Sources from essay by Rabbi Ethan Bair in The Social Justice Torah Commentary
(3) They combined against Moses and Aaron and said to them, “You have gone too far! For all the community are holy, all of them, and יהוה is in their midst. Why then do you raise yourselves above יהוה’s congregation?”
Reflecting on the first three verses of Parashat Korach, Nechama Leibowitz points to the difference between "All the congregation is holy" in the singular, which we might expect–and the language the Torah employs: "All the congregation are holy," in the plural, meaning each member of the congregation taken individually. She writes, "Personal ambition outweighs [Korach's and his congregation's] feeling as a 'kingdom of priests and a holy nation. They interpreted the mission of holiness, the role of chosen people with which they had been charged by God, in the sense of conferring on them superiority and privilege, rather than as constituting a call to shoulder extra duties and responsibilities."
Korach and his congregation interpret God's command, "You shall be holy" (Leviticus 19:2), as a privilege rather than a call to action. They do not see that leadership comes with the responsibility to serve. Korach fixates on the status that comes with it, and he uses the language of equality to bolster his own jealous claim.
According to the Rabbis, the story of Korach demonstrates political ambition and a quest for raw power, both of which stem from feelings of profound entitlement. Korach protests that because he is the son of a firstborn Levite, he has a higher claim to leadership than his first cousins Moses and Aaron. Korach bands together with Dathan and Abiram descendants of Reuben, the eldest son of IsraeI-who believe that they are destined to the highest spiritual and political offices. Little unifies Korach, Dathan, and Abram other than their complaints against Moses and their disparate claims to power. This makes for the ugliest kind of family feud. Their attempted coup is not rooted in values but in the quest for personal gain, and their punishment is unsparing: God swallows them up into the earth.
The lesson from Korach is not to stifle values-based dissent, but rather to be wary of leadership pursued for the wrong reasons.
-Rabbi Ethan Bair
(ה) וְלָמָּה מַזְכִּירִין דִּבְרֵי הַיָּחִיד בֵּין הַמְרֻבִּין, הוֹאִיל וְאֵין הֲלָכָה אֶלָּא כְדִבְרֵי הַמְרֻבִּין. שֶׁאִם יִרְאֶה בֵית דִּין אֶת דִּבְרֵי הַיָּחִיד וְיִסְמֹךְ עָלָיו, שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל דִּבְרֵי בֵית דִּין חֲבֵרוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן. הָיָה גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְחָכְמָה אֲבָל לֹא בְמִנְיָן, בְּמִנְיָן אֲבָל לֹא בְחָכְמָה, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל דְּבָרָיו, עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן:
(5) And why do they record the opinion of a single person among the many, when the halakhah must be according to the opinion of the many? So that if a court prefers the opinion of the single person it may depend on him. For no court may set aside the decision of another court unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number. If it was greater than it in wisdom but not in number, in number but not in wisdom, it may not set aside its decision, unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number.
(יז) כָּל מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, אֵין סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. אֵיזוֹ הִיא מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלֹקֶת הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלֹקֶת קֹרַח וְכָל עֲדָתוֹ:
(17) 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.
But who gets to decide when dissent is or is not l'shem shamayim, "for the sake of heaven"? Given that the Torah includes so many dissenting opinions, what is jarring about Korach is that his voice is shut down so unequivocally. I have not found a single commentator who takes Korach's side, adds any positive nuance regarding his character, or even gives him the benefit of the doubt. Yet how many times in Oral Torah do we see the Rabbis extrapolating from a single word, imagining psychological motives and nuances absent from the text, and filling in the gaps of the narrative to bring out an overlooked aspect of it? Aaron witnesses as his people worship the Golden Calf, and the Rabbis go to great pains to show that he was not the leader of this idol worship. They say that he sought to stop the people but feared for his own life: Indeed, the Rabbis lift up Aaron as the model of the rodeif shalom, "pursuer of peace." Many other rabble-rousers and dissenters in the Torah- the seer Balaam (Numbers 24), the daughters of Zelophehad (Numbers 27:11), even Abraham (Genesis 18), who advocates for the innocent of Sodom and Gomorrah -are praised by the Rabbis for their courage. Biblical heroes, including all the Hebrew prophets, are those who challenge the status quo in order to advance moral change. Yet there are no extant examples of Rabbinic accolades directed at Korach.
-Rabbi Ethan Bair
וכבר היו משה ואהרן מהלכין בדרך ונדב ואביהוא מהלכין אחריהן וכל ישראל אחריהן אמר לו נדב לאביהוא אימתי ימותו שני זקנים הללו ואני ואתה ננהיג את הדור אמר להן הקב"ה הנראה מי קובר את מי
Apropos the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, an aggadic midrash on this subject is quoted: And it had already happened that Moses and Aaron were walking on their way, and Nadav and Avihu were walking behind them, and the entire Jewish people were walking behind them. Nadav said to Avihu: When will it happen that these two old men will die and you and I will lead the generation, as we are their heirs? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them: We shall see who buries whom.
[Korach's] fate is similar to that of Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu-who, according to the Talmud, plot to replace Moses and Aaron in the future. The Rabbis see only treachery, a dearth of values undergirding Korach's rebellion. Is this a case of the winner writing history? Were there once-valid voices defending Korach that the Torah stifled? Or was Korach's rebellion as the simple meaning of the Pirkei Avot text asserts- an egotistical controversy lacking any higher purpose?
-Rabbi Ethan Bair
In contemporary Jewish life, there is hardly a topic as charged and polarizing as Israel's ongoing Occupation of the West Bank...
Some have decided that Israel is beyond certain limits of reproach, and that position animates not only their defense of their own positions, but leads them to silence or ignore fellow Jews with a different point of view. The same is true for the other side. And too often, the reason for that silencing is because the future of the Jewish people at stake. It is an argument lo l'shem shamayim, they say. To which we can ask once more, who gets to decide when dissent is or is not for the sake of heaven?
The solution is not to decide which side you are on. The troubling story of Korach and its interpretation in the Torah is a warning that we should not stifle voices, no matter how radical they seem at first. Instead, we have to ask how we build coalitions that may be imperfect but that effectively lead to a common goal. How do we speak across chasms and create empathy for other people's perspectives without completely villainizing dissenting voices, even when we disagree?
-Rabbi Ethan Bair
Discussion Questions by Ariel Tovlev
-
What is the difference between saying “All the congregation is holy” and “All the congregation are holy”? How does Korach seemingly misunderstand the declaration of holiness?
-
What kind of dissent is accepted in Judaism, and what kind of dissent is discouraged? What are some examples of acceptable and unacceptable dissent?
-
Rabbi Bair offers that disagreement over Israel’s Occupation of the West Bank is an example of dissent that is either seen as acceptable or unacceptable depending on one’s own beliefs. Have you experienced this issue in your community? What are other examples of issues that can be seen as either acceptable or unacceptable depending on the individual person? What are some ways we can bridge the gap between what is “acceptable” and “unacceptable” to have empathy and compas- sion for others during disagreements?