Now Korach ,
son of Yitzhar, son of K’hat, son of Levi, took himself along with Dathan and
Aviram sons of Eliav and On son of Pelet- descendants of Reuven…to rise up
against Moshe, together with two hundred and fifty Israelites, chieftains of
the chosen in the assembly, men of repute.
They combined against Moses and Aaron and said to them, “You have gone
too far! For all the community are holy,
all of them, and the Lord is in their midst.
Why then do you raise yourselves above the Lord’s congregation?”
When Moses
heard this, he fell on his face. Then he
spoke to Korach and all his company, saying.
“Come morning, the Lord will make known who is His and who is holy, and
will grant him access to Himself: He
will grant access to the one He has chosen.
Do this: You, Korach and all your
band, take fire pans and tomorrow put fire in them and lay incense on them
before the Lord. Then the man whom Do we
see this principle in action anymore? the
Lord chooses, he shall be the holy one.
You have gone too far, sons of Levi!”
Moses said
further to Korach, “Hear me, sons of Levi.
It is not enough for you that the G-d of Israel has set you apart from
the community of Israel and given you access to Him to perform the duties of
the Lord’s Tabernacle and to minister to the community and serve them? Now that He has advanced you and all your
fellow Levites with you, do you seek the priesthood too? Truly, it is against
the Lord that you and all your company have banded together. For who is Aaron that you should rail against
him?
Moses sent
for Datan and Aviram, 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 it over us? Even if you
had brought us to a land flowing with milk and honey, and given us possession
of fields and vineyards, should you gouge out those men’s eyes? We will not come!”
I never really
thought about this portion, Korach, in terms of the political stance of
populism, but I think it might be relevant since populism refers to a
range of political stances that emphasize the idea of "the people"
and often juxtapose this group against "the elite". In this case, Korach, was taking it upon
himself to lead a revolt against the elite status of Moshe and Aharon. His argument, that all people are holy is
certainly one that might resonate with all of us in this day and age. Korach pictured himself as a representative
of the people, as a champion of the people.
When he is starting to sense the disillusionment of the Israelites who
are wandering in the wilderness rather than settling the land of Canaan, he
takes it upon himself to openly challenge Moshe.
As I look
at this scenario, I feel it becomes obvious that Korach wants to be known for embodying
the will of the people, yet he is also attempting to consolidate his own power
within the camp. Why am I making this assertion? I
am doing so because when his underlings are offered a chance to meet with Moshe
they refuse. Conversation is cut off and
silence prevails.
You will notice that when Moshe tells Korach that he and his followers
in the community are to appear before the Lord with their fire pans and incense
the next day at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, Korach still does not
verbally respond although he and his 250 followers do show up.
I wonder what might have been accomplished had the two sides sat down
with one another and actually listened to each other about why they were still
wandering in the wilderness rather than Korach and his cronies merely spreading
the line that the wandering was due to Moshe’s misleadership.
Drawing on Talmud and Midrash, Judith Antonelli (Noted author of "In the Image of God: A Feminist Commentary on the
Torah.") points out that Korach’s rebellion was far from
being democratic. Korach was, in fact, a member of the elite, the first cousin
of Moses and Aaron, a direct descendant of Levi, and incredibly wealthy.
According to the Midrash, Korach had amassed his fortune by working for Pharaoh
in Egypt. Antonelli argues that Korach was not only privileged, wealthy and
powerful, but also that he was motivated by arrogance and greed: not content to
be among the highest rank of Levites, he wished to be High Priest himself. So
the rebellion is not democratic, either in principle or in aim. Korach is
making a power grab, not serving the people. As Rabbi Hirsch comments in our
Etz Hayim chumash, “Only persons motivated by self-interest, eager for the
position of leader, proclaim ‘I can do it better.’”
What Korach seems to have forgotten was that Moshe didn’t lead as a
result of wanting to be in a position of leadership. He was selected by G-d for his humility to be
the one to lead the Israelites. When
Korach challenges the role of Moshe, he is in effect challenging G-d’s
selection of Moses. What he offers as
his proof text is G-d’s statement found in the book of Exodus, “You shall be to me a nation of priests and a holy nation.” (Ex.
19:6) The original implication is not that we as an entire nation are
holy but we shall be holy. We have been
given the Torah and are expected to observe the mitzvot and IF we as a people live our lives by them we
will be holy. The assertion is not that
each individual is holy. Korach’s words
are a spin on the original wording in Exodus. (I do not believe those words negate
the statement found in the book of Genesis that humankind was created in the
image of G-d, b’tzelem Elohim….those words indicate that we each as individuals
have the potential to do good, be a source of creativity, and have intrinsic worth.)
So, if Korach’s rebellion is frowned upon by
the Torah, how did the sages make sense of it?
Pirke Avot (Ethics of the Fathers), one of the sections of the
Mishnah that includes ethical teachings of the Rabbis states:
A controversy for heaven’s sake will have lasting value,
But a controversy not for heaven’s sake will not endure
What is an example of a controversy for heaven’s sake?
The debates of Hillel and Shammai.
The debates of Hillel and Shammai.
What is an example of a controversy not for heaven’s sake?
The rebellion of Korach and his associates.
Clearly, the
Rabbis felt that Korach’s makhlokhet was not for the sake of heaven and was therefore
NOT worthwhile. So what was the difference? Throughout
the Talmud, the debates of Hillel and Shammai abound. Each one helps
determine the outcome of Jewish law and of the customs of the
people. Unlike Korach, in as much as we read them, these debates
focus on the issues and not on the people. Through our understanding
of the debates of Hillel and Shammai, we are able to come closer to Divine
will. At the same time, elsewhere in the Talmud, in the section of
Sanhedrin 110a, it suggests that: This teaches that one must not “cling” to a
quarrel; for Rav said: He who is unyielding in a dispute violates a negative
command, as it is written, “And let him not be like Korach and his associates.”
No comments:
Post a Comment