Korach was not simply another hatemonger who sought to usurp Moshe and Aharon as a result of intense feelings of envy. Korach was among those who “carried” the Aron Ha’kodesh. He was obviously sensitive to the fact that the Aron was in reality carrying those who attempted to carry it. It would be unrealistic to think that an individual who was so aware of Hashem should stoop to such machlokes, controversy, unless something “noble” motivated him.
The Kotzker Rebbe, zl, explains that Korach sought Kehunah, He felt that he could serve Hashem better if he were a Kohen. His complete devotion to serve Hashem drove him to act the way that he did. Let us analyze this further. Korach knew that Moshe was chosen by Hashem to lead Klal Yisrael. He was also acutely aware that Hashem implemented the many miracles connected with Yetzias Mitzrayim, the exodus from Egypt, and the daily existence in the desert through Moshe’s agency. The Agrah D’Kalah claims that while Korach was exempt from the service of offering korbanos because he was not a Kohen, he was nonetheless troubled about his lack of participation in this lofty service. Korach agonized over his lack of inclusion in the Kehunah to the point that he was driven to machlokes. What went wrong with Korach? His intentions were noble. How did he become the paradigm of conflict?
The answer, claims the Agra D’Kallah, lies in Korach’s approach towards effecting his goal. The most noble mitzvah loses its sanctity if it is involved with strife. No position, regardless of its distinction, has value if it was stimulated by strife. If divisiveness is the means, if contention coupled with slander are the tools for erecting the edifice, then it has no meaning. It is not a mitzvah; it is transformed into a contemptible aveirah.
Korach thought his yetzer tov, good inclination, had inspired him to challenge Moshe. He did not realize that his “frumer” yetzer hora, evil inclination, was spurring him on. The yetzer hora is very clever. Why should it attempt to convince us to sin if it can convince us that the aveirah we are about to perform is a mitzvah; the individual we are about to disparage is an obstacle in the way of our spiritual progress. A mitzvah that is created through an aveirah is not in fact a mitzvah. This represents the yetzer hora’s ultimate triumph: distorting a person’s mitzvos, for then he has nothing. While contentiousness and strife have been with us for a long time, nothing is as reprehensible as the self-righteous type of machlokes that some justify in the name of a mitzvah. Perhaps, people who behave in this manner should evaluate their idea of what constitutes a mitzvah.
