Rabbi Freedman’s Shabbat Message

Every sidra of the year contains a variety of themes, Parashat Korach is no exception.  To discover which of these was considered by the sages to be of primary importance, there is an easy way to find out: take a look into the haftarah, the prophetical reading chosen to accompany the weekly Torah reading, study its contents and there you will discover the answer.  In the case of Parashat Korach and its accompanying haftarah taken from the First Book of Samuel, two verses provide the answer.

The first of these two verses is taken from the sidra (Numbers 16: 15) and contains a rather emotional outburst from the Israelite leader following an attempted coup d’état:

וַיִּ֤חַר לְמֹשֶׁה֙ מְאֹ֔ד וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ אֶל־ה’ אַל־תֵּ֖פֶן אֶל־מִנְחָתָ֑ם לֹ֠א חֲמ֨וֹר אֶחָ֤ד מֵהֶם֙ נָשָׂ֔אתִי וְלֹ֥א הֲרֵעֹ֖תִי אֶת־אַחַ֥ד מֵהֶֽם:

Moses became angry and said to the Lord, “Do not accept their offering.  I have not taken so much as a donkey from them, nor have I wronged any of them.”

The second verse is from the haftarah (I Samuel 12:3) and is part of the prophet Samuel’s valedictory speech as the leadership of Israel transfers from prophet to king.  Like Moses before him, Samuel sees the need to defend his record, his time in office, in particular his personal integrity:

הִנְנִ֣י עֲנ֣וּ בִי֩ נֶ֨גֶד יְהֹוָ֜ה וְנֶ֣גֶד מְשִׁיח֗וֹ אֶת־שׁוֹר֩ ׀ מִ֨י לָקַ֜חְתִּי וַֽחֲמ֧וֹר מִ֣י לָקַ֗חְתִּי וְאֶת־מִ֤י עָשַׁ֨קְתִּי֙ אֶת־מִ֣י רַצּ֔וֹתִי וּמִיַּד־מִי֙ לָקַ֣חְתִּי כֹ֔פֶר וְאַעְלִ֥ים עֵינַ֖י בּ֑וֹ וְאָשִׁ֖יב לָכֶֽם:

Now tell me as I stand before the Lord and before his anointed king – whose ox or donkey have I stolen?  Have I ever defrauded you?  Have I ever oppressed you?  Have I ever taken a bribe?  Tell me, for if so I will make it right.

Leaders are often criticised and more than a few, undermined by their opponents; each one is eventually replaced – that much is normal.  But this is not the issue here.  What the rabbis seem concerned about, however is something quite different.  Their focus is not on the political process but rather the ethics of leadership.  They read these two verses and ask – during their time as leaders of Israel were Moses and Samuel above reproach; not that they always got things right, but did they always act with integrity and honesty.  For the sages, no immoral behaviour, no suggestion of corruption would ever be acceptable.  In their eyes, a leader’s moral compass must remain intact throughout their time in office, and be open to scrutiny thereafter.

For the rabbis, it was not the rebellion of Korach that seized their attention – nor the transfer of power from Samuel to Saul, but rather the nature of Jewish leadership which in their eyes must be built on trust and include a consistent rejection of self-interest.

A commentary on the prophet Samuel is found in the Apocryphal work of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus).  This work, most probably written in Hebrew 2200 years ago, has come through to us in Greek.  Nonetheless it is far more Jewish than Hellenistic. 

Samuel, beloved by his Lord, a prophet of the Lord, established the kingdom and anointed rulers over his people.  By the law of the Lord he judged the congregation, and the Lord watched over Jacob.  By his faithfulness he was proved to be a prophet, and by his words he became known as a trustworthy seer.  Before the time of his eternal sleep, Samuel called men to witness before the Lord and his anointed king, and he said: “I have not stolen anyone’s property not so much as a pair of shoes.”  None disagreed.

Written by Joshua Ben Sira, a scribe during the Second Temple period – this extract demonstrates exactly what the sages thought would be an appropriate epitaph for a man of God, meticulous in the observance of Torah law:

Appoint judges in every town that the Lord your God gives you.  These men are to judge impartially.  They are not to be unjust or show partiality and they are not to accept bribes; for gifts blind the eyes even of wise and honest men, and cause them to give wrong decisions.  (Deuteronomy 16: 18-19)

Is this not the reason, why men such as the prophet Amos spoke truth to power when he addressed the leaders of the northern kingdom of Israel: I know how terrible your sins are and how many crimes you have committed.  You persecute good people, take bribes, and prevent the poor from getting justice in the courts.  To which he added, in one of the most memorable verses in the entire Bible, וְיִגַּל כַּמַּיִם מִשְׁפָּט וּצְדָקָה כְּנַחַל אֵיתָן Let justice flow like a stream, and righteousness like a river that never goes dry. (Amos 5: 24)

Regarding such exhortations, Rabbi Berel Wein wrote: These verses address one of the great weaknesses of human life – personally, socially and governmentally – the weakness of corruption.  Corruption comes in many forms and modes.  The outright bribery of officials and judges is certainly understood to be a most heinous form of corruption for it undermines the very basis of a lawful society.  There are enough examples of this type of corruption in our past and current national life to prove to us how damaging and destructive this immoral policy can be.  But the Torah speaks not only of the blatant corruption of open bribery and trading judicial and governmental favours for money, but also of a more subtle and perhaps even more insidious type of corruption that apparently falls short of the legal definition of bribery.  This type of corruption leaps upon us almost unawares and is hard to define or even recognize.  Chance remarks, a courtesy extended, a past favour given innocently, all remain as potential points of corruption.

 While there are many verses in the Bible that discuss corruption in general terms there were a few actual cases that made the headlines.  King David, it could be argued, acted corruptly when he sent Bathsheba’s husband off to battle, so that his illicit relationship with a married woman could proceed undetected.  Jezebel falsely accused Naboth of blasphemy so that her husband King Ahab could use his royal powers to steal the man’s vineyard and most sadly the only case of actual bribery recorded in the Bible is that of the sons of Samuel, of whom it is said: “His sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after mammon.  They greedily took bribes and perverted judgment” (I Samuel 8:3).  It may well have been the contrast between the righteousness of the father and the dishonesty of the sons that led the elders of Israel to demand a change of government, in the hope that a king would put an end to this type of fraudulent behaviour.

Any discussion of corruption inevitably begins with the question of definition.  In a general sense the word attaches to any act or omission (be he or she a public official or a private individual) that deviates from acceptable norms governing the performance of official duties with the intention of creating gain for personal or group advantage and by doing so breaches public trust.  It can thus apply to the private sector no less than to the public.

The word corruption itself originates from the Latin word corrumpere, which means to destroy, ruin, or spoil.  Over time, the English word corruption evolved from this Latin root, encompassing various meanings relating to decay, moral depravity, and dishonest actions.  Interestingly, the Hebrew word for corruption seems to imply all of the above.  The Hebrew verb לְהַשְׁחִית from the three letter root שׁחת is first found in the story of Noah.  The verb comes seven times in Parashat Noach to describe the moral corruption, physical decay, destruction and ruin that existed at that time of or came about as a result of the Flood.  It then re-appears a further eight times in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as if to say their depravity was even worse, the very epitome of evil.  Interestingly in certain other Semitic languages the verb means to be injured, laid low or prostrate, comparable to the verb שׁחו which means to bow down on one’s knees – as in the word הִשְׁתַּחַוֶה – suggestive of a human being not only at their lowest physical point, but perhaps at a moral low as well.

The Talmud, unlike Western law books, tends to present cases rather than definitions.  Hence we find a number of stories in the Talmud that describe what might be considered inappropriate behaviour and from these cases the codes of Jewish law define more precisely under what circumstances the law has been breached.

For example, there is the case of Karna, who would not accept any fee for sitting in judgement on a case.  Nonetheless, he allowed parties to reimburse him for losses incurred while sitting in court, providing both parties contributed equally (TB Ketubot 105a).  This precedent was adopted by Rav Huna who would say to both parties: “I am unable to take time off from work, so give me a man who can draw water for me, to irrigate my fields and I will judge your case.”

Rava’s assertion that the person accepting the bribe considers himself in harmony with the briber, leads the Talmud to a fanciful interpretation of the word שֹׁחַד (bribe).  The Talmud suggests that this word is in fact a compound of שֶׁהוּא חַד (that he is one) i.e. that the judge is at one with the litigant.  Further to this the Talmud rules that a judge should not try cases of anyone he loves or hates, because ‘he will find no guilt in his friend and no innocence in his foe’.  (TB Ketubot)  The Talmud cites a number of instances to illustrate this point.  For example, Abba Arika refused to try a case in which one of the parties was an inn-keeper, at whose inn he customarily lodged; Mar Samuel declined the case of a man who gave him his hand to assist him in landing from a ferry; Amemar refused to act as judge for a man who had picked a feather from his hair that had been lodged there by the wind; and Mar Uḳba turned down a case involving a man who had trodden his spittle in the dust.  In each case the judges considered that even a small measure of respect, inconsequential as it may appear on the surface, could be enough to influence their decision and corrupt their judgment.

According to the Jewish Encyclopaedia, the most interesting case is that of Rabbi Ismael bar Jose.  It was his custom to receive every Friday from his own garden a basket of fruit, prepared by his gardener.  On one occasion the gardener brought the fruit on Thursday, a days when the court sat.  When Rabbi Ismael asked him why he had brought it on Thursday, the gardener replied, “I have a lawsuit to attend and I thought I would bring the fruit today.”  On hearing this, Rabbi Ismael refused to accept the fruit, nor act as a judge in the case, but as he followed the hearing, he was shocked at his own reaction in continually wishing to help the gardener’s case.  As a result he said, “May the souls of those who take bribes be destroyed.  If I, who did not even take the fruit, and who would after all only have been taking my own property, am so prejudiced in favour of this man, how much more partial must be the judge who really accepts a bribe” (TB Ketubot 105b).

Fear of corruption led to a number of practices in Jewish law, which served to insure transparency.  The Mishnah in Shekalim ruled, for example, that anyone involved with the collection of Temple funds, may not do so wearing garments with pockets or hems – places where money might be hidden – in order to remain above suspicion. 

In another statement on the subject, the Mishnah warns that the general public would not only get suspicious if the kohen who handled the money grew richer – thinking he was using public funds for personal enrichment – but also if he became poorer, since they might think this change of fortune was a punishment for embezzling from God.  Later the Mishnah ruled that there must be at least two people in any role that exerts financial authority over the public.  This was to ensure that there is always mutual oversight in financial matters.  Consequently, those who collected and distributed charity were expected to work in pairs.

Maimonides summarized the question of bribery most impressively in the following words: “The judge must conduct himself as though a sword were lying on his throat and Gehinnom (hell) open at his feet; he must know whom he is judging, before whom he is judging, and who will demand an account from him as to the justice of the judgment” (Yad: Sanh. 28:8).

In the final analysis, corruption is most likely to be eschewed when a person is happy with their lot.  This is the basis of the rabbinic inquiry in Pirkei Avot, “Who is rich?”, to which the sages answer: שָׂמֵחַ בּחֶלְקוֹ One who rejoices in what he has – for when a person is happy with his own possessions and acquisitions, there is far less likelihood that he will dishonestly misappropriate from others or from the public purse.  Perhaps that is the message behind an ancient teaching that Moses, overwhelmed with gratitude for being cleared of arrogating 15 golden hooks during the building of the Mishkan, offered up 15 praises to the Almighty.  

It is interesting to note that this number is indirectly related to the prayer Baruch She’amar (see: https://hakirah.org/Vol%209%20Epstein.pdf) and directly related to two other prayers Yishtabach and Emet V’yatziv, the first of which contains 15 expressions of praise, and the second, 15 descriptions of God beginning with the letter vav.  In this way, Moses’ example of principled leadership is memorialised daily.  

We remain thankful for his leadership and that it was not usurped by Korach – for it should not go unnoticed that the sidra begins with the words:

וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח

Korach was on the take!

All of these examples are to remind us that a free society is built on moral foundations.  The examples set by Moses and Samuel in this week’s sidra and haftarah set a vital precedent for the Jewish people for all time.  Corruption however, is a challenge to everyone, everywhere, and to the integrity, efficiency and effectiveness of many facets of life, both private and public.  None of us is untouched by corruption – each of us pays a price, and comparatively few are beneficiaries. 

Little wonder that the rabbis chose this as the key lesson from this week’s portion.

Shabbat Shalom

Rabbi David Freedman