The headline-all capitals-spanning eight columns of page one of the Greensboro (North Carolina) Record for "Tuesday Evening February 23, 1960" reads: "New Sitdowns Bring 24 Arrests." The article records that "Police in Charlotte and Winston-Salem arrested both whites and Negroes today as Negro students resumed sitdown demonstrations against segregated lunch counter service."
On the opinion page Lynn Nisbett, a veteran newspaperman reflected on the demonstrations. He was of the opinion that in allowing the integration of publicly supported institutions, North Carolina had exhibited a large degree of moderation. Now, however, the battle was over the right of private enterprises to serve whom they wished.
"The important question is what effect this latest development will have on the national prestige of North Carolina and of Governor Hodges as champions of moderation. The lunch counter episodes plow through the issues of constitution and law and get right to the root of the big problem-the question of survival of social customs upon which the way of life in this part of the world is founded." (Lynn Nisbett, "Tar Heel Capital," The Greensboro Record, February 23, 1960, p. A-12)
Two years later, when Lynn Nesbit died, it still seemed as if the "social customs" would survive. Now, however, at a remove of fifty years, it is hard to believe that anybody would characterize the desegregation of lunch counters as a problem "complex enough to puzzle the wisest of men," as Nesbit did in his column that February day. It is hard to recall that people saw a society built on discrimination and racism as a "way of life" and "one of the cherished social customs of this country." Yet they did.
Conflicts have a certain internal dynamic which sometimes makes them impervious to rational discourse, logical thinking or neutral mediation. This week's Torah portion seems to present us with this type of conflict. Korah, himself a Levite, challenged Moses' leadership of the people Israel.
"Now Korah, son of Izhar son of Kohath son of Levi, betook himself, along with Dathan and Abiram sons of Eliab, and On, son of Peleth - descendants of Reuben - to rise up against Moses, together with two hundred and fifty Israelites, chieftains of the community, chosen in the assembly, men of repute. They combined against Moses and Aaron and said to them, 'You have gone too far! For all the community are holy, all of them, and the LORD is in their midst. Why then do you raise yourselves above the LORD's congregation?'" (Numbers 16:1-3)
It might be helpful here to examine briefly what Korah's claim was. He is arguing for a radical egalitarianism: "Everybody is holy. Why should you, Moses, be holier? Why should you be above the rest of us?" Where does Korah's complaint come from? In short, from God. In Exodus 19 God says to Israel: "but you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." (verse 6) If all of Israel is a kingdom of priests and holy, what then is Moses' claim to be more of a priest or holier? Or, as Rashi elaborates Korah's claim: "Everyone heard the words of God at Sinai." Further, "You are not the only ones who heard 'I am the Lord your God' at Sinai! Everyone heard it!"
Moses does not respond directly to Korah's claim.
"When Moses heard this, he fell on his face. Then he spoke to Korah and all his company, saying, 'Come morning, the LORD will make known who is His and who is holy, and will grant him access to Himself; He will grant access to the one He has chosen. Do this: You, Korah, and all your band, take fire pans, and tomorrow put fire in them and lay incense on them before the LORD. Then the man whom the LORD chooses, he shall be the holy one. You have gone too far, sons of Levi!'" (verses 4-7)
The first thing that Moses does is fall on his face. This is a sign of obedience to God. When Moses first meets God at the burning bush, he hides his face. (Exodus 3:6) When the fire first comes down from God onto the altar, the people of Israel fall on their face. (Leviticus 9:24)
Following on this, Moses suggests a test to see who is the chosen one. He does not deny that he is claiming to be holier than the rest of the people. He just claims that God chose him. Furthermore, Moses claims that God will choose him again. Korah's challenge based on the holiness of the whole people is left hanging.
Moses then turns from defensive mode (God chose me) to offensive mode: "Is it not enough for you that the God of Israel has set you apart from the community of Israel and given you access to Him, to perform the duties of the LORD's Tabernacle and to minister to the community and serve them? Now that He has advanced you and all your fellow Levites with you, do you seek the priesthood too?" Finishing with the coup de grace: "Truly, it is against the LORD that you and all your company have banded together." (8-11) (I will smoothly gloss over the part where this is the result of two different Korah stories from two different sources which have been edited together. For more on that see my colleague Tzemach Yoreh's website at www.biblecriticism.com.)
To summarize, Korah accuses Moses of taking power and authority that belong to the people as a whole. In response Moses first performs his subservience to God and declares that it is God who has chosen him. Then Moses accuses Korah of overreaching.
The whole thing ends poorly. "And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up with their households, all Korah's people and all their possessions. They went down alive into Sheol, with all that belonged to them; the earth closed over them and they vanished from the midst of the congregation." (32-33)
While Korah loses his struggle with Moses, and in the process loses his life, he does not necessarily lose the argument. I would suggest that the argument between Korah and Moses spun out of control at the very moment that they stopped talking to each other. Moses never answered Korah's seemingly legitimate complaints, and Korah later on ignores Moses' seemingly justified summons (verse 12).
This story is echoed in a famous Rabbinic story told in the Babylonian Talmud Tractate Berachot (27b-28a). Rabban Gamliel is the patriarch. He is also wealthy and an aristocrat. He wears his lineage and standing proudly and brashly. As patriarch he stations guards at the door to keep out those who are not of the proper station. He has the Moses role from our story.
Rabbi Yehoshua is one of the Sages in the study hall. He is poor and has to work as a blacksmith to keep things together. With all this, he is one of the most important Sages. His is the Korah role - being a Sage is not a matter of lineage or election, but a matter of study and hard work. Rabbi Yehoshua challenges Rabban Gamliel's ruling on a legal issue and Rabban Gamliel humiliates him publicly. However, in contradiction to the Korah story, the people side with Rabbi Yehoshua and depose Rabban Gamliel. Egalitarianism does not win the day, however.
When the Sages deliberate about a replacement for Rabban Gamliel they exclude Rabbi Yehoshua since it would be unseemly as he was involved in the original incident. They also, however, exclude one of the greatest Sages of all generations - Rabbi Akiva-because he did not have the appropriate lineage in addition to his learning and piety. They settle on a compromise candidate who has humility, learning, wealth and lineage.
The talmudic story illuminates the ways in which the Korah story went awry. The assumption that leadership needed to be hierarchical could not be challenged in Korah's time. However, the talmudic story also illustrates that change can happen even though it is often fraught with struggle and failure, half steps and compromise.
In our lives - personal, communal, political - we are often engaged in struggles which claim to be about getting to eat lunch with everybody else, but are probably about something much larger. Sometimes they are explicitly about something larger even though they are also about getting to sit at the lunch counter. The Moses challenge is being able to recognize when Korah might be right. How are we able to step back and see that we are in the middle of a process whose end will show us that our "cherished social customs" were actually mired in injustice of one form or another? I pray that we can get some of that clarity before the earth swallows us up.
Shabbat shalom.