How was Qorah able to rally two hundred and fifty of his tribe’s leaders as well as the nation against Moshe? Moshe was our greatest prophet and leader, and the experience at har Sinai should have solidified our faithfulness in him as a messenger of God. Yet, we find Moshe under attack by Qorah, 250 Leaders, and the nation that gathered around to watch and see who what would happen, questioning whether or not Moshe and Aharon would indeed win the qetoret contest.

Qorah was a master manipulator. Motivated by personal gain, he challenged Moshe’s leadership. His goal was to undercut Moshe and, what the presented as Moshe’s choice of Aharon as Kohen Gadol, positioning himself for that role. He did not articulate this to others, but rather used rhetoric which gave the impression he was fighting for their rights. He sought all those that already had a grievance to join his campaign [1].

Qorah painted a picture of Moshe and Aharon as men who sought power and control, making decisions to benefit themselves. This can be seen in the arguments of the two hundred and fifty men, as well as ofDatan and Abiram. The group with the two hundred and fifty leaders said: “So why do you raise yourselves above the Lord’s assembly [2]?” Similarly, Datan and Abiram said rhetorically to Moshe, “…that you should also exercise authority over us [3]?”  They articulated that rather than Moshe being given the responsibility of leading the people, a position Moshe tried to escape, that Moshe positioned himself as a leader.  That the choices of Leviyim instead of the firstborns to serve in the mishkan, as well as the appointment of Aharon were part of Moshe’s positioning.

Moshe tried to have a dialogue with Qorah, the 250 leaders and with Datan and Abiram, but they were uninterested in resolving a real grievance. Note that from the beginning none of the parties would converse with Moshe. Instead, they came upon Moshe, “vayiqahalu al Moshe[4],” and setup their protest before him, “vayaqumu lifne[5].” They then spoke at Moshe and Aharon, “vayomeru alehem,” rather than asking for genuine discussion. Their words were a harsh attack, not an intention to find a solution: “rablakhem[6].”Furthermore, Datan and Abiram refused a meeting with Moshe and Aharon to discuss their concern or find an arbiter to make their case. They then created another argument against Moshe, that even if Moshe were to give them the land flowing with milk and honey, he would rule them with fury. So, there is no gain to the conversation since even if they did get to inherit the land, Moshe would make life difficult for them [7]. They wanted to depose Moshe as leader. Note earlier when Benei Yisrael said let us appoint a leader, instead of Moshe, and return to Egypt [8].

The purpose of all of these groups was to strip power from Moshe and Aharon in order to increase their own power. This is the definition of a mahloqet she’einah leshem shamayim [9], a dispute that is not in the name of heaven. The goal of such a dispute is to destroy and discredit, as opposed to arriving at the emet, the reliable, sustainable solution. Note in the Mishna in Pirqei Abot where this phrase is found that the example for a mahloqet leshem shamayim, a dispute for the sake of heaven contains two parties, Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, while the mahloqet she’einah leshem shamayim only contains Qorah. Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai were interested in arriving at the truth. Each group believed they had the best solution and presented their case. With Qorah there was no real desire for his ideas to be maintained, lehitqayem, but rather to destroy the reputation of Moshe, opening up the possibility to gain power. In an argument wherein both parties believe in their argument, genuinely seek the truth and thereby enter into a discussion, both of their arguments will be preserved, sofa lehitqayem [10].

May we exam the motives for our disputes to ensure that they are leshem shamayim, and not to destroy another or for personal gain. We should discuss with those who disagree in an open, honest and respectful dialogue. Both parties should be happy to accept the arguments of the other, when proven, since their goal is to arrive at the emet. Let us be amongst the disputants of Hillel and Shammai, those who seek to clarify the truth and find the best solution for all parties involved.

Shabbat Shalom,
Rabbi Meyer Laniado

 

[1] See Rabbi Moshe Hefes in his book Melekhet Mahshebet.

[2] Bemidbar 16:3

[3] Ibid. 13

[4] Bemidbar 16:3

[5] Ibid. 2

[6] Ibid. 3

[7] Bemidbar 16:13-14 Reggio

[8] Bemidbar 14:4

[9] Mishna Pirqei Abot 5:19

[10] R. Moshe Almosnino Pirqei Moshe