This week's Torah portion (in Israel) is Korach (Bamidbar 16-18), which always leads to thoughts of social division and controversy. Let us discuss the roots of his ancient dispute and why it is poisonous to a society.

In today's sharp societal debate regarding proposed reforms to Israel's judicial system, one of the most charged issues is that of "equality." One side views equality as a supreme value that must be accorded a place of honor in Israel's unwritten Constitution that the Supreme Court is attempting to create. The other group views equality as a threat to Israel's identity as the State of the Jewish People, which by definition must actualize Jewish values.

This dispute forces us to clarify what the Torah has to say about the concept of equality, even if the word itself does not appear there.

The ancient world was hierarchical, predicated on the idea that some people were born to be kings, some to be subjects, and others to be slaves. This perception perfectly paralleled their world of idol worship, in which a supreme god ruled and tyrannized the lower gods. The Torah of Israel created a revolution: no more plurality of gods, but one single God Who created all human beings in His image. All human beings were born from one couple, and everyone shares a basic common denominator: everyone was created equal.

The Sages expressed this in Tractate Sanhedrin (37a), which states that one reason man (Adam) was created single was "for the sake of peace, so that no one may say to another, 'My father is greater than yours.'" Jewish ethics therefore demands certain basic universal duties that apply to every human being: "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "There shall be one law and one judgment for you" - not only for the citizen, but also "for the stranger who dwells among you."

Yes, the Torah grants great importance to "equality" before the law, to the extent that even a King is subject equally to Torah laws. Men and women are equal in terms of their essential Halakhic obligations; the lands in Eretz Yisrael were distributed equally proportionately to the Tribes, the manna portions were allocated equally; and the half-shekel obligation was equal: one half-shekel for each.

Why then do we see that today's religious public shies away, to put it mildly, from the progressive concept of "equality"?

The first problem is that equality is defined as an independent moral value. Indeed, all human beings are created in the image of God – but how does this logically lead to the conclusion that they must be equal in everything? The Torah and the teachings of the Sages do not define equality as a value, but rather as a "standard of justice." That is, the essence of the law is its universality, and if it discriminates without cause between people, it is unjust - and an unjust law is not binding (Sh. Ar., Choshen Mishpat 369,6).

This does not mean that private resources that a person acquired through his own initiative and efforts must be distributed to others so that all end up with the same amount (although he must give some to the poor). Equality, therefore, is an important measure of justice, but it is not the sole parameter. Turning equality into an independent moral value mars other aspects of justice, and as such is injustice, or worse.

The Totality of it

The second flaw in today's concept of equality is its totality. It appears to be given priority over every other value it confronts. Thus, the IDF is being gradually ordered to allow girls into every army combat unit, whilst trampling not only the values of modesty and the boundaries between the genders – but also that of "victory." Thus in a series of Supreme Court rulings, Jewish and Zionist values are being displaced to make way for civil equality.

The Torah does not take that direction. Yes, "man is beloved because he was created in G-d's image" (Avot 3,14), but "Israel is My first-born son" (4,22). Israel itself is divided into Cohanim, Levites, and Israelites; men and women have different Halakhic obligations; the lots of the Land were divided equally, but in the end, various calculations had to be made, resulting in inequality (see Bava Batra 117a). Equality is clearly important, but its value relative to others is far from absolute.

How Did This Happen?

How did equality become such a primary value in contemporary moral thinking? In the past, society was perceived as an organic body. Just as the human body is composed of organs, tissues, and cells, so human society is composed of nations, tribes, communities, and families. In an organic system, there is no equality. Each of the components has its own characteristics, its own needs, and its own roles. But it also has reciprocity, even if not symmetrical. A Jewish marriage is not based on equality, but rather on reciprocity; each partner has different duties and rights. The family thus functions as one body.

So too the nation: Different roles and privileges are allocated to Cohanim, Levites, and Israelites, as well as to Torah scholars and people of action (the tribes of Yissachar and Zevulun, respectively). The foundation upon which social morality is based in such a structure is the value of brotherhood. This explains why in most of the Torah's social commandments, "your brother," "your fellow," and "your neighbor" appear in various inflections. And thus cries out the last of the prophets: "Have we not all one father? Has not one God created us?" (Malachi 2,10).

The modern world dismantled society into isolated individuals, each fighting for his own rights and collapsing the value of brotherhood. Each person derived his sense of worth from his own achievements and status, leading of course to constant competition and friction. The absolute importance of "equality" was then introduced. But since full equality cannot be realized in any society, we must acknowledge that this new system simply does not work. Focusing on equality generates an endless discourse of envy.

However, in the organic perception presented by the Torah of Israel, we derive our sense of worth from two concepts: belonging and meaning. This leads to a deep commitment of every person toward his fellow, as well as joy in the happiness of others - and certainly in that of the community - when they succeed. The individualistic, equality approach deepens competition, while the organic approach deepens cooperation between them.

And thus taught our saintly Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook: "G-d's created world is full of distinctions, and one must not ignore this or blur them. However, differentiation is not separation; division leads to wars, while distinctions lead to cooperation and harmony."

This was the critical mistake made by Korach. He understood correctly that "the entire congregation is holy" (16,3), but he abandoned the organic conception of the nation, in which "each person according to his camp" (1,52); each individual serves the community in a different role, with mutual respect and appreciation. Korach adapted the individualistic approach, and thus led the rebellion against Moshe and Aharon. And because he left the discourse of brotherhood and adopted instead that of jealousy, he was swallowed up in the earth and became an eternal symbol of divisiveness.

Translated by Hillel Fendel

In order to get Shiurim like this every week directly to your Inbox, click here