The Korach Portion (5761)

With God’s help, on the eve of the holy Sabbath of the Korach portion, 5761

Two Types of Representative Government

The central theme of the Korach portion is the dispute of Korach and all his assembly against Moses our teacher. Korach and his assembly argued

against Moses that he was taking control of the people of Israel, and appointing those close to him to

the prestigious offices of authority without any open competition. ‘We are no less worthy of holding those offices,’ argued Korach

and his assembly.

In the prophetic reading, the coronation of King Saul over Israel by the prophet Samuel is described. Samuel is nearing death,

and explains to the people of Israel that their demand for a king is very wrong, for God alone is their king. Yet

if they do what is good in God’s eyes, it appears from Samuel’s words that God will ‘compromise’ with this demand.

A king is the representative of the people, and as such the power of the entire public is entrusted to him. Moses our teacher and Aaron

the priest were appointed to their positions by God and not by the people, and this was precisely

the complaint of Korach and his assembly. In many respects, Korach argued in favor of a proper democratic procedure for choosing

representatives, on the basis of qualifications and not on the basis of status or closeness to Moses, or even to God. Representatives of the

public ought to be appointed by the public.

Korach’s mistake was that he did not understand that appointment by God is not an arbitrary seizure of control over

the public. The very core of the people of Israel—their very existence as a collective—is an expression of God in the world, and therefore

its representatives ought to be chosen by God, and not necessarily by the public itself. In the ideal state, within the people of Israel

there should have been a situation in which its representatives were appointed only by God, and the people had no mandate to appoint

representatives of their own. That is why Samuel’s wrath is aroused when the people decide that they want leadership

chosen by themselves and not by God. The mistake of the people in Samuel’s time was exactly the mistake

of Korach and his assembly; apparently the people did not draw the proper conclusions from the Korach episode.

If so, wherever the representatives are in fact chosen by the people, or by the public they represent,

Korach’s claim is entirely justified: they must be chosen in a fitting manner and give expression to the will of the public.

Only representatives appointed by God have the privilege of acting in a way that runs contrary to the opinion of

the public, for their legitimacy derives not from the public but from God. Democratic representation

is supposed to act in accordance with the will of the people; otherwise it removes the ground from beneath its very

legitimacy.

Yet the conclusion of the prophet Samuel’s words in our prophetic reading is that even within the people of Israel, if indeed the people

and its king conduct themselves in accordance with God’s will, there is room for leadership chosen ‘from below’. However, if they

do not act properly, there is no room for such a form of leadership in Israel. It appears from the words of the prophet Samuel

that representatives appointed ‘from above’ retain more ‘legitimacy’, if one can speak that way,

even when they act in a manner that does not accord with God’s will. Kings appointed by prophets have

in their appointment an element of appointment ‘from above’, and therefore even when they sin they remain representatives of the people. Kings

appointed ‘from below’ are not entitled to legitimacy if they do not act properly.

The combination of these two considerations leads us to a conclusion that is almost impossible.

Representatives appointed by God are legitimate representatives of the people, perhaps even when they do not

act exactly in accordance with its will. In addition, one appointed by God is certainly not obligated

to adhere specifically to the will of the people, since it is not from them that he draws his power. A representative of God is

free with respect to ‘above’ and free with respect to ‘below’.

By contrast, it is precisely the representatives appointed by the people themselves, something that as noted is only a second-best

possibility, who are constrained from both directions. They cannot act contrary to the opinion of the people,

for they received no mandate for that; and on the other hand, they also cannot act contrary to God’s will,

as the prophet Samuel teaches us, for in such a situation there is no legitimacy at all to leadership that comes

‘from below’. Hence, representatives of the people must be ‘agents of the Merciful One and our agents’

[that is, God’s agents and our agents as well].

Such a situation is almost impossible. These two requirements cannot both be fulfilled, except

under one condition: the will of the people and the will of God are completely identical. Only when the people are prepared

to subordinate their desires entirely to the will of the Creator are they permitted to express themselves ‘from below’ and to appoint

their own agents to lead them. The conclusion is that where there is no identity between the will of the people and the will

of God, leadership appointed ‘from below’ has no significance at all.

One may, however, argue that within the people of Israel there is also a ‘secular’ dimension, and in that sense there is significance

to leadership by the people even when God’s will is not being fulfilled, just as there is for the leadership of any other public, or

nation. However, it is clear that such leadership, if it is possible at all, has no direct religious significance.

A difficult question arises with respect to kings of the House of David. On the face of it, these are kings, and as such they are representatives of

the people. On the other hand, the Torah itself states, ‘The scepter shall not depart from Judah’ (Genesis 49:10), meaning that kings must

come only from the House of David. If so, kings in Israel too are appointed by God. This is apparently

the secret of the perpetuity of the Davidic monarchy, which does not depend on the spiritual condition of the people or on that of the monarchy itself.

In principle, whatever the spiritual state, kings of the House of David are legitimate kings. Saul, by contrast,

as Samuel teaches us in the prophetic reading, is legitimate only if he does God’s will.

A hypothetical (!?) question for thought: to what extent does a government elected by

the public possess religious legitimacy if, nevertheless, it does neither the will of the people nor the will of God?

Have a peaceful Sabbath

This may be placed with worn sacred texts in any synagogue or house of study. Comments and responses are welcome.

Bitton93.doc