Disagreeing with our teacher Moshe must be one of the most difficult things a person could try to do.
After all, Moshe’s powerful personality shines out from his face with an irresistible intensity.
But despite the great difficulty, Koraḥ managed to do it.
The Netziv of Volozhin teaches that there were three parts to the attempted mutiny against Moshe, each of which would not have been enough to wage the mutiny alone.
The first personality involved was Koraḥ himself. As a highly respected tribesman of Levi, it would have appeared to be beneath his status to openly challenge Moshe.
Two others, Datan and Aviram, had a reputation for making trouble. But there was no way that they could have challenged the leader of the generation on their own.
The third group, innocent men who simply sought to come closer to HaShem by bringing incense into the Holy of Holies, would certainly not have dared to rise up against Moshe under normal circumstances.
The situation changed, however, when these three elements joined forces.
The respected figure (Koraḥ) manipulates low-level but energetic rabble rousers (Datan and Aviram), and they in turn incite the masses (250 men). The result is a combination of the spiritual desires of the many, the jealousy of the activists, and a prominent leader’s desire for personal honor.
But this doesn’t fully explain what happened.
If a problem begins with a prominent figure, there must be some spark of truth in his soul that motivates his action.
What holy intuition did Koraḥ experience?
“Koraḥ was a wise man, what brought him to this foolishness?” (Bamidbar Rabbah 18:8)
The foolishness is characterized by a lack of ability to discern between different levels of reality.
As has been said, “For a drunkard, the entire world appears to be a plateau.”
The assumption that there is no difference between the kohanim and the other sub-tribes of Levi, expressed in the cry, “All of them are holy!” (Bamidbar 16:3), is rooted in the true innate value of the children of Israel, who are indeed “all holy.”
It was necessary to find a practical example of this innate value, and what Koraḥ saw was “that Shmuel would descend from him” (Mekhilta).
When Shilo was destroyed, Shmuel did not rush to build the Temple (even when David would later prepare detailed plans for it).
The Holy Ark was captured and it was not returned to a holy site. There’s even an idea in the holy Zohar that Shmuel, the Levite, took on the role of High Priest!
Shmuel also delayed establishing the kingdom.
And the Sanhedrin, Israel’s central judicial institution whose task was to demand “You shall rise up to the holy place” (D’varim 17:8) was replaced by Shmuel himself, who traveled from place to place throughout the country.
In practice, Koraḥ’s anarchist approach – to negate the national institutions – was actually instituted by his descendent! And this shows us the source of Koraḥ’s mistake.
What Koraḥ should have understood is that the era of Moshe was very different from the era of Shmuel.
A very unique situation had developed in the time of Shmuel. The priesthood was corrupt. And the national leadership was guilty of giving preference to the holy utensils over political independence and the security of the nation.
“And he said: Israel fled before the Philistines (a loss of independence) and there was also a great plague within the nation (the people were dying), and your two sons are dead (a personal tragedy).” (Shmuel I 4:17)
None of this caused a great shock. But the verse continues.
“And the Ark of G-d was taken. And when the Ark was mentioned, he [Eli HaKohen] fell from his chair.” (4:18)
In this situation, when the societal values were the opposite of what they should have been, it was necessary to temporarily suspend efforts to reinstate the holy service and to establish the kingdom, in order to first educate the people.
The end result of this process would ultimately be the establishment of the eternal kingdom of the House of David and the eternal Temple in Jerusalem.
Shmuel’s approach was ultimately the opposite of that of his ancestor Koraḥ, who had viewed this temporary situation of anarchy as Israel’s ideal reality.
