There are rebels in the TorahRefers to the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh, also called the Five Books of Moses, Pentateuch or the Hebrew equivalent, Humash. This is also called the Written Torah. The term may also refer to teachings that expound on Jewish tradition. Read more. 

There were rebels against the cultures and norms of the time. Avraham and Sarah rejected polytheism, Yehoshua and Caleb rejected the faithless notion that the Land of Canaan could not be conquered, and Moshe rejected the cruel, domineering, and inhumane culture of his Egyptian upbringing. 

There are many more examples, and for good reason. The Torah is iconoclastic, rejecting the beliefs and practices of the cultural milieu in which it was formed. 

But one rebel is singled out and considered beyond the pale: Korach. The TalmudReferring to one of two collections, the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds, edited in the 6th century, that contains hundreds of years of commentary, discussion, and exploration of the ideas in the Mishnah. One could describe it as Mishnah + Gemara = Talmud Read more (Sanhedrin 109b) even entertains the possibility that he has no share in the World-to-Come, i.e., he is permanently and irrevocably cut off from our people. 

What did he do that was so wrong? And, is there no way for us to see his actions in a positive or redemptive light? 

The medieval commentator Rashi (1040-1105) begins his comments on this week’s parsha by telling us to look at the MidrashThis word is used in two ways, as both a concept and a literature. As a concept, midrash is the expansive interpretation of biblical texts. The term is used to describe the practice of rabbinic interpretation. As a text, it refers to specific collections of interpretations, particularly from the third to ninth centuries in the Land of Israel and Babylonia. Plural: Midrashim
Read more Tanhuma. In the Tanhuma, we find several explanations for the ambiguous phrase that introduces our story, Bamidbar 16:1, literally, and “And Korach took…” 

The Tanhuma first suggests, “Now Korach took” himself aside and, using convincing language, developed a cohort of rebels to stand against Moshe. 

The second explanation in the Midrash is full of metaphors, which are couched as halakhic, Jewish legal questions that Korach asked of Moshe. Korach approached Moshe and asked, “If I have a garment, a tallit, that is made entirely of tekhelet, the biblically mandated blue thread used in tzitzit, do I have to put tzitzit?” To which Moshe replied, “Yes, it still requires tzitzit.”

Korach’s second question was: If I have a building filled with holy books, do I need to put a mezuzah on the door? Moshe replied, “Yes, it still requires a mezuzah.”

In each of the above cases, Korach lays out logic to explain why he thinks that tzitzit, or mezuzah, are not required. Nonetheless, Moshe simply responded that they were needed. Korach then introduces an accusation: “These are things about which you have not been commanded. Rather, you are inventing them [by taking them] out of your own heart.”

The accusation that Moshe is making up rules is something that Moshe cannot abide. He falls on his face. Is he expressing humility? Mourning? Horror? If Moshe is making up the rules as he goes along, then the entire basis for the community’s existence, that God redeemed, chose, and set laws for them, is without merit. 

The metaphor that Korach was laying out for Moshe is not immediately understood until Korach suggests that Moshe is making up the rules. The metaphor: a garment woven completely of holy, sacred, precious blue should not need another small thread of blue on the corner; a building filled with holy, sacred books should not need a little scroll on the door, a small, nearly insignificant addition. 

When Korach tells Moshe that he is making it up, Moshe realizes, “I am the mezuzah, I am the tzitzit, I am the additional holy piece that it added to the already sacred people of Israel.”  He cannot abide the idea. Moshe the most humble. Moshe the man who tried so hard to not be a prophet.

Korach’s implied criticism – we are all holy, and your leadership is unnecessary – has the same answer as the questions above – Yes, it is required, because God said so.” 

The parental or authoritarian cliché, “because I said so,” makes us uncomfortable. We connect to Korach’s upset, feeling that Korach has a point. What proof do we have that Moshe is hearing the word of God? But this is a rehashing of an old trope that comes up repeatedly in the Torah – Avraham says in Bereishit 15:8, “…how shall I know…” Pharaoh repeatedly needs convincing of God’s power. The children of Israel, at the Sea, in the desert, over and over again, require proof of God’s might and Moshe as messenger. 

This is Korach’s problem—he should know better. He has witnessed great signs and wonders. He is a Levi close to the holiness of the Ark. He was at Sinai, and he daily traveled in an experience of wonder and miraculousness. Korach’s challenge in light of all he experienced is understood as a power grab, a way to degrade Moshe’s authority. 

Years ago someone tried to prove to me that Judaism was the “true” religion because it was revealed to a community – i.e. the assembly at Sinai and not to a single prophet in seclusion. The argument is confused by relying on the Torah for the proof text. Nonetheless, it points to an important idea: leaders who rely exclusively on signs or wonders or on ideas that are revealed to them in private are dangerous. Moshe, notwithstanding his direct relationship to God relies on the fact that the community at large was involved in a process of discovery and revelation. Korach’s challenge brings that to light. And maybe, reading Korach generously, he took one for the team so we could have this episode where we see Moshe in another light.