Rabbi's Derasha

I’ve pointed out many times that there is no date stamp in this Parasha.  The Midrash connects its timing to the Mitzva of Tzitzit at the end of last week’s Parasha.  That would suggest that this is part of the sequence of dissolution which began two weeks ago and hits its nadir this week.  Next week, we will skip 37+ years forward to the last year in the desert.  If the Midrash is right about the sequencing, then the book of Bamidbar divides evenly, with five Parashiot in the second year in the desert and five in the last year.  

That’s all neat and clean.  But it is also all circumstantial.  Again, there is no date stamp.  My speculation about the lack of a date stamp is that this Parasha lacks any indication of time because it is timeless.  It does not matter the place or the time, it is Machlokes that brings down the final hammer blow on continuity, on building, on growth, and on progress.

It is not a surprise that the Mishna, full of arguments of many kinds, has an opinion about Machloket.  There are good arguments and there are bad arguments.  But there are always arguments.  The Mishna assumes Machloket.  We all must assume Machloket -- people are different and therefore disagreement is natural.  The Maharal points out that if two people look at the same event or the same text, per force they will differ.  When they have to give testimony, the questioning of the witnesses by the court is to ascertain if, despite the differences, they still observed the same basic facts.  But when it is a text, there is much more room for interpretation, and one should assume that they will differ more profoundly.  

When the Torah concludes the episode of Korach, it commands that “one should not be like Korach and his congregation.”  This does not mean that one can’t argue.  It means that one is not supposed to persist in Machloket.  One should look to resolve it.  If it's a legal dispute, one should seek a legal decision to resolve it.  If it’s an argument about a text, then the two sides should speak it out until there is a resolution.  This is the job of a pair (Chavruta) in learning, to come to a position produced by the give and take of argument.  

The Mishna cites two types of arguments -- those of Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai, and that of Korach V’Adato.  Commentators have all pointed out that the parallel to Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai should be Korach V’Moshe.  You could say that Moshe is not named because the Mishna does not want to imply any real opposition to Moshe.  

But there is another thing the Mishna is teaching by omitting Moshe.  An argument that is not for the sake of heaven is an argument where there is only one side.  That is, the Mishna is telling us that Korach did not admit of another side.  He saw himself as complete, without real opposition.  So all you have is what you have with anyone alone:  contradictions, unspoken assumptions, a partial view of things.  That cannot last, it cannot stand.  The only thing that lasts is when people admit their partialness and open it up to someone else’s inspection.  

We know that the Halacha follows the opinion of Beit Hillel.  Why is that?  Because, the Gemora says, they were oppressed and they always allowed the words of Beit Shammai to come first.  I once heard someone say that the Halacha is like Beit Hillel because they were the nice guys; they were bigger Menschen.   But that’s not what the Gemora is describing.  It’s saying that Beit Hillel was aware of their partialness, if you will.  That is why they wanted Beit Shammai to go first.  They recognized that one must be ready to hear the other side.

Many years ago, I was asked to speak to a group of recent Yeshiva graduates about life in the diaspora.  They were newcomers to Jewish practice so they would be joining communities for the first time.  I took for one of my themes that they should avoid Machloket at all costs.  Certainly to avoid getting into a Machloket, no matter the excitement.  But also because communities plagued by Machloket are usually decimated by it.  Five or ten years later, someone who was at that presentation told me that he married into a family that lived in a community that had had a Machloket.  He said that whenever he visits his in-laws, he’s reminded of my talk.  Neither Shul in that town, not the original and not the breakoff, are thriving in any way.  

The end of this series of episodes in the desert is a complete breakdown.  That’s where  Machloket not for the sake of heaven leaves one. There will have to be another generation before things can get back on track.