let no man come in, etc. (Esther 5).

(Bereishit

Rabbah 19:2, based on Soncino translation)

But their impudence reached a climax in the very use they made of the

description applied to the Promised Land, a land flowing with milk and honey.

When was this description first applied to the Land? Surely it was the crux of

God's revelation to Moses at the burning bush, when he was first apprised of

the message of redemption: And the Lord said: I have surely seen the

land, to a land flowing with milk and honey (Shemot 3:7-8). Go and gather the elders of Israel and say to them: "The God of your

honey'" (Shemot 3:16-17). This

was the message imparted by Moses to the elders of Israel when he returned from

Midian. Again, before their departure from Egypt, when the Lord imparted to the

Israelites the precepts of the Passover they were told: And it shall come to

then you shall perform this service (Shemot 13:5). Then, even after the sin of the calf and Moses' intercession and the

averting of the retribution, when the Lord became reconciled to His people and

re-accepted them, they were again promised: Depart and go up hence you and

angel before you… to a land flowing with milk and honey (Shemot 33:1-3). Even the spies, with all their malicious

intent, could not deny, though but weakly, grudgingly admitting: We came to

honey (13:27). This description of the Promised Land, the

land which I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is applied by Dothan and Abiram to the land of abominations, the house

of bondage, the iron furnace – to Egypt: Is it but a small thing

that you have brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey? (16:13). It is again evident here that the

literalists (Ibn

Ezra and RaShBaM) out of their

slavish adherence to the wording have not plumbed the depths of its real and

profounder meaning in their comment: Who brought us forth from a goodly

place. By this all the sting is taken out of Dathan and Abiram's words. The

Israelites had already lauded Egypt

as the place of the fleshpot as the place where they had eaten fish

for nothing. They had wistfully yearned for it even before this. But here

is something new and unprecedented – a complete reversal of values, calling

black white and white black. What was slavery is termed freedom, the land of uncleanness

is given the title exclusively applied to the Holy Land.

It is a symbol for all time to all those who in the lands of their dispersion

proclaim: "Here is our Jerusalem!"

(Nehama Leibowitz, Studies

in Bamidbar (Aryeh Newman, translator) pp. 205-210.)

"Korah Our Brother!"

Yehonatan Chipman

One Shabbat Korah some years ago, I happened to daven at a rather

anti-establishment, bohemian sort of minyan. The rabbi–teacher–preacher began

his talk on that occasion with the words: "Korah, you are our brother!"

He went on to state that the Hozeh of Lublin  – a focal figure in early 19^th

century Hasidism, who bridged between the tradition of the Maggid and the

emergent school of Pshyshcha-Kotzk – used to refer to him as der Zeidey

Koirakh – "Grandfather Korah." He added that anyone with sense

refrained from taking sides in the great controversy between Moses and Korah; it

was only after the Divine verdict was issued, in the dramatic form of the earth

swallowing Korah, that it became clear that Moses' position was correct.

What is the meaning of this underground tradition that turns everything

most of us have ever learned about Korah upside down? Is there indeed ground

for a sympathetic, even positive reading of Korah?

A number of the best-known, almost canonical midrashim (Num. Rab.

18.3) about Korah show him challenging several basic halakhic institutions. Thus

he ridicules the mitzvah of tzitzit, in which one thread suffices to

make an entire garment kosher, parading before Moses with 300 followers, all

dressed in pure blue robes. He similarly ridicules the mezuzah, the small

container with two brief parshiyot from the Torah that is a sine-qua-non

for the door of every Jewish home, by asking whether a house "full of

books" still needs a mezuzah. Yet a third midrash relates the story of an

unfortunate widow whose meager financial resources are depleted by Moses'

relentless demands: first by the ordinances requiring tithes from field crops

and fruits, then by the first-born of the flocks, the first sheering of the sheep,

etc., etc. Several contemporary Rabbinic scholars have suggested that these

midrashim may have served as an outlet for the Sages' own doubts and qualms

about certain aspects of the legalistic, formalistic mind-frame of the halakhah

– safely projected onto Korah, who is presented as the arch-heretic of early

Biblical history.

In seeking an answer to my question, I turned to the arch master of

paradox in the proto–modern period – the Hasidic teacher R. Mordecai of

Izhbitz, author of Mei ha-Shiloah. The Izhbitzer has two interesting

things to say about Korah: First, that Korah debunked tzitzit because they

symbolize yirat shamayim, whereas Korah held that, in a certain sense, yirat

shamyim is immanent in every Jew. That is, a person cannot help but do the

will of God, because everything that a person does in life ultimately comes

from God – even his own personal will. (What Korah overlooked is that we are

nevertheless given free will, even if no more than the dimensions of a garlic

peel, because God desires that man serve him with at least the illusion of free

will.)

What is meant by this? At first blush, this doctrine seems perilously

close to determinism, emptying of meaning the dictum of Hazal, "Everything

is in the hands of Heaven except for the fear of Heaven" (Berakhot 33b).

But one expert on Izhbitzer Hasidism explained to me that this does not mean

that man has no freedom but that, to the contrary, he has radical freedom: so

much so, that at times the "religiously correct" choice is to be

found, not through a conventional halakhic-legalist approach, but by seeking "the

will of God." And indeed, when confronting the truly significant choices

in life, the crossroads, the major ethical nexuses, the halakhah is inadequate

to show the way a person must walk. At times, God may show him the way; if a

person looks deeply within his own soul, with absolute honesty and integrity,

taking care to eliminate any ulterior motives, he may merit to hear the voice

of God.

Second: Korah was a radical democrat. His basic charge against Moses was

that "the entire congregation is holy, and God is in their midst; why then

do you lift yourselves up above the congregation of the Lord." Korah is

portrayed by Mei ha-Shiloah as anticipating that great day, portrayed

inter alia in the aggadah at the end of Ta'anit, in which the righteous

will dance in a circle, each one pointing with his finger at the Holy One,

blessed be He, who stands in the center of the circle, saying: "This is

the Lord for whom we have waited and who will save us; this is the Lord for

whom we have waited, we will rejoice and be glad in His salvation!" Korah's

error, according to the Izhbitzer, was not in assuming radical equality among

all people, but in seeing it as something imminent in his own day rather than

as an event that would have to wait for the End of Days.

These two issues – determinism vs. free will, and egalitarianism vs.

hierarchy –  are central issues in the

modern world. Many scientists, in studying the functioning of the brain, will

argue that most of our rejections and behavior patterns are "hard-wired"

into our physical nature, and that our conscious control and choice regarding

our response to various situations is far less than we would like to believe.

One concrete example: the controversy regarding homosexuality, viz.

same-sex marriage and ordination of homosexuals as rabbis, which recently

rocked Conservative Judaism both here and in the United States, is closely

related to the widely-accepted assumption that homosexual orientation is in

some sense predetermined, non-voluntaristic, and thus not really subject to

free will in any meaningful sense. Yet in the hundreds of pages of discussion

by the best minds of the Conservative movement (at least in the major positions

that I have read), the issue of free-will vs. determinism is barely mentioned. It

seems to me that the issue of how to deal with people who seem to be forced by

their genetic makeup to behave in ways forbidden by the Torah is a basic one,

with far-reaching theological implications.

The second issue raised by the Izhbitzer, invoked by the image of all of

Israel

dancing in a circle, is that of democracy, of the innate equality of all human

beings. There is hardly need to elaborate upon the fact that this is a basic

element of the contemporary cultural mood or mentalité; the post-modern

reluctance to make any unequivocal moral, aesthetic, spiritual or other value

judgments may be traced to the feeling that "Who am I to say that my

opinion is truer than that of anyone else?" This is diametrically opposed

to the traditional view of Judaism, which accepts the obvious differences

between human beings in terms of intelligence, learning, talents and abilities

of various sorts, and even moral sensibility. Moses is seen as the true teacher

and prophet, the exclusive conduit for conveying the divine Torah to Israel, and as

the paradigm for the authority of Sages in later generations. And yet, as the

Izhbitzer observes, in the End of Days all will be equal in their direct

experiencing of the immanent God. Korah's "only" error was in "jumping

the gun."

*****

To conclude, very briefly: What is implied by the choice of haftarah for

this reading? On the face of it, it seems diametrically opposed to the message

of the Korah story. Rather than the "populist" tendencies of Korah,

here (in 1 Sam 8) the people practically beg Samuel to appoint a king, a

centralized, authoritarian leader, "like all the other nations" – to

which Samuel is adamantly opposed, reminding them that "the lord your God

that reason: that they must not give up on the messianic, utopian vision in

which all stand directly before God as king; that the ideal of an egalitarian

society, expressed davka through the mouth of Korah , is not a bad thing

per se.

Rabbi Jonathan Chipman is a translator by profession, and a scholar in

Jewish studies. He writes a weekly sheet (in English) on the portion of the

week and the Haftara, titled "Hitsei Yehonatan". (Anyone

interested in ordering a sample of subscription can write via email to: yonarand@internet-zahav.net.)

A tallit that is entirely azure [nonetheless] requires tziztit.

(Masekhet Tzitzit 1:1)

Rav said: Korah was an apikoras ["Epicurean" or

heretic]. What did he do? He stood and made a tallit that was completely

azure. He came before Moses and said to him: "Moses our Rabbi! Why should

a tallit that is completely azure be in need of tzitzit?" He

told him: "It is in need of tzitzit, for it is written: Make

yourself fringes, etc."

"A house that is full of Torah scrolls, why should it require a

mezuzah?" He told him: "It needs a mezuzah, for it is written: And

write them on the doorposts of your house, etc."

He said to him: "What is [the law concerning someone having] a skin

discoloration the size of a grit?" He told him: "[The person is]

unclean." "If he is completely covered with it?" He said:

"He is clean."

At that moment Korah said: "There is no Torah from Heaven and Moses

is not a prophet and Aaron is not the High Priest."

(J. Sanhedrin 10a)

The Power of Enflaming and Inciting Demagoguery

You know how easily the "spirits" – the minds – of the masses

can be swayed to wrong ideas by the influence exerted by the superior intellect

of one who hitherto had enjoyed unbridled confidence and who places dazzling

prospects and highly colored assertions before them. When the masses rise to

commit crime, as a rule the true guilt lies with a few superior agitators. Then,

when humans intervene against the crime, all too often it is the less guilty

masses who have been led astray who bleed and suffer while the real guilty ones

go free. But You are God, the God of the spirits of all flesh. As God

Almighty you can reach those whom You recognize as the guilty ones, and as God,

the God of the spirits of all flesh You know how to measure the real guilt

of each one.

(Rabbi S.R. Hirsch on

Bamidbar 16:22, based on Levi translation)

And Korah's sons did not die

For the conductor on shoshannim, of the sons of Korah. R. Pinhas said: Anyone who sees them says they are thorns – and why? Because they were together with the

thorns, and it is natural for thorns to catch fire, as it says, thorns cut

down that are set on fire, and it is written, and fire went forth from

before the Lord. But the sons of Korah were roses

who were gathered up from amongst them and the Holy One Blessed be he jumped to

save them, My beloved has gone down to his garden, to

the spice bed… to gather roses. It can be compared to a parable: A king

entered the city and the citizens came to crown him with a crown of gold set

with precious stones and pearls, but they were then told that the king does not

want [a crown] of gold but rather one of roses. The citizens rejoiced. So too

the sons of Korah and his congregation said, "The Holy One blessed be He

wants pans of gold." The holy One blessed be He said, "Why would I

need [pans] of gold? The gold is already mine! And even the incense, why would

I want incense? It is an abomination to Me. But what do I ask for? Roses. The sons of Korah said: "We are roses." The

Holy One blessed be he said: "You have won – Lamenatze'ah ["for

the conductor – also literally: "for the victor"] on shoshanim