Two Jews, Three Opinions

by Rabbi David Zauderer

Torah from Dixie Staff Writer A new rabbi comes to a well-established congregation. Every week on the Sabbath, a fight erupts during the service. A new rabbi comes to a well-established congregation. Every week on the Sabbath, a fight erupts during the service. When it comes time to recite the Shema prayer, half of the congregation stands and the other half sits. The half who stand say, "Of course we stand for the Shema. Its the credo of Judaism. Throughout history, thousands of Jews have died with the words of the Shema on their lips." The half who remain seated say, "No. According to the Shulchan Aruch (the code of Jewish law), if you are seated when you get to the Shema you remain seated." The people who are standing yell at the people who are sitting, "Stand up!" while the people who are sitting yell at the people who are standing, "Sit down!" Its destroying the whole decorum of the service, and driving the new rabbi crazy. Finally, its brought to the rabbis attention that at a nearby home for the aged is a 98-year-old man who was a founding member of the congregation. So, in accordance with Talmudic tradition, the rabbi appoints a delegation of three, one who stands for the Shema, one who sits, and the rabbi himself, to go interview the man. They enter his room, and the man who stands for the Shema rushes over to the old man and says, "Wasnt it the tradition in our synagogue to stand for the Shema?" "No," the old man answers in a weak voice. "That wasnt the tradition." The other man jumps in excitedly. "Wasnt it the tradition in our synagogue to sit for the Shema?" "No," the old man says. "That wasnt the tradition." At this point, the rabbi cannot control himself. He cuts in angrily. "I dont care what the tradition was! Just tell them one or the other. Do you know what goes on in services every week  the people who are standing yell at the people who are sitting, the people who are sitting yell at the people who are standing" "That was the tradition," the old man says. This is a joke, of course, but, to a great extent, it reflects the reality of Jewish life in our recent history. Its all been said before  how Jews tend to fight with each other, especially with regard to matters religious, and how they establish one breakaway synagogue after another. KORACH AND THE FIRST JEWISH BOARD MEETING Unfortunately, this is nothing new for our people. We have been going at each others throats since time immemorial. Even in the desert, when the Jewish people were being led by Moses into the Promised Land, there were Jews grumbling about this thing or the other. I can just imagine Irving and his wife, Sophie, sitting on beach chairs in the Sinai desert during one of the encampments, complaining about the weather, "Sophie, whats the deal with that Moses  every miracle he can pull off, but he cant get us central air-conditioning?!" "Youre right, Irving, and the food...oy, such food I wouldnt wish on my worst enemy. The manna tastes horrible, and theyre such small portions, too!" Arguably (pun intended), the most famous rabble-rousing Jew of all time was Korach. He was from the tribe of Levi, and of a distinguished lineage. Korach resented the fact that Moses appointed his own brother, Aaron, the High Priest, and that he was passed by for the position of Chief Levite, having it go to Moses cousin Elizaphan, son of Uziel, instead. These and other things made Korach upset, jealous, and resentful, which led him to start fomenting a rebellion against the leadership of Moses. (For a more comprehensive treatment of the exact causes and nature of Korachs rebellion and its deadly aftermath, see the Artscroll Stone Edition Chumash commentary to Numbers Chapters 16-17, which can be found on pages 820-831.) So what did Korach do? He did what very other person who has a beef with the rabbi has done since that time. He convened a board meeting of key figures in the Jewish community, and proceeded to convince them that Moses was this power-hungry leader, who was selfishly taking power and prestige for himself and his close friends and relatives at the expense of the rest of the nation who were just as qualified as he was. So that what started out as a personal gripe that one individual had with his rabbi, escalated into a full-fledged rebellion, which had the capacity to tear the very fabric that united the Jewish people. And what happened in the end? (I hate to have to tell you the ending now and ruin it for you when you hear the story being read in the synagogue this Shabbat, but Im sure the suspense is killing you!) Moses asks G-d to step in and prove that he was only acting in accordance with the Divine directive, and that he wasnt playing favorites. So G-d creates this massive mouthlike hole in the ground, and it swallows up Korach and all the other Jews who instigated the argument and rebellion against Moses. The irony of it all is, that in the end, Korach got some of the fame and notoriety that he so desperately craved. For one thing, the Torah portion is named after the rebellious Korach. And G-d uses Korach and his "gang" as an all-time example of what can happen when we become embroiled in controversy. G-d commands the Jewish people after the rebellion dies down, "You shall not be like Korach and his assembly"(Numbers 17:5), which is a negative prohibition for us not to instigate arguments and fights against one another. GOOD ARGUMENTS VS. BAD ARGUMENTS Many have asked the question that if, indeed, arguments and disputes are so spiritually dangerous for us, as they have the capacity to literally tear apart families and even whole communities, why then do we find arguments between rabbis and their students on every single page of the Talmud  the basic text of our Oral Tradition? Cant those Talmudic sages agree on anything? For example, Rabbi Yehudah said that a sukkah (the hut that Jews sit in on the festival of Sukkot) has to have four walls, but the other rabbis argued with him and said it only require three walls. Even on the very first page of the Talmud, Rabbi Yishmael is quoted as saying that one may recite the evening Shema prayer anytime during the night, but the sages disagreed with him, and only permitted it to be recited until midnight. Furthermore, anything that the school of Hillel taught was immediately opposed and rejected by their competing school, the school of Shammai. Even "bigger issues" like the length of the future period known as the "Messianic Age" is a subject of debate amongst the rabbis of the Talmud, with no less than four opinions offered, ranging anywhere from a few years to upwards of 365,000 years! If our own great rabbis cant manage to agree on anything, how can they expect us to get along with each other? The truth is that those same "argumentative" rabbis addressed this question themselves in the classic work known as Ethics of our Fathers. They wrote (5:20), "Every controversy which is for the sake of Heaven, such as the conflict of Hillel and Shammai, will endure in the end; and every one which is not for the sake of Heaven, such as the conflict of Korach and his assembly, will in the end not endure." In other words, every controversy, argument, debate, is about some issue on which opinion is divided. And both sides will often attempt to cast their arguments in theological terms, to make it appear as though they are only arguing "for the sake of Heaven," despite their true intentions to the contrary. (This is much like Korach, who claimed to be opposing Moses only because "the entire congregation are all holy, and the Lord is among them," so that there is no need for an individual "leader.") But, ultimately, the only arguments that are worthwhile and that will endure, are those which are done truly for the sake of Heaven  in the pursuit of truth and G-dliness  such as the debates that are found in every page of the Talmud. Any other arguments which are started with ulterior motives are doomed to fail, and to bring destruction in their path. You might wonder  how can we tell which arguments are "good" and which are "bad"? Ethics of Our Fathers hints at the answer when it tells us that the argument for the sake of Heaven is akin to the argument "between Hillel and Shammai." But the argument which is not for the sake of Heaven, is like the argument of "Korach and his assemblage." Notice that it doesnt mention whom Korach was arguing with, i.e. Moses. Rather, it mentions Korach and his "gang." You see, when a person is motivated by the pursuit of truth and justice, the opposing partys position is taken very seriously, as it might ultimately be the truth. But when youre a Korach, the possibility that Moses side might be true doesnt concern you  all you need is a "support group" to come with you and gang up on the other party and make a lot of noise. As Dr. Samuel Johnson once said, referring to Korach-types, "You raise your voice when you should reinforce your argument." CAN WAR BE CIVIL? Today, we are experiencing an escalation of all different types of controversies and bitter disputes in all areas of human interaction, and especially with couples who are going through divorce. Divorce these days is anything but "civil," and I have personally seen countless lives (especially where children are involved) destroyed due to the bitter fighting that goes on between husband and wife during the divorce proceedings, and which often involves the families, extended families, and even whole communities. Now, to be sure, no one is suggesting that a divorce procedure is just a walk in the park. Obviously, there is much tension, resentment, and sometimes even hatred between both parties. But all too often, the divorce becomes a full-blown war, and the results are often tragic for all parties concerned. Some Talmudic commentaries have noted that this relatively recent phenomenon is actually a fulfillment of a 2,000-year-old prophecy in which the Talmud states that in the period immediately preceding the Messianic Era (which many great sages have said applies to our own times), "the enemy of a man becomes his own household." In our society, the most vicious fights are often the ones between husband and wife which occur in the courts dealing with alimony and custody issues. Instead of parting in a relatively civil manner, we are witnessing couples that had once loved each other now becoming each others sworn enemies, with tragic consequences for the children and extended families. I dont have any answers, and just to stand here and preach the Torahs long-standing commandment for us not to let ourselves become embroiled in controversy like Korach did, will obviously not do much. But I would like to recommend a link to an article on the Web, which I found both interesting and enlightening, that deals with this most troubling issue, and presents some possible ways to make this most tragic "war" a lot more "civil". Its called "Divorce Mediation: Gentle Alternative to a Bitter Process" by Rabbi Adam Berner. Recognizing that problems exist is the first step in the healing process  not only between husband and wife, but within the entire Jewish community as well. --Rabbi David Zauderer is a card-carrying member of the Atlanta Scholars Kollel. You are invited to read more articles on Parshat Korach. Would you recommend this article to a friend? Let us know by sending an e-mail to editor@tfdixie.com