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 20th 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.
Thirty
years ago this week, I entered as a freshman at the American University.
Following yet another summer as a camp counselor, I hopped in the car with mom
and dad to drive from Boston to DC. I don’t remember much about the trip,
except we stopped in Brooklyn to visit my grandmother who was in the hospital
(and then dad showed me the location of the family bakery – building still
intact – at Coney Island and O). We made our way to the nation’s capitol, and stayed
overnight in nearby suburban Virginia. We spent time with my aunt Enid, visiting
her son Tommy who lived and worked locally, and spent an eve celebrating her
birthday at a French dinner-burlesque show (only slightly awkward for an
eighteen year-old with his parents). Of course most important was finally
moving onto campus, finding my way to my room in Letts Hall, the dorm – oops, I
mean “residence hall” – that I would call home for my first three years at
school. 
Mixing
and mingling with the other new and returning students, I was introduced to one
fellow freshman whose friendship I cannot overemphasize to this day. Scott and
I met as (myopic yet) wide-eyed newbies at the introductory meeting led by the
RA on our floor. We hit it off right away, and now seem to have accomplished a
great majority of life’s deeds together: from intramural soccer and softball
and student activities to movie nights with Armand’s Pizza and pining over
girls, and yes even successfully navigating our course work – I had a friend
and partner through the ups and downs of college life. We’ve shared holidays
and family time, both as young adult sons in our families of origin as well as being
husbands and fathers ourselves. Scott schlepped to Minnesota for our wedding at
the end of one very cold December; I had the privilege of officiating at his
wedding another memorable weekend in Erie, PA. We’ve visited and shared,
watched (and marveled) as we became parents, and our children continue to grow…
And
yes, that week we met, also coincided with Scott’s birthday – which he’ll again
celebrate this week. So we celebrate 30 years since first meeting that fateful
day at AU – I wish you all the best now and always. Happy
birthday Scotty – you’ll always be Senor Smoke.
