A word of Torah:

         In Korah, this week’s Torah portion, we read the story of a rebellion against the leadership of Moses and Aaron. It ends when the rebels are swallowed alive as the ground opens up beneath their feet. There is much conversation among the commentators about what Korah’s rebellion was about and whether there was any justification for it.
         In Pirkei Avot (Ethics of our Ancestors), 5:17, we are told: “Every argument that is for the sake of heaven, is destined to endure. But if it is not for the sake of heaven -- it is not destined to endure. What is an example of an argument for the sake of heaven? The argument of Hillel and Shammai. What is an example of an argument not for the sake of heaven? The argument of Korah and all of his followers.”
        In our polarized environment what can we learn from these ancient texts? In another Talmudic text we are told that the Schools of Hillel and Shammai debated for three years, each claiming that Jewish law followed their opinion. Finally, a heavenly voice said: “Both these and those are the words of the living God.” From this text, we learn that it is a mistake to think that one side has the whole truth. The most important issues are complex and the solutions are often even less clear. The text suggests that arguments for the sake of heaven are ones where both sides acknowledge that the other could be right. The other thing we know is despite the fact that the two schools had widely diverging opinions they remained part of one community. They were still willing to marry one another.
       One source asks: If both are the words of a living God why does Jewish law follow the opinion of the school of Hillel? The answer is that the School of Hillel not only taught the ideas of the School of Shammai alongside their own opinion, they actually taught their adversaries’ opinion before their own. This shows not only that the School of Hillel showed respect to that of Shammai, but that decisions don’t depend only on their truth but on what kind of process was used to arrive at the bottom line. Was everyone included and given a chance to make their case?
       It seems clear why the arguments of the schools of Hillel and Shammai were seen as exemplary. We might have expected our opening text in the second parallel instance to refer to the argument between Moses and Korah. Yet, the text says it was the argument of Korah and all his followers that made it a specious argument, suggesting that they were only talking to themselves. They weren’t really trying to convince Moses; they only wanted to replace his leadership with their own.
       Re-reading this Torah portion this week, it strikes me that it is also a story about privilege. Korah asked pointedly “rav lakhem” –Don’t you have enough, Moses? The answer is a deadly display of force. Power often leads to inequality and a reluctance to share it. Moses may have won, but the people remain disaffected. Neither Moses nor God respond with self-reflection or with real dialogue. Everyone remains wandering in the desert except those swallowed alive by the earth opening beneath their feet.

Perhaps the real lesson of Korah is that “winning” isn’t everything; reaching across the chasm is.