"Torah Lights"
 
Video Insights on the Parsha
 
 by Rabbi Shlomo Riskin

Efrat, Israel: “We shall not come up” [Numbers 16:14]  
If it is correct to say that the Book of Numbers (BaMidbar) is the saddest – and most tragic – of the five books of the Bible, then surely this week’s portion of Korah is the saddest – and most tragic – portion (parashah) in this fourth book. Korah and Datan and Aviram, together with 250 of their prominent cohorts, stand up in rebellion against Moses – and not a person among the Israelites rises in defense of the foremost prophet of G-d who liberated the entire nation from Egyptian slavery (Numbers 16: 2-4). It is not the mutiny which is so difficult to understand because every great leader in history has had his/her challenges and detractors; but how can we understand a situation in which not one Israelite sees fit to attempt a counter-revolution in defense of the greatest liberator in world history!

What actually brings tears to my eyes every year at the Biblical reading is when Moses summons Datan and Aviram to a meeting – and their response is a terse and emphatic, “We shall not come up.”  I have ministered in the rabbinate for 45 years – and have experienced various voices of opposition both within Lincoln Square Synagogue as well as in Efrat (the two communities I have known); after all, Rav Yisrael Salanter would say, “A Rav whom everyone always likes and agrees with is no Rav and a Rav whom no one likes and agrees with is no ‘mensch.” Nevertheless, it has never happened that I’ve summoned one of my “rebels” to my home or office to discuss matters and that he/she has refused to come. How is it possible that Datan and Aviram could treat Moses with such disdain?  

The Sefat Emet’s reading of the text, emphasizing the literal translation of the words, provides a possible explanation as to why Datan and Aviram remained firm in their rebellion and wouldn’t respond to Moses’ call. “And Moses sent [vayishlach] to call Datan and Aviram” (16:12) – suggests that the prophet did not summon them himself but rather invited them through a messenger, he had his secretary make the call, as it were.

Nevertheless, they were in fact asked to come, and regardless of the nature of the invitation, a handwritten note on private stationery, a call from the CEO’s executive assistant, the least they should have done, if only out of minimal respect for Moses’ higher station – politically, intellectually and spiritually! –  was to arrive for the scheduled meeting. How are we to understand the nature of their contemptuous refusal?

I believe that if we put two and two together and read between the lines, the political sides become very clear and very sad. Except for Moses, Joshua and Caleb, virtually none of the Israelites wanted to conquer Israel. The 210 years spent in Egypt had chipped away at their collective memory of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and even Joseph; the promise of Israel as the place from which “all of the families of the earth would be blessed through the descendants of Abraham and Sarah” (Gen 12:3) had become a long-forgotten dream. Moses was literally isolated; his central message to conquer Israel had been overwhelmingly rejected by the very committee of scouts which he himself had hand-picked for a reconnaissance mission. Virtually the entire nation lacked the faith, the will, the idealism or the self-confidence to wage a difficult war on behalf of the land promised to the forefathers. And, adding insult to injury, Moses had communicated the doomed future of the nation – with the exceptions of Joshua and Caleb, they would all die out in the desert.

In the peoples’ perception, had they remained tethered to Moses’ leadership, the very woebegone fate he predicted would certainly overtake them. So they rejected Moses! 

The political factions were divided as follows: Datan and Aviram, who never wanted to leave, were now desirous of returning to Egypt! Blaming Moses for having made the fatal error of bringing them into the desert (16:13), they even refer to Egypt as the land flowing with milk and honey.  Indeed, in last week’s portion of Shlach it was these two men who, in response to the scouts’ report (14:3,4), were already agitating for the distraught nation to choose a new captain, an alternative to Moses, to lead the return back to Egypt. And because the purpose of their return is to assimilate into the materialistic fleshpots of Egypt, they are swallowed up by the materialistic earth (16:27-32, Ibn Ezra there). In terms of a modern perspective, the Datan-Aviram camp represent the most extreme secular and anti-Zionist voices, Jews so bereft of any connection to Judaism, blinded by the Egypts of today, such as those academic voices, on various campuses in different countries, who encourage the continued hatred and boycott of Israel.  

Korah, however, was cut from a different cloth, a different rebel altogether, both zealous and jealous. Concerning Aaron, he jealously craved the priesthood, the kehunah, which guided him to make his zealous claims to Moses (16:10).  His arguments effectively lauded the principle of remaining in the sanctified, rarefied, bubble-like Kollel atmosphere of the desert, perfectly content to remain there forever, never crossing the Jordan River, thereby avoiding the responsibility of establishing a state with economic, social and military challenges in Israel; he loved the manna from heaven for food and the Divine cloud by day and fire by night which told the people when and where to go and when and where to stop. Given that Korah’s burning desire was to become a Priest-Kohen who could live his entire life in the ‘Eternal Kollel,’ he therefore suffers the punishment of the other overly righteous “sinners” who are consumed in flames, such as Nadav and Avihu (16:35, according to Ibn Ezra). In the modern world he represents the Netura Karta’s obsessive anti-Zionist position.  In a sense, the episode of Korah represents what happens when very pious-looking Jews and very secular self-hating Jews join hands in rejecting Israel.

The tragedy of Moses towards the end of his life is that of a leader whose very objective – bringing the nation into Israel – is almost totally rejected by his nation, and, in the face of the vocal and bellicose rebels, finds himself abandoned. In the final analysis, however, G-d is on Moses’ side, and ultimately, even if one is alone with G-d, one is never alone because one ends up with a majority of the One.

The future, however, rallies forth with hope because the next generation, learning from the punishments of their fathers, stands firmly with Joshua in conquering the Promised Land. 

Shabbat Shalom !

Enjoying Rabbi Riskin's Shabbat Shalom commentaries? 

Click to support OHR TORAH STONE Institutions or contact
 parshat_hashavua@ots.org.il to sponsor a shiur in honor or memory of a loved one.