The Midrash states that Korach initiated his dispute with Moshe by asking, "A tallis that is entirely techeiles, is it exempt from tzitzis?" When Moshe answered him, "It is obligated in tzitzis," Korach argued, "If a tallis that is entirely techeiles does not exempt itself, how can four threads exempt it?"
Korach then continued to ask, "A house full of books, is it exempt from a mezuzah?" And upon Moshe's answer, "It is obligated in a mezuzah," Korach challenged, "If the entire Torah, which contains many parshiyos, does not exempt the house, how can one parsha in the mezuzah exempt the house?" He concluded by saying, "These things you were not commanded about, you are inventing them from your own heart."
Commentators explain that Korach considered it a very simple matter that a tallis entirely of techeiles should be exempt. He intended that when Moshe would answer that they are exempt, he could argue: Just as a tallis entirely of techeiles does not need tzitzis because it already contains techeiles, so too a house full of books should not need a mezuzah because it already contains the parshiyos of the mezuzah. Similarly, since "the entire congregation is holy," they should not need the sanctity of Aharon, and therefore, "Why do you exalt yourselves over the congregation of the L‑rd?"
However, it is not understood: Since in both cases — a tallis entirely of techeiles and a house full of books — the logic is essentially the same, why did Korach, after hearing Moshe's answer that a tallis is obligated in tzitzis, proceed to ask about a house full of books? The reasoning regarding a house full of books is simpler than regarding a tallis entirely of techeiles. Therefore, even after Moshe's response, Korach should have been able to maintain his argument that the congregation is holy and does not need the sanctity of Aharon.
When Moshe answered him, "It is obligated in tzitzis," Korach assumed that Moshe would also hold that a house full of books is exempt from a mezuzah. Nevertheless, Korach initially asked specifically about a tallis entirely of techeiles and not about a house full of books, even though regarding a house it is simpler to argue exemption from a mezuzah. This is because his main argument was about "the entire congregation is holy" and "Why do you exalt yourselves?" which is more directly related to the case of the tallis.
We will understand this by examining the conclusion of the story, where the congregation of Korach later admitted the truth, as expressed through the statement, "Moshe is true and his Torah is true." This admission is not understood: From the simple reading of the verses, it appears that Korach and his congregation's dispute, although they also argued about the leadership, was primarily about the exemption of the tallis and the mezuzah.
The main contention was against Aharon (not against Moshe). Therefore, when they demanded, "Why do you exalt yourselves over the congregation of the L‑rd?" Moshe told them that they all, including Aharon, should offer incense, and through this, it would be seen that "the man whom the L‑rd chooses, he is the holy one," indicating that Aharon is the Kohen Gadol.
Additionally, the matters mentioned in this parsha, which follow the dispute of Korach (and therefore are included in Parshas Korach), all relate to the priesthood of Aharon: the matter of "the blossoming of Aharon's staff," the command that the Kohanim, the sons of Aharon, should ensure that no outsider enters the sanctuary, and the commandment regarding the gifts of the priesthood.
However, this is not understood: Since the main dispute of Korach's congregation was against Aharon, why does their response include the statement "Moshe is true" and not just "and his Torah is true"?
We find a greater wonder regarding the dispute of Korach and his congregation: The Gemara states, "Anyone who maintains a dispute transgresses a prohibition, as it is said, 'And he shall not be like Korach and his congregation.'" Seemingly, the sin of Korach and his congregation was in disputing the true priesthood of Aharon and the truth of Moshe's Torah. How can one derive from this that "anyone who maintains a dispute" transgresses the prohibition of "he shall not be like Korach and his congregation"?
It is therefore necessary to conclude that the sin of Korach and his congregation primarily lay in the fact that it was a dispute. As Rashi comments on "and he fell on his face," Moshe was frightened (not because Korach disputed him or Aharon's priesthood, but) because of the dispute itself. Similarly, the Midrash, when explaining why Dasan and Aviram were punished along with Korach, states that the parsha begins with the words "And Korach took."
The interpretation of "And Korach took," as the Targum translates, is "and he separated," and as Rashi explains, "he separated himself from the congregation to maintain a dispute." The name "Korach," which implies his essence, also relates to the matter of the parsha named after him, derived from the word "baldness," which signifies tearing out and separating (like hair from the head, etc.).
The same applies to the third millennium (which is analogous to the third day), when at the giving of the Torah (in the third millennium), the decree (the separation) that divided the upper realms from the lower realms was nullified, and it was given the power that "the upper realms descend to the lower realms and the lower realms ascend to the upper realms." This corrected the separation of the firmament, which divides between the upper waters and the lower waters.
From this, it is understood that any matter of dispute, of "and he separated," especially according to what is written in the book Noam Elimelech, "and Korach separated," is akin to the division of the firmament that separates, or as it is stated in other places, it is similar to the generation of the dispersion.
This is also connected to the firmament that separates. The essence of the Torah, which was given to make peace in the world, is the opposite of dispute. Therefore, it is also contrary to Moshe, as the Torah is called by his name. Although the title "lover of peace and pursuer of peace" is attributed to Aharon, which is the deeper reason why Korach led his dispute against Aharon, the main and inner aspect of his dispute was against Moshe. This is because the very fact that Aharon performed the service is due to what is stated in the Torah, which was given through Moshe.
The explanation of this in more detail: The essence of the matter of "peace" (Torah) was accomplished by Moshe. However, since the implementation of peace in the world was carried out by Aharon, who descended to the creations and brought them closer (and elevated them) to the Torah, whose "paths are peace," it follows that the very existence of dispute (the matter hinted at in the name Korach, which means baldness) opposes the aspect of Moshe. And Korach's leading of the dispute in practice (the separation and maintaining of the dispute) opposes the aspect of Aharon.
This is the deeper reason why through Korach's contention against Aharon's priesthood, his dispute against Moshe emerged. As mentioned earlier from the Midrash, through the question regarding "a tallit that is entirely techelet" and "a house full of books," with the intention to contend against Aharon's priesthood, his statement against Moshe emerged — "These things you have not commanded us." Therefore, he argued, "Why do you raise yourselves above the congregation of the L‑rd?"
Since his actual dispute against Aharon's priesthood (which practically implements Moshe's role) stemmed from his inherent nature as a disputant, and his inner opposition was to Moshe, therefore his dispute against Aharon — the "result" of his (inner) dispute against Moshe — brought out the "cause" openly. And since the end is rooted in the beginning, it follows that just as in "And Korach took" to challenge the priesthood, his dispute against Aharon — which was the "cause" of his dispute against Moshe — came later. Similarly, his dispute against Moshe was the inner cause of his dispute against Aharon, which only emerged in practice at the end.
The essence of "peace" is therefore very fundamental. The primary response is found in the assertion "that the truth is with Moshe and his Torah." As explained earlier, Korach and his assembly's dispute against Aharon was merely an outcome and result of their dispute against Moshe and his Torah. It can be said that their dispute regarding tzitzis and mezuzah is not a separate matter. It is a reflection of another issue (just as when they argued that a house full of books and a tallit entirely of techelet should not require a mezuzah and a thread of techelet, so too they claimed that Jews, who are all holy, do not need to rely on the sanctity of Aharon). This is the same matter — their dispute against Moshe and his Torah — and as it manifests in practice, it brings about their contention against Aharon, tzitzis, and mezuzah.
And since these three matters mentioned above are the ways in which Korach's dispute manifests in practice, it is therefore logical to say that in essence, it was not so earlier, and the separation (the partition) between the higher and lower realms was nullified (as explained in section 4). And this is the same as the world itself, which needs to be as it was on the sixth day. And since Korach wanted to disrupt the peace (the effect of the Torah, as explained in section 5), which is essentially a dispute — it touched upon and stirred the restoration of the partition and separation that existed before creation. This means that he wanted to change the essential matter that was renewed in the world.
This is the hint in the three letters of the word "Korach" — קו״ף, רי״ש, חי״ת: The world is (created and is) compared to the letter ה״א, and since Korach's intention was to change it, therefore the forms of the letters are as follows:
In the letter קו״ף, the left line, which indicates action, is not connected with the other two lines. This is because there is a separation between thought and speech and action. The change in these three letters (קר״ח) regarding the ה״א primarily lies in the left line that indicates action: In the letter קו״ף, the left line is very long; in רי״ש, it is completely absent; and in חי״ת, it is connected with the other two lines. The explanation in this is:
The "connection of the higher and lower realms" that was renewed in the world involves two movements: It requires the service in the lower realms until "the action is the main thing" — as explained in various places in Tanya, that the "dwelling in the lower realms" is primarily achieved (not so much through the study of Torah in thought and speech, but rather through the fulfillment of mitzvos in action). Similarly, in the power of action and so on.
It does not occupy itself so much with the "physicality" of things: specifically through the service in mundane matters. When "all your deeds" are "for the sake of Heaven" and "in all your ways" (in the ways of man) there is the "knowledge" — one clarifies and refines even the lowest matters. This is generally the advantage of businessmen over those who dwell in tents, for it is specifically among them that there is the "tested method". However, on the other hand, the "lower realms" must be connected with the "higher realms", and in this connection, there are two aspects:
a) "The higher realms descend to the lower realms" — the study of Torah ("higher realms") must come into the clarification and fulfillment of mitzvos ("lower realms") and lead through it. That is, when fulfilling a mitzvah, one must ensure that it is done according to the specific details of the laws as previously learned in Torah (for if he does not ensure that it aligns according to Torah, the permission must be in a manner that does not interfere with his fixed times for Torah study, as explained in the laws of Torah study, etc.).
b) "And the lower realms ascend to the higher realms" — it is not enough that the "lower realms" are led by the "higher realms" as they descend to them. Rather, it is necessary that the "lower realms" stand with a thirst to elevate themselves to the "higher realms": Indeed, "the action is the main thing", but the businessman must know where he stands, and therefore he must desire to ascend. This desire must be with great strength, so that from time to time it comes into action — he tears himself away from his business and conducts himself like one who dwells in tents. These are three matters: a) that the approach must be correct; b) he must be led by the "higher"; c) he must want to ascend to the higher. This is hinted at in the form of the letter ה״א: a) the left leg...
And this is the explanation of why the letters of the word "Korach" (from the expression "baldness" — the dispute over the "connection of higher and lower realms") are קו״ף, רי״ש, חי״ת — because these three letters express the three ways that oppose the "connection of higher and lower realms": The קו״ף, whose left leg extends very low, reaching a point where it touches the right leg, expresses the opposition or is the opposite of "the higher realms descend to the lower realms" in holiness. The רי״ש, which entirely lacks a left leg, opposes action and especially the emphasis that "the action is the main thing". And the חי״ת, whose left leg is connected with the upper and right lines, hints at the claim of a businessman that he is just as "distinguished" as one who dwells in tents — and opposes and is the opposite of "the lower realms ascend to the higher realms" in holiness.
These matters of Korach's dispute, which are hinted at in these three...
...letters: the רי״ש — in his dispute over the mezuzah. And the חי״ת — in his opposition to the techeiles.
The explanation of this is that a Kohen is separated from worldly matters and is occupied solely with holy things, especially a Kohen Gadol, who "does not leave the sanctuary." Since every Jew must perform all types of service, it is required of everyone, even the simplest Jew, that at times he should...
...draw down the essence, which is specifically through the performance of mitzvos or through the refinement of mundane matters in the physical world. The question "Why do you exalt yourselves?" — what is the greatness of the Kohen Gadol, and consequently (as the second interpretation of) "Why do you exalt yourselves?" — why must "the entire congregation" elevate themselves or ascend upwards, as if they are elevated like the Kohen Gadol (and on the contrary, specifically in height).
This explains the connection of the letters קו״ף and רי״ש to his dispute over techeiles and mezuzah: "Tallis" represents the concept of makif, which is drawn down through the fulfillment of mitzvos, and "tzitzis" indicates the drawing down of the inner light, which comes through the study of Torah and even more so through love and awe. And this is what Korach argued: even a "tallis" (fulfillment of the mitzvah) should generally not require "tzitzis" (study of Torah and love), because without learning, one would not know how to fulfill a mitzvah. Therefore, without being engaged...
...in techeiles, from the expression of "consumption and nullification," when the light of the soul shines through simple faith and acceptance of the yoke — then (Korach argued) the tallis should be exempt from tzitzis — what is lacking in love and awe?
And when Moshe answered him that nevertheless, one must also come to "tzitzis," Korach, based on Moshe's answer, argued: since even a tallis that is entirely techeiles is obligated in tzitzis, it means that the main thing is the inner service. If so, if a "house full of books" — when it is full of Torah — should suffice, what is lacking then in "Moshe" — the fulfillment of mitzvos?
Accordingly, it is found that his opposition to tzitzis (techeiles) is similar to the letter קו״ף, and his dispute over mezuzah is similar to the letter רי״ש.
Based on the above, it will be explained why even after Moshe answered him that "a tallis that is entirely techeiles is obligated in tzitzis," he asked about "a house full of books" (even though logically, in both matters, it is the same reasoning). The answer "obligated in tzitzis" gave him the basis to argue that a house full of books should be exempt from mezuzah, as mentioned in section 12.
And based on this, it is also understood simply why he began with the question about a tallis that is entirely techeiles and only later about a house full of books — because, in addition to the fact that the question about a "house full of books" was first raised after Moshe's answer "obligated in tzitzis," the argument that a "house full of books" should be exempt from mezuzah has no connection to his dispute over...
...the priesthood of Aaron. On the contrary, the argument that "a house full of books should be exempt from mezuzah" highlights the virtue of the "upper realms," while his dispute over the priesthood of Aaron emphasizes the virtue of the "lower realms." Therefore, he argued from "a tallis that is entirely techeiles should be exempt from tzitzis," as this argument underscores the virtue of action, as mentioned above.
As stated earlier, in the Written Torah, only Korach's dispute over the priesthood of Aaron is recounted. Even in the Oral Torah, where his disputes over tzitzis and mezuzah are also mentioned, it is apparent from the straightforward understanding of the matters that these were merely an extension of his argument "Why do you exalt yourselves?" concerning the priesthood of Aaron. From this, it is understood that the dispute over the priesthood of Aaron, which is similar to the letter ח, is more severe than the disputes over tzitzis and mezuzah, which are similar to the letters קו״ף and רי״ש.
The reason for this is that in spiritual matters, he does not feel his lowliness, because he knows that the main thing is the fulfillment of mitzvos in their spiritual aspect. He will realize his error and repent when he convinces himself that he lacks nothing, thinking he is as distinguished as the Kohen Gadol (represented by the letter ח). On the contrary, within the essence of the matter, it is possible that he should remain in his essence.
And although it seems that he is correct in his actions in spiritual matters for the sake of Heaven, it leads him to bring out the intention of making a dwelling in the lower realms more than someone who "does not leave the sanctuary." To this, Moshe replied, "See, Aaron, etc." (as stated in the verse), "See the difference between the holy and the common," which is explained in the teachings of Chassidus.
And the virtue of the service of Aaron the Kohen Gadol over the service is like the superiority of light over darkness: Indeed, he fulfills the intention, but he finds himself in the doubled and redoubled darkness of the physical world. Therefore, he must elevate himself to the "morning" of Aaron the Kohen Gadol.
And as the Mishnah in the fourth chapter of Pirkei Avot states (which is studied in many years during Parshat Korach), "He who minimizes business and occupies himself with Torah"—even the businessman (despite the virtue of "your work is outside") must minimize business and engage in Torah (like a tent dweller).