Korach

The sin of Korach and his followers seems to be their rebellion against the authority of Moshe Rabbeinu and the position of Aharon HaKohen. In parshas Beha'aloscha the Torah informs us of the appointment of the seventy Elders. The Elders are asked to join Moshe Rabbeinu in the Ohel Moed where Hashem, through Moshe, will bestow the Shechinah upon them. Eldad and Meidad are designated to be part of this group of seventy. Yet, they choose to remain in the camp and not join Moshe and the other Elders in the Ohel Moed. This, too, seems like a blatant rebellion against Moshe's command and authority. Yet they are not severely chastised for their actions as was Korach. In fact, Moshe defends their actions against the prosecution of Yehoshua. What is so different about the seemingly rebellious actions of Eldad and Meidad and those of Korach?

Second: the haftarah speaks of the annointment of the first king of Israel - Shaul Hamelech - by Shmuel Hanavi. What is the connection between the parsha and the Haftarah?

Third: the haftarah tells us that Shmuel was not pleased with the request of Bnei Yisrael for a king to lead them. Displaying his displeasure, Shmuel vows to bring a sign from Heaven proving he is right. Shmuel states hisyatzvu u'reu - stand and see. After witnessing the extraordinary sign that Shmuel brings, the verse states vayiru kol ha'am m'od es Hashem v'es Shmuel - the people feared Hashem and Shmuel. These phrases are very similar to those stated at the splitting of the sea. There, Moshe tells Bnei Yisrael hisyatzvu u'reu es yeshuas Hashem - stand and witness the salvation brought by Hashem. Similarly, after the splitting of the sea the verse tells us vayiru ha'am es Hashem vaya'aminu Bashem u'v'Moshe avdo - the people feared Hashem and believed in Hashem and his servant Moshe. What is the connection between the episode of the splitting of the sea and that of the anointment of Shaul as king?
The concept of always questioning and seeking greater understanding is an inherent quality of the Jewish people, essential for our existence and growth. Yahadus encourages questions and salutes inquiry as a tool for personal growth. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that questions are to be utilized to better understand the depths of an idea or practice, to learn the meaning behind something and thereby improve and enhance one's avodas Hashem. Questions are not to be used as a method of undermining authority, disparaging one's motives, or as personal affronts to individuals. Questioning authority for its sake, questioning leadership as a personal crusade is unacceptable. Respect for the Torah and Rabbinic authority is of paramount importance and a foundational element in Judaism.

Eldad and Meidad did not question Moshe Rabbeinu or his authority. They did not question a halacha nor the request and command of Moshe Rabbeinu. They simply questioned the need for others to help in the leadership role of the people alongside Moshe Rabbeinu, fully confident that Moshe could lead Bnei Yisrael without any help. Korach, on the other hand, questioned Moshe's authority. Korach did not question the concept behind a decision or halacha. (In fact, in the initial stages of the conversation, Moshe was not angry at Korach, assuming he was merely questioning for the sake of learning and furthering his avodas Hashem. It is only after Korach goes from tent to tent garnering support that Moshe's anger is kindled, realizing that Korach's motives were merely to stir controversy and rebellion.)

While standing at the sea, Bnei Yisrael see the impassable sea in front of them, the powerful Egyptian army behind them and the impenetrable desert on either side. Panic sets in. Chazal tell us that they broke into various factions; some wanted to cross the sea, others wanted to return to Egypt, etc. None of these were acts of rebellion. They were simply debating the appropriate course of action to be taken under the circumstances.

The haftarah contrasts the request of a king with the rebellion of Korach. The initial request for a king is met with anger by Shmuel as it is seen as an act of rebellion against Hashem and existing authority. However, even after the remorse of the people is expressed, the decision to proceed with a new royal governmental structure is not overturned. Why not? If it is, indeed, a regretful act of rebellion, then why proceed?

Early in the episode described in the haftarah, Shmuel asks the people to affirm that he has never harmed anyone. Shmuel does so out of concern that the request for a king is actually a rebellion against authority and, ultimately, Hashem. Once the people affirm Shmuel's righteousness, Shmuel realizes that this is actually not an act of rebellion. Bnei Yisrael are merely searching for the optimal system of government. Their experience causes them to question the system of Judges and, therefore, recommend a government headed by a king. This is similar to the debate that occurred at the Sea, when Bnei Yisrael did not rebel with their varying factions but were merely debating the most appropriate course of action. The linguistic similarities presented in the haftarah to Krias Yam Suf further emphasize the contrast between the rebellious act of Korach and the episode of requesting a king. The former describes the rebellious questioning of individuals, authority, and leadership while the latter describes the questioning nature of the Jewish people in their constant striving towards self improvement.

Inquiring, questioning properly and appropriately, are essential ingredients for personal and communal growth. Judaism encourages this with an appropriate realization of halachic, Rabbinic and, of course, Divine authority. Korach's questions were rebellious at their core. Acts of that nature need to be eliminated from a functioning society. However, questioning to improve with the appropriate deference to authority leads to a refined individual and a refined community.