The fifth of the ten biblical portions in Numbers, Korach (16:1-18:32), raises many questions, including how to translate the words“Korah took” when the Torah does not say what he took, what argument Korak used when he criticized Moses, why Moses’brother Aaron was also attacked, and why leaders of the tribe of Reuben joined Korach’s rebellion against the brothers.
In my Book “Onkelos on the Torah: Understanding the Bible Text: Numbers,” I described the Aramaic translator Onkelos’ rendering of 16:1, “Korach took (and argued against Moses and Aaron, saying), Why do you elevate yourselves above the community of Israel”
I wrote that Onkelos’s translation of “took” understood it as reflexive, meaning “he took himself,” and used a word in the translation meaning “separated himself.” I supported this interpretation by showing that this also occurred in Genesis 14:15, Exodus 14:10, and Job 15:12. I also described the many other interpretations of Korah’s rebellion.
The early twentieth-century rational Bible commentator Arnold Ehrlich disliked Onkelos’ interpretation of “took” and the other interpretations of Korach’s rebellion.
Ehrlich describes Korach’s behavior
In the prior portion, in Numbers 15:32-36, the Torah describes the event of a man who was discovered violating the Shabbat by gathering wood on the holy day. He was brought to Moses, Aaron, and the entire assembly and was placed in custody because it was unclear what should be done to him.
“Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘The man must be put to death; all the congregation must stone him with stones outside the camp.’ So, as the Lord commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died.”
Ehrlich cleverly suggests that Korach used this recent event to enrage the Israelites against Moses and Aaron. Ehrlich mocked the idea offered by others that Korach disputed with Moses and Aaron over a religious matter. He pointed out that a religious argument would not enflame the population, but the recent case of the wood gatherer would.
As some people do today when they defend rapists and murderers in sanctuary cities, Korach acted like a reasonable person who argued that the gatherer was not given all the rights and protections that humans must be given. No court of law investigated the matter. He was not given a chance to defend himself. Yes, Moses and Aron were leaders, but they abused their role and mistreated a human being. Korach argued that acting humanely is more important than gathering sticks.
In short, Ehrlich sees Korach using an ancient and still modern tactic of rabble-rousers.
Ehrlich also explains why the tribe leaders of Reuben joined Korach and why Aaron was also attacked. Reuben was the patriarch Jacob’s firstborn. Reuben’s descendants felt they should have been given precedence over the descendants of Jacob’s third son, Levi. They argued that since Moses and Aaron abused their roles as leaders, the tribe of Reuben must replace them.
I understand that in order to enforce the law, Moses needed to show that the law must be obeyed. Moses declared that no work was permitted on the sabbath, and the man broke the sabbath. However, because I live in the 21st century, I find that the passage reflects a primitive notion of justice. It does not align with our modern sensibilities.
The rabbis noted this also and explained that sometimes the situation of the time requires unusual action. Moses was living before the 21st century and had to take action based on the needs and thoughts of the time, the same time when slavery and sacrifices were allowed not because they were proper but because the people would have rebelled if they did not exist.
. Moses was living before the 21st century and had to take action based on the needs and thoughts of the time, the same time when slavery and sacrifices were allowed not because they were proper but because the people would have rebelled if they did not exist.
so we must take rash decisions sometimes regardless because of how people percieve us?
No, only if we do not act there would be a terrible calamity.
I am not stating that Moses did anything wrong
But the fact that Moses had to act irrationality because of how people percieve the action.
The fact people were so uneducated moses had to do an action he normally wouldn’t do.
You are right, my friend Steve.
Moses was arrogrant in his decision making so he was no longer a viable leader.
That is what Korach said, but he was wrong.
How was he wrong?
He violated the Shabbat, an essential part of Judaism.
As some people do today when they defend rapists and murderers in sanctuary cities, Korach acted like a reasonable person who argued that the gatherer was not given all the rights and protections that humans must be given. No court of law investigated the matter. He was not given a chance to defend himself. Yes, Moses and Aron were leaders, but they abused their role and mistreated a human being. Korach argued that acting humanely is more important than gathering sticks.
Is Korach right and logical in his assessment of how he percieves moses and his treatment of a sabbath breaker?
In short, Ehrlich sees Korach using an ancient and still modern tactic of rabble-rousers.
Korach was wrong. He used the rabble rouser technique because he disliked Moses.
How is korach suppose to approach moses then?
Is moses correct in his treatment of the shabbos breaker?
Sometimes, the situation is such that extreme measures are necessary. Moses had just declared that work was not allowed on the Shabbat, nevertheless, this man ignored the shabbat. Moses had in this situation of rebellion to kill the rebellior.
so to establish authority moses killed a man?
Not authority. To protect the law. Moses needed to show that the law must be obeyed.
hope uir doing well rabbi
I am. Thank you, Steve.
I like your interpretation, but if Ehrlich is correct, then I think Korach was not wrong to condemn the killing of the wood gatherer. It was unfortunate for the Israelite who was accused of gathering sticks on the Sabbath that he was convicted of it. True, by the law of Moses, he must have died, yet the act for which he suffered was no breach of the law of nature. Nor did it harm anyone or himself. Supposing that he should come to this world again, and gather sticks on Saturday in this country (for example), he might as a hireling receive his wages for it without being exposed to a similar prosecution of that of Moses and provided he should gather sticks on the Chritisan Sunday, his wages would atone for his crime instead of his life since modern legislators have abated the rigor of the law for which he died. I also do not think we can compare Korach condemning the killing of a man gathering sticks (on the Shabbath) to modern laywers who defend rapists and murderers in sanctuary cities. Certainly, the Israelite picking up sticks on the Shabbath was wrong, and he should have been stopped and reprimanded. But should he have been killed for it? Did he deserve to be killed? Jewish law requires a trial. The text does say that they presented him in front of the entire congregation, but I am not sure if this refers to a trial or just Moses passing judgment.
Thus, I think Moses and Aaron acted overzealously. Their zealous behavior to punish a man for gathering wood indirectly led to division and Korach’s rebellion. Aaron’s grandson Pinchas, who was a zealot, acted similarly and was considered irreligious.
What you wrote is reasonable, but sometimes because of the what is happening and what people are thinking and what the act, even if it is innocuous may cause to happen in the future, it is necessary to take measures that are not reasonable for the sake of saving society.
I agree with you that sometimes it is necessary to take measures to preserve society, even if it is for an innocuous act; however, isn’t stoning a man to death for picking up sticks overly harsh? How does that help society?
Yes, it is overly harsh, but it was necessary.
Dear Rabbi Israel Drazin ! Ehrlich’s insights into the motivations of the tribe leaders of Reuben are very perceptive. The feeling of entitlement and resentment towards the tribe of Levi, who had been chosen for the priesthood, is a timeless human emotion. But, I do think , the appointment of the Levites was not based on human considerations, but on divine decree. Thanks for moving with the Torah reading program. Am Israel Chai: stephen
Yes, Ehrlich prompts us to think.