Korach, Machlokes, and the Power of Achdus

Topics

• Machlokes and the Example of Kerech
• Why the Gemara Uses the Word Machzik
• Who Was Kerech?
• The Meaning of Pikeyach
• Korach’s Greatness and His Mistake
• Aharon’s Silence and the Standing of Korach
• Korach in the Tradition of the Levi’im
• Korach: Greatness and Rejection
• The Arizal and the Brisker Rav’s objection
• A second story about the Brisker Rav
• Two ways of understanding Korach
• Korach and the Root of Machlokes
• Machzik B’machlokes
• The Difference Between Ma’aseh and Gavra
• The Nature of Machlokes
• A Story About the Zayde
• Moshe Rabbeinu and Korach
• The Kli Yakar on Their Words
• Machlokes for Its Own Sake
• The Choshen and Aaron’s Merit
• “Mahu” and the Meaning of Selflessness
• Aaron’s Kedushah and Korach’s Claim
• Korach’s Error and the Meaning of Kedushah
• A Dushes Levi on the Pasuk
• The Meaning of the Kehunah
• Why a Kohen Does Not Say She’asani Kohen
• Kehunah Is Earned
• The Staffs of Aharon and Korach
• The Proof of Aharon’s Choice
• A Different Pshat: Why Aharon Was Chosen
• Perach, Tzitz, and Shekeidim
• Aharon’s Zrizus and Kapara
• Why Machloikes Is So Severe
• Gehenem, Fire, and Machlokes
• The Nature of Gehenem
• Machlokes and the Shechinah
• Achdus on Yom Tov and in the Beis HaMikdash
• Shabbos, Bris, and Machlokes
• Shabbos, Shalom Bayis, and the Yesod of Shabbos
• Korach, Machlokes, and Separation
• Machlokes Is Like Fire
• Machlokes and the Need for Achdus

Transcript

# Machlokes and the Example of Kerech

This Torah class is brought to you by TorahAnytime.com.

It is a big part of the history of Klal Yisroel. Machlokes is, of course, the theme of the parashah. Chazal already call it machlokes: *sholom Hashem shemayim*, the Mishnah in Avos. The passage tells us that anyone who makes machlokes is over the lav of *lo sisgodedu*, Kerech, and *adasai*. So Kerech represents machlokes.

Machlokes is part of the fiber, the fabric, of a society. Klal Yisroel is no different from that throughout the doros. We have had machlokes; we have had to deal with machlokes. I would like to discuss what exactly the machlokes of Kerech is, what lessons we are to take from it, and what we are to understand from this chisaron, the tremendous detrimental thing about machlokes—what it is and why it is so frowned upon, such a terrible thing.

# Why the Gemara Uses the Word *Machzik*

I begin with the pasuk, *lo sisgodedu*, the lav. It tells us that whoever is *machzik* the machlokes is over the lav of *lo sisgodedu*. What does the word *machzik* mean? It should say whoever makes machlokes, whoever is involved with machlokes. Maybe that should have been the wording of the Gemara, of Chazal. Yet Chazal chose the word *machzik*, and the Chasam Sofer already points out the shaylah: what does the word *machzik* mean? What is the translation? Why did Chazal use the word *machzik* with machlokes?

B’ezras Hashem, I’d like to give a teretz to that kasha. Before that, I also would like to point out another problem. If there is a problem with machlokes, let the Torah write a mefurash lav: *lo sa’aseh machlokes*, not to make machlokes. Why do I need a text example? Not to be like Kerech. Talk in general: don’t make machlokes. Every lav we give an example—don’t be like so-and-so, and don’t be like so-and-so, and don’t be like so-and-so; don’t do the aveiros. Here too, it should have been: don’t make the aveirah of machlokes. Why is it taught, and why is the lav given, through an example of Kerech?

# Who Was Kerech?

To answer this question, rabosai, and the previous one as well—why does it say the word *machzik* with machlokes, what does it mean—I think we have to first clarify who Kerech was. Then we have to clarify what Kerech wanted. Only then can we better understand why we use Kerech as the example, and what Chazal meant by being *machzik* with machlokes.

Kerech, it seems, is presented in two schools of thought in how to record him in history. A lot of Chassidic literature talks about Kerech in glowing terms. Kerech was great. Chazal already said Kerech should be Kerech. Kerech was a *pikei’ach*.

Now, *pikei’ach* can have many meanings. *Pikei’ach* could mean that he was street smart; *pikei’ach*, he was very sharp and shrewd. And Chazal were asking: Kerech, *pikei’ach*? *Marcha l’shuta zeh*? How come he wasn’t smart enough to avoid his demise? What he put himself into ended up with his demise; it brought him to destruction. Why was he not wise enough?

# The Meaning of *Pikeyach*

On a street-smart level, so to speak, why was he not wise enough in a practical sense not to put himself in a situation where he sacrificed everything — himself, his family, and everyone else — for what?

Or we can say that the word *pikeyach* has a deeper meaning, more than simply being street-smart. *Pikeyach* means a *chashivus*, a *milah*, a *ruchniyus*. *Pikeyach* means that he was a *chacham*.

It is told over — I heard this from Isaiah many times — that the Chofetz Chaim, when he wanted to praise a person, would not say that the person is a *tzadik*. He would say, “a *klug yid*.” *Klug* means wise, a wise Jew. In order to fight the *yetzer hara*, the Chaim haLevi speaks about the importance of wisdom, of outsmarting the *yetzer hara*. Wisdom is a tremendous *milah*, perhaps one of the ultimate *milos*: to be a wise yid, a *klug yid*.

In the Haggadah shel Pesach, in contrast to the *rasha*, we have the *chacham*. It does not say the *tzadik*. It says the *chacham*: *echad chacham v’echad rasha*. Why doesn’t it say *echad tzadik*? The ba’alei mussar explained that perhaps even more than being a *tzadik*, it is a greater *milah* to be a *chacham*, to be wise, because wisdom is the basis, the foundation of how to combat the *yetzer hara*.

Even a *talmid chacham* — a person who knows how to learn — is called a *talmid chacham*. Yiddishkeit, *Yadus*, places great emphasis on wisdom. Wisdom is very important.

So we could say that *Korach she-pikayach hayah* does not mean only that he was shrewd, as they would say in the streets, street-smart. Rather, *pikeyach* may mean — and probably does mean — that he was a tremendous *chacham*, a *talmid chacham*.

# Korach’s Greatness and His Mistake

If you look at the *Chidushei HaRim*, he enumerates the great *milos* and *gadlus* of Korach. Chazal tell us that he was *ba’al ruach hakodesh*. Chazal tell us that he was able to see into the future, into the generations. And that itself is what caused him to make the mistake. So if he was *ba’al ruach hakodesh* and a *chacham*, he must have been a very big person, a great giant. Yet he made a mistake.

First, we have to see his greatness, and we have to identify the person and, *l’ma’aseh*, understand his mistake.

It is brought down in the Zohar, and the Arizal speaks about it, that the pasuk *tzaddik katamar yifrach, k’erez baLevanon yisgeh* — the final letters are Korach, because Korach is a *tzaddik* who will eventually, in the future, *tzaddik katamar yifrach*, sprout. True, now he went into destruction with the *timtum*; he went to Gehinnom. But eventually, *l’asid lavo*, he will return and sprout: *tzaddik katamar yifrach*. Obviously, he must be a *tzaddik*, because if he were not a *tzaddik*, the pasuk could not be referring to him.

If you look at the Ramban, the Ramban tells us that Moshe Rabbeinu was involved somewhat with Korach, trying to convince him. He falls on his face. Aharon is a no-show in the whole story. If you look at the entire story, Aharon does not exist. Says the Ramban: where is Aharon? Where is he? No mention of Aharon HaKohen.

So the Ramban, the mussar, the kedushas haTorah, in the mussar, which is the ethics...

# Aharon’s Silence and the Standing of Korach

The heilekeit, the kedushah of Aharon: “kemachrish hu modeh” means that he keeps quiet, as if to admit that Korach was greater than him. When they came to Aharon and began complaining, Aharon said: I will keep quiet. Maybe Korach is greater than me; I do not know. Maybe I have to admit that Korach might be greater than me. Hashem sent me, so that is why I did it, but I am not going to speak about it.

If Korach was not so great, does Aharon not look somewhat facetious by trying to make Korach seem גדול, maybe even greater than himself? When someone is a gadol hador, he does not turn to an ordinary person and say, “Ah, you are bigger than me. No, no, I will keep quiet. Maybe you are bigger than me.” That would be foolish. It would be fake anavah, fake humility, disingenuous humility.

The fact that Aharon even enters into this mode of presenting Korach as possibly greater than him must speak volumes about Korach, that he was close, that it was possible he was greater, or at least equal to Aharon. Otherwise, it is a foolish thing. An eighty-year-old zaken does not turn to a child and say, “No, no, maybe you are bigger than me.” You live. So obviously the merchak, the distance, between Korach and Aharon was not that great, since Aharon was able to play the game, so to speak, and present that Korach might even be greater than him.

# Korach in the Tradition of the Levi’im

See the shirei biz. There are many Levi’im who could trace their lineage all the way back to Korach, and those rebbeim used to say, my grandfather told me that in Europe those rebbeim would say, “the holy grandfather Korach.” Korach was considered a gadol by many, a giant, a holy tzaddik by many.

He writes that he was a fourth gilgul, as the Yisra Moishe. It was the fourth time he was here in this world, so writes the Yisra Moishe in his hakdamah. The first time he was from the Yetziyas Mitzrayim. He left Egypt; his neshamah was from the Yetziyas Mitzrayim, and he was present at the machlokes of Korach against Moshe.

Yitav Leib, his grandchild, asked him: Zayde, so then whose side were you on? Were you with Korach or were you with Moshe? In that hakdamah of Yisra Moishe it is written that he answered him: I was on neither side. Korach only took with him the giants of the generation; that is the people who followed him. I was not even in that league, not even part of the machlokes. That is how complicated, and that is how great, were the opponents in this machlokes. Korach did not speak to simple people. Korach took with him the gedolim; the elite, the giants, followed him. And he, says Yisra Moishe, in his first gilgul, was not even close to being part of it. He had no sheichus to be part of it.

The Satmar Rebbe, who is a grandchild of all these people, in his sefer quotes a slightly different answer of the Yisra Moishe. He says that the Yisra Moishe answered his grandchild, the Yitav Leib, that the reason you asked me on whose side I would have been...

# Korach: Greatness and Rejection

It is because you did not know who Korach was. Had you known who Korach was and realized who he was, you would not have any questions. You would know yourself whom I followed, which of course means I would have followed Korach. Had you understood how great Korach was, had you had any inkling of the greatness of Korach, you would not be asking me whether I followed Korach, because of course I would follow Korach. So great was Korach.

In opposition to all this, the Brisker Rav was very vehemently opposed to speaking of Korach in glowing terms. He would say that Korach was an apikores, and Korach has no right to be glorified. There are two stories that are told.

## The Arizal and the Brisker Rav’s objection

One is that a rebbe in cheder taught this from the Arizal, that "Tzaddik katamar yifrach" refers to Korach. When the Brisker Rav heard it, he was very upset. He said that is not what should be taught in yeshiva. A child in yeshiva should be taught Chumash, and in Chumash it says that he was a rosha, a kofer against Torah shebiksav and Torah shebe'al peh.

The Brisker Rav had a very famous mahalach. Korach was an apikores on two of the Yud-Gimmel Ikkarim. First, he was kofer in Nevuas Moshe. Later, he was kofer in Torah min HaShamayim. When Chazal say, "Tzaddik katamar yifrach," and that he rose up, and "Torah min HaShamayim," that is why when he was swallowed up, his children survived. Chazal say that they jumped up and down and would say, "Moshe emes v'Toraso emes." And of course we use this on Simchas Torah when we dance. We use the words, the phrase of the Bnei Korach: "Moshe emes v'Toraso emes."

Why did they say both, "Moshe emes v'Toraso emes"? Says the Brisker Rav: because they were kofer in Moshe emes, meaning they said Moshe is not the navi, Moshe was not sent by the Ribbono shel Olam, chosen to be the navi, the gadol, and the manhig. And they were also kofer in Torah shebiksav and Torah shebe'al peh. So, "Moshe emes v'Toraso emes." The Brisker Rav held that one must deal with Korach and refer to Korach in such a light, that he was a kofer. He was a kofer in Nevuas Moshe and in Torah, Torah min HaShamayim.

## A second story about the Brisker Rav

There is another story with the Brisker Rav. Rav Schlesinger brings it from the one from Bnei Brak, the Chayin HaLavrach, who was just lifted recently, in his sefer Mishmar HaLevi'im. He brings that he heard from his uncle, Reb Zev Tchetshik, who was a tremendous close disciple, a talmid of the Brisker Rav. He says that Reb Zev Tchetshik told him that the Brisker Rav once came between Mincha and Maariv to a shul where the rav was giving a drashah and the rav was speaking about how great Korach was. He was building up Korach, that Korach was this and that he was a tzaddik. The Brisker Rav heard this by the door; he was waiting and listening by the door, and he started to bang on the door, screaming, "Nein, nein, nein, it's not true! Korach was a kofer, Korach was a heretic, kofer, kofer, kofer. He was not what you make him into, this big tzaddik."

## Two ways of understanding Korach

So there are two schools of thought: either he was a tremendous tzaddik, or he was a kofer. And באמת, it might not be such a big machlokes between the two. He began as being a tremendous tzaddik, and in potential he could have been a tremendous tzaddik, but he went off. He made a big mistake, and that is what Chazal are telling us. Korach was a pikeach; he had tremendous pikechus and was talking about Ruach HaKodesh, but obviously he made a very, very, very wrong turn somewhere. And that is the makeup of Korach: great, yet he did a foolish thing by taking a wrong turn. And the wrong turn, of course, Chazal tell us, was that he was the scoundrel.

# Korach and the Root of Machlokes

Because of El Tsafon he became jealous, and jealousy, Chazal tell us, is one of the things that takes a person out of the world.

So I would like to discuss what exactly the machlokes of Korach was. We have now come to understand that Korach was a giant who took a very deep fall until he became a kofer, and it was rooted in kinah. I believe Rabbi Seyed Epshad is that when something is rooted in kinah, it is blinding. Kinah, jealousy, cannot be explained and cannot be appeased. No matter what you say, and no matter what you do, if a person has kinah, he is going to make machlokes.

Thus, the machlokes of Korach was machlokes for the sake of machlokes. Some people make machlokes because they are hurt. Some people make machlokes because they feel they have a just cause. That was not the machlokes of Korach. Korach was not about being insulted or hurt, nor was it about a just cause. Rather, it was the quintessential machlokes, machlokes in order to make machlokes, machlokes l’shem machlokes.

Chazal tell us that there is a machlokes l’shem Shamayim, like Hillel and Shammai in the Mishnah. Then there is such a thing as machlokes l’shem machlokes. That is Korach. Korach makes machlokes because of machlokes, and that is the pshat, rabboisai, in the Gemara.

# Machzik B’machlokes

The Gemara tells us that if someone is machzik b’machlokes, what does the word machzik mean? He holds on to the machlokes. He continues the machlokes. Even after you appease him, even after you go out of your way and try to fix it, he still makes machlokes. That is called machlokes for the sake of machlokes.

If something is bothering you, the other side will try to fix it and try to appease you, yet you do not give in. You are machzik in the machlokes. You continue it, you keep it going. Why? Because you like machlokes. That is the issur of machzik, and that is why we have, “Lo sihiyeh ki Korach v’adaso.”

If the Torah would simply write, do not make machlokes, there are many types of machlokes. Machlokes can mean any time I argue with somebody, that is machlokes. No. Korach was the classic example of machlokes because the person was about machlokes.

# The Difference Between Ma’aseh and Gavra

There is such a thing as a machlokes in ma’aseh, and then there is such a thing as a machlokes in gavra. The ma’aseh is a ma’aseh machlokes, but it still does not reach the level of “Lo sihiyeh ki Korach v’adaso.” Notice that we do not speak about what he did, but who you are going to be like. Not the cheftza, but the gavra. The gavra is “Lo sihiyeh ki Korach v’adaso.” Do not be a baal machlokes.

This is not merely not to make machlokes, but rather not to be a baal machlokes. What is a baal machlokes? A baal machlokes means that you like to make machlokes because that is what you want to do, and that is who you are. You are all about machlokes. This is what keeps you going.

Just like a person owns a house, he is a baal habayis and gets his happiness from the house, a baal machlokes has machlokes. He owns machlokes in a way that it brings him happiness, so to speak. Of course he walks around unhappy, but it is an enjoyment for him because he is searching for the machlokes.

# The Nature of Machlokes

The machlokes is the tafkid. It is not a means of getting something. That is the biggest ra’ayah.

You see, Moshe Rabbeinu speaks to Dasan and Aviram and tries to appease them. He talks to them and talks to them, and that is already at the beginning. He is trying to reason with them, because maybe they were hurt, maybe they needed appeasement. So he appeases them. I appease you. Why am I appeasing you? Because maybe the machlokes is a machlokes about something that is bothering you. That is why you are causing the machlokes.

Then the halachah is not to be mekatzeh the machlokes, but that the other side should try to appease, should try to appease.

# A Story About the Zayde

Gavriel Ginzburg, zichrono livrachah, used to be a rav here in Queens. Later he became a rosh yeshivah in Ner Yisroel, Toronto. I am sorry — Ner Yisroel is the Baltimore yeshivah, but it is in Toronto, the Ner Yisroel of Toronto. So I called him, because I knew he was very close to my zayde when he was living here in Queens. He was a neighbor. I asked him, tell me about my zayde. Give me some stories.

Among other things, he told me: with your zayde, you could not fight. It was not possible to make machlokes with your zayde. Why? Because even if you did something wrong to him, he would make you feel that not that you did to him, but that he did to you. He would make you feel that you were hurt. “What are you fighting with me for? No, but maybe you are right. Maybe I am sorry.” He would apologize for what you thought he had done to you, and that is why you were fighting with him. He would make it sound as though I did more to you than you did to me, and I apologize.

That is called trying to appease.

# Moshe Rabbeinu and Korach

That is what Moshe Rabbeinu tried to do with Korach. He tried to appease them. He tried to talk to them. He tried to reason with them. He tried to make them feel good, to elevate them. He tried to be machshiv them. He calls Dasan and Aviram — you know the kavod, the honor, when the gadol hador calls you and comes to you. Moshe comes to Dasan and Aviram. You know the kavod, the honor, the goodwill and feeling one should have when that happens. You should have been mevatel whatever was bothering you. You should have wiped it clean.

No. What do they answer? The opposite — more belligerent and more disrespectful: “Even if you poke out our eyes, we will not go up.”

The Chafetz Chaim points out that you see their willingness to make machlokes. Even if it means they are losing, even if they are going to be pained by losing their eyes, mutilation — they are willing to mutilate themselves to see it through to the end, to the last point, to the last nekudah, not to give in. Who talks like that? Who would even say such a thing, never mind mean it?

The answer is: when you are determined to make machlokes to the end, that is what the end is about — machlokes. That is why the Torah tells us it did not help. No matter what Moshe Rabbeinu did, he did not achieve any appeasement.

# The Kli Yakar on Their Words

There is a beautiful Kli Yakar. The Kli Yakar asks: why do they speak about their eyes? Let them speak about their hands. If you cut off my hands, cut off my feet — why the eyes? The Kli Yakar says: eyes are about seeing. Shochad blinds the eyes. So they are telling Moshe Rabbeinu: even if you are going to poke out our eyes, meaning you will try to be meshachad us, you will try to bribe us by giving us respect and listening to what we have to say...

# Machlokes for Its Own Sake

You’re going to try to appease us, and with that you think you’re a mishachid. You think you want us over. But it won’t work. Even if you do it, we’ll still complain. Why? Because it has nothing to do with how you’re treating us. It’s because we want to make machlokes.

I saw that the Sfas Emes points out: why is it that the 250 men who went with Korach have no mention of their names, while Dasan and Aviram are named? The truth is, Dasan and Aviram were famous characters. They had a long rap sheet, as they say. If you went into the files of Moshe Rabbeinu, you would find a tremendous rap sheet of offenses on Dasan and Aviram.

But the Sfas Emes gives a different pshat. He says Dasan and Aviram are mentioned because the 250 men had a reason to come. Something was being told to them, convincing them that there was something wrong. I would have said it a little differently: the 250 men were mushpa by big people. Korach was, as we spoke, a tremendous role model, a tremendous daas Torah, so to speak. So the 250 men followed. I would have used those words. The Sfas Emes says that they had reasons, they had gripes in their minds. Whether legitimate or not legitimate is not the issue, but they had something. Therefore they are not mentioned, because they are not the real ba’alei machlokes.

Dasan and Aviram had nothing. Dasan and Aviram were just there to rabble-rouse. They were there for machlokes, like we spoke, for the sake of machlokes. So when we mention machlokes for the sake of machlokes, we mention Dasan and Aviram. They get singled out. The 250 men, whatever it was, and the way I explain it, they were convinced. They were the sheeple that, unfortunately, Korach used to sell them a bill of goods.

Dasan and Aviram were there for the sake of, yes, there’s a fight. There’s a fight to be had. We’re part of it. We love to fight. This is what we do well, you know. This is our occupation. If we gave out cards with occupations, it would say, Dasan and Aviram, attorneys at law. No, I’m just kidding. They’re not attorneys at law.

So, look, what I meant to say is: ba’alei machlokes are people who love to fight. Forgive me, all lawyers; I don’t mean that in a bad way. I’m just trying to use the stereotype of the joke about the lawyer. Of course, I don’t mean lawyers who mean l’shem Shamayim, of course, who try to help people. Yiddish lawyers—we’re not referring to that type of lawyer.

Al kol panim, the pshat is that Dasan and Aviram, like Korach, the way we’re explaining Korach, were in it for the fight. They weren’t in it to get something they felt was really deserving to them. Kinah is about fighting. Kinah is blinding. Kinah is something you can’t explain away, because no matter what you do and no matter how you appease the person, he’s there to fight you.

Korach, Dasan, and Aviram were machlokes for the sake of machlokes. And this, rabosai, is called machzik for machlokes: he holds on to machlokes even after appeasement. And this is l’siach Korach v’adaso.

Now let’s discuss the blindness, or, let’s say the right word in English would be the ridicule of the situation, how bizarre it is. Korach goes and complains against Aharon HaKohen. What is the reason why Aharon HaKohen becomes the target? How did Aharon HaKohen in the first place become a target? If you take a look at Rashi, quoting Chazal, Aharon was like a trichotion.

# The Choshen and Aaron’s Merit

The Choshen, which carried the names of Bnei Yisrael, was given because of “ha’lev she’lo samach b’gadolah shel achiv” — the heart that was happy, that was not jealous of his brother Moshe and of the gedulah, the glory, and the position he received. For that, Aaron HaKohen merited to wear the Choshen.

Aaron HaKohen earned the Kehunah through his middos tovos, through his love for Klal Yisrael. Klal Yisrael has a house, and he wants the job, but if you have kinah, you cannot get the job. The whole job is based on not being a ba’al kinah. The criteria needed, the resume needed to get the job in the first place, is that you are not a ba’al kinah.

# “Mahu” and the Meaning of Selflessness

The pasuk says that Moshe tells Korach, “You want to fight? Fight with me.” The truth is that the word mahu needs to be explained, and the mefarshim already asked this. It should have said mihu, not mahu — who is he, not what is he. A person is a who; a person is not a what. Unfortunately, in today’s society, we talk to people and treat them like whats and not like hes. Everybody is a what, just like a chair; there is no difference between a chair and a person.

But of course, in language, it should be he — mi, not ma, but mi; mihu, who is he, that you are complaining about. So Rashi — or rather the mefarshim — explain that mahu means that there is no Aaron. Aaron is not existent, mahu, not mihu but mahu. Aaron does not exist.

A person, in order to be the Kohen Gadol, has to be mahu. He has to be such that he does not exist for himself, but rather lives for the other person. That is what Chazal and the Ramban mean.

# Aaron’s Kedushah and Korach’s Claim

Aaron here in the parashah gives a response. “Zos,” says the Ramban, “b’mesuro, u’bikdushaso.” Notice the word kedushaso. Kedushas Aharon was that he kept quiet, kemoideh, as if to be modeh that Korach is greater than him. Kedushas Aharon was selflessness. We have spoken about this in the past.

Korach says, “Ki kol ha’eidah kulam kedoshim, u’vsocham Hashem.” That is a tremendous thing to say about them: they are all kedoshim, kulam kedoshim. What does it mean, kulam kedoshim? Rashi says that they all heard at Har Sinai, “Anochi Hashem Elokecha,” and they heard it directly from Hashem, mi’pi haGevurah. Rashi says mi’pi haGevurah, that they heard it directly from Hashem.

The Ibn Ezra learns that it does not mean through Har Sinai, but from Har Sinai. Even from the time of Har Sinai, Klal Yisrael was kadosh. Rashi learns that “ki kol ha’eidah kulam kedoshim” refers to Har Sinai. The Ibn Ezra learns from the time of Har Sinai and onward, kulam kedoshim.

I found a picture of Rav Ezra, Korach memaleh, and it says there that from the time Klal Yisrael stood at Ma’amad Har Sinai, they were like malachei hashareis. “V’lo ra’ah ach echad mehem kerim yamav.” You hear what we are talking about? They were kulam kedoshim, “ki kol ha’eidah kulam kedoshim.”

The picture of the Ibn Ezra points out that whoever died, there were no rimah, no worms at all in their body. Kulam kedoshim. The Midrash tells us that when David HaMelech heard the statement of Korach, “ki kol ha’eidah kulam kedoshim,” he took out his nevel, his instrument, and began to play.

# Korach’s Error and the Meaning of Kedushah

And he began to praise HaKadosh Baruch Hu, HaRachaman, Hashem ki iddi lisani. It is a tremendous thing to say, *ki kol ha’eidah kulam kedoshim*. So where was Korach wrong?

The answer is something we have spoken about many times in the past, and it is found in the Kedushas Yom Tov. In the parashah of *Kedoshim tihyu*, it also says, *Ve’ahavta lerei’acha kamocha*. It is the same parashah, in Vayikra, parashas Kedoshim. Rebbe Akiva says, “This is a great principle in the Torah.” The Kedushas Yom Tov says that if this is a *klal gadol*, then whenever we say *klal gadol*, it implies that there is also a *klal katan*. If there is a *gadol*, there must be a *katan*.

What is the *klal katan*? If *Ve’ahavta lerei’acha kamocha* is the *klal gadol*, then what is the *klal katan*? The Kedushas Yom Tov says: *Kedoshim tihyu*. *Kedoshim tihyu* is the *klal katan*. Through *Kedoshim tihyu*, a person can reach *Ve’ahavta lerei’acha kamocha*, which is the *klal gadol*. Through *Kedoshim tihyu*, if a person sanctifies himself properly, he can be zocheh to kedushah, to *Ve’ahavta lerei’acha kamocha*.

Aharon HaKohen had the *klal gadol*. We have spoken many times that this is kedushas Yisrael. He had this *klal gadol*, which came from the *klal katan* of *Kedoshim tihyu*. Korach did not understand this. Korach said: Kedoshim, Klal Yisrael are *kulam kedoshim*; they have kedushah. What is kehunah? Kehunah is kedushah. But he did not understand what kedushah means—not the *klal katan* of kedushah, but the *klal gadol* of kedushah: *Ve’ahavta lerei’acha kamocha*, *ha’lei she’somach b’gadelus chaveiro*. That kedushah, that *klal gadol* that Aharon had, Korach did not understand was unique and special.

Aharon HaKohen—*ki chol ha’eidah kulam kedoshim*, kehunah—the answer is: you are right, but it has nothing to do with why Aharon is Kohen Gadol. Aharon is Kohen Gadol because of the *klal gadol* he had in Kedoshim: his love for Klal Yisrael, his kedushah. There is no Aharon; he does not exist for himself. It is all about the other person. It is about love of the other person, about chashivus and makshavah, about mesirus nefesh for another Jew. That is Aharon HaKohen, and that was his kedushah. That is what Korach did not understand.

Some of the nekudos I have spoken about I have seen in the Devarim Chayim, that he speaks this nekudah: Korach thought he was a giant, and that the giant within him gives him the rights to kehunah. But the truth is that it has nothing to do with how big you are in ruchniyus, in Torah. So I am just explaining: what does it have to do with? It has to do with how big you are in the *klal gadol* of the Torah, in *Ve’ahavta lerei’acha kamocha*, in your love for Klal Yisrael, as we will soon explain and show.

# A Dushes Levi on the Pasuk

There is an interesting Dushes Levi. The Dushes Levi says that in the pasuk it says, “Tomorrow, the Ribbono Shel Olam will choose the one He has chosen.” So the pasuk is actually repeating itself. It already said “the one You chose,” so what is the redundancy? There is a remarkable Dushes Levi that says...

# The Meaning of the Kehunah

It does not mean that the Kadosh is the one whom Rabbi Yehoshua chooses, and that Yaakov Ailov will bring to him. The Kadosh was Yaakov Ailov. The Kadosh, in truth, is Yaakov Ailov, who draws close to Hashem. That is the person whom Rabbi Yehoshua will show tomorrow as the one chosen for the Kehunah. It is not a repetition, that the Kadosh, Rabbi Yehoshua, will be makriv to him, and Esa sheyivcha Yaakov Ailov. Esa Kadosh, the one who was Kadosh, was makriv himself the entire time. That was the misunderstanding.

He thought he was chosen. He came with the Torah to my Rabbi: You took this and then you choose Aharon? You are choosing; why choose me? And the answer is that it is not about choosing, it is about being earned. You have to earn the Kehunah. Aharon earned it.

Esa Kadosh, the one who is revealed through his kedushah, became close to the Ribbono Shel Olam.

# Why a Kohen Does Not Say She’asani Kohen

Rabbi Tzadok HaKohen has a question: how come a Kohen does not make a berachah, “She’asani Kohen”? Just as in the morning we make a berachah, “Shelo asani eved,” and a woman makes a berachah, “Shelo asani kirtzono,” a Kohen should make a shevach, a berachah: “She’asani Kohen.” Hashem gives two terutzim to this kashya of Rabbi Tzadok HaKohen.

One is that we have to keep in mind that the Bechorim lost the Kehunah. So if you make a berachah that you got the Kehunah, you are actually being mekabel, thanking Hashem over someone else’s loss. The fact that the Bechorim lost it—so what are you thanking Hashem that you got it? That is not how you make a berachah. That is called miskabeid b’kilkul u’betakalas chaveiro. Do not make a berachah that the other fellow lost his money. That is not what you do. Therefore, you do not make a berachah that you became a Kohen because someone lost it.

A second teretz says the Sfas Emes is that when Moshiach comes, Chazal tell us the Bechorim will come back to do the Avodah. So it is not a berachah that is forever. He made me a Kohen, but when I do the Avodah, the Bechorim will do the Avodah also eventually.

# Kehunah Is Earned

According to everything we have just spoken, I think we can give a beautiful emes pshat, a real taich, why a Kohen does not make a berachah, “She’asani Kohen.” The answer is because it is not the Ribono Shel Olam who makes the Kohen. A Kohen is not chosen like a woman who is chosen by the Avodah and is made to be a woman. A Kohen becomes a Kohen. He earned it. Aharon, the Kohen, and his grandchildren after him earned the Kehunah. So you do not make a berachah, “She’asani.” Would you make a berachah, “She’asani talmid chacham”? Why should there be a talmid chacham? You earned it. You achieved it. Kehunah is something that has to be achieved.

And Korach did not understand that. He thought it was something that is given to the person. Given? I am great. Achieved? He did not understand that. Aharon achieved it through qualities which he did not understand, nor did he have these ma’alos. The kedushah of Aharon—that he was mevorach Hashem b’ahavah—that he did not have. That was unique to Aharon. And with this he earned the kedushah. That is why you do not make a berachah, “She’asani Kohen,” that He made me a Kohen.

# The Staffs of Aharon and Korach

I think, rabboisai, with this we can explain the part of the parashah that discusses the matter of Aharon. After we find there was a mageifah, and the Ribbono Shel Olam proved to everyone around that Aharon was the chosen one, and Korach was the ba’al machlokes, the kofer, he was on the wrong side of Torah. The Ribbono Shel Olam says everyone should put out their sticks, and Aharon’s stick overrode everyone else’s stick, that it was motzi perach. It gave out a flower, the flower budded, and from that came out shekedim and almondim.

# The Proof of Aharon’s Choice

And this was a proof that Aharon HaKohen was the chosen one. We all know it is brought down in Parashas Korach, in the words of Chazal, that we already received the clear message from what happened to Korach: Aharon was the chosen one, and Korach was fighting a dishonest battle, a battle of mistake. He made a tremendous mistake.

So why did the Ribbono Shel Olam have to go again and prove through the staff that Aharon is the chosen one? The answer is that from what happened to Korach, we could say that the people died, and whatever happened to Korach, that may have been because they went against Moshe. So we still do not yet know that Aharon is the right one. We know now not to challenge Moshe Rabbeinu. That we have already learned. But what about Aharon HaKohen? That is not yet proven from what happened to Korach. Therefore, as the Acharonim explain, a special siman on Aharon was needed.

# A Different Pshat: Why Aharon Was Chosen

I would have said a different pshat, based on a Kli Yakar. It is possible that the point was not to prove that Aharon was the chosen one, but to teach the people why Aharon was chosen. The matter of Aharon, that it was Moshe who struck the staff, was not to prove that he was the chosen one. The Acharonim learn that it is because you do not see it. Maybe Moshe Rabbeinu was the man. Korach was punished for going against Moshe, and now we need to prove Aharon. It is not merely to prove Aharon. We already know why Aharon. We know that Aharon was the chosen one. Now the Torah is teaching why Aharon, what is special about Aharon.

# Perach, Tzitz, and Shekeidim

And the answer is: *perach, vayetze tzitz, vayigmol shekeidim*. What is the pshat? *Perach* is a flower. A flower is always a siman, a resemblance to middos tovos. In Shir HaShirim, it says *sheishanim*. What are *sheishanim*? Flowers. Chazal tell us that talmidei chachamim, their actions are like *sheishanim*. *Sheishanim* is always an example of good middos. Notice that it begins with *perach*. It begins with a flower. It begins with the middos of Aharon. Those middos are budding. It is earned; it is not something that suddenly we chose, a staff of iron. It budded. It is budding.

You know that the kohanim, the young ones, are called *pirchei kehunah*. In fact, the Kli Yakar points this *perach* to the *pirchei kehunah*. He says that the word *perach* on the staff is connected to *pirchei kehunah*. Why are they called *pirchim*? Because they are budding. It begins from childhood: *perach*. Aharon was a *pirach* first. He was a flower in middos. And then *vayetze*, it sprouts *shekeidim*, which we will soon explain. But *vayetze tzitz*, says the Kli Yakar, *tzitz* is a siman that he wears, the *tzitz*. So it is not something that happens by choice, that we chose Aharon. Rather, Aharon blossomed into the Kohen Gadol from being a *perach*, a flower, a young budding flower with middos tovos.

The rest of the analogy can also be explained as follows. *Tzitz* is the *tzitz* of kedushah, so the middos of *perach* and the *tzitz* of kedushah come together. Why? Because of *shekeidim*. What does *shekeidim* have to do with anything? Some want to say that *shekeidim* is *tishkedes haTorah*. So the *perach* is the middos, the *tzitz* is the avodah, the kedushah, and *tishkeda*, which is an element that can also have a connotation of *tishkedes haTorah*, meaning learning. So Aharon had the whole sum total of tovah: chesed, *perach*, chesed, kedushah, avodah, and *tishkeda*, tovah. And that is why he was chosen.

The Kli Yakar learns that *shekeidim* is a synonym for *shakdan*, which means that a person is a *zariz*, quick on his feet. He is called a *shakdan*, diligence, *zerizus*. It says the Kli Yakar something like that.

# Aharon’s Zrizus and Kapara

Unique, so beautiful, really beautiful. Ma’ma Shkafta ve-Ferach, just in the words of the Chayaka. He says that if you notice, when the mageyfa was happening after Korach’s story, it says: what did Aharon do? “Vayoratz” — “be-soch ha-kahal.” Aharon ran between the people to be mechapper, to bring kapara, to hasten and stop the mageyfa, so that no one should die. That is the sh’keda. The Torah was being mefarsem Aharon’s mileh of sh’keda, zrizus, to be mechapper for Klal Yisrael. That is the sh’keda: the zrizus, “vayoratz be-soch ha-kahal.”

I believe Shatnik Chayakers as follows: with all Aharon’s miles, perach demidos, sits the kedushas Aharon. But if you want to know what the ultimate was of “vayoratz,” it was his love, his mesiras nefesh, to be mechapper for Klal Yisrael. And that is why he was a kohen. You find this by Pinchas as well. Pinchas also became a kohen. Why? “Tachas asher kineh le-Elokav, vayechaper al Bnei Yisrael.” He tried to stop the mageyfa. How did he try to stop the mageyfa? By being mesir nefesh.

The Gemara tells us that if Zimri would have killed Pinchas, he would have been okay; there would have been no problem whatsoever. It is clear in the Rishonim that Pinchas was in tremendous sakana. Even afterwards, they wanted to kill Pinchas. He put himself in tremendous danger, and he did it for one reason: “Tachas asher kineh le-Elokav, vayechaper al Bnei Yisrael” — for Klal Yisrael, to stop the mageyfa. When the mageyfa was stopped, the mageyfa stopped. This is kahuna. That is why Pinchas is a kohen; he becomes a kohen after this story.

So Korach was being taught a lesson. Korach and the people who followed him, and all those who were watching — the bystanders who could have been influenced by Korach — you do not know who Aharon HaKohen is. Aharon is a perach. Where does it sit? It is “vayoratz mitoch ha-kahal” — sh’keda, zrizus, to be mechapper for Klal Yisrael. It is possible. I was thinking that maybe that is where the whole idea of zrizus, the kohanim’s inyan, comes from. Where does it come from? The answer is: from “vayoratz Aharon.” Aharon ran. “Tzvi mechapra.” So it becomes the second nature of the kohen: zrizus. And the avodah in the Beis HaMikdash is to be zariz. Aharon instilled that the kapara for Klal Yisrael is done through zrizus.

# Why Machloikes Is So Severe

What is it about machloikes that is so, so bad? There is machloikes. What is wrong if a few people fight? What is the big deal? In bishlamah, if you come and fight against Moshe Rabbeinu, I hear. But that is not really what the pasuk is referring to. When the pasuk says not to be like Korach, it is not only if you fight against a gadol hador. No, it is if you fight about anything. So what is the big deal about machloikes? I always say over this vort: Rashi says about Korach, “parashah zu yafeh nidreshes.” This parashah is very well darshened in the Tanchuma, in the Midrash. What does he mean?

There is a vort that the velt says. When it comes to machloikes, it is “yafeh nidreshes.” Everybody loves to learn it up — all the politics and all the fighting. What is so bad about machloikes? What is so evil about it? Why do we frown so greatly on it? Ooh, machloikes, terrible. Ooh, machloikes — what is it?

The Maharal tells us that machloikes is like fire, the fire of Gehenna. On the second day, machloikes was created. Machloikes is ispalig; it is a division. So the root of machloikes is division, because division began: “Vayavdel Elokim bein ha’or uvein ha’choshech,” “bein hamayim la’mayim,” ispalig. If you notice, “vayikach Korach” — the Targum uses the same word, ispalig, division. So we now have an understanding that division, separation, is the root of the chisaron and the problem.

# Gehenem, Fire, and Machlokes

Now what does that have to do with Gehenem? Gehenem was also created on the second day, says the Maharal. So the eish of Gehenem and machlokes are one and the same. And with this he explains a tremendous thing.

Chazal tell us, and Rashi quotes it, that even though little children are not punished for ordinary matters, when it comes to machlokes, even a little child, a yanki shadayim, gets swallowed up into Gehenem, so to speak. Says the Maharal: why? You are not bar onish when you are a yanki shadayim.

I think the Maharal means as follows: it is like fire. If fire touches a child, you do not say the child is too young, so he should not burn. It is a physical reality. Eish, machlokes, is fire. And if it is fire, it makes no difference whether you are bar onish or not bar onish. If someone is run over by a car, it makes no difference whether he is bar onish or not; he is going to get hurt. Fire, machlokes, Gehenem — it is all the same thing. Therefore, even if you are a yanki shadayim, below the age of punishment, you can still get hurt by the fire.

# The Nature of Gehenem

What does Gehenem do? What is the connection between machlokes and Gehenem? What is it all about? Habayis, if you look in the sefarim, I believe the peshat is as follows.

Gehenem means that the person is now a neshamah. The guf is away from the neshamah, so he is now just a neshamah and needs to be attached to the Ribbono Shel Olam, which is the mekor of chiyus. The mekor of chiyus — that is what Gan Eden is. Tzadikim, geishim, Gehenem, yizim haShechinah — the connection to the Ribbono Shel Olam. So what is Gehenem? Gehenem is the ispalus, the division, that you are cut away from the Ribbono Shel Olam. That division, which divides the neshamah away, is eish haGehenem.

If you look at Rabbi Chaim Volozhiner, he explains that just like fire takes away oxygen — I think that is what Rabbi Chaim Volozhiner means — so too the neshamah needs oxygen in a ruchnistic way. So aveiros choke the neshamah, says Rabbi Chaim Volozhiner. What does he mean? I think it means as follows: the aveirah is mavdil, it separates the neshamah from the Ribbono Shel Olam, which is its oxygen. So just like fire suffocates without oxygen, the aveiros make the neshamah suffocate, and it suffers. That is the tzaar of Gehenem. That is the way I understood the peshat in Rabbi Chaim Volozhiner: the aveiros are timtum halev, and they suffocate the neshamah, because of the havdalah, the separation, from the Ribbono Shel Olam, which is the mekor of its oxygen, of its memele, memele.

# Machlokes and the Shechinah

Machlokes, I believe, does the same thing as Gehenem. The Ribbono Shel Olam is mashreh Shechinah on Klal Yisrael. When there is pirud, the Ribbono Shel Olam separates Himself. The Mishkan, the Mikdash, was a classic example of a place where the Shechinah rested, and there we find an element of tremendous achdus, tremendous achdus. Chazal tell us that in the Beis HaMikdash they would stand together, very much pressed together, and then bow down. That was one of the nisim, one of the miracles.

The Kotzker Rebbe asks: what do you need the oimdim tzefufim for? If you want to make a miracle, make everybody stand comfortably. Ravachim, just as they bow with ravachim, they should be oimdim tzefufim. They should stand — if you want comfort, if you want to give them room, give them room already when they stand.

So the Kotzker Rebbe’s famous teretz was: we do not want them running around during davening in the Beis HaMikdash. There was a time and a place where people would run around during davening, you know. If you give them too much room...

# Achdus on Yom Tov and in the Beis HaMikdash

They’ll run around in the Beis HaMikdash during the avodah. In peshat, I would have said that there was an inyan to be in the Beis HaMikdash on Yom Tov. Klal Yisrael needs to stand as one, together.

As a matter of fact, the Gemara says that when there is ahavah, there is no such thing as tzarah. The Gemara says that you can live on two ends of a sword, on the two sharp ends of a sword, which are so close together that there is no room. But when there is ahavah, it is not a problem. When there is no ahavah, no matter how big the room is, when there is ahavah you can live in one room and be happy, and when there is no ahavah you can live in a mansion and still not be happy, and still not be able to live with each other.

This is on Yom Tov, to show the ahavah, to show the achdus. B’vo kol Yisrael, kol Yisrael, kol Yisrael, erech Yisrael, p’nei Hashem. When all of Klal Yisrael, the inyan of oleh regel was that Klal Yisrael came as a unit. There was an inyan of achdus. Why? Because hashras haShechinah needs it. It needs it, it needs it.

You notice by Matan Torah also, there was an inyan for Yisrael to unite in one unit. Why? Because Matan Torah was a bris with HaKadosh Baruch Hu. Like we say, bris, yachad. What does yachad mean? Together. The Ribbono Shel Olam and Klal Yisrael. So whenever the Ribbono Shel Olam and Klal Yisrael have to come together as one unit, it needs yachad, that Klal Yisrael should be together.

# Shabbos, Bris, and Machlokes

If you notice, the Midrash says, the Zohar brings down, that Korach went against Shabbos. The war of Korach, the machlokes of Korach, was a kampf against Shabbos. They all talk about it. What does it mean that it was a fight against Shabbos? Many learn that Shabbos is a talmid chacham, Moshe Rabbeinu is called Shabbos. We’ve spoken about it in the past. I believe there is another title here as well.

Shabbos is about achdus, because it is a bris with HaKadosh Baruch Hu, one of the brisos. And like we said by Matan Torah, when there is a bris, it needs yachad. Here too, it needs yachad. Shabbos needs yachad. If you take a look, we say it in the tefillah: Shabbos needs yachad. That is why, if you look in the Zohar, it is brought down that it is referring to machlokes, asher of the machlokes. Peshat is that machlokes is detrimental to the holy site of Shabbos, which is a bris between Klal Yisrael and HaKadosh Baruch Hu, and it is necessary that there should be achdus.

If you take a look, we have spoken many times that the yetzer hara, when he knows that it is a time that is mesugal, important for a certain madreigah ruchniyus, he always attacks that madreigah. It is brought down in the Mishnah Berurah and in the poskim, erev Shabbos, that the yetzer hara loves to make fighting in the house. Why? Because it is yesod, because Shabbos is based on the bris with HaKadosh Baruch Hu, which requires that there should be achdus.

I believe, rabosai, that is the peshat, and that is why the yetzer hara, of course, comes and then does his work, so to speak, to stop the achdus on Shabbos. I believe, rabosai, that is the peshat in the Gemara on Shabbos, where the Gemara says that the malachim accompany a person to the house. If they come and see that there is peace in the house, shalom in the house, they give a bracha that it should be this way next Shabbos also. But if they come and see that there is no peace in the house, they give a bracha that it should be that way.

Why is peace in the house so important? Shalom, it is about shalom, Shabbos, shalom. The emphasis in the teretz is that in the beginning of Shabbos, the time is a time of shalom, of peace. It is very, very crucial to the metzius of Shabbos that there should be shalom. So the malachim are coming and they are measuring. They are measuring.

# Shabbos, Shalom Bayis, and the Yesod of Shabbos

They are being meyadeid the middah of shalom in the house, because that is where Shabbos is based. That is what Shabbos draws its nourishment from: the shalom in the house.

If you notice, we light candles on Friday night. The Gemara calls it shalom bayis. The idea of the candles is called shalom bayis. Shalom bayis, this concept, is unique to Shabbos. It is crucial to Shabbos: the idea of shalom bayis and the neiros, which resemble Shabbos. Hablachus neir shalom Shabbos is to teach a person how important the idea of shalom is on Shabbos, because, as we said, shalom is the yesod of Shabbos.

I always feel bothered by “Good Shabbos.” It is not a bad thing to give a person a good Shabbos. But what is wrong with “Shabbos Shalom,” which is really the yesod of Shabbos? Shalom—that is the whole idea of Shabbos, that there should be shalom. On Yom Kippur, if you cannot say Shabbos Shalom, at least you can say Good Shabbos. It is also good. The point is that Shabbos is about shalom.

# Korach, Machlokes, and Separation

Korach is against shalom, and therefore it is yispalig; he fights against the union of Shabbos. Now I understand how crucial machlokes is. What is machlokes? Machlokes means division. Machlokes means to separate. Machlokes is to separate the Yid from the Rabbeinu Shalom. Separate the Yid from the Rabbeinu Shalom.

It is possible that the machlokes of Korach began with machlokes and ended with kefirah. Because, like I told you, the emunah, which is Shabbos, the bris, which is also the bris of Shabbos, is based on the kiruv. So Korach, who separates the levavos, eventually becomes a kofeir in the Rabbeinu Shalom as well. Shalom in Klal Yisrael is the basis of emunah in the Rabbeinu Shalom.

That is the pshat in what we have said many times: Ani Hashem. How do you reach Ani Hashem? Korach went against ve’ahavta lere’acha kamocha, the klal gadol, thinking that he has kedushah in his mouth. He forgot that ve’ahavta lere’acha kamocha leads to Ani Hashem, and eventually he falls into Ani Hashem. This is the parashah of Korach.

# Machlokes Is Like Fire

A person has to remember: it is the eish of Gehinnom, like fire of Gehinnom. I always say, and I heard from others as well, the same type of story: when Rav Naftali Tzvi Berlin was niftar, there was machlokes in the yeshiva of Radin over who would be the next Rosh Yeshiva. Rabbi Zalman Meltzer came to Radin. He was passing by and gave a shiur in the yeshiva, and everybody loved his shiur. The bachurim, like today, became tumblers; they decided that they wanted to ask the Chafetz Chaim that Rabbi Zalman Meltzer should be the Rosh Yeshiva.

They made a petition with 125 signatures and sent my seider, Shmuel Walkin, into the Chafetz Chaim to show him the petition that Rabbi Zalman Meltzer should be the next Rosh Yeshiva. He did not say anything to the Chafetz Chaim. He looked at it and said, “Ruft mir Rabbi Zalman Meltzer. Call me Rabbi Zalman Meltzer.” Rabbi Zalman Meltzer came in, and he said to him four words: “Machlokes, fire, fire, and cleft.” That is all he had to hear. Rabbi Zalman Meltzer turned around and took the next train out of Radin.

The Chafetz Chaim was telling him that machlokes is not only fire because it is catchy, which is also true, but essentially, like the Maharal is saying, it is eish Gehinnom—fire, fire, and cleft. And just like a person has to run away from fire, a person has to run away from machlokes. It is the same thing. A person is not going to say, “I will stand next to a burning building. I will not go into the building. I will be fine.” You are not what you are. You are going to get caught. It is very dangerous to be next to a burning building. You run as far as you can, as far as you can get away. This is machlokes, and that is what machlokes is.

# Machlokes and the Need for Achdus

If it is l’shem Shamayim, for proper reasons, good reasons, all right, one can deal with that. But when it is machlokes for the sake of machlokes, that is k’kei ha-vadassai, and that brings churban to the world. It brings kilui, the eshet, the Gehenim.

We have to learn the lessons and live b’kiruv ha-levavos without pirud, without machlokes. Then we will be zocheh to the Binyan Beis HaMikdash, because the Beis HaMikdash needs achdus and shalom, and chal yishon. She’bezeh, b’meir b’meheirah, the Binyan Beis HaMikdash.