“And Korach the son of Yitzhar the son of Kahat the son of Leyve separated himself, together with Datan and Aviram the sons of Ahaliav and Ohn the son of Pelet, the sons of Reuven.” (BeMidbar 16:1)
Korach initiated a dispute with Moshe regarding the
leadership of Bnai Yisrael. Rashi
explains that Korach was motivated by personal ambitions. Moshe had appointed Elisafan the son of
Uziel as prince of the family of Kahat.
Korach believed that he should have received this honor.[1] Datan, Aviram and Ohn were not involved in
this issue. They did not have this
personal motivation to join the dispute.
Why did they become involved?
Bnai Yisrael camped in the wilderness in accordance
with a specific order. The Shevet – tribe – of Reuven camped
adjacent to the family of Kahat. This
proximity encouraged close relations between these neighbors. Korach developed a following among members
of the Shevet of Reuven. Rashi
summarizes this phenomenon with the statement, “Woe to the evil doer and woe to
his neighbor”.[2]
Rashi seems to maintain that the members of Shevet Reuven were not, by nature, evil.
They were influenced by the attitudes of their neighbors. It is interesting that the good qualities of
Shevet Reuven did not have a positive
influence upon Korach and his followers among the family of Kahat.
Furthermore, the Shevet
of Reuven was adjacent to the family of Kahat on one side. On other sides the Shevet was next to tribes that were not inclined to join Korach’s
rebellion. Yet, the positive role
models among their other neighbors did not guide these members of Shevet
Reuven.
It seems that Rashi maintains that the power of evil
to corrupt is greater than the influence of the good to motivate righteous
behavior. Every person must struggle to
achieve human perfection. Although
material instincts pull us toward evil, we can overcome this influence. However, we can never completely eradicate the
instinctual component of our personality.
We can never assume we are beyond the desire to sin. We can only hope to control our tendency
towards evil. The desire remains deep
within our personality. The desire to
do good is apparently more tentative.
It requires the conquest of the intellectual and spiritual over the more
basic instinctual. This process is a
lifelong struggle. Even in a righteous
individual some level of conflict remains.
Rashi’s analysis can now be more fully
understood. When evil confronts good it
is easier for the evil to exert influence over the good. The evildoer has less conflict. The righteous individual lives with
conflict. The evil person encourages a
return to the instinctual desires. The
righteous person is now confronted with a growing internal battle. Sometimes he or she succumbs to the evil
desires.
Rashi urges us to choose our neighbors well. We should not assume they will not influence
us. Instead we should adopt the premise
that we will be influenced and choose neighbors whose influence will be
positive.
“And Moshe
became very angry. He said to Hashem,
‘Do not accept their offering. I did
not take a single donkey from them! I
did not do harm to any of them.”
(BeMidbar 16:15)
Moshe continues to attempt to make peace with Korach
and his followers. He sends a messenger
to Datan and Aviram. These are two of
the leaders of the rebellion. He wishes
to meet with them. Datan and Aviram
refuse the offer. Instead, they
lash-out at Moshe. They raise new
issues. Moshe has failed to fulfill his
promise to take them to a land flowing with milk and honey. The generation that Moshe brought out from
Egypt has been condemned to die in the wilderness. Furthermore, Moshe has made himself ruler over the nation.
Our pasuk
describes Moshe’s reaction. Moshe
becomes angry. He prays to Hashem. He asks Hashem not to accept the offerings of
Korach and his followers. Finally, he
declares that he has not deprived anyone of his property. He has not wronged anyone.
There are two problems with Moshe’s comments. First, Moshe seems to be defending himself. He seems to feel that he needs to prove that
he has not been despotic. Why is Moshe
defending his integrity? Second, Moshe
begins his defense by observing that he has not deprived anyone of personal
property. This seems to be an odd
defense. Moshe seems to be defending
himself by asserting that he is not a thief!
This does not prove he has not assumed unwarranted authority.
In order to understand Moshe’s comments, some
background is needed. In fact, Moshe
did have the status of a king. He was
the temporal ruler of Bnai Yisrael.[3] As king, Moshe did have the right to
confiscate private property for his own use.[4] Now, we can begin to understand Moshe’s
comments. He was not asserting that he
was not a thief. He was declaring that
he had not exercised his rights as king.
He had not practiced his right of confiscation.
Why did Moshe feel compelled to defend the
beneficence of his leadership? Datan
and Aviram had challenged Moshe’s leadership.
Moshe realized that there were two possible causes for this
rebellion. The first possibility was
that Datan and Aviram could not accept anyone’s leadership. They were simply unwilling to submit to any
leader. The second possibility was that
his own behavior had evoked their response.
Perhaps, unintentionally, he had been overbearing.
Moshe decided to test the issue. He humbled himself before Datan and
Aviram. He attempted to appease
them. If Datan and Aviram rejected this
overture, Moshe would know that his actions had not produced this dispute. Such a reaction would indicate that even the
most unobtrusive leadership would not be tolerated.
Datan
and Aviram immediately rejected Moshe’s appeal. Now, Moshe knew with certainty that he had not caused this
rebellion. This is the meaning of
Moshe’s comments. Moshe is asserting
that he has been not been an overbearing leader. He has not even exercised the rights of a king. Therefore, he is not responsible for this
rebellion. Korach, Datan and Aviram
will not accept any leader.
“This is what you
should do. Take for yourself
fire-plates – Korach and his assembly.” (BeMidbar 16:6)
What was the issue raised by Korach and his
followers? As we have explained, they
disputed Moshe’s right to make appointments to the priesthood. However, at a deeper level Korach and his
followers questioned the entire institution of priesthood. Korach argued that the entire nation was
sacred. The priesthood should not be
bestowed upon a single family. Instead,
it should be distributed more evenly within Bnai Yisrael. Moshe rejected this argument. He insisted that the priesthood belongs
exclusively to Ahron and his descendants.
What was wrong with Korach’s argument? Why does Bnai Yisrael have Kohanim? Why cannot any individual assume the role of Kohen? Rashi deals with
this issue. He explains that there is a
fundamental difference between the Torah
and heathen religions. The heathens
have many alternative practices. They
have various priests. They worship in
numerous temples. In contrast, the Torah insists upon a single law. There is one Mikdash – Temple. There is
a single Kohen Gadol.[5]
Rashi’s response requires further explanation. Rashi identifies a fundamental difference
between the Torah and heathen
practices. However, he does not explain
the reason for this difference. Why
does the Torah insist on a single Mikdash and one Kohen Gadol? Why does the Torah not allow for the diversity
accommodated by other religions?
The answer is that the Torah proposes a unique approach to Divine service. Heathen religion is essentially an
expression of the worshipper. The mode
of service is derived from the personal needs of the worshipper. The worshipper designs the service in a manner
that is personally meaningful. This
results in remarkable diversity. Different
cultures produce their own religious expressions and modes of worship. This is because each culture is unique and
seeks to express religious feelings in an individual manner.
The Torah
does not treat worship as an expression of the needs of the worshiper. Instead, Torah
worship involves submission to the will of the Almighty. Worship is not designed to respond to the
needs of the worshiper. It is a
response to the will of Hashem.
The Torah
approach implies that there must be unity of worship. Diversity in Divine service is
inappropriate. All Jews submit to a
single G-d. This Deity has a single
will. Therefore, all Jews must worship
in a single manner. There cannot be
multiple Temples expressing various versions of worship. Neither can there be various High Priests
each proposing his own form of worship.
There is a single Torah, one Mikdash and one Kohen Gadol.
“And it was on the following day and Moshe entered the Tent of Testimony. And it was that Ahron’s staff representing the house of Leyve had blossomed. And it had brought forth blossoms and then unripe fruit and then almonds.” (BeMidbar 17:23)
Hashem commanded Moshe to collect a staff from the
prince of each tribe. Ahron’s staff represented the Shevet of Leyve. These
staffs were then placed in the Mishcan. The following day Ahron’s staff blossomed
and bore fruit. This miracle indicated
that Ahron was truly the Kohen
appointed by the Almighty.
Korach’s rebellion had already ended. He and his followers had been destroyed through
a series of miracles. Why was further
proof of Ahron’s authenticity needed?
One explanation is that there were two elements in
Korach’s rebellion. First, Korach and
his followers rebelled against Moshe’s authority. The manner in which they protested the appointment of the Kohanim – the priests – was
inappropriate. They did not question
Moshe in a respectful manner. They
denied his authority and encouraged anarchy.
Second, they had questioned the concept of priesthood. The destruction of Korach and his followers
indicated that their approach had been sinful. However the question of the
legitimacy of the priesthood had not been dealt with fully. The people could mistakenly assume that
Korach and his camp were punished for their rebellious attitude. There would remain doubts regarding the
position of the Kohanim.
The miracle of Ahron’s staff responded to this
possible doubt. Through this sign,
Hashem confirmed the legitimacy of Ahron and the Kohanim.
[1] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar 16:1.
[2] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar 16:1.
[3] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on
Sefer
Shemot 30:13; Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 36:31;
Rabbaynu Avraham ibn Ezra, Commentary on Sefer Devarim 33:5.
[4] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah,
Hilchot
Melachim 4:1.
[5] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar 16:1.