When Korach tells Moshe that he has taken too much upon
himself as the people’s leader (Bemidbar 16:3), he is not the first person to
have made this point. Moshe’s father-in-law Yitro does so in no uncertain terms
when he criticises him for making the people stand around all day while he
judges their cases (Shemot 18:14). Moshe not only concedes Yitro’s point but,
shortly before Korach’s challenge, he pointedly and eloquently complains to God
that he cannot perform his leadership role unaided (Bemidbar 11:9-15).
Unlike most of the Torah’s flawed characters, Korach is not
described as being evil. Midrashim recognise his wisdom (Bemidbar Rabbah 18:3),
and the Torah itself testifies to his family pedigree as a senior Levi and to
his charisma. Despite his wisdom and his talents, he is a man who is always
losing out. He does not become a Prince; he is not appointed as a Kohen. Some
70 elders receive the gift of prophecy but he does not. When leading tribal
personalities are appointed to spy out the Promised Land, his name is not among
them. Somehow he is always passed over.
A Mishnah (Avot 5:20) describes Korach’s dispute with the
established leaders as being the paradigm of a dispute that is “not for the
sake of Heaven”, in contrast with the disputes between Hillel and Shammai whose
arguments sought to clarify God’s will. Yitro had nothing to gain from his
criticism of Moshe, any more than Hillel and Shammai stood to gain if one of
them should out-reason the other. Korach however sought a wider distribution of
powers and responsibilities within the Israelite camp that would enable him to
enjoy greater kavod (honour) and status in the eyes of others—an aim that could
scarcely be described as “for the sake of Heaven”.
Korach was a member of the generation that received both the
written Torah and its oral counterpart, of which Avot is a key component. That
tractate contains much guidance that could have steered Korach away from his
path to self-destruction. For example, it would advise him to be content with
his lot (4:1, 6:6), to judge Moshe favourably and not view him as seeking to
cling on to the reins of power for his own glory (1:6). If this was
insufficient, he would be warned against seeking power and authority (1:10)
unless there was no-one else to lead the people (2:6). On a positive basis, he
would have appreciated that it is those who work on behalf of the community
“for the sake of Heaven” who derive assistance through the merits of their
forebears (2:2): with a little introspection he might have asked himself whether
in all honesty he possessed this quality.
Where does this leave Israel’s disputatious and fissiparous
politicians? There is a widely-held perception that politicians are ambitious,
self-seeking and concerned only to promote the sectarian interests of their
supporters for the sake of their own glorification. But is kavod today still
just a, simple reflection of one’s power and authority?
In the modern era, the public perception of leading politicians has become increasingly critical and even cynical. Recent events appear to show that they now have to earn kavod through what they do and how they do it, rather than expect it as a perk that accompanies their status. Fortunately, for anyone who wants to acquire honour, Avot has a recipe for that too. Asking the question, “Who is honoured?”, Ben Zoma answers “He who honours others”. When politicians truly respect and honour one other, despite their differences in political, religious, economic and social ideologies, they will have taken the first steps towards earning the respect of the electorate too.
