Sunday, May 28th | 3 Sivan 5777

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
June 16, 2015 11:51 pm

Be Wary of Those Who Distort Truth for Power

avatar by Jonathan Sacks

Email a copy of "Be Wary of Those Who Distort Truth for Power" to a friend
Moses pleading with the Israelites. Photo: Wiki Commons.

Moses pleading with the Israelites. Photo: Wiki Commons.

What was wrong with Korach and his fellow rebels? On the face of it, what they said was both true and principled. “You have gone too far,” they said to Moses and Aaron. “The whole community is holy, every one of them, and God is with them. Why then are you setting yourselves above God’s congregation?”

They had a point. God had summoned the people to became “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation,” (Ex. 19: 6), that is, a kingdom every one of whose members was in some sense a priest, and a nation every one of whom was holy. Moses himself had said, “Would that all God’s people were prophets, that He would place His spirit upon them” (Num. 11: 29). These are radically egalitarian sentiments. Why then was there a hierarchy, with Moses as leader and Aaron as High Priest?

What was wrong was that even at the outset it was obvious that Korach was duplicitous. There was a clear disconnection between what he claimed to want and what he really sought. Korach did not seek a society in which everyone was the same, everyone a priest. He was not, as he sounded, a utopian anarchist, seeking to abolish hierarchy altogether. He was, instead, mounting a leadership challenge. As Moses’ later words to him indicate, he wanted to be High Priest himself. He was Moses’ and Aaron’s cousin, son of Yitzhar, the brother of Moses’ and Aaron’s father Amram. He felt it unfair that both leadership positions had gone to a single family within the clan. He claimed to want equality. In fact what he wanted was power.

Related coverage

September 7, 2016 6:28 am
8

Petty Orthodoxy

Thetorah.com is a website that analyzes the weekly reading of the Torah for people who do not take every word in the Torah...

That was Korach the Levite. But what was happening was more complex than that. There were two other groups involved: the Reubenites, Datham and Aviram, and “250 Israelites who were men of rank within the community, representatives at the assembly, and famous.” They too had their grievances. The Reubenites were aggrieved that as descendants of Jacob’s firstborn, they had no special leadership roles. According to Ibn Ezra, the 250 “men of rank” were upset that, after the sin of the Golden Calf, leadership had passed from the firstborn within each tribe to the single tribe of Levi.

This was an unholy alliance, and bound to fail, since their claims conflicted. If Korach achieved his ambition of becoming High Priest, the Reubenites and “men of rank” would have been disappointed. Had the Reubenites won, Korach and the “men of rank” would have been disappointed. Had the “men of rank” achieved their ambition, Korach and the Reubenites would be left dissatisfied. The disordered, fragmented narrative sequence in this chapter is a case of style mirroring substance. This was a disordered, confused rebellion, whose protagonists were united only in their desire to overthrow the existing leadership.

None of this, however, unsettled Moses. What caused him to become angry was something else altogether: the words of Datan and Aviram: “Isn’t it enough that you brought us out of a land flowing with milk and honey to kill us in the desert! And now you want to lord it over us! What is more: you have not brought us to a land flowing with milk and honey or given us a inheritance of fields and vineyards. Do you think that you can pull something over our eyes? We will definitely not come!” The monumental untruth of their claim – Egypt, where the Israelites were slaves and cried out to God to be saved, was not “a land flowing with milk and honey” – is what finally made Moses angry.

What is going on here? The sages defined it in one of their most famous statements: “Any dispute for the sake of heaven will have enduring value, but every dispute not for the sake of Heaven will not have enduring value. What is an example of a dispute for the sake of heaven? The dispute between Hillel and Shammai. What is an example of one not for the sake of heaven? The dispute of Korach and all his company” (Mishnah Avot 5: 21).

The rabbis did not conclude from the Korach rebellion that argument is wrong, that leaders are entitled to unquestioning obedience, that the supreme value in Judaism should be – as it is in some faiths – submission. To the contrary: argument is the lifeblood of Judaism, so long as it is rightly motivated and essentially constructive in its aims.

Judaism is a unique phenomenon: a civilization all of whose canonical texts are anthologies of argument. In Tanakh, the heroes of faith – Abraham, Moses, Jeremiah, Job – argue with God. Midrash is founded on the premise that there are “seventy faces” – seventy legitimate interpretations – of Torah. The Mishnah is largely constructed on the model of “Rabbi X says this, Rabbi Y says that.” The Talmud, far from resolving these arguments, usually deepens them considerably. Argument in Judaism is a holy activity, the ongoing internal dialogue of the Jewish people as it reflects on the terms of its destiny and the demands of its faith.

What then made the argument of Korach and his co-conspirators different from that of the schools of Hillel and Shammai. Rabbenu Yona offered a simple explanation. An argument for the sake of Heaven is one that is about truth. An argument not for the sake of Heaven is about power. The difference is immense. If I argue for the sake of truth, then if I win, I win. But if I lose, I also win, because being defeated by the truth is the only defeat that is also a victory. I am enlarged. I learn something I did not know before.

In a contest for power, if I lose, I lose. But if I win, I also lose, because in diminishing my opponents I have diminished myself. Moses could not have had a more decisive vindication than the miracle for which he asked and was granted: that the ground open up and swallow his opponents. Yet not only did this not end the argument, it diminished the respect in which Moses was held: “The next day the whole Israelite community grumbled against Moses and Aaron. ‘You have killed the Lord’s people,’ they said.” (Num. 17: 41). That Moses needed to resort to force was itself a sign that he had been dragged down to the level of the rebels. That is what happens when power, not truth, is at stake.

One of the aftermaths of Marxism, persisting in such movements as postmodernism and post-colonialism, is the idea that there is no such thing as truth. There is only power. The prevailing “discourse” in a society represents, not the way things are, but the way the ruling power (the hegemon) wants things to be. All reality is “socially constructed” to advance the interests of one group or another. The result is a “hermeneutics of suspicion,” in which we no longer listen to what anyone says; we merely ask, what interest are they trying to advance? Truth, they say, is merely the mask worn to disguise the pursuit of power. To overthrow a “colonial” power, you have to invent your own “discourse,” your own “narrative,” and it does not matter whether it is true or false. All that matters is that people believe it.

That is what is now happening in the campaign against Israel on campuses throughout the world, and in the BDS movement in particular. Like the Korach rebellion it brings together people who have nothing else in common. Some belong to the far left, a few to the far right, some are anti-globalists, while some are genuinely concerned with the plight of the Palestinians. Driving it all, however, are people who on theological and political grounds are opposed to the existence of Israel within any boundaries whatsoever, and are equally opposed to democracy, free speech, freedom of information, religious liberty, human rights and the sanctity of life. What they have in common is a refusal to give the supporters of Israel a fair hearing – thus flouting the fundamental principle of justice, expressed in Roman law in the phrase Aude alteram partem, “Hear the other side.”

The flagrant falsehoods it sometimes utters – that Israel was not the birthplace of the Jewish people, that there never was a Temple in Jerusalem, that Israel is a “colonial” power, a foreign transplant alien to the Middle East – rival the claims of Datan and Aviram that Egypt was a land flowing with milk and honey and that Moses brought the people out solely in order to kill them in the desert. Why bother with truth when all that matters is power? Thus the spirit of Korach lives on.

All this is very sad indeed, since it is opposed to the fundamental principle of the university as a home for the collaborative search for truth. It also does little for the cause of peace in the Middle East, for the future of the Palestinians, or for freedom, democracy, religious liberty and human rights. There are real and substantive issues at stake, which need to be faced by both sides with honesty and courage. Nothing is achieved by sacrificing truth to the pursuit of power: the way of Korach through the ages.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • William C. McKee

    Mr. Sacks, in the matter of this power vs truth question God let Moses off the hook with the tectonic event that you cited. But I recall a similar dispute that God did not use [His] power to resolve. Instead Moses used his [own] power to end the debate. Ordering that one Jewish faction cut down with swords another Jewish faction. As I recall, the break off faction wanted to return to Egypt for the stew pot provisions there. Provisions that everyone was hungry for at the time. Probably including Moses.

    Wasn’t it a fact, that if they returned to civil service duty for the King of Egypt, that they would indeed be well fed? The King in wanting civil engineering projects all over his vast nation to be properly done would well feed them in order to achieve that end.

    So that is an obvious truth that would be impossible for Moses to refute.

    Moses in not accepting their argument, and in cutting them down with swords was effectively saying: “Truth is what I say it is, and I will broke no contrary argument, on the pain of your death.”

    Why did Moses break from people exercising free will? If the bondage of the King of Egypt was so terrible, then wasn’t his bondage, that demanded several thousand lives be sacrificed even worse? After years of service, these “slaves” or probably more correctly “civil servants” were well trained and would be considered an asset not to be wasted by this King. Did Moses have any like value for them?

    The best argument that I can rationalize for Moses not granting them their freedom, was his overwhelming desire to achieve his mission. Separate from the initial calling by God to Moses that he lead the people out of the grip of Egypt, was his own personal desire (as expressed in a recent movie) to go from being a general to being a nation builder. With the factions, he had his own version of a mini-Iraq. So he used Saddam Hussein like measures to keep his power.

    If this paints an unpleasant picture of the prophet, well I’m sorry. But another truth is that this prophet wasn’t allowed to enter the promised land. No, not even his dead body. Some suggest that Moses didn’t want to create an iconic grave site. Maybe so. But if you cut down thousands of people without even a good reason, then your iconic grave site might not have that many visitors.

    For us Christians, the supposed sin of doubt by Moses, in striking a “living water” rock “twice” is applied to our take on a returning Messiah. Why would it otherwise be such a big deal to God to have this rock struck twice? Isn’t God sufficiently forgiving (normally) that Moses might simply have apologized? At any rate, the scripture says that for this moment of doubt that he was barred from entering the promised land. I doubt it. Later on in the book, King David had so much blood on his hands, according to the prophet, that he was barred from the construction of a house to God. Moses had blood on his hands not merely from the thousands that we are talking about — but also for the one back in Egypt.

    Who cares that the Lord hadn’t yet given Moses the Ten Commandments, one of which is that “Thou Shalt Not Murder.” Back in Egypt when Moses was a government official, he was sworn to uphold its laws, and one of them was likely also, “Thou Shalt Not Murder”. Did Moses ever express contrition to his King for his actions, or to his God? Maybe he was off the moral hook for killing thousands under his office as a leader and prophet. But just like King David, the murder of one outside of the duties of your office, is a very serious sin. Forgivable, if you would ask God for forgiveness. But not so much, if you maybe don’t, as might be the case here with Moses. Had he asked for forgiveness about the rock incident, God might have come back with something like, “No Moses, please forgive me. My way of telling time being different from yours, I did not realize that I was testing your patience. You were very patient with me in the old days when I tarried somewhat with parting the Red Sea. All is good Moses. Don’t be concerned over it. In a hundred years or so, people will forget that it even happened.”

Algemeiner.com