Friday, July 29, 2016

Parshas Pinchas - Hypocrite or Hippogriff

~ Thoughts on the Parsha ~
Parshas Pinchas


Hypocrite or Hippogriff
By: Daniel Listhaus

פִּינְחָס בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן הֵשִׁיב אֶת חֲמָתִי מֵעַל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּקַנְאוֹ אֶת קִנְאָתִי בְּתוֹכָם וְלֹא כִלִּיתִי אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּקִנְאָתִי

“Pinchas the son of Elazar the son of Aharon the kohen has turned My anger away from the children of Israel by his zealously avenging Me among them, so that I did not destroy the children of Israel because of My zeal”
 -Bamidbar 25:11

            Rashi[1] points out that the Torah goes into more detail of Pinchas’s ancestry than necessary. The Be’er Heitev[2] explains further and writes that the indicator that there is something to be learned from the extra ancestry stated here is that the Torah already introduced Pinchas to us, just four passukim earlier at the end of parshas Balak, and went through his family tree at the time that he actually killed Zimri and Kazbi.[3] Rashi therefore explains that the passuk (verse) here is coming to counter what people were saying about Pinchas. People were teasing him for being a hypocrite that it was not his place to get up and kill a nassi of Yisroel. After all, his maternal grandfather was Yisro who was known for his previous occupation of fattening cows for avodah zarrah (idol worship). This is why the Torah ties Pinchas’s yichus (lineage) to Aharon Ha’kohen. In order to demonstrate that he came from good stock as well and therefore had the credentials, so to speak, to do what he did.  

            The difficulty with this Rashi is that it does not seem that such an argument would be strong enough to counter a teasing crowd which is not thinking logically. Pinchas got up and took the initiative to do what was unquestionably right. The people who were also involved in the aveirah clearly felt ashamed and embarrassed. Unable to justify their actions, they did the next best thing to rationalizing: they verbally abused Pinchas, knocking him down in front of everyone by bringing up the fact that his ancestors were involved with avodah zarrah. This was not a logical defense or rationalization that what Pinchas did was wrong or that what they did was right. It was a mere statement that Pinchas was a hypocrite. After all, how could someone who comes from a family of avodah zarrah feel confident enough to stand up for Torah values? This was the case that some members of Klal Yisroel were making. In such a situation where a crowd is clearly not thinking, what purpose is there in the Torah countering that Pinchas’s grandfather was Ahaon Ha’kohen? Does the Torah really think that the people were only aware of part of Pinchas’s family tree that it had to inform them of Aharon to justify his actions and demote their claims? Furthermore, why does the Torah even feel the need to play their game? The fact that Pinchas’s grandfather was Aharon was not really what gave him the credentials to kill the nassi. There were no credentials necessary. It was the right thing to do no matter who Pinchas’s grandfather happened to be. So how could we understand the purpose of the passuk repeating here that Pinchas was a descendent of Aharon Ha’Kohen?

            The Kli Yakar[4] has a slightly different approach to explain what the Torah is trying to teach by tracing Pinchas’s ancestry here. He suggests that the passuk is not coming to address the argument of the people, but rather to report how great Pinchas was based on an internal struggle that he had to overcome in order to bring himself to kill Zimri. Pinchas knew beforehand that by taking the initiative, people would try to defend themselves through debasing and humiliating him by calling him a hypocrite coming from one grandfather who fattened cows for avodah zarah, and another who was personally involved in forming the eigel ha’zahav – the worst aveirah in history done by K’lal Yisroel! Different from pashut p’shat (simple explanation) in Rashi, the Kli Yakar explains that the Torah mentions Aharon Ha’kohen because Pinchas knew going in that his only “redeeming quality” was his grandfather Aharon, and even that only provided a shaky foundation because of his involvement with the eigeil. Therefore, the passuk comes to praise Pinchas by saying that even though he was Pinchas ben Elazar ben Aharon Ha’kohen and came from a family involved in “avodah zarrah”, which meant that there was a window open for people to mock him and call him a hypocrite – Pinchas overcame these feelings with the understanding that he was his own person tasked to do what was right and that he was not going to let these emotions get in the way from doing what was right. This is how the Kli Yakar learns the passuk and also offers it as p’shat in Rashi as well, perhaps for the reasons we underlined earlier.

            This explanation does more than address our original issues with understanding the passuk according to the pashut p’shat in Rashi, it gives us a profound insight into Pinchas’s mind and by extension a clarity on an area of human behavior. The Kli Yakar’s explanation that the Torah is coming to tell us how great Pinchas was for overcoming an internal conflict is based on the premise that Pinchas had a hava amina (initial thought) not to do what was right out of fear of being called a hypocrite. Not only that, but overcoming this fear was something so challenging, that the Torah goes out of its way to re-write three generations of his ancestry which it mentioned just a few passukim earlier as praise to Pinchas’s courage of moving forward.
           
            There is no doubt that there are many people who do not practice what they preach, refuse to put their money where their mouth is, or are flat out hypocritical in their associations and actions. However an important line needs to be drawn between hypocrites and hippogriffs. A hippogriff is a mythical creature which has the front half of an eagle and the hind half of a horse. No one would call a hippogriff a self-contradiction, because it is not. Rather, it is a new entity made of two distinct parts. A hypocrite is someone who says or represents one thing but does another. A hippogriff on the other hand is one who is a work in progress. Someone who does in fact recognize that he or she is not fully righteous or wicked, and that that does not have to be a self-contradiction but rather a unique entity which is a work in progress as long as one wants to search for truth and constantly striving to ultimately doing the right things.

            Pinchas himself was a tzaddik and yet because of his imperfect, albeit tzadikkim, ancestors, he had an inner conflict and had to struggle to find the confidence to do the right thing and ignore the people in his head calling him a hypocrite. If that is true of Pinchas then it is certainly a real struggle that affects us. When we get caught in the trap of the yetzer harrah, in whatever area it may be, we are immediately faced with a simple but intense decision. Will we get stuck enough to make us lose confidence in our own religious devotion and allow the rebellious feeling to overcome us and extend to other areas rather than facing the external or internal voices of being called a hypocrite? Or could we accept the fact that we have fallen with the understanding that as long as we still want to be headed in the right direction, we are not a hypocrite, but rather a work in progress – an imperfect human being just like everyone else. This was the intense struggle that Pinchas had to overcome. It was so difficult for him to come to terms with the fact that it is okay to do what is right and continue doing the right thing even though something in the past might make you look like a hypocrite; and in his case, it was not even him but rather his grandparents – one who converted and was Moshe rabbeinu’s father in law and the other, Aharon Ha’kohen, who only had the best of intentions as the gadol ha’dor and leader of Klal Yisroel while Moshe went up on Har Sinai! If this is a struggle for Pinchas then how much more so for ourselves who may have this conflict on a much more personal and internal level, whether consciously or subconsciously.
           
            Perhaps this idea is the force behind the concept of aveirah goreres aveirah (one sin leads to another). Once a person gets hooked with doing an aveirah, it is increasingly easier for him to do another because it is easier for him to continue down the path of doing aveiros than to stop and face himself as a hypocrite. It is a hard struggle indeed, but the way out is what we learn from Pinchas. One must try to be able to accept oneself even when his actions clash with each other. As long as he is being honest with himself and knows that what he really wants deep inside is to work hard and climb higher, then he is not a hypocrite but rather a hippogriff – a unique entity with a beautiful personal blend of strengths and weaknesses that he is challenged to work with in order to reach his potential.

            This idea is one that one must bear in mind when offering rebuke as well. One must be extremely careful when reprimanding someone not to “yuck the yum”. If a person is doing something wrong but is also doing something right, one should constructively point out the good and commend him for it in order to encourage further good behavior. Unfortunately, however, people often times are trigger-happy and run to pull the hypocrite card: “How could you learn if you don’t wear tzitzis?” or “How dare you say ‘baruch Hashem’ when you don’t keep Shabbos?” Such criticism and comments are more likely to do more harm than good. If the person is a faker and you feel that he is in too deep to help, then why are you wasting your time? If you think that there is hope and that this person could be put back on track, then what purpose is there in allowing doubt to enter his mind? By calling him or her a hypocrite you may be the direct cause of aveirah goreres avairah by allowing thoughts of, “Indeed, maybe I should stop learning because I anyway don’t wear tzitizis” or “He’s right, how could I believe in G-d if I don’t keep His Shabbos?” to permeate his mind. These are things which Pinchas had to overcome despite the hypocrisy in his case being far from him and far from the real truth. How much more so must it be a struggle for us!

            May Hashem help us be genuine and honest people with the clarity of where we are holding in life in order that we could accept who we are and decide the direction we want to be headed in. In this way we will be able to look in the mirror and see ourselves as a work in progress who is headed in the right direction – a hippogriff, not a hypocrite.



[1] Rashi Bamidbar 25:11
[2] Ibid.
[3] Bamidbar 25:7
[4] Bamidbar 25:11

Friday, July 22, 2016

Parshas Balak - All Lives Matter (5776)

~ Thoughts on the Parsha ~
Parshas Balak


All Lives Matter
By: Daniel Listhaus

וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו מַלְאַךְ ה' עַל מָה הִכִּיתָ אֶת אֲתֹנְךָ זֶה שָׁלוֹשׁ רְגָלִים הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי יָצָאתִי לְשָׂטָן כִּי יָרַט הַדֶּרֶךְ לְנֶגְדִּי: וַתִּרְאַנִי הָאָתוֹן וַתֵּט לְפָנַי זֶה שָׁלשׁ רְגָלִים אוּלַי נָטְתָה מִפָּנַי כִּי עַתָּה גַּם אֹתְכָה הָרַגְתִּי וְאוֹתָהּ הֶחֱיֵיתִי:

“The angel of Hashem said to him, ‘For what reason did you strike the she-donkey three these three times? Behold! I went out as an impediment, for he hastened on the road, against me. The she-donkey saw me and turned away from me these three times. Had she not turned away frim me I would now even have killed you and let her live.’”
 -Bamidbar 22:32-33

            The mishna in Avos[1] states that one of the last things created just before Shabbos during bein hashmashos was the mouth of Billam’s donkey. When Billam’s donkey spoke to him it was not really a new miracle that was taking place but rather an anomaly kicking in that was already set from the original week of creation. From a logical standpoint Billam’s donkey talking was no less spectacular than the sun rising each morning. Both were created during the sheishes y’mei beraishis, one just happens to occur more often. As a matter of fact, although “miracle” is a word we often use to refer to such anomalies, truth of the matter is that everything is a miracle. Everything in this world was created and constantly continues to be willed into existence by Hashem Himself. Any dampening of the feeling of “Wow!” that one gets the first time one stops to think about something is merely a human failure to maintain excitement over something which one has become accustomed to. For example, being awed by the micro-wiring of the human eye to the brain which achieves a high definition vision equivalent to over 576 megapixels, lasts a few seconds until we recall that it is common among mankind and always available to us. The hard part to keep in mind is that despite our numbness to its complexity, it objectively remains incredible. This is similar to a game which becomes boring to a user over time, even though the truth is that, objectively, the game itself did not become more boring and if there would be someone else who never played it before it would remain just as exciting as it was to the other when he opened it for the first time. The open expression of Hashem conducting the world is something which should have been obvious to Billam and should have served as a wake-up call; but alas, it did not. Billam should have realized that Hashem controls the world and is involved in its daily activities. He should have understood that just as his talking donkey was perceived as an anomaly even though it was created during beraishis, so too everything is a neis (miracle) and that it is only because of Hashem’s constant and continuous will to keep the world in motion that it does so. Yet, this message did not get through and Billam continued on his mission from Balak to curse the b’nei Yisroel.

            When the donkey saw the malach Hashem standing in front of it with a sword drawn in his hand, it stopped dead in its tracks. Billam did not see the malach and therefore did not understand his donkey’s weird behavior; nor did he take the time to think about what was happening. Instead, he repeatedly hit his donkey thinking that it just needed some discipline to keep moving. His donkey then spoke and rebuked Billam saying how unintelligent he must be for not considering the fact that something must be going on that he did not realize if his usually loyal and obedient donkey was acting unusual. The passuk (verse)[2] continues to relate that Billam responded by saying that if he had a sword in his hand he would kill the donkey. After all, as Rashi[3] explains, this episode was extremely humiliating for Billam. He was traveling with a whole entourage of Balak’s royal officers and was just “told off” by his donkey. Even his threatening to kill the donkey became the subject of mocking Billam as the officers teased that Billam had intended to kill a whole nation with his mouth and yet for his donkey he needs a sword!

            After the short back and forth conversation between Billam and his donkey, Hashem uncovered Billam’s eyes and allowed him to see the malach standing there with the threatening sword drawn in his hands. The malach questioned Billam asking him why he hit his donkey three times, and then told him that had they kept going, the malach would have killed Billam and let the donkey live.

            Rashi[4] infers from the passuk that since the donkey had succeeded in coming to a halt before going through the malach’s blade, Billam’s life was saved but the donkey was now killed. This inference requires an explanation because there is no reason that the donkey should have been collateral damage.  The donkey did nothing wrong that would make it deserve to be killed, so why was the donkey killed? Rashi explains that since the donkey rebuked Billam and he was unable to respond, the malach killed the donkey so that people should not see it in the future and be constantly reminded of the event and say that this was the donkey which rebuked Billam and he was unable to respond. Rashi concludes that we see from here the incredible pity that Hashem has on people’s dignity.

            This Rashi is hard to comprehend. Billam was a “gift” given to the goyim[5] as an equivalent to Moshe rabbeinu. He had the potential not only to become great himself and close to Hashem, but to lift up the nations as well. Yet, he did worse than not tapping into that potential, he misused it. He went to curse B’nei Yisroel! He was a bona fide rasha. Not only turning out as the opposite of Moshe rabbeinu, but as the mishna[6] states, the antithesis of Avraham avinu as well. Billam had an evil heart, was haughty, and chased after his heart’s desires. We should be questioning whether Billam remains fit to stay in the category of human, not whether we should be concerned with his dignity. Moreover, it was at a cost. His donkey was killed for his dignity.[7] Is Billam’s dignity worth even that much?

            Furthermore, if we take a moment to reflect on all the horrors that have taken place throughout history and all the terrors that occur around the world presently, and combine all that with the numerous difficulties and challenges that we go through in our own lives, the question becomes exponentially more perplexing. Is Billam’s dignity worth more than lives taken in a terrorist attack? Is Billam’s dignity more valuable than the future of k’lal Yisroel? Is Billam’s dignity worth more than solving domestic issues for the sake of children? How could we understand this Rashi pointing out this example as a classic case of Hashem’s mercy? There is so much horror and sadness in the world! Who cares that Hashem had pity on Billam’s dignity?

            In order to approach this Rashi we must first humbly accept the fact that we are mere humans and that even with our brains working at full capacity we are limited to the human system confined by time and space and other limitations which Hashem put into place for our system. We most also accept the fact that indeed Hashem is keil rachum v’chanun. In fact all of Hashem’s middos are referred to as the yud-gimmel middos ha’rachamim – the thirteen attributes of mercy. Hashem’s core middah – so to speak – is rachamim. Whenever we witness terror, experience horror, or go through hardships we have two options. We could blame Hashem and call Him unmerciful or we could humbly accept that in some way Hashem’s mercy is expressing itself and that we are just either at fault for not noticing, not worthy enough to see it, or simply incapable of understanding it. Hashem is the borei u’manhig of the world and orchestrates all of its activities. Each person receives perfectly what is meant for him or her at any particular point in time. Every cause and effect has a design and a reason whether we understand it or not. We must always bear in mind that Hashem’s middah is rachamim and that He is rachamav al kol ma’asuv[8]. We might have our own expectations or personal agendas or beliefs which prevent us from seeing things objectively, which even is itself limited to human capacity, but ultimately everything Hashem does for us is for the best.

            Perhaps this is the profound lesson that Rashi here is teaching. Hashem’s rachamim extends to every person and everything in the universe. Even Billam ha’rasha is looked after in the sense that he will get the punishment he deserves and not more. If Billam is not supposed to get dishonored past a certain amount, then indeed it is worth everything to make sure it does not happen. Hashem’s ways are just and Hashem’s ways are merciful. If we see that Hashem shows mercy even to Billam ha’rasha then certainly He does so for us as well. We may not see it, we may not understand it but we can be assured that Hashem is the borei u’manhig and that He runs a perfect world – designed to hold the flexibility of human bechira while at the same time the exactness of what people deserve. This is the intricacy of His involvement. An infinite amount of permutations and calculations are taken into account to perfectly balance everyone’s needs – something way beyond human comprehension.

            There is no way that we can point to events and say that Hashem has acted unmercifully. It simply cannot be. Rather our perspective must be that what was done was done so with the middah of rachamim even though we may never see the full picture to appreciate it. We could choose to point fingers and blame or we could stand up to the problems that affect the world at large, the struggles in our communities, and the challenges that we are faced with as individuals and accept them with the confidence and knowledge that Hashem’s rachamim presented us with them, and even though we do not and cannot understand it we will do our best to conquer those challenges. If Hashem has pity on Billam’s dignity – a person who was told off by his donkey on the way to curse B’nei Yisroel, then there is no doubt a tremendous amount of rachamim that He shows us even though we do not necessarily notice.



[1] Avos 5:6
[2] Bamidbar 22:29
[3] Rashi ibid.
[4] Rashi Bamidbar 22:33
[5] Rashi Bamidbar 22:5
[6] Avos 5:19
[7] See Gemara Sanhedrin 54a for similar examples
[8] Tehillim

Friday, July 15, 2016

Parshas Chukas - The Power of a Zechus

~ Thoughts on The Parsha ~
Parshas Chukas


The Power of a Zechus
By: Daniel Listhaus
וַיָּבֹאוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כָּל הָעֵדָה מִדְבַּר צִן בַּחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן וַיֵּשֶׁב הָעָם בְּקָדֵשׁ וַתָּמָת שָׁם מִרְיָם וַתִּקָּבֵר שָׁם
וְלֹא הָיָה מַיִם לָעֵדָה וַיִּקָּהֲלוּ עַל משֶׁה וְעַל אַהֲרֹן

“The entire congregation of the children of Israel arrived at the desert of Tzin the first month, and the people settled in Kadeish. Miriam died there and was buried there. And there was no water for the assembly so they assembled against Moses and Aharon.”
-Chukas 20:1-2

            Rashi[1] comments that from the juxtaposition of these passukim (verses) we see that for the entire forty years in the desert prior to this point, the well that the Jews had access to, which followed them on their journey, was only deserved through Miriam's zechus (merit). This is why when she died, the well disappeared and hid among the other rocks.

            What was Miriam's zechus which had the capacity of providing drinks to an entire population and their animals in the hot desert for forty years?
           
            Before Moshe Rabbeinu was born, Pharaoh made a decree that all baby boys be killed. Rashi[2]  writes that in response to this law, Amram, the father of Moshe, divorced his wife, Yocheved. Once he divorced his wife, the rest of the Jews then divorced their wives as well. After all, Amram was the leading Gadol Hador (esteemed leader of the generation) and what he did was viewed as p'sak halacha (halachik ruling) for others to live by. Meanwhile, Miriam had a prophecy that her future brother would be the savior of the Jewish people. So, she went over to her father with the following argument. She said that his “decree” was worse than Pharaoh’s; for Pharaoh only decreed that the boys be killed, yet Amram was essentially preventing both boys and girls from being born. Miriam won the debate, Amram remarried his wife, and as a result, Moshe was born.

            When it came to the point in time when it was impossible to hide Moshe from the Egyptians, Yocheved placed Moshe in a homemade basket and sent him along the Nile river. The passuk describes that Miriam stood on the side by the banks of the river to see what would happen to her brother, Moshe. The meforshim (commentaries)[3] explain that Miriam received a tremendous mitzva and zechus from standing and watching Moshe. It was this zechus that merited her being the source of providing water to the b'nei Yisroel in the midbar (desert).

             The difficulty with this is that the Gemara[4] states that the reason Miriam stood and waited by the river was because she was curious if her prophecy would come true. If so, it becomes harder to understand what the huge zechus was. Miriam had a prophecy and wanted to see if it was correct. It seems that the primary reason for her being there was not to babysit Moshe from a distance, but rather out of curiosity if she was correct in her interpretation of her prophecy.

            At the end of this week's parsha[5], amongst the wars that take place, the giant Og appears on the scene holding a mountain as long and wide as the entire Jewish camp.[6] The fact alone that he was threatening the destruction of the entire Jewish population should have indeed been no threat to Moshe and the Jews, because they understood that they had the yad Hashem (“hand” of Hashem) on their side and that nothing could counter such a force. Yet, we see from the fact that Hashem had to tell Moshe, “Do not fear him...”[7] that Moshe was indeed afraid, and seemingly, specifically of Og. Rashi[8] explains that Moshe was afraid to fight because Og had a zechus on his side. In Parshas Lech-Lecha, the Torah writes[9], “And they [the four kings] captured Lot (Avraham's brother-in-law).... And the fugitive came and told Avram...” Rashi[10] there comments that the “fugitive” was Og; and that the reason he had suddenly decided to be such a nice, caring person was because of what he intended to do. His intentions were that he hoped Avraham would be killed in battle trying to rescue Lot, and that he would be able to marry Sarah. Nonetheless, despite his intentions, the mere fact that he did a good thing by aiding Avraham, merited him a zechus deserving of reward which, over five-hundred years later, Moshe was afraid to stand up against in battle.

            Let us review this one more time, for it is truly mind-boggling. Moshe Rabbeinu was the leader of b'nei Yisroel, he was the messenger of Hashem and the means of bringing forth the plagues upon Mitzrayim. He split the sea, received the Torah, and spoke to Hashem face to face as one speaks to a friend. Og, on the other hand, was a low-life, self centered individual who had one puny merit, which is barely a merit at all as he did it for purely selfish reasons. In a scale balancing Og versus Moshe, the result should be that Moshe would weigh down the scale so much and so fast that Og would go flying, catapulted in the air. Was this really something that Moshe had to worry about to the point that Hashem actually had to calm him down and tell him not to worry?

            How could we understand these two zechusim working in this week's parsha? The zechus of Miriam and the zechus of Og each seem so small, and a surprising that these are even deemed as merits?

            The only way to understand this, is that it must be we see from here the tremendous power of a zechus mitzva. Despite the true reasons behind the good deeds Miriam and Og did, in the end of the day, something good was done – the accomplishment of a mitzva. Such actions create a real force in the world which work as a zechus.

            The Gemara[11] quotes Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav as saying, “A person should always engage involve himself in [learning] Torah and [performing] mitzvos even if she'lo l'shma (for ulterior motives, instead of learning Torah and doing mitzvos to become closer to Hashem), because from doing them she'lo l'shma, one will eventually come to learn Torah and perform mitzvos for their sake – l'shma. The Gemara then continues to demonstrate this from Balak. In next week's parsha, Balak hires Bilaam to curse the Jews. Bilaam, though, first requests of Balak, to build seven alters and offer karbanos on them to Hashem[12]. The Gemara explains that because Balak brought forty-two animals to Hashem as karbanos[13], he was zocheh to have Rus, and ultimately Dovid Hamelech come from him.

            Balak was an extremely wicked person with only one thing in mind – to kill the Jews. Yet, despite the way through which he merited his zechus, his reward was still great. Again, we see the tremendous ramifications of a zechus in this world.

            We do not understand how zechusim work, what type of control we have over them, or when Hashem decides to use them on our behalf. One thing is for sure, though, we see that even the power of a seemingly puny zechus is tremendous. Even when the mitzva is done she'lo l'shma, for selfish reasons, or even “accidentally” in order to do something terrible, the mere fact that something positive occurred is enough to create a strong force. How much more so must be the zechus of learning or performing mitzvos l'shma!

            May we all merit to recognize the real ramifications of our actions and see the effects of our positive actions in as clear of a way as was visible in the midbar.




[1]    Baidbar 20:2 see also Rashi Gemara Shabbos 35a
[2]    Shemos 2:1
[3]    Sifsei Chochomim Bamidbar 20:2 brings this from Rabbeinu Bechayai
[4]    Sotah 13a
[5]    Bamidbar 21:33
[6]    See Rashi Bamidbar 21:35 who quotes the Gemara Berachos 54b
[7]    Bamidbar 21:34
[8]    Bamidbar 21:34
[9]    Beraishis 14:12-13
[10]  Ibid.
[11]  Horiyos 10b
[12]  Bamidbar 23:1-2
[13]  He built seven alters in three places. On each he offered a bull and a ram. 7 x 3 x 2 = 42

Friday, July 8, 2016

Parshas Korach - To Kill a Mockingbird: Dutch Tulips and Mad Crowd Disease

~ Thoughts on The Parsha ~
Parshas Korach

To Kill a Mockingbird: Dutch Tulips and Mad Crowd Disease
By: Daniel Listhaus

וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח בֶּן יִצְהָר בֶּן קְהָת בֶּן לֵוִי וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם בְּנֵי אֱלִיאָב וְאוֹן בֶּן פֶּלֶת בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן

““Korach son of Yitzhar son of Kehas son of Levi seperated himself, with Dasan and Aviram, sons of Eliav, and On son of Peles, sons of Reuvein.”
-Korach 16:1

            Rashi[1] and the Medrash[2] describe that Korach came to Moshe with the following two questions. The first was, “Does a tallis made entirely of techeiles (blue-dyed wool) require a string of techeiles”? The logic behind this question is that we know that we are required to put tzitzis strings on each corner of every four-cornered garment that we wear.[3] The real mitzva of tzitzis includes that one of the strings on each corner be techeiles[4]. So, essentially, Korach was asking that if, for a regular tallis, a single string of techeiles is enough to fulfill the requirement, then certainly if the whole garment is made of techeiles, it should require no such thing.

            The second question that Korach approached Moshe with was pretty similar to his first; “Does a room filled with seforim need a mezuza?” Again, the logical force behind this question is the following. We know that we must put a mezuza, containing the shema, on every doorpost[5]. So, Korach was asking, if there is a room filled with seforim or Torahs, and those have all the parshiyos in the Torah, why should such a room require a mezuzah? What power would the mezuzah add which would not already exist in such a room?

            Rashi[6] relates that Moshe responded that in both situations there is indeed still an obligation. The mitzva of techeiles does not disappear if the garment is already blue, and the mitzva of mezuza does not vanish when the doorpost leads into a library of Sifrei Torah. Upon telling this to Korach, Korach and the group which was with him began to laugh.

            There is a tremendous difficulty with the arguments which Korach presented. The closest form of a valid logical-tool which Korach could have been trying to use here is a kal v'chomer (fortiori argument). If so, Korach's question should have answered itself. A kal v'chomer argument states that if something applies in “situation A”, then it should certainly apply in “situation B”, where it is even more likely to apply. According to this, Korach's kal v'chomer should have said the following: If one string of techeiles works to meet the requirement on a garment that is entirely white, then certainly it will do the trick for a garment that is completely blue. After all, it cannot be any worse than a white garment; it is at least the same, if not better. The same is true of Korach's second kal v'chomer. If a single mezuza on a doorpost to an empty room is enough to fulfill the mitzva, then certainly it should work for a room filled with seforim.

            The answers to Korach's questions seem obvious. In fact, he supplied the answers with his own kal v'chomers. Let us consider this for a moment. The reason Korach had the audacity to confront Moshe with such pointless questions is clearly because he was trying to make a point. However, why is it that when Moshe responded to Korach with the correct answers, and seemingly refuted him, Korach va'adaso (and his assembly) just stood there laughing?

            The theme of leitzanus (mockery) seems to continue further in the parsha as well. The passuk[7] relates that Korach gathered the entire assembly against Moshe and Aharon. Rashi[8] describes that the way Korach managed this was through words of mockery. Korach spent the night going from tent to tent with a prepared speech. He essentially announced, “Do you think I am starting this argument just for my own sake? I am doing this for all of you as well! Moshe and Aharon took all the greatest positions for themselves. We have to stop them!”

            Why did Korach have to utilize leitzanus in order to accomplish his plan? Why did he not simply challenge Moshe and Aharon to a formal debate?

            In the 17th Century, a fascinating event occurred known as the Dutch Tulip Bubble. According to historians, Ogier de Busbecq of the Ottoman Empire was the one who introduced the tulip to Europe in 1554, by sending tulip seeds to Vienna. After a while, tulips began to spread across many European countries. By 1619, tulips had become a commodity in Holland and as the demand for tulips increased while more people entered the tulip market, the prices kept rising to ridiculous heights. This continued until February of 1637 when some tulips reached a price equivalent to between $1000 and $2000 dollars. This was a price equal to about ten times the annual income of a skilled craftsman in those days. At one point, people were too afraid of planting their tulips because they were too expensive to risk.

            This is not an example of some European stupidity, nor is it a description of the naiveness of the 1600s. Rather it is an illustration of how far crowd-behavior could go. Crowds tend to behave irrationally. Just the feeling of being part of a greater group makes one feel good, and causes him to care less about realities and truths he may care about as an individual. The mental unity that a crowd or club has to offer has a tremendous impact on personal opinions and beliefs. It changes people from individuals and independent thinkers to being part of a crowd. One's psyche is pushed aside and is instead replaced and shaped to the psychology of the mob. This begins to snowball and ultimately, the “mad crowd disease” spreads like wildfire. This is how a tulip could end up selling for such exorbitant prices. If the crowd decides to attribute a false value to something, the idea will begin to spread despite how ridiculous it may sound to an individual who is outside the crowd.

            Korach had an agenda. He was jealous of Moshe and Aharon's positions. Until this point their leadership was undisputed and Korach wanted to change that fact. However, one man cannot influence an entire nation. Therefore, Korach used leitzanus (mockery) as a means to unite the B'nei Yisroel against Moshe and Aharon. He became the proverbial mockingbird poking fun at Moshe, and indeed succeeded in getting the entire B'nei Yisroel in on the fun. The arguments of Korach did not have to make sense, the only purpose of Korach's questions was to publicly humiliate Moshe and start his own “mad crowd disease” to spread throughout the B'nei Yisroel. The crowd psychology that Korach started began to spread fast until Hashem ultimately came to stop it.

            Rashi[9] tells us that Dasan and Aviram joined Korach because they were his neighbors. It should therefore not be surprising that they started playing the same game. Moshe, in trying to seek peace with Korach tried to explain his position, “Listen now, sons of Levi...You and your entire assembly who are joining together are against Hashem! And as for Aharon – what is he that you cause protest against him?”[10] Moshe then tried to summon Dasan and Aviram to make peace, but he was met with completely irrelevant opposition. They responded, “...You did not bring us to a land flowing with milk and honey...even if you put out the eyes of those men we shall not go up!” Dasan and Aviram were not addressing Moshe's attempt to seek peace, they were not interested in doing anything but continue to fan the fire of leitzanus which Korach had started. When Moshe realized this, the passuk[11] and Rashi[12] describe that Moshe was extremely upset and distressed.[13]
           
            Like their mentor, Korach, Dasan and Aviram did not address Moshe respectfully or with any form of logic. Instead, they used leitzanus to push Moshe aside in order to further their agenda.

            The mishna[14] tells us, “Any 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.” The mishna continues and explains, “Which is a dispute that is for the sake of Heaven? This is the dispute between Hillel and Shammai.[15] And which is a dispute that is not for the sake of Heaven? This is the dispute of Korach and all of his assembly.”

            This mishna seems to be inconsistent. The first example of the mishna is that a dispute between Hillel and Shammai is one which is for the sake of Heaven. However, when discussing the argument of Korach, the mishna refers to it as the dispute of Korach and his assembly. Why does it not refer to it as the dispute between Korach and Moshe? Both parties of the argument should be mentioned as the mishna did when discussing Hillel and Shammai.

            Perhaps with our explanation we could understand this mishna. Korach's scheme was not to argue with Moshe directly. He had no arguments. Even if he would have had some logical argument, he would have had to deal with the fact that Hashem was the One Who commanded Moshe who to choose for the various leading positions of Klal Yisroel. Rather, Korach's idea was to change the psyche of the B'nei Yisroel. It was a one-sided argument trying to use leitzanus to create an army of mad crowd disease who would fight the fight for him. This is the danger of the mockingbird, and the reason it is so necessary to dispose of it.

            Even one who merely lives near one who is a rasha (wicked person) is negatively affected by his neighbor's attitude, actions, and behavior. However, it is not enough to not be a neighbor of such a person. Rather one must disassociate oneself from even identifying with such crowds who are not arguing to pursue the emes of Torah, but are instead trying to push their own agendas contrary to da'as Torah.

            With this message in mind, may we merit to achieve the level of the first passuk in Tehillim, “Praiseworthy is the man who did not walk in the counsel of the wicked, and in the path of the sinful did not stand, and in the session of mockers did not sit.”[16]



[1]    Bamidbar 16:1
[2]    Bamidbar Rabbah 18:1
[3]    Bamidbar 15:38
[4]                 A bluish dye made from a sea snail (chilazon)
[5]    Excluding bathrooms
[6]    Bamidbar 16:1
[7]    Bamidbar 16:19
[8]    Ibid.
[9]    Bamidbar 16:1
[10]  Bamidbar 16:11
[11]  Bamidbar 16:15
[12]  Ibid.
[13]  See Amar N'kei on Rashi 16:15
[14]  Avos 5:20
[15]  Hillel and Shammai were a pair of early tannaim in the mishnaic era. Their arguments were not out of anger, jealousy, or haughtiness, but rather an argument over what the true halachos (laws) in Torah are based on their mesorahs (tradition) and understandings.
[16]  Tehillim 1:1