Korach was no fool. Yet, he acted in a manner unbecoming a person who possesses even a modicum of common sense. He had it all. Why did he throw it all away for a chance at a moment of glory? Did he not realize that he had no prospects of succeeding in this ill-fated endeavor? Rashi explains that his “eye” threw him off. He saw a succession of distinguished offspring descending from him. The illustrious Shmuel HaNavi, who was to succeed Moshe Rabbeinu and Aharon HaKohen as the nation’s spiritual leader, stood at the helm of this revered lineage. How could he be wrong? His descendants would save him.
Korach was dead wrong. His sons repented at the very last moment, resulting in their being spared the gruesome death of the other mutineers. Rashi refers to Korach as a pikeach, a clever, shrewd person. Why is he referred to as clever – as opposed to chacham, wise? Horav Naphtali, zl, m’Ropshitz distinguishes between a pikeach and a chacham, in that a pikeach is not only astute, but he also knows how to “play the game.” A pikeach never officially takes sides. In fact, when two people are in dispute with one another, the clever person knows exactly what to do and what to say, in such a manner that each side thinks he is supportive of his individual cause/opinion, etc. This is alluded to by the gimatriya, numerical equivalent, of pikeach, which is 188, double the gimatriya of tzad, side. The pikeach takes “both” sides.
This is what Rashi means when he says, Vayikach Korach, Lakach atzmo l’tzad echad, “He took /separated himself to one side.” Then Rashi asks, “Korach was a pikeach; what did he see that provoked him to do this foolishness, to take himself to one side?” Rashi intimates that a clever person never takes sides. What made Korach lose perspective of what he was about to do? He explains that he saw his future descendants. He thought that he could not possibly go wrong. This time he would not hedge his bets. He would take sides.
This might explain why Korach acted foolishly, but what motivated his two-hundred and fifty henchmen? These were learned men, scholars who were heads of the Sanhedrin. Clearly, one does not achieve such distinction unless he is blessed with an astute mind and possesses amazing diligence. They had no chance of becoming leaders. It was going to be a toss-up between Moshe Rabbeinu and Korach. They were completely out of the picture. Furthermore, they did not have Korach’s excuse, looking into the future and seeing an illustrious lineage originating from them. Why did they act so foolishly?
Horav Meir Chodosh, zl, cites the Talmud Sanhedrin 52b, where Chazal present an analogy concerning the way in which an am ha’aretz, unschooled, ignorant Jew, views a talmid chacham, Torah scholar. At first, the scholar is unapproachable, similar to a jug made of pure gold. He is regarded as precious and highly revered. Once the scholar converses idly with the am ha’aretz, his standing in the eyes of the ignorant man plummets to that of a silver jug. His value has decreased considerably, but he is still considered to be precious. Once the talmid chacham accepts gifts from the am ha’aretz, it is all over. The scholar now appears as nothing more than an earthenware jug which, once broken, can never be repaired. In his commentary, Rashi states that this analogy applies to Korach and the way he was able to ensnare the heads of the Sanhedrin in his web of deceit. Interestingly, these men were not ignorant. They were the primary scholars of the nation. Once they were the beneficiaries of Korach’s wealth, however, he neither respected them, nor did they have any self-respect. A talmid chacham must maintain an aura of respectability. Taking money from an am ha’aretz – or even a scholar, but a despot such as Korach – diminishes one’s standing.
The Mashgiach explains that once the two-hundred fifty heads of the Sanhedrin benefitted from Korach’s wealth, they had been bribed. It was a done deal; they were in Korach’s pocket. Korach, on the other hand, knew the score; he had not been bribed. Chazal wonder how such an astute person could act so foolishly.
