TEN QUESTIONS ABOUT KORAH

The Video of this class

1. WHO WAS KORAH?
Korah is a firstborn, to the second-born (Izhar) of a second-born (Kohat) of a third-born (Levi)
Korah is to Izhar what Aaron is to Amram.
Korah is Aaron and Moses and Miriam's first cousin.

Note: Here it says they rose up against Moses (alone). Next verse says they rose up against Moses and Aaron.

2. WHAT DOES HE WANT?
a. The office, position of authority: power.
b. The honor.
c. The trappings, clothing etc.
d. The emoluments.
3. HOW DOES HE STRUCTURE HIS CLAIM?
(A) HE APPEALS TO FAIRNESS
רַב־לָכֶם֒
"You have too much" - Rashi
הַרְבֵּה יוֹתֵר מִדַּאי לְקַחְתֶּם לְעַצְמְכֶם גְּדֻלָּה
לָכֶם֒ - This is a reference to Moses and Aaron. The two of you have too much.
You Moses have the leadership of the people and you Aaron have the priesthood. Why should both the leadership and the priesthood be entrusted to one branch of the Kohat's? Why do the Amram's get both offices? It's not fair. Moses you keep the leadership and give the priesethood to me.
"You grabbed the greater share" - Ibn Ezra
כמו די לכם והטעם שתפשתם החלק הרב
You took this glory because you were the ones who said that Aaron and his sons would be kohanim, and clothing of gold, precious stones, and jewels were made for them by the community for "glory and splendor" and the entire people is subservient to them with 24 gifts to the priesthood. Bekhor Shor
לקחת הגדולה הזאת שאתם אומרים אהרן ובניו יהיו כהנים ועשו להם בגדי זהב ואבנים טובות ומרגליות של צבור לכבוד ולתפארת, וכל העדה משועבדים להם בעשרים וארבעה מתנות כהונה,

(B) HE APPEALS TO THE LOGIC OF EQUALITY - HOLINESS (part 1)
His claim: כִּ֤י כׇל־הָֽעֵדָה֙ כֻּלָּ֣ם קְדֹשִׁ֔ים - for all of the community, all of them, are holy.
This is an appeal to the logic of equality of holiness:
If all of us are holy, why do you get to be holier?
(But if that is the case, why should he be holier?)

(C) HE APPEALS TO THE LOGIC OF EQUALITY - ACCESS TO GOD (part 2)
His claim: 'וּבְתוֹכָ֖ם ה - and God is in their midst
This is an appeal to the logic of equality of proximity to God.
If all of us have equal access to God, why should they "control" that access?

The punch lineוּמַדּ֥וּעַ תִּֽתְנַשְּׂא֖וּ עַל־קְהַ֥ל ה' ׃
1. You have taken too much.
2. Everyone is holy. Why do you get to be holier?
3. Everyone has access to God. Why do you get special access?
Why then do you "raise yourselves" up over the congregation?
Why have you done this?
Korah's claim is that Moses and Aaron have instituted this; they are the ones who have determined the political and religious structure - not God! The rebellion challenges the legitimacy of their leadership. You have chosen yourselves; we certainly have not chosen you. What entitles you to the leadership?

4. WHY DOES KORAH THINK HE IS ENTITLED TO MAKE THIS CLAIM?

Speculation: The prerogative of the second born.
Cain and Abel: Abel is preferred. Abel is second.
Ishmael and Isaac: Isaac is preferred. Isaac is second (to his father).
Esau and Jacob: Jacob is preferred. Jacob is second.
Leah and Rachel: Rachel is preferred. Rachel is second.
Sons of Jacob
(LEAH) 1.Reuben 2.Simeon 3.Levi 4.Judah,
(BILHA) 5.Dan 6.Naftali
(ZILPA) 7.Gad 8.Asher
(LEAH) 9.Issachar 10.Zevulun (Dina)
(RACHEL) 11.Joseph 12. Benjamin
Joseph is preferred. First born of Rachel.
Levi becomes a head of a new dynasty.
If Levi is like Abraham then:
Kohat (second born of Levi) is like Isaac;
and Yitzhar (second born of Kohat) is like Jacob;
and Korach (first born of Yitzhar) is like Joseph!

5. WHY DOESN'T KORAH STAGE A COUP AND MURDER MOSES OR AARON?
Speculation:
a) because he would be violating one of the Ten Commandments.
b) because he believes in the legitimacy of his claim; he has convinced himself that he is right.
c) because he would become disqualified for the priesthood.

6. WHY DOESN'T MOSES HAVE HIM KILLED OR JAILED?
Speculation:
a) because Korah's act is not a violation of the law like, say, the wood-gatherer or the blasphemer;
b) because while this is a political problem for Moses, it is a challenge to divine authority and Moses appeals to divine authority;
c) because Moses is also bound to the law of the Ten Commandments;
d) because Moses has a better plan: the fire pan plan.

7. WHY DOES MOSES ELECT TO HAVE KORAH SUBJECTED TO AN ORDEAL?

Because this should remind them what happens when the wrong people encroach the tabernacle, under the wrong circumstances, with incense and the wrong fire. Recall Nadav and Avihu:

8. IF KORAH KNOWS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE WRONG PEOPLE BRING INCENSE, WHY DOESN'T HE CALL IT OFF?
Speculation:
a) because, like all charlatans, populists, and carpetbaggers, he's convinced that he's right.
b) he'd rather die than look like a coward.
c) the die is cast; he had no choice.

9. WHY DOES MOSES SCHEDULE THE ORDEAL FOR "TOMORROW"?
Speculation:
a) because it raises suspense.
b) because in many of the plagues, he warns Pharaoh that the plague will come "tomorrow".
c) because, like Aaron and the Golden Calf, he is reminding them that this is a rebellion that will end in catastrophe. Aaron said: חַ֥ג לַה מָחָֽר׃ - it is a festival to God "tomorrow."
d) because it gives them time to repent.

10. WHAT MANNER OF MAN/POLITICIAN IS KORAH?

https://www.rightminds.nz/articles/five-archetypes-politicians

The Five Archetypes of Politicians
Here in the western world, no matter what our views or political allegiances might be, we all share the luck and good fortune of living in democracies and having the right to vote for our leaders and representatives.
Unfortunately, politicians are a notoriously tricky lot and while their policies are usually scrutinised closely, their psychology and how this will affect their leadership style and decision making are often left unexamined.
With elections approaching in the UK, Germany and New Zealand, and hot on the heels of elections in Australia, France and the USA, now seems as good a time as any to explore the five types of politicians and leaders that you are likely to encounter in office, or on the campaign trail.
The five archetypes that I have observed are, the Joker, the Rebel, the Technocrat, the Messiah and the Outsider.
As these are archetypes, they are not mutually exclusive - politicians will often bear the characteristics of one or more archetype, and some might find themselves changing type as their career progresses. For example, Barack Obama began as a Messiah-type, but ultimately ended up a Technocrat-type. It should also be emphasised that these types are based on personality not politics - and people of any and all political persuasions will be found amongst each archetype.
The five archetypes can be expressed graphically, with each type being a combination of visionary or reactionary leadership (that is, whether they are day-to-day managers, or politicians who seek more radical long-term change) with positive/inclusive personalities (i.e. unifying) or negative/exclusive personalities (i.e. divisive). The Outsider type is in the centre, as they tend to exhibit a combination of all of the above characteristics.
1. The Joker
"Everything is fine!"
Notable examples: Boris Johnson, David Lange, Ronald Reagan
Strengths: Optimistic, Able to project confidence and warmth
Weaknesses: Desire for popularity usually leads to poor decision making
Joker types are almost invariably larger-than-life characters, "feel good" politicians who tend to be more like celebrities and entertainers than statesmen.
While their warm and optimistic personalities can be useful to cheer up a population facing a tough time, their desire to be liked by everyone will often prevent them from making tough but necessary decisions, especially if there's a chance that this could dent their popularity.
As the name might suggest, Jokers tend to have an excellent sense of humour and tend to be self-deprecating, refusing to take themselves too seriously. Unfortunately their refusal to take themselves seriously sometimes means a failure to take their office or their job seriously - with Jokers more likely to enjoy taking selfies with the public than serious policy discussions.
Jokers, when in leadership roles, can use the power of their personality, and their positive nature, to create a sense of pride and patriotism among the public. Examples include former New Zealand Prime Minister David Lange, who used his wit and charisma to push New Zealand's anti-nuclear position and made it into a source of national pride. Former US President Ronald Reagan was also adept at using his warm persona and self-deprecating wit to revive pride and patriotism in the United States at a time when national morale was at an all time low.
The best known modern example of a Joker is former London Mayor Boris Johnson.
2. The Messiah
"Trust me. I'm here to save you."
Notable examples: Winston Churchill, Vladimir Putin, Barack Obama
Strengths: Inspiring orators and excellent crisis leaders
Weaknesses: Heavy reliance on manipulating media and public image, can become dictatorial
The Messiah is a rare type of politician who usually only appears in times of crisis. Although most politicians (probably) aspire to being a Messiah type, in reality those who possess the necessary oratory skills and charisma are few and far between.
While Messiah types may be common among those seeking office, they rarely remain Messiah types while in office, especially once it becomes obvious that rhetoric alone cannot sustain them - a great recent example of this is Barack Obama.
Worse yet, Messiah types who do not have a major crisis to face may instead opt to start controlling the media, or using devious means to ensure their public image remains intact - Vladimir Putin would be a notable example of this. Although the term "Messiah" has positive connotations, politicians of this type are not always positive or benevolent in nature - in fact many of history's most evil dictators, such as Adolf Hitler, fall into the Messiah-type category.
Messiah types do undoubtedly shine when faced with a crisis, or any opportunity to unify people. They tend to see themselves as being above partisan politics, and will often make overtures toward their political enemies, imploring them to join forces for "the greater good".
Unchecked, Messiah types are often the most dangerous type of politician there is - however when they do succeed, they tend to live on forever as national heroes - for example, Sir Winston Churchill.
3. The Rebel
"My way or the highway!"
Notable examples: Donald Trump, Rob Muldoon, Margaret Thatcher
Strengths: Ability to project strength, tough and indefatigable
Weaknesses: Their uncompromising personality will always inevitably alienate people
Rebel types thrive on controversy, and they know how to create it.
They are politicians on a mission, and they don't care who gets in their way or who gets hurt in the process as they run roughshod over the system, their opponents and anyone who dares to stand up to them.
The Rebel shares many characteristics with the Messiah - indeed, to the Rebel's supporters the Rebel is the Messiah - however the most notable difference lies in the fact that where the Messiah type seeks to unify people, and to act above partisan politics, Rebel types are partisan animals who don't care whose toes they step on - and are quite content with being divisive.
There's no denying that the Rebel is excellent at bringing about political change, often permanently, as their fearsome personality makes them excellent negotiators - and they will not rest until they get exactly what they want.
The flip side to this is that after a while the public, or even the Rebel's own supporters, will eventually become fatigued by their domineering style and seek to have them replaced with a more benevolent leader. The Rebel will usually burn brightly for a short time, but is unlikely to burn for a long time.
Today the obvious example of this type of politician is Donald Trump.
4. The Technocrat
"The devil is in the details!"
Notable examples: John Major, Helen Clark, George H.W. Bush
Strengths: Highly intelligent, competent and rational, excellent decision makers
Weaknesses: Tendency to micromanage, often bogged down in details, lack the common touch
The Technocrat is usually excellent once in office but terrible out on the hustings.
They are rational, intelligent, highly competent and have an excellent command of the details of policy. Unfortunately for them, they have a tendency to come across as cold or elitist, and will often find themselves overlooked in the face of a more dynamic, inspiring politician.
Most Technocrat types are likely to prefer to remain in the shadows, or act as the rational straightmen to other, louder types of politicians such as Jokers or Rebels - indeed they will most likely come to prominence due to a need to clean up the mess left behind by one of these types.
While their excellent command of details and decision-making abilities make them great day-to-day managers, Technocrat types are seldom politicians of vision and are unlikely to present a coherent long-term strategy, due to being too bogged down in short term detail. In leadership roles their love of detail will also sometimes turn them into micromanagers.
The biggest flaw that faces a Technocrat is that despite their intellect, they have a tendency to lose touch with the common people after a while and sometimes become so caught up in theory and statistics that they lose touch with reality altogether.
However, if a Technocrat type is determined enough, they are capable of eventually gaining the respect and trust of the public - the most notable example of this being former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark.
5. The Outsider
"Trust me, I'm not really a politician."

Notable examples: Nigel Farage, John Key, Tony Blair
Strengths: Incredible ability to connect with ordinary people
Weaknesses: Often in politics seeking personal glory, Tendency to get bored with the job
The Outsider type are the "I'm not a politician" politicians - the ones who bill themselves as being "men of the people".
In reality, Outsider types seldom are real outsiders, many are in fact career politicians who have capitalised on the public's distrust for politicians and declared themselves to be 'just ordinary people' - and happen have the media teams and enough pop culture references to make this illusion seem plausible.
In many ways the Outsider type is a blend of all the other types - Outsiders share the desire to be liked that characterises the Joker, the disdain for convention of the Rebel, the unifying nature of the Messiah and a tendency to choose day-to-day management over long term change, like the Technocrat. In sharing these characteristics, they take on both the strengths of the other types and also their weaknesses.
While their ability to connect with common people will usually earn them considerable popularity, very few Outsider types are seeking anything other than personal glory, and will tend to flee at the first sign of crisis or trouble.
In rare cases, such as Nigel Farage, outsiders might use their talents to create real lasting change before bowing out of politics, but the majority - such as Tony Blair or John Key - will usually leave office having achieved very little, and tend to find themselves easily forgotten by the public once replaced by a new "flavour-of-the-month" politician.

KORAH AS POPULIST

Populism is the politics of anger. It makes its appearance when there is widespread discontent with political leaders, when people feel that heads of institutions are working in their own interest rather than that of the general public, when there is a widespread loss of trust and a breakdown of the sense of the common good. Jonathan Sacks.

MOSES AS SERVANT LEADER
https://rabbisacks.org/korach-5781/
What exactly was wrong in what Korach and his motley band of fellow agitators said? We know that Korach was a demagogue, not a democrat. He wanted power for himself, not for the people. We know also that the protestors were disingenuous. Each had their own reasons to feel resentful toward Moses or Aaron or fate. Set these considerations aside for a moment and ask: was what they said true or false?
They were surely right to say, “All the congregation are holy.” That, after all, is what God asked the people to be: a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, meaning, a kingdom all of whose members are (in some sense) priests, and a nation all of whose citizens are holy.[1]
They were equally right to say, “God is with them.” That was the point of the making of the Tabernacle: “Have them make My Sanctuary for Me, and I will dwell among them” (Ex. 25:8). Exodus ends with these words: “So the Cloud of the Lord was over the Tabernacle by day, and fire was in the Cloud by night, in the sight of all the Israelites during all their travels” (Ex. 40:38). The Divine Presence was visibly with the people wherever they went.
What was wrong was their last remark: “Why then do you set yourselves above God’s congregation?” This was not a small mistake. It was a fundamental one. Moses represents the birth of a new kind of leadership. That is what Korach and his followers did not understand. Many of us do not understand it still.
The most famous buildings in the ancient world were the Mesopotamian ziggurats and Egyptian pyramids. These were more than just buildings. They were statements in stone of a hierarchical social order. They were wide at the base and narrow at the top. At the top was the King or Pharaoh – at the point, so it was believed, where heaven and earth met. Beneath was a series of elites, and beneath them the labouring masses.
This was believed to be not just one way of organising a society but the only way. The very universe was organised on this principle, as was the rest of life. The sun ruled the heavens. The lion ruled the animal kingdom. The king ruled the nation. That is how it was in nature. That is how it must always be. Some are born to rule, others to be ruled.[2]
Judaism is a protest against this kind of hierarchy. Every human being, not just the king, is in the image and likeness of God. Therefore no one is entitled to rule over any other without their assent. There is still a need for leadership, because without a conductor an orchestra would lapse into discord. Without a captain a team might have brilliant players and yet not be a team. Without generals, an army would be a mob. Without government, a nation would lapse into anarchy. “In those days there was no King in Israel. Everyone did what was right in their own eyes” (Judges 17:6, 21:25).
In a social order in which everyone has equal dignity in the eyes of Heaven, a leader does not stand above the people. They serve the people, and they serve God. The great symbol of biblical Israel, the menorah, is an inverted pyramid or ziggurat, broad at the top, narrow at the base. The greatest leader is therefore the most humble. “Moses was very humble, more so than anyone else on the face of the earth” (Num. 12:3).
The name given to this is servant leadership,[3] and its origin is in the Torah. The highest accolade given to Moses is that he was “the servant of the Lord” (Deut. 34:5). Moses is given this title eighteen times in Tanach. Only one other leader merits the same description: Joshua, who is described this way twice.
No less fascinating is the fact that only one person in the Torah is commanded to be humble, namely the King:
When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the Levitical Priests. It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees and not consider himself better than his fellow Israelites. (Deut. 17:18-20)
This is how Maimonides describes the proper conduct of a King:
Just as the Torah has granted him the great honour and obligated everyone to revere him, so too it has commanded him to be lowly and empty at heart, as it says: ‘My heart is a void within me’ (Pa. 109:22). Nor should he treat Israel with overbearing haughtiness, as it says, ‘he should not consider himself better than his fellows’ (Deut. 17:20).
He should be gracious and merciful to the small and the great, involving himself in their good and welfare. He should protect the honour of even the humblest of people.
When he speaks to the people as a community, he should speak gently, as in ‘Listen my brothers and my people…’ (King David’s words in I Chronicles 28:2). Similarly, I Kings 12:7 states, ‘If today you will be a servant to these people…’
He should always conduct himself with great humility. There is none greater than Moses, our teacher. Yet, he said: ‘What are we? Your complaints are not against us’ (Ex. 16:8). He should bear the nation’s difficulties, burdens, complaints and anger as a nurse carries an infant.[4]
The same applies to all positions of leadership. Maimonides lists among those who have no share in the world to come, someone who “imposes a rule of fear on the community, not for the sake of Heaven.” Such a person “rules over a community by force, so that people are greatly afraid and terrified of him,” doing so “for his own glory and personal interests.” Maimonides adds to this last phrase: “like heathen kings.”[5] The polemical intent is clear. It is not that no one behaves this way. It is that this is not a Jewish way to behave.
When Rabban Gamliel acted in what his colleagues saw as a high-handed manner, he was deposed as Nasi, head of the community, until he acknowledged his fault and apologised.[6] Rabban Gamliel learned the lesson. He later said to two people who declined his offer to accept positions of leadership: ‘Do you think I am giving you a position of honour [serarah]? I am giving you the chance to serve [avdut].”[7] As Martin Luther King once said “Everybody can be great…because anybody can serve.”[8]
C. S. Lewis rightly defined humility not as thinking less of yourself but as thinking of yourself less. The great leaders respect others. They honour them, lift them, inspire them to reach heights they might never have done otherwise. They are motivated by ideals, not by personal ambition. They do not succumb to the arrogance of power.
Sometimes the worst mistakes we make are when we project our feelings onto others. Korach was an ambitious man, so he saw Moses and Aaron as two people driven by ambition, “setting themselves above God’s congregation.” He did not understand that in Judaism to lead is to serve. Those who serve do not lift themselves high. They lift other people high.

---

[1] Some suggest that their mistake was to say, “all the congregation are holy” (kulam kedoshim), instead of “all the congregation is holy” (kula kedoshah). The holiness of the congregation is collective rather than individual. Others say that they should have said, “is called on to be holy” rather than “is holy”. Holiness is a vocation, not a state.
[2] Aristotle, Politics, Book 1, 1254^a21-24.
[3] The well-known text on this theme is Robert K Greenleaf, Servant leadership: a journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness, New York, Paulist Press, 1977. Greenleaf does not, however, locate this idea in Torah. Hence it is important to see that it was born here, with Moses.
[4] Hilchot Melachim 2:6.
[5] Hilchot Teshuvah 3:13.
[6] Brachot 27b.
[7] Horayot 10a-b.
[8] Martin Luther King Jr., Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech (Oslo, Norway, December 10, 1964).