Parshas Korach – Thoughts on the first Rashi

“And Korach took (VaYeeKach), the son of Kehos, the son of Levi, and Dasan and Aviram the sons of Eliav, and On the son of Peles, the sons of Reuvein.”

~ Bamidbar 16:1

And Korach took. He took himself to a different side, to be disassociated from the community and to cast aspersions on the priesthood.

~ Rashi on Bamidbar 16:1

When Rashi encountered the word “VaYeeKach” or a variation in the context of one person ‘taking’ another, he usually understood it to indicate persuasion. As an example, later in Bamidbar (20:25) Moshe is instructed to ‘take’ Aharon (“Kach”) and prepare him for his (Aharon’s) demise. There, Rashi comments on the word ‘Take’: “With comforting words (should Moshe summon Aharon). Say to him: “How fortunate you are to see your post handed to your son- something which I do not merit to see (in my own life).” ¹

In this week’s parsha, Rashi gives the word “VaYeeKach” a slightly different flavor. Since the verse places the word before Korach’s name, and then lists his lineage, Rashi understands that Korach persuaded himself to dissent from the community. It is interesting to me that when this verb-form is used in the Torah to connote an internal dialogue, the connotation is negative. I cannot recall another use of the verb-form in the Torah in this manner (self-directed) so all we have is this one instance, which is not viewed favorably. Is there a lesson here?

Perhaps the Torah is casting suspicions on a situation when someone’s inner conversation persuades him or her to pursue a leadership position, absent any calling (from God, or from his or her peers), that this is an appropriate role for them. As we see from Korach’s example, the calling to leadership that someone hears only internally may well be rooted in arrogance or hubris.

¹ = Rabbi Eliezer Wolf of the Beth David Highland Lakes shul in Aventura, Florida, in a Dvar Torah posted online, points out that Rashi consistently applies this understanding of the verb-form ‘to take’ in Shemos 14:6 (Pharoah ‘takes’ his people, to chase the Jews who recently left Egypt), VaYikra 8:2 (Moshe ‘takes’ Aharon and exhorts him to start the sacrificial service), and Bamidbar 27:22 (Moshe ‘takes’ Joshua and appoints him as the new leader of the Jewish people), and in other places.

Parshas Korach - leadership optional?

Rashi, in his comments on the beginnings of Korach’s rebellion, cites a story from Midrash Tanchuma. As the story goes, Korach and his followers all put on garments made entirely of techeiles (the blue dye used to color one of the fringes in Tzizit) and went to Moshe. They asked: “If a four-cornered garment is made entirely of techeiles, does it require fringes with a string dyed in techeiles?” Moshe replied that such a garment still required the addition of fringes with one thread of techeiles. Korach and his followers then mocked Moshe, saying that surely a garment made entirely of techeiles should be holy enough.

The midrash continues: Korach and his followers then filled a house with Torah scrolls and asked Moshe if the house required a mezuzah. He told them that the house still needed a mezuzah and the rebels mocked him, saying that the presence of all the scrolls makes the mezuzah superfluous.

What is going on in this midrash? In his notes on Rashi, Rabbi Avrohom Davis suggests that this midrash offers a colorful illustration of one of Korach’s primary challenges to Moshe and Aaron’s leadership of the people. In both cases in the midrash, the question the rebels posed was:  Does the addition of one small significant article truly change the status of a larger entity, if that entity is already suffused in holiness? The analogies of the midrash reflected the rebels’ bold philosophical argument, that since all the people heard God’s voice at Sinai, and were thus spiritually elevated, they did not need Moshe and Aaron to serve as teachers and guides.

Moshe effectively disproved the argument of Korach and his followers with the assistance of an unprecedented miracle - the ground opened up on cue and swallowed all the rebels (Number 16:28-35). Yet Korach’s argument, that Jewish leadership is often irrelevant, is one that periodically reemerges. On occasion we encounter Jews who resent the demands of religious life and, as a means of justifying their lethargy, they will grouse openly with their friends about the wisdom or authority of their rabbis. Our modern day religious leaders cannot summon mini-earthquakes, so they are unable to easily dispatch their detractors. But in my experience, those who are not able to find a constructive way to work within their religious community are often ‘swallowed up’ in their grievances and find themselves isolated just the same.