Efrat, Israel - “And Korach took…” (Numbers 16:1)

Who is Korach? Usually he is perceived as one of the arch-rebels of all times within the Jewish camp. From Exodus onward, no one's reputation is as sullied as Korach's - his sin so ignominious that the episode recording his death would be carved into the psyche of the nation forever, the bowels of the earth having swallowed him and his cohorts alive. But exactly how does this unique punishment fit his crime?

From the traditional perspective Korach is the perennial instigator and rabble-rouser, the self-possessed revolutionary. According to the commentaries, the very first word in our portion establishes his character: "Vayikach Korach...Now Korach the son of Izhar, the son of Kohat, the son of levi, with Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab .... took." [Num. 38:1] The Torah doesn't spell out exactly what he 'took,' the object of the verb distinctly absent, which leads Rashi to quote the Midrash Tanchuma: ".  ‘And Korah took’ --he took himself on one side with the intention of separating himself from the community so that he might raise a protest regarding the priesthood...." [38:1]

Of course, the Korach who inspires his self-serving mutinous rebellion couches his true purpose behind noble and inspiring language: "You take too much upon you, seeing that all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and G-d is among them; wherefore then lift you up yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?" [Numbers 16:3]

Here we have the classic argument of democracy: since we're all equal, we're all carved from the same flesh and blood, why should, you, Moses, lord it over us?  Why should you be the holiest of all?  Aren't we not all descended from the same grandfathers?! Did we not all together hear G-d’s voice at Sinai?

Irregardless of how we want to understand the mutiny of Korach, the majority of commentators agree that the word, 'And he took,' is where the problem begins. Korach was a taker, either by “taking” in the sense of manipulating  the peoples' hearts and minds, or taking himself out of the community, in the sense of arrogating for himself a position of power, while lambasting Moses as being a separatist and chauvinist. 

To achieve his goal of power, he was willing to do anything, to make any claims, including posting a democratic ideal, in order to emerge a “leader” and denigrate the laws of Moses.

Our portion follows immediately the commandment to wear tzitzit, ritual fringes to be worn on four cornered garments, the conclusion of last week's portion [Num. 15:37-41] of Shlach. Rashi connects these two segments, tzitzit and Korach's rebellion, by quoting the Midrash: "Then they came and stood before Moses and said to him, 'Is a garment that is entirely blue subject to the law of tzitzit or is it exempt? He replied to them: It is subject to that law.' Whereupon they began to jeer at him: Is this possible? A robe of any different colored material requires only one thread of blue attached to it in order for it to be exempt from the law of ritual fringes.  Does it not then follow logically that a garment which is entirely blue ought automatically be exempted from the law of tzitzit!?”(16:1)

Here we see how the plain meaning of the text is magnificently illuminated by the Midrash. Ostensibly, Korach's argument appeals to the democratic spirit: I understand the necessity of a single blue fringe – Moses – bestowing his royal-blue kingship upon the entire nation of commoners (the white garment, the many regular white fringes, made from the white wool of white sheep); but if all the people are “blue-blooded royalty”, if the entire nation stood at Sinai, heard the Divine charge, entered the Divine covenant, what is the necessity for a single blue fringe, a solitary regal Moses, to stand isolated, separate and above a wholly royal nation, an entire kingdom of priest-teachers?

Similar to this is the argument of the house filled with Bible Scrolls:  I understand that a house devoid of any eternal verses of G-d’s Word requires a mezuzah consisting of the Biblical portion of the Shema to make it worthy of habitation; but a house already completely filled with Biblical Scrolls, the House of Israel after the Revelation at Sinai in which every individual became filled to surfeit with G-d’s words, certainly ought not require a separate G-d inspired individual like Moses, a distinct representative of one small portion of Biblical parchment, to establish its worthiness?!

What Korah failed to understand was that every individual did not reach the same spiritual level as every other individual at Sinai; much the opposite, each person understood from the Divine sound (Kol) only as much as his previous spiritual, intellectual and ethical development would allow him to understand.  Indeed, it was only Moses, whose active intellect had already achieved the ability to “kiss” the Active Intellect of the Divine before Sinai, who truly evoked from the Divine Kol (sound) precisely that which G-d wished to communicate.  (Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed).  Every Jew has the potential to be a leading member of the Kingdom of Priest-Teachers, to become a second Moses in his/her own right; whether or not he/she achieves such a royal status, depends upon the degree of hard work each individual expends in pursuit of spiritual excellence.  The Bible does not tell us that every Jew is holy; it rather commands each Jew to become holy!

But Korah was not even himself serious about his argument. He was only using democracy to “take (or rather grab) what he thought was his rightful place of leadership given his ancestry (yichus).  And G-d punishes this “taker” by having the earth swallow him up.  After all, every human being was created from the dust of the earth, so only the earth has the inherent right to “take” each and every one of us!