The wanna-be tyrant

Korach

Num. 16:1 - 18:32

 

Précis: Korach foments a rebellion, claiming that Moses and Aaron have taken too much power for themselves. Datan and Abiram also attack Moses’ leadership, claiming that Moses has brought them from a land of milk and honey (Egypt!) only to let them die in the wilderness. A test of fire offerings is arranged, and Korach and his followers are destroyed as the earth opens and swallows them. The People continue to complain, God threatens to destroy them once again, but Moses and Aaron intercede. A plague takes the lives of 14,000 people. A final test, that of staffs, is performed, and when Aaron’s staff miraculously blossoms on the following morning, it is clear that his status as High Priest is secure.

 

Num. 16:28-30 “By this you shall know that it was the Lord who sent me to do all these things; that they are not of my own devising: if these men die as all men do, if their lot be the common fate of all mankind, it was not the Lord who sent me. But if the Lord brings about something unheard of, so that the ground opens its mouth and swallows them up with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into Sheol, you shall know that these men have spurned the Lord.”

            Rabbi Jonathan Sacks (z’l), in his weekly commentary (6/21/17) that Korach’s rebellion was the most dangerous challenge to Moses’ leadership. He notes that the narrative is somewhat confusing, but it is clear that the insurrectionists were motivated with different reasons for resentment. Korach himself was a Levite, and was upset because he had a better claim than Aaron to the High Priesthood (according to Rashi). Abiram and Datan were of the tribe of Reuban (the first-born son of Jacob) and objected to Moses’ leadership because he (Moses) was a Levite, and of Moses' appointment of Joshua (of the tribe of Ephraim).

            They all pose as what today we would call democratic egalitarians (“All the community are holy, all of them . . . Why then do you raise yourself above the Lord’s congregation?”).

            As Sacks notes, the story of Korach is intensely realistic, and he is a symbol of a “coldly calculating man of ambition who foments discontent against a leader, accusing him of being a self-seeking tyrant. He opposes him in the name of freedom, but what he really wants is to become a tyrant himself.”

            Today in Israel (as has been and remains the case in the United States), an individual accuses the leader by fomenting dissent and discontent. Prime Minister Netanyahu has torn out the final pages of the Trump Handbook and now declares that the most recent election was a “fraud” and that the incoming “change coalition” government is illegitimate and a threat to the security and future of the State. Netanyahu is seeking to create another “Big Lie” for the purpose of keeping his leadership role of Israel at all costs, and thereby avoiding the possibility of his conviction on the criminal charges he now faces.

            Moses, on the other hand, does not create animosity, but states that the ills which have befallen the insurgents were at God’s command. He seeks healing and understanding, “falling on his face” before Korach as he seeks reconciliation. It is only when reconciliation has been refused that God takes up the power to end the rebellion. Those who rebel will never enter the land and never become a nation. We can only pray that in Israel and in the United States, a way can be found to find the reconciliation Moses sought, before we all suffer from the evil outcomes which we all face.

Facts and Truth

Sh’lach

Num. 13:1-15:41

 

Précis: Moses is ordered to “send out” (sh’lach l’cha) spies to examine the land. Representatives of each tribe go out, report on its bounty, but also report about its fearsome inhabitants. The People are frightened, and their “murmuring” turns into something close to panic. God tells Moses that He will destroy the People, but Moses intercedes; the People are sentenced to spend 40 years in the wilderness. The parasha then returns to matters concerning the Tabernacle, with a discussion of the offering for unintentional sins. Near its end, the parasha discusses the wearing of tzitzit, a paragraph which is part of the traditional recitation of the Sh’ma. This is the 27th of 54 parshiot, marking the half-way point in the yearly reading.

 

Num. 13:27-28 “And they told him, ‘We came to the land you sent us to, and surely it flows with milk and honey; but the people that live in the land are fierce. And the cities are fortified, and very great, moreover, we saw Amalekites there.’”

            In 2007, I wrote in my weekly d’var the following:

            As Etz Hayim suggests, “truth” is not a mere matter of factual accuracy, but is also a matter of how the facts are presented. Even when the “empirical facts” are accurately reported, the “truth” may elude us. Context, background, history, expression, and intention are all a part of how we communicate the “truth,” whether it is about our congregations, our families, or even our country.

            This previous commentary needs an update, because increasingly in America the factionalism which so divides political parties and even families is driven by a divergence of what different sides deem to be facts. We watched the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021 by those who believed the Big Lie that the presidential election had been stolen. Now we hear folks who try to justify what we watched as merely being folks visiting the Capitol, or that it was protected First Amendment expression, or that any violence was due to left-wing agitators masquerading as Trump supporters.

            Last week, Republican Senators blocked by filibuster the creation of an independent, bi-partisan panel to investigate the background which led to the January 6 insurrection. They had no justification for their position other than the fear that disclosure of the empirical facts would be harmful to their political future, and (perhaps more importantly) the investigation was opposed by the former President.

            One definition of the word “cult” is “a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.” I maintain that this is precisely the motivation of those who refuse to investigate, let alone accept, the facts of this most heinous event in recent American history.