Parashat Korach

Parashat Korach

Sivan 30, 5773 ~ June 8, 2013
by Joel Ackerman

The case of the man who disappeared during the night

 

          A famous case of Sherlock Holmes was that of the dog that did not bark during the night.  This week we consider the case of the man who disappeared during the night and did not appear in the morning – On ben Peleth.

          Parshat Korah begins with the description of an attempted revolution, or combination of several revolutions, against the leadership of Moses and Aaron.  The revolutionaries were (a) Korah, one of Moses’ first cousins, (b) Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliav, and On ben Peleth, three members of the tribe of Reuben (probably along with other Reubenites) and (c) 250 other prominent Israelites.  They had, among them, several complaints or objections to the way matters had become.  They asserted that Moses and Aaron had taken too much power on themselves.   They objected to the elevation of the Levites to positions where they would receive tithes – instead of the tribe of Reuben, who should have been entitled to this since their progenitor was Jacob’s first-born, and they objected in general to the way Moses and Aaron had been leading.

          In any event, in the beginning there were three Reubenite leaders involved – Dathan, Abiram and On.  Shortly after these objections were raised, Moses summoned Dathan and Abiram, but did not summon On.  And the next day when Moses confronted the revolutionaries (and the earth opened up and swallowed the leaders), On again is not mentioned.  No explanation is given for his absence from one day to the next.  He disappeared from this account, and from the Torah.  His name is never mentioned again.

          The Midrash fills the gap by extolling the virtues of On’s wife.  It maintains that when On came home after the initial confrontation and told his wife of his involvement, she replied “What benefit do you gain from this?  If Moses prevails, you will serve him, and if Korah prevails, you will serve him”.  On was said to answer that he had promised to join the group and could not go back on his word.  In response, holds the Midrash, his wife got him drunk, put him to bed and prevented anyone from coming to talk to him by sitting in the front of their tent with her hair uncovered so that no man would approach to try to convince On to stay the course.  On thus switched from “Comes the revolution….” to “Start the revolution without me.”

          A nice story, I suppose, but it makes On ben Peleth, supposedly a leader of his tribe, out to be rather stupid.  Why should he accept this position of his wife, and indeed why should she speak to him in this way at all?  After all, it was possible that under Korah as a leader some improvements could be made in the lives of the people, and they desperately needed their lives improved.  At this point the Israelites were totally distraught.  They had sent out spies to check the land of Canaan.  The spies were all responsible men, leaders of their tribes, men selected for this mission based on a history of intelligent and responsible conduct and good judgment.  They had returned – and in the opinion of many, had told the truth!  The land was wonderful, but the people were too strong for the Israelites. 

And then the people felt that G-d had turned on them.  He had refused to acknowledge the truth told by the spies and had condemned all the adults to die in the desert.  And when they then tried to adhere to G-d’s command to invade Canaan, He had not joined them.  He had not given them a second chance.  This G-d, who had said that He wanted them to be His people, was just too hard on them, and Moses went along with His decision.  He did not (as he had done at the time of the Golden Calf) plead strongly enough with G-d to change His mind about the people.  And they were quite familiar with pagan gods, who could change their minds on a whim about something important to humans.  Perhaps some felt that this G-d was not so different from the others – that they could not trust Him to always be on their side.  Some said that a new leader was really needed – one who could improve their situation - perhaps even convince G-d to give them another chance.  So why not Korah for leader? 

And perhaps the Midrash only summed up the conversation.  It ought to have been longer.  Suppose that On had made the arguments that I have just mentioned.  What would his wife say in response?  For one thing, she could point out, that even if Korah would be a better leader, On would still have a problem – Dathan and Abriram.  They were brothers; they would unite against On to keep him from gaining any benefit.  It would be two against one, always.  On would get nowhere from participating in the revolution.  And perhaps she could remind him of all the good that G-d had done for the Israelites, beginning with the plagues and the Exodus.  And Korah was clearly a demagogue – one could not trust him to paint a true picture of the situation, and could not trust him to carry out some of the extreme promises he may have made to On and others (the Midrash holds that Korah really only wanted a high position for himself and did not aim to benefit anyone else).  And Dathan and Abiram claimed that Egypt had been a land of milk and honey, but On’s wife may have been able to point out that this was hardly the case – had On forgotten the backbreaking work done for long hours?

If On could see clearly, he would have seen that this was the wrong revolution to join.  And perhaps he did see that, despite promises made to him, which was the reason that he “disappeared”.  But the Midrash indicates the contrary – it describes that despite his wife’s arguments, On adhered to his initial position – or perhaps notwithstanding his position of leadership in the tribe he was weak-willed.   So his wife took what she felt was the necessary action.  On was distraught and confused.  She said “have a little schnapps to settle your stomach” and kept feeding him the drink until he was out of action.  And thus she saved him from the terrible fate that occurred to his co-revolutionaries.  How do we know that On adhered to his original position?  The Torah does not credit On with dropping out of the revolution.  No further mention of him is made at all.  He just disappears from sight.

What is the lesson to be learned here?  It’s not often so clear when a charismatic individual should be followed, and when not.   How can one clearly recognize when a charismatic person is acting only for his or her own interests and not, as he/she purports, for the general good?  How to recognize a demagogue who exaggerates matters to paint an inaccurate picture of the present and the future? 

And finally, if your husband, boyfriend, partner, etc. is acting in a way that you believe to be too stubborn, or even dangerous, should you temporarily incapacitate him until he comes to what you believe should be his senses?  Sounds just a bit drastic to me.

          When reporters on television cannot decide what to say, they like to use the cliché, “There are more questions than answers”.  Not here, however.  As is typically the case with us Jews, when one reads the commentaries, there are many more answers than there are questions.

          Enjoy solving the mystery of On’s disappearance.  Shabbat shalom.