And moshe was very incensed

and he said to the lord,

"do not turn to their

offering.

Not a donkey of theirs have i

carried off,

And i have done no harm to

any one of them."

(Bemidbar 16:15)

In those

days… in this time?

Not a donkey of theirs have I

carried off – I never took a donkey of theirs even when I travelled from Midian to Egypt, I had my wife and my sons ride on the

donkey, and although I could justifiably have taken one of their donkeys, I

took only of my own.

(Rashi, based on Tanhuma, ibid.

ibid).

And the reason for "Not a

donkey of theirs have I carried off" – He said "What authority do

I wield over them? I never took from them even a single donkey for my needs as do

kings and ministers, for this is custom of kings, as is written (I Shmuel 8:16) 'And

he will confiscate your donkeys and use them for his works'" […]. Having

mentioned the most insignificant aspect of monarchial convention, he now says "I

have not done harm to any one of them", never exploiting him for my

chariots and my labor as is proper for a king; I have never perverted his

justice nor cheapened his honor. Thus did Moshe encompass all the evils.

 (Ramban, ibid., ibid)

[…] And anything which is not

absolutely essential for the life of one who occupies himself with the needs of

the public – Not burdening the public with more than is necessary for his

livelihood constitutes ethical and righteous behavior.

(Haamek Davar, Harhev Davar, ibid. ibid)

Commending controversy – Condemning totalitarianism

Pinchas Leiser

Every

controversy that is in the name of Heaven [l'shem

shamayim], the end thereof is [destined] to

result in something permanent. But one that is not in the name of Heaven, the

end thereof is not [destined] to result in something permanent. Which is the

controversy between Hillel and Shammai. And which is

the [kind of] controversy that is not in the name of Heaven? Such as was the

controversy of Korah and all his

congregation. (Mishnah

Avoth, 5, 17)

The

Sages saw in Korach an archetype of a person

motivated by self-interest, and therefore they categorized his protest against

Moshe and Aharon as a controversy "that is not

in the name of Heaven"

Perusal of the

above-quoted Mishneh raises several questions:

A.    

How do we differentiate between "controversy

in the name of Heaven" and "controversy not in the name of Heaven?"

What exactly is "in the name of Heaven"? Can a clear and sharp

differentiation always be made?

B.    

What is the meaning of "destined to result

in something permanent"?

C.    

It is interesting to note that the Mishneh chooses examples from different worlds: the

Biblical world (Korach), and the early Tanaaic period (Hillel and Shammai).

The earliest attempt

at differentiation between the two types of controversy is found in Avoth D'Rebbi Natan

(Chap 40):

"Every controversy which is in the name of Heaven etc".

Which is the controversy for the sake of Heaven? Every assembly which is with

religious purpose ["L'shem mitzvah"];

every assembly which was with religious purpose was that of the Men

of the Great Assembly, and that not for the sake of religious purpose is the

assembly of the people of the Generation of the Scattering [i.e., the

generation of the Tower of Babel].

The Sages of

this Baraita replaced the concept "l'shem shamayim"

– "for the sake of Heaven"- with "l'shem

mitzvah" – for religious purpose, and in addition, "controversy"

is replaced with "assembly". The ultimate determinant of the type of

controversy is the goal of the assembly or the controversy. The motivation and

the goal determine whether something is positive or negative; perhaps the Baraita is teaching that although something may seem at

first to be a divisionary disagreement, as long as it is truly 'l'shem mitzvah" it does not damage the

unity, whereas false unity which is not "l'shem

mitzvah", divides.

The Meiri, in his commentary, understands the concept "l'shem shamayim" [for

the sake of Heaven] as referring to the manner in which the controversy is

conducted:

[…] and said

that if the other party responds and differs not in order to vex or to triumph,

but rather to reach the truth, as against "not for the sake of Heaven";

"not for the sake of Heaven", is when he responds and differs in

order to anger and to win.

The Meiri, then, determines the goal of the controversy from the

manner in which it is conducted; one who is really concerned with the truth, and

not concerned primarily with "winning", will not argue in a vexatious

manner. "L'shem shamayim",

then, is synonymous with conducting controversy with the purpose of determining

the truth.

R. Obadiah of Bartinura explains "l'shem

shamayim" in similar fashion, but he emphasizes

not the manner in which the controversy is conducted, but rather its goal:

And I heard

the word "the end" interpreted as "the goal" of

the controversy. Controversy which is for the sake of Heaven is one which has

as its purpose and desired end the attainment of truth. This exists, as

we have said, when through the controversy the truth becomes clear. And,

as is clear from the controversy between Hillel and Shammai

in which halachic rulings follow the House of Hillel

deportment – Translator's note], but controversy not for the sake of

Heaven has as its desired goal the search for authority and the love of triumph.

This end is not permanent, as we found in the controversy of Korach and his assembly, where their goal and final intent

was the desire for honor and authority, but the opposite was achieved.

The Talmud is

without doubt a book in which 'controversy celebrates', but in reading Pirke Aboth carefully we note

that the archetype of controversy for the sake of Heaven is the controversy between

Hillel and Shammai – not the

controversy between their respective disciples, "the House of Hillel"

and "the House of Shammai", thus teaching

us that man's heart can inject power motives into a controversy which first

began as a search for truth. Indeed, alongside the idyllic picture of the warm

relations between the two schools we find the following:

Although Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel are in disagreement on the questions

of rivals, sisters, an old bill of divorce, a doubtfully married woman, a woman

whom her husband had divorced and who stayed with him over the night in an inn,

money, valuables, a perutah and the value of a

perutah, Beth Shammai

Love ye truth and peace (Trac.

Yevamoth 14a),

The Talmud Yerushalmi (Shabbat 1, 4) tells

of a majority which the disciples of Beth Shammai attained

by force:

And these are

some of the rulings pronounced in the upper chamber of Hannya

b. Hizkiya b. Garon when they

went up to visit him, and they counted and [disciples of] Beth Shammai outnumbered those of Beth Hillel and they

enacted eighteen measures on that same day. (Mishnah Shabbat 1, 4)

Our Mishnah: These are some of the rulings pronounced in the upper

day was as difficult for Israel the day on which the calf was made.

R. Leizer said: On that day they overfilled the measure [of

laws].

R. Yehoshua said: On that day they made the measure [of

laws] just even.

Said to him R.

Leizer: Had the measure been deficient and they came

and filled it, fine, (this may be compared to) a barrel filled with nuts; no

matter how many sesame seeds you add, it holds them all.

Replied R. Yehoshua: Had it been filled and they came took some away,

fine; like a barrel which filled with oil, as you add water, it scatters the

oil.

Taught R. Yehoshua Onaya:

they killed some of Beth Hillel. It is taught: Six of them went

up and the rest stood over them with swords and daggers. (Yerushalmi Shabbat 1, 4)

The Mishnah does not reveal how Bet Shammai

achieved the majority which resulted in the enactment of a number of their

rulings on that day. In the Talmud itself there is a

controversy between R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua regarding the way in which these measures should

be evaluated; do they strengthen or do they weaken. But it is absolutely clear

that the opening passage of the discussion "that day was as difficult for Israel the day

on which the calf was made", referring to the violent manner in which the

majority was achieved, expressed dissatisfaction with the silencing of

controversy and argument between the two schools. Indeed, Tractate Sotah (47b) quotes a

statement – originating in the Tosefta – which views

the controversy as resulting from lack of proper preparation:

"With the

increase of disciples of Shammai and Hillel who had not served [their teachers] sufficiently,

dissension increased in Israel

and the Torah became like two Toroth". It is possible, however, that this

statement disparages not the existence of controversy per se, but even

hints at the Yerushalmi story relating to the manner

in which the controversy deteriorated into violence.

In

contradiction to this statement, there exists another famous one in Tractate. Haggiga (3b) in praise

of controversy:

And he [R. Elazar b. Azaria] also took up

the text and expounded: "The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails

well planted are the words of masters of Assemblies, which are given

from one Shepherd". Why are the words of the Torah likened to a goad? To

teach you that just as the goad directs the heifer along its furrow in order to

bring forth life to the world, so the words of the Torah direct those who study

them from the paths of death to the paths of life. But [should you think] that

just as the goad is movable so the words of the Torah are movable; therefore

the text says: 'nails'. But [should you think] that just as the nail diminishes

and does not increase, so too the words of the Torah diminish and do not

increase; therefore the text says 'well planted'; just as a plant grows and

increases, so the words of the Torah grow and increase. 'The masters of

assemblies': these are the disciples of the wise, who sit in manifold

assemblies [lit. "assemblies assemblies"]

and occupy themselves with the Torah, some pronouncing 'clean' and others

pronouncing 'unclean', some prohibiting and others permitting, some

disqualifying and others declaring fit.

Should a man

say: How in these circumstances can I learn Torah? Therefore the text says: 'All

of them are given from one Shepherd'. One God gave them; one leader uttered

them from the mouth of the Lord of all creation, blessed be He; for it is

written: 'And God spoke all these words'. Also you make your ear like the

hopper and get you a perceptive heart to understand the words of those who

pronounce unclean and the words of those who pronounce clean, the words of

those who prohibit and the words of those who permit, the words of those who

disqualify and the words of those who declare fit.

R. Yitzchak Minkovsky of Karlin (1787-1849), in his commentary (Keren Orah, Yevamoth

122b) explains the above as follows:

"Who sit

in assemblies assemblies" – the repetition is

intended to point out two kinds of assembly, one material and the second

spiritual; that the two unite in their soul to direct everything toward a

single source, to the ways of the Oneness and the goal of study for its sake,

so it seems to me. And when they convene with this intent, some ruling that

something is impure and others declaring it clean, the unity and the love from

all the extremes will increase if there rests upon them the light of Torah, its

secrets will be revealed to them and they will be like saplings "well

planted", and this is what is written "V'et

Waheb bdsufah" [literally

translated "Against Waheb in a whirlwind",

but homiletically read as] "and in the end there is love because the aim

of this controversy is to increase love and unity. This, then, is the [R. Elazar b. Azariah's] explanation:

Lest one say, 'How can I study Torah from now on?', because without

understanding the intended goal, controversy would seem to be a dividing factor,

and how can both sides continue to exist? Therefore does it (Tosefta Sotah 7, 12) teach

us "All were given by a single shepherd, one God gave them, one leader

spoke them, all from the Master of all creation, blessed be

He. This refers to our words above, because they have a single source, and one

God gave them, etc., from the Master of all creation, blessed be He. And just as the purpose of Creation was criticized by some at the

time of Creation. They too were created in order to achieve the Blessed

One's uniqueness and unity, for He is one and His name is one, and so did the

Torah effect wholeness, for through the sages' disputes light was increased and

they comprehended its truth that the Torah is a single, complete, and true

entity. And this is what the Sages said (Aboth 5, 17) "Every controversy which is in the

name of Heaven is destined to result in something permanent" because its

purpose is the purpose of existence and of unity.

According to

this elucidation, controversy, when conducted in the name of Heaven, is not

only for the sake of clarifying the truth but also for the purpose of achieving

true unity, as expressed in the wonderful words of Rav

Kook in Olat R'iyah (p. 330) in reference to "Scholars increase

peace throughout the world":

Some

mistakenly think that world peace cannot be established unless through a single

hue of opinions and attributes, and therefore when they see scholars delving

into wisdom and Torah knowledge, and their study results in a proliferation of

positions and approaches, they think that they [the scholars] are causing

controversy and the opposite of peace. This is not true, for true peace

can come to the world only through the multiplicity of peace. The

multiplicity of peace means that all sides and approaches be seen, and it will

become clear that all have a place, each according to its value, its place, and

its matter.

At the

beginning of Tractate Gittin (6b) the Talmud records a meeting between R. Abiathar

and the prophet Elijah:

R. Abiathar soon afterwards came across Elijah and said to

him:

'What is the

Holy One, blessed be He, doing?' and he answered, 'He is discussing the

question of the concubine in Gibea.' 'What does He

say?' Said Elijah: '[He says], My son Abiathar says So-and-so, and my son Jonathan says

So-and-so,' Said R. Abiathar: 'Can there possibly

be uncertainty in the mind of the Heavenly One?' He replied: Both [answers]

are the words of the living God.

Perhaps this

dialogue between R. Abiathar and Elijah – who

represents Heaven in determining that "Both are the words of the living

God" – echoes a discussion in Tractate Eruvin (13b) regarding the controversies between Bet

Hillel and Bet Shammai: "Both these and these

are the words of the living God". (My thanks to Rabbi

Benny Lau who called my attention to this link). Even in Heaven

controversy has representation, i.e., the Heavenly vision encompasses this complexity,

and this being so, it may be that "controversy in the name of Heaven"

is that controversy which brings us closer to the complex and encompassing

vision which exists in "Heaven". May it be His will that we be wise

enough to conduct the most important and most difficult controversies in a

spirit of mutual respect, for the sake of clarifying the truth, and thereby we

will succeed – if only in small measure – in accomplishing R. Menachem Mendel of Kotsk's

elaboration on the words of the Psalmist "The heaven is the Lord's heaven,

and the earth He has given to mankind" – in order to turn earth into "Heaven".

Pinchas Leiser, editor of Shabbat Shalom, is a psychologist

Demagogy's Power to Enflame and Incite

It is revealed and known before you that the

spirit of the masses are easily inflamed by dazzling claims, and a person such

as Korah, who is spiritually superior and who

enjoys full confidence heretofore unblemished, is able to dupe the people and

lead them to sin. When the masses sin, the guilt can

usually be attributed to a few instigators of high standing. When

human beings intervene against the transgression, as a rule it is the incited

masses – who are less guilty -who are hurt; the inciters themselves usually go

unpunished. But you are God, God of the spirits of all flesh,

because you are all powerful God, you have it in your power to punish

whoever is guilty; and since you are God of the spirits of all

flesh, you can discern in your wisdom the degree of every man's

guilt. When one man sins' – Korah alone was guilty, whereas the incited masses are

deserving of your graces. We have noted a number of times in similar

cases: when The Holy One, Blessed Be He, leads Moshe to prayer, He arouses in

his heart the understanding of His ways of supervision; He elevates his spirit,

as it were, to think – along with Him – the thoughts of divine supervision.

 (Rabbi Shimshon Rafael

Hirsch, Bamidbar 16:22)

Every wise woman builds her house; but

the foolish plucks it down with her hands. (Proverbs 14:1)

Every wise woman builds her house – this refers to the wife of On,

the son of Pelet; but the foolish plucks

it down with her hands – to Korah's wife.

(Sanhedrin 110a)

 Rav said: On, the son of Pelet, was saved by his wife. She said to him, "What matters

it to you? Whether the one [Moses] remains master or the other [Korah] becomes master, you are but a disciple." He

replied, "But what can I do? I have taken part in their counsel, and they

have sworn me [to be] with them." She said, "I know that they are all

a holy community, as it is written, seeing all the

congregation are holy, everyone of them (Bamidbar 16)." [So,] she proceeded, "Sit here, and I will

save you." She gave him wine to drink, intoxicated him and laid him down

within [the tent]. Then she sat down at the entrance thereto and loosened her

hair. Whoever came [to summon him] saw her and retreated. Meanwhile, they [Korah's followers] were swallowed up.

(Sanhedrin

109b-110a, based on Soncino translation)

There were believers, sincere believers, throughout the generations,

who believed in the holiness resting in the People Israel itself, due

to its being the People

Israel, and not because it bears a particular mission. If we

wanted to formulate the idea in cynical terms, we would be able to say in

response to that which was said about Korah and his

congregation, who were buried in the ground, that elsewhere it is

written, And the sons of Korah did not die. The sons of Korah

are alive and well unto this day, only that their religious faith finds

expression in that they depend upon the holiness having been granted to the People Israel, of which

they are sons, and that therefore they have already achieved

the status which someone who is commanded to read the Shema strives to

attain… I want now to quote from the words of Rabbi Yaakov Moshe HaRLaP, one of the rabbis of Jerusalem and a student of Rabbi

Kook (from his book of commentary and meditations upon the RaMBaM's Eight Chapters): "What is the

most important thing in human existence?" – and

for him human existence is, of course, existence before God – is it the

achievements man reaches, or the efforts he makes towards those achievements?

Rabi HaRLaP, following words he found in the RaMBaM and which he interprets, says that the most

important thing is the effort a person expends trying to achieve something, and

to this he adds something else of great interest: the value of that effort does

not depend upon whether the goal is achieved or not. And not only that: it

could be that man knows that he is striving to attain an unattainable goal, but

the effort he makes towards reaching it is itself the ultimate value.

(Prof. Yeshayahu Leibowitz, z"l, He'arot LeParshiyot HaShavua, pp. 97-98)

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a

movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is

committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice,

concepts that have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom

shares a deep attachment to the land

of Israel and it no less

views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the

religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It

maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just

society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an

imperative.

4,500 copies of a 4-page peace oriented commentary on the

weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot

Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are

sent overseas via email. 

Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il.

Shabbat Shalom is available on our website: www.netivot-shalom.org.il

For

responses and arranging to write for Shabbat Shalom: pleiser@netvision.net.il