JUNE 22 • 2023 | 35
instead of sharing them
out more widely. Second,
Korach presents himself as
the people’s champion. The
whole community, he says, is
holy. There is nothing special
about you, Moses and Aaron.
We have all seen God’s
miracles and heard His voice.
We all helped build His
Sanctuary. Korach is posing
as the democrat so that he
can become the autocrat.
Next, he and his fellow
rebels mount an impressive
campaign of fake news —
anticipating events of our
own time. We can infer this
indirectly. When Moses says
to God, “I have not taken
so much as a donkey from
them, nor have I wronged
any of them” (Num. 16:15),
it is clear that he has
been accused of just that:
exploiting his office for
personal gain. When he
says, “This is how you will
know that the Lord has sent
me to do all these things
and that it was not my own
idea” (Num. 16:28) it is
equally clear that he has been
accused of representing his
own decisions as the will and
word of God.
Most blatant is the post-
truth claim of Datham and
Aviram: “Isn’t it enough
that you have brought us
up out of a land flowing
with milk and honey to kill
us in the wilderness? And
now you want to lord it over
us!” (Num. 16:13).
This is the most callous
speech in the Torah. It
combines false nostalgia for
Egypt (a “land flowing with
milk and honey”!), blaming
Moses for the report of the
spies, and accusing him of
holding on to leadership for
his own personal prestige —
all three, outrageous lies.
Ramban was undoubtedly
correct when he says that
such a challenge to Moses’
leadership would have been
impossible at any earlier
point.
Only in the aftermath
of the episode of the spies,
when the people realized
that they would not see
the Promised Land in their
lifetime, could discontent
be stirred by Korach and his
assorted fellow-travelers.
They felt they had nothing
to lose. Populism is the
politics of disappointment,
resentment and fear.
For once in his life, Moses
acted autocratically, putting
God, as it were, to the test:
“This is how you shall
know that the Lord has sent
me to do all these works;
it has not been of my own
accord: If these people die a
natural death, or if a natural
fate comes on them, then
the Lord has not sent me. But
if the Lord creates something
new, and the ground opens
its mouth and swallows them
up, with all that belongs to
them, and they go down alive
into Sheol, then you shall
know that these men have
despised the Lord.” Num.
16:28-30
This dramatic effort at
conflict resolution by the
use of force (in this case, a
miracle) failed completely.
The ground did indeed open
up and swallow Korach and
his fellow rebels, but the
people, despite their terror,
were unimpressed. “On the
next day, however, the whole
congregation of the Israelites
rebelled against Moses
and against Aaron, saying,
‘You have killed the people
of the Lord” (Num. 17:6).
Jews have always resisted
autocratic leaders.
What is even more striking
is the way the Sages framed
the conflict. Instead of seeing
it as a black-and-white
contrast between rebellion
and obedience, they insisted
on the validity of argument
in the public domain. They
said that what was wrong
with Korach and his fellows
was not that they argued
with Moses and Aaron, but
that they did so “not for the
sake of Heaven.” The schools
of Hillel and Shammai,
however, argued for the sake
of Heaven, and thus their
argument had enduring
value. Judaism is unique
in the fact that virtually all
of its canonical texts are
anthologies of arguments.
FOR THE SAKE OF HEAVEN
What matters in Judaism is
why the argument was under-
taken and how it was con-
ducted. An argument not for
the sake of Heaven is one that
is undertaken for the sake of
victory. An argument for the
sake of Heaven is undertaken
for the sake of truth.
When the aim is victory, as
it was in the case of Korach,
both sides are diminished.
Korach died, and Moses’
authority was tarnished. But
when the aim is truth, both
sides gain. To be defeated by
the truth is the only defeat
that is also a victory. As R.
Shimon ha-Amsoni said: “Just
as I received reward for the
exposition, so I will receive
reward for the retraction.”
In his excellent
short book, What is
Populism?, Jan-Werner
Muller argues that the best
indicator of populist politics
is its delegitimization of
other voices. Populists
claim that “they and they
alone represent the people.”
Anyone who disagrees
with them is “essentially
illegitimate.” Once in
power, they silence dissent.
That is why the silencing
of unpopular views in
university campuses today,
in the form of “safe space,”
“trigger warnings” and
“micro-aggressions,” is so
dangerous. When academic
freedom dies, the death of
other freedoms follows.
Hence the power of
Judaism’s defense against
populism in the form of its
insistence on the legitimacy
of “argument for the sake of
Heaven.” Judaism does not
silence dissent: to the con-
trary, it dignifies it.
This was institutionalized
in the biblical era in the form
of the prophets who spoke
truth to power. In the rabbin-
ic era it lived in the culture
of argument evident on every
page of the Mishnah, Gemara
and their commentaries. In
the contemporary State of
Israel, argumentativeness is
part of the very texture of its
democratic freedom, in the
strongest possible contrast
to much of the rest of the
Middle East.
Hence the life-changing
idea: If you seek to learn,
grow, pursue truth and find
freedom, seek places that
welcome argument and
respect dissenting views. Stay
far from people, places and
political parties that don’t.
Though they claim to be
friends of the people, they
are in fact the enemies of
freedom.
Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks (1948-
2020) was a global religious leader,
philosopher, the author of more than
25 books and moral voice for our time.
His series of essays on the weekly
Torah portion, entitled “Covenant
& Conversation” will continue to be
shared and distributed around the
world.