At first glance, it is difficult to understand the logic of Korah’s arguments as they appear in this parasha. The believing reader sees that the righteous Moshe falls prey to a malicious and self-indulgent propagandist, who has no real support behind him. Once the earth opened its mouth to swallow Korah and his followers, we have proof-positive that Moshe was both righteous and correct – a proof that strengthens the position of someone who expected Korah's downfall, having already been convinced of his guilt.
This assumption is brought into question by what takes place after Korah’s death. When the people rise up against Moshe and Aharon with the complaint: “You two have brought death upon the LORD’s people!” we are forced to accept that Korah was not a single, stupid, rebellious person and that this was not a rebellious community. These events point to the fact that Korah’s arguments may have had some basis in fact. They were not entirely outlandish and foolish – there were many others who agreed with him. In response to this complaint the earth does not open its mouth a second time, but a plague descends on the people of Israel. Furthermore, God orders Moshe to set up the “test of the staffs” before the Mishkan. At the conclusion of the process, the staff of the tribe of Levi “brought forth sprouts, produced blossoms, and bore almonds,” which served as a winning argument.
These two responses – the opening of the mouth of the earth and the flourishing of the staff of Levi – must be seen as a responses to the questions of Korah and his followers and to those of the entire people after Korah’s death. By examining these responses, perhaps we can identify the views of Korah that were so appealing to others.
Moshe’s initial reaction was: “By this you shall know that it was the LORD who sent me to do all these things; that they are not of my own devising: if these men die as all men do, if their lot be the common fate of all mankind, it was not the LORD who sent me.” To prove that his path was the correct one (and that he was the one chosen for leadership and his family for priesthood), Korah and his followers must die an unnatural death. That is, indeed, what takes place: “and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up with their households, all Korah’s people and all their possessions.”
It appears that Moshe understood that Korah’s complaints against him were based on a “search for the natural order” argument. In nature there are no leaders and no need for leadership. Korah argued that we should aspire to live according to the natural order. The search for a life of natural order has some level of appeal. Rav Kook’s famous essay “A Vision of Vegetarianism and Peace” is based on the concept of integrity and of wholeness that encompasses all of Creation. It is clear that according to such a vision there is no possibility of one person ruling over another, nor even for humankind to rule over animals. Indeed, it is possible that in such an idyllic reality there would simply be no room in a man’s heart to submit to the leadership of others; perhaps not even to the rule of God.
Moshe’s reaction in requesting an unnatural death for Korah and his followers offers us a lot of information. Moshe wants to prove that nature is neither calm nor quiet. Sometimes nature behaves in ways that are unexpected, and that “were it not for the fear inspired by the ruling government, every man would swallow his neighbor alive” (Avot 3:2) – just as the earth is wont to do. A similar argument is put forward by Hobbes, and is the basis for William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. One should not assume that governmental authorities are destructive and that man by his nature is good. In fact, the opposite may be true – nature is wild and immoral, and organized institutions help to create a more moral and correct society.
But the “earth swallowing show” that Moshe initiated turned out to be a failure. The Israelites turned up the next morning protesting “You two have brought death upon the LORD’s people!” They did not view the miraculous event as proof to anything; the belief in nature and the ideal of working within the natural order did not disappear with Korah. This belief also led the people to blame Moshe for Korah’s death. Far from being a heavenly miracle, this was perceived as a death sentence carried out by the ruling government using natural means.
It is after this complaint and after the plague that followed that God commands the “test of the staffs.” Korah’s arguments are brought to a close by means of the sprouts and blossoms on the staff of the Tribe of Levi.
What was it about the “test of the staffs” that quieted those arguments? We can suggest two possibilities:
- In Massekhet Avot (5:6) we are taught that the staff was one of the ten things that was created just prior to the Shabbat of Creation. The dry staff and its miraculous growth do not point to the uncertainty of nature, but to the fact that there are things beyond nature that cannot be explained by ordinary scientific explanations. According to this, the issue of the leadership of the Tribe of Levi is not based on a natural decree, because nature is not a reliable force. The need for leadership is derived from the fact that there are matters beyond nature. There exists a supreme morality that exists beyond authenticity, physicality and desire. This ideal virtue cannot be perceived with ordinary senses – this is what is found in the Tribe of Levi. According to this approach, the two responses to Korah's claim are embodied by the earth and by the test of the staffs. The first points to the problems with the natural order, and the second points to the fact that there are some things that exist beyond the forces of nature.
- A different approach to the test of the staffs is offered by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch:
“Aharon’s staff sprouted like an almond branch, which expresses the ideas that are being dealt with here. For are not all fruit tree branches similar? All of them begin with a bud, then flower and finally give fruit. All are planted in the same soil and the rains that fall on them originate in the same place. The same wind buffets them all and a single sun shines down on them.”
According to nature, every staff should produce fruits in a similar manner, given the proper conditions. There appears to be no miracle involved in the flowering of a staff; under the same conditions, all such staffs will blossom at the appropriate time.
“Yet, still, the shaked – the almond tree – stands about among its fellows. What is unique about it? In its diligence, after which it is named (shekidah in Hebrew means diligence). With applied and alert devotion, the almond tree does what is required of it, and thus precedes all its fellow trees. While the others are still mired in preparations, the shaked has already completed its work. The shaked realizes its purpose – bringing forth flowers that herald the fruit – early, for the entire purpose of the tree is only to bring forth fruit.”
The uniqueness of the almond is the avoidance of hesitancy, the clear knowledge and deep understanding of its practical purpose. The staff of the tribe of Levi testifies to fact that the Levites were blessed with a spirit of perfect sensitivity of the “early blossoms” and spiritual development. According to Rav Hirsch, leadership is not a Divine quality that stands above nature, rather it is a virtue that is latent in all of humankind. There are some who are successful in bringing that potential to reality, usually people who have a sense of mission in their lives from the moment they are born. God’s response in this parasha makes use of nature, and does not point to a place that exists beyond what is seen and known in our world. Rather than bringing down natural disasters, God makes His point by showing how nature is neither fair nor impartial. Some pregnancies take longer and others take less time; in some plants the flowers appear first and in others the leaves appears first; there is sour and there is sweet; both tall and short exist. A close examination of nature makes it clear that there is no equality in nature. In order to successfully gain the most from our natural resources, it is best to avoid flattening everything in an attempt to make all equal. Rather than trying to blur distinctions, it is better is to recognize and accept differences, making use of them where they could be most helpful.
