Korach | The Cycle of History (Shmuel I 11:14 - 12:22)

 

a.  Similar Visions

 

Even the most cursory review of the haftora reveals its thematic connection with the main story narrated in the parasha.  In both there is a call to rebellion against both the system of leadership and against the actual leadership.  But in the parasha we witness the consequences of the rebellion in "real time," while in the haftora the events are described by Shmuel as a summary of what took place.  In contrast with what happened in the desert, where the rebels were unable to overthrow the leadership as they wished to, in the haftora the nation was successful in its attempt to bring about change.  Shmuel's entire monologue is simply a review and a learning of lessons after the fact.  This difference already gives rise to the question, why did the nation succeed here but fail in the desert?  Would it not appear from Shmuel's words that here, too, the rebels were improperly motivated?

 

A hint that Shmuel sees himself as being in a situation similar to that faced by Moshe is to be found in the expression he chooses to use: "Whose ox have I taken; whose donkey have I taken?" (12:3).  This is reminiscent of what Moshe asks God, "I have not taken the donkey of any one of them" (16:15).  Shmuel even sees fit to mention Moshe and Aharon as being God's handiwork - "God, Who made Moshe and Aharon" (12:6), his intention most likely being that God made them leaders over the nation.  And this in fact is the very question at stake in the parasha: whether it was by God's will that they were anointed as leaders or whether they took these positions upon themselves.

 

And just as Moshe performs wonders to show that the positions of leadership had not been divided according to his own personal ambitions, and the earth opened her mouth to swallow Datan and Aviram, and a fire came from God to consume those who offered incense, so Shmuel performed a wonder to show the nation that they had done evil in demanding a king, and rain came down during the wheat harvest.  (Both signs show that everything has its proper place and time: fire that comes to consume sacrifices is a blessing, and so is rain that comes in the proper season.  But at the wrong time, both cause destruction.)

 

b.  Are Their Mouths and Their Hearts in Consonance?

 

The fact that Moshe addresses his words to God while Shmuel speaks to the nation reveals something of the difference between the two events.  In the desert, Moshe spoke out in the face of the chasm between the group of rebels and himself.  He reviews his actions and turns to the most extreme members of the group – Datan and Aviram - but they refuse his approach: "We shall not come up" (16:12).  In the case of Shmuel and the nation, in contrast, there is ongoing dialogue.

 

This leads us to another difference.  What Korach and his congregation claim against Moshe is one thing, but their real intention is something else.  Overtly they declare, 

 

"It is too much for you, for the whole congregation are all holy, and God is in their midst.  Why, then, do you elevate yourselves over God's congregation?" (16:3) 

 

The Midrash expounds on this: 

 

"Korach walked about that whole night, LEADING ISRAEL ASTRAY, saying to them: Why would you think that I am doing this in order to achieve greatness for myself?  I wish for the greatness to rest once again on all of us."

 

This was demagoguery at its best. Moshe sought to reveal Korach's deeper ambitions, calling to him, 

 

"It is too much for you, sons of Levi...  and you seek also the priesthood" (16:7-10).

 

Not so in the case of Israel in the time of Shmuel.  They declared openly what they truly desired - that a king be appointed over them.

 

This may also be the reason for the difference in God's response.  While in the desert both the leaders of the rebellion and their followers were punished with strange forms of death, in Shmuel's case God commanded that their request be fulfilled. 

 

"And God said to Shmuel, Listen to the voice of the nation in all that they say to you" (Shmuel I 8:7). 

 

c.  What Is the Proper Form of Rule?

 

A closer look reveals that from the point of view of the claims being made, the stories are almost opposites.  In the desert, the complaint comes in the wake of leadership being held by a few individuals, and the claim is that the entire congregation is holy and there is therefore no room for rule by individuals.  Precisely the opposite demand is presented to Shmuel: there is a need for a single leader in whose hands all the ruling authority will be concentrated.  "Let there be a king over us."  This may teach us that so long as there is a lack of satisfaction with the existing condition, the nation will lay the blame at the door of the leadership, seeking a solution in a "change of regime."

 

d.  Closing the Cycle

 

If we pay attention to the personality at the focus of the events described in the haftora – i.e., Shmuel, the prophet and judge – we see that the narrative represents a sort of closure of a cycle.  Shmuel was a descendant of Korach (see Divrei Ha-Yamim I 6:18-23).  And here he stands in the place of Moshe, as it were, faced with the nation's demand that he relinquish the leadership in favor of a king.  And he now knows that Moshe is truth, while his family – the descendants of Korach – are not Divinely destined to be leaders of the nation.

 

But close inspection of Shmuel's words show that he in fact corrects the mistake of his forefather.  For what Korach claimed was in fact an important truth.  The whole congregation is indeed holy, and God really does dwell in their midst, such that it would truly seem that there is no room for a mortal ruler over this holy congregation – it is enough that God is King over them.  But he and his group introduced this demand at the wrong time, in the wrong place and with improper motivations, while at the time of Shmuel this ideal became reality.  (It was only the immediate concerns of the nation – fear of the king of Ammon etc.  – that shook their faith in this special form of leadership and made them demand a king like all the nations.)

 

e.  Higher Than All 

 

It is interesting that the haftora ends before the end of Shmuel's speech, omitting the final three verses.  It seems that the intention was that the words that would echo in our ears, concluding both painful stories, would be, "For God will not abandon His nation for the sake of His great name..."  The lesson being that whichever regime we seek, God will always be King over us.  And He will never abandon His kingship.