For Heaven’s Sake – Telltale Signs of Destructive Machlokes

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.”

The above astounding incident is related in the name of Rabbi Berel Wein.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Leah had sadly been slipping in and out of a coma for several months. Her husband Izzy 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, 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?” Izzy gently asked, smiling as his heart began to fill with warmth.

“I think you bring me bad luck!”

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Do you subscribe to the thought that all is fair in love and war, or that the end justifies the means, so long as the cause is holy (in your eyes) –“For the sake of Heaven?” Well it may be time to think again! The central theme of the dramatic and tragic narrative of this week’s Parsha Korach, sheds quite some light on this fallacy.

A group of 250 prominent people, all heads of the Sanhedrin, led by the brilliant charismatic Korach and his 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 16)

While not all quarrels are necessarily unjustified – one could only imagine, for example, how dull 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 holy or justified.

Korach’s campaign against Moshe is portrayed by the sages as the epitome and quintessential “Machlokes Shelo l’Shem Shamayim – an argument or controversy that is not for the sake of Heaven” (Avos 5:17). It is in fact hailed as the prototype and model of destructive conflict and controversy. The numerous flaws and negative character traits to which this infamous dispute is linked is nothing short of astonishing.

Given the dubious nature of conflict and all its self-righteous guises and justifications, identifying the malignant form can sometimes be tricky. However thanks to Korach there is no room for doubt and obscurity. The narrative of the Korach rebellion serves as a comprehensive handbook on the nature of malevolent conflict. The following is a list of the basic telltale traits of mischiefs and malevolent dispute.

Selfishness

The foremost cause of unholy disparity has everything to do with intention. If one’s intention is “Truly” for Heaven’s sake, the Machlokes is then possibly of the good variety. On the other hand, any Machlokes that contains self-gain and benefit must be treated with a hearty dose of suspicion. Hence, assert the commentary, Korach’s challenge against Moshe begin with the words “And Korach took” (Numbers 16.1). Why the word “Took?” There does not appear to be a direct object for the word “Took.” “What did Korach take?” The answer given is that he took his selfish agenda.

The point of the Torah in other words is that Korach “Took,” he was being selfish; 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 the contest is of a selfless variety, then there is a fighting chance (albeit not guaranteed) that it is for “The sake of Heaven.” If on the other hand it is of the self-serving, self-rewarding variety, it is by all means 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 Korach presented his rebellion as was purely for “For Heaven’s sake.” After all, it was not money or riches that he sought he had plenty of that. All that the asked for was “Equal opportunity” – the same level of Divine relationship 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 the disinclination to enter 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 honor of the High Priesthood. His ostensible altruistic endeavor – “Shem Shamayim,” was in reality nothing more than a veneer for self-aggrandizement and glory. His banner of high principle was in reality a camouflage for self-triumph and importance. 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 deception of 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 quarrel.  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 longtime adversaries of Moshe and Aharon.

The 250 leaders had yet their own agenda – they each sought their own honor and grandeur. 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, beneath the united front lies a cesspit of competing egos and interests. 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

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-reward and honor by way of spiritual leadership, 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 engage Moshe 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 the Modus operandi of selfish, deceptive and destructive quarrel and dispute.

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, like those who mix politics and religion, are not only flat out wrong but dangerous as well.

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.