Korach and Dispute
The possuk says in this week’s sedrah (במדבר י"ז ד'):
“Elozor took the copper pans that had been brought by the people who were burnt and he hammered them into a plating for the mizbeach. As a reminder for the benei yisroel that a stranger who is not descended from Aharon should not draw close to bring ketores before Hashem and he should not be like Korach and his gathering as Hashem spoke through the hand of Moshe about him.”
Rashi explains:
“And he should not be like Korach” – “in order that he should not be like Korach”
According to Rashi – “ולא יהיה כקרח” – is not a lav – it is a continuation of the passuk.
“…so that a stranger who is not descended from Aharon should not draw close to bring before Hashem so that he should not become like Korach”
The gemara in Sanhedrin (110), however, seems to say that this is a lav:
Moshe arose and he went to Doson and Avirom – Reish Lokish said; “From here you see that you should not persist in a machlokess because Rav said – anyone who persists in a machlokess transgresses a lav as it says ‘ולא יהיה כקרח וכעדתו’.”
The Rambam (sefer hamitzvos shoresh 8) also explains that the possuk is not a lav (like Rashi) and says that the derasha in the gemara is an asmachtah:
“The possuk “ולא יהיה כקרח וכעדתו” is not a mitzva – it is simply stating a fact – that if someone argues on the kehuna he will not be swallowed into the ground and burnt as Korach and his followers were, rather he will only get tzaraas.
Although we find that the gemara in Sanhedrin explains that the possuk of ‘“ולא יהיה כקרח וכעדתו” is stating a mitzva –that you should not maintain a machlokess – this is an asmachta and not the simple meaning of the passuk.
The lav against machlokess is included in a second lav as will explain in its place (mitzov lo sa’aseh 45).”
The Rambam enumerates the issur against machlokess in mitzvas lo sa’aseh 45:
“Mitzva 45 is that we have been instructed not to make scratches in our skin for a deceased person as idol worshippers do. This is what Hashem said “לא תתגודדו”. The gemara says that included in this lav is not having different minhagim in one city as well as not having machlokess between different groups (i.e. where the machlokess does not relate to the Torah at all.) As they said “לא תתגודדו” – “You should not make many groups (“אגודות אגודות”)”.
Nevertheless, the main intention of the possuk is not to injure oneself for a deceased person – this is a derash.”
Similarly in Mishneh Torah the Rambam says (רמב"ם הלכות עבודה זרה פרק י"ב):
“All sorts of scratching and wounding yourself for a deceased person or for avoda zara is assur, as the passuk says “לא תתגודדו”. Included in this lav is that there should not be two batei din in one city which conduct themselves with different minhagim because this is the cause of great machlokess as it says “לא תתגודדו” – “You should not make many groups (“אגודות אגודות”)”.
The Kesef Mishneh and the Lechem Mishneh ask on the Rambam from the gemara in Yevamos. The gemara says (יבמות דף י"ד א):
“Abaye said – when does “לא תתגודדו” apply – this is with two batei din in one city – this one paskens like Beis Shammai and this one paskens like Beis Hillel. However, if you have two batei din in two cities this is in order.
Rava said to him – but Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel were like two batei din in one city? Rather Rava said – when does “לא תתגודדו” apply – this is when you have one beis din in one city – half of whom pasken like Beis Shammai and half of whom pasken like Beis Hillel. However if you have two Batei Din in one city (one paskens like Beis Shammai and one paskens like Beis Hillel) this is in order.”
The Kesef Mishneh and the Lechem Mishneh ask – how can the Rambam say that you can not have two Batei Din in one city with different pesokim? This is the opionion of Abaye – and we only pasken like Abaye in the cases of ya”al ke”gam? According to Rava the issur is only to have dispute within the same beis din?
Rb Yaakov Yehoshua Wolpe shlit”a answers as follows:
The gemara in Yevamos is discussing pesokim – ways of paskening the halacha. It is less likely that machlokess will come out from a different opinions in halacha than from different minhagim. This is because in halachah different people come to different conclusions, as in the case of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel. It is impossible that there could be an issur on having a machlokess in halacha because different batei din come to different conclusions and this is expected.
The mishna says regarding this:
“Any machlokess which is le’shem shamayim will endure. What is an example of a machlokess which is le’shem shamayim, this is the machlokess of Hillel and Shammai.”
However in minhag there is no particular reason to follow one minhag more than another. Therefore if some people in one town follow one minhag and other people in the town follow a different minhag this will likely result in machlokess because each group will tell the other that they should do as they do.
The Rambam in Mishneh Torah says:
“Included in this lav is that there should not be two batei din in one city – this with one minhag and this with another.”
Here the Rambam is talking about minhagim. You cannot have two minhagim in one town, as the mishna says in Pesachim (perek daled, mishna alef):
“In a place where they have a minhag do to work on Erev Pesach before midday – you can do work. In a place where they have a minhag not to do work – you should not do work.”
The gemara, however, is talking about pesak
“Abaye said – when does “לא תתגודדו” apply – this is with two batei din in one city – this one paskens like Beis Shammai and this one paskens like Beis Hillel.”
In this case the halacha is like Rava, that the only issur is regarding inconsistency within one beis din.
According to the Rambam the halacha is:
The reason that both machlokess in minhag and machlokess stam are included in the issur of “לא תעשו אגודות אגודות” – is because in both these cases the machlokess is based primarily on first forming separate groups and not on their different Torah viewpoints.
וַיִּקַּח אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן אֵת מַחְתּוֹת הַנְּחֹשֶׁת אֲשֶׁר הִקְרִיבוּ הַשְּׂרֻפִים וַיְרַקְּעוּם צִפּוּי לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. זִכָּרוֹן לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִקְרַב אִישׁ זָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן הוּא לְהַקְטִיר קְטֹרֶת לִפְנֵי ה' וְלֹא יִהְיֶה כְקֹרַח וְכַעֲדָתוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר ה' בְּיַד מֹשֶׁה לוֹ
“Elozor took the copper pans that had been brought by the people who were burnt and he hammered them into a plating for the mizbeach. As a reminder for the benei yisroel that a stranger who is not descended from Aharon should not draw close to bring ketores before Hashem and he should not be like Korach and his gathering as Hashem spoke through the hand of Moshe about him.”
Rashi explains:
"ולא יהיה כקרח" - כדי שלא יהיה כקרח
“And he should not be like Korach” – “in order that he should not be like Korach”
According to Rashi – “ולא יהיה כקרח” – is not a lav – it is a continuation of the passuk.
“…so that a stranger who is not descended from Aharon should not draw close to bring before Hashem so that he should not become like Korach”
The gemara in Sanhedrin (110), however, seems to say that this is a lav:
(במדבר טז, כה) ויקם משה וילך אל דתן ואבירם אמר ר"ל מכאן שאין מחזיקין במחלוקת דאמר רב כל המחזיק במחלוקת עובר בלאו שנאמר (במדבר יז, ה) ולא יהיה כקרח וכעדתו
Moshe arose and he went to Doson and Avirom – Reish Lokish said; “From here you see that you should not persist in a machlokess because Rav said – anyone who persists in a machlokess transgresses a lav as it says ‘ולא יהיה כקרח וכעדתו’.”
The Rambam (sefer hamitzvos shoresh 8) also explains that the possuk is not a lav (like Rashi) and says that the derasha in the gemara is an asmachtah:
וכן אמרו ולא יהיה כקרח וכעדתו הוא שלילה. ובארו חכמים שהוא שלילה ופירשו ענינה ואמרו (תנחומא) שהוא יתעלה ספר לנו שכל מי שיחלוק על הכהונה ויערער בה לא יחול בו כקרח וכעדתו מן הבליעה והשרפה אבל אמנם יהי עונשו כאשר דבר ה׳ ביד משה רוצה לומר הצרעת...ואף על פי שמצאנו להם לשון אחר בגמרא סנהדרין(דף ק״י) והיא אמרם כל המחזיק במחלוקת עובר בלאו שנאמר ולא יהיה כקרח וכעדתו. זה על צד האסמכתא לא שיהיה פשטיה דקרא בכוונה הזאת. ואולם האזהרה על זה הוא נכלל תחת לאו שני כמו שאבאר במקומו
“The possuk “ולא יהיה כקרח וכעדתו” is not a mitzva – it is simply stating a fact – that if someone argues on the kehuna he will not be swallowed into the ground and burnt as Korach and his followers were, rather he will only get tzaraas.
Although we find that the gemara in Sanhedrin explains that the possuk of ‘“ולא יהיה כקרח וכעדתו” is stating a mitzva –that you should not maintain a machlokess – this is an asmachta and not the simple meaning of the passuk.
The lav against machlokess is included in a second lav as will explain in its place (mitzov lo sa’aseh 45).”
The Rambam enumerates the issur against machlokess in mitzvas lo sa’aseh 45:
מצוה מ״ה שהזהירנו מעשות שרט לנפש בבשרנו כאשר יעשו עובדי ע"ז. והוא אמרו יתעלה לא תתגודדו...והנה אמרו שבכלל זה האזהרה מחלוק דתי העיר במנהגם וחלוק הקבוצים. ואמרו לא תתגודדו לא תעשו אגודות אגודות. אבל גופיה דקרא הנה הוא כמו שבארנו לא תעשו חבורה על מת, וזה כמו דרש
“Mitzva 45 is that we have been instructed not to make scratches in our skin for a deceased person as idol worshippers do. This is what Hashem said “לא תתגודדו”. The gemara says that included in this lav is not having different minhagim in one city as well as not having machlokess between different groups (i.e. where the machlokess does not relate to the Torah at all.) As they said “לא תתגודדו” – “You should not make many groups (“אגודות אגודות”)”.
Nevertheless, the main intention of the possuk is not to injure oneself for a deceased person – this is a derash.”
Similarly in Mishneh Torah the Rambam says (רמב"ם הלכות עבודה זרה פרק י"ב):
הל׳ י"ג)... גם זה אסרה תורה שנאמר לא תתגודדו ...
הלכה י"ד) ובכלל אזהרה זה שלא יהיו שני בתי דינין בעיר אחת זה נוהג כמנהג זה וזה נוהג כמנהג אחר שדבר זה גורם למחלוקות גדולות שנאמר לא תתגודדו לא תעשו אגודות אגודות.
“All sorts of scratching and wounding yourself for a deceased person or for avoda zara is assur, as the passuk says “לא תתגודדו”. Included in this lav is that there should not be two batei din in one city which conduct themselves with different minhagim because this is the cause of great machlokess as it says “לא תתגודדו” – “You should not make many groups (“אגודות אגודות”)”.
The Kesef Mishneh and the Lechem Mishneh ask on the Rambam from the gemara in Yevamos. The gemara says (יבמות דף י"ד א):
אמר אביי כי אמרינן לא תתגודדו כגון שתי בתי דינים בעיר אחת הללו מורים כדברי ב"ש והללו מורים כדברי ב"ה אבל שתי בתי דינים בשתי עיירות לית לן בה אמר ליה רבא והא ב"ש וב"ה כשתי בתי דינים בעיר אחת דמי אלא אמר רבא כי אמרינן לא תתגודדו כגון ב"ד בעיר אחת פלג מורין כדברי ב"ש ופלג מורין כדברי ב"ה אבל שתי בתי דינין בעיר אחת לית לן בה
“Abaye said – when does “לא תתגודדו” apply – this is with two batei din in one city – this one paskens like Beis Shammai and this one paskens like Beis Hillel. However, if you have two batei din in two cities this is in order.
Rava said to him – but Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel were like two batei din in one city? Rather Rava said – when does “לא תתגודדו” apply – this is when you have one beis din in one city – half of whom pasken like Beis Shammai and half of whom pasken like Beis Hillel. However if you have two Batei Din in one city (one paskens like Beis Shammai and one paskens like Beis Hillel) this is in order.”
The Kesef Mishneh and the Lechem Mishneh ask – how can the Rambam say that you can not have two Batei Din in one city with different pesokim? This is the opionion of Abaye – and we only pasken like Abaye in the cases of ya”al ke”gam? According to Rava the issur is only to have dispute within the same beis din?
Rb Yaakov Yehoshua Wolpe shlit”a answers as follows:
The gemara in Yevamos is discussing pesokim – ways of paskening the halacha. It is less likely that machlokess will come out from a different opinions in halacha than from different minhagim. This is because in halachah different people come to different conclusions, as in the case of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel. It is impossible that there could be an issur on having a machlokess in halacha because different batei din come to different conclusions and this is expected.
The mishna says regarding this:
כל מחלוקת שהיא לשם שמים - סופה להתקיים...איזו היא מחלוקת שהיא לשם שמים
? זו מחלוקת הלל ושמאי
“Any machlokess which is le’shem shamayim will endure. What is an example of a machlokess which is le’shem shamayim, this is the machlokess of Hillel and Shammai.”
However in minhag there is no particular reason to follow one minhag more than another. Therefore if some people in one town follow one minhag and other people in the town follow a different minhag this will likely result in machlokess because each group will tell the other that they should do as they do.
The Rambam in Mishneh Torah says:
ובכלל אזהרה זה שלא יהיו שני בתי דינין בעיר אחת זה נוהג כמנהג זה וזה נוהג כמנהג אחר
“Included in this lav is that there should not be two batei din in one city – this with one minhag and this with another.”
Here the Rambam is talking about minhagim. You cannot have two minhagim in one town, as the mishna says in Pesachim (perek daled, mishna alef):
מקום שנהגו לעשות מלאכה בערבי פסחים עד חצות , עושין. מקום שנהגו שלא לעשות, אין עושין.
“In a place where they have a minhag do to work on Erev Pesach before midday – you can do work. In a place where they have a minhag not to do work – you should not do work.”
The gemara, however, is talking about pesak
אמר אביי כי אמרינן לא תתגודדו כגון שתי בתי דינים בעיר אחת הללו מורים כדברי ב"ש והללו מורים כדברי ב"ה
“Abaye said – when does “לא תתגודדו” apply – this is with two batei din in one city – this one paskens like Beis Shammai and this one paskens like Beis Hillel.”
In this case the halacha is like Rava, that the only issur is regarding inconsistency within one beis din.
According to the Rambam the halacha is:
- Machlokess in halacha: Here the only issur is to have two different appproaches to pesak in the same beis din.
- Machlokess in minhag: Here there is an issur to have two Batei Din in one town with different minhagim or different minhagim in the same town.
- Machlokess anyway: There is always an issur to have machlokess between two groups of people.
The reason that both machlokess in minhag and machlokess stam are included in the issur of “לא תעשו אגודות אגודות” – is because in both these cases the machlokess is based primarily on first forming separate groups and not on their different Torah viewpoints.
Comments
Post a Comment