכי תולעת ולא איש..."
Moshe's leadership was also reflected in the reception of Yitro: of Moshe, Aharon and the elders: "...
וַיָּבֹ֨א אַהֲרֹ֜ן וְכֹ֣ל ׀ זִקְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל לֶאֱכָל־לֶ֛חֶם עִם־חֹתֵ֥ן מֹשֶׁ֖ה לִפְנֵ֥י הָאֱלֹקים׃
…and Aaron came with all the elders of Israel to partake of the meal before God with Moses’ father-in-law. " (Shemot 18:12).
The Scripture hides Moshe, who is the main character:
— But where had Moses gone? Was it not he who had gone out to meet him and had been the cause of all the honour shown to him? But the explanation why he is not mentioned as having come to eat bread with Jethro is that he was standing by and waiting upon them (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:12:2). — (Rashi ibid).
Moshe left his honor as the leader of the nation and served his guests at a meal he had held in honor of his father-in-law, with human simplicity, without asking for any special respect or ceremony.
There is also another layer in Moshe's humble behavior. Moses fought against the 'cult of personality'!
Every person has the human tendency to develop a 'personality ritual' to admire himself, to attribute himself super qualities, and to ignore his shortcomings. Sometimes this tendency is very strong, more than the norm. They tend to strive for public leadership positions, where they may gain admiration that will strengthen their personality ritual. Often, they initiate ceremonies that intensify this. On the other hand, the public has a human emotional need for leadership. For an authority that would provide him with security in the face of existential helplessness in things beyond his control. A Super-figure that can bring hope; to admire, trust, and place the fate in their hands. Therefore, there is a tendency to attribute superhuman qualities to the leaders, to invent legends about their rare abilities (whose basic truth is probably small to nonexistent) in order to justify the attitude towards them.
'A Personality ritual' can be devastating to the public and to the leader. To the public - who will be disappointed when they find out the truth at the time of the test. And to the leader, when the personality ritual is intensified, he may believe that he truly possesses superhuman abilities and is admirable. In such a situation he may believe that he is allowed to 'afford' things that are forbidden to others. And hence the slippery slope that could lead to its collapse (reminds you of something? ... at your own risk!).
Moshe works as hard as he can to prevent the people and himself from this personality ritual.
Apparently, this was one of the reasons for Rabbi Kook's opposition to "adherence to the righteous" that developed in Hasidism (Orot Yisrael 3: 3).
This must also be connected to the concealment of Moshe Rabbeinu's burial place, as part of his legacy forever. So that even after his death, his grave will not become the focus of pilgrimage and a "personality ritual": "And why is Moshe's burial not known? so that the Jews would not come to the place and make the Beit Hamikdash there". (Midrash Lekach Tov Dvarim- Parshat Vezot Habracha).