Dear Friends,
There is a legendary story of a possibly apocryphal conversation between the Transcendentalist thinkers Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, dating to the 19th century and occurring in the vicinity of Thoreau’s famous Walden Pond haven in Concord, MA. Apparently, Emerson, who had traveled widely and learned much from his peripatetic experiences, was troubled that Thoreau had opted to stay sedentary and remain somewhat a recluse within walking distance of his cabin on the north shore of the pond. Emerson asked Thoreau why he had resisted journeys, to which Thoreau offered this response, “Wherever I go, I have to take myself with me, so I might as well stay here.”
We take ourselves with us! What a simple yet profound insight! Our idiosyncrasies and complaints, our boredom and excitement, our fears and our habits… all come along wherever we go.
This may be reflected in a little nuanced turn of phrase, which opens our Torah portion this week. We read of another rebellion by the Israelites in the ancient desert, this one led by Korah with a band of collaborators against Moses. The opening verse reads, “Now Korah, son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, betook himself, along with Dathan and Abiram… to rise up against Moses…” (Numbers 16:1)
Over the millennia, sages and commentators have tripped over this odd language that Korah… betook himself. What could that clumsy syntax or redundancy imply?
One scholar, Abraham Ibn Ezra, cast it as “he took men.” Others suggest emending the Hebrew to state “he rose” or “he was impudent.” Each are attempts to alter the questionably comprehensible meaning of that phrase.
Perhaps, however, Henry David Thoreau pegged it correctly. Korah could not divorce himself from himself. His anger at Moses so drove him to lead his disastrous rebellion, which resulted in hundreds of Israelites being punished with death and another crisis of leadership for our people. Korah could not stand down, even when Moses challenged him back. Even when facing certain defeat due to God’s loyalty to Moses, Korah remained steadfast and came out for an “OK Corral” shootout. And Korah perished. He betook himself to the grave for his bold impertinence.
Emerson might have counseled that Korah let it go, look into a distant future, and move on. Thoreau would have advised that Korah had no other option, he was inextricably fused to himself.
Either way, it is instructive: how wedded are we to ourselves? Can we argue against our own position? Can we hear our own counterpoint? Or are we lemmings to our own stubbornness?
Shabbat Shalom,
Rabbi Douglas Kohn
There is a legendary story of a possibly apocryphal conversation between the Transcendentalist thinkers Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, dating to the 19th century and occurring in the vicinity of Thoreau’s famous Walden Pond haven in Concord, MA. Apparently, Emerson, who had traveled widely and learned much from his peripatetic experiences, was troubled that Thoreau had opted to stay sedentary and remain somewhat a recluse within walking distance of his cabin on the north shore of the pond. Emerson asked Thoreau why he had resisted journeys, to which Thoreau offered this response, “Wherever I go, I have to take myself with me, so I might as well stay here.”
We take ourselves with us! What a simple yet profound insight! Our idiosyncrasies and complaints, our boredom and excitement, our fears and our habits… all come along wherever we go.
This may be reflected in a little nuanced turn of phrase, which opens our Torah portion this week. We read of another rebellion by the Israelites in the ancient desert, this one led by Korah with a band of collaborators against Moses. The opening verse reads, “Now Korah, son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, betook himself, along with Dathan and Abiram… to rise up against Moses…” (Numbers 16:1)
Over the millennia, sages and commentators have tripped over this odd language that Korah… betook himself. What could that clumsy syntax or redundancy imply?
One scholar, Abraham Ibn Ezra, cast it as “he took men.” Others suggest emending the Hebrew to state “he rose” or “he was impudent.” Each are attempts to alter the questionably comprehensible meaning of that phrase.
Perhaps, however, Henry David Thoreau pegged it correctly. Korah could not divorce himself from himself. His anger at Moses so drove him to lead his disastrous rebellion, which resulted in hundreds of Israelites being punished with death and another crisis of leadership for our people. Korah could not stand down, even when Moses challenged him back. Even when facing certain defeat due to God’s loyalty to Moses, Korah remained steadfast and came out for an “OK Corral” shootout. And Korah perished. He betook himself to the grave for his bold impertinence.
Emerson might have counseled that Korah let it go, look into a distant future, and move on. Thoreau would have advised that Korah had no other option, he was inextricably fused to himself.
Either way, it is instructive: how wedded are we to ourselves? Can we argue against our own position? Can we hear our own counterpoint? Or are we lemmings to our own stubbornness?
Shabbat Shalom,
Rabbi Douglas Kohn
