CONFLICT
When someone disagrees with you, does that mean you are engaged in machlokes, dispute?
Does it suggest that you should compromise?
Korach was very resentful. His relatives were given positions of prominence and leadership in
Klal Yisrael. He felt that he should have been honored with one of those appointments. He
therefore devoted his efforts to develop a strategy to undermine Moshe Rabeinu.(Rashi Korach
15:1; Midrash Tanchuma Korach 1).
Korach chose assorted Mitzvos, including Tzitzis and Mezuzah, to demonstrate illogical
elements about them seeking to show that the teachings of Moshe Rabeinu were faulty, merely
products of his imagination. The Mitzvah of tzitzis requires that one of four strings that are
placed on each of the four corners of a garment, be colored techeiles, a particular shade of
blue. Korach assembled his followers and they approached Moshe while they were donned in
garments made of techeiles. He challenged Moshe and asked if such garments require any
techeiles strings. Moshe responded affirmatively. Korach and his camp scoffed. He said that
the ruling did not make sense. If one string of techeiles suffices for any garment, then if the
entire garment is techeiles that would be more than enough. Certainly, he claimed, techeiles
strings added to the corners of the garments would not be necessary.
Korach then referred to Mezuzah. “Would it be required to affix a Mezuzah by the door of a
house filled with Seforim, scrolls of Torah?” Moshe again answered affirmatively. Again Korach
ridiculed Moshe. If two paragraphs of Torah text suffice in a Mezuzah, if the house contains so
many more texts, that should be more than enough, and a Mezuzah should not be required.
(Rabeinu Bachaye Korach 16:1)
Rav Yosef Ber Soloveichik zt,l noted that the rebellion of Korach was supported with issues of
logic regarding particular Mitzvos. With that Korach railed against Torah authority. The Rav
pointed out that in other areas, when people are not experts they don’t argue. People are not
going to offer their view on how suspension bridges should be built. They’re not going to go
into the operating room and tell the surgeon how to perform surgery. Korach would not have
dared to interfere with Bezalel regarding architecture. Yet, Korach and the followers that he
brought to his fold, demonstrated a phenomenon; when it comes to Torah, everyone considers
himself to be an expert!
It states: “Any machlokes, dispute, that is for the sake of Heaven will have a constructive
outcome, but one that is not for the sake of Heaven will not have a constructive outcome. What
sort of dispute is for the sake of Heaven? The dispute between Hillel and Shamai. And which is
not for the sake of Heaven? The dispute of Korach and his entire company.” (Pirkei Avos. 5:20).
There is an obvious question regarding this Mishnah. Someone’s name seems to be missing,
the name of Moshe Rabeinu. After all, the dispute of Korach and his cohorts was with Moshe.
Why is he not mentioned? Two answers are given to explain why the name of Moshe does not
appear. One is that the Mishnah presents Korach associated with machlokes not for the sake of
Heaven. Moshe, on the other hand, was acting for the sake of Heaven.
Another explanation is that Moshe was not engaged in machlokes. It was Korach and his
cohorts who were. Why wasn’t Moshe considered engaged in machlokes? After all, even Hillel
and Shamai were considered involved in machlokes! Yes, their intent was pure, but machlokes
it was! Hillel and Shamai represented two sides. There were two approaches to interpret what the
Torah conveyed. Their machlokes was an intellectual dispute.
Despite the presentation of Korach that he was seeking to fulfill the Mitzvos properly, that was
not his issue. His concern was not that he could better understand the Torah. He wanted a
position and with that denied, he wanted to make sure that Moshe would be denied his
position.
Hillel and Shamai had a machlokes, a dispute in understanding. They were both involved. The
machlokes of Korach was attack, destroy and undermine Moshe. Moshe was not the other
side. He was the victim.
When there is conflict, does that mean there are two ways to look at things?
Shabbat Shalom,
Rabbi Hershel D. Becke