Did Korah Get a Bum Rap?
We have a marvelous love for this Government of ours; in fact, it is almost a religion, and it is well that it should be, because we have a splendid form of government and we have a splendid set of laws. We have everything here that we need, except that we have neglected the fundamentals upon which the American Government was principally predicated.
How many of you remember the first thing that the Declaration of Independence said? It said: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that there are certain inalienable rights for the people, and among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;” and it said further, “We hold the view that all men are created equal.”
鈥淓VERY MAN A KING鈥�
Share Our Wealth Radio Speech by Senator Huey P. Long, of Louisiana, February 23, 1934
Given the level of political demagoguery that has permeated (some would say befouled) the political process in America, few today remember the career of Huey Long, until recently considered the most significant demagogue to have ever ascended to the pinnacle of power in the United States. Reading the excerpts from one of his most famous speeches today, and evaluating some of his public works programs that attempted to redress economic imbalances between the rich and poor in America, one might be surprised that he was both loved鈥攁nd feared. And even to this day scholars debate the degree to which Long鈥檚 populism was only a ruse to concentrate ever more power into his own hands and whether to consider him a fascist leader鈥攚ho was indisputably on the rise until his assassination in 1935.
The memory of Huey Long, and the continued concern over the role of demagoguery in American politics, comes to mind this week because we see a prime example of it in Parashat Korah鈥攖he figure of Korah himself. (The character of Dathan, played by Edgar G. Robinson, in The Ten Commandments, was essentially based on Korah). Korah was long vilified by the Rabbinic Sages, and of course the Torah itself condemns him as the paradigmatic rebel against the divinely sanctioned leadership of Moses and Aaron.
Our portion quickly addresses the heart of the matter:
讜址讬执旨拽址旨郑讞 拽止謹专址讞 讘侄旨谉志讬执爪职讛指芝专 讘侄旨谉志拽职讛指謻转 讘侄旨谉志诇值讜执謶讬 讜职讚指转指吱谉 讜址讗植讘执讬专指譁诐 讘职旨谞值支讬 讗直诇执讬讗指譀讘 讜职讗芝讜止谉 讘侄旨谉志驻侄旨謻诇侄转 讘职旨谞值芝讬 专职讗讜旨讘值纸谉變 鈥幾曋纷欀钢甲е恢欁炞曋贾� 诇执驻职谞值郑讬 诪止砖侄讈謹讛 讜址讗植谞指砖执讈芝讬诐 诪执讘职旨谞值纸讬志讬执砖职讉专指讗值謻诇 讞植诪执砖执旨讈郑讬诐 讜旨诪指讗转指謶讬执诐 谞职砖执讉讬讗值芝讬 注值讚指譀讛 拽职专执讗值芝讬 诪讜止注值謻讚 讗址谞职砖值讈讬志砖值纸讈诐變 鈥幾曋纷欀粗贾阶е钢甲斨沧溨炞曋� 注址诇志诪止砖侄讈郑讛 讜职注址纸诇志讗址讛植专止謼谉 讜址讬止旨讗诪职专郑讜旨 讗植诇值讛侄诐之 专址讘志诇指讻侄诐謷 讻执旨证讬 讻指诇志讛指纸注值讚指讛謾 讻只旨诇指旨郑诐 拽职讚止砖执讈謹讬诐 讜旨讘职转讜止讱指謻诐 讛鈥� 讜旨诪址讚旨芝讜旨注址 转执旨纸转职谞址砖职旨讉讗謻讜旨 注址诇志拽职讛址芝诇 讛鈥�:
Now Korah, son of Izhar son of Kohath son of Levi, betook himself, along with Dathan and Abiram sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth鈥攄escendants of Reuben鈥攖o rise up against Moses, together with two hundred and fifty Israelites, chieftains of the community, chosen in the assembly, men of repute. They combined against Moses and Aaron and said to them, 鈥淵ou have gone too far! For all the community are holy, all of them, and the LORD is in their midst. Why then do you raise yourselves above the LORD鈥檚 congregation?鈥�
Num. 16:1鈥�3
A reader of the plain sense of biblical narrative (peshat) might not find anything particularly objectionable in the brief, programmatic speech of Korah. After all, only a few verses earlier, the Torah commands all Israelites (i.e., not only kohanim) to attach tzitzit to the corners of their garments, in order to demonstrate all Israel鈥檚 status as 鈥淗oly to the LORD鈥� (Num. 15:40): And even more significantly, in the narrative run-up to the Divine revelation on Mount Sinai, God is exquisitely clear on the subject: 讜职注址转指旨謼讛 讗执诐志砖指讈诪证讜止注址 转执旨砖职讈诪职注讜旨謾 讘职旨拽止诇执謹讬 讜旨砖职讈诪址专职转侄旨謻诐 讗侄转志讘职旨专执讬转执謶讬 讜执讛职讬执吱讬转侄诐 诇执证讬 住职讙只诇指旨讛謾 诪执讻指旨诇志讛指郑注址诪执旨謹讬诐 讻执旨讬志诇执謻讬 讻指旨诇志讛指讗指纸专侄抓變 讜职讗址转侄旨支诐 转执旨讛职讬讜旨志诇执譀讬 诪址诪职诇侄芝讻侄转 讻止旨讛植谞执謻讬诐 讜职讙郑讜止讬 拽指讚謶讜止砖, 鈥淣ow then, if you will obey Me faithfully and keep My covenant, you shall be My treasured possession among all the peoples. Indeed, all the earth is Mine, but you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation鈥� (Exod. 19:5鈥�6). Seen in light of this biblical context, what Korah proclaims does not seem off base, at least at first blush.
Moreover, even some of our most prominent rabbinic exegetes assess Korah鈥檚 statement soberly, even as they were aware of his ultimate downfall. For example, in his commentary on Numbers 16:3, Rashi unpacks Korah鈥檚 words in a not unsympathetic vein: 诪讚讜注 转转谞砖讗讜, 鈥淲hy do you (Moses and Aaron) raise yourselves above the LORD鈥檚 congregation?鈥� But then, channeling the words of Midrash Tanhuma, Rashi changes the Bible鈥檚 plural address into a speech of Korah directly to Moses: 讗诐 诇拽讞转 讗转讛 诪诇讻讜转, 诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讱 诇讘专讜专 诇讗讞讬讱 讻讛讜谞讛 诇讗 讗转诐 诇讘讚讻诐 砖诪注转诐 讘住讬谞讬: 讗谞讻讬 讬”讬 讗诇讛讬讱, 讻诇 讛注讚讛 砖诪注讜, “If you have taken royal rank for yourself, you should at least not have chosen the priesthood for your brother鈥攊t is not you two alone who heard at Sinai: ‘I am the LORD your God’, all the congregation heard it!” To his credit, Rashi understands that there is nothing objectionable per se in Korah鈥檚 words.
Another of our greatest medieval masters, Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra, similarly analyzes the biblical narrative and is ostensibly willing to understand Korah鈥檚 charge as having some basis in the narrative truth of the Torah. Thus, we see through these observations, it is not on the basis of the charge itself that Korah is condemned, rather it must be something else. So, why does the Torah consider him as worthy of the death penalty?
Rabbi Yosef Bekhor Shor, a student of Rashi鈥檚 grandsons, offers an explanation that helps us understand Korah鈥檚 more insidious motives:
诪转讜讱 转砖讜讘转讜 砖诇 诪砖讛 砖讗诪专 诇讛诐: 讜讘拽砖转诐讙诐讻讛讜谞讛, 讗转讛 诇诪讚 砖注诇 讛讻讛讜谞讛 讛讬讛 诪注专注专. 讗诇讗 砖讛讬讛 诪讚讘专 讻诪讜 讘砖讘讬诇 讻诇 讛注讚讛, 讻讚讬 砖讬讗讜转讜 讻讜诇诐 诇讚讘专讬讜, 讜诇讗 讬讗诪专讜 砖诪讗 讛讜讗 诪讘拽砖 诇注爪诪讜.
From Moses鈥檚 response, in which he said to Korah (Now that God has advanced you and all your fellow Levites with you), do you seek the priesthood too? (Num. 16:10), one learns that it was in seeking the High Priesthood that Korah sought to subvert (the leadership of Moses and Aaron). But Korah would speak as though he was speaking on behalf of the entire congregation, so that all would become accommodated to his words, and would not realize that he was simply seeking (power) for himself.
That Korah鈥檚 seemingly reasonable words were in fact nothing more than a power grab was seen by a character more or less invented whole cloth by the rabbis in the midrash, the wife of the mysterious figure of On ben Peleth. On is mentioned in the opening of our parashah (鈥淣ow Korah, son of Izhar son of Kohath son of Levi, betook himself, along with Dathan and Abiram sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth . . . ). However, after this appearance, On is never mentioned again.[1] The midrash, picking up this oddity of introducing a character in an important episode but then failing to mention him again in the narrative, imagines the following conversation between On and his clever wife:
讗诪专 专讘: 讗讜谉 讘谉 驻诇转 – 讗砖转讜 讛爪讬诇转讜. 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛: 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讱 诪讬谞讛? 讗讬 诪专 专讘讛 讗谞转 转诇诪讬讚讗, 讜讗讬 诪专 专讘讛 讗谞转 转诇诪讬讚讗! 讗诪专 诇讛 诪讗讬 讗注讘讬讚? 讛讜讗讬 讘注爪讛 讜讗砖转讘注讬 诇讬 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜. 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛: 讬讚注谞讗 讚讻讜诇讛 讻谞讬砖转讗 拽讚讬砖转讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讻转讬讘, 讻讬讻诇讛注讚讛讻讜诇诐拽讚讜砖讬诐. 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 转讜讘 讚讗谞讗 诪爪讬诇谞讗 诇讱. 讗砖拽讬转讬讛 讞诪专讗 讜讗专讜讬转讬讛 讜讗讙谞讬转讬讛 讙讜讗讬 讗讜转讘讛 注诇 讘讘讗 讜住转专转讛 诇诪讝讬讛 讻诇 讚讗转讗 讞讝讬讛 讛讚专 讗讚讛讻讬 讜讛讻讬 讗讘诇注讜 诇讛讜.
Rav says: On, son of Peleth, his wife saved him. She said to him: What is the difference to you? If this Master (i.e., Moses), is the great one, you are the student. And if this Master (i.e., Korah), is the great one, you are the student. On said to her: What shall I do? I took counsel and I took an oath with them that I would be with them. She said to him: I know that the entire assembly is holy, as it is written: 鈥淔or all the assembly is holy鈥� (Num. 16:3). She said to him: Sit, for I will save you. She gave him wine to drink and caused him to become drunk and laid him inside their tent. She sat at the entrance and exposed her hair. Anyone who came and saw her stepped back. In the meantime (Korah and the other rebels) were swallowed . . .
Sanhedrin 109b鈥�110a
鈥攁nd On, son of Peleth, escaped punishment!
Not only does this midrash explain the disappearance of a character from the biblical narrative, it creates a character, On鈥檚 wife, who insightfully discerns what her husband has not seen, namely, that Korah鈥檚 鈥減rogram鈥� is little more than a power grab, however he couches it. If all the Israelites are de facto 鈥渏unior partners鈥� in the leadership structure, despite all of them 鈥渂eing holy,鈥� that will not change under Korah. And when she cites the verse 鈥渢he entire assembly is holy, as it is written,鈥� she understands that not as the opening to undermine the divinely sanctioned leadership, but rather as an aspirational observation that is supposed to lead the congregation to holiness in interpersonal relations. (That she exploits this knowledge to save her husband is not a detriment but rather serves to make her a gutsy heroine in another vein altogether.)
That we live in a world of conflict is a given, both in the Bible and ever since. Wise people learn to discern the difference between leaders who would guide society, through conflicts, to its better self, and those who would seek to undermine authority under the ruse that they are fighting 鈥渇or the common man鈥濃�攚hen in reality they seek only to establish themselves in power and enrich themselves while they are doing it. The Sages rightfully intuited Korah鈥檚 true nature in their observation in the Mishnah:
讻指旨诇 诪址讞植诇止拽侄转 砖侄讈讛执讬讗 诇职砖值讈诐 砖指讈诪址讬执诐, 住讜止驻指讛旨 诇职讛执转职拽址讬值旨诐. 讜职砖侄讈讗值讬谞指讛旨 诇职砖值讈诐 砖指讈诪址讬执诐, 讗值讬谉 住讜止驻指讛旨 诇职讛执转职拽址讬值旨诐. 讗值讬讝讜止 讛执讬讗 诪址讞植诇止拽侄转 砖侄讈讛执讬讗 诇职砖值讈诐 砖指讈诪址讬执诐, 讝讜止 诪址讞植诇止拽侄转 讛执诇值旨诇 讜职砖址讈诪址旨讗讬. 讜职砖侄讈讗值讬谞指讛旨 诇职砖值讈诐 砖指讈诪址讬执诐, 讝讜止 诪址讞植诇止拽侄转 拽止专址讞 讜职讻指诇 注植讚指转讜止:
Every dispute that is for the sake of Heaven, will in the end endure; But one that is not for the sake of Heaven, will not endure. Which is the controversy that is for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And which is the controversy that is not for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Korah and all his congregation.
Avot 5:17
May we gain and preserve the discernment to steer clear always from demagoguery, and to support leaders who do not exploit the natural divisions within society but lead people, despite their differences, to lead good鈥攊ndeed, holy鈥攍ives.
The publication and distribution of the 91快播 Commentary are made possible by a generous grant from Rita Dee (锄鈥漧) and Harold Hassenfeld (锄鈥漧).
[1]For a pithy explanation of a contemporary, text-critical approach, see the insightful commentary of Jacob Milgrom, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), 313, n. 4.
