Don't Take It Personally
The Problem of Status-Conflict In Korach
Which is an argument for the sake of Heaven? The argument between Hillel and Shammai. Which is an argument not for the sake of Heaven? The argument of Korach and his company. (Avot 5:17)
Now Korah, son of Izhar son of Kohath son of Levi, betook himself, along with Dathan and Abiram sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth—descendants of Reuben —to rise up against Moses, together with two hundred and fifty Israelites, chieftains of the community, chosen in the assembly, men of repute. They combined against Moses and Aaron and said to them, “You have gone too far! For all the community are holy, all of them, and יהוה is in their midst. Why then do you raise yourselves above יהוה’s congregation?” (Numbers 16:4)
Korach and his followers do not name one thing that Moses and Aaron have failed to do as leaders. Their entire critique rests on the observation of a difference in status. This is their core error: the belief that leadership=status. True, leaders need a certain status to command their station. But leadership does not accrue to someone simply by virtue of having de jure authority. There is no reason to believe that Korach and his followers could get de facto authority even if Moses and Aaron capitulated to their request for greater equality. Formal equality—equal representation in the halls of power—is not the same as intangible, experienced equality, which includes things like respect and influence.
Are Moses and Aaron greater holier than others? No. Are they more authoritative than others? Yes. Korach conflates the two, which tells us more about him and his politics of resentment than it does about Moses and Aaron. To a obsessed person, holiness is a type of status. Proximity to God and/or ability to command are prizes for the needy ego.
To Korach, the prophetic and priestly stations are a kind of career, not a calling, or a form of public service. Viewed from that point of view, anyone should be a priest or prophet and the failure to distribute these power stations equally is a problem. But prophecy and priesthood in the service of what? Note that Korach doesn’t hold the leaders accountable to results—he doesn’t say you failed at X,Y,Z, and we can do better. Why? Because he himself doesn’t want to be held accountable to results. For him, power is an end in itself.
The conflict between Korach and Moses is a pseudo-conflict, because no actual issue is debated. They don’t debate ends—should we be going to the Promised Land? And they don’t debate means—is this the right route? Their rhetorical bombast aside, their critique is entirely ad hominem. Thus, the Torah demonstrates that they are not on the same team. The sin of the spies, which we read about in the previous parasha, tested Moses’s leadership, but at least the spies were motivated by a real controversy: is the land attainable? They offered their panic and pessimism and it was heard, challenged, and remonstrated—but it was a catharsis. Korach’s challenge is not cathartic, but is a fake conflict.
When we study the Talmud, we find debate on every page. “Two Jews, three opinions.” but those debates are for the sake of heaven, as the Mishna teaches. Korach’s debate with Moses is described as the paradigmatic example of a conflict not the for the sake of heaven. While the meaning of “for the sake of heaven” can be parsed in numerous ways, I’d like to offer my own practical definition. A conflict that is for the sake of heaven builds trust, connection, alignment, and buy-in, even when both parties remain convinced of their own position. A conflict that is not for the sake of heaven is intractable, because there is no sense of “we” that allows each side to put its ego aside and ask “What is best for the team?”
There is a golden mean between conflict avoidance and unhealthy conflict. In fact, one could argue that conflict avoidance is the result of a mental model that assumes all conflict to be unhealthy. Thus, the damage done by a Korach is not just that he challenges Moses for status, sewing division and toxicity, but that he causes onlookers to associate conflict with violence and defiance.
When God seeks to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah he runs it by Abraham. Abraham argues with God, winning on principle (a city shouldn’t be destroyed if there are 10 innocent inhabitants), but losing on outcome (the city will be destroyed). Had the substantive debate not occurred, we’d lose the principled contribution Abraham makes even as he loses in practice. We’d also have a world where divine authority is modeled as “I snap, you jump” rather than one in which human beings can disagree and commit. Gods and despots who act like a tyrant spawn resentful Korachs. Gods who invite us to engage in productive machloket win our trust and establish a sense of partnership.
It is good to be humble and accept feedback even when the feedback is critical. But it’s also important to know the difference between feedback focused on real issues and feedback that is driven by politics, manipulation, and power grabbing. Moses remains a humble servant leader despite the fact that he has to go to war with Korach. It’s hard to stay in a mentality of service when confronting challengers who are in an egoic state, but that’s the spiritual challenge for Moses and Aaron. How do you put down Korach’s rebellion without getting sucked into an ego match? The answer, as always, is to focus on the goal, rather than make it about you. If Korach wants to make it personal, Moses knows better than to take it personally. That is greatness.
Shabbat Shalom,
Zohar Atkins