Parshat Hashavua Rabbi Michael Laitner If you have comments please feel free to e-mail Rabbi Laitner at: michael@southhampstead.org

Brinkmanship
 
 ‘This you shall do: Korach and all of his eida should take pans. Put flames into them and place incense in them before G-d tomorrow – and it shall be that the one that G-d chooses is the holy one…’ (Bemidbar 16:7-8)
 
Korach and his cohorts challenge the legitimacy of Moshe and Aharon’s leadership.  Rashi, the premier Torah commentator, explains in a lengthy comment (16:1) that they crafted questions to allow them to ridicule Moshe publicly in an attempt to undermine the leadership of Moshe and Aharon.
 
Part of Moshe’s response is to tell Korach that Korach and his cohorts should attempt to bring an offering which can only be brought by Aharon or one of the other Cohanim (priests).  G-d’s response will show whether Moshe is correct or Korach is correct.
 
Rashi, on pasuk (verse) 7 is puzzled as to why Moshe would suggest this test and why Korach would agree.  In particular, the use of incense is puzzling.    Incense played a crucial role in the sin of Nadav and Avihu who brought unauthorised offerings (see Vayikra/Leviticus 10:1) and were punished by death for the particular circumstances of their actions. 
 
Rabbi Chezkia ben Manoach (aka Chizkuni) in his commentary suggests that since Korach had tried to pick a fight with Moshe, Moshe responded by suggesting a scenario that Korach could not win. 
 
Rashi amplifies the suggestion of Chizkuni, writing that Moshe suggested this scenario to show that Korach’s, by his acceptance, was in fact prepared to rebel against the laws of G-d rather than simply against Moshe’s leadership.
 
Whilst we can appreciate Moshe’s position, why would Korach agree to Moshe’s scenario? 
 
If you follow the whole narrative of Korach closely, you will see that Korach and his cohorts do not appear to have a consistent common agenda. 
 
Korach himself appears to swing from an attack on Moshe’s spiritual leadership to an attack on his political leadership, the later in tandem with co-conspirators Datan and Aviram whose emphasis appears entirely political.  See 16:3 and 16:13 for examples.
 
Rashi, (16:12), explains that while Moshe attempted to mediate a way out of the confrontation, Datan and Aviram refused, digging themselves further into conflict. Korach pitches his tent with Datan and Aviram (see 16:24). 
 
This could be another regrettable example of people who refuse to see the coming abyss because they are unable to stand down when it is necessary to do so.
 
Rabbi Menachem Leibtag, in an essay at www.tanach.org suggests that Korach’s confused motivations may be shown from the opening phrase of the Sidra (Torah reading) which simply states that ‘Korach took’ without stating what he actually took. Perhaps this formulation alerts us to read the story carefully and to note the ambiguities in Korach’s position.
 
The Mishna in Pirkei Avot (5:20 – page 560 in the Green Siddur) notes that Korach is a paradigm for a dispute which is ‘shelo lishma’ (not for the sake of heaven).   Korach’s attack on Moshe had ulterior motives.  Perhaps this provides a further explanation for why he would accept a scenario that he could not win.  Despite the risks, he was unwilling to give in.

 Return to YHOL Home