Shalom from Beta Vichai and thank you for joining me in the study of Parashat Korach. So, what was the debate all about? This terrible machlucket, this we'll call it debate, but this uh tremendous discussion between Korach and Moshe, and Korak really with his 250 other people and many others who followed him, basically had many claims against Moshe. But what is really the debate all about? So the Torah describes it in the following way, Korach, ben Itsar, ben Kehad ben Levi, and Korach, the son of Itzar, the son of Kehad, the son of Levi, which was obviously the son of Jacob, of Yaakov. Which we know a little bit about the Tanen Aviram, if we go back to Parashat Shmot, the beginning of Exodus. The two people who were fighting each other, according to our sages, are exactly these two, the Tanen Aviram. They stopped up against Moshe, Edah, Kriy Moed, and Shay Shem, and another 250 people who were basically in the Si'edah, important people, leaders, Kriy Moed, people who were called by name, important people, leaders who are obviously being the representative of the nation of Israel. So they gathered together on Moshe and Aaron, and you can just imagine that. So there is Moshe and Aaron, and you have Korah, and with the Datan and Aviram and Onben Pelet, like front row, 250 people behind them, and they gathered, and they basically surrounds Moshe and Aaron, and they tell them, Ravlachem, enough! The entire congregation is holy. Uvetuchama Shem and Hashem obviously dwell among this holy congregation, but do at it Nasual Kyle Hashem. Why do you elevate yourself above the congregation of Israel? Why do you, in a way, take a role that it's much more important than all of us? We are all holy, we are all equal. But let's just pause here for a second. Does that make any sense? It's true that we are all holy, but what Korah really believed that we can lead the entire nation without a leader? Without someone who takes a little bit of a higher position, so people can basically rely on him and he has more responsibilities. What exactly is the debate all about? The Ibn Ezra says the following, which obviously will help us to explain what was the conversation all about. He says this entire story of Korach and his congregation against Moshe and Aaron, it took place at the Sinai Desert. So it really was in Parashat Naso that we read two, three weeks ago, and in Balutha two weeks ago, we read about the fact that God counted all of Am Israel, all the nation of Israel, and then there was a separate count for the Leviim. And then God says, look, we're not going to make like an exchange. We will take the firstbones, we will exchange them with the Levi'im, and now the Levi'im will function in lieu of the firstbones. And then the Levi, the Shevet Levi, the tribe of Levi was distinguished, and from among the Shevet Levi, from the among the tribe of Levi, there were the priests that also are obviously from the tribe of Levi. And then you have the firstbones and the rest of us. So why is that so important to know? So this is basically the background for Koach. That's what the Ibn Azar says. Why? Because Am Israel thought it's not only Koach, Koach, don't forget, comes from the tribe of Levi. But all of Am Israel thought when they saw this exchange between the first bones that belonged to everyone, to only the tribe of Levi, they thought Moshe is probably doing that on his own. And he's just taking care of his own family. Moshe is also from the tribe of Levi, so he made his brother a high priest, and he made all of his cousins and nephews and everyone from the tribe of Levi to be close to him, and he basically left us with any with nothing. So the Ibn Ezla says, Amisrael, the nation of Israel, excluding the tribe of Levi, they had a claim against Moshe saying this exchange between the firstbones and the tribe of Levi was your idea. God never told you that. And you did it from your own agenda, you want your own family to become close to you. Okay, so that will explain Datan and Aviram and Onben Pelet and the other 250 presidents of the of the tribes, because they all thought that by exchanging the firstbones with the tribe of Levi, now basically they have no Shayyachud, they have no relations, they have no association with the tabernacle. But that obviously raises an issue. Why Korach? Korach was from the tribe of Levi. He should be happy, he should be satisfied, he should be thrilled, he was chosen. So what was his deal? What was his problem with Moshe? Says the Ibn Ezra. Korach was from the tribe of Levi, that's true. He was happy, but he was not happy enough. Because the tribe of Levi should serve the priests. Meaning the tribe of Levi is divided to two, the Levites and the priests. From among the Levites we have the priests. Korach and the tribe of Levi says, we are not chosen to serve Aaron, the high priests. This is not fair. We should get more. Or maybe alternatively, we shouldn't serve Aaron. That was also Moshe's idea. We are against it. So now you have something very interesting that it's almost mutually exclusive. All the nation of Israel is upset with Moshe, that the first bones were exchanged for the Levites. The Levites themselves are not happy because now they are serving Aaron. So no one is happy. But it was really Yaakov who basically told Reuven that he is not going to get any of the rights of the firstbones, but rather that will go and transfer into Yosef's tribe. Ulay Khashdu, Ba'avu Yahushua Mesharto. So Datan Aviram had another claim. They said, We are from the tribe of Ruven. Ruven is the firstborn from all the children. And he got nothing. His first rites, firstborn rights were given to Yosef. Ah, you know why Yosef? Because look at Yahushua. Joshua, Moshe's servant, he's from the tribe of Yosef. Probably Moshe did it in order to satisfy Yeshua, to appease Yoshua, and this is why we suffer. So if we stop here for a second, this is almost like a drama. Everyone is upset. No one is happy. Everyone comes together with one common denominator. They are all upset with Moshe, but they come with different agendas that in a way are mutually exclusive. Because if we renew the holiness of the first bones, it means that the tribe of Levi have no sanctity more than anyone else. The tribe of Levi says, What? We don't want to serve Aaron, who is the high priest, who has more sanctity than us. But if you don't have any sanctity because of the first bones, what's your complaint? The end result is everyone has their own agenda. And that is what all the debate is all about, based on the Ibn Ezra. For my interpretation, is Mufeta Mate that after Moshe saw that the nation of Israel continued to complain even after Korah was swallowed, when all of Israel, Sherau, Israel, Kashem Bachar, Shevet Levi tahaborim, Al Ken Katuva Techalunotama, it says when Moshe did this test, this trial, and he told each tribe to bring a staff into the tabernacle, and then Aaron's staff obviously flourished and had uh almonds and all of that. Basically, that was a proof that what? That Hashem chose the tribe of Levi from above all the firstbones. So it means that that was the claim. So that's what the Ibn Azal says. And in addition, meaning Moshe had to just in a way like justify himself. He says, I didn't do it on my own. I didn't make it up. I was told to do it, and that's exactly what I did. Ibn Ezra felt that he also needs to substantiate even more his interpretation and says, What I told you, that the nation of Israel was upset with motion because he took the holiness from the firstbones. He says, that's exactly what it is, because the claim was kikola e dah, kulam gdushim. Not that the entire congregation is holy. They meant the firstbones. So let's pause here for just a second and let's reintroduce the Ibn Ezla. Before the exchange of the firstbones with the Levites, the people who were leading God's service were the firstbones. Every firstborn was holy. However, after the Golden Kh, after Egelazab, after the sin of the Golden Caf, they were not worthy, and they were replaced by the tribe of Levi. That in self ignited some kind of rebellion and opposition to it. Because the people felt we were connected to God's service by the first bonds of every family. And now we need to go through the tribal. This is not fair, this is probably not what God says. Moshe probably made it up. So Moshe had to confront that claim. Then the tribal itself. Even though they were chosen, they were not happy with their chosenness because they said we don't want to serve our. So that's the second claim. And then the third claim was that Moshe, you are making up things. Probably God did not tell you. And Moshe had to confront all those three fronts. All of our nation of Israel, the tribe of Levi, and then the tribal Levi with the nation of Israel, claiming that Moshe is making up things. Obviously complicated. But that's what the Ibn Ezra claimed. The Malbim has, in a way, a different perspective on what is the debate all about, and he suggests the following. He says they had a mistake. The first two statements, the first two debrot. I am Hashem, your God who took you out from Egypt, you should not have any false God besides me, and I should be the only God. Everyone heard it directly from God. So they thought, we are all the same. Me, you, Moshe, Aaron, same people, same level of prophecy, same level of sanctity, we are all the same. And that's what Chazal, that's what our sages said. One of the famous questions that Koach asked Moshe is that if you have a Talit that it's all blue, does it need a blue string? Like we know that every talit, when we knew exactly how to color the fringes with blue, every talit had one blue string. So he says to him, if everything is blue, do you need a blue string? And Moshe says, Yes. Moshe's answer to him was yes, it still needs it. Even though the entire beggar, the entire garment is blue, you still need to have a garment, a blue string. Why? Because you always need to have a leader. You need to have someone who can lead. Even though many people are very holy and they are advanced, you still need to have someone who can inspire them, who can lead them. Moses says, yes, even if everyone is holy, everyone is smart, everyone is equal, there is always need to be someone who can be their leader. Does that mean equality does not mean that everyone should be the same? Equality means that everyone can contribute his or her ability, talent for the sake of everyone. But it can't, a nation cannot just be led by themselves. And he says, We don't need any middlemen. We don't need anyone to mediate for us. So in a way claims something very popular, very nice. Everyone is holy, everyone is equal, we don't need leaders. And therefore, the entire structure of Levim, Kuhanim, Moshe, we don't need it. We can take care of ourselves. Knowing, by the way, it sounds great, but it's definitely not realistic. We all know that you can't, there is no company, institution, nation that can just lead themselves without anyone at their at the helm. Raf Salovechik has an extensive interpretation to this story of Kor, which obviously has many relevant lessons to us. But before we start, let's just sum up what we have. According to the Ibn Ezra, it was all about, I will call it more, the religious aspect. They were upset with the rejection of the firstbones and their holiness and giving it to the Levites. The Levites didn't like the fact that they are going to serve the high priest. And it was also about Moses', in a way, ability to just make those things up. The Malbim took a very different perspective and he says it was about leadership. The debate was all about leadership. Can a nation lead themselves? Or we need leaders that, by definition, will raise themselves from above the nation, not in a hardy or pompous way, but they need to lead. And Kowar says, No, we are all leaders, we are all winners, we can all do it together. Raf Salovechik presents to us a different perspective. And he says the following Rashi in verse 1 quotes the Midrash in Tanchuma, which tells us the following story. They stood before Moshe and said to him, Is a garment that is entirely of tchelet, subject to a law of tzitzit, or it is egg or is it exempt? So we mentioned this Midrash before. Moses answered, it is subject to the law of tzitzit, whereupon they began to jeer at him. Is that possible? In a robe of any different colored material, one thread of trelet exempts it. Should not the robe that is entirely of trelet, of blue, purple, blue, be exempt. This with rash is basically delineates a story that shows I don't want to say only a lack of respect, but a question that is a core question. Basically, these 250 people in Koach are trying to push Moshe to the corner, basically wanted to show that his answer is ridiculous. One string of Thelit can exempt an entire garment. If the garment is not blue. Now, if the garment is all blue, you want to tell me that you still need a fringe that is colored with blue? The midrash, using sarcasm and humor, exposes the whole philosophy of Korach and his goals. And now Raf Salovechik is trying to analyze this midrash. All Jews are equal, he said. Hence everyone is entitled to interpret the law. Korach wanted not only political power, which is more the Malbim. He wanted to succeed Moses as Rabbi so that countless generations afterwards should say Korach Rabbeinu. This is a very, very strong statement. Koach was after Moshe. He wanted to ridicule Moshe so people will not believe that Moshe is the presenter of Torah. Koach was not looking only for this specific event, he was looking for generations. He knew that Moshe will be remembered as Moshe Rabbeinu, Moshe, our teacher. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted to future generations. Koach was fighting for legacy. Korach wanted to replace Moshe as the Rebbe, as the Rebbe, as the teacher of all generations. He impanged and challenged not only Moses' political authority, but his alakic authority as well. The study of the law and its interpretation, Korach argued, are exotric democratic acts in which every intelligent person may engage. Moses' claim to be the exclusive legal authority and exclusive interpreter of the law, according to Korach, was unfounded and unwarranted. Basically, Koach challenged Moshe's not only political power but his ability to give the right interpretation to God's will. In a way, Koach says to Moshe, you should not be the only interpreter. Even though you are the one who stood on Hal Sinai for 40 days and 40 nights, and another 40 days and 40 nights, and God told you to write the second tablets and to bring them to Hal Sinai and to get authorized by God, we don't care about it. You should not be the only interpreter. We can also do the same thing. And not only that, I'm going to show everyone that your interpretation is wrong. And that's why he asked him about this blue-purple garment, does it need a blue string? The consequence of such democratic philosophy is obvious. What Kurah wanted and what many want even now, and this is where it becomes relevant to us, whether they state it clearly or use equivocal terms and dubious language to cover it up, is for the instrument of interpretation of the Torah to be common sense, that everyday empirical intelligence and not the historic conceptualizing logos which can be attained only through painstaking study and hard training. He claims something which is very wide and might be even sensitive. He basically says the following Koa's claim was what you say, Moshe, is totally illogical. You have a garment which is not blue, can be exempt from can be fulfilled is obligation by. One blue string. And you want to tell me that if this entire garment is blue, you still need a blue string, which makes no sense. It's not logical. It's illogical. It defies logic. Korah says to Moshe what your interpretations are are basically illogical, and that's why you probably make them up. We should make it more democratic. Everyone can give his interpretation. Everyone can give his or her two senses and give the right interpretation. And your interpretation, my interpretation, is the same thing, we are all good. The problem when you just follow logic is that when sometimes when things don't make sense, you will drop it. And what makes sense to us today does not necessarily mean that it's going to make sense for us tomorrow or ten years from now. Raf Salovechi continues and says, however, the Torah She Bealpeh, the Oral Torah, cannot be identified with common sense. By the way, I would just pause here for a second. It does not mean that it should always be illogical. But part or component of the Torah, of the Oral Torah, is that there are things that we cannot understand. This is part of the judicial system. You should inspire to try to understand all the mitzvah, but there are going to be sometimes some mitzvah that we will just be stuck. And then you need to, in a way, redraw with honor, you try to understand, but you will continue to do it, despite the fact that it's not logical. It has a methodology, a methodology of its own. It has a singular approach, a distinct form of analysis, its own categories and its own strange scrimta. Can common sense explain that a king is disqualified as a formal witness? For example, this is one of the laws? What's wrong with a king? But yes, this is the law. Is there a common sense reason to exclude women from being formal witnesses? When the Bible itself tells us that men and women were both created in the image of God and takes for granted their equality? The Torah Shebealped, the Oral Torah, has its own methods of conceptualization. The Halachist walk, like the mathematician, in an a priori world. His constructor, ideal, he does not merely study reality. He prepares abstract schemes and applies them to the world of sense. This is the philosophy of Halacha, and we can definitely create here, I hope, some kind of points of discussion between everyone who listens to the Shi'u. Raf Salovechik is basically who was a very logical person, liked to be very much of an analyst, an analyst of the Talmud. He studied Talmud with tremendous logic. But there are laws that make no sense. They are illogical. But there are some methods for every system that make sense for that system. And anyone who comes into the system in a way needs to accept it. Yes, you can challenge it, yes, you can rethink things. But there are some frameworks that are there. Like in math, like in physics, like in biology, they are like some axiomot, which means there are certain things that are set, even though they might not be so logical, but they are accepted as part of that system. The adherents of common sense halakha are misled by a basic philosophical doctrine. They expound a theory of religious subjectivism. Prime Faith says it is hard to refute this theory because it contains a kernel of truth. God, this theory says, is interested in the heart of man's inner world. Faith fundamentally is an inner experience. Man meets God in the mysterious recesses of his personality. The God experience is irredense, dynamic, bold. It breaks out of the exterior of the human personality and turns into an objective deed, into an action. Which means what Rav Salovechik is saying is well aware that what he said before might confront the religious experience. Because in the Talmud, many times it says God wants the heart, God wants the emotions. God wants you to feel connected. It needs to make sense to you. It's very hard to make things, to do and to perform things that are not logical. There is some kind of a cold relationship between me and this glass. If the mitzvah was that I need to now drink it all, I don't want to. I'm not thirsty now. It's illogical. And if I need to perform this mitzvah, I will do it with no keshak, with no desire, with no feelings. So there are two competing powers to some extent. The idea or the philosophy of Hallah and Ta'asha Belp that sometimes you need to give up of trying to understand something and to submit your cognitive power and your intellect into God's will, and at the same time, you still need to perform those things and feel engaged and immerse in it. We can all feel the tension. Kohar said to Moses, the Threlet thread was meant as a reminder of the mysterious link between the blue sea and the blue sky when it is necessary to limit this symbolism to a thread and not extended in the whole garment. From that standpoint of common sense halakha, Korach was right. A beautiful trelet robe will have a greater impact upon the individual than a single thread. Basically, Korach says it only to make sense. And that will be definitely more beautiful than just a white garment with one blue string. When Korach and his adherents approach Moshe with a problem of a garment that is entirely trhelit, they wanted a common sense interpretive approach to Halacha. They simply had no patience to study to get the proper training and master the unique Halacha, Allahic methodology. Of course, Moshe has ultimately won. We still study the Halacha in light of Moses' historic historic conceptualizing logic. The Mesurah of method of Halachic structures and priori constructs will continue forever. So Raf Salovechik obviously had to deal with his modern life, with people who wanted to push Judaism to more of a common sense religion, and he had to fight that. He had to fight some people who said everything should not make any sense, we just need to do things. And he, as the father of modern Orthodoxy, had to balance between so many different powers, so many different powers that push religion here and there. And really the bottom line is it's complicated. The tension is always there. Because as modern people, we train our brain to try to understand things. We have a very scientific brain that wants to understand, and when you understand, you also have affinity towards what you understand and you would love to do it. When things make no sense, when things are illogical, when things look like very ancient and not relevant to us, it's very hard to keep them, to safeguard them, to preserve them, to transfer them to the next generation. But not everything in Alakha makes sense. Does not mean that everything in Alakha should not make sense. Most of it should. But there are going to be parts, there are going to be times, there are going to be dimensions, there are going to be components of Alakha that we will look at them, we will try to understand them. And as King Solomon says, Amalti echkama viri chokam meni. I said I will be wise, become even wiser, and I can't grasp the idea of this paraduma, the red heifer. Everyone will have his own red heifer. Everyone will have his own paraduma, a topic, a subject that we don't understand. But then in a way, it's our test. Can we give up our desire to understand and to continue to do even if we don't? Or we will drop it. We'll say if we don't understand it mean it is meaningless. It's a hard question. And Rafael Vechik is trying to encourage us to think that Koach and Moshe had exactly the same debate. Koach wanted to show a religion that is based on personal subjective interpretation. Sorry, objective interpretation. Everyone will interpret it in the way that he or she can understand, and it will be relevant to them. And Moses says it's not going to work. It's not going to be able to transmit such a religion to the next generation. Every system needs to have a few things that are rigid and yes, it's how to understand it, how to accept. But it's part of the system. This argument continues on since Koach and Moshe until our days and probably after. This is questions about really about the philosophy of religion, the philosophy of Torah study, the philosophy of interpretation, who has the power, who has the authority, how do they do that? What are the methods? Can we think outside of the box? When do we think outside of the box? When can we implement it? Those are basically endless questions. But it all began with Moshe and Korach, or with Korach and Moshe. And Moshe won. Thank you.