The Monday Reading of Korach and Iran War Decisions

Rabbi Daniel Z. Feldman

Not only the content of the Torah reading, but how the Torah is read can sometimes give guidance on current events. That may be the case today, as the Monday morning reading for Parashat Korach, the first Aliyah, stops at what might seem like a surprising place, apparently in the middle of an interaction. 

Moses is embroiled in a conflict after having been attacked by Korach and his allies. In an attempt to make peace, he has summoned to a hearing two of these allies: Dathan and Abiram. However they defiantly refuse to appear, proclaiming, "We will not come! Is it not enough that you brought us from a land flowing with milk and honey to have us die in the wilderness, that you would also lord it over us? Even if you had brought us to a land flowing with milk and honey, and given us possession of fields and vineyards, should you gouge out the eyes of those involved? We will not come!” (Num.16: 12-14)What is surprising is that the aliyah stops in the middle of their response, with the first sentences being read in the first aliyah and the last sentence assigned to the next one. The effect is almost as if they slammed the door in the middle and then opened it again and said, "And what's more, we're REALLY not going to come..." There may be a practical message in how the reading is divided. The Talmud (Moed Katan 16a) derives a lesson from this interaction: Apparently, as it is recorded in the Torah, the emissary of Moses reported back to him the disrespectful response that he received. A law is derived from here, that such reporting back to the court is permissible; apparently, one may have thought that it constituted a transgression of Lashon Hara. 

Notably, it is specifically the last sentence, the one separated out into the next aliyah, that is referenced by the Talmud in teaching this point. Perhaps that is its own message. One could have thought that while it is logical that the messenger should be able to report back to Moses that the disputant refused to appear; that is necessary information for him to proceed. However, a simple report of, “they said “we will not come“ “ would have sufficed to that end.  Why is it necessary to go beyond that, and to include all of the unsavory details of the disrespectful response?

When a judge summons a litigant who refuses to appear, he must decide what steps to take. His response must be measured, deliberate, and effective.  For that to be the case, it is not enough for him to be told that the party simply “will not come“; his exact language, tone, and attitude all contribute to the judge’s understanding of what kind of defiance he is encountering. This will allow him to calibrate his response effectively.

At this moment, Israel and the United States are engaged in an intense military conflict with a vicious enemy nation that has sought their destruction, and the means to bring it about. That nation, against all rationality, refuses still to back down from its murderous ambitions. What tactics and strategies are called for in the face of such defiance? Careful attention to the nuances of the posturing is, our parshah teaches us, one aspect of the wisdom necessary to address the situation. We continue to fervently pray that God will provide that and all else required to bring a speedy and effective resolution and peace to the entire world.