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.