Baggage

And Moshe sent to summon Datan and Aviram the sons of Eliav. They said, “We will not ascend. Is it a small [matter] that you brought us up from a land flowing with milk and honey to put us to death in the wilderness that you will also rule over us? Also, you have not brought us to a land flowing with milk and honey and given us a portion [composed of] field and vineyard. If you will root-out the eyes of those men, we [still] will not ascend.” (Sefer BeMidbar 16:12-14)

I. Two criticisms of Moshe

Parshat Korach describes the rebellion of Korach and his followers against Moshe and Aharon. There were two elements in this rebellion. Korach and many of his followers opposed the institution of kehunah – priesthood. It is not clear how they proposed replacing it. According to our Sages, they wished to restore the priesthood to the firstborn. Every first-born would serve in the Michcan – the Tabernacle. This innovation would not eliminate the kehunah. It would alter it, extending it beyond the family of Aharon. Each family of every tribe would be represented by its firstborn.

Ramban – Nachamanides – suggests that Korach and his followers wished to entirely abolish the institution. They argued that everyone should be permitted to offer one’s own sacrifices and perform all the services in the Mishcan.[1]

The second element of the rebellion is expressed in the above passages. Datan and Aviram promulgated this denunciation of Moshe and Aharon. They claimed that Moshe and Aharon had promised to take them into a land flowing with milk and honey. Instead, they had taken them from the fertile land of Egypt to await death in a barren wilderness. They accused Moshe and Aharon of being frauds.

II. Datan and Avirum confront Moshe

Moshe attempted to resolve the conflict. He spoke with Korach and tried to address his issues. Then, he summoned Datan and Aviram. The above passages present their response. They refuse to obey the summons. They add an odd comment. “[Even] if you root-out the eyes of those men, we will not ascend.” According to Rashi, they were referring to themselves in the third person. They were saying that even if you root-out our eyes, we will not respond to your summons.[2]

This interpretation attributes to Datan and Aviram an odd response to Moshe’s summons. They assumed that Moshe intended to coerce their obedience. Why would they make this assumption?

Rashbam and others do not interpret Datan and Aviram’s response literally. They responded to Moshe, “Do you think we do not have eyes to see your deceit?”[3] This interpretation accords well with their position. They accused Moshe of duping the people. They respond to Moshe’s summons declaring that they cannot be dissuaded from their position. They are not blind; they see through Moshe’s deceit. It is interesting that Rashi prefers his literal interpretation over this more contextually consistent alternative.

And he went out on the second day and behold two Hebrew men were arguing. He said, “Wicked one! Why will you strike your neighbor?” He said [in response], Who appointed you as a lord and judge upon us. Do you speak [of the intention] to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?” And Moshe was afraid. He said [to himself}, “Certainly, the matter is known.” (Sefer Shemot 2:13-14)

III. An earlier encounter

To understand Rashi’s position one must consider an earlier incident. Moshe was yet a member of Paroh’s household. The Torah explains that when he matured, Moshe went out into the Land of Egypt to study the condition of his people – Bnai Yisrael. On the first day of his investigation he encountered an Egyptian task-master beating a Hebrew slave. He intervened. He killed the Egyptian and hid his body.

The next day Moshe continued his investigation. He discovered two Hebrews arguing with one another. Their conflict was about to come to blows. In the above passages, Moshe intervenes. He rebukes one of the disputants for raising his hand against his brother – his fellow Hebrew. The chastised disputant responds, “Do you intend to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?” Moshe realized that he had been observed slaying the Egyptian and that he was in danger. He immediately fled Egypt.

Rashi, quoting our Sages, reveals that these two unnamed disputants were Datan and Aviram.[4] How did our Sages come to this conclusion? Is this a tradition or does their behavior indicate that these disputants were the same individual who joined Korach’s rebellion, labeling Moshe and Aharon as frauds?

There are a number of similarities in these events.

·       The antagonists distrust Moshe and he is their adversary.

·       They respond by challenging Moshe and attacking Moshe. In the early incident, the antagonists make known to Moshe that they know he slayed the Egyptian. They imply that they can inform against him. In Parshat Korach Datan and Aviram join a rebellion that threatens to undermine Moshe’s leadership and turn the nation against him. In both, they seek to strike out against their presumed adversary.

·       In the earlier incident one of the antagonists assume Moshe intends to use force against them. According to Rashi, in Parshat Korach, Datan and Aviram assume Moshe is prepared to coerce them to appear before him. 

Perhaps, our Sages assume that the unnamed characters in the Egypt incident are Datan and Aviram because they exhibit the same attitudes and behaviors ascribed to Datan and Aviram in Parshat Korach.

Now, Rashi’s interpretation of Datan and Aviram’s response to Moshe in Parshat Korach can be easily understood. He interprets their message to Moshe based upon their previous behavior. In Egypt, they presumed Moshe intended to use force to interrupt their conflict. Rashi attributes this same attitude to them in his interpretation of their comment in Parshat Korach. Again, they assume that Moshe intends to use force to secure their compliance to his wishes.

IV. Understanding Datan and Aviram

This demonstrates that Datan and Aviram were consistent in their behaviors and attitudes. However, why did they consistently assume that Moshe was their adversary and prepared to physically coerce them?

We can understand their attitudes and behaviors when we consider that their generation was composed of oppressed slaves. They were persecuted and abused by their masters. Their experience of oppression produced understandable outcomes. The members of this generation were most accustomed to oppressive, coercive masters. These masters were the representatives of authority that they encountered in their day-to-day lives. Their experiences with these figures were essentially negative. The representative of authority oppressed and abused them. These experiences nurtured within them an attitude of distrust, a hatred for figures of authority, and a unslaked desire to strike back at their oppressors.

Moshe and Aharon were confronted with a difficult task as leaders of these liberated slaves. They needed to persuade the people that they different from the representatives of authority they knew in Egypt. They were not a deviously disguised variant of their Egyptian masters. They truly were benevolent leaders, interested only in the welfare of their people. To an extent, they succeeded. But they failed with Datan and Aviram. They did not reshape their perceptions. Datan and Aviram remained suspicious of Moshe and continued to regard him as an adversary. Moshe represented the oppressors who had tormented them in Egypt. They were eager to avenge themselves upon Moshe and the figures of brutal authority he represented.  

V. Looking beyond the Torah’s persepctive

This discussion reveals and interesting and sometimes confusing aspect of the Torah’s narrative style. The Torah treats individuals and incidents from a single objective perspective. In real-time events individuals are experienced participants and observers from multiple unique subjective perspectives. Each participant and observer has his or her own experience of the event. One event has many interpretations. The Torah presents its objective account of an event. The reader who wishes to understand the responses and reactions of the participants or observers must consider how these individuals experienced the event.[5]

Moshe is introduced and discussed from the Torah’s objective perspective. This perspective does not reflect the people’s subjective experience of his leadership. The reader learns about the rescue of Moshe as an infant. One reads about his experience at the Burning Bush. His various dialogues with Hashem are described. The reader forms an understanding of Moshe based upon this data. Moshe’s contemporaries experienced him differently from the reader. The reader who wishes to understand Datan and Aviram put aside the Torah’s objective treatment of Moshe and consider how Datan and Aviram experienced him.

The above discussion is an example of this treatment and it demonstrates the challenges it creates for the student. Korach, Datan, and Aviram are discussed from the Torah’s objective perspective. They are rebels. Korah seeks to challenge Moshe’s authority, and to overthrow the kehunah. Datan and Aviram are ingrates. They disregard Moshe’s efforts on their behalf and instead attribute to him preposterous motives. They deny any responsibility for their destiny to wander until death in the wilderness. They do not acknowledge the incident of the spies and its consequences. Instead, they attribute their bitter fate to Moshe’s deceit. They claim he never had a plan to take them into the Land of Israel and now rather than acknowledge that he has failed the people, Moshe continues to deceive them. Datan and Aviram are presented as despicable, twisted, malcontents.

This is an accurate presentation from the Torah’s objective perspective. However, the Torah does not present Datan and Aviram’s subjective experience. They were liberated slaves. They suffered years of oppression and abuse at the hand of maters who cared only for their own needs and welfare. This was their experience with authority. They were scarred and unable to imagine a benevolent leader. They were tragically trapped within their experiences and could not comprehend Moshe’s true character.[6]

[1] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar 16:21.

[2] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar 16:14.

[3] Rabbaynu Shemuel ben Meir (Rashbam) Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar 16:14.

[4] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 2:13.

[5] At times, I have told my students that to better understand an event they must project themselves into the incident and imagine how they would experience and respond to it. Once they perform this exercise, they are able to better understand the attitudes and behaviors of the participants. 

[6] Some years ago, I attended a seminar for educators on effective communication with parents. The presenter explained that educators must recognize that parents bring into the relationship a set of assumptions. These parents attended school and developed relationships with their teachers. When they enter into their relationship with their children’s teachers they bring with them the impressions formed of their own teachers.  If their experiences were positive, these will inform the assumptions they make about their children teachers. However, if they were negative, these will influence their relationships with their children’s teachers. These parents will bring into the relationships their negative assumptions.

The result is that educators sometimes are confronted with responses from parents that they cannot understand. They are attempting to understand these responses based upon their own actions and behaviors. In this framework the responses are out-of-kilter. However, the parents will sometimes interpret the actions of the teacher based upon their own experiences as students. They bring these experiences into the new relationship with their children’s teachers and interpret the teachers’ behaviors, communications, and practices based upon these previous relationships.

This is an example of the phenomenon describe in the parasha. Datan and Aviram are completely unjustified in their suspicion of Moshe. However, their interpretations of Moshe’s behaviors and actions were not based upon their interactions with him. They are based upon their lifetime of oppressions and abuse at the hand of authority. Based on this framework, their responses were completely reasonable.