By Clifford S. Fishman
This week’s Torah portion is Korach: Numbers 16:1 — 18:32
The opening event in this week’s Torah portion is “Korah’s rebellion.” Korah led a group of 250 community chieftains who complained that Moses and Aaron had accumulated too much power and that they — the chieftains — must be included in the decision making. Our rabbis condemn Korah as a rabble-rouser interested only in his own power and prestige. Unlike the controversy between Hillel and Shamai, which was “for the sake of heaven” and therefore “endures,” they point to Korah’s “rebellion” as a controversy that was not “for the sake of heaven,” and therefore will not endure.
I seek to “controvert” that conclusion. I believe Korah’s rebellion had a legitimate purpose, and therefore “endures” — i.e., his cause retains value even today.
Korah’s goal — to persuade Moses to consult others before acting — was radical. But was it unreasonable? Consider:
Again and again, Moses had assured the Israelites that their God promised they would soon inherit a rich and beautiful land. Last week, we read that, after reaching its border, Moses hand-picked 12 men to sneak into Canaan and gather intelligence. Ten of the 12 reported that they could not possibly succeed — compared to the occupants, “we were like grasshoppers in our own eyes.” Shocked and angry, the people protested. In anger, God told Moses that their entire generation would die in the wilderness; only then would the next generation be permitted to enter — and conquer — the land. Moses then repeated this to the Israelites — who had only Moses’ word that this was God’s decision.
Can we blame them for questioning whether Moses and Aaron should continue to govern pretty much by themselves? Wasn’t it reasonable for community leaders to want to share in the decision-making?
Many of Korah’s followers acted more out of self-interest than for the good of the whole. But I believe that Korah was mainly motivated by legitimate concerns for the people.
Moses summoned the rebels and challenged them: Let’s all put firepans and incense outside our tents and God will show us who is right. Korah accepted the challenge. Why would he, unless he believed he was right?
What Korah proposed was radical — the first step in what might eventually become a democracy, where, ultimately, the people would govern themselves.
God sided with Moses, and according to Numbers 16:31-33, “all Korah’s people and their possessions” were swallowed up by the earth. But God instructed that Korah’s firepans were nonetheless to be treated as sacred objects. Doesn’t that suggest that his cause had lasting value?
And a few chapters later, the Torah tells us that although the other leaders of the rebellion — and their families — were swallowed up, “the sons of Korah did not die.” (Numbers 26:8-11.) In fact, generations later, Korah’s descendants composed some of the psalms that are included in our liturgy.
Korah had to die because Israelite society — human society in general — was not yet ready for democratic rule. The traditional view is that Korah’s sons were spared because, at the last moment, they repented their father’s conduct. But perhaps God spared them because, even though Korah’s death was necessary, his cause was a worthy one — albeit millennia too early. Thus, his descendants were spared and continued contributing to society.
We need a strong government; we need restraints on those who govern. Surely that is a “controversy for the sake of heaven,” which has “endured” and challenged humankind throughout its history.
Clifford S. Fishman is emeritus professor of law at The Catholic University of America. He is a long-time member and past president of Tikvat Israel Congregation in Rockville, Maryland.
