Did Korach Die?
So, did he, or did he not?
Enigmatically, the Torah doesn't really say. It says that "all of his men" were killed when the ground opened up to devour the rabble rousers, and that the 250 men who had brought sacred incense were engulged by flames. Initially, Moshe had instructed to appear with the 250 men but it could be that he had cold feet or that God pre-empted him, because he appears in neither of the above contingents!
In shul this past Shabbat I asked this question of someone and he tried to use an analogy that at first seemed very flawed. He said, "What would happen if Sinwar wasn't killed? All of his men were destroyed, annihilated, but nothing ever happened with him. Would it really matter?!"
Maybe, alternatively, imagine a situation where Eichmann had never been captured, but left to die peaceably in his old age, surrounded by his children and grandchildren, who had come to receive their final blessings.
Ironically, the Medrash teaches that Pharaoh similarly wasn't killed. It could indeed be that both Korach and Pharaoh before him represented ideas that had become defunct and thus whether they were alive didn't really matter as long as they didn't have followers, or people who would continue their way.
I once knew someone well who fascinatingly was one of the liberators of the Kotel in '67, only to go on to become a sworn anti-Zionist, an interesting story in his own right (He does, though, through it all keep a framed picture of himself and Goren and the iconic shofar, taken on the day of the Old City's liberation, on the chestnut armoire next to his cherished, vintage piano.) This man, gentle-hearted and rabid at the same time, once avowed that any hater of God will be left without any remembrance, his case in point being Herzl whose three offspring died in the most tragic of ways (heroine, suicide, Theresienstadt), and whose only grandchild also commited suicide after learning his family had been entirely destroyed in the war.
To the extent to which this person's thesis is true, there is something that speaks volume about the message we can or cannot bring to the world when we have or do not have living offspring. An adopted child is considered as one's own, and Torah students are certainly on par with that.
It would seem in fact that when an idea no longer carries any sway, on the evil-side, whether its initiator is alive or not perhaps has little import as long as society succeeds in moving beyond it to create a better vision for the world. Korach's sons famously did not die in their father's sins, perhaps showing that when one has even an ember of holiness or positive thought, that can indeed be carried on through one's sons, children, and students.
Interestingly, while usually the Torah situated its entire description of an incident in one place, the Torah omits the fates of Korach and his sons in the eponymous parsha only to reveal them later. In Pinchas (26:9-11), the Torah gives a brief synopsis of the quarrel and discloses both that: 1) Korach was swallowed together with Datan and Aviram and 2) Korach's sons didn't perish.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRabbi Barth! Appreciate your thoughts each week. You have this one afuch. It is well established in Judaism that offspring of evil can and will perpetuate that evil. You offer the hypothetical of Eichman. Well, what about Amalek? King Saul screwed up royally, pun intended. And so generations later Haman was hung along with his 10 sons. Alas, it was too late as Amalek's descendants were already well dispersed beyond Haman. And we know that Korach's sons were not killed by Hahsem and perhaps others of the Erev Rav.
ReplyDeleteWe Jews have suffered at the hands of our own Erev Rav ever since. They are alive and well and here in Israel. Have you noticed? Amalek is a spiritual force that persists from generation to generation. Likewise, tragically, for the Erev Rav.
It does say in Pinchas that Korach was swallow with Datan and Aviram, interestingly, it doesn't say that they died. It says that they were swallowed alive upon the death of those who were engulfed by the fire that consumed the 250 men who brought their incense offering. The question is why the narrative is different in the Parsha of Korach as opposed to Pinchas, and why the contradistinction, i.e. "upon the death etc." seems to preclude the death of Korach, which preceded it, or at least was concomitant with it. The words "upon the death," clearly seem to create a wedge between the two events.
ReplyDelete