Korah (Numbers 16:1-18:32)
OVERVIEW
In this week's parasha, complaints and rebellions reach a dangerous high, threatening to destroy the unity of the Israelite people. A man named Korach, along with Dattan, Aviram and 250 followers, challenge Moses and Aaron's leadership. Korach has powerful arguments, to which Moses realizes he must respond. Moses sets the next day for a dramatic test. When Korach refuses to stay his rebellion, this test demonstrates that Moses and Aaron are in fact God's choice to lead the people. Korach, Dattan, and Aviram, along with their entire families, are swallowed up by the earth, and the 250 other men are consumed by a heavenly fire. Seeing this, a riot breaks out among the people. A plague is sent as a punishment against the rebellious people. Aaron intervenes and stops it, but not before thousands of people perish. At the end of the portion, the duties of the priests and Levites are clarified. Also laws are stated which specify that the first fruits of plants, animals, and human beings are to be dedicated to God.
IN FOCUS
And Korach, the son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, betook himself, along with Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab and On, son of Peleth, descendents of Reuben. (Numbers 16:1)
PSHAT
This is the opening line of the Korach saga, which identifies the main players. The family lineage provides us with some important information. Korach is of the tribe of Levi (he and Moses and Aaron are first cousins). His challenge, therefore, to the leadership of Moses and Aaron must be seen in the context of the family dynamic as well as that of the nation. This is not a populous uprising. Korach is not seeking equal opportunity for all. He is merely challenging the "establishment" as a Levite, and therefore one who could conceivably have a shot at leadership as well. His grievance is aimed primarily at Aaron and the rest of the religious leadership. Dathan and Abiran, on the other hand, are of the tribe of Reuben. Their rebellion is against Moses, and is more of a civil uprising, not against the long-term right of succession, but over the existing state of leadership. As contemporary scholars point out, the story keeps shifting its emphasis between Korach and Datan and Abiram, and we actually seem to have two different rebellions going on here at the same time. As Rabbi Gunther Plaut points out in his commentary on the Torah, "apparently two traditions were joined together."
DRASH
Grammatically, this first line seems to leave us hanging. It does give us all the information about the leaders of the rebellion(s), but the information is incomplete. Literally, the sentence reads, And Korach...took..., but it does not tell us what he took, or to where. What, then, is this incomplete sentence trying to tell us?
One little word can be read to teach us so much. The Hebrew reads, Vayikach Korach, meaning "and Korach took." Rashi, following in the teaching of Midrash Tanchuma, explains that Vayikach Korach means that Korach physically took himself to one side in order to separate himself from the community. He did this so he could contend for the priesthood, which God, through Moses, had conferred on Aaron and his sons as a hereditary office. Korach claimed the priesthood belonged to all of Israel, and therefore no one family should monopolize it. In "taking himself" away from the community - that is, actually walking away from the centre of the community's activities and setting up his tent outside the camp - Korach was, effectively, thumbing his nose at the establishment and trying to demonstrate to the people that there is an alternative. He wanted to be seen (actually, visually seen) as that alternative.
Ramban takes exception to Rashi's view. He reads vayikach as having a more symbolic meaning. Looking at other uses of the verb in scripture, he notes that vayikach denotes not a physical move, but a spiritual one. In Ramban's opinion, the midrash clearly means that Korach's heart stirred him up to revolt. He further quotes from Midrash Rabbah to note that the text does not say that Korach "spoke" or "quarreled" but rather that he "took", meaning that his heart took control of him.
Ibn Ezra sees it differently again. He reads the text to simply mean that Korach took men (specifically Dathan and Abiram) with him to confront Moses and Aaron. He gives a grammatical explanation, also consulting other usages of the verb in scripture. Most modern translations seem to reflect this opinion, although my Rabbi Gunther Plaut notes in his commentary that this is a "speculative translation".
So why all the bother about one word? Well, this is, after all, Torah, and our tradition teaches that Torah is economical in its use of language. Not only does each and every passage have layers of meaning, but so too does each and every word and, in fact, each and every letter. The story of Korach's rebellion speaks to the very nature of holiness, leadership, and the authority of God. How can we ever come to understand these important concepts if even one word of our text is unsure? And so our sages, and we today, strive to understand the whole range of possibilities.
DAVAR AHER
Which controversy was in the name of heaven? The controversy between Hillel and Shammai. And which one was not in the name of heaven? The controversy between Korach and all his company. (Pikei Avot 5:20)
Why does the verse not read "the controversy between Korach and Moses," parallelling "the controversy between Hillel and Shammai"? Because Moses was guided solely by honourable motives. Only the intentions of Korach and his company definitely were not in the "Name of Heaven." (Midrash Shmuel)
