Parshat Korach TWO MODELS OF DEALING WITH COMMUNAL CRISIS IN THE PRAYER THAT JEWS IN IRAN FACING DEATH BE FREED The story of Korach's rebellion contains echoes of the golden calf narrative. Each involves insurrection. In the golden calf episode, the Jews aspire to replace Moshe (Moses). (Exodus 32:1) In the Korach story, Aharon's (Aaron) priesthood is also challenged. (Numbers 16:10) The relationship between these two episodes is pointed
out by the Ibn Ezra. Following the golden calf incident, the privilege to lead the temple
service was removed from the first born. Korach, being a first born himself, (Exodus
6:21) along with two hundred fifty other first born, revolts after the first sacrificial
service in the Temple, when Korach most deeply feels his exclusion. Thus, in the golden calf event, Aharon instructs the people to bring gold from which he fashions the golden calf. (Exodus 32:2- 4) Rather than confronting the Israelites, a tactic Aharon felt would fail, Aharon decides to bide for time, in the hope that Moshe would soon return. He declares, "A festival for the Lord tomorrow," (Exodus 32:5) predicting that by the morrow, the people would change their ways and worship God. In the Korach story, Aharon plays a similar role. Placing incense upon his fire pan, he once again acts as a peacemaker, and stops the plague that killed thousands subsequent to the punishment of Korach. (Numbers 17:11-14) In fact, it is Aharon's staff that blossoms and sprouts, proving in the most powerful, yet peaceful, way, that God had given the tribe of Levi the role of ritual leadership. (Numbers 17:23) Moshe, on the other hand is far more aggressive. Without a prior command from God, he shatters the tablets in reaction to the golden calf. (Exodus 32:19) In the Korach episode, Moshe acts similarly. Without a word from God, Moshe declares that the earth would open up and swallow Korach and his cohorts. The earth does just that. (Numbers 16:30-32) What emerges from these two episodes are two different ways to deal with communal crisis. Aharon's approach is one of calm, quiet diplomacy. Moshe's style is bold, strident, pointed and even militant. Throughout history, Jews, when facing challenges, have debated which of these two philosophies-Aharon's or Moshe's-is more valid. Even today, with thirteen Jews facing imminent death in Iran, the debate continues as some suggest public protest is necessary while others insist, public protest will bring harm. From my perspective, it would seem that since both approaches are found in the Torah, we learn that each has value. It can be argued that both of these tactics strengthen the other - both quiet diplomacy and public protest yield results. On the one hand, you need those on the inside, working within the organized system to effect change. On the other hand, it is public protest that is the fuel that allows quiet diplomacy to work. Shabbat Shalom © 5759/1999. All
rights reserved. |
