NUM220 The tenth level is the severity of sins whose transgressors have no share in the World to Come. All of Hashem's creations were created to bring Him glory, as the pasuk says (Yeshayahu 43:7), "All who are called by My Name and whom I created for a My glory--I formed, even made [them]." Surely, reason dictates that one who desecrates [the Name of] Hashem and disparages His word has lost all hope [for his future]. Not only has he not fulfilled what is required of him from the beginning of his formation – to honor His Name and sanctify it – – but he has actively replaced it with the opposite and desecrated His Holy Name. The pasuk puts it as follows [this and next verse]: "The person who acts brazenly… He has shown his contempt for Hashem, and that person will be cut off from among his people, for he has disparaged Hashem's word and annulled His commandments; that person will be completely cut off, his sin will remain with him." This means that [even] after the person is cut off, "his sin will remain with him"--for death will not bring him atonement and he has no share in the World to Come. That is why here the pasuk says "his sin will remain with him," which is not mentioned regarding any other prohibition whose penalty is excision. The meaning of "the person who acts brazenly" is, for example, one who commits known sins in full public view, and one who divests himself of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, even when in private, for such a person is also acting brazenly. The matter of divesting the yoke of Heaven, concerns, for example, one who denies [the injunction against] eating meat that was not ritually slaughtered, or that of eating [forbidden] animal fats and blood, or the desecration of Yom Tov. Although he is not violating any of the other mitzvos, once he has divested himself of the yoke of one injunction, he has already rebelled against the Almighty. It is true that sometimes even the righteous succumb to a particular sin, but this is entirely the result of chance circumstances, as a result of one's yetzer prevailing over him, and he fills himself with self-acrimony, subsequently becoming very careful in this regard. But one who considers divesting himself of the yoke of any one injunction [with the intent of] transgressing it whenever he so desires is referred to as "an apostate regarding one matter." We have already explained this in the First Gate of The Gates of Repentance.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM221 The Talmud includes many fractious disputes, in which virtually anything could be questioned, but there were some limits to this general picture of uninhibited debate. When the Sanhedrin existed, rabbis could challenge decisions in debate, even vigorously, but in practice they had to conform to the Sanhedrin’s majority ruling. (Compare, for example, M. Rosh Hashanah 2:8-9.) Furthermore, there were rules of propriety concerning how the debates themselves should be held with colleagues, and, all the more so, with teachers or parents. B. Kiddushin 29a-b, 40b; later codified in, for example, Arukh Hashulhan, Yoreh De’ah 240:12.) So, for example, rabbinic sources strive to differentiate the high level of dissent to which the Rabbis were accustomed and which they thought healthy from that of the biblical figure Korah, whose rebellion the Torah condemns. Korah’s dissent the Rabbis said, was not “for the sake of Heaven” but rather for his own power and love her victory, whereas the disputes of Hillel and Shammai were for the sake of Heaven -- that is, to identify God's will. Because that was the case, rabbinic disputes will continue for all time, but Korah’s dispute died with him. (Numbers 16:1-35). Thus disputants must argue for the right reasons while following the practice determined by the majority. These rules were enforced, for rabbinic literature speaks of Jews whose mode of dissent led the community to exclude them. These include the min (sectarian) and the apikoros (heretic). In view of the wide latitude of rabbinic debate, one can understand why there is considerable discussion in classical and contemporary literature about exactly what these people held or did that made their modes of dissent unacceptable. Rashi (1040-1105), for example, said that one feature of admissible debate is that “Neither side of the conflict cites an argument from that or of another god, but only from the Torah of our God.” (Rashi on B. Hagigah 3b, s.v. “kulan.”) In addition to such individuals, there have been groups that splintered off from the Jewish people. These include Christians, Hebrew Christians (who existed from the first through the fifth centuries), Karaites (from the eighth century to the present), and Sabbetaians (in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth). Thus, with all their commitment to pluralism, rabbis throughout the centuries have drawn some clear lines defining acceptable method and content.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM222 See [[NUM205]] Numbers 16:1 betook SINAI1 65-66

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM223 (Continued from [[LEV23]] Leviticus 2:6 break GATES 421-5). It is also possible to explain this pasuk [Leviticus 25:17] as follows: "Do not be a witness needlessly against your fellowman," to testify about him regarding transgressions that you yourself have fallen prey to, just as he has. For this reason he is referred to as his "fellowman." [I.e. his compatriot in sin]. This is borne out by what is subsequently says, "Do not say, 'As he has done to me I will do to him.'" [I.e., "Just as he revealed my sins, I will reveal his same sins" (Sha'arei Teshuvah Hameforash)]. Although it is a mitzvah to expose those who have sinned against their own souls [this verse] and charlatans, yet if the sinner's wickedness is comparable to his own and his sins are like the other [Job 35:8], he must not expose the sinner publicly, since his intention in exposing the sinner's secrets are not for the good, but to rejoice over another's misfortune. Secondly--how can one not be ashamed to refer to the other's faulty deeds, when he himself holds onto them! The pasuk says (Hosea 1:4), "I will avenge the blood of Yizre'el upon the house of Yehu" [Yehu was anointed king and charged by the prophet with destroying the house of Achav (II Melachim 9:6-9), which he did (ibid., 10:11,17). Even so, Hashem avenged this act because Yehu also became a wicked king. (The family of Achav is referred to as Yizre'el, the place where they lived.)]. Observe--although Yehu performed a mitzvah by destroying the house of Achav, he bore the sin of what he had done, since he too was filled with iniquity.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM224 "You shall not act similar to Korach and his company". This verse forbids us to maintain disputes (Sanhedrin 110a). If you will cause the continuation of a quarrel by relating loshon hora, you violate this prohibition.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM225 Rav said: All who nurture a quarrel transgress a negative commandment, vis.: "And let him not be as Korach and as his congregation." R. Ashi said: They deserve leprosy, it being written here: "And the Lord spoke by the hand of Moses to him," and elsewhere (Exodus 4:6): "And the Lord said to him: Put your hand into your bosom" [and when he drew it out, it was leprous] (Sanhedrin 110a)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM226 "That he not be like Korach and his assembly" [this verse]. Our Sages, z"l, said (Sanhedrin 110a), "Whoever supports controversy is violating a negative commandment, as the pasuk says, "That he not be like Korach and his assembly." It is [even] permissible to speak lashon hara about one who is the source of dissension [See Sefer Chafetz Chaim (Hilchos Lashon Hara 8:8) for caveats regarding this leniency] as the pasuk says (I Melachim 1:26), "But me -- I, your servant--and Zadok the Kohen, Benayahu son of Yehoyadah, and your servant Shlomo, he did not invite." [Nosson HaNavi told David HaMelech this denigrating information about David's son, Adoniyahu, who was attempting to usurp the throne.]

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM227 If one's words cause or strengthen a dispute, then he violates another prohibition, that of לא יהיה כקרח וכעדתו, “Do not be like Korach and his assembly" (Bamidbar 17:5), which cautions one against strengthening a dispute, as explained in Sanhedrin 110a.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM228 This verse forbids us to maintain disputes. (Sanhedrin 110a; Mishnah Brurah 156:40. 1) We must keep a distance from disputes. Beside the inherent severity of this sin, it is the source of many other serious transgressions: unwanted hatred, loshon hora, r'chilus, anger, insults, humiliating words, revenge, grudges, curses, and chilul Hashem (desecration of God's name). (Shmiras Haloshon 1:15). Quarreling can become a passion. No matter what the topic may be, a quarrelsome person enjoys making retorts. He likes to be right always, and to have the last word. He quarrels for the sake of quarreling. Be aware of such a tendency. (Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch in From the Wisdom of Mishle, pp. 188-9). 2) If you find yourself in the midst of a dispute, you should withdraw immediately. Some people might feel embarrassed to back down in the middle of an argument. They should recall these words of our sages (Eiduyos 5:6): "It is better for a person to be considered a fool throughout his entire life by man, then to be considered wicked for one moment in the eyes of God." (Shmiras Haloshon 1:15). 3) One should not even take part in a feud in which one's parents are involved. Because Korach's sons refused to side with their father in his dispute against Moshe, they were saved from being punished along with their father. (ibid.). 4) It is a very important mitzvah to stop a feud. Do not be discouraged even if you tried to do so and your efforts have been fruitless. There is always the possibility that your next attempt will be successful. (ibid.). 5) If two people quarreled and afterward made peace, neither should later say to the other: "The reason I behaved as I did is because you did this to me." Even if the person saying this does not intend to resume the quarrel, such a remark is apt to rekindle the dispute, since the other person will probably retort, "No, it was your fault." (Orchos Tzadikim, ch. 21). 6) If a person speaks loshon hora and this causes the continuation of a quarrel, he violates this prohibition. (Chofetz Chayim, Introduction, Prohibition 12). 7) If someone insults a man or fails to honor him properly, the man should not relate this to his wife when he comes home (Avos D'Reb Noson 7:3). Relating such an incident would be r'chilus and will most likely cause a dispute. (Chofetz Chaim). 8) A person should train his children at a very young age to avoid quarrels. Young children have a tendency to grow angry and fight over trivial matters, and if a parent will not correct this fault, it can easily become ingrained. (Maaneh Rach, pp. 69-70). 9) If two members of the family have become estranged by insults or other grievances, their reconciliation is often very difficult to achieve. Mishle (18:19) compares it to "entry into a fortified city," and the discord between them is likened to the bolts of the castle, which are hard to move. (From the Wisdom of Mishle, p. 190). 10) Very often disputes begin over matters that are entirely irrelevant and insignificant. If you find yourself arguing with someone, ask yourself (and the other person), "Does it really make a difference?" 11) Although we should try to avoid disputes in personal matters, if an individual or a group tries to institute practices that are against the Torah, we are required to try to prevent them. (Chofetz Chayim in Biur Halacha to Orach Chayim 1). 12) An argument over a halachic matter or Torah thought is proper, and the participants will ultimately feel love for one another (Kidushin 30b). Rabbi Yonoson Eybescheutz gives this prerequisite for a dispute to be termed l'shaim shomayim (with the purest intentions) and thus proper: "Except for their point of contention the disputants love one another. This was the case with Hillel and Shamai; they were involved in halachic disputes, but were close friends nevertheless (see Yevemos 13b)." (Yaaros Dvash)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM229 R. Chanina taught: Whence is it derived that incense atones? From: "And he administered the incense and he made atonement for the people." And it was taught in the school of R. Yishmael: For what does the incense atone? For slander. Why is this so? Let a secret thing [the incense was offered in secret in the sanctuary] come and atone for a secret act [slander] (Zevachim 88b)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT