Korah and Demagogues, and How to Fight
Korah and Demagogues, and How to Fight
Earlier this week I conducted a workshop for couples about to get married. When I asked them to identify what qualities are essential for a successful marriage, not surprisingly, communication was one of the first answers offered. People may not realize it, especially couples in love and about to begin their life together, but in addition to knowing how to get along and how to communicate, another one of the ingredients of a successful marriage is to know how to fight.
Take for example the story about a man who accompanies his wife to her high school reunion. They see a guy drinking alone in the corner, not talking to anyone. The woman tells her husband that the man is her old boyfriend, and that she heard that after she broke up with him many years ago, he started drinking and hasn’t been sober since. Her husband turns and says to his wife, “That is amazing. Still drinking after all these years? How can a guy celebrate a breakup for that long?” (…You can imagine the fight that ensued after that exchange.)
Not just in marriage, but in life, as well as in all our affairs, it is helpful to know how to have a disagreement. In many respects, we can learn from the repudiation of Korah and his unsuccessful rebellion against the leadership of Moses and Aaron how to fight and disagree, while remaining honorable.
The altercation between Moses and Korah is not the only dispute in the Bible. In fact, the bible is full of disputes and disagreements. Professor Israel Knohl points out that the Torah opens with a maklohet, an argument. Two different explanations as to how the world was created are presented in the book of Genesis, one after the other. So it is not that there shouldn’t or won’t be differences. The Torah is subtly teaching us that differences of opinion, and seemingly incompatible positions can in fact, live side by side.
But there is something about Korah and his challenge to Moses which is different than the other disputes in the Bible. This one is more about personalities and not based in genuine or sincere differences. Korah does not argue issues. Instead, he takes potshots at Moses’ character and, according to the Midrash, falsely accuses Moses of illicit activity. The 19th century commentator, the Chofetz Hayim claimed that Korach is so blinded by ambition he is led to commit multiple transgressions — slander, anger, jealousy and envy, all of which ultimately consume and overcome him.
For the Rabbis, Korah becomes the personification of manipulative demagoguery, the quest for personal greed, vicious envy, unquenchable craving for power, exploitation of others, and arrogance. He is the classic demagogue. Korah lies, but his assertions are hard to disprove. He accuses his opponents of intentions he himself harbors. He appeals to the people, as if he is taking up their cause, but his primary motivation is his own ego. He distorts the truth with oversimplifications to make his case. Korah had accumulated much wealth, but sought even more, as he desired the glory and perks of leadership.
Moses on the other hand, was a spiritual leader, a humble man who lived simply. He was a leader not because he sought the position, but because God called upon him to lead. He did not use his position to become wealthy or for personal gain, nor did he lord power over the people, but in the words of the Torah, was their humble servant and advocate.
Whereas Moses was willing to risk his life for the benefit of the people, Korah was willing to risk the lives of the people for his own benefit.
This is why Pirkei Avot describes the controversy of Korah and his cohorts to have been “not for the sake of Heaven.” Their goal was to overthrow the leadership of Moses and Aaron, in the hope of seizing power for themselves. They did not offer a positive agenda; rather, they preyed on and manipulated the fears and frustrations of the people. When controversies are “not for the sake of Heaven”, but for the sake of personal gain they are resolved by a show of power, which is why he and his followers died the violent way they did, with the earth swallowing them up.
Pirkei Avot contrasts the Korah controversy with that of the debates between Hillel and Shammai, calling their disputes as being “for the sake of Heaven.”
What is the difference?
Neither Hillel nor Shammai sought personal power or glory. Each presented his interpretation of the Torah by offering cogent arguments to support his position. Although they disagreed strongly on almost everything, they were not opponents out to destroy each other, but colleagues. Despite their differences, the controversies between Hillel and Shammai reflected honest and well-reasoned differences of opinion, conducted in a respectful manner. Our rabbis posit that this is why they were both on the same side, the side of Heaven. As a result, the Talmud states that “eilu v’eilu: both of their views were the words of the living God.”
This does not mean, however, that both are correct. A ruling was made so that people would know what the law is, and then are required to follow it. One side prevailed, and the other did not. Yet, the “losing” side did not really lose. Its opinion is preserved in the Talmud and is studied and taken seriously. Jewish law recognizes that although it did not prevail at the time and was rejected as halakha, it could possibly prevail at another time, or in a different situation, or be applied under different circumstances.
In his essay, “The Pursuit of the Ideal,” Sir Isaiah Berlin dealt with the question of how we deal with theological and philosophical disagreements. He rejected “relativism” which posits that all arguments have equal weight, that everything is a matter of personal choice and preference. He contends that not every viewpoint has equal legitimacy, but that there is such a thing as truth and falsehood.
Berlin favored an approach whereby different people might hold legitimate differences of opinion without seeing each other as mortal enemies or opponents. He called his perspective pluralism. In his view he accepted, “the concept that there are many different ends that men may seek and still be fully rational, fully men, capable of understanding each other and sympathizing and deriving light from each other.”
In other words, I may be convinced that I have the real truth, but I need to see that others who do not share my understanding of truth are good, sincere and thoughtful people trying to do their best to reach a reasonable conclusion. I can learn from them, respect them, and be friendly with them. There is a difference between being disputants and being enemies.
Differences where both sides are weighed and presented calmly and reasonably are healthy. Disagreements about theology, philosophy, politics, when parties are still respectful to those with whom they disagree are praiseworthy, as in the case of Hillel and Shammai.
I always like when after a hard-fought game, players from opposing teams shake hands, and some even embrace. It shows respect for an adversary who has fought hard and honorably, and shows acceptance of the outcome.
In distinguishing between Korah’s challenge to Moses and the Hillel-Shammai type of controversies, Pirkei Avot was offering insight into the nature of human conflict. Differences are inevitable, but it is cautioning us to be wary of theological, philosophical and religious disputes which can be used as camouflage for egotistical power grabs or oppression of opponents. Our sages are urging us to conduct our conflicts with others in the Hillel-Shammai model. Healthy controversy reflects an honest search for truth. Unhealthy controversy reflects the desire for power and ego gratification.
Harmonious discourse does not require surrendering one’s notion of truth; but only to recognize that others have the right to see things differently than we do. This is why it says that every controversy that is in the name of heaven shall in the end lead to a permanent result, whereas those that are not in the name of heaven such as those that are self-centered and self-serving shall not endure.
The lesson of Korach is a challenge to each of us to be conscious of how we handle ourselves in times of debate or disagreement, and what happens when there is a lack of respect for each other. Especially instructive is the dispute between Hillel and Shammai as to how to place the mezuzah on the doorposts of our homes. As I explained to those soon to be married, one advocated for placing it horizontally, since the shema is said when we lie down at night, while the other sage said it should be placed vertically, since we say the shema when we rise up in the morning. They agreed to compromise, which is why we place the mezuzah on our doorposts diagonally.
