Divrei Torah

This week we read Parashah Korah². Korah, Dathan and Abiram, and 250 chieftains associated with them, challenge Moses and Aaron's leadership. God punishes the rebels by having the earth swallow them up. The overwhelming consensus among the rabbis is that Korah and his allies were evil men concerned only with their own power and status. This attitude is summarized in Perkei Avot, Chapter 5, ¶ 19³:

Second, I'll discuss what we can learn from the Torah reading, and from this passage in Perkei Avot, and how we can apply them to our lives today - our political lives, and also our professional and personal lives.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: in evaluating the evidence in the case, we should begin by remembering the Israelites' situation at the end of last week's Torah reading. They had reached the outskirts of the Promised Land. Moses chose 12 prominent men - one from each tribe - to spy out the land. When the twelve returned, ten told Moses - and told all of the Israelites - "We cannot possibly conquer the land; any attempt to do so would end in disaster!"

Moses is one who kept telling the Israelites that God would give them the land. Moses is the one who led them there. Moses is the one who chose these twelve men; - and fully ten of Moses' 12 hand-picked agents come back and report: "You're leading us to a catastrophe!"

Is it so unreasonable that the people were frightened and uncertain? Is it so unreasonable that the Israelites complained

And consider: What happens next? God tells Moses: let me destroy the Israelites and replace them with your own descendants; Moses dissuades God from doing so. But this apparently occurred in a private dialogue between God and Moses. The people don't know anything about that. Only Moses does.

What do the people learn? That God has decided that their entire generation is to die in the wilderness; only their children will inherit the promised land. And how do the people learn this? They hear this " "life sentence," not from God, but from Moses - the same person who had led them to where they now were, the same person who chose and sent the spies who came back and said, "it's not possible." And when the people, contrite, decide to try to conquer the land, they fail miserably.

Perhaps to some of the Israelites, this entire sequence might enhance Moses' credibility; but others might quite reasonably question whether Moses truly still has God's ear; might wonder about Moses' stability and his ability to continue to be their leader.

And, members of the jury, remember this: The Israelites had lots of experience of how bad things could get when the government was run basically by one man, who claimed to be a god. Now they were ruled by two men - brothers, no less -- who claimed to be the only ones who could speak to God, and the only ones who could communicate God's demands and expectations. Can we really say that at this juncture, unease and uncertainty about Moses and Aaron's exclusive exercise of authority is entirely unreasonable

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, in accusing Korah of attempting an unjustified rebellion against Moses and against God, in accusing him of acting solely out of spite and envy, the prosecution misconstrues Korahs' actions and purposes; indeed, they are unfairly trying to "get" him by the tactic of guilt by association. But after you consider the evidence, I submit, you will see that Korah, though certainly not a perfect human being, acted, even if mistakenly, in what he honestly and reasonably believed were the best interests of the community.

To support the charge that the rebellion of "Korah and his associates" was not a "controversy for Heaven's sake," the rabbis point to several pieces of evidence. First, they claim that all of the rebels were acting out of spite, because they resented that Moses and Aaron had usurped their leadership. But the evidence will show that this is not what motivated my client Korah. Second, the rabbis point to the demagoguery with which the rebels assailed Moses. Let's address that one first.

The rabbis cite several examples of demagoguery. In Chapter 16, verse 3 (Etz Hayim p. 861)⁴, the rebels - apparently including my client Korah - put an unjustified "spin" on Leviticus 19:2. In that verse, God instructs all of the Israelites to be holy; the rebels' version of it is that all of the Israelites are holy, and therefore so Moses and Aaron have no right to lord it over everybody else.

I'll concede the point: in his zeal to do good, my client went a bit too far with his rhetoric. But who among us has not done so?

As another example of demagoguery, the prosecution has also offered numerous midrashim⁵, in which Korah supposedly tried to embarrass Moses with a variety of trick questions. But that's not hard evidence. These midrashim are not inscribed in the Torah; they were written by the rabbis themselves. I submit that it would be unfair, in assessing the rabbis' indictment of my client, to consider evidence which the rabbis themselves have created.

Ah, the prosecutor says, what about Chapter 16, verses 12-15 (Etz Hayim p. 862), where the rebels implicitly accuse Moses of enriching himself unfairly at the people's expense?

I agree: anyone who falsely accuses Moses of corruption actually condemns himself of acting from corrupt motives. But who, I ask you, made this false accusation against Moses? It is clear from verse verse 12 that this passage involves only Dathan and Abiram. NOT my client Korah.

And what leads up to verses 12-15 proves my first point: that Korah, unlike Dathan and Abiram, was sincerely acting in what he thought was the best interests of the Israelite people. Let me explain.

Turn back to verse 16:4 (p. 861). Moses sets a challenge "to Korah and all his company": let each side set out his fire pans, and we'll see who God chooses. We know that Korah and "his company" accept Moses' challenge, because in verses 16-19 (p. 863), we read that Korah and his followers are there, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, fire pans and incense in hand.

Korah was there; but not Dathan and Abiram. Indeed, we know from verse 12 that Dathan and Abiram refused to respond to Moses' request for dialogue. Dathan and Abiram's refusal demonstrates their unwillingness to participate in any process in which God might decide the issue. They put their faith, not in God, but on their own demagoguery.

Korah, by contrast, agreed to Moses' challenge. This proves, ladies and gentlemen, that to Korah, the controversy, in the words of the indictment in Perkei Avot 5:19 - to Korah, the controversy was in fact "for the sake of heaven."

But wait, the prosecutor argues: what about happens in the rest of chapter 16, and most of chapter 17? Doesn't that prove the accusation against Korah

At the end of Chapter 16, the ground opens up and swallows all of the rebels, Korah included. I wonder why it was necessary to kill them; wouldn't it have been enough, for example, to inflict them with snow-white scales? After all, that's how God punished Miriam, back in Chapter 12, when she (and Aaron) challenged Moses' right to the leadership. Why didn't Moses simply ask God to impose that same punishment on the rebels?⁶ There is no clear answer. Perhaps this time the threat to Moses' leadership was so strong that it was necessary to kill all those who opposed Moses, whatever their motives.

But God didn't kill only Moses' challengers. The ground also swallowed up their wives, and their children, most of whom, despite a midrash or two to the contrary, were surely innocent of wrongdoing. So the fact that Korah was among those who were swallowed up does not necessarily mean he was guilty, any more than the wives and children were.

And the Torah contains additional circumstantial evidence that Korah is innocent - or at least, far less guilty than Abiram and Dathan. Turn forward to B'Midbar (Numbers) 26:1-11 (Etz Hayim p, 920-921). At the beginning of the chapter, God orders that a census be taken; the results are listed. Verses 9-11 are instructive:

Do you want more evidence of Korah's innocence? Consider: after all of Moses' opponents (including Korah) have died, God distinguishes Korah and his supporters from Abiram and Dathan. In Chapter 17, God instructs that the fire pans of the rebels are now sacred, and should be used to plate the alter.

Recall that only Korah and his followers, as Levites, participated in the fire pan challenge; Abiram and Dathan, as Reubenites, could not and did not. The prevailing rabbinic commentary is that the fire pans have become holy simply beause they symbolize the triumph of truth over falsehood, "like the trophies of a victorious army."⁹ But others read this episode differently:¹⁰ One commentator suggested that the fire pans

I submit, ladies and gentlemen, that the indictment in Perkei Avot has been proven wrong: as to Korah, at least, the controversy was for the sake of Heaven, and has "endured."

Now my second theme: - what message can we take from this week's Parashah, and from Perkei Avot, for our own times and our own lives

This raises at least two questions. First, how can we tell, when a controversy looms, whether it is or is not, one for the "sake of heaven"? Second, how should we conduct ourselves when we find ourselves in a "controversy"

Next week we celebrate the anniversary of a "controversy" that changed the course of the world: the American Revolution. Was that a dispute that was "for the sake of heaven," like those between Hillel and Shammai; or its opposite

We know how the founding fathers categorized it - they appealed to "nature and Nature's God," and declared that they were acting to implement the "self-evident" truths that "all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights' that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." But that was not the unanimous view at the time. The British crown, the British government, and many sincere and intelligent men and women in the American colonies thought the Revolution was a wholly unjustified "controvesy," in which, as they saw it, a small group of wilful men seized upon petty grievances as an excuse to overthrow the established political order, to their own glory and aggrandizement.

Today of course, with 20-20 hindsight, everyone of good will - even our cousins across the pond - would agree about how that "controversy" should be categorized: it was "for the sake of heaven"; it certainly has "endured," with "lasting value"; and the world is a far, far better place as a result. I think that is particularly clear to us Jews. (As an side - for years I've tried to persuade the Religious Practices Committee that we should say the half-Hallel on July 4th, and I'm happy to report that this year, we WILL in fact do so during our Shacharit service at 9 a.m. on Friday.)¹⁴

Our country is now engaged in its regular quadrennial political "controversy." I think we can also agree that, in secular terms, the question who should be our next president is a "controversy for the sake of heaven." The issues and characteristics that divide the candidates - age, experience, what we should to about Iraq and Iran and the economy - are deep and profound.

Sadly, both sides, and the media, will waste time and attention on silly matters: "Ooh! One candidate's pastor said some pretty outrageous stuff!" "Ooh! The other candidate accepted the endorsement of a minister who said some equally outrageous stuff!" (I mean, good grief, if everyone was judged by the dumbest thing that his or her clergyperson ever said, NOBODY would be able to hold his head up!

There's not much that we can do to prevent silliness like that from dominating the campaign; but we as individuals can make sure that we won't be influenced by it, and can promise not to use it in whatever politicking we do among our friends and associates.

Today's Parashah, and Perkei Avot's reference to it, teach important lessons in our professional, and even more so in our personal lives, as well. First, we should recognize that most of the "controversies" we get into are not "for the sake of heaven": they will not "endure"; they are not so important that we should devote excess time and emotional capital on them; they are not so important that we have to win.

Second, when we are involved in such a controversy, we should follow another teaching from Perkei Avot:

Truth: do not make false accusations or manipulate or "spin" facts the way the rebels in today's Parashah did against Moses.

Justice: remember that in most controversies, it is unlikely that one side is completely right, and the other, completely in the wrong; a just result will probably involve some kind of compromise.

Peace: even if we're convinced that we are completely right, "winning" is often not the best outcome; if one side wins completely, the "loser" will resent it, and nurse the grudge. As the Talmud says,

Notes

2. For those unfamiliar with the term: The Torah is divided into weekly portions, or parashot (pl.; singular, parashah). Each parashah is given the name of a significant word that appears in an early verse. Parashah Korah is found in B'Midbar (Numbers) 16:1-18:32.

3. "Wisdom of the Sages." Pirkei Avot is a tractate of the Mishnah which consists of various aphorisms and moral teachings. 4. Our synagogue uses the chumash entitled Etz Hayim(2001), published jointly by the Rabbinic Assembly and United Synagogue for Conservative Judaismby the Conservative Movement.

5. Some of these are summarized in the note on p. 860 of Etz Hayim. For greater detail, See Ginzburg, The Legends of the Jews, Vol. III (Moses in the Wilderness) at 286-302 (JPS 1954).

6. Perhaps this is why (Chapter 17 verse 6), "The next day, the whole Israelite community railed against Moses and Aaron, saying, 'You have brought death upon the Lord's people!'" In response God sends a plague that kills 14,700 people before Moses and Aaron bring it to an end.

7. In in today's Haftorah, Samuel is forced to defend his honesty, much as Moses does in today's Parashah.

8. Rabbinic midrashim relate that Korah's sons were spared because at the last minute they repented – a plausible explanation, though not supported by any explicit text. But their survival has even greater implications. Consider Sh'mot (Exodus) 20:5-6, from the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) itself:

For I the Lord your God an am impassioned God, visiting the guilt of the parents upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generations of those who reject me, but showing kindness to the thousandth generation of those who love Me and keep My commandments.

Korah's sons survived to serve God and, generations later, to lead the Israelites – certainly evidence of having been "shown kindness," which suggests that Korah should be numbered among those who "love [God] and keep [God's] commandments."

9. Etz Hayim p. 866, commenting on 17:2-3.

10. The following indented paragraph is also from Etz Hayim at 866, commenting on 17:2-3.

11. Id, citing Ha-amek Davar, a commentary on the Torah by Rabbi Nafti Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, 1871-1893. His name is commonly abbreviated by its consonants as Netziv ( , which can also mean "pillar". He served as the rosh yeshiva (i.e. leader) of the Volozhin Yeshiva in present-day Belarus, and was the author of several works of rabbinic literature.

12. Id. citing "Kook," presumably Abraham Isaac Kook, 1865-1935, the Chief Rabbi of Palestine from 1921-1935 and a spiritual leader who inspired the religious and non-religious alike.

13. See, e.g., David Elcott, Different Leaders for Different Times ("While Korah’s rebellion was inappropriate in the context of newly freed slaves in the wilderness, his challenges speak to us powerfully today"), CLAL, The National Jewish Center for Learning nad Leadership. (Elcott is the director of interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Committee, and the executive director of the Israel Policy Forum.)

14. July 4th this year coincides with Rosh Hodesh, i.e. the beginning of the new month; the half-Hallel is a regular part of the Rosh Hodesh morning service.

15. "...as it is written (Zechariah 8:16): 'Speak the truth to one another, render in your gates judgments that are true and make for peace.'" Chapter 1:28.

16. Eugene Borowitz & Francis Weiman Schwartz, The Jewish Moral Virtues 241, citing Derekh Eretz Zuta 9.11. (D.E.Z. is an uncanonical treatise of the Babylonian Talmud.)

17. Quoted in Barbara Binder Kadden, Chai, Learning for Jewish Life at 191 (URJ Press 2004).

Honoring the 40th anniversary of Betty & Cliff's Wedding

Given by Clifford S. Fishman on June 28, 2008 (25 Sivan 5768 )
Shabbat Korah

Notes

Honoring the 40th anniversary of Betty & Cliff's Wedding

Given by Clifford S. Fishman on June 28, 2008 (25 Sivan 5768 ) Shabbat Korah

Notes

Given by Clifford S. Fishman on June 28, 2008 (25 Sivan 5768 )
Shabbat Korah