For the sake of Heaven

This week's Torah portion is Korach. (A drash?? Yeah, it's gonna get frummy!) It details an challenge by Korach, a disgruntled Levite from the Kohathite clan, and his followers who railed against the perceived nepotism of Moshe and Aharon, Korach's first cousins.

Certainly, on the face of things, Korach's outwardly stated agitation for more equality ("for the entire congregation is holy, and the LORD is in their midst. So why do you raise yourselves up above the LORD's assembly?" - Num 16:3) is admirable. After all, each of them had been holy enough to witness G-d's revelation upon Mount Sinai not so long ago and at the time, G-d's presence was resting in the recently dedicated mishkan (tabernacle). There is certainly merit to his superficial argument. Fighting injustice in the world is a central part of the Jewish concept of tikkun olam (healing the world) - G-d "deliberately stopped short of completing the work of Creation, leaving not just men but the world itself imperfect . . . in countless ways. This was [the] strategy for involving man in that very work [of perfecting the world]." (See The Jewish Body, Chapter 2 for its treatment of circumcision, which Kabbalists claim is the quintescential act of tikkun olam, perfecting the human form.)

Anyway, now that we think Korach's a nice guy, he even has a whole Torah portion named after he, why then is Korach's revolt met with Divine retribution by way of the earth opening up and swallowing him and his family whole? Further, why do the rabbis of the Talmud denigrate his argument, saying in Pirke Avos 5:20:

Any dispute which is for the sake of Heaven will ultimately endure, and one which is not for the sake of Heaven will not ultimately endure. What is a dispute for the sake of Heaven? This is a debate between Hillel and Shammai. What is a dispute not for the sake of Heaven? This is the dispute of Korach and his assembly.

Despite presenting himself to the Israelites as a populist, Korach's reason for challenging Moshe was resentment over the fact that he should have been made the leader of the Kohathite clan rather than his kinsman, Elizaphan ben Uzziel (see Rashi's commentary on Num. 16:1). The Midrash Tanchuma states that Korach initiated his rebellion by questioning Moshe's rulings on some of G-d's more difficult commandments: Why does a house filled with Torah scrolls need to have a mezuzah (which itself contains only a few excerpts from the Torah) on the doorpost? Why does a garment stained entirely with techeles (a bluish dye) still need one of the tzitzis (fringe) dyed with techeles (see Num. 15:37-40)? Why should a nation of holy people need Aharon and his offspring the kohanim (priests) to serve as their intermediaries?

Jimmy Taber at the American Jewish World Service put out an interesting drash on the portion and this verse from Pirke Avos. Taber clarifies along the lines of Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the UK, that "disputes for the sake of Heaven" are really arguments for the sake of the greater good, rather than Korach's which were based more on personal gain. Healing the world is all well and good, but not when you have your own best interests in mind.

For me, one takeaway from this mishnah is the need to be careful of what ulterior motives politicians and political activists may harbor. It's very easy to be swayed by charismatic figures, but in the end the consequences of following too blindly can be dire. I certainly do not think that every supporter of the circumcision ban harbors some deep seated anti-Semitism. That said, I think Protocols of Mr. Hess certainly shed some light on the tip of his.

Further, the way in which Korach derisively attacked Moshe and Aharon served to clarify the sake for which he argued. In contrast, the archetypal disputers "for the sake of Heaven" - the diametrically opposed Hillel and Shammai - may not have agreed on a single topic, but did so in a respectful, amicable manner. In the end, both sages profited greatly from their enduring disputes, constantly challenged to clarify their positions to arrive at the most defensible position, which ultimately is the best. This is the other lesson to be gleaned from this mishnah. It's tough to do - the U.S. unfortunately is not a nation of Hillels and Shammais - but if we can learn to engage in discussions above the rhetoric, above the name calling, above mud slinging and animosity that unfortunately accompany so many political topics these days, then perhaps we can learn to build a more harmonious society, where differing camps stand not as bitter adversaries but as partners in the continued upkeep of our nation.

Hopefully with time, as the mishnah predicts, this dispute over circumcision will come to an end. Even more hopefully, G-d willing, there will no ban on the practice or at the very least there will be a religious exception to any future ban. While I certainly do not wish Korach's demise upon Hess and his assembly (if anywhere in the US could spontaneously open up an swallow the intactivists whole it would be the San Andreas fault area . . . just saying), I do wish we could all rise to the level of a Hillel-Shammai type dialogue on this and many other currently divisive issues. . . . I call Hillel, though!