{"id":62079,"date":"2019-07-02T08:55:27","date_gmt":"2019-07-02T13:55:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ou.org\/life\/?p=62079"},"modified":"2019-07-02T08:55:27","modified_gmt":"2019-07-02T13:55:27","slug":"cc-family-edition-argument-for-the-sake-of-heaven","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ou.org\/life\/parenting\/cc-family-edition-argument-for-the-sake-of-heaven\/","title":{"rendered":"C&C Family Edition: Argument for the Sake of Heaven"},"content":{"rendered":"

Covenant & Conversation: Family Edition<\/em>\u00a0is a new and exciting initiative from The Office of Rabbi Sacks for 5779.\u00a0 Written as an accompaniment to Rabbi Sacks\u2019 weekly\u00a0Covenant & Conversation<\/em>\u00a0essay, the\u00a0Family Edition\u00a0<\/em>is aimed at connecting older children and teenagers with his ideas and thoughts on the\u00a0parsha<\/em>. Each element of the\u00a0Family Edition<\/em>\u00a0is progressively more advanced;\u00a0The Core Idea\u00a0<\/em>is appropriate for all ages and the final element,\u00a0From The Thought of Rabbi Sacks<\/em>, is the most advanced section. Each section includes\u00a0Questions to Ponder<\/em>, aimed at encouraging discussion between family members in a way most appropriate to them. We have also included a section called\u00a0Around the Shabbat Table<\/em>\u00a0with a few further questions on the\u00a0parsha<\/em>\u00a0to think about. The final section is an\u00a0Educational Companion<\/em>\u00a0which includes suggested talking points in response to the questions found throughout the\u00a0Family Edition<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Download as PDF<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

Covenant and Conversation on OU Torah<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

\n

The Parsha in a Nutshell<\/strong><\/p>\n

The story of the rebellion of Korach was a devastating challenge to Moses\u2019 leadership. As Ramban points out, it could only have happened because after the sin of the spies and the resulting punishment that the generation who left Egypt would not live to enter the land, the people were bitterly disappointed. Building on their unrest and shattered hopes, Korach assembled a rabble of troublemakers \u2013 some from his own tribe, some from the tribe of Reuben, and others who had leadership positions elsewhere \u2013 and challenged the leadership of Moses and Aaron.\u00a0 The rebellion failed \u2013 the ground opened up and swallowed the chief rebels \u2013 yet the complaints of the people continued. They ended only when Aaron\u2019s rod, alone among the rods for each tribe, blossomed, and brought forth almonds, a message of peaceful conflict resolution. The parsha ends with a legal section detailing the duties of the Priests and Levites and the offerings to be given to them by the rest of the people.<\/p>\n

\n

The Core Idea<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Korach rebellion was different from the other complaints and demonstrations Moses faced during the wilderness years. It did not stem from a problem the Israelites faced such as a lack of food or water, or a way through the sea, or having to fight a battle against giants. It was a personal attack on Moses and Aaron. Korach and his fellow rebels accused Moses of favouritism, of failure, and of being a fraud \u2013 of making decisions for his own benefit, in the name of God. So terrible was this argument, that it became the classic example for the Sages of the worst kind of disagreement \u2013 an argument \u201cnot for the sake of Heaven\u201d. The opposite of this is an\u00a0argument for the sake of Heaven<\/em>, and the classic example given by the Sages is arguments between Hillel and Shammai (Mishnah Avot 5:17).<\/p>\n

The Meiri (who lived in Spain in the 13th century) explains the difference between them in this way: \u201cHillel and Shammai argued out of a desire to discover the truth, not out of grumpiness or just for the sake of winning an argument\u2026 but Korach and his followers came to attack Moses out of jealousy and desire for victory\u201d In other words, the first type of argument is an\u00a0argument for the sake of truth<\/em>\u00a0and the second an\u00a0argument for the sake of victory.<\/em><\/p>\n

This becomes obvious when you notice the difference between what the rebels\u00a0said<\/em>\u00a0and what they really wanted. What they said was that the people did not need leaders, because they were all holy. They had all heard the word of God. There should therefore be no leaders of higher rank or holiness within Israel. \u201cWhy then do you set yourselves above the Lord\u2019s assembly?\u201d (Num. 16:3). But from Moses\u2019 reply, it is clear that he knew they actually wanted something altogether different. He answered: \u201cNow listen, you Levites! Is it not enough for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the rest of the Israelite community and brought you near Himself to do the work at the Lord\u2019s Tabernacle and to stand before the community and minister to them? \u2026but now you are trying to get the Priesthood too.\u201d (Num. 16:8\u201310)<\/p>\n

Moses knew they did not really want a community without leaders. Instead,\u00a0they<\/em>\u00a0wanted to be the leaders. Korach\u2019s speech had nothing to do with finding the truth, but rather it was about achieving personal honour, status, and power.<\/p>\n

QUESTIONS TO PONDER:<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. What is the difference between an argument for the sake of Heaven and an argument not for the sake of Heaven?<\/li>\n
  2. What did Korach really want? What do you think Hillel and Shammai wanted when they argued?<\/li>\n
  3. Can you think of examples of both types of arguments from your own life?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
    \n

    It Once Happened…<\/strong><\/p>\n

    A story is told in the Talmud (Eruvin 13b) where for three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel (the students of Shammai and Hillel) argued about a matter of Halacha, neither being able to convince the other to change their opinion. Beit Shammai said \u2018the halacha follows our opinion\u2019 and Beit Hillel said \u2018the halacha follows our opinion\u2019. Eventually, a voice from heaven was heard announcing \u2018Both these and those are the words of the living God. But the halacha follows the opinion of Beit Hillel\u2019.<\/p>\n

    The Talmud then asks \u2018Since God declares that both these and those are the words of the living God, for what reason does the halacha follow the opinion of Beit Hillel?\u2019 The following explanation is given: the followers of Hillel were friendly and patient, treating everyone with respect, and when they taught the halacha they would teach the teachings of Beit Shammai as well as their own teachings. In fact, when they presented their own position in a debate between the teachings of Hillel and Shammai, they gave priority to the teachings of Shammai, teaching this position before their own.<\/p>\n

    QUESTIONS TO PONDER:<\/strong><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. How can the positions of both Hillel and Shammai be the words of the living God if they contradict each other?<\/li>\n
    2. If both positions are right, why does God need to announce a winner?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
      \n

      Thinking More Deeply<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Moses\u2019 first response to Korach and his followers was to propose a simple test. Let the rebels bring an offering of incense the next day and God would show whether He accepted or rejected their offering. This is a rational response. Since Korach and his fellows claimed Moses did whatever he wanted, not was God wanted, let God decide who the true leader should be. It was a controlled experiment, an empirical test. God would let the people know, in an unambiguous way, who was right. It would establish, once and for all, the truth.<\/p>\n

      But Moses did not stop there, as he would have done if truth were the only issue involved. As we saw in the quote above, Moses tried to argue Korach out of his dissent, not by addressing his argument but by speaking to the resentment that lay behind it. He told him that he had been given a position of honour. He may not have been a Priest but he was a Levite, and the Levites had special sacred status not shared by the other tribes. He was telling him to be satisfied with the honour he had and not let his ambition overreach itself.<\/p>\n

      At this point, the confrontation became yet more intense. For the first and only time in his life, Moses staked his leadership on the occurrence of a miracle. He said, \u201cBy this you shall know that it was the Lord who sent me to do all these things, that they were not of my own devising: If these men die a natural death and suffer the fate of all mankind, then the Lord has not sent me. But if the Lord brings about something totally new, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them, with everything that belongs to them, and they go down alive into the grave, then you will know that these men have treated the Lord with contempt.\u201d (Bamidbar 16:28\u201330)<\/p>\n

      He was immediately answered. No sooner had he finished than \u201cthe ground under them split apart and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them\u201d (Bamidbar 16:32). The rebels \u201cwent down alive into the grave\u201d (16:33). One cannot imagine a more dramatic vindication. God had shown, beyond possibility of doubt, that Moses was right and the rebels wrong.\u00a0Yet this did not end the argument<\/em>. That is what is extraordinary. Far from being apologetic and repentant, the people returned the next morning still complaining \u2013 this time, not about who should lead whom but about the way Moses had chosen to end the dispute: \u201cThe next day the whole Israelite community grumbled against Moses and Aaron. \u2018You have killed the Lord\u2019s people,\u2019 they said\u201d (17:6).<\/p>\n

      You may be right, they implied, and Korach may have been wrong. But is this a way to win an argument? To cause your opponents to be swallowed up alive? This time, God suggested an entirely different way of resolving the dispute. He told Moses to have each of the tribes take a staff and write their name on it, and place them in the Tent of Meeting. On the staff of the tribe of Levi, he should write the name of Aaron. One of the staffs would sprout, and that would signal whom God had chosen. The tribes did so, and the next morning they returned to find that Aaron\u2019s staff had budded, blossomed, and produced almonds. That, finally, ended the argument (Bamidbar 17:16\u201324).<\/p>\n

      What resolved the dispute, in other words, was not a show of power but something altogether different. The fact that Aaron\u2019s rod produced almond blossoms seems to have had rich symbolism. In the Near East, the almond is the first tree to blossom, its white flowers signalling the end of winter and the emergence of new life. The almond flowers recalled the gold flowers on the Menorah (Shemot 25:31; 37:17), lit daily by Aaron in the Sanctuary. The Hebrew word\u00a0tzitz<\/em>, used here to mean \u201cblossom,\u201d recalls the\u00a0tzitz<\/em>, the \u201cfrontlet\u201d of pure gold worn as part of Aaron\u2019s headdress, on which were inscribed the words \u201cHoly to the Lord\u201d (Shemot 28:36). The sprouting almond branch was therefore more than a sign. It was a multifaceted symbol of life, light, holiness, and the watchful presence of God.<\/p>\n

      One could almost say that the almond branch symbolised the Priestly will to life as against the rebels\u2019 will to power. The Priest does not rule the people; he blesses them. He is the channel through which God\u2019s life-giving energies flow. He connects the nation to the Divine Presence. What makes a spiritual leader is not ambition but humility. Moses answered Korach in Korach\u2019s terms, by a show of force. God answered in a quite different way, showing that leadership is not self-assertion but self-effacement.<\/p>\n

      \n

      From the Thought of Rabbi Sacks<\/strong><\/p>\n

      The Sages celebrated\u00a0machloket le-shem shamayim,<\/em>\u00a0\u2018argument for the sake of heaven.\u2019 They epitomised it in the archetypal debates between Hillel and Shammai, about which it was said that\u00a0elu ve-elu divrei Elokim chayim<\/em>,\u00a0\u2018these and these are the words of the living God<\/em>.\u2019 The central document of rabbinic Judaism, the Babylonian Talmud, is written in the form of sequences of argument. The argument itself and the clarification of the issues involved is often more important than the conclusions reached. Rejected opinions are considered as closely as accepted ones. Indeed, the Talmud states that the rulings of the school of Hillel became authoritative because, among other things, they studied the views of their opponents as well as their own and stated them before their own.<\/p>\n

      Argument, for the Sages, was a deeply religious mode of discourse: not only argument between man and man, but even argument between man and God. The aggadic or interpretive literature of the Talmudic period turns the biblical conversations between man and God \u2013 Moses\u2019 plea for the Israelites after the sin of the Golden Calf, for example, or Hannah\u2019s prayer for a child \u2013 into intense and dramatic confrontations which the rabbis termed\u00a0chutzpah kelapei shamaya<\/em>, audacity toward heaven. In this respect they were continuing a biblical tradition of argument between earth and heaven \u2013 we recall Abraham\u2019s dialogue over the fate of Sodom, Job\u2019s over his tragedy, Moses\u2019 and Jeremiah\u2019s over the justice of Providence. It is a highly distinctive tone of Jewish spirituality, one that embarrassed Philo and other Jewish philosophers, but one that remained close to the Jewish heart.<\/p>\n

      Traditional Alternatives, p. 202<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

      QUESTIONS TO PONDER:<\/strong><\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Why do you think argument is so central to Jewish culture, the halachic process, and even Jewish spirituality?<\/li>\n
      2. How can an argument between man and God be considered an \u2018argument for the sake of heaven\u2019?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
        \n

        Around the Shabbat Table<\/strong><\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n