Korach - Idealogue or Provocateur
INTRODUCTION TO
PARASHAT HASHAVUA
*********************************************************
The VBM is happy to announce a new book
by alumnus and VBM author Rav Michael Hattin
Passages: Text and Transformation in the Parsha
Inspired by many years of shiurim written
for this series!
Congratulations Rav Hattin!
To order your personally inscribed copy,
go to our website.
*********************************************************
PARASHAT KORACH
Korach - Ideologue or Provocateur?
by Rabbi Alex Israel
Our parasha describes yet another dark episode in
the series of wilderness uprisings.
This time, we have a new type of rebellion on our hands. Unlike the episode of the spies or
the story of the "lusting" for meat, this rebellion is not directed against God. Rather than taking God to task,
rejecting the desert conditions and wishing for Egypt, this popular uprising
targets Moses and Aharon directly.
This is not so much a revolt against God as a mutiny.
The leader of the rebellion is Korach, Moses'
cousin. He leads a well-orchestrated
campaign against Moses and Aharon amassing quite a following. But it isn't all simply personal. Like any mass movement, there are
spiritual arguments and ideological claims to his propaganda. We will look into the agenda that
Korach raises against Moses and Aharon.
What does he say that gains such wide appeal? Is there genuine reason for
complaint? Is Korach a well-meaning ideologue or a political opportunist?
This week, we shall attempt to answer some of these
questions by using midrash. Rather
than viewing midrash as simple legend, we shall use the Midrashic tradition as a
sophisticated commentary, highlighting important themes and variant strains in
the Torah text.
MIDRASH 1. ALL THE PEOPLE
ARE HOLY
"'And Korach took'(16:1): What parasha precedes this
episode? - 'Speak to the Israelites concerning the making of Tzitzit
(fringes).'(15:34) Korach jumped up and turned to Moses: 'You say, "Put on the
fringe a thread of blue (tekhelet) wool." (ibid.) What about a garment that is
itself a blue color (tekhelet), would it not be exempt from the blue thread (on
the Tzitsit)?' Moses replied, 'It is obligatory to have the blue thread.' Said Korach, 'A garment which is all
blue is not exempt and four meager threads do the trick!?'
'A room full of Sifrei Torah, would it need a
Mezuza?' Moses answered in the affirmative.
Korach replied, 'The Torah contains 275 sections and they are not enough
to fulfill the house's obligation to have a Mezuza, but these two sections
(written in the Mezuza scroll) will fulfill the obligation for the entire house!
Moses, you must be making this stuff up!" (Midrash Tanchuma)
At first glance, it would seem that Korach's
challenge lies in the detailed technicalities of a Torah discussion. The argument here revolves around a
certain logical inconsistency in the system of commands prescribed by the Torah. A four cornered garment must be
adorned with ritual fringes - Tzitzit - which contain a thread dyed blue by the
tekhelet die (a rare and expensive dye). Korach asks about a four cornered
garment which is entirely tekhelet in color.
He laughs at the law which would obligate such a garment to affix a
special additional blue thread. If
the objective is to affix a blue thread, why is this necessary with an entirely
blue garment? Likewise, if a room contains an entire stock of Torah scrolls, why
does it need the miniscule Mezuza scroll on the door? Are the contents of the room not
enough? So at first glance, the argument is a challenge to Torah law and its
authority.
But look closer; both these halakhic examples are
identical. The cases examined both
concern logical inconsistencies in which the lone ritual act is considered
superfluous due to the presence of a much larger representative element. What do both these stories tell us
about Korach's rebellion? Was the rebellion based on Torah discussions? Or,
maybe, this Midrash is hiding a deeper reading of the text:
"They massed against Moses and Aharon and said to
them, 'You have gone too far, for ALL THE COMMUNITY IS HOLY, all of them and the
Lord is in their midst. WHY DO YOU
RAISE YOURSELVES above the Lord's congregation?'"(16:3)
"For all the community is holy... Why do you raise
yourselves." The argument voiced here is not a discussion about Torah. It is a strident call for equality
and democratization. Korach attempts
to undermine Moses' position on simple democratic grounds. All the people are holy and God is in
their midst. We don't need leaders
or intermediaries.
He uses the metaphor of the Tallit, the four
cornered garment, and the Mezuza.
Both of these laws are symbolic, and designed to lead to a higher purpose. The law of Tzitzit is to act as a
"reminder" of God's presence within our lives.
"The tekhelet color is similar to the sea which is similar to the sky
which reminds us of God's Holy presence." (Rashi on 15:34). The special tekhelet blue is supposed
to direct the heart and mind heavenwards.
Likewise we place the Mezuza as a reminder so that "these words will be
on your heart" (The Shema - Deut 6:2).
These laws are not important in themselves, says Korach; they are simply
to lead a person to God. Logic would
suggest that a tekhelet garment, with a full blue color, is indicative of God in
a more intense and powerful manner than the modest blue thread of the Tzitzit. Likewise, how can a Mezuza replace
the Torah scroll in its entirety!
A Torah scroll is essential to fulfill the dictates
of the law. But Korach asks, why is
it necessary to limit the symbolic act to a single thread, to a small piece of
parchment? Why not extend it to the entire garment, the whole house? And by the
same logic, why not crown the entire nation with Torah, with leadership? If they
are all holy, then why is Moses or Aharon in a position of privilege? Why not
give the prophecy or the high priesthood to the average man? All the people are
holy (the entire Tallit is blue) so why do we need leaders (a special thread)?
Why are you - Moses - standing aloof in the leadership role? Do you not respect
the holiness of the nation? Do you view yourselves as "holier" in some way?
WHO IS HOLY?
So the argument is a moral, democratic one. This Midrash gives us a halakhic
reading which supports this egalitarian line of argument. Now, with this background, another
central detail of the story is more readily understood. This relates to the test which is
used to prove the authentic leadership group.
"...In the morning, the Lord will make known who is
his, and WHO IS HOLY... and he who He has chosen will be brought close to Him. This is what to do: take firepans,
Korach and all your band, and tomorrow put fire on them and lay incense upon
them before the Lord. Then the man
who the Lord chooses, HE SHALL BE THE HOLY ONE.
You have gone too far, sons of Levi!" (16:5-7)
Moses offers the Korach clan to act as High Priest
for a day. They will perform the
incense ritual, the most holy of rituals, which also carries a death penalty if
abused. Moses' challenge to the
Levite rebels is a direct response to their own argument. Apart from the symmetry in the
linguistic retort ("You have gone too far"), Moses seems to be juggling with
this issue of "Holiness." If the people are indeed "holy" as Korach claims, and
therefore befitting of the leadership, then the incense should work for them. Is everyone a holy person befitting
of the priesthood or is the holy person the person who God chooses? The
"showdown" takes place "before God." It is only God who can decide who has the
authentic aura of "holiness."
Professor Yishayahu Leibowitz deepens the connection
between Tzitzit and Korach when he notes that the paragraph about Tzizit also
raises the issue of "Holiness":
"And you will see them (the Tzitzit) and remember
all the commands of the LORD, not straying after your heart or your eyes... in
order that you may remember and perform all my commandments AND YOU WILL BE HOLY
TO THE LORD."
Yishayahu Leibowitz puts it in the following way:
"The difference between these two perceptions of
'holiness' is the distinction between religious faith and pagan worship. The holiness of parashat Tzitzit is
not a given assumption but a task.
There we are not told, "You are holy," but a demand is made to "become holy."
But in the religious consciousness of Korach and his followers, "The entire
congregation is holy." Holiness is something bestowed upon one.
The distinction between the two concepts is deeper
still... In parashat Tzitzit,
holiness is expressed in the most sublime aspect of the life of faith and the
religious mindset of man; that he is required to accept upon himself a task. Nothing is promised or assured. He is simply charged with a demand... But, in the holiness of Korach and
his group... man frees himself from responsibility, from the mission with which
he is charged and from the obligation to struggle." (Notes on the Weekly Parasha
pg.96-97)
So, here is an argument which relates to
democratization and holiness. Is
holiness a virtue which is innate within the Jewish nation or is it something
that one must work towards, something to achieve? If it is the former, then
there really is no good reason to accept Moses and Aharon over Korach as
national leader. But if the latter
is correct - that holiness is a product of years of self-refinement - then
Korach's argument begins to look exceptionally weak.
MIDRASH 2 - INTEGRITY OF A LEADER
What did Korach do? He gathered the entire
congregation and began to tell stories:
"There was once a widow in my neighborhood who had
two little girls, orphans. She owned
a modest field (from which they made their living). She began to plough the
field; Moses told her 'Do not plough with an ox and an ass together'(Deut. 22:10). She began to sow the field, He said
'Do not sow the field with mixtures of seeds (Lev. 19:19). She began to harvest the crop; he
said, 'leave the gleanings, and the edge of your field for the poor.' She gathered the harvest; he said
'Give the tithes to the Priest and the Levite.'
She gave it all to him. She
sold her field and bought two sheep in order to clothe her children from their
fleece and to gain profit from their offspring and milk. They gave birth; Aaron came and
demanded the firstborns, as it states: 'Every firstborn... you must sanctify to
God. 'first of the fleece,' he said.
"God gave it to me, as it states, "The first of the fleece give to him."(Deut. 18:14)' .... she stood there crying
with her two daughters. That is what
they did to this desperate woman.
This is what they do and they pin it all on the word of God." (Midrash Tehillim)
Korach is quite a story teller. He knows how to motivate the crowds,
to appeal to their soft side. Like
every good politician, he uses images of poverty stricken single-parent families
to arouse public anger. Let us
examine his argument, contained within this text.
The Midrash is apparently suggesting another tactic
in Korach's propaganda armory.
Korach raises the following accusation: Moses and Aharon are using the Torah,
abusing the Torah, to their own personal gain.
They interfere in the lives of every normal person, always making demands
which they claim are based in the Torah text and therefore in God's law. But is it a coincidence that many of
these benefits go into their own pockets? (And let us not forget that it was
Moses who brought the law to the people in the first place. Is it a coincidence?) He has ample
"evidence" at his disposal, and he manages to combine these facts with a perfect
sob-story.
Does this Midrash have a rooting in the text? Where
do these themes manifest themselves in the Torah narrative? There is one point
in the story where Moses seems to get personally offended, a very unusual trait
for Moses. In his episode, Moses
calls Dathan and Aviram - Korach's colleagues - to a meeting in an attempt to
resolve the dispute.
"Moses sent for Dathan and Aviram, the sons of
Eliav, but they said, 'We will not come! Is it not enough that you brought us
from a land flowing with milk and honey to have us die in the wilderness that
you would also lord over us?' ... Moses was greatly saddened and he said to God,
"Pay no attention to their prayers.
I have not taken the ass of any one of them nor have I wronged any one of them."
(16:12-15)
This text is somewhat strange. Moses' response seems inconsistent
with the accusations which have been leveled against him. Dathan and Aviram accuse Moses of
failing in his mission of taking the Israelites to the promised land. Moses is offended, upset and turns to
God. But his prayer to God relates
to a very different theme. Moses
appeals to God with a request that the prayers of these men be ignored, but more
than that. Moses asks God to testify
and reaffirm that he, Moses, has been absolute in his personal integrity as
leader. We have not heard these
words, these accusations directly in the text, but our Midrash in typical
Midrashic style, ably puts these words into Korach's eloquent mouth. Moses is bothered far more by the
raising of questions regarding his personal honesty than the critiques of his
leadership achievements. The Midrash
here manages to uncover these hidden accusations which are the barbs that hurt
Moses the most. Korach has portrayed
Moses as a scheming trickster!!
He has even undermined the divine authority of the Torah in the process. These are the words and ideas which
can cause the most devastating damage in the long term.
Maybe this is the reason that public miracles are
used to defeat the rebellion. A
statement from God is the only way that these false accusations can indeed be
proven false.
MIDRASHIC APPROACH No. 3 - A FAMILY ARGUMENT
"Why did Korach
create a dispute? His uncle, Eltzafan the son of Uzziel was appointed as
chieftain over the Tribe of Levi (Numbers 3:30).
Korach said, 'My father is one of four boys - "And the sons of Kehat:
Amram, Yitzhar, Chevron and Uzziel."(Ex.
6:18) Amram the firstborn, has his son Aaron as the priest and Moses as
the national leader. Who should take
the role of chieftain? Obviously the second son, and I am Yitzhar's son! I
should have become chieftain and now Moses has appointed the son of Uzziel - the
youngest - over me! I am going to oppose Moses and overturn the appointment."
(Tanchuma)
Here, the Midrash does not make an attempt to cloak
Korach's rebellion in any ideological stance.
Here we have simple family rivalry.
We have one member of a family resenting the advance of his cousin. Korach is jealous and it is his
self-centered ambition which fuels the rebellion.
TIMING
It is interesting to think about what series of
events precipitated this rebellion.
What caused the feeling in the camp to be such that the leadership of Moses and
Aaron were questioned? NACHMANIDES suggests that the rebellion happened in the
wake of the decree that Israel wander in the desert for forty years. After this event the national morale
plunged to an all-time low. The
people were bitter and despondent.
This was not the first hiccup in the journey to the promised land, and the
emotional climate provided fertile ground for cultivating feelings of discontent
amongst the people. Korach simply
took advantage of these emotions and developed the themes of Moses' leadership
failure, embellishing it and making it into a full-scale mutiny.
But the IBN EZRA sees the issue differently. He speaks of the elevation of the
tribe of Levi (see Bemidbar Ch.3,4,8) as the main cause of the rebellion. The people saw Moses giving special
rights and privileges to his own tribe.
Now the Levites served in the Temple and were eligible to receive tithes
from the rest of the nation. Who set
up this hierarchy? Who decided that the Levites be more prestigious? Moses.
Now this argument is somewhat problematic, seeing
that Korach himself is a Levite, but the Ibn Ezra explains that this was
Korach's genius. He had the ability
to unite multiple groups with completely different agendas under a single
banner: "All the people are Holy!" The Ibn Ezra explains that the appointment of
the Levites to High Service and the subsequent "reshuffle" opened a Pandora's
box of complaints. The firstborn
Israelites (Korach was a firstborn) were upset that they had been "demoted" from
the Temple service. Reuvenites
(Reuven is the firstborn tribe of Jacob) like Dathan and Aviram were wondering
why the Levites had been chosen and their tribe passed over. The Levites were offended that only
Aaron's sons had received the call to the Priesthood whereas they - the Levites
- were mere assistants. Korach took
all the malcontents and united them in a call for democratic appointment.
Look at these readings of the timing of this
rebellion. They each seem to reflect
one of the strands raised in our Midrashim.
SUMMARY
We have seen a number of attempts to explain this
rebellion. Was it fueled by
ideological egalitarianism or personal jealousy? Was it a genuine feeling of no
confidence in Moses, accusations regarding his personal integrity, or were the
Israelites simply looking for a scapegoat after the decree to wander for forty
years?
And then, there is a second question; who is
stirring up the trouble? Is it Dathan and Aviram, or is it the 250 chieftains or
is it Korach himself? It would seem that each group here has a clashing agenda,
but yet they are working together in harmony.
Then diverse arguments associated with Korach suggest to us that Korach's
mutiny, rather than being a unified movement, might have been a coalition of
several factions with very different agendas.
Korach - the Levite and relative of Moses - is joined by "Dathan and
Aviram, the sons of Eliav, and Onn... all Reuvenites... and two hundred and
fifty chieftains of the Israelite community." (16:1-2) It would seem that most
of these people are motivated, to a significant degree, by personal
self-interest. Maybe it is for this
reason that the Mishna states:
"Every controversy which is pursued in a heavenly
cause is destined to be perpetuated and that which is not pursued in a heavenly
cause will not be perpetuated. What
is a controversy for the sake of heaven? This is the controversy of Hillel and
Shamai. And what is that controversy that
is not pursued in a heavenly cause? This is the argument of Korach and his clan"
(Avot 5:17)
This argument is not directed towards heaven. It looks towards earth. It is not really about ideals at all. The ideals are just a foil for the
real ambition, the personal vendetta, the desire for fame and power. Korach's group had no unified agenda
other than toppling Moses. It is for
this reason that their issues "will not be perpetuated." A moral or ideological
truth lasts forever, an ideological discussion will endure and provoke thought
and spiritual growth. Such is the
argument of Hillel and Shamai, who fought with the words of Torah. But a self-centered argument driven
by misplaced personal ambition at the expense of others will always be consumed
by its own fire - just like Korach.
Shabbat Shalom
FOR FURTHER READING.
For a clear textual, structural and thematic analysis of the various
factions and causes in the Korach rebellion, see
Rav Menachem Leibtag's shiur on Parashat
Korach.
For an approach that views the Korach debate in terms of an argument as
to the nature of Torah, see Reflections of the Rav vol. 1. by Rabbi A. Besdin;
Chapter XIII (pg.139-149) entitled, "The Common-Sense Rebellion Against Torah
Authority."