Beth Shalom
Oceanside Jewish Center

Korach:
Demagogue or Democrat?

Parshat Korach 5764
By Rabbi Mark B Greenspan

Each year as we read Parshat Korach I find myself deeply troubled by the central character and namesake of this week’s Parshah. In the Torah, a book that generally has no absolute heroes or villains, Korach comes about as close as anyone to being the embodiment of evil. While Moses speaks out and defends the people on many occasions, he shows little sympathy for Korach and his fellow rebels. Moses is outraged by Korach’s rebellion and infuriated because he challenges Moses’ leadership.

The problem is that Korach doesn’t appear so bad if we take him at his word. In fact, I would suggest that Korach sounds a lot like a man who was ahead of his time, a true democrat, in the tradition of America. When Korach approaches Moses, he argues that no one should presume to have absolutely power over the people. He tells Moses, “You’ve gone too far, for all the community is holy and the Lord is in their midst. Why, then, do you raise yourselves above the Lord’s congregation?”

Having stood at Mount Sinai when the Torah was given, Korach argues, Judaism should be of the people, by the people and for the people. Korach reacts because Moses not has absolute power over the nation and because he turns the priesthood over to his brother. Talk about nepotism….

So maybe Korach had good reason to be ticked off at his younger cousin. Why, then, did the sages express such animosity toward him? The Midrash picks up where the Torah leaves off. It portrays Korach as a cynical demagogue, a heretic, and a self serving egotist out to satisfy his own interests. He not only challenges Moses but questions the authority of the Torah. Throughout the ages, Korach has been a convenient punching bag for anyone who challenged rabbinic authority.

So what’s so bad about Korach? Was he a democrat or a demagogue, a sinner or a saint? Nowhere do we find a punishment as bad as his: he and his followers are swallowed up by the earth and buried alive!

Rabbi Ismar Schoresh, chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, offers an intriguing interpretation of Korach’s rebellion in his weekly Torah commentary. He argues that the conflict between Moses and Korach has more to do with ascribed vs. achieved authority than democracy. He suggests that to understand Korach’s real motivation, you have to consider his background and that of his fellow rebels. As a Levite, Korach may have been outraged by the fact that he was passed over in the line of leadership. Korach was the son of an older descendent in the house of Levi. By right of primogeniture he should have been given the first right to cultic leadership. And yet not only did Moses hold the position of leader but Aaron was given authority over the tribe of Levi.

Similarly, Datan, Abiram, and On ben Pelet were descendents of the tribe of Reuben. Since Reuben was the oldest of Jacob’s sons they may have felt that they had a right to rule over the nation in place of Moses. Finally, the two hundred and fifty malcontents who joined Korach are described as, “chieftain’s of the community, chosen of the assembly, men of repute.” Commentators suggests that they were the first born of the various clans and as such they also had a claim to the cultic leadership of the nation since the first born were supposed to be in charge.

The picture that emerges here is not of a unified revolt, but a band of people who each had their own personal agenda. Maybe that’s why the sages referred to this controversy as “The controversy of Korach and his company” rather than “the controversy of Korach and Moses.” Korach and his company were not of one mind – they were really feuding among themselves.

God chose Moses and Aaron not because they were ascribed the right of leadership by virtue of their family or tribal position but because they had earned the authority by example. Time and again they put their lives on the line. By the time of the rabbis, leadership had passed from the priesthood (who had ascribed Leadership) to the sages (who had to achieve leadership.) The Rabbis were rich and poor, they came from every walk of life, but they led by example and by the depth of their knowledge. To understand what was wrong with Korach, then, one has to look beyond his words and recognize that he had an ulterior motive for his rebellion.

And how about, today? Just how democratic is Jewish life, or how democratic should it be. When I listen to Korach’s words I can’t help but feel a little bit of sympathy. On the other hand, I know that there must be some semblance order and that as a Conservative Rabbi, I view myself as the Mara D’atra, literally, “the master of the place,” who is entrusted with making all Halachic decisions for my congregation. Yet this seems to fly in the face of democracy. On the other we’re living at a time in history when we celebrate the personal autonomy of each individual. Should a congregation’s policies be decided by popular vote?

Rabbi Mordechai Kaplan wrote that Halachah should have a vote but not a veto in our lives. This was his way of saying that authority ultimately lies with the people. And in fact in the Reconstructionist movement, the Rabbi is envisioned as an enabler rather than the Mara D’atra. That creates a very different culture within the community. In Conservative Congregations like ours we put the Rabbi in charge but how many of us really listen to him (or her?)

Though we don’t think about these issues too often, I believe that they lie at the heart of our struggles as Conservative Jews. We are living in an age when we tend to think, as the book of Judges says, that “everyone does that which is right in his own eyes.” But such an ethos destroys any sense of community or continuity. Suggesting that we must cater to a “higher authority” is not politically correct or popular these days (unless you happen to work for Hebrew National.)

Later in the book of Numbers we read “B’nai Korach lo maytu” “The children of Korach did not die,” presumably in the great disaster that ended their father’s rebellion. Yeshaya Lebowitz, however, suggests that this means that in every generation there are people who are ready to assume autonomy because they believe that they are as close to God as they need to be. We live in a state of constant tension between listening to the voice of God and answering our own inner conscience. There are no easy answers or simple solutions. We continue to struggle with this tension in Jewish life and in life in general.

“B’nai Korach lo Maytu.” The descendants of Korach are still very much alive. There will always be demagogues in the community at large, people who feel they can make their own rules and who do not feel bound by the rule of law. We can struggle with the tensions of Jewish life but we must also look at our motivations.

The sages suggest that Korach is really a mnemonic, an abbreviation for Kinah, Romemut, and Hemdah: jealousy, arrogance and covetousness. These were the true motivations that led to Korach’s rebellion. We have every right to challenge and question authority but we must ask ourselves what is behind our questions!

Shabbat Shalom