Reading Korah and the haftarah from the book of Samuel affords us an opportunity to consider the nature of the Israel’s leadership in the desert and in founding the monarchy that followed the era of the judges. The Bible establishes three primary characteristics of outstanding leadership.

1. In Pirkei Avoth (Ethics of the Fathers), the Sages refer to two forms of controversy: “Any controversy that is for God’s sake shall in the end be of lasting worth, but any that is not for God’s sake shall not in the end be of lasting worth” (Avoth 5:17). Hillel and Shammai are held up as the example of a “controversy that is for God’s sake.” In the introduction to his commentary on the Mishnah, Maimonides notes that what made that controversy distinctive was the dedication of both parties to the truth. In the first chapter of the mishnaic tractate Eduyoth, the Mishnah discusses a series of subjects upon which the School of Hillel adopted the opinion of the School of Shammai after finding the School of Shammai’s arguments more persuasive than its own. In other words, decisions and policies were dictated by loyalty to the truth. To this day, students study and take part in these disputes that express and carry on our tradition.

As opposed to this, a controversy that is not for God’s sake is “the controversy of Korah and all his company.” In commenting upon the accusations of Korah and his company, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch noted: “If they thought this owing to a theoretical error, it would have been possible to instruct them and show them their error, but they came to this because of jealousy and a desire for honor. Under the guise of representing the public interest, they sought to satisfy their own interests…and so they sought to get rid of Moses and Aaron and remove them from office.” Moses and Aaron sought truth and justice, but according to Hirsch, the one thing that could not be proven by reason was the inner truth of their calling. Therefore, the only response left to Moses and Aaron was to turn to God to confirm the truth of their calling. When it became clear that one side sought power and esteem while the other pursued truth and justice, the only way to resolve the controversy was not to take part in it.

2. A true leader sees his role as a calling that demands a willingness to forgo any personal gain. As the biblical narrative continues, Moses complains to God about Korah and his company: “I have not taken the ass of any one of them, nor have I wronged any one of them.” Moses, the humblest of men, does not understand what they want of him. In the haftarah, Samuel makes a similar statement to the people: “Whose ox have I taken, or whose ass have I taken? Whom have I defrauded or whom have I robbed?” Like Moses, there was no doubt about Samuel’s integrity.

But there was a downside to Moses’ and Samuel’s devotion to their callings. There is more than a hint that they ignored the needs of their own families. Both Moses and Samuel failed to a large extent in the role of “head of household.” In Moses’ case, it began with his neglect in regard to his son’s circumcision and ended with his complete withdrawal from family life. In S.Y. Agnon’s short story “Samuel’s Sons,” Samuel’s sons present themselves before the Sages in a dream in an attempt to defend themselves against the allegation that they “turned aside after gain; they took bribes and averted justice” (I Samuel 8:3). They explain that their father was preoccupied with the needs of the public and scrupulously avoided taking anything for himself, and as a result he neglected his own household. The sons had to fend for themselves, as well as feed the thousands of petitioners and guests who frequented the prophet’s home. There was no choice but to accept payment, and that led to the accusation that they “turned aside after gain.” Wherever the truth may lie, it is all too clear that Samuel, who established  Israel’s monarchy, failed in the education of his sons.

3. The Torah shows us that an effective leader must be decisive in the use of force.

In the Bible we read of two types of prophets – true prophets and false prophets. Machiavelli, the father of modern political thought, contended that history teaches us of two additional prophets – armed and unarmed. The agenda of an unarmed prophet is doomed from the outset, whereas that of the armed prophet has a chance of success. Moses is a prime example of an armed prophet who did not hesitate to draw his sword when needed to face an external threat (like Amalek) or an internal threat (like the Golden Calf).

Samuel represents yet another example of the armed prophet. He takes the nation to war against the Philistines, and despite his own reservations, he agrees to anoint a king who will continue to defend the nation’s security. When Saul falters in his use of force, Samuel does not hesitate to decapitate the Amalekite king, and replace Saul on the throne.

Korah possessed many of the qualities required of a successful politician. He was eloquent and good with people; he knew how to maneuver and how to close a deal. But first and foremost, true leadership requires dedication to truth and justice. It needs a sense of mission that prevails over any thought of personal gain, and demands the courage to use appropriate force, and the discernment to understand under which circumstances it is necessary. Thus, the book of Psalms recognizes the superior leadership of Israel’s three great leaders: “Moses and Aaron were among his priests, Samuel also was among those who called on his name. They cried to the Lord, and he answered them” (Psalms 99:6). May it be God’s will that we be blessed with leaders worthy of such an answer!
 

Torah Roundtable
Rabbi Dr. Alexander Even-Chen, Senior Lecturer in Jewish Thought at the Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies

  In several places in the book of Numbers, we read of challenges to Moses:

Now two men remained in the camp, one named Eldad, and the other named Medad, and the spirit rested upon them; they were among those registered, but they had not gone out to the tent, and so they prophesied in the camp. And a young man ran and told Moses, "Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp." And Joshua the son of Nun, the minister of Moses, one of his chosen men, said, "My lord Moses, forbid them." But Moses said to him, "Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the LORD's people were prophets, that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!" (Numbers 11:26-29)

Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman; and they said, "Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?" And the LORD heard it. (Numbers 12:1-2)

Now Korah the son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, and Dathan and Abi'ram the sons of Eli'ab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men; and they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, two hundred and fifty leaders of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men; and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them, "You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?" (Numbers 16:1-3)

1. In the first case, we encounter two men, Eldad and Medad, who begin to prophesy. Joshua sees this as a threat to Moses’ unique status, and runs to report. Moses calmly responds: “Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the LORD's people were prophets.”

o Why is Moses unperturbed? Should he not have understood that the incident might develop in ways that could undermine his authority?

o Why didn’t he respond in the same way in regard to Korah? Is there a difference between the two incidents?

o Might Korah’s rebellion have been avoided had Moses reacted more forcefully in regard to Eldad and Medad?

2. In the second case, Moses and Miriam criticize Moses and say: “Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?”

o Isn’t there some truth in what they said?

o Miriam and Aaron were, no doubt, aware of Moses’ reaction to Eldad and Medad. Why shouldn’t their brother recognize them as prophets as well?

3. In the third case, Korah and his company confront Moses, asserting: “You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?”

o Why doesn’t Moses immediately respond as he did in regard to Eldad and Medad? Does he regret his response in that case?

o Do these episodes testify to a failure of leadership?

o Did Moses behave irresponsibly in not responding harshly to Eldad and Medad, or did he act wisely in that case? Should that case have served as the model for his reaction to Korah? Did Moses simply lose his temper, and was it a failure of leadership that led to the confrontation and the resulting deaths?

o Even if Korah and his company intended to rebel, shouldn’t Moses have tried to negotiate a settlement?

o Was a negotiated settlement possible?

o Would Moses’ agreement to negotiate have been perceived as weakness? Could it have aggravated the confrontation?