Nuances of rebellion

This week’s Torah portion, Korach, is customarily seen to illustrate a paradigmatic example of rebellion against authority. In it, Korach and his followers apparently rise up against Moses’ leadership, and question his right to lead the people. At the outset they suggest that Moses is no more suited to hold that station than anyone else in the community, as all of them are holy, and God is among them (emphasis mine). Throughout the ages there have been discussions of this incident: Korach’s jealousy of his cousin Moses; whether Korach’s perspective is worth consideration; how to squelch such tumult; Moses’ response(s); and so on…one’s understanding of these issues is based upon the idea that Korach and his followers present themselves in a defiant stance. Is it possible that the text offers different possibilities? Of course, if we but explore the wording itself, paying particular attention to the verbs in use.

In the standard JPS translation (among the most widely used Jewish versions) we read:

Now Korah, son of Izhar son of Kohath son of Levi, betook himself, along with Dathan and Abiram sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth – descendants of Reuben – to rise up against Moses, together with two hundred fifty representatives of the Israelites…

Here, the main protagonist is clearly Korach, who takes himself (and the others along the way) in order to challenge Moses. This wording opens a chapter of rebellion. We find a difference in both focus and intent in the classic Soncino Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr. JH Hertz – likely the leading English language Torah used for the majority of the 20^th century:

Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, with Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men; and they rose up in the face of Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty men…

In this version Korach is not entirely singled out in the leading role; he and the other named character “take men” (as opposed to betook himself”) in order to present themselves unto Moses. Perhaps, as they make their case, it is to relieve Moses of the overwhelming burden of managing the Israelites – just as his father-in-law Jethro had done immediately prior to receiving the Ten Commandments. A thought to ponder.

Robert Alter, in his masterful The Five Books of Moses, offers another possibility, retaining the ambiguity of the original Hebrew:

And Korah son of Izhar son of Kohath son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram sons of Eliab and On son of Peleth sons of Reuben, took up, and they rose before Moses, and two hundred fifty men of the Israelites…and they assembled against Moses…

In his commentary, Alter notes that “took up” is vague at best; the common completion of the phrase, “took up men,” is merely *understood* – whereas it can also easily be read to mean that he (indicating Korach, as Alter points out that the verb is singular, referring mainly to him) “took it upon himself” or “steeled himself up” and therefore “rebelled.”

Finally I would include the rendition offered by Everett Fox in his groundbreaking Five Books of Moses (yes, we aren’t that innovative when it comes to titles). His work is fascinating because of his very particular attention to idiom, and the preservation of Hebrew words and phrases in the text for their specific merit/meaning. Fox advances:

Now there betook himself Korah son of Yitzhar son of Kehat son of Levi, and Dathan and Aviram the sons of Eliav and On son of Pelet the sons of Reuven – to rise up before Moshe with men-of-stature from the Children of Israel, 250, leaders of the community…

Again in this instance, Fox’s account – while suggesting that Korach’s own plan to confront Moses is his alone – allows for the possibility that the entire episode is not necessarily rebellious in nature from the outset. This gathering of men of stature could be viewed as a demonstration of the importance of what they had to say to Moses – perhaps insubordinate indeed and yet maybe something else – which remains important to consider.

So this is often true for the situations we meet, when we are faced by others. If we jump to conclusions about their intentions from the outset, without (patiently) weighing additional possibilities, the only expected outcome can be devastating conflict – usually difficult to overcome. Yet not every encounter needs to be a challenge, not every interaction a trial. We have it within us to express greater measures of compassion, kindness and generosity toward one another – which might yet mend the world.