|
Topics in this digest:
Korach 5765
By Rabbi Dr. Barry Leff
Congregation B’nai Israel
Toledo, OH
Monday afternoon (June 26) we arrived in Israel and on the
drive to Jerusalem we were greeted by very slow traffic and lines of cars on
the road festooned with orange ribbons and with banners that read otzrim:
chayav lachshov mechadash, Stop: you need to think again! It was a campaign
of the settlers to get people to pull over and reconsider their thoughts
about the disengagement from Gaza for 15 minutes.
At its heart, the argument between those who support the withdrawal from
Gaza and those who protest the withdrawal from Gaza is an argument that
would be characterized as an argument l’shem shamayim, an argument for the
sake of heaven. I believe that neither side is motivated by selfish
considerations: both sides believe that God is on their side, both sides
believe what they want is the best thing for Israel and the Jewish people.
People of good faith may disagree on right answer to a problem, just as in
the Talmud Hillel and Shammai frequently disagree about what the correct
answer is to a point of halacha (Jewish law).
Hillel and Shammai in fact are used as the archetype for the machloket
l’shem shamayim, the argument for the sake of heaven. There is a teaching
which says an argument which is for the sake of heaven will endure; an
argument which is not for the sake of heaven will not endure. What is an
argument for the sake of heaven? The argument between Hillel and Shammai.
What is an argument not for the sake of heaven? The argument of Korach and
his followers.
In this week’s Torah reading, parshat Korach, we read about how Korach and
his followers, a group of Levites and Reuvenites, complained against Moses
that Moses and Aaron were taking on too much glory and honor for themselves.
Why should Moses be the leader, why should Aaron be the high priest? Korach
argued, didn’t we all stand at Sinai? Didn’t we all see God’s presence?
Korach’s argument is fundamentally correct. Furthermore, he seems to have
been arguing for greater democracy. So what was the flaw in his argument?
Why were he and his followers destroyed by heavenly fire and the earth
opening up? Why is his argument characterized as an argument NOT in the name
of heaven?
It’s because of motivation. Korach and his followers were motivated by their
own selfish egos. They wanted to have the glory themselves. They didn’t want
others to have it. They weren’t arguing on behalf of the disenfranchised
silent majority—they were arguing on behalf of themselves.
All they wanted was a bigger cut of the action. As such, their argument was
NOT for the sake of heaven: it was for the sake of themselves. The tradition
tells us that such selfish arguments will not endure.
Regarding Hillel and Shammai, the Talmud also tells us that since their
arguments are for the sake of heaven, eilu v’eilu divrei Elohim chayim, both
these and those are the words of the living God. But the halacha follows
Hillel.
In other words, you can have honest disagreements, both can represent in a
sense “the word of God,” but at the end of the day, you have to respect the
fact that there can only be one answer. And the answer is the majority
decides. Even though the Talmud records that a heavenly voice proclaimed
that the law follows Hillel, there are 18 places where the law follows
Shammai because on one particular day the followers of Shammai outnumbered
the followers of Hillel.
And Hillel and Shammai respected each other’s positions. In another
beautiful passage in the Talmud, we are told lo titgodedu, “don’t cut
yourself up,” meaning, “don’t cut yourselves up into factions.” The Talmud
explains that even though Hillel and Shammai had disagreements on some
points of law relating to personal status, each respected the other side’s
opinions, and would let them know if there was an individual from their
community that should not marry into the other community—they avoided
“cutting themselves up into factions” that would not marry each other or eat
with each other.
Sadly, that level of respect for the other side, and that willingness to let
the majority decide, has of late frequently been absent in Israel.
Even though the heart of the arguments between the pro-disengagement
leftists and the anti-disengagement settlers is l’shem shamayim, the tactics
of many on the right are not.
There is a radical fringe of settlers who have been trying to disrupt
Israeli society in these weeks leading up to the disengagement. They have
blocked roads creating massive traffic jams, put nails in the roads to cause
flat tires that will further block traffic, all of which jeopardizes the
lives of people in ambulances who can’t get through to hospitals. They have
been acting like thugs, confiscating a Palestinian home near Gush Katif for
their headquarters and throwing stones at people; today’s paper (Thursday
June 30) reports that 46 settler youth were evicted from that house and
arrested. The Israeli government is on the brink of declaring Gaza a closed
military zone because a lot of radical settlers from the West Bank have been
coming into Gaza intent on disrupting the government’s disengagement plan.
People who favor the disengagement put blue and white ribbons on their car
antennas; people opposed put orange ones on. Even though polls consistently
show that a majority of Israelis favor pulling out of Gaza, you see very few
blue and white ribbons, because radicals on the right will rip the antenna
off of the car. Those in the majority are law abiding citizens. According to
an editorial in Wednesday’s Jerusalem Post, many of that law abiding
majority feel bullied into political silence, afraid to put a blue and white
ribbon on their car, because of the actions of the radical right. Yet no one
has to be afraid to put an orange ribbon on their car—the pro-disengagement
forces do not use such tactics as tearing antennas off of people’s cars.
Such actions only hurt the cause of the settlers. To act like a criminal in
a heavenly cause only tarnishes your cause—it makes the whole cause seem
unworthy. In the fiercest arguments between Hillel and Shammai, there are no
records of anything that would be an ancient equivalent of blocking roads,
ripping antennas off of cars, or confiscating private property. The worst
you get in the Talmudic debates—some of them over issues just as fundamental
as whether or not to withdraw from Gaza—is an occasional bit of name
calling.
There is nothing wrong with a little civil disobedience in the face of a
government decision you believe to be wrong. The Jewish tradition has a long
tradition of civil disobedience against their own governments, for example
the prophet Jeremiah persisting in telling his message even though the
government ordered him to stop. Peaceful civil disobedience brought about
the independence of India and the granting of civil rights to
African-Americans. Sometimes one may feel it is an obligation to protest:
legend has it that when Henry David Thoreau went to jail in protest against
what he perceived to be an unjust law, his friend Ralph Waldo Emerson
visited him and asked “Henry—what are you doing in here?” Thoreau responded
“What are you doing out there?”
If the settlers want to engage in peaceful civil disobedience—refusing to
go, sitting in the road by their homes allowing themselves to be arrested
rather than take the governments offer of compensation to move elsewhere,
they are acting entirely within their rights—just as Rabbi Arik Ascherman of
Rabbis for Human Rights allowed himself to be arrested when trying to stop
the demolition of Palestinian homes built without building permits.
If the settlers want to hold peaceful rallies and protests, they should.
Where civil disobedience becomes wrong is when it becomes thuggery and
involves harm to innocent people. The recent arrest of Edgar Ray Killens on
charges of murder for killing three civil rights workers back in 1964
highlights how far violent behavior for ideological reasons can go.
The radical young settlers need to remember that even though their passion
and argument may be l’shem shamayim, that is not an excuse to violently deny
the will of the properly elected government. A civil war would not advance
the cause of the settlers, to the contrary it could threaten the very
existence of the State of Israel. A civil war would be the most anti-Zionist
thing that could happen.
The Talmud tells us that over 2000 years ago the Temple and Jerusalem were
destroyed because of sinat chinam, baseless hatred. We must avoid acting
towards each other in a hateful way. God forbid, we cannot allow the same
thing to happen again. We need to remember that the Torah commands us
v’ahavta l’re’acha k’mocha, love your neighbor as yourself—and NOT only when
your neighbor agrees with you.
Shabbat Shalom
To view the archives, go to www.neshamah.net
To join this email list, go to www.neshamah.net enter your email address and
click "join now."
______________________________________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please reply to this message
with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line or simply click on the following
link:
http://unsub.vresp.com/u.html?7b730987b6/7f2a79ca74/565f099
_____________________________________________________________________
This message was sent by Reb Barry''s Torah Commentary using
VerticalResponse's iBuilder (TM)
Reb Barry''s Torah Commentary
Congregation Bnai Israel
2727 Kenwood Blvd
Toledo, Ohio 43606
Read the VerticalResponse marketing policy:
http://www.verticalresponse.com/content/pm_policy.html
Top of page |
|