Korach and the Art of Taking by Rabbi Yossi Goldin

good morning everybody uh but just before I begin this year is sponsored for the Academic Year by Dr and Mrs Manaka Marcus in memory of their beloved aunts IRAs and Hilda Meers so thank you for uh for that sponsorship um it is uh wonderful to see everybody again um just once again for those of you who are wondering where my father went so my father was here for a couple of weeks I uh those of you were here the last couple of weeks I'm sure you enjoyed um having him back and hearing from him and learning from him I know he very much enjoyed it as well uh my parents now returned to uh to America for the summer so uh I am privileged to uh to be here and to learn with you um through the summer and I'm looking forward to that thank you so much that's so sweet thank you so um I'll move it closer I was just moving it back just because of people on the on the sides but I will try to I'll try to project I'll try to speak loudly so what I wanted to do today is again we're continuing uh parat shavua um trying to to find some a meaningful idea from this from the para this week's para there's a lot a lot to talk about um one of the things that that I wanted to stress now and that is important for us to keep in mind it's something that that that i' that I've learned from my father my father likes to talk about a lot specifically when it comes to safer B midbar is that whenever you're learning Kash particularly this is really true of sabar we have to really make sure and remember that we're that we're that we're reading the story on two different levels okay the first level of course is the actual text itself the actual narrative as it unfolds um as we're as we're reading about Amel benel as they're in the midbar um continuing through the desert on their way to to erit Isel but there's another level um and that is of course that Torah is meant to speak to every single generation that this journey that am Israel are taking throughout the midbar the the their their Journey from harini doesn't just launch their own Journey but it launches the Journey of am Israel throughout the ages and of course the Torah has relevance the stories of the Torah have relevance not just for the for the for the generation in the midbar but for us as well and so what I wanted to keep in mind as we are going through the uh this the topic that we're going to discuss today is to really understand how many of the messages that we're going to learn from this story very much connect to today as well and what I want to do is I want to kind of use as a jumping off point we're going to be talking about the story of korak the situation with korak what exactly was korak looking for what was korak trying to accomplish I'd like to use as a jumping point a very interesting anomaly in the very beginning of the para if you look with me please at source number one we're going to read the first fim just to kind of set the stage for the story the Torah tells us in Source number one the beginning of this week's para and Kor the son of the son of the son of Le and and the the sons of el and the sons of Ru and they stood in front of mhe and another group of people another group of men from benel 250 princes of the congregation men of importance an means these are men of importance they gathered in front of Moshe and and they said to M this is a lot for you again the exact translation of is is is an interesting discussion for our purposes they're basically accusing Moshe and Aon of taking too much power the entire nation the entire Community is Holy and God is amongst us why are you raising yourselves up against the the congregation okay so this is the claim the main claim that kak that's the way it's referred to kak and his congregation or his group they claim they come they face they challenge Moshe and Aon now let's take a look again those few first first couple of psuk Kim there's one major question really a technical question that that comes out from the first two psuk Kim that jump that all the maim jump on and it's fascinating to see the very creative answers that they give and we're going to use those answers as a jumping point to really understand the story of K the son of took and the son and and they stood up in front of Moshe what's the what's the question technical question very very technical question that arises from the first P what did he take okay what did he take it says as as as very often the the the refer to it says that K and seemingly other people took but it doesn't say what they took what exactly did they take we know that they stood up in front of Moshe what did they take and the all the Maan deal with this with this question in one way or another and it's fascinating to see the creative and very important answers that are suggested by the m so the first one I want us I want us to look at is tarum unus okay unus gives uncus is a translation from the Torah into Aramaic and sometimes in through his translation he will explain certain parts or certain questions he doesn't necessarily mention the question but just by the way that he explains the words in the Torah he gives us an explanation so says what is how does it Describe the word says and korak literally means korak divided okay the word it in Aramaic word means like half or division so korak says says unus somehow divided something what exactly does this mean so Rashi on the spot explains what what what what unus is suggesting is that when it says that korak took it means korak took himself korak took himself out of the community korak took himself out of the community if you look very very briefly I'll read it I'll read it inside very quickly I'm sorry that it they're a little out of order says Rashi what does mean SCE number six he took himself to one side in order to be divided or in order to separate himself in order to then question the he separated himself in order to create argument in order to create okay so explanation number one is what does it mean it means K took himself he separated himself he took himself out of the community in order to create the chaos that he would like to begin to sew so what let now let's understand what okay if that's what korak did if that's what korak did if what korak ultimately did was create division so why doesn't the Torah just say division what's the significance of saying what what according to unas and according to rash let's try to understand what exactly is significant by the fact that the Torah uses the word it could have just said and korak argued or and Kor created division what do you mean excellent correct or a created doubt good excellent perhaps what the Torah is suggesting according to unus is that the best way to begin to se doubt or to create any kind of div any any kind of uh challenge is you first have to create Vision step number one to any kind of any any kind of any kind of challenge that you're going to make to Authority or any kind of whatever is you first need to see yourself and remove yourself and anybody else that you want to be a part of that and say it's us and it's them us us and Them us against them we're not with them that's beginning stages to creating Rebellion that's the beginning stages to challenging Authority you have to start that process by says I now want to challenge authority the way I need to do that is not from within I need to separate myself I need to take myself out of it show that it's US versus them and anyone who wants to follow me has to has to believe in that dichotomy and only then can I then challenge The Authority okay so that's one one um interesting message that we're seeing already just from this just from this strange anomaly in the in the language you look at source number three the Mish suggests a different approach here doesn't mean mean that he took himself rather says the medish means he took others using words but look at source number three says the M it's the usage of very soft persuasive language whenever the Torah wants to tell somebody to convince somebody else to do something to go somewhere very often the language would be take them here take them that doesn't mean you should physically pick them up and bring them it means talk to them and convince them persuade them continues the m so what was the Tor when the Torah says it means that K who is this referring to this is referring to say says the M the 250 the K and his group were successful in convincing to join it okay because it says was K and it was and they all got together and they convinced this group of 250 people to join them says the M very often when the Torah wants to tell somebody else to command somebody to do something the phrase that's used is doesn't necessarily always mean a physical taking sometimes it can mean The Power of Words the power of persuasion and that's what that's what K kak did kak went around according to Mid he went through the camp and he started saying you think this is for me this is really for you come join me come join me come join me so according to this interpretation just basic even though the Torah is not 100% accurate in how it's explaining it it's referring to the fact that korak and his men I.E Kor went around and brought and persuaded all these people the 250 to join to join his cause his explanation number one was K took himself separated himself explanation number two is what did who did korak take what did korak take he took the people how did he do so using the power of persuasion again what's the significance Why didn't it just say why does it say they use the word why does the Torah use the word often when it's referring to persuasion perhaps is to show us the power of persuasion that we often assume that when when we refer to the phrase taking we assume it means to physically take something or take somebody from one place to the next and what the Torah is highlighting for us here is the power of persuasion is the power of the spoken word that there are certain people who have a certain kak and they have an ability sometimes to get people to do things that maybe they couldn't have done in a physical Way by physically doing something with them but the power of the the power of the spoken word is incredibly strong and that's what korak was very good at korak was very good at convincing people this isn't for me this is for you come join me and that's what the mid says and andash points this out as well that this was actually korak taking everybody but there's a but there is another technical question which is if korak andan and own they were all involved in persuading these people to join there's a technical another technical question on the pasuk what does the PUK say it's singular it's singular it says Okay question number one was what who did he take number two simple implication of the p is that korak wasn't the only one doing the taking who else was doing the taking and a so why does it say why does it say singular so I want I want us to think about that question that's a big question according to this explanation according to this explanation that a group of people were were persuading the 250 people to join them why does it say Vin singular we're going to get to that soon there's a fascinating explanation that the nav gives to why the phrase opened with and puts it all on korak as opposed to implicating implicating everybody the in Source number five agrees with the basic explanation that meant persuasion of words but because of this challenge with the with with the singular he changes it and he says that this was really korak convincing the other people in the so Source number five what does mean it's a language to Bringing people persuading people who did k it was the introduction the beginning of this story was not was korak first going to then going toet and then only after that getting the other 250 people to join to join him in the p and says and say if you're going to ask me that doesn't fit in the P because the p says says you have extra vves sometimes in the Torah sometimes the V here is not what we would call it wasn't specific and therefore in this case it was korak who took them and that's what the PK is talking again a little bit of of a technical point between between the rash and thei but according to this explanation so far we've seen two explanations by K one was korak took himself out of the equation korak took himself out of the situation in order to create the Rebellion that he was about to create and Source number two suggestion number two was what is he used the power of persuasion to convince people to join him either it was him in a group convincing the 250 men to join him or it was korak himself going around and convincing all of them to join us and the language of aak is to show us the power of the spoken word and the power and the power of persuasion the ramban does not like this explanation the ramban in Source number seven argues and he says means something else does doesn't mean taking yourself out doesn't just mean uh like like we said here to create div Vision says the ra raan goes through all the different explanations and he says this this is not does not fit in what does it mean it doesn't mean that he created division it means that he listened to his heart says the ran the language of is a language of when a person pays attention to their inner desires and to their what we would call and their different and the different uh different types of desires says the M says the he trusted his conscience korak in his mind knew that he was that that he was justified in in this Rebellion he felt that there was a certain a lack of justification for what was happening and he said and and that and he was basically the best way the best way to understand it is his heart basically pushed him to do something he had this TAA for power he had this t or he was frustrated with the situation and just basically means that korak listened listened to his heart good question good question okay what did he say he asked what about DUS V meaning good he doesn't the r doesn't doesn't reference the language and all some some of the technical points that we're raising you're right some of deal with different questions and it's a very good we're going to get to in a second but what we've seen so far is that different explanations all seem to point to korak as being the main the initial instigator and then somehow bringing in and then eventually they bring in the other 250 people but this exact question the question of are they all the same or are they all different actually leads the NV to make an astounding an astounding suggestion the NV was very bothered by this entire process he says if you look at this entire story we keep grouping together this whole group that we call korak and his group okay who do we have say said you have to remember there are different groups here you have korak then you have datan a who we know from previous situations you have this new person on Ben pelis who we don't really know so well kind of new the story and then the other people who join this Rebellion are these 250 and the question that many M ask is do they all have the same concerns or do they all have the same challenges or is this just kind of like a a uh a Confluence of convenient of of of convenient claims they just happen to come to a a a coalition the best way to say is a coalition of convenience is this a coalition of convenience where they all happen to have claims against Moshe rinu and Aron or are they all on the same page says say if you look pay attention very carefully to the way the story plays out to the different punishments that each of them receive that shows that they were all on very in very different places they all joined but this was what we would call a coalition of convenience but even more than that some of them says argue that it's if even had different reasons for why they were meaning different even had what we would call laudable intentions positive intentions says the the following in Source number eight so first he explains explains the word to mean taking with words so he joins those who say just meant they were persuaded but then says that this is something astounding Source number eight it's a little bit long we'll read pieces of it but it's an amazing thing that He suggests says if you look at the language it's very clear from the language because of the V that were part of the instigators they were the ones being convinced they were part of the instigators the P says so says the back to the the question we asked what should it say it shouldn't say it should say why doesn't it say why does it say you have to understand something very very important regarding this parasha we'll we'll we'll speak louder than them we'll uh we'll try to we'll try to drown them out okay definitely frustrating definitely annoying but we're going to be we're not going to let it stop us okay continues the the different parts of this m if you follow along how they join the m and the punishment they [Applause] receive means the 250 men if you look carefully you're going to see that there's three groups there's korak and his intentions there's and their intentions he doesn't discuss own I guess we would put own probably similar to and then you have the 200 50 people and each of them come to this not just for different reasons but have almost different entirely different intentions in terms of positive intentions versus negative intentions he says if you look at what happens later when it comes to the bringing of the incense following this incident the only people who bring the incense are korak and the 250 what about and on some level God gives a certain amount of respect to the 250 men that he doesn't give to korak and and as he points out later who who are the ones who die with with with with with with the land opening up and swallowing K but not the 250 men so why are they getting different punishments therefore says then we now the four The Fifth Line he says therefore we must suggest the 250 men who join this Rebellion they were actually and they had the best of intentions they weren't joining this in order to question his authority or to in order as a power grab like K and and and says why did these 250 people join because they knew that in order to get the closest possible to you have to be a Cohen and they were so they had so they were on such a high level they had with it says he says Bo it was burning within them this desire to achieve the highest closeness to that they were going to do whatever they could in order to become kohanim and therefore even though they knew that mosha was right and they knew that what they were doing but there was almost as if a person be the the best way that I can describe is like religious zealotry a person becomes so connected or the desire to connect to spirituality that they almost lose sight or they lose a certain understanding of what's right and what's wrong and that's what drove these 250 men it was what we would call a holy type of uh Rebellion Rebellion thank you a holy rebellion and therefore he says sorry the means never justify correct correct again they were wrong but what he's arguing is is that their intentions were totally different than korak and everybody else they were all Co they were not kohanim but they wanted to be kohanim they were they were people who had a burning desire to achieve the level of kuna because that was to them the the the the the the Apex of connection to a that was the Pinnacle of coming to and therefore their challenge in rebelling here was not because they wanted power it wasn't a power grab it was what he would call says the nativ an a legitimate and sincere desire to become as close to God as they could and they felt that this was the best way to do that and that's why he says this wasn't for honor and this wasn't because they wanted to achieve a certain level they wanted to use theun as a way to come as close as possible to a so they want God to change his mind they it's a good question it's a good question meaning what what again I think what is highlighting here is that sometimes people have the purest intentions and I still sometimes cause them you want to call it religious zealotry you want to call it some kind of a lost perspective sometimes people can be can get a certain level and that itself that that level itself causes them to lose if they're not grounded enough in reality or in what's going on to lose perspective they it came from a totally different place it came from a good place but they got blinded 100% they got blinded and then he even continues to say they knew that mosha was correct that mosha what mosha was saying was correct they shouldn't be challenging mosha they knew that it was wrong what they were doing meaning they basically were just they were so full of love for hasem that they took it to the extreme in a negative way and that caused them to sin so says and then the continues and suggests that was the 250 men then you hadan says who they were rabal rousers that we know says that we know that they were coming from a totally different place they always wanted to make problems they were just looking to create problems and therefore it's true that the 250 men connected with but that was more out of convenience than anything else you had the 250 men they came from a place of wanting to connect to then you have who were just problem makers they were the ones who everyone knew were going to make the problems they were always there any problem that ever happened to is they were there and then you had korak who was korak so korak had the potential to be like the 250 men and on some level people sometimes might have seen him and he might have appeared to people to be like the 250 but internally he had negative he had negative intentions it was all a paragraph for him he wasn't the pro the problem maker that he wasn't one who was always around but in this case it came from an internal faulty understanding and a desire for power and so says the you have these three different groups and then the goes on to this we're not going to do it inside just because of just because of time then the goes on to describe that you had these three different groups and each one needed the other because the 250 men they wanted to achieve this Kahuna in order to achieve the highest level of closeness to God but they weren't problem people they couldn't they couldn't create a rebellion on their own so who do they attach themselves to who were problem people but needed people to join them so everybody like we said before was a coalition of convenience you had these three different groups you had korak you had the T A you had the 250 men who all had different intentions and different desires and different levels of what they were thinking what they wanted and they only came together for one reason that was was convenient because this was the best way to achieve what they wanted to achieve says why does the Torah open up with as opposed to korak and because kak was the main instigator the Torah wants to show us this all started with korak korak was a master at finding the different groups that were going to be able to join him for different reasons in order to create the problems that he wanted to create in order to achieve his own his own goals yes um I want understand why if they were really toing and they really wanted to be the the 250 wanted to be get as close as they could and their intentions were so good and positive and they were on such a level why would they agree to go with somebody who is obvious to them uh not and you well they kind of got blinded but something doesn't so it's it's an excellent question and by the way he's the first person I've seen to say to make this suggestion it's a it's a mikash suggestion I mean the simple understanding is these 250 people were were people who wanted want who also wanted power but but he based on different parts of the text he makes the suggestion and I think I think what the N is saying is exactly what I've said before is there's different there's different ways that people sometimes will will make mistakes some people make mistakes because or or or or will will will make wrong decisions or create problems sometimes that will happen out of what we would call negative intentions negative desires I want power I want this I want that you also have people who sometimes are so to The Other Extreme they're they're so blinded by the spirituality that they're not grounded enough in reality and and and that can happen as well and I'm sure we've all seen examples of of individuals who that say they get into they get they become for they become religious not necessarily balua even but they get caught up in the tidal wave of spirituality and what we would call that if that if that desire if that spiritual desire isn't grounded in a certain sense of reality it can take them in different locations different places um and I think that's what happened here was that they just got swept up in that in that in that what what what he refers to as this aatm and this desire for that they weren't grounded in the reality of that has to happen in a certain way and it can't just happen in any way that you want to and you can't just you know the way he even says it they were willing to sacrifice themselves on the altar out of their love for Hashem which means that there was something not healthy about about the way that they were doing that and we've seen that in our lives I'm sure we've seen different types of different there's some people who sometimes get swept up in a certain spiritual Vigor that if it's not grounded in a certain reality it can it can be very very dangerous and that's I think what happened here um and that's what happened to these 200 again we'll never really know but that's my understanding of what the NV what the NV is saying okay so what we've seen here so far is again a few different varied to different interpretations according to This n the is pointing out that this entire what we call k k and his group were actually varied people it was VAR different groups different people coming a coalition of convenience coming from very very different places in fact isn't the only one who says this a number of of other point out the same thing the uh the uh sare in Source number nine also suggests that each of the group each of the members of the group had different reasons for why they were revolting he doesn't say things as Extreme as the but he also points out that this was really a coalition of convenience ver number nine they didn't all want one this wasn't like a principled uh Rebellion where they all had one main goal one main purpose this was everyone coming together anyone who wanted to question Moshe anyone wanted the challenge MOS all came together it wasn't all for one thing Ron the 250 people they were they were originally firstborn the 250 people were complaining because soon after Matan Toro was when after was when God replaced the with theim and they weren't happy about that they said that's not fair why should why should we lose out in our ability to Ser in the why they were they were rebelling about that and that's why they had to get some of and then and they were complaining because their forefather Ru was the real Bor and what had yov done yov had replaced Ru with y so therefore you had all these different disparate people coming and arguing ruin was coming people from ru were coming and saying why you why why is our shave at losing out on getting the getting the leadership you had the coming in saying why sh Le getting the leadership ironically where's korak from shave Ley so if anything the 250 people korak is coming and saying why are you getting it I should get it with within shet Ley and the 250 people who are coming and supporting korak themselves didn't want korak to have it either because they were they were claiming the should have it so what you see here is not just not just a coalition of convenience you have competing interests all coming together to create this create this problem he just want wanted to ARG were just coming to create problems they all took their each individual interest and came together so we have two different interpret you have the and by the way there's many others who come and explain the similar idea that K were not a unified front and this understanding explains something very very interesting in P aot which many of you may be familiar with there's a fascinating mission in P aot that raises a fundamental question that we can now answer the and mentions this the discusses what is considered to be and what is what is what is a that's for that the heaven of God for the name of for for for for God and what is not says the source number 10 any which is for the sake of heaven will ultimately continue will exist will continue to exist and which is not it is not will not ultimately be able to continue to exist says the mishna what is a prime example of that we see between H and Sh and between and Shai where they respect each other they're both searching for the truth they're both striving to find the right the right the correct answer the correct that says the m is a classic example of what is this is the of korak and his and his now there's some there's something very inconsistent here in this mishna what's the inconsistency in this Mish it's not against excellent excellent you brought the two sides H and Sh if we want to bring that par continue that parallel to should be and who is the other side of K MOS why does the M and call it so many there's many different answers that are given many point out that what this shows and is highlighting is that even korak were ultimately going to be against each other that even though had korak been successful had korak been successful in his Rebellion against Moshe and Aon soon after that Rebellion what would have happened to that group to that to that Coalition of convenience it would have it would have broken easily into different groups they would have started fighting with each other so it really was korak against those who are with him because they weren't United on principle they were United out of convenience and would have very very quickly turned into turning against turning against each other I think again when we think about lessons for today I'm sure we could many of us can give many different types of examples I don't want to get we're not going to get into any political or any anything of that sort but these we see this often and it's not it's we we see it we see it in in our leadership in this country and in all countries and it's not again I'm not here to say right or wrong but how often do we see this example of people just jumping on the bandwagon to cause rebellion in different different circles right or wrong out of convenience more than out of anything else and whereas we used to or We should strive for a society where our Unity is based on certain principles and of course we can disagree but we can what we focus on is what we agree on as opposed to focusing on who we don't like or what we don't like without really dealing with the issues we see this already starting from the time of korak um and and and and applying until today yes the Torah and the commentaries seem to be focusing entirely as I see it on and what is the role of L pellet it's a good question it's a good question um and and again I would say it even more than that the challenging part about om pellet is that he seems to disappear from the story he appears in the beginning of the story and then he seems to disappear from the story so rashi rashi quotes a medish Rashi quotes the medish that eventually oh did the right thing then listen to his wife and which maybe we all do and his wife convinced him to stop his wife convinced him to to so it's a good question and again I didn't do the prop I can't say I have a range understanding of a range of of opinions about it omell seems to be someone who was in the beginning swept up um according to different interpretations he was son of Ruan so if you want to underst understand that way that maybe he was part of this Ruan group that wanted to get more power that was jealous if you want to take theam s's approach that he was jealous and at some point his wife said to him like this isn't going to work and he and he W and he just disappears now does he he could have then turned around and and and and taken mha side but doesn't he just kind of slowly disappears and from what we understand he he didn't continue and therefore he wasn't punished that seems to be the simple understanding because he he didn't because he didn't continue in the Rebellion at some point he wisened up why his wife according to the medish his wife basically Rashi quotes his quotes a medis that his wife basically said to him this is not a smart thing to get to get involved in and and convinced him not not to continue in the Rebellion yes at some point I don't know where or how I heard that his wife in order to dissuade him uncovered her hair and no one could come in to get him at at his okay that could be that that sounds like the medish it sounds like another medish or the same medish it could be I haven't seen I don't believe Rashi quotes that full story but I wouldn't be surprised if that meaning she took drastic measures to to kind of get him to to see to see something that very well could be yes but where was Aron in all of this he was The Peacemaker he couldn't go it's a great question Aron is there we see in the very beginning that Aron was called was was is part of it they're challenging Aron Aon is very much a part of the story um it seems to be it see it seems it seems to be that there's a limit even to that that sometimes you have people who come with a certain agenda and there you know PE even peace or a peacemaker can only work when the two sides have some kind of rut Zone to do that again that's my own understanding but that's what it that that that's what it seems to be okay so let's continue on in our conversation we've seen a number of different interpretations of what exactly what does V mean I want to share with you a few more interpretations that I think also again bring out new sides to the story and new understandings to the story that are very very relevant for today we started with what is what did K take so many point out point to a well-known medish that kak took certain objects what objects take look at source number 10 that says the M what's the partial right before this the end of last week's para starts to talk about the para ofit so what does tiit have to do with this story of so what it says he actually took certain objects and that was part of his challenge to M this is a a well wellknown mid he got up and he grabbed and he gr to MOS said if I have a baged a garment that is made of made of the color blue do I have to then tie the strings on it and mosha said according to yes of course that's what says that makes no sense if the whole thing is made of that's not going to Potter it from the tit but you only having the the four strings that's what makes the difference says that makes no sense motion your arguments your arguments make no sense and then he continued if you have a house is full of is [Applause] it which is you still need even if your house is full of if all the Torah all the different are in the house that's not going to absolve the house of then putting one para or one para in the missa that's what's going to solve it said korak this makes no sense and according to this mid korak was challenging what was the main Rebellion here what we would call a challenge of moshe's authority he was challenging moshe's Authority he was coming and saying Moshe the that you've been telling us makes no sense in one of his most famous famous drot um given many many years ago salic describes korak's Rebellion as what he calls the common sense Rebellion against H Authority I brought for you here again it's a long piece that I it's a much longer piece than what I brought for you here but again The Echoes of the challenges that we're hearing that were back then and are echoed and by the way elvic was saying this 30 years ago 35 years ago and the relevance of that today is something that I think is is frightening but yet uh preent look at source number 11 it says was elvic korak's argument was all about common sense Jews would defer only to recognize Torah scholars in the interpretation of Jewish today many individuals claim the right to exercise their own common sense in determining the relevance and format of contemporary Judaism despite the fact that they are hardly biblical until mutic Scholars synagogue ritual committees and popular magazine articles debate the continued usefulness of various religious practices and explore the possibilities of reformulating Judaism in line with modern thought these self-styled pokim concede their lack of formal training in Jewish text and sources but they insist nonetheless on their right to decide fundamental religious questions on the basis of Common Sense this is not a recent phenomenon say salich it dates back to the earliest period of Jewish history to the very generation which received the Torah from Hari not long after that event the Torah relates korak led a rebellion against Moshe and kazal and kazal implies sorry that he sought to replace Moshe as the teacher and leader of Israel korak publicly challenged the H competency of Moshe and ridiculed his interpretation of Jewish law as being contrary to Elementary reason and again the r then goes on to describe what happened we skip I skipped that for you but we know that he brought the mza and he said why do I need a muza if that's a house fullest FM or why do I need the strings if it's if it's a tittis full of full of continues now we know that every Rebellion against Authority needs an ideology to arouse the fervor of the people and sustain its momentum it needs a slogan or a motto which projects a noble ideal to replace the Intolerable status quo the rallying C cry which korak chose was Common Sense he proclaimed that all reasonable people have the right to interpret Jewish law according to their best understanding for all the community Are Holy he claimed if k Kim then they all are on the same level to determine whether something makes sense or doesn't make sense in down to earth Logic the lowliest wood cutter is the equal of Moshe this appeal to populism evokes considerable support because it promises freedom from centralized Authority it flatters the people's common common intelligence and it approves the right of each Jew or group of Jews to follow their own individual judgment Cesar salv korak was an intelligent man the me says P he would have certainly conceived there were specialized field in which only experts who have studied extensively over many years are entitled to be recognized as authorities today reasonable people can see the authority of mathemati mathematicians physicists and physicians in their areas of expertise and would not think of challenging them merely on the basis of Common Sense by the way I think that's changed even today people do that right even in those fields nowadays people will say well that doesn't make much sense to me so I'm not going to listen to The Physicians or the physicists but but back then at least it was it was considered acceptable so why then are so many well-intentioned people ready to question the authority of the Torah scholar the lamdan in his area of specialized knowledge and then again this is a much longer piece but I want I wanted to bring some of the main points what was korak's basis what was korak challenging why did he suggest that Common Sense has to make sense so says salich korak was committed to the doctrine of religious subjectiv subjectivism which regards one's personal feelings as Primary in the religious experience God requires the heart thear says and it is in the mysterious recesses of his personality that man meets his maker the mitzvot by contrast are physical acts which reflect the inner quests the hidden feelings of religious emotion the Mitzvah is an external form of a spiritual experience each inner experience has its external correlate in the form of particular mitzvot on the basis of korak's theory the Mitzvah would have to correspond to the mood that prompts it the value of the Mitzvah is not to be found in its performance but in its subjective impact upon the person its ability to arouse a devotional State of Mind basically it says Sal for korak it was all about how I feel does the Mitzvah make sense to me does the Mitzvah feel good to me do I feel good when I do it in Judaism it is the Mitzvah which initiates religious experience of course we want that experience of course we want to feel good but we start with we do the Mitzvah we do the Commandments we follow the and then we hope that through a proper understanding of that that will then bring about the the impact that we're looking for the H legal system as a as a has its own methodology mode of analysis conceptualized rationale even as to mathematics and physics similarly oral law has his own epistem epistemological approach which can be understood only by a lamdon who has mastered it methodology and it's abundant material I want to just clarify this doesn't mean that we don't have that everybody doesn't have what to gain from studying Torah we all can gain from studying Torah we all can gain from learning Tor we all what to add to Torah but when it comes to making making big decisions regarding areas of what's considered appropriate what's not considered appropriate we have to says and this is what kak was argu against recognize the Torah Authority now again who are the Torah authorities that we follow that might be a big debate and that might be some of that people have to find their own authority that they believe has studied the Torah long enough to be able to give them a certain perspective on things but for every single person to come in and say well this doesn't make sense to me and this doesn't make sense to me that's sayic that is that was korak's argument the common sense Rebellion against Torah Authority was coming and saying this doesn't make sense what you're saying doesn't make sense and therefore I'm going to outright reject it that says salich is again is shows a lack of understanding of the whole world the whole Corpus of of Hal just as mathematics is more than a group of equations and physics is more than a collection of natural laws so to the is more than a compilation of religious laws it has its own logos and method of thinking and is an autonomous self-integrated system the need not make Common Sense anymore the mathematics and scientific conceptualized systems need to accommodate themselves to Common Sense last paragraph uh before before we before we move on when when people talk of a meaningful of unfreezing or of empirical Al they are basically proposing korak's approach lacking a a knowledge of methodology which could only be achieved through extensive study they instead apply Common Sense reasoning which is replete with platitudes and cliches as in Aristotelian physics they judge phenomena solely from surface appearances and not and and note only the subjective sensations of the worshippers this data approach is not tolerated in science and it should not receive serious Credence in such statements are pseudo statements lacking sophistication about de relationships and meanings okay as I said this was one of R's most famous drot that he gave where he suggested that korak was representing the common argument against H by saying this doesn't make sense and every single person have the ability to and to to decide and we believed just as in other areas of study in other areas of expertise and a person needs to send a certain amount of Years Learning mastering and understanding the text in order to be able to make the proper conclusions regarding Hal applies to the Common Man and Torah Torah is certainly relevant to every single one of us in so many different ways but when it comes to making decisions on especially big decisions those have to be left to the authorities to the Torah authorities just like we would in all other in all other fields so that is another approach that we've seen which was the approach of he took objects he challenged them he went and took things and went to motion and said this doesn't make sense I'd like to share with you two more approaches and I know we're we're getting close to the end of time so we're going to go a little bit quicker two other approaches one my father suggested and one from my father points out that he said that what is perhaps we can suggest the following idea K took by taking it means he took he picked and chose the things that he wanted to say as my father points out he says it here I left at number 12 here korak's Rebellion it's in the end of the first paragraph is dangerous not because it was devoid of truth but because it was a manipulation of Truth real real understanding of what happened here was korak came and said things that were true everyone is true that is true that's a true statement everything that that whole statement that said was right but then K took it a step further and said because we're all holy therefore we're all equal therefore we all are the same and you can't have a leadership role that I can't have and so korak's danger was what does he mean by and took kak picked and chose aspects of Truth in order to them shape them and form them in the way that he wanted in order to take so the danger was if he had said something that was entirely false from the beginning no one would have listened to him why did they listen to him because he started with the truth he started with the things that made sense he started with something that was true and then he said and therefore why should you be chosen the answer is we are all holy we all are holy in the realm as my father distinguishes between relationship and role in the realm of in the realm of relationship we all have a relationship withes we all are holy we all can have a relationship with but in the realm of role our jobs within the Jewish Community we can't all be the same we can't all be mo by definition everybody certain roles are given to certain people by different circumstances at Birth and that's a reality which we face and just because we're all holy doesn't mean we also are all the same in our in when it comes to our role and that was the danger was korak came and again something that I think Echoes to us in today's world where people will take aspects of Truth and then use that to manipulate the truth in order to achieve a certain agenda that they're trying to achieve something that cored as well and rers ends will end with rers his opening statement was what does K mean it's it's more a statement a description of korak then it is a statement of a korak did who was korak korak was a taker say first there are givers and there are takers in this world and korak is showing korak's whole concern all he cared about in this right now in this whole story was himself his own authority his own power and therefore the Torah introduces this entire story with he didn't take anything specific what he did was his whole personality his whole Essence his whole goal was to take and that's why the Torah opens up with v korak because it's describing korak's mentality as he enters uh as as as we begin this story so we saw a number of different interpretations for what the word can mean um can mean many different things not going to go over them because of because of time what we've seen here again is that is that even just one small anomaly in the Pim a whole range of interpretations each of them sharing with us tremendous wisdom that was relevant both back then and also relevant to us today thank you all wishing everybody a wonderful week