Korach Authority Issues

The story of Korach V’Adaso, which is the focus of the first half of this week’s Sedra, is one that is on many levels difficult to comprehend, with many questions facing even the most basic understanding. At the same time, the details of the incident beg us to take heed of its lessons. We know Hashem punished Korach and his cohorts in a way that was L’Malah Min HaTeva, and in fact Chazal teach us that the Pi HaAretz was one of the items created on the very first Erev Shabbos, implying an even higher level of Nes. Certainly, that these individuals were punished in such a public and unusual manner tells us that we are to take note of their actions, and their consequences, lest we fall into the same trap. We must then learn the Parsha with an eye towards understanding the root of Korach’s actions, and how to avoid his attitudes and outlook even today.

At the beginning of the Parsha, Koach and his Eidah approach Moshe with what seems to be a very simple claim: “Kol HaEidah Kulam Kedoshim U’Bisocham Hahsem, U’Maduah Tisnasu Al Kahal Hashem.” Very simply, Korach seems to be challenging the authority of Moshe: why should Moshe serve as a ruler above the rest of Klal Yisroel? When we learn of Moshe’s reaction to these claims, however, it becomes clear that there was more to the story.

The Passuk tells us: “Vayishma Moshe Vayipol Al Panav.” Moshe heard the words of Korach and fell to the ground. Rashi explains the reason for this response: Moshe realized that this was yet another “Sirchon”, or rebellion, in the short history of Klal Yisroel. In fact, Rashi tells us, it was the fourth: the Chet HaEgel, the Misoninim and the Meraglim were the other three. Since Moshe had already interceded on behalf of Klal Yisroel in those previous instances, he was unsure if he would once again be able to prevail upon Hakadosh Baruch Hu.

The words of Rashi, though they explain Moshe’s response to Korach’s claims, give rise to a question: what was the Sirchon against Hakadosh Baruch Hu? Korach seemed to be challenging Moshe Rabbeinu himself? Even though we understand that he was therefore challenging the Dvar Hashem by extension, does this rise to the level of previous Aveiros such as the Egel and Meraglim?

The physical act of “Vayipol Al Panav” requires some explanation as well. Rashi seems to imply that Moshe fell on his face because he felt powerless, as we explained above. Other Rishonim, such as the Rashbam, explain that the words “Vayipol Al Panav” refer to Teffilah: Moshe began to Daven, to ask Hashem how he should react to the uprising.

If this is the case, however, the timing of Moshe’s response is noteworthy. In other instances, when Moshe was unsure how to react to something, he asked those before him to wait while he sought the Dvar Hashem. Here however, it seems immediate: “VaYishma, Vayipol” he heard the words of Korach, and immediately began to Daven. Why did Moshe deem it necessary to begin his Teffilos on the spot, in front of those who confronted him, and not take leave of them first?

In order to explain why Moshe reacted the way he did—what Sirchon he noted and why he immediately began to Daven—let us take a closer look at the words he was reacting too.

We’ve seen that Korach’s initial salvo, at least on the face of it, was a challenge to the position of Moshe Rabbeinu as a leader in Klal Yisroel. The Medrash Tanchuma, which Rashi seems to be partially based on, gives us a little more insight as to what exactly was said.

Korach told Moshe: “Kol HaEida Kulam Kedoshim, we were all present at Har Sinai and heard the words ‘Anochi Hashem Elokecha’ from M’Pi Hagevurah.” Korach’s claim of “Kulam Kedoshim” was rooted in the fact that each member of Klal Yisroel was at Har Sinai and was Zoche to hear the words of Hashem directly. This being the case, why did Moshe feel that he should be elevated among others in Klal Yisroel?

There are two questions to be asked on this Medrash. First, although it was true that the entire Kahal heard the words of Hashem directly at that time, was it not clear to Korach and his Eidah that Moshe had more interactions than that one alone? Why would Korach assume that Moshe was not elevated among all others just because they heard the Dvar Hashem that one time? Second, the Medrash, and even Rashi when presenting the words of the Medrash, specifically mentions the words “Anochi Hashem”. We know, however, that it was not only those words that the Klal heard, but the entirety of the first two Dibros. Why then does the Medrash seem to highlight the first two words? Would not have Korach’s point be better made if he expanded it to the entire portion that was M’Pi Hagevurah?

Perhaps if we learn more about the words Anochi Hashem, we will better understand the claim Korach was making, thereby gaining a better insight into the entire incident.

The Gemarah in Shabbos asks an interesting question: “Minayin L’Lashon Nutriken Min Hatorah?” How do we know that acronyms are used in the Torah, meaning: how do we know that the Torah sometimes uses acronyms—a word spelled using the first letters of a phrase—to send us a message? One of the answers in the Gemarah is that the word “Anochi”, as used in the first of the Aseres Hadibros, is itself a Nutriken for an Aramaic phrase: “Ana Nafshis Kesavis Yehavis, I myself wrote gave it.” Hidden in the first word of the Aseres Hadibros, according to the Gemarah, is message about the origins of the Torah itself: it was written and given by Hashem Himself, Kaviyachol. These words seem to be very impactful and one would assume that there is more to this phrase than an establishment of attribution of the Torah.

The Arugas Habosem, in Parshas Vayetzei, offers a wonderful insight into these words. He points out that there are a variety of ways that one can communicate with his friend. The most direct way is if they speak to each other face to face, in which case no mistake can be made about the content of the discussion. When such discussion is impossible, they can relay their words through a Shliach, an intermediary, but in that case something may be lost in transmission—their exact words may not be correctly given over. The only way to ensure that the message is delivered exactly as intended is to write it, then, when it is given over by then messenger, one can be sure that his exact words are received.

Such is the case, explains the Arugas Habosem, with the Torah Hakedosah. “Ana Nafshi Kesavis Yehavis”, Hakadosh Baruch Hu Himself wrote the Torah, the words contained within are His and His alone. Thus, when we learn Torah, we are receiving the Dvar Hashem exactly as intended, and this is in fact a level of “Panim El Panim”, as we communicate directly with the Borei Olam. As far as we may be, figuratively, from Hashem, we can directly with him, on a level of Panim El Panim, through the Torah—and idea which the Arugas Habosem refers to an Inyan Amuk, a deep idea.

As we consider this idea, a question arises. Why would the Torah “hide” such an empowering statement—that we can connect to the Ribono Shel Olam directly—in a Nutriken? The words “Ana Nafshi Kesavis Yehavis” seem to pass on such an important lesson, why would the Torah not wish to tell us this in a direct manner, why only do so through an acronym of the word “Anochi”?

Perhaps this is done to teach us how to access the “Panim El Panim” contained in the Torah.

There is no Chachma to creating a Nutriken, looking at a word and deciding that its letters stand for a phrase, but we know that we cannot successfully do so on our own. Only if the Chachamim, our Rabbeim, teach us where the hidden words are, can we hope to uncover meaning. The same is true of the Torah itself. Yes, the Dvar Hashem can be found in the words of the Torah, but we can uncover their meaning only if we access the Mesorah, by adhering to the words of Chazal. When one decides to infer the Ratzon Hashem on his own, even if he claims to be using the Torah to do so, it often leads to disaster—only through the eyes of Chazal can we discern the Emes. Thus the phrase “Ana Nafshi Kesavis Yehavis” is taught through a Nutirken, and is in fact the source for this type of Limud, to teach us just like a Nutirken, that the meaning this phrase refers to can be uncovered only with the help of Chazal.

With this in mind, let us turn back to the words of Korach.

Korach confronted Moshe Rabbeinu with the words “Kol HaEida Kulam Kedoshim” referring to the fact that all of Klal Yisroel heard the word Anochi, with its implication of “Ana Nafshi Kesavis Yehavis.” Therefore, he reasoned, we all know that it is possible to connect to Hashem, to speak with him “Panim El Panim”, through the Torah itself. Why then do we need a leader? We are all capable of personal connection with Hashem—why are you elevated above us?

In making this statement, Korach was not just rejecting the authority of Moshe as a leader in Klal Yisroel, but of the Mesorah itself. By implying that each member of Klal Yisroel could forge their own direct connection with Hashem through the Torah, Korach made the claim that there was no need for Chachim or leaders—as each could infer the Ratzon Hahsem on his own. This claim was indeed quite problematic.

R’ Chaim Shmulevitz, in Parshas Shemini, speaks about the concept of Moreh Halacha Bifnei Rabo, which carries with it severe punishement. He establishes that this Din is not related to the Kavod of the Rebbe, and indeed may be applicable even when the Talmid is acting in defense of his Rebbe’s Kavod. Rather, this Aveira is considered so egregious because it negates the concept of Mesorah, and threatens the Kiyum of Klal Yisroel.

The Medrash Rabbah says that Bnei Yisroel is compared to a Yona: just as a bird cannot fly without wings, so to Klal Yisroel cannot function without our Zekenim.” As opposed to the Umos Haolam, who have no need for Zekenim, if we do not respect the links in the Mesorah, explains R’ Chaim, Klal Yisroel cannot do anything—we are stymied. Thus, one is Moreh Halacha Bifnei Rabo threatens the Mesorah itself and with it the existence and accomplishment of Klal Yisroel.

This was the Sirchon that Moshe noticed in the words of Korach. The claims of this nefarious group were not against Moshe personally, they were against the concept of Mesorah. If one assumes that he can access the Dvar Hashem directly, even if he claims to do so through the Torah itself, he negates the need for a Mesorah—what need is there for Zekenim if we can determine things on our own? This notion runs counter to everything we are predicated on and would have indeed been a Sirchon on the level of the Egel and Meraglim. Korach’s claims were not only a threat to Moshe Rabbienu, but to the very existence of the Am Hanivchar.

Perhaps this is why Moshe Rabbeinu began to Daven right away, even as he stood in front of Korach. He wished to show that even he, in his elevated state, could not make his own decisions, but had to appeal to a higher authority, in his case Hakadosh Baruch Hu. By immediately turning to Hashem, “VaYishma, Vayipol” Moshe Rabbeinu displayed the importance of connecting to the Hashem, in the prescribed ways, in order to determine His Ratzon.

The lesson of Korach, and his actions, thus resonates in our times as well. All too often we are tempted to determine our path on our own, without consulting our Rabbeim or Gedolei Yisroel, and we may even think that we can do so using the words of the Torah. We must at all times remember, however, that Klal Yisroel exists becaue we have a Mesorah, and the direct connection made possible by the reality of “Ana Nafshi Kesavis Yehavis” can be forged only under the direction and guidance of our Zekenim. If we proceed along this path correctly, however, we can indeed be Zoche to a level of “Panim El Panim”, and achieve the Kedusha which we are all capable of.