Sermon for Korach
Written by Rabbi Professor Jonathan Magonet Tuesday, 28 June 2005
WUPJ CONVENTION MOSCOW 2 JULY 2005
SHABBAT ‘D’VAR TORAH’
RABBI PROFESSOR JONATHAN MAGONET
This is the third time that I have been honoured by being invited to give the d’var torah at a World Union Convention. The previous two occasions were in Toronto and in Jerusalem. I presume that I have been asked again in the hope that if I keep trying I will finally get it right.
It is a special privilege to be able to speak in Moscow, particularly in the presence of rabbis who are graduates of the Leo Baeck College-Centre for Jewish Education, rabbis from this region who have taken on a leadership role in the development of communities here.
Back in the period of the Soviet Union many rabbis and lay leaders from the UK came here to visit refuseniks. We wanted to show our solidarity with them in their struggle; we offered material support through the clothing and other things we brought into the country; we offered spiritual support through Jewish books and ritual objects, and through the teaching we were able to do. When that period came to an end, we were among the first to realise that for the newly emerging Jewish life here, a new generation of native-born rabbis was needed. I am proud that our College had the imagination to initiate a programme of rabbinic training for them. I am grateful to the Women of Reform Judaism for their support for this project, but essentially it was a small group of British Reform and Liberal Jews who financed almost the entire programme. Above all I want to pay tribute to the rabbis themselves and to the students currently on the programme. They are true pioneers who have had the courage to take a huge step into the unknown. They have had to adjust to a very different culture in Britain, to undertake serious academic studies in a foreign language, but also to explore their own personal commitments and values in ways very different from those in the societies in which they grew up. And despite the attractions of the West they have fulfilled their promise to return and work here for the development of their own home communities. Theirs is the achievement that I want to acknowledge and I am proud that my College has been able to play a part in their own personal journey.
The theme of religious leadership is at the heart of this week’s parashah. It tells the story of the rebellion against Moses led by Korach. It gives us little comfort. Rather it seems to point instead to an all too familiar situation in the Jewish world: internal arguments, power struggles, complaints about the leadership and in the end conflict and even death and destruction. Fortunately most internal Jewish fights do not end up with the earth opening up to swallow our opponents. At times we may wish that this would happen to them, but the secret of how to do it died with Moses.
In studying the story we have some guidance from our tradition. In the Pirqe Avot (5:20) we are taught: ‘Every controversy that is for the sake of Heaven shall in the end lead to an enduring result, but every controversy that is not for the sake of Heaven shall not lead to an enduring result. What controversy was for the sake of Heaven? The controversy between Hillel and Shammai. What controversy was not for the same of Heaven? The controversy of Korach and all his company.’
Hillel and Shammai were great religious leaders and the debates between their schools help establish rabbinic Judaism. Notice that both are named. But when the text speaks about the controversy that was not for the sake of Heaven, only one side of the controversy is named, Korach and his company. Moses is not mentioned. Let us see why that might be the case.
As is often the case with a rebellion a variety of groups, with very different agendas, come together because of a shared grievance against those in power. In the Biblical story so far, the Israelites have experienced a number of major setbacks. Their entry into the Promised Land has been postponed for forty years. They are concerned about the survival of their children in the wilderness. The God who brought them out of the land of Egypt is angry with them and threatens to abandon them. They no longer trust their leaders and they do not know what their future will be. It is no surprise that the discontent should lead to political unrest and an attempt to impeach their leader Moses.
When we read these Biblical stories we sometimes imagine a crowd out of control, a mob of people ganging up on Moses and Aaron. But if you look more carefully at the text it is clear that some kind of proper constitutional process is underway. The rebels convene an official public assembly and bring a formal charge against Moses. The leader is a man called Korach. The Bible tells us his family tree which is very revealing. He is actually a first cousin of Moses. He belongs to a branch of the family that would have had a greater leadership role in the Israelite society in the time before Moses came on the scene and reorganised things. So the Bible itself already hints at questions about Korach’s real motivations and his own personal ambitions to be leader.
The argument that he brings seems at first glance to be a legitimate plea for a more transparent and democratic leadership: kol ha-eidah kulam k’doshim, uv’tocham adonai, umadua titnas’u al-kahal adonai ‘all the congregation are holy, and God is in their midst, why do you elevate yourselves above the community of God?!’
On the face of it this is a proper democratic challenge. We have to remember that Moses was not elected to the office. He was there because God had chosen him to lead the Children of Israel out of Egypt. But in the process he had made radical changes to the former leadership. The firstborn men used to be the ones who made the sacrifices to God on behalf of their families and the community. But Moses had centralised the cult and handed that very special task to the Levites. Under the previous system, the elders would have been those who made decisions in legal matters. But on the advice of his father-in-law, Jethro, Moses had instituted instead a system of judges for minor and major disputes, diminishing the authority of the elders. The political leadership would have gone to the tribe of Reuben as the firstborn son of Jacob. But this was now firmly in the hands of Moses instead. Moreover he had created a completely new role for Aaron and his sons as priests, the supreme religious authority. No wonder a considerable number of groups felt they had been disenfranchised and were now coming together to protest. Changes of this magnitude within a society will only work in the long run when they are negotiated, and people are given the opportunity to contribute to the process. Moses had succeeded as the hero of the hour, but only for as long as his leadership was successful. Now he had to deal with the long-term consequences of what he had set up.
But how democratic was Korach’s challenge? His opening words ‘kol ha-eidah’ is usually translated as ‘all the congregation’. But this is misleading. It suggests that he is referring to the Children of Israel as a whole. If all of them are holy, why is Moses setting himself up above them. But in its context ‘kol ha-eidah’ has a more limited meaning. It is actually a technical phrase that refers to the governing elite alone. Korach is not speaking on behalf of the people as a whole, but only about the government, and who has the top job.
In response to this attack, Moses falls on his face before the assembly. This has happened before when there was a previous leadership challenge, and it seems to be a technical action as well. Moses submits himself to the judgment and will of the governing assembly. He will have to rely on the force of his argument and not simply on his authority.
Moses separates the different parties in the rebellion and tries to address each of their individual situations and complaints. He reminds the Levites that they have been given a major responsibility in the religious life of the community, even though their own authority is less than that of the priests. The challenge they face as religious leaders is to set aside their natural ambitions and egos for the sake of the new society they are trying to build. Their spiritual power lies in being true servants of God and of the people. From their silence after Moses’ arguments, it seems that they accept this role.
More problematic is the position of Dathan and Abiram, of the tribe of Reuben. Theirs is a direct attack on Moses’ political leadership. They do it in the typical manner of opposition political parties by throwing his election manifesto in his face. ‘You promised to take us to a land “flowing with milk and honey”. Well compared to this wilderness you’ve brought us to, Egypt was a land flowing with milk and honey!’ When Moses summons them, they refuse to come. He shows true leadership by swallowing his pride and going to meet with them. But they are not willing to engage at all and their response seems to have been armed revolt. They took their stand in front of their tents, and the word used to describe this, nitzavim, suggests that they stood in military formation, ready to fight. This threat of civil war, could only be countered by a violent response — and indeed the earth swallowed them up.
There is a third group mentioned in the story: two hundred and fifty men, prominent in the community. These may have been some of the first born sons who, under the previous system, would have been the ones to offer sacrifices to God on behalf of their families. That task has now gone to the Levites and they cannot accept this. They are fanatic about their wish to serve God. As their actions show, they are zealots who are prepared to risk their lives for their conviction and faith. A fire comes from heaven and consumes them — those who wanted to offer sacrifices to God became themselves the sacrifice.
Moses wins this time — but at great cost. The system is in place, but from now on there will be more and more problems with his leadership.
People ask: what is a nasty, political story like this doing in a nice religious book like the Bible. But we need to turn the question around. Why does a religious book feel it important to address these conflicts and political power struggles?
Within any society these kinds of challenging and sometimes destructive conflicts are to be found. We know them all too well in our own Jewish world. Yet a religious tradition that is truly all-embracing has to confront this reality. We cannot leave out the difficult issues from our religious concern. Because if liberal religion is not prepared to address such challenges, then religion itself may be hijacked by those who are less squeamish. A religion that does not prepare us to deal with issues of power and conflict whether in our society, in our communities, in our personal relationships, or in our own inner violence, such a religion will simply not be adequate when things go wrong.
We can see all around us today how this can happen. Young people led to believe that the only way to serve God is to sacrifice their lives, and to kill as many other people as possible in the process; people who use the language and emotions of religion to further their own political agenda; those who see human life as secondary to their ideological, nationalistic, racial or territorial ambitions; those who demand obedience to authority or to tradition instead of personal decision-making and responsibility. It is these extreme positions that tend to define the place and significance of religion, while those who are more moderate or liberal tend to stand back, unable or unwilling to enter the arena. The story of Korach is not designed to bring us comfort. Rather, it is intended to alert us to the more challenging aspects of our religious responsibilities, to become engaged, to become committed.
Like the Israelites in the wilderness we are on a physical and spiritual journey through life, individually and as the Jewish people. We have the right to challenge and question any Moses who leads us, but also to examine the motivation of our Korachs and their followers. We are all responsible for the way in which we conduct the journey.
May all those who have taken upon themselves the mantle of leadership, as rabbis, teachers, lay leaders of communities, find the courage to do what they think is right, but also to acknowledge when they have got it wrong. And may all our controversies be like those of Hillel and Shammai, for the sake of Heaven, and may they lead to positive, life-affirming and enduring results.
