The dispute of Korah and his faction, as every year, is properly examined, and in the words of the Lubavitcher Rebbe , one should follow the weekly portion. It can teach anyone who harbors ill will and seeks to increase strife in Israel how a small number of people can create a great rebellion, provided that several essential conditions are met.
First, they must be as wealthy as Korah, or raise funds from various progressive foundations. It is likely that Korah himself invested a substantial portion of his wealth toward his coveted goal: creating a great rebellion against the leadership of Moses our teacher, in order to bring about its downfall. This is not merely a connection between wealth and power, but rather wealth used as a tool to build a coalition against the ruling authority.
Second, the instigator of the rebellion must mobilize a loud and effective communications campaign. For this purpose, he hires a public relations firm, such as "Datan and Aviram - The Rebellion Ltd." A firm whose owners have long specialized in this field, and who are influential in the rebellion, its leadership, and in recruiting various downtrodden figures, for example On Ben Pelet, and the leaders of the assembly for the campaign. With their help, despite the community being well-off, they lead it away from the good and lofty goal of reaching the Land of Israel and serving God there.
The two manage to act as "priests of religion", bringing their listeners to cognitive blindness, as God told the Prophet Ezekiel: "They have eyes to see but do not see, and ears to hear but do not hear, for they are a rebellious house" . The members of the community are not truly blind or deaf, but these public relations figures lead them toward selective and distorted perception, and from there toward rebellion.
It is no surprise that their words proved successful. Before the earth itself swallowed them, Korah’s and Datan’s record of incitement was already long and "impressive," with nearly forty years of activity.
At the beginning, when Moses was still in Pharaoh’s house, he killed an Egyptian who was beating a Hebrew man. The next day, he went out again to see after his brothers, and he saw two Hebrew men fighting . Rashi explains there that these were Dathan and Abiram.
Later, when God commanded Moses to return to Egypt, He said to him: "For all the men who sought your life have died" . The Gemara in Nedarim explains that these were Dathan and Abiram. They did not die physically, but they lost their possessions, and the poor are considered as if they are dead.
After Pharaoh decreed that Israel must gather their own straw, as a consequence of Moses’ demand to "Let My people go," the people confronted Moses and Aaron and accused them of worsening the situation. Once again, Rashi explains that these were Dathan and Abiram.
When the manna fell, Moses commanded: "Let no one leave any of it until morning." The manna had to be eaten on the day it fell. Some disobeyed, and as written: "They did not listen to Moses, and some left part of it until morning; it became infested with worms and stank, and Moses was angry with them" . Again, Rashi states that these were Dathan and Abiram. The two attempted to undermine Moses by creating the impression that the manna would fall even on the Sabbath, and therefore Moses was unfit to lead.
When the Egyptians pursued Israel and overtook them while they camped by the sea, some people complained and blamed Moses for bringing them out of Egypt. The Midrash Shemot Rabbah notes that these were Dathan and Abiram.
Only last week, in Parashat Shlach, during the sin of the spies, the people refused to enter the Land, and some even said: "Let us appoint a leader and return to Egypt" . The Midrash likewise states that these were Dathan and Abiram.
Despite all previous failures, Dathan and Abiram continued to operate and recruit the complainers of the community in our portion, inciting them against Moses by claiming that he ruled over all Israel, even though he had led them toward a land flowing with milk and honey but had not brought them there. Moses’ own modest attempt to go out to meet them, after they refused his summons, did not prevent the dispute.
It is no coincidence that the famous spiritual leader notes that the essence of Korah’s rebellion lay in Dathan and Abiram, and the Torah mentions their names because they were the source of the discord. They constantly understood the political and psychological tactic that could attract the dissatisfied among the people, the mixed multitude, even though the causes of frustration and discontent were different and unrelated.
The bitterness of the soul served as a common denominator, together with a shared logical claim: "For all the assembly is holy, every one of them; why then do you raise yourselves above the congregation?" Together they would bring down the leadership.
The foundation of "discord" is division among different groups, as in the statement of Rabbi Hanina regarding why the second day of Creation was not described as "good"-because the creation of separation leads to: "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide between the waters and the waters" . From this, Rav Tavyomi taught that if a dispute’s only purpose is the repair and restoration of the world, it should not be considered good; a dispute whose purpose is to further divide the world is certainly not good .
Even in this matter of discord, it is wise to follow the portion, for just as in the past, so too in our days, the call of Korah and his faction can be heard: "All the congregation is holy, why do you raise yourselves above the assembly?" And where there is holiness, the evil inclintion acts with particular intensity.
My friend Rabbi Moshe Lowenthal wrote in his book that the statutes of the Moravian state included a regulation that every Jewish community with at least thirty households was required to maintain a leader of a religious court
Yet there is no need to go as far as Moravia. Here in the Land of Israel, in many communities there is a genuine desire to maintain a community without spiritual leadership, without a rabbi, because "the entire assembly is holy." We are all wise; therefore, what place is there for a rabbi to rise above us?
I remember my late parents moving, and the head of the yeshiva wanted the community to have a synagogue as soon as the community would appoint a rabbi. However, since for a long time there was no majority in favor of appointing a rabbi, he withdrew from the synagogue.
According to Rabbi Joseph Dov Soloveitchik, this was precisely Korah’s sin. Korah claimed that just as a house filled with Torah scrolls should be exempt from mezuzah, and a tallit made entirely of blue wool should be exempt from the requirement of techelet, so too, when the entire congregation is holy, since all stood at Sinai and heard the word of God, the entire assembly should be able to receive the rest of the Torah directly from God, without the mediation of any leader.
In his words, Korah misunderstood the significance of the connection and relationship that must exist between a rabbi and a student. Therefore, he claimed that the assembly should not be subordinate to Moses. This was Korah’s great sin, because tradition is one of the central pillars of Judaism.
The entire assembly is indeed holy, but the reason that holiness can apply to the entire nation is because of the dedication of Moses our teacher to Israel: he prepared them, taught them, guided them, and prayed for them. He was like a mezuzah and like the thread of techelet, bringing holiness into the home and into the tzitzit.
This approach is a legacy of some communities distant from Torah, but it can also appear among communities of Torah scholars, even where many learned people are present. It is not for nothing that Joshua ben Perachia says in Avot 1:6: "Make for yourself a teacher."
The Rambam, in his commentary on the Mishnah, explains that the reason is that learning itself is good, but learning from another person is more attainable and often clearer. This remains true even if the person chosen as a teacher is as wise as the student, or even less so.
The Meiri, writing approximately 275 years ago, adds that even a wise man among the wise should appoint a rabbi for himself, as a father and guide. Even if he cannot find someone equal to him, he should appoint someone superior to sit before him, because a person, even the wisest of the wise, cannot see everything clearly in his own affairs.
Just as this is true for the individual, it is true for the community as well. In our time, when democratic principles are given particular importance, they cannot fully coexist with a rabbinic authority whose rulings guide all matters, as the Torah states: "You shall act according to the instruction they give you" .
For this reason, in many Torah-observant communities, the role of the rabbi is absent. We learn that Korah’s sin is not merely a matter of the distant past, more than three thousand years ago, but also a recurring illness of our own time, one that emerges from an atmosphere influenced by the evil inclination and spreads easily.
The Chafetz Chaim, Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan, writes in the Mishnah Berurah that a person may oppose a Torah scholar, but only if he seeks to appoint another one in his place. If he objects because he does not want a rabbi in the community at all, there is clearly no legitimate basis for his claim [Orach Chaim 45].
Rabbi Meir Kahn Shapira, one of the leading halachic authorities of his generation and a former head of Lomza, writes that in communities where there is already a rabbi, appointing a second rabbi often leads to the creation of two camps within the city. Conversely, a minority seeking to appoint a rabbi against the wishes of the majority may compel the majority to accept one, as explained in the Shulchan Aruch [Choshen Mishpat 161a]: all essential needs of the city obligate the townspeople to act, even if only a minority demands it, and even if neighboring communities require them to appoint a rabbi.
Moreover, the question arises whether the appointment of a rabbi depends on financial compensation. I remember that years ago I was with the late Rabbi Avraham Kahana-Shapira, head of the Merkaz HaRav Yeshiva and Chief Rabbi of Israel, when we invited him to dedicate a Torah scroll in our community.
The rabbi asked us who the rabbi of the synagogue was. We answered that we did not know. Or, at least, that was our answer. Then he asked: "Do you pay him?" We replied that the rabbi carried out his duties voluntarily.
The rabbi then told us, partly seriously and partly jokingly: "If that is the case, he is not the rabbi of the synagogue."
However, the Meiri, in his work Moreh HaAvot (Chapter 4, Mishnah 5), emphasizes that receiving a salary is based on two conditions. The first is that the rabbi take only what is necessary. The second, and more importantly, is that he should not receive payment from private individuals but from the public treasury.
When a rabbi receives money from a private person, he may become inclined to flatter that person. Even if he sees wrongdoing or something requiring rebuke, he may avoid speaking out, and his judgment may become compromised. Therefore, it is preferable that he receive support from the public treasury, allowing him to maintain an equal position toward everyone.
For those who fear God and honor His name, the story of Korah remains a powerful warning about the danger of discord. It is well known that the evil inclination never stops trying to create disputes between people. And when the matter involves holiness, its efforts become even stronger.
Therefore, the Sages established principles and safeguards to properly avoid discord, in the spirit of "you shall keep My charge", a protective boundary for one another.
For example, some authorities wrote that after appointing a cantor, if another person is chosen to lead services instead, that individual violates the prohibition of "do not be like Korah and his assembly" [Nimukei Yosef on Megillah 24].
The Aruch HaShulchan strongly warned regarding prayer customs and urged people to be extremely careful to avoid disputes. In his words: "Whoever fears God should remove his own opinion, even if it appears to him that something was done improperly, so as not to come to discord. For there the Satan often dances."
He added that "discord in the service of God is more severe than ordinary discord" [Orach Chaim 158].
When we built the neighborhood of Achuzat Berkfeld in Modi'in Illit, we sought, among other things, the blessing of the Nadvorna Rebbe, Rabbi Yaakov Yisachar Ber Rosenbaum, known as the "Be'er Yaakov."
The Rebbe asked us how it was that we had not heard of any disputes in Achuzat Berkfeld. It was the week before Shabbat Yitro. I answered that from the giving of the Torah we learned that where there is nothing to argue about, there is no discord.
The people stood around Mount Sinai as one group, and there was nothing to fight over. Rashi notes that at that moment the people reached a remarkable unity: "one people with one heart."
We also try to ensure that each community has its own synagogue, and therefore there is no reason for disputes to arise.
The Rebbe replied that this is what our Sages teach at the end of Tractate Ta'anit: "In the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will make a circle for the righteous in the Garden of Eden, and each one will point with his finger and say: 'Behold, this is our God; we hoped for Him; let us rejoice in His salvation'" .
Why does God make a circle for the righteous? Because in a circle all stand at an equal distance from the center, and all point toward the same central point, declaring: "Behold, our God is this." Who are these righteous? The rabbis. Each one has his own clothing and style, but in truth each says the same thing in his own melody as the righteous person beside him: "Behold, our God is this."
But "this," the Rebbe added, "will only happen in the future"-as the saying goes: "In the future, God will make a circle for the righteous."
May we merit it.