Shabbat Korach

Written by Rabbi Danny Rich Friday, 23 June 2006

Parashat Korach: (NUMBERS 16:1-18:32)

Summary of the Text

Parashat Korach tells of perhaps the most serious challenge to the leadership of Moses - by Korach who is joined by Datan, Aviram, On and a crowd of 250 leaders of the community.
The theme of the parashah is the rights and responsibilities, privileges and duties of religious leadership which in the terms of the Hebrew Bible now lie in the hands of the direct descendents of Aaron (who will be the High Priestly family) and of all of the members of the same tribe, the Levities.

Towards the end of the portion Moses reaffirms the responsibility of Aaron and his sons as cohanim who will oversee the rituals of the sanctuary, particularly the altar and its sacred vessels. These cohanim will be assisted by the rest of the males of the tribe of Levi who will act as guards, lamplighters, maintenance personnel, schappers and organisers of the various gifts (sacrifices, tithes etc) brought by the people. The task was an onerous one and the Torah records only a few chapters before that the Levi’im could retire and be transferred to lighter duties at fifty years of age! They were also permitted to retain a portion of the offerings to live by, and, hence unlike the other tribal descendents of the sons of Jacob, were to receive no land or territory.

Korach is a well connected member of the tribe of Levi, a grandson of Levi himself, as were Moses and Aaron. He organises the rebellion against Moses, questioning his right to leadership. He raises the populist cry, “All the people are holy. Why are you (Moses) raised above God’s congregation?”

Moses is both stunned and distressed by the challenge. He protests to God that he has always led the people justly. He demands a public confrontation, at which both he and his accusers will produce a firepan with hot embers and incense, and at which God will select the one in whom leadership is to be invested. It will not surprise the reader of Biblical narratives to learn that in a dramatic Divine intervention Moses is vindicated and Korach, his co-conspirators, their families and the 250 rebels are swallowed by an opening in the earth.

Traditional Commentary

In Jewish tradition Korach invariably receives a bad press. It is acknowledged that he, as a Levite, already had some privilege but he appears to seek more. The tradition questions his motives and those of Datan and Aviram who are descendents of Jacob’s oldest son, Reuben. (It is a common Biblical motiff that the oldest who might expect to ‘inherit’ does not do so. See examples of the persons or families of Ishmael, Esau, Reuben, Moses, Absolom and others, for example). Although there is an occasional sympathetic commentator who perceives Korach doing badly in the jockeying for positions as younger members of his family seem to do better, he is variously portrayed as a constant irritant, as a scorner of Torah, as a keeper of bad company, as self-centred- indeed the exemplar of a selfish disputant, the very opposite of Hillel and Shammai whose arguments are ‘for the sake of heaven.’

The Midrash (playing on the absence of a subject of the verb in the first verse: Va’yikach Korach: And Korach took (What did he take?)) pictures him as one of these too clever by half students one discovers in every class. In Numbers Rabbah 18:1-4: the folowing story is told:

Korach asks, “Since the Torah claims that tzitzit must be made
with a blue thread, does it mean that a person wearing a shirt
made of blue threads need not wear tzitzit?” On another
occasion Korach asks, “If a house is filled with Torah scrolls
that contain all the words inside a mezuzah, does the house
require a mezuzah?”

Clearly concerning Korach the tradition makes a valid point that some disputes have a just cause, are prosecuted properly and with the right intention but there are others where the motive of the questioner is suspect, the manner in which is undertaken is inappropriate, and the intention is to humiliate, to self-aggrandise or to pursue some other agenda which thereby makes the argument an unjust cause.

A Positive Plea for Korach

Before I entertain my plea on behalf of Korach let me declare two personal interests. When I was preparing for ordination nearly seventeen years ago it was a study of Korach which permitted me to pass the Bible exam, and, truth to be told, I suspect I chose a study of Korach because there is within me a rebellious streak, manifested (I hope) more positively by my student and trade union activity, my love for the ethical principles of Liberal Judaism, my passionate distaste for injustice, and my suspicion of religious leadership which is coupled with my public acknowledgement that most religious leaderships are primarily self ordaining elites!

Although Korach motives might have been unworthy and his tactics were undoubtedly off limits, he drew attention to two important failings of Moses and Jewish tradition. The manner of Moses’ election was at the very least suspect. It is true he witnesses an example of injustice (an Egyptian task master beating a Hebrew slave) but he reacts both with passion and violence and then flees the scene. On the run he encounters a burning bush that is not consumed and the rest is Biblical history! Moses may have been a spiritual giant (seeing God ‘face to face’) but it took him a long time to learn the Biblical version of democracy: shared or delegated leadership. He was properly advised by his pagan, Midianite father-in-law, Jethro (Exodus 21) but by the middle of the Book of Numbers (see Parashat B’Ha’a’lot’cha) God once again was required to remind him of the merit of shared leadership.

The absence of democracy in the traditional arrangements of Jewish living is undermined further by the imposition of unexplained or inconsistent regulations.
Although the Midrash above ascribes to Korach a negative motive and a mocking tone (neither of which I endorse), he does draw to Moses’ attention the difficulties which it is possible to experience when a leader gives instructuons (in this case tzitzit and mezuzah) which are either not adequately explained or appear to contain internal inconsistencies.

Perhaps in the circumstances of the wilderness experience and the charasmatic but authoritarain leadership of Moses - allied with the imposition of some at the very least bizarre traditions (the prohibition on the mixing of materials in clothing or the stoning of rebellious children to name but two) - could you say that you would not have joined the rebellion of Korach?

I confess I would certainly have been tempted!

Rabbi Danny Rich