Parshat Korach

Rav Johnny's original thoughts on the weekly parsha

Parshat Korach begins with the phrase ‘Vayikach Korach’, meaning, ‘and Korach took’ (see Bemidbar 16:1). Yet it is precisely because we are not told what specifically Korach took, along with the fact that we are soon told about how Korach initiated a rebellion against Moshe, that our Rabbis interpret the word ‘Vayikach’ as meaning that Korach either ‘took’ offence of the fact that a younger relative was appointed as the head of his tribe, or that he used impassioned language to ‘take’ some of the Israelites to adopt his perspective and to join him in his rebellion (see Midrash Tanchuma).

However, a point that is seemingly overlooked by many commentaries is that ‘Kach’ (meaning ‘take’) – which is the root of the word ‘Vayikach’ (meaning ‘and he took’) – refers, as noted in Kiddushin 2a, both to ‘taking’ in marriage (see Devarim 24:1), as well as ‘taking’ the land through acquisition (see Bereishit 23:13). As a result, this word has associations both with family and with the land of Israel. And once this fact is understood, I believe that we can better understand what is going on in Parshat Korach.

In terms of family, we are taught (in the Midrash) that Korach – who was a cousin of Moshe, Aharon and Miriam - felt that the position of leader of the tribe of Kehat should have been given to him (as his father Izhar was born second after their father Amram), rather than to his younger cousin Elizaphan (whose father was the youngest of four brothers). Accordingly, he was aggrieved, and he led a rebellion against Moshe.

But – and this is a point made by Rabbi Baruch HaLevi Epstein (in his Tosefet Bracha) – while this may explain what was agitating Korach, it doesn’t explain why he rebels at this point in time. Moreover, if you do the calculation (which Rabbi Epstein does!), you find that the appointment of Elizaphan occurred three months previously! Given this, why does Korach rebel now if this has bothered him for this period of time?

The answer to this question relates to the second meaning of the word ‘Kach’ (relating to the land of Israel), as well as the fact that not only does the rebellion of Korach feature in the Torah after the story of the spies, but that most commentaries agree that this is the order in which they historically took place (see Rashi on Bemidbar 16:4, Ramban on Bemidbar 16:1 etc.).

Imagine that you are living in the wilderness, and you are soon to be entering the promised land of Israel. Yes, there may be plenty of things that irritate you about your current nomadic life. However, you know that this is a transition period which will soon end. Given this, you try and overlook those frustrations and irritations.

However, the consequence of the devastating report brought back by the spies was that the remaining few days in the wilderness were to be extended for a further 39 years, and the generation of the wilderness would not enter into the promised land. Put simply, the people slid from feeling exalted hopefulness (tikva), to despondence and hopelessness (yi’ush).

At that moment - as Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Neria explains (in his Ner LaMaor) - all those minor irritations which had been subsumed by the excitement of entering the land of Israel became not only prominent in the mind of the people, but their primary focus of attention. But what does this have to do with Korach?

I mentioned above that three months before Korach led his rebellion, his younger cousin Elizaphan had been appointed previously as head of the tribe of Kehat. This bothered Korach greatly. However, Korach was of the view – as explained by Rabbi Epstein while quoting the Zohar – that once the people entered the land of Israel then new leadership would be appointed for this new mission of settling the land. Given this, though his frustration festered, Korach was prepared to look beyond his immediate feelings with the knowledge that the people would soon enter the land, and the expectation that he be given a prominent leadership position.

But then the spies returned with a negative report and the divine decree was issued that the people would remain in the wilderness. At that moment Korach couldn’t ‘take’ it anymore. Feeling that his chance of leadership had been snatched from him, he rebels. Yet, in this moment Korach is not the kind of hopeful leader that the people need – especially following the saga of the spies. Instead, he is frustrated and despondent, and this – ultimately - is why Korach’s rebellion was doomed. It was not so much the fact that Korach was rebelling against Moshe which was the problem. Instead, it was his despondent mindset which – from the outset – disqualified him from being an effective leader to the people.

On first glance, the Korach rebellion is about ego and status and honour. This is certainly true, and there are many lessons we can learn about ego, status and honour from this story. However, when we take a deeper look at the story of Korach, it is about the switch from hope (tikva) to hopelessness (yi’ush), and about how people respond when their aspirations and dreams seem to have been snatched from them.

Interpreted this way, there is much to learn from Parshat Korach about how we respond to situations when what we wish to occur does not come to fruition, and how to react when dreams seemingly don’t come true.