June 23rd: Korach
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich
This may seem like a well-worn lesson from Civics Class, but there is an important difference between a democracy and a republic—a representative democracy. There is something simple and beautiful about a democracy, with everyone getting together and discussing the issues at hand and then voting. The majority rules. However, crowds can be swayed by a variety of factors—including impatience, prejudice, lack of information, short-sightedness, and panic, and these can result in democratic but bad decisions. A representative democracy—or one limited by constitutional strictures (like our Bill of Rights) aims to insulate the deliberative process from these kinds of bad thinking. While we, as veteran observers of our own republic, are aware of the many problems of our system, most of us can also see how a straight democracy would be much, much more prone to problems.
The problem of unbridled democracy is front and center in this part of the Torah. Last week, when the twelve scouts report on their tour of the Promised Land, the fear of the ten pessimists leads to a wholesale panic among the people. The text does not describe a reasoned conversation, with the pros and cons of the Divine assignment being considered. Rather, we read about the “calumnies” of the ten spies spreading and the people responding with an emotional storm. It is not the kind of democratic discussion and vote that the myths of ancient Athens describe.
This week, we have another almost-riot. Korach, a privileged member of the Tribe of Levi, gathers a band of 250 people, and they “combine against Moses and Aaron and say to them, ‘You have gone too far! For all the community are holy, all of them, and the Lord is in their midst. Why then do you raise yourselves above the Lord’s congregation?!’” (Numbers 16.3) Is this an attempt at democracy and equality, or is this an armed rebellion? Unfortunately, this passage is extremely malleable, and Korach can be seen as either a villain or a hero.
Tradition sees Korach as an evil and greedy man who wants to be in power. Like George Orwell’s Napolean the Pig, he phrases his power grab in democracy-talk, but his assembled mob is evidence of his true aim and his strong-arm tactics. Then, of course, there is the dramatic end of the story in which God’s judgment of Korach is pretty clear: “…the ground under them burst asunder, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up with their households, all Korach’s people and all their possessions. They went down alive into Sheol, with all that belonged to them the earth closed over them, and they vanished from the congregation.” (Numbers 16.31-33) The Bible sees Korach’s rebellion as not against Moses but against God.
The other view is based on empathy for Korach and his democratic ambitions. For those who mistrust authority or institutions, they see someone who is merely questioning authority and demanding fairness and equality. They wonder whether the Biblical narration is slanted, that perhaps Korach does not assemble a mob—that he gathers mature and reputable people to try to get more equality in the Israelite society and religion. What if his democratic rhetoric is sincere—that he really wants to discuss the elitism of the current system? We have certainly seen corruption in places of power and how elitism betrays the promises of liberty. Is such a reading inappropriate just because the Torah’s writers include an improbable miracle story?
This sympathetic approach is supported by a curious anomaly in the Bible. Though Korach is cast as a terrible villain, several Psalms are attributed to the “Sons of Korach,” a group of Levites or Priests who sang in the Temple. Why would the name of such a villain be continued? Some names are so disreputable that they are simply retired. In the 1800s and early 1900s, many Jewish men were given the name Adolf. However, at some point in the 1930s, their names morphed into substitutes like Arthur, and no more little Jewish babies were named Adolf anymore. If Korach is really such a villain, it is highly improbable that his name would endure so prominently in both Temple and Bible. So, perhaps the earthquake story is a later addition, used to keep a potential priestly group “in their place” as post Babylonian Exile Judaism was being put together. This Divine retribution story could “explain” why the Korach group of Levitical priests were excluded from the new priesthood. In other words, maybe the original story might have been much more an attempt to discuss egalitarian religious possibilities.
It is hard for us to know what is really in Korach’s mind, but we can speak of more modern situations where democratic rhetoric incites mobs, leading to results that are very un-democratic. Our American Revolution could have gone the way of the disastrous French Revolution. We remember Sam Adams and his riotous gang in Boston as patriots, but the leadership that led (as opposed to incited) the Revolution and ultimately cobbled together our Constitution was much less hot-headed. They were inclined less to zealotry and more to deliberation and practical compromise.
One can also point to the failure of democracy in the Arab Spring. Gathering a million people in Tahrir Square was very impressive, but it was hardly the setting for democratic decision making. It might have looked good to idealists, but the impracticability and confusion was so profound that the resulting tyranny of the Muslim Brotherhood and the eventual coup by the Egyptian military was inevitable. In almost every instance, poorly managed Arab Spring attempts at democracy have led to non-democratic authoritarianism and tyranny—and tragedy for millions of Arabs.
On a smaller scale, one can consider public meetings where, for “democratic” reasons, everyone is welcome to speak "their truths.” It may be a wonderful exercise in self-expression, but such unmanaged gatherings seldom result in anything but talk, anger, and frustration. Channeling complaints or principles into action requires direction and management. It is not a matter of stifling opinion but of figuring out what to do with it. Is the goal of democracy self-indulgence, or is its best purpose effecting social good?
It is hard to know exactly what happens in the Numbers story of Korach. The Bible clearly has a view, but those who question authority wonder if Korach and his followers are given a “bad rap.” Are they sincere democrats, or are they authoritarian rebels? Or does an unbridled protest lead to a mob and anarchy and the resulting violent resolution? If Korach and his followers are sincerely trying to bring more equality, I wonder how they might pursue their aspirations with more success.