The Voice

The Haftorah for Parshas Korach comes from Sefer Shmuel and is comprised of Pessukim in which Shmuel HaNavi issues very direct and pointed Tochacha to Bnei Yisroel regarding their request to have a Melech appointed. Although the words of the Navi were directed at the people of that generation who were the impetus for this request, we can always learn lessons for our own life from the Divrei Haneviim, and it is important to learn the Pessukim of the Haftorah with this goal in mind.

The Hafotrah begins with Shmuel telling Bnei Yisroel “Lechu V’Nelcha HaGilgal U’Nichadesh Sham HaMelucha”, inviting them to Gilgal to inaugurate the Melucha. Once in Gilgal there was a celebration of sorts, including Hakravas Korbanos, in which the Navi tells us “VaYismach Sham Shaul V’chol Anshei Yisroel Ad Meod”, there was great jubilation. Following this celebration, however, Shmuel shares very frank words with the gathered masses. He criticizes their decision to request a Melech, and warns them of the consequences of their actions.

In the abstract, there is a very clear connection between our Sedra and the Haftorah: both discuss challenges related to the leadership of Klal Yisroel. Korach V’Adaso rebelled against the leadership of Moshe Rabbeinu, asking “Madu’ah Tisnasu Al Kahal Hahshem”. Generations later Bnei Yisroel again questioned their leader, suggesting that a change was necessary in the guise of “Som Tasim Aleinu Melech”.

While there is clearly a global connection between the Parsha and its Haftorah, there seems to be a more specific link as well. When faced with the challenge of Adas Korach, Moshe defended his own stature, declaring: “Lo Chamor Echad Mehem Nasasi”. Moshe protested that there was not an ounce of self-interest in his position, and he had not benefitted in anyway, undercutting the premise of the Korach’s accusations. We find a similar statement made by Shmuel Hanavi in the Haftorah, further connecting the two stories.

As Shmuel stands before all those gathered in Gilgal, he too avows the lack of self-interest involved in his position, challenging those before him to testify in front of Hashem and answer: “Es Shor Mi Lakachti V’Chamor Mi Lakachti V’Es Mi Ashakti Es Mi Ratzosi U’Miyad Mi Lakachti Kofer V’Alim Eni Bo”. The Navi asserts that he has not gained in any way from his flock, by taking their possesions, by swindling them, or by taking bribes. The Passuk then relates that the people agreed: Shmuel had not oppressed them in any way, “V’Lo Lakachta MiYad Ish Me’uma”.

Shmeul then seems to repeat his assertion: “VaYomer Aleihem Eid Hashem Bachem V’Eid Meshicho HaYom Hazeh Im Matzasem B’Yadi Me’uma”. He again asks those gathered to confirm, before Hashem, that he had nothing in his possession. Again, the people seem to agree: “Vayomer Eid”.

At the outset, we must understand why Shmuel seems to repeat himself. He had already asked the people to confirm his innocence of a litany of misdeeds—much longer than that of Moshe Rabbeinu—why did he ask them again to testify that he had nothing of theirs in his possession?

There is another question to be asked, regarding the Lashon of the Passuk: why does the Navi use the word “Vayomer” in recording the response to Shmuel’s question? If the crowd gathered before him answered in unison, the word “Vayomeru” would be appropriate—why is the singular form used?

Rashi seems to answer this question in a most wonderous way: “Bas Kol Yotzas V’Omeres Eid”. It was a Bas Kol that said the word Eid, and the singular “Vayomer” is therefore appropriate. The words of Rashi are based on a Gemara in Makos that tells us “B’Shalosh Mikomos Hofiah Ruach Hakodesh”, there were three times in history that Ruach Hakodesh interceded in an earthly Din Torah. This instance, referred to in the Gemara as “Bais Dino Shel Shmuel HaRamasi”, was one of only three times that this occurred.

We must of course understand why this was necessary: Why was a Bas Kol needed to be Me’id that Shmuel did not gain financially from his position? In addition, it is interesting to note that all those gathered in Gilgal at the time were Zoche to hear “Ruach Hakodesh”, in the guise of a Bas Kol, at that moment—why was this the case?

In fact, the question of necessity is heightened if we consider the full context of the Gemarah.

As we noted, there were two other times that Ruach Hakodesh was Mofiah, or publicized, as part of a Din Torah. The first took place in the Bais Din of Shem, in the case of Yehuda and Tamar, when a Bas Kol proclaimed the words “Tzadka Hi”, that the baby borne by Tamar was indeed the offspring of Yehuda. The final time was in the Bais Din of Shlomo Hamlech in the case of the mothers fighting over the baby, in which the Bas Kol declared who the true mother was.

On the face of it, there seems to be a significant difference between this instance of a Bas Kol and the others. Both of those cases involved an actual Din Torah, in which there was a ruling to be made, in Gilgal, however, there was not. Bnei Yisroel had asked for a king, and they were given one, having nothing to do with the lack of self-gain exhibited by Shmuel. How does this relate to the other cases in which a Bas Kol interceded?

In order to answer these questions, and understand the message of the events at Gilgal, we must better understand the concept of a Bas Kol and what it represents.

The Gemara in Chagiga tells story: Acher—the Taana who had left the Derech Hashem—was riding his horse one Shabbos and his Talmid, R’ Meir, was following him in order to learn Torah. At one point, Acher told R’ Meir to turn around for he had determined that they had reached the Techum Shabbos based on his horse’s strides. R’ Meir offered a rejoinder: “Af Attah Chazor Bach”, challenging his Rebbi to turn around his ways and return to the Derech HaYashar. Acher responded that he had heard a heavenly voice “Machorei Hapargud” that declared: “Shuvu Bonim Shovavim Chutz M’Acher”. He knew that Hashem desired the Teshuva of all his children, except Acher, and therefore he could not return from his ways.

The Yerushalmi in Chagiga tells us when Acher heard this: it was while he rode his horse by the Kodesh Hakedoshim on Yom Kippur that fell out on Shabbos. It was at that time that he heard a Bas Kol declare “Shuvu Bonim Shovavim Chutz M’Acher”.

R’ Dessler, in Michtav M’Eliyahu, asks a simple question on these stories: we know that HKBH awaits the Teshuva of each and every one of his sons, even the biggest Reashim. How then is it possible that a Bas Kol would suggest that the Teshuva of Acher was not welcome?

The answer, explains R’ Dessler, lies in the nature of a Bas Kol. When a person hears a Bas Kol it is actually a reflection of the absolute Emes in a way that he could not sense in any external way. Rather, he accesses the truth found in his deepest “Toch Tocho”, not colored in any way by bias or personal considerations.

This truth, he further explains, is affected by the Pneimius of a person: if he is tainted by Sheker even on this most deepest level, than his Bas Kol will be affected. Acher, who was so far away from his original statute, had sheker rooted even on this level of Toch Tocho, and he therefore heard a Bas Kol that presented an absolute Sheker: that his Teshuva wasn’t welcome.

A Bas Kol, then, is not as much a Nevuah as a reflection of the absolute Emes, as discerned by the one hearing the Bas Kol.

With that in mind, let us turn back to the Pessukim in our Haftorah.

There is a general question that can be asked on the words of Shmuel Hanavi: why did he so staunchly defend his own tenure in Gilgal? The Melech had been requested by Klal Yisroel and Shaul already anointed—why did Shmuel speak about his lack of gain and demand that the people affirm his innocence?

The Yidden in Gilgal stood at a precipice: they were transforming from a nation led by Neviim and Shoftim to one led by a Melech. Shmuel wished them to understand the ramifications of their choice, so that they would act in a way that would ensure success and continued growth. He knew, however, that this would be impossible if they were not honest about their own motivations in making this request?

When Bnei Yisroel approached Shmuel, requesting that he appoint a king, they prefaced their words with an indictment of Shmuel and his sons: “Hinei Attah Zakanta U’Banecha Lo Halchu B’Drachecha”, making it sound as if the decision to ask for a king was the fault of the system currently in place. Shmuel was greatly distressed by the request and turned to Hashem. The response he received was that he should listen to the people “Ki Lo Oscha Ma’asu Ki Osi Ma’asu MiMiloch Aleihem”.

Radak explains that Hashem consoled Shmuel, telling him that if Klal Yisroel indeed had found fault only with Shmuel and his sons, they would have requested a new Shofet. From the fact that they asked for a Melech “Kichol Hagoyim”, who would not only judge them, but also lead them in wars, belied the true root of their request: a lack of Bitachon. The ability of Bnei Yisroel to trust solely in Hashem to provide for their safety and security led them to ask for a Melech: “Lo Oscha Ma’asu Ki Osi Ma’asu MiMiloch Aleihem”.

When the people gathered in Gilgal to be Michadesh the Melucha, Shmuel wanted them to understand that unless they realigned their sights, and understood that the Melech was not the one protecting them, they were doomed to failure. He therefore induced them to restate their objections to his rule. He asked them if he had done anything that rendered him unfit to be a ruler and they all confirmed that he had not.

But perhaps there were lingering doubts.

Malbim explains that the first question, “Es Shor Mi Lakachti V’Chamor Mi Lakachti”, addressed the things that the people would have known about. They may have known that Shmuel had not taken any gifts or graft, but maybe he had enjoyed the benefits of his office otherwise, by using public funds for his own gains. He therefore reframed the issue, asking “Im Matzasem B’Yadi Me’uma”, if they had found anything at all in his hands.

At this point, everyone in Gilgal heard a Bas Kol with the answer: “Eid”. Indeed, Shmuel was innocent of any wrongdoing, even the type that would be hidden from the public. But, having heard the Bas Kol, those present were faced with the realization that in their own deepest insides, in their Pnemius, they too knew that Shmuel was untainted. This would allow them to be honest about their own motivations in asking for a king, and perhaps open their eyes to the potential pitfalls before them.

This is a lesson that can apply to each of us in our own lives. Sometimes it is most important to be honest with ourselves about our true motivations. Though we are not Zoche to hear a Bas Kol, through honest introspection we can try to understand why we are making certain choices. We may find that our goals and purposes are different than we so passionately aver, allowing us to at least be aware of potential hazards before we stumble upon them.