The Reality Check of the Staff Test

Parshat Korach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

It is hard to understand how the people of Metropolis can not see that the only difference between Clark Kent and Superman is a pair of glasses. Then again, Superman is a comic book superhero.

It is similarly hard to understand how the people who participate in the test that "proves" that Aharon and the tribe of Levi were respectively chosen by God can not see that the entire sequence is a contrived setup! And here, it comes directly from God's instruction

In 17:17-18, Moshe is instructed to tell leaders of twelve tribes, each to place his name on his staff. Aharon's name is to appear on the tribe of Levi's staff.

Is Levi's staff in addition to twelve others, or is Levi one of the twelve? Yaakov had twelve sons, but usually Yosef's progeny is divided into two tribes, Efraim and Menashe, and Levi is out of the count.

If the tribe of Levi, as represented by Aharon, are in addition to the twelve tribes, why doesn't the Torah instruct there to be thirteen staffs? And if Levi is to be counted as part of the twelve, then Efraim and Menashe will not have specific representation. Will the person who represents Yosef be from Efraim or Menashe?  How could this be a fair test if Levi participates and either Menashe or Efraim is left out?

In the instructions to Moshe, Levi seems to be included as an afterthought. At the same time, Levi's ultimate triumph looks like a foregone conclusion. "Take the twelve, and make sure Aharon's staff is included in the bunch."

Apart from God's instruction, it seems strange that anyone would participate in the rouse, unless we suggest no one really cared about the outcome. This is how the e end of the story plays out. After Aharon's staff blossomed, "They saw and they took – each man his staff." (17:24) Apparently, the results were not a surprise. Maybe the whole arrangement was just a perfunctory motion to prove once and for all that Aharon and the Levites had been chosen.

This is still problematic, however, because in the end the stick test proves something no one disagreed with. Korach and his followers, all of whom were of the tribe of Levi, claimed only that others of their tribe should be allowed to serve as kohanim as well (16:6-11). Datan and Aviram and their gang – all from different tribes - challenged Moshe's leadership. They had no concerns about the role of the tribe of Levi and who should serve as kohanim.

Ramban claims there are only twelve tribes included in the test because the Torah does not rise above a hard number twelve when counting the tribes. (See his commentary on Devarim 33:6.) I would argue the possibility that the Torah can be in a manner suggesting thirteen staffs were included in the test: twelve plus Aharon's.

In the verses quoted above, twelve staffs are mentioned followed by Aharon's staff.  17:21 says, "Moshe told the Israelites to have their princes each give their staffs, one per tribe to make twelve staffs; and Aharon's staff is among their staffs." Perhaps, in addition to their staffs.

When Moshe places the staffs in the tent of the testimony, it says "He placed the staffs there," without specifying how many he carried in.

It could be everyone knew Levi would "win," and it could also be that everyone knew the test was a rouse to satisfy those of little faith. But every tribe needed to have a representative to give an image of a fighting chance to be chosen.

Human leadership does not exist in a vacuum. Yehoshua is clearly from Efraim, not from Yosef. Some of the kings in the book of Kings are clearly from Menashe, not from Yosef.

Here too, while not diminishing from the magic number twelve, we ought to consider the possibility that each tribe – including Efraim and Menashe – were aptly represented. Aharon's leadership – especially after the k'toret incident – may or may not have been contested once Korach and Co. were gone. Levi's place in the nation may have also been quite clear.

The roles we experience in our lives are either of the type we inherit, fall into, acquire or are appointed to. In some cases they are changeable, while in others they are not. The challenge is to make the best of our circumstances, and when possible, to advocate a change that is in the realm of the possible.

There is always room for civil conversation and civil debate. And, when necessary, every side should have a representative. But like Aharon and the Levites, there are sometimes when the conclusions are apparent even before the conversation begins. Somehow, we must learn to live with and grow to accept such realities.