Rabbi Ariel Friedlander

Our story seems simple. Korach, Moses’ first cousin, brings the heads of various factions of the Children of Israel together in rebellion against their current leadership. Moses demands a miracle from God to support his position, and the ground opens up to swallow all the rebels, their families, and their possessions. Hurrah!

The traditional understanding is that Korach is clearly a villain. He claims to speak for the community, but is motivated by ambition and personal resentment, and he gets his just deserts. Yet the entire Torah portion is named for Korach. There are only 5 parashot named after a person: Noach, Yitro, Korach, Balak and Pinchas (1). This emphasis suggests that there is more to be gleaned than we first thought.

One might conclude that argument is wrong, and the supreme value in our relationship to God should be submission to God’s will. While we certainly can be considered a “stiff-necked people” (2), this may have more to do with our inability to listen (3). In fact, as Rabbi Jonathan Sacks teaches, “Argument in Judaism is a holy activity, the ongoing eternal dialogue of the Jewish people as it reflects on the terms of its destiny and the demands of its faith (4).”

The examples of Abraham and Moses, who argue with God and manage to change God’s mind, show that there are times when we should advocate for what we believe is just and fair (5). Korach certainly presents his argument in that vein, but he is wiped from the face of the earth. If it was not the fact that he challenged God’s will, what could his crime have been?

Since disagreement is permissible, our ancestors deduced that it was the way that Korach argued that was problematic. In Pirkei Avot, the rabbis introduce the concept of an argument “l’shem shamayim”, “for the sake of heaven”, and cite Korach as an example of what is not such an argument (6). Rabbi John Rayner explains this as a debate

“… in which the protagonists have the highest respect for each other and are concerned only about the issues of the case, each striving to the best of his (sic) ability to interpret God’s will (7).”

What Korach says, in terms of the elitism of the priestly cult, and the egalitarian nature of the Israelite community, makes sense in our contemporary context. However, Korach shows no respect for Moses and Aaron, admonishing them publicly in front of other community leaders. He tries to humiliate them and has no interest in negotiation.

As for Moses, he is not completely innocent in all of this. Could he have responded better? Although his initial response is humble, he does not engage with Korach. He organises a competition to settle the issue, and ultimately calls on God to blow his opponent away. If Moses had been more proactive with Korach; if he had asked questions that elicited clues to the source of Korach’s anger and disdain; if he had tried to engage Korach, could thousands of Israelite deaths have been avoided?

We can have empathy with Korach, for we have felt passed over and our merit ignored at some point in our lives. We can have compassion for Korach, recalling when we have tried to raise ourselves above others to shore up our own lack of self-esteem. We can show humility when we hear Korach’s story, acknowledging that the potential to respond as he did has existed in each of our hearts.

This is why the story of Korach has such power in every generation. The text tells us that the firepans of the rebels were recovered and hammered into sheets of copper to cover the altar (8). This is an eternal reminder not only of the original event, but also that the potential for such behaviour, by any of us, is always there. Hitting out at our perceived adversary rarely solves the problem. When we recognise a kinship to Korach within ourselves, we can begin to understand our motivation, and start to find a different way to express ourselves. Sometimes, we may also see ourselves as being in a situation similar to Moses. However we connect, the question is: how do we begin a discussion l’shem shamayim?

The answer is simple: Shema Yisrael! Listen, Israel. Pay attention! Make space for a different perspective to exist. Giving another person the respect of listening does not weaken your argument. That is the first step away from conflict, and towards dialogue. Shema Yisrael!

1. One may also include Chayei Sarah, except that it is about what happened after her death
2. Exodus 32:9
3. See Rashi on Ex. 32:9
4. An oft-stated perspective in Jewish thought, articulated here by R. Jonathan Sacks in his sermon for Parshat Korach, 5775.
5. Abraham regarding the fate of the people of Sodom & Gomorrah, Genesis 18:22-33; and Moses re God’s intent to destroy the Children of Israel and start again, Exodus 32:10-14
6. 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. Pirkei Avot 5:17
7. Rabbi John Rayner’s sermon. “Jerusalem”, for Parashat Korach 01.07.1967
8. Numbers 17:3

Recent Commentaries