5755

“And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them: “ You take too much upon you, seeing as all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you raise yourselves up above the congregation of the Lord?’” (Numbers 16:2-3)

The Torah contains a great deal of drama, including love and hate, murder and mayhem, family and political intrigue. This week’s portion, Korah, describes how even the great Moshe Rabenu, a popular leader who defied Pharaoh to win freedom for his people, had to contend with a rebel threatening revolution. And despite the hint in the text that Korah’s major motivation was jealousy, there is an attempts to provide a legitimate camouflage for his envy. The Torah has Korah invoking the principles of ‘democracy’: the Almighty’s presence is to be found with each and every Israelite, so who are Moses and Aaron to be exalted above the multitude? The Sages of the Midrash, however, provide Korah with a legal argument reminiscent of a debate in a rabbinic study hall. The text requires every four-cornered garment to have a fringe on each corner, with the stipulation “that they place a thread of blue with the fringe of each corner,” (Numbers 15:38) Korah, self-appointed attorney for the people vs. Moses, will now try to prove that Moses’ law is fundamentally illogical and therefore cannot be Divine. “Does a garment which is entirely blue” he asks, “still require a blue thread on each fringe?” Moses answers in the affirmative, and Korah ridicules the answer. According to his logic, if only one blue thread on the fringe renders a garment ritually proper, then why doesn’t a completely blue garment render a single blue thread superfluous?

Korah further questions: the Torah commands that in order for a house to be fit for habitation, the resident must affix to the door-posts mezuzot consisting of two passages from the Torah. But, asks Korah, if the house is filled with Torah scrolls, must a mezuza still be placed on the doorposts? Moses responds in the affirmative again, and is once more met with ridicule. If two small Biblical portions placed on the doorpost of a house render it fit for habitation, ought not a house completely filled with Torah scrolls be fit even without the two passages on the doorpost? What is perplexing about this Midrash is the silence of Moses. Is it possible that he had no logical response? Any impartial observer could suggest a rejoinder: we must distinguish between the fringes and the garment, between the door-post and the house. It is the fringe which is most visible, and therefore it must contain the thread of blue which is reminiscent of the heavens and its God; it is the doorway through which one enters and exits, and therefore the requirement of mezuza is specific to the doorpost. regardless of the contents of the house!

But perhaps in remaining silent, Moses was hinting that not every question in Judaism ought to be answered. First of all, he knew that Korah’s questions were not for the sake of heaven, but that he was only looking for a way to discredit Moses and his interpretations.

Had Moses provided a logical answer to one objection, Korah would merely have raised another! Since some aspects of every religion can never be scientifically proven, there must be a will to believe. Add to this the idea that, for those who wish to believe, that there are no devastating questions, just as for those who will not believe, there will never be satisfactory answers! Moreover, there must always be an aspect of the religious enterprise which is based on a faith which transcends fact, or a love which supersedes logic, or a passion which overcomes pedantry. So it is with the relationship between lover and beloved, in which emotion dare not defy logic, but neither ought we choose a mate without taking personal chemistry and emotional affinity into account. It is not for naught that Song of Songs is the ultimate metaphor for the relationship between the Divine and the human.

From this perspective, although the Midrash sees the commandment of the fringes as the bridge between the portion of Shlakh-lekha and Korah’s rebellion, perhaps the sin of the scouts, which we discussed last week, is the real connecting point.

The scouts, after all, adopted the viewpoint of military strategists. What they lacked was love of the Land and a profound faith in God.

Moses didn’t quite understand the Divine command. He heard the Almighty ask him to send out men who would spy out (vayaturu) the land of Canaan. But the word tur as it is used at the end of the previous portion also means to love, or lust after. If, then, the word has two possible interpretations, both must be combined. The scouts were sent to spy out the land, but they were also sent to fall in love with the land -- just as our Sages teach: “It is forbidden for a man to marry’ a woman unless he first sees her... and loves her,” (Kedushin 41a) The land had to be spied out so that the Israelites would know how best to conquer it, but the land also had to be seen and loved so that the Israelites would be willing to take the risks concomitant with conquest. Love has to be added to logic, and faith has to accompany fact if the land is to be won and if God and His Torah are to be accepted. David Ben-Gurion, when asked once what gave him the courage to declare the creation of Israel in the face of the enemies ready to strike at it replied, simply, “it IS our land, after all.” That kind of love, that kind of faith are a prerequisite for owning the land.

The Midrash suggests that Korah attempted to defeat Moses with logic alone. But although the Tora, and certainly the Talmud, feature a logical superstructure, their infrastructure far transcends Mathematics. Look at Sinai, where God gave 10 Dibrot -- and 613 mitzvot... Why is the sum of the latter come to the sum of the earlier... Despite all the religio-legal analyses, there remains a mystery to a blue thread on a four-cornered garment, and to a parchment scroll on the doorpost of a house, just as the laws of physics cannot exhaust the mystery of creation and the particulars of botany cannot explain the glory of an almond tree in bloom. The problem with the State of Israel’s leadership today is that we have too many generals, and not enough men of faith. Which may explain why all the princes that went to spy the land did not fall in love with it, and why Korakh mistakenly assumed that he could do a better job than Moses. Korakh had logic -- but Moses had faith. Korakh perished -- inexplicably. Moses, through Torah, lives to this day. Let us learn the lesson well. Amen

Korakh 5756

 

This week's Torah portion comes from the fourth book of the Torah, Bamidbar, Numbers, begining in chapter sixteen: "Now Korah son of Izhar son of Kohath son of Levi, along with Dathan and Abiram sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth--descendants of Reuben--took two hundred fifty Israelite men, leaders of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men, and they confronted Moses. They assembled against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them, "You have gone too far! All the congregation are holy, everyone of them, and the Lord is among them. So why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?"" Moses got very upset and called on God to affirm his leadership and the correct track that he has taken to lead the Israelites to the Promised Land.

Shimon Peres has lost an election a couple of weeks ago, one that should have been, one that would have been in his pocket but for one thing: He was perceived by tens of thousands of swing voters as a more risky proposition than Benyamin Netanyahu. The sense that he’d chosen a path that was liable to turn out most dangerous overshadowed the short-term worries posed by electing a "new" man with little governing experience. They voted not against the peace process, but for the hope of a more controlled and balanced one. After all the learned explanations from pollsters with egg on their faces, one key fact stands out from the huge mass of statistics: Barely two out of every five Jewish voters cast their ballots for the parties of the “Oslo peace.” I bet Peres feels like Moses did when he heard Korakh challenge him -- but Peres is no Moses, and Netanyahu is no Korakh. God was not invoked, nor incensed, and he did not get into the act. So the results of the face-off are indeed different.

Many Israeli voter accepted the concept of a government run by a Likud coalition and headed by Netanyahu, realizing that the Likud is committed not to go back on signed accords, although it will be free to set the (new and tougher) parameters of Israel’s negotiators from now on. The Arabs came to the same realization (even if they made it sound like they were surprised and upset). In Cairo, the weekly Al-Mussawer editorialized even before the election results were known that the future of the peace process must not be based on Peres’s chances in the elections. In Beirut, Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri said only hours after the results were announced that he was more interested in the positions Netanyahu would take after the elections and not in his campaign declarations before the votes were counted. In Amman, court journalists opined that it was perhaps better to enter a dialogue with the Likud than to face more “surprises” from Labor, a reference to the disappointment they felt four years ago over the Oslo accords with the PLO.

In the coming weeks and months, the new administration in Jerusalem will show that it not only read the Jewish electorate more correctly than Peres, but that it can also navigate more surely among Israel’s neighbors. It is not going to be easy going. On the Syrian track, Netanyahu is committed, for the time being at the least, to rejection of withdrawal from the Golan Heights, which may mean that when and if talks with the Syrians resume, they are not likely to lead to a peace treaty -- at least not in the immediate future. However, it was the late Yitzhak Rabin who asserted that Netanyahu will be ready to give up far more than he would openly admit -- once he was in the seat of power. Time will tell.

As for the Palestinians, we must recognize one major point: In the course of the campaign -- in spite of claims by president Clinton, in a brazen attempt to influence the electorate, that the choice was between peace with Peres and a return to the intefada with anyone else -- the gap between Likud and Labor policy narrowed significantly. Here are some points in Netanyahu’s approach: Jordan will have at least a partial role in the final Israel-Palestinian settlement. The Likud is taking up the concept of the left’s “security-minded” wing, to seek a tri-party, rather than a bilateral, solution. This was stressed in the Likud platform and even more so in the talks Netanyahu held with King Hussein and Crown Prince Hassan. Small wonder that the Jordanians could hardly conceal their delight at the election result: From the moment Netanyahu assured the Hashemites that he does not subscribe to the “Jordan is Palestine” slogan, they reached an understanding based on the aim of containing Arafat and perhaps preventing full Palestinian independence.

Peres agreed to drop opposition to a settlement based on Palestinian sovereignty -- a two-state solution. Netanyahu is proposing a revised version: a two-government solution, which amounts to autonomous Palestinian rule and no more. The difference between a Palestinian state with limited sovereignty and one with broad self-rule may be viewed as a matter of semantics more than of intrinsic structure. In both models, Arafat will have no army and will be economically dependent on IsraeL However, Netanyahu is offering Arafat’s regime fewer powers and, primarily, instead of relying on his counter terrorism performance, wants to keep the responsibility for this in Israel’s hands. Arafat may actually find this arrangement to his liking, once he makes enough protest sounds. It will make him look better to his own people, and releive of a great challenge and responsibility.

Labor’s formula amounted to a Palestinian state in Gaza, with two enclaves on the West Bank, separated by the Etzion Bloc and Greater Jerusalem. The enclaves would also be separated from Jordan, with Israeli sovereignty extended to the Jordan Valley. The Likud’s formula, at least in Ariel Sharon’s version, provides for half a dozen such enclaves, separated by corridors of Jewish settlement and Israeli military presence. Both Peres and Netanyahu said during the campaign that settlements would not be abandoned. In practical terms the differences between the Likud and Labor camps are not as wide as many believe. And close to Netanyahu there are those, like the ones close to Peres, who will say in private that with such a map, Arafat will be able to establish, further down the road, a Palestinian state.

So there is no abyss between Netanyahu and Peres, but some substantial differences in their ideas of a settlement. Netanyahu, unlike the picture drawn of him by his enemies, is not a hawk bent on a dream of a Greater Land of Israel, and agrees that there will not be exclusive Israeli rule west of the Jordan River. The dispute is over the nature of the power-sharing formula with the PLO, and the time-table for implementing it. And, of course, there is the matter of Jerusalem. The electorate suspected that Peres, who has given away so much, would have given in on this issue too. Netanyahu is committed to keeping Jerusalem whole and within the boundry of the State of Israel.

To be sure, Netanyahu is no great fan of Yassir Arafat, and is suspicious of him and his "authority." He does not believe that the time to make peace is running out. He does not dream, like Peres, of a United States of the Middle East, and is not convinced that Asad is determined to achieve peace. In fact, he suspects that a peace treaty with Asad will almost certainly force the Syrian ruler to attack Israel. He believes Asad prefers the current state of no war to continue for the immediate future. Now, Netanyahu, in the aftermath of the Rabin-Peres peace offensive, will have the opportunity to try a different track - cautious and confrontational at the same time. It is not necessarily a superfluous experiment. It is deffinitely not a Korakh revolt agaist Moses. In is, perhaps, Moses passing on the role of leader to Joshua. And that is not a bad thing, at all. Amen

5758

This week's Torah portion comes from the fourth book, Bemidbar, Numbers, beginning in chapter sixteen:  "Now Korakh son of Izhar son of Kohath son of Levi, along with Dathan and Abiram sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth--descendants of Reuben--took two hundred fifty Israelite men, leaders of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men, and they confronted Moses.   They assembled against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them, "You have gone too far! All the congregation are holy, everyone of them, and the Lord is among them. So why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?"" [Num. 16:1-3]   Moshe's leadership role was challenged, and God had to affirm his leadership and the correct track that he had taken to lead the Israelites to the Promised Land.

You may recall last week's portion -- we read the story of the spies. What was the 'sin' of the spies? They had rebelled against God.   Nothing less than that!  We know that God had promised the land to our patriarchs, Avraham,  Yitzkhak and Ya'akov;   He also promised the Israelites in Egypt that he would bring them into a land flowing with milk and honey. The spies returned with this report, "We came to the land where you sent us, and surely it flows with milk and honey; and this is its fruit.  Nevertheless the people, who live in the land, are strong, and the cities are walled, and very great; and moreover we saw the children of Anak there.  The Amalekites live in the land of the Negev; and the Hittites, and the Jebusites, and the Amorites, live in the mountains; and the Canaanites live by the sea, and by the side of the Jordan.   And Caleb quieted the people before Moses, and said, Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it. But the men who went up with him said, We are not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we.  And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had spied to the people of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to spy, is a land that eats up its inhabitants; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature." [Num. 13:27-32]

What right, yes, what right did the spies, as faithful servants of God who were commissioned to bring back a report of the land, attach a 'rider' on their own report that the land was beyond the ability of Israel to conquer?   What the spies did was nothing less than slander against God.  Here they had experienced the exodus at the hand of God. Here they saw God appear to Israel at Sinai and speak to them in the smoke and the fire.  God Almighty feeds the people manna in the desert -- and He won't be able to fulfill His promise to Israel to defeat their enemies from before them?  Surely this is not only slander -- it is downright rebellion against His authority and His Word!   God becomes angry, and the text tells us:   "And the Lord said to Moses, How long will this people provoke me? And how long will it be before they believe me, for all the signs which I have shown among them?     I will afflict

them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will make of you agreater nation and mightier than they.   And Moses said to the Lord, Then the Egyptians shall hear it, for you brought up this people in your might from among them;  And they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land; for they have heard that you Lord are among this people, that you Lord are seen face to face, and that your cloud stands over them, and that you go before them, by day time in a pillar of a cloud, and in a pillar of fire by night.  Now if you shall kill all this people as one man, then the nations which have heard your fame will speak, saying, Because the Lord was not able to bring this people into the land which he swore to them, therefore he has slain them in the wilderness.   And now, I beseech you, let the power of my Lord be great, according to what you have spoken, saying, The Lord is long suffering, and of great mercy,

forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the  guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the

third and fourth generation.  Pardon, I beseech you, the iniquity of this people according to the greatness of your mercy, and as you have forgiven this people, from Egypt until now." [Num. 14:11-19]

Now, 'the shoe is on the other foot!'  The Torah is not a law book full of dry legal arguments -- rather it is a book of  high drama, including love and hate, murder and mayhem, family and political intrigue. This week’s portion, as an example, describes how even the great Moshe Rabenu, the Levite raised as a prince of Egypt, who became Israel's leader against his will at the call of God, he who defied Pharaoh to win freedom for his people -- even he had to contend with rebellion and threats of revolution.   It would seem, from an examination of the text, that the major motivation for the action of Korakh and his followers was jealousy, even though there is an attempt to provide a legitimate camouflage for the man's envy of his cousins Moshe and Aharon.   The

Torah has Korakh invoking the principles of ‘democracy’: the Almighty’s presence, the shekhina, is to be found with each and every Israelite, so who are Moses and Aaron to be exalted above the multitude?   Moshe, wishing to keep peace in the community, suggests to Korakh and hisfollowers, "And take every man his censer, and put incense in them, and bring before the Lord every man his censer, two hundred and fifty censers; you also, and Aaron, each of you his censer.  And they took every man his censer, and put fire in them, and laid incense on it, and stood in the door of the Tent of Meeting with Moses and Aaron." [Num. 16:17,18]  This compromise, this special honor, has the opposite effect to what Moshe tried to achieve.  The text tells us, "And Korakh gathered all the congregation against them to the door of the Tent of Meeting; and the glory of the Lord appeared to all the congregation." [Num. 16:19]

God becomes very angry and wishes to destroy the entire congregation, but Moshe argues against such communal punishment, but does set an example of the rabble rousers.   "And Moses rose up and went to Dathan and Abiram; and the elders of Israel followed him.  And he spoke to the congregation, saying, Depart, I beg you, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be consumed in all their sins.  So they got away from the dwelling of Korakh, Dathan, and Abiram,

on every side; and Dathan and Abiram came out, and stood in the door of their tents, and their wives, and their sons, and their little

children.  And Moses said, Hereby you shall know that the Lord has sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of my own mind.  If these men die the common death of all men, or if they are visited by the fate of all men; then the Lord has not sent me.  But if the Lord creates a new thing, and the earth opens her mouth, and swallows them up, with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into Sheol; then you shall understand that these men have provoked the Lord.  And it came to pass, as he finished speaking all these words, that the ground split beneath them;  And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up,

and their houses, and all the men who belonged to Korakh, and all their goods.  They, and all that belonged to them, went down alive into Sheol, and the earth closed upon them; and they perished from among the congregation." [Num. 16:25-33]

Why did Moshe spare the spies, but brought the wrath of God upon Korakh and his cohorts?   Both cases involved rebellion against authority -- the first against God's, the second against Moshe.  Of the two, one would think, a rebellion against God by far is the greater!  The scouts, after all, adopted the viewpoint of military strategists.   What they lacked was love of the Land and a profound faith in God.  The sages explain that Moshe made an error in the choice of the men he sent as spies:  He didn’t quite understand the Divine command.  He heard the Almighty ask him to send out men who would spy out, 'veyaturu,' the land of Canaan.

But the word 'tur' as it is used at the end of the previous portion, "velo taturu akharey levavkhem --  and you shall not go astray after

your own heart," also means to love, or lust after. If, then, the word has two possible interpretations, both must be combined.   The scouts were sent to spy out the land, but they were also sent to fall in love with the land -- just as our Sages teach: “It is forbidden for a man tomarry a woman unless he first sees her... and loves her,” [Kidushin 41a]  The land had to be spied out so that the Israelites would know how best to conquer it, but the land also had to be seen and loved so that the Israelites would be willing to take the risks concomitant with conquest.  Love has to be added to logic, and faith has to accompany fact if the land is to be won and if God and His Torah are to be accepted.  David Ben-Gurion, when asked once what gave him the courage to declare the creation of Israel in the face of the enemies ready to strike at it replied, simply, “it IS our land, after all.”   That kind of love, that kind of faith are a prerequisite for owning the land.   Korakh attempted to unseat and defeat Moshe and Aharon for no other

reason but that he wanted to be the chief in place of his cousins. There was no logic to it.  Had his reason been a love for God, he would have been satisfied with his incense burning in front of the tabernacle.   The leadership of Israel cannot be userpt by anyone who wishes to take the mantle upon himself.  The leadership of Israel was not even, at that time, the choice of the people -- it was the appointment by God.  When the spies defied God, with their report, they showed a lack of profound faith.  When Korakh challenged Moshe, he showed a lack of faith in God -- and in His choice for temporal leadership.  Faith in God is a personal choice -- but adherence to the law of legal leadership must be maintained -- or society will suffer the consequences.  This lesson should not be lost in our own age -- especially by those who claim to be motivated by Torah teaching -- but who challenge and reject the leadership and policies of those chosen to lead the people.  Korakh and his cohorts paid a dear price for their revolt -- to teach us most swiftly and strongly that the temporal king, unlike the supreme king, must not be challenged in ways that are neither legal nor of high principle.  Korakh had blind ambition -- but Moshe had faith;   Korakh wanted to take on the role of leader, to be chief -- and Moshe tried in every which way to avoid it, knowing it to be a difficult and thankless task; Korakh perished -- inexplicably.  Moshe, through Torah, lives to this day.  Let us learn the lesson well.

Amen

Parshat Korakh 5759

This week we read in the Torah the portion called Korakh, which comes from the fourth book, Bemidbar, Numbers, beginning in chapter sixteen: “Now Korakh son of Izhar son of Kohath son of Levi, along with Dathan and Abiram sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth—descendants of Reuben—took two hundred fifty Israelite men, leaders of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men, and they confronted Moses. They assembled against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them, “You have gone too far! All the congregation are holy, everyone of them, and the Lord is among them. So why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?”” [Num. 16:1-3] Moshe’s leadership was challenged -- and by a member of his own family, a Levite! God had to affirm his choice of Moshe as leader and the correct track that he had taken to lead the Israelites to the Promised Land.

The Torah, we discover in the book of Bamidbar, is not a law book full of dry legal arguments — rather it is a book of high drama, including love and hate, murder and mayhem, family backbiting and political intrigue. This week’s portion, as an example, describes how even the great Moshe Rabenu, the Levite raised as a prince of Egypt, who became Israel’s leader against his will at the call of God, he who defied Pharaoh to win freedom for his people — even he had to contend with rebellion and threats of revolution. It would seem, from an examination of the text, that the major motivation for the action of Korakh and his followers was jealousy, even though there is an attempt to provide a legitimate excuse for the man’s envy of his cousins Moshe and Aharon. The Torah has Korakh invoking the principles which were named ages later ‘democracy’ by the Greeks, who laid claim to inventing the concept: the Almighty’s presence, the shekhina, is to be found with each and every Israelite, so who are Moses and Aaron to be exalted above the multitude?

Our great leader, Moshe, wishing to keep peace in the community, suggests to Korakh and his followers, “And take every man his censer, and put incense in them, and bring before the Lord every man his censer, two hundred and fifty censers; you also, and Aaron, each of you his censer. And they took every man his censer, and put fire in them, and laid incense on it, and stood in the door of the Tent of Meeting with Moses and Aaron.” [Num. 16:17,18] This compromise, this special honor, has the opposite effect to what Moshe tried to achieve. The text tells us, “And Korakh gathered all the congregation against them to the door of the Tent of Meeting; and the glory of the Lord appeared to all the congregation.” [Num. 16:19]

God becomes very angry and wishes to destroy the entire congregation, but Moshe argues against such communal punishment, but does set an example of the rabble rousers. “And Moses rose up and went to Dathan and Abiram; and the elders of Israel followed him. And he spoke to the congregation, saying, Depart, I beg you, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be consumed in all their sins. So they got away from the dwelling of Korakh, Dathan, and Abiram, on every side; and Dathan and Abiram came out, and stood in the door of their tents, and their wives, and their sons, and their little children. And Moses said, Hereby you shall know that the Lord has sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of my own mind. If these men die the common death of all men, or if they are visited by the fate of all men; then the Lord has not sent me. But if the Lord creates a new thing, and the earth opens her mouth, and swallows them up, with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into Sheol; then you shall understand that these men have provoked the Lord. And it came to pass, as he finished speaking all these words, that the ground split beneath them; And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men who belonged to Korakh, and all their goods. They, and all that belonged to them, went down alive into Sheol, and the earth closed upon them; and they perished from among the congregation.” [Num. 16:25-33]

Now one would think that with this kind of conclusive evidence about God's choice of the House of Amram alone from among thye family of Levy to lead the children of Israel -- the people would be totally convinced of Almighty God's reasonable choice. But that is not, in fact, so. The text tells us, "But on the next day all the congregation of the people of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron, saying, You have killed the people of the Lord." [Num. 17:6] Imagine that, the people blamed the leaders for their own shortcomings and for God's reaction to it! This brought about God's increased wrath, and he resolved to destroy the entire camp. It was only Moshe's quick reaction that saved the day -- and the ungrateful people.

Do the Israelites learn their lessons? You know that they did not! The speak up when the plague dies down and say, "And the people of Israel spoke to Moses, saying, Behold, we die, we perish, we all perish. Who ever comes at all near the tabernacle of the Lord shall die. Shall we totally perish?" [Num. 17:27, 28] The leadership of Israel was God-motivated from the time of Moshe and Aharon, nay, from the time of Avraham, Yitzkhak and Ya'akov -- to the rise of Zionism and American Jewry at the turn of the twentieth century. Today, this motivation seems sadly lacking, both in the so called secular, and in the religious sectors of Judaism.

In fact, I believe that it is more so especially among those who claim to be motivated by Torah teaching — but who challenge and reject the leadership and policies of those elected by the democratic process to lead the people in the State of Israel. Korakh and his cohorts paid a dear price for their revolt — to teach us most swiftly and strongly that the temporal king, unlike the supreme king, must not be challenged in ways that are neither legal nor of high principle. But Korakh was not alone in his blind ambition — the people followed him like sheep. Moshe had faith, and a burning love and concern for God's people; Korakh wanted to take on the role of leader, to be chief — and Moshe, who tried in every which way to avoid it, knowing it to be a difficult and thankless task, carried on his duty even when it made it necessary to defy God Himself for thye people; Korakh perished — suddenly and inexplicably. The earth swallowed him. . . Moshe, through Torah, lives to this day. Let us learn the lesson well. And let us also learn that the people who follow every new, self proclaimed leader who challenges authority and aggitates for a chance to take over power -- may end up with a desease that takes a miracle to cure.

Amen.

Korakh 5760

This week’s Torah portion is called Korakh, and is found in the fourth book, Bemidbar, Numbers, beginning in chapter sixteen: “Now Korakh son of Izhar son of Kohath son of Levi, along with Dathan and Abiram sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth—descendants of Reuben—took two hundred fifty Israelite men, leaders of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men, and they confronted Moses. They assembled against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them, “You have gone too far! All the congregation are holy, everyone of them, and the Lord is among them. So why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?”” [Num. 16:1-3] Moshe’s leadership was challenged -- and by a member of his own family, a Levite! God had to affirm his choice of Moshe as leader and the correct track that he had taken to lead the Israelites to the Promised Land. I am sure you know the story, Moshe tries to find a way to deal with the challenge in ways of peace, but in the end it is left to God to be the final, and awesome, arbiter.

We like to say, and to think, that we Jews love peace and hate controversy. Our sages said, “Peace is great and controversy is hateful. How so? A city in controversy is bound to be destroyed. The wise have said, “controversy in the city, blood flows in the streets; a house that exists with controversy is bound to be obliterated.” Others said, “controversy in the courts, the world will perish.” Yet there are those who speak in praise of controversy and disagreement. Again, our elders have said, “the jealousy of sages increases learning.” In modern times controversy has been praised as the driving force of society. We compete with one another for good jobs, good mates, and a good life. Those who praise controversy point out the existence of the “best competition” in Jewish history - the one between the “house of Shama’y” and the “house of Hillel.” They argued about Torah and Halakha (Jewish law) and always came to a decision - on one side or the other of the controversy. “Halakha L’Shama’y” or “Halakha l’Hillel.” Our sages suggest, because of this example, that there are two kinds of “controversy” - disagreements for the sake of God, “leshem Shama’yim”, exemplified by Shama’y and Hillel, and dissension and disputation for gaining power and wealth, exemplified by our villains of this week’s, “shelo leshem shama’yim.” So, the sages say, “leshem Shama’yim” - for the sake of heaven - argument and disagreement is constructive and worthwhile; “Shelo leshem Shama’yim” - that which is not for heaven’s sake - is destructive and evil.

Next week the Camp David Circus is coming to town... We have here a controversy to end all controversies. We must ask: Is this “leshem shamayim” or “shelo leshem shama’yim?” An examination of the last appearance of this circus would suggest the latter. Camp David has cost Israel dearly: We evacuated the Sinai, purchase from Egypt the oil and natural gas we discovered, and received a frozen cold shoulder from our neighbor to the south, whose sabre rattling has not ceased, whose friendship is constantly in doubt, and whose best face is always to our mortal enemies. Our negotiations with the new participants in Camp David, the Palestinians, have been marked by violence and broken promises. We have not seen any flexibility or willingness to compromise. The Palestinians arw coming to town with elephants, heavy footed mammoths that do not change their path no matter what the obstacle on their way. Their size and their weight, they know, gives them the advantage. They are coming to claim the area shown on the map they display on their emblem. That map is the map of Israel plus Judea, Samarya and Gaza. Israel has weaned itself of its dream of sovereignty over “the promised land” - and at Camp David next week may offer to return 90% of the areas taken in war in 1967, and to share sovereignty in Jerusalem. The would do it “for the sake of peace.” But Arafat and his men are not honest brokers, and are not ready to give up the dream of sovereignty over all the land that is represented by their map. And thus, they are not Shama’y to Israel’s Hillel. They are Datan and Aviram to Moshe. They are disputing “shelo leshem shama’yim.” Their controversy will only bring war and destruction. I sure hope that our brethern will see this before ceding to “the Spirit of Camp David,” before yielding to the sweet talking arbiter from Arkansas, before abdicating sovereignty to those whose declared aim is the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth.

Korakh 5761

This week’s Torah portion is found in the fourth book, Bemidbar, Numbers, from the beginning of chapter sixteen to the end of chapter eighteen. It is called Korakh, and reads as follows: "Now Korakh son of Izhar son of Kohath son of Levi, along with Dathan and Aviram sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth—descendants of Reuben—took two hundred fifty Israelite men, leaders of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men, and they confronted Moses. They assembled against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them, "You have gone too far! All the congregation are holy, everyone of them, and the Lord is among them. So why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?"" [Num. 16:1-3] By now, you must be quite familiar with Israelite rebellion against God and His servant Moshe. After all, we have been reading about it time and again since Moshe came down to Egypt to deliver them from bondage to freedom, and Pharaoh made their departure a little less than flawless... Especially if you have been reading the portions of the week for the last two Shabbatot, you may recall, "Va’yhi ha’am kemit’onenim ra b’ozney Adona’y - And it seemed that the people complained of bad things in God’s ears, it displeased the Lord; His anger was kindled; and the fire of the Lord burnt among them, and consumed those who were in the outlying parts of the camp." [Num 11:1] The Israelites complained about the meat and vegetables they used to have in Egypt which they now missed. "And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Kushite woman whom he had married; for he had married a Kushite woman. And they said, Has the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? has he not spoken also by us? And the Lord heard it." {Num. 12:1,2] Now this is much worse than the first revolt, for now we are dealing with the very family of Moshe - brother Aharon and sister Miriam. What will happen next?

Well, you recall last week: We read about the fiasco of the scouts/spies that went out to survey what god had guaranteed to deliver. Could they report anything but how great the land God will deliver is? Yes, they could. "And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had spied to the people of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to spy, is a land that eats up its inhabitants; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. And there we saw the Nefilim, the sons of Anak, who come from the Nefilim; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so were we in their sight." {Num. 13:32,33] The Israelites chose to accept the evil report and presume that God wished to see harm come to them - and in so doing, doubting God’s promise, they raised God’s ire, and brought about a fate of suffering and mourning for generations and ages of Judaism yet unborn.

As if this was not enough, we arrive at the open rebellion of Korakh, Datan and Aviram. How is this revolt different from past events? The rebels go beyond the limit of civilized behavior. Moshe is willing to put his leadership to God’s test of approval. We read that he accepts a challenge, "Tomorrow the Lord will show who are his, and who is holy; and will cause him to come near to him; him whom He has chosen will He cause to come near to him. This do; Take you censers, Korah, and all his company; And put fire in it, and put incense in them before the Lord tomorrow; and it shall be that the man whom the Lord chooses, he shall be holy." [Num. 16:5-7] However, Moshe sends for Datan and Aviram to join Korakh at this test, and they refuse to come, adding insult to injury. They said, "We will not come up; Is it a small thing that you have brought us out of a land that flows with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, that you also make yourself a prince over us? Moreover you have not brought us into a land that flows with milk and honey, or given us inheritance of fields and vineyards. Will you take out the eyes of these men? We will not come up." [Num. 16:12-14] This kind of behavior could not be accepted by God, nor condoned by the long suffering leader, Moshe. Still, wishing to minimize the damage done to God’s people, Moshe warns the people to remove themselves from the company of the rebels. Moshe informs the people that God will punish the rebels in a manner unlike any "natural" bad luck event - so that the people will know and understand once and for all that rebellion against God brings divine retribution. "And Moses said, Hereby you shall know that the Lord has sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of my own mind. If these men die the common death of all men, or if they are visited by the fate of all men; then the Lord has not sent me. But if the Lord creates a new thing, and the earth opens her mouth, and swallows them up, with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into Sheol; then you shall understand that these men have provoked the Lord." [Num. 16:28-30]

God’s swift judgement follows, "the ground split beneath them; And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men who belonged to Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that belonged to them, went down alive into Sheol, and the earth closed upon them; and they perished from among the congregation." {Num. 16:31-33]

What do we learn from all this? There are a number of lessons - and each is important. First, we have to realize that we Jews have always been a contentious people, prone to rebel against authority, whether it’s that of Moshe or a lesser functionary - or against God, the Highest of the High. So never ask, "what, we Jews do such and so?" We do, my friends, we do - from the most petty to the most unimaginable abomination and evil. Second, we should be aware that we suffer, time and again, because we do not learn from mistakes of the past. Three weeks in a row we have been reading about Israel’s rebellion - when will it end? Have we seen the last of it? Surely not! Even today, more than thirty-five hundred years after the events of Korakh, Datan and Aviram, there are still rebels against us. There are those who question the elected leaders of the community, in every community, in every sphere of human interaction - national and international affaires, synagogues and clubs, civic and service organizations.

May the day soon dawn when we learn to respect authority, just and equitable authority, to be sure, "according to Hoyle" - but none-the-less, authority that requires sanctity and respect. Recognizing the hierarchy - from the Father to some of his Children, who are First among equals, who wield authority for the good of society and in its best interest, bringing peace and justice, safety and security, love and contentment to one and all. For we are, truly, all of us, charged by God to be "a holy congregation, everyone of" us, so that "the Lord is among" us!