Korach 5761 – Gilayon #192
(link to original page)
Parshat Korah
They assembled against Moshe and against Aharon and said to them: Too much is yours! Indeed, the entire community, all of them, are holy, and in their midst is God! Why, then, do you exalt yourselves over the assembly of God?
– All of them heard words directly from the Omnipotent at Sinai. (Tanhuma, quoted by Rashi, Bemidbar 16:3)
***
“All of them are holy” – “And you shall be holy”
These two passages present us with the concept of kedusha – of holiness – in its two contradictory forms: the category of “All of them are holy”, which is the inferior form of the religious category, as against “And you shall be holy”, which is the absolute and extreme opposite of Korach’s version. It is a demand, in the sense of “And you shall be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” The results of Korach’s conception are arrogance, pride, boasting, and sanction to cast off obligations. According to this approach, the very fact that one is part of the Israelite nation is sufficient to determine his standing and his quality. The Oral Law, however, makes great efforts to order man’s life within a framework of Torah and mitzvot, attempting to realize the important dictate of “You shall observe all of my commandments and you shall be holy unto your God”. This is to be accomplished by the imposition of very strict restrictions and obligations upon man, something which has continued throughout the history of the Jewish people .. While the kedusha at the conclusion of Parashat “Shelach” is the highest expression of the purpose of faith, that of the sidra of “Korach” is the preeminent symbol of man’s rebellion against the faith in God. The distance between these two approaches, is also the distance between the belief in God and idolatry. There is no simpler, easier, cheaper, and more contemptible form of religious faith than the belief that kedusha is a given in the natural reality.
(Y. Leibowitz, Seven Years of Discussions on the Weekly Parasha, pp. 680-681)
The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Man: On the Haftarah for Parashat Korah
by Jonathan Chipman
Both the Torah portion and the haftarah for this week are concerned with problems of leadership and the nature of government. The Torah portion (Numbers 16-18) tells the story of Korah, whose rebellion against the “establishment” leadership of Moses is roundly condemned. By contrast, the haftarah, from 1 Samuel 11:14-12:22, describes the reluctance of Samuel, who served as a kind of ad hoc charismatic leader of the people by virtue of his personality, to accept the introduction of the institution of melukha, of a monarchy, within Israel.
On the face of it, the juxtaposition of these two stories seems one of stark contrast. In the Torah story of Korah, the rebellion is seemingly against the very idea of any form of centralized leadership; Korah’s slogan is the populist cry, “the entire people is holy” (Num 16:3). A traditional critique of this incident is that: a) Korah’s approach would lead to total anarchy and the dissolution of all religious, ethical and social norms; and b) that Korah was in any event disingenuous, a rabble rouser who stirred up the people while hiding his true intentions. He was a demagogue, who presented specious, allegedly “democratic” or “egalitarian” justifications for condemning the leadership of Moses, but who in fact sought to wrest rulership for himself, together with the prerequisites that he imagined went with it. (This is the main thrust of several Rabbinic midrashim; in fact, in Hebrew the “completely blue garment” [tallit shekulo tekhelet] worn by Korah is a byword for pretentious hypocrisy. See Numbers Rabbah 18. 2-4, esp. §3).
Our haftarah is, in practice, the continuation of what is told in 1 Samuel 8, in which Samuel first relates to the people’s demand for a king. The people are unwilling to suffice with the intermittent, very personal and unofficial leadership of the judges in general, or of the ”seer,” Samuel, in particular. They want a king, “like the other nations” (1 Sam 8:5). Their demand was, so to speak, for “more” leadership rather than for “less.”
There are two separate responses to this request:
1) The pragmatic argument: In a passage known in Hebrew as mishpat hamelekh (“the law of the king”; 8:11-18), Samuel enumerates the numerous burdens the king will impose upon them: He will draft their sons and menfolk to drive his chariots and labor in his fields, and their daughters as staff for the royal household; he will confiscate their property and livestock as he sees fit; etc. In short, the monarchy will be an expensive encumbrance.
2) The theological argument: But even before this, God tells Samuel that “It is not you that they have rejected, but Me that they have rejected from ruling over them” (v. 7). According to this approach, the rule of God and the rule of man are mutually exclusive. True allegiance to God requires direct submission to Him, and to the charismatic leader who speaks in His Name. Political leadership derives its authority from the Divine inspiration that moves it (at times in the literal sense; see the “band of prophets” in 10:5-6, 10-12, which Saul joins). In brief, they are prophets, who act as no more than conduits for the Divine word.
Martin Buber, in a series of important books (Moses; The Prophetic Faith; The Kingdom of God), develops the thesis that these chapters reflect the original, pristine biblical ideal: that of a society guided directly by God and by charismatic leaders who act in His name. Buber saw later biblical developments–the Davidic dynasty, the priesthood, the codification of the Torah–as a compromise with and withdrawal from this ideal.
In Chapter 12, which we read as the haftarah, Samuel is resigned to the fact that the people will have a king, and gathers them at Gilgal to “renew the kingdom”–i.e., to formally proclaim Saul as monarch. But between the lines one clearly feels his ambivalence, and his bitter disappointment in realizing that the people are unable to live up to the pristine ideal of God alone being their King. He reiterates here several of his earlier arguments, stressing especially the miracles and wonders that God had wrought with them in the past, from the Exodus until the present day, including the system of judges sent by God. He even performs a symbolic act–calling upon God to bring thunder and rain at the height of the wheat harvest–to illustrate “your great wickedness in the eyes of the Lord in asking for yourself a king” (12:17). Samuel emphasizes that their success or failure as a people will depend, not upon the talents of the king, but upon their loyalty to God and their hearkening to His voice. He then concludes by blessing them “the Lord will not cast away his people,” so long as they serve Him with all their heart.
It is instructive, so as to gain a fuller picture of the background to this incident in 1 Samuel, to turn to the Book of Judges, where we find two incidents related to the monarchy. After successfully warding off the Midianite threat to the people of Israel, Gideon is asked to be the first ruler in a hereditary dynasty -“rule over us, you and your son and your son’s son”. He rejects the offer out of hand, on the ground that “the Lord will rule over you” (Judges 8:22-23).
Following Gideon’s death, his son Abimelech, with the support of the “nobles of Shechem,” seizes the mantle of rulership by brute force and perpetrates a blood bath against his seventy brothers, whom he sees as rivals to his power. His brief reign proves to be a destructive one, filled with blood and fire (see Ch. 9).
It is in this context that we read Mashal Yotam, the “parable of Yotham.” The youngest brother, who somehow survived the bloodbath, stands at the top of Mount Gerizim and delivers a parable on the meaning of kingship, heavy with irony and sarcasm–and then flees with his life (9:7-15). The trees wished to anoint a king. All the useful trees–the olive, the fig, the grapevine–reject the offer. “Shall I leave my fatness/sweetness/wine” that bring such benefit to mankind “to go sway over the trees?” Onthe bramble–a lowly bush, without shade, brittle and full of thorns– jumps at the chance. But he himself warns that, in the end, “fire shall come out of the bramble and consume the cedars of Lebanon” (9:15). So it is too with human monarchs. Indeed, Yotam is almost modern in his cynicism: only those who have nothing better to do go into politics.
* * * * *
To return to our original question about the relation of the Torah portion to the haftarah: are the two really diametrically opposed, or is there some inner thread connecting them? “Moses and Aaron among His priests, Samuel among those who call on His Name” (Ps 99:10). Both Moses and Samuel may be seen as exemplars of the biblical ideal of charismatic leadership, of prophets who ruled by virtue of the word of God, and saw their task as guiding the people with the Divine spirit. The attacks on them came from opposite directions: Korah sought to challenge the legitimacy of their rule, if not the concept of leadership per se; the people, in the days of Samuel, were unwilling to suffice with the ephemeral, transient sort of leadership he represented, but sought a permanent, hereditary institution. Yet in the essential conception and the manner in which they performed their task, the two were quite similar: prophetic, rather than regal, figures.
Today, in a world in which there are neither prophets nor kings (at least not in Israel nor in the Western world, save in the ceremonial sense), what lesson about the desired form of political leadership may we derive from these chapters? On the one hand, the religious person must strive to implement the values of justice and righteousness within society–and to do so is impossible without political tools. “Pray for the welfare of the government, for without it men would swallow one another whole” (Avot 3:2). On the other hand, one also needs a healthy dose of realism, if not skepticism, towards any regime, based on a keen awareness of the imperfection of any and all forms of human rule, as such. Perhaps the role of the religious Jew is to be the conscience of society, to constantly demand a higher level of ethics and justice, of passionate dedication to the Judaic ideal of being “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”
Rabbi Jonathan Chipman is a translator, who specializes in Judaic studies. He writes a weekly page of reflections and commentaries on the Parshat Hashavua/Haftarah entitled Hitzei Yehonatan (in English). Those interested in a sample, or in subscribing, may contact him at
yonarand@internet-zahav.net.“Hillel said: Be among Aharon’s disciples, one who loves peace and pursues peace, who loves people and brings them close to Torah.” (Avot 1:11)
Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel said: Great is peace, for Aharon the Priest was praised only because of peace, — he loved peace and pursued peace, and greeted with “Shalom” and replied “Shalom”, as is written (Malachi 2) “He walked with me in peace and honesty,” and this is followed by “and he held the many back from iniquity.” It is taught that when he would see two men hating each other, he would go to one and say to him: Why do you hate so-and-so? He came to me in my home, and prostrated himself before me and said “I have transgressed against so-and-so” – go and appease him. Then he left this man and went to the other and told him exactly what he had told the first, and thus he would establish peace and love and friendship between man and his fellow, so ‘he held the many back from iniquity.’ (Tractate Derech Eretz Zutah, Perek HaShalom, Mishna 12)
“Loves peace” — how? It is taught that one should love peace between every one in Israel, just as Aharon loved peace between everyone, as is written (Malachi 2) “Proper rulings were in his mouth, and nothing perverse was on his lips. He served me in peace and honesty, and he held the many back from iniquity.” (Avot D’Rabbi Natan 11:8)
Controversy which is in the name of Heaven and that which is not in the name of Heaven
Any controversy which is in the name of Heaven is destined to result in something permanent; any controversy which is not in the name of Heaven will never result in anything permanent. Which controversy was in the name of Heaven? The controversy between Hillel and Shammai. And which was not in the name of Heaven? The controversy of Korach and his company. (Avot 5:17)
This is to say that the parties to the controversy are sustained and are not exterminated, as with the controversy of Hillel and Shammai who were not exterminated – neither the disciples of Bet Shammai nor those of Bet Hillel. But Korach and his company were exterminated. I have heard that the meaning of “destined” is “its purpose” and all that follows therefrom. The controversy which is in the name of Heaven, the purpose and desired end of that controversy is the attainment of the truth, and this is sustained, as the wise said, Through controversy, truth is clarified, as it was clarified in the Hillel-Shammai controversy that “the ruling is according to Bet Hillel.” The aim of the controversy which is not in the name of Heaven is the acquisition of power and the exultation of victory; this goal will never materialize, as we found in the controversy of Korach and his company, whose ultimate intent was the pursuit of honor and authority – and they achieved the very opposite. (Rabbi Ovadia of Bartenura, Commentary on Avot, 5:17)
Editorial Board: Pinchas Leiser (Editor), Miriam Fine (Coordinator), Itzhak Frankenthal and Dr. Menachem Klein
Translation: Kadish Goldberg
This weekly publication was made possible by:
The New Israel Fund
The Moriah Fund
To our readers:
We will be happy to have you actively participate in “Shabbat Shalom” by:
- Letters to the editor
- Publication of Divrei Torah (in coordination with the editorial board)
- Membership in Oz V’Shalom – Netivot Shalom and payment of dues.
If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.
- Hebrew edition distributed in Israel $1000
- English edition distributed via email $ 100
Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.
Tax-exempt contributions to OzveShalom may be made through the New Israel Fund or through P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc.
Contributions should be marked as donor-advised to OzveShalom/Netivot Shalom.
New Israel Fund, POB 53410, Jerusalem 91534 (Please include Israeli address and telephone number)
New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA
New Israel Fund of Canada, 801 Eglinton Ave. West, Suite #401, Toronto, Ontario M5N 1E3 Canada
New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, United Kingdom
P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA
About us
Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts which have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.
Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.
Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom`s programs include both educational and protest activities. Seminars, lectures, workshops, conferences and weekend programs are held for students, educators and families, as well as joint seminars for Jews, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. Protest activities focus on issues of human rights, co-existence between Jews and Arabs, and responses to issues of particular religious relevance.
9,000 copies of a 4 page peace oriented commentary on weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are seoverseas via email.
Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom`s educational forums draw people of different backgrounds, secular and religious, who are keen to deepen their Jewish knowledge and to hear an alternative religious standpoint on the subjects of peace and social issues.
Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom fills an ideological vacuum in Israel’s society. Committed both to Jewish tradition and observance, and to the furthering of peace and coexistence, the movement is in a unique position to engage in dialogue with the secular left and the religious right, with Israeli Arabs and with Palestinians
Our activities are funded by donations, volunteer efforts and one part time employee.