KORACH
Rabbi Yisroel Chait
Transcribed by students of the Yeshiva as heard from shiurim given by the
Rosh HaYeshiva
The Torah devotes much attention to the dispute between Korach and Moses.
However, an analysis of the text does not give us a good deal of insight
into the real basis of their argument. From the verses it seems that Korach
was simply complaining that Moses and Aaron had usurped too much power.
However, this conclusion raises several bothersome questions. Firstly Moses
retort to Korach seems inappropriate. Moses sarcastically questions Korach
asking him if he also desires the priesthood. Furthermore, the famous Medrash
quoted by Rashi when Korach assembles 250 of the congregation leaders and
together they confront Moses seem irrelevant to the argument. Korach in
the leader's presence questions Moses; "Does a garment which is totally
blue require fringes?" Moses responds in the affirmative and is ridiculed
by Korach since one fringe of blue obviates a four cornered garment of fringes.
Korach also questions him on whether a house filled with Sefarim requires
a Mezuza. Moses again responded in the affirmative. Korach again ridicules
him because the obvious purpose of Mezuza is to raise a person's cognition
of the creator; and surely an individual with a house filled with Sefarim
has such an appreciation. This confrontation seems to be unnecessary and
irrelevant if the basis of the argument was merely a power struggle.
In order to comprehend the basis of the argument it is neccesary to analyze
the cause of the conflict and the personalities of the combatants. The beginning
of the Parsha states that "vayikach Korach", and Korach took,
took being a transitive Verb. Rashi rightfully questions "whom did
he take"? and quotes the Onkelos to demonstrate that the language of
taking really connotes a conflict. It means, that he took himself aside
and separates himself from the congregation. Generally an argument becomes
vehement when it is enraged by passions and exacerbated by emotions. However,
after the moment passes, the vehemence recedes and the conflict is short
lived. The combatants then communicate, and their identification with one
another smolders the flames of the dispute. However, the language of vayikach
(he took), is teaching us a different idea. Korach's anger consumed his
essence and he was incapable of identifying with others and thus separated
himself from the congregation of Israel. This was not a typical altercation,
but rather this dispute overwhelmed the man to the extent that it embroiled
his very being.
This anger was characteristic of the anger that Korach's ancestor, Levi,
possessed. Jacob's name is not mentioned when Korach's lineage is traced,
because Jacob chastised Levi for expressing his anger when he destroyed
the city of Shechem. Jacob specifically admonished Shimon and Levi, and
warned that he does not want to be counted in their gatherings and he is
therefore excluded with reference to Korach. Jacob had the foresight to
appreciate human nature and recognized that a person's characteristics are
either inherited or are a product of his environment. He thereby disassociates
himself from Levi's combative temperament to show that Levi did not inherit
nor learn such characteristics from him. This demonstrates that the anger
which obbsesed Korach was unique to him and not attributible to Jacob.
Rashi explains at the very outset of the parsha the factor that precipitated
Korach's wrath. Korach was angered at the appointment of his cousin Elitzofon
Ben Uziel as prince of the children of Kahas. Moses and Aaron took the kingship
and priesthood for themselves. They were the children of Amram, the eldest
of four brothers. Korach believed that the determining factor for leadership
was by birthright and thereby reasoned that he should be appointed prince
inasmuch as he was the son of Yitzhar, the second eldest of the four brothers.
However, Moses pursuant to Hashem's instructions appointed Elitzofon, the
son of the youngest of the four brothers. This enraged Korach as it thwarted
his quest for power.
Korach realized that a legitamate revolution, could not be based on his
own personal agenda for power. Korach shrewdly recognized that an attack
against the authority of Moses and Aaron would require great cunning. Korach
also recognized that other people resented the power of Moses and Aaron
and were hostile to what seemed to be an aristocracy of the children of
Amram. Therefore, Korach embraced the principles of democracy, appealling
to the masses' sentiments of equality. Korach mobalized the people by claiming
that Moses and Aaron were megalomaniacs who were merely interested in controlling
the people. In truth, Korach himself was power hungry and personally endorsed
the principles of aristocracy. He was an egomaniac and was origanally very
comfortable when his cousins, Moses and Aaron, were appointed leaders. After
all, he felt important belonging to such an honorable family. It wasn't
until he was denied the princeship that, feeling slighted, he contested
the authority of Moses and Aaron.
The Torah tells us that Korach therefore enlisted Dason and Avirom, renowned
demagogues, as his first supporters in his protest against Moses and Aaron.
He had seen countless times that they were the leading rabble-rousers amongst
the children of Israel. Korach, a good judge of character, also recognized
that his advancement of the democratic principles would have a special appeal
to them. Specifically, earlier in the Torah we are told of Moses's first
encounter with Dason and Avirom. Moses, upon observing the Egyptian taskmaster
cruelly whipping a fellow Israelite, was propelled into action by his sense
of Justice. He smote the Egyptian and buried him in the sand. Later, Dason
and Avirom confronted him and complained, "Who placed you as a prince
and Judge over us? Are you going to kill us as you killed the Egyptian?"
At this very incipient stage of their exodus, Dason and Avirom exhibited
their disdain for authority. They had emerged as the progenitors of Jewish
liberalism. Moses had killed the brutal Egyptian that was unduly torturing
a fellow Israelite but they were concerned that Moses unfairly killed the
Egyptian. Korach recognized that Dason and Avirom would be the leading advocates
of his ostensible quest for democracy.
Korach's plan was slowly unfolding but he recognized that his movement
required credibility which could not be gained by the endorsement of Dason
and Avirom and it is here that Korach's ingenuity becomes apparent. In order
for him to attack the leadership of Moses and Aaron, he had to assert that
their appointment was not a directive from Hashem. He therefore argues that
Moses was acting on his own initiative with respect to many issues. It is
agreed upon that Moses had received the Torah, the written law, directly
from Hashem. However, Korach questioned Moses assertion that the oral law
was also G-d given and argued that Moses had fabricated the oral tradition.
Korach further argued that G-d was only concerned with the philosophy and
spirit of the written Torah and that the oral law was merely subject to
interpretation based upon the spirit of the written law. He rejected the
notion of Halacha as a separate and unique body of knowledge that functions
in its own orbit, irrespective of the philosophy of the Mitzvah and asserted
that the oral tradition is based upon a person's common sense thereby attacking
the authenticity of the oral tradition as being divinely inspired. With
this in mind Korach assembled the leaders of the Sanhedrin and questioned
Moses about the mezuza and Fringes. Korach's questions were shrewdly phrased
to appeal to man's common sense propting the idea that G-d is only concerned
with what man feels, just the basic philosophy of the Mitzvah, not the onerous
details of halacha. Korach argued that it does not make sense that if someone
has a home full of sefarim that a mezuza should be required. A true halachist
who appreciates the beauty of a G-d given halachic system, based upon the
intellectual breadth and creativity of it's principles which functions under
its own guidelines, must recognize the absurduty of Korach's assertions.
The argument, although nonsensical to a halachist who has the benefit of
the tutelage of the great chain of scholars, our baaley mesora, was a cogent
argument to many of Korach's contemporaries. Unfortunately we see the appeal
of Korach's argument in our times. Many uneducated Jews today fall prey
to the philosophy of Conservative and Reform Judaism, and they too are blind
to the amazing intellectual depth and creative beauty of a divinely inspired
halachic system. Rather they are concerned with the universal principles
of justice espoused by Judaism. G-d, they claim, is only concerned with
a good heart not, the burdensome and meticulous details of an antiquated
halchic system. Korach's ingenuity is attested to by the success of this
argument even in our day. By attacking the credibility of the Oral Tradition
as G-d given, it also afforded him the opportunity to impeach Moses's and
Aaron's appointment as merely personal discretionary exercises of power,
not directives of G-d. Moses's response to Korach also attests to Moses
understanding of what really bothered Korach. Korach, upon making all these
claims, advocating the principles of democracy and dening the authenticity
of the Oral Tradition, impugned Moses claim to power. Moses did not even
address the substance of Korach's arguments, but simply responded "do
you also want the priesthood?" Moses recognized and attempted to demonstrate
that Korach was merely interested in power and not an enlightened egalitarian
espousing the concerns of the masses. Therefore the only possible response
was a determination by G-d demonstrating that Moses and Aaron were the leaders
of Israel and that their method of serving G-d was the only acceptable method.
Thus Korach and his congregation were ultimately destroyed by G-d. The
authenticity of halacha and the Oral Tradition was affirmed by G-d's actions. |