I’ve written before about how Korach, under the guise of
egalitarian protestation, used his own prophetic vision to advance his personal
position to get what he thought was rightfully his at the expense of those who
were deluded enough to follow him and the democratic pretensions he actually
didn’t believe in, or care enough to even give credence to.
Even if he himself didn’t believe what he was preaching, “kol ha’edah kulam kedoshim” being the
catchphrase employed, it might be interesting to compare this case of Biblical
democratic pretension to another: the story of migdal bavel.
The catchphrase there, as pointed out by the Netziv, was devarim achadim. In HaEmek Davar Bereishis 11:4, he asserts
that Tower-era Babylon prefigured the Iron Curtain in its legislation: “..if
some would leave they might adopt different thoughts…[] so they saw to it that
no one left their enclave…[] anyone who deviated from devarim achadim would be sentenced to burning…” Judy Klistner refers to this as “coercive
conformity”.
We see a lot of this, particularly on the Left and in
academia, to the point that former Mayor Michael Boomberg admonished a graduation audience at Harvard about the disturbing trend of "liberals silencing voices "'deemed politically
objectionable.'" On the Right, it
didn’t start with “You’re either with us or against us”, but the recent
primary-season brouhahas between Tea Party and Chamber of Commerce candidates—and
the insistence in some Republican enclaves that the party dedicate itself to a
unitary religious vision—indicate for the tendencies for groupthink in those
quarters.
That being in the
word at large, how does this “vision” translate to the Jewish world?
One can note the
difference between the respective Divine paybacks: Korach dies. The dor haflagah doesn’t. Why is Korach’s punishment so much more
draconian?
He used religion to
do it. He not only held himself up as
the leading light of egalitarianism, he held himself up as that of religious egalitarianism. Despite the fact that he had ascended to his
then-already lofty communal position because of his DNA [as Moshe pointed out
to him], and his assertions of “kulam
kedoshim”, he also intimated he would make changes to mitzvos, both bein adam
lamakom [the “talis she’kulo
techeiles”] and l’chavero [his
rantings about tithing as an onerous system of taxation were a surefire way to
score political points with the public].
There are many ways
conformity can be introduced into religious practice, from all corners. There’s no reason to point them out
[although one might say that because there are so many of them—as Professor
Lawrence Kaplan might say, “Which Da’as Torah?”—conformity is an
impossibility]. But if someone tried to
use “kulam kedoshim” as a justification…
No comments:
Post a Comment