Korach says “everyone is holy.” (N. 16:3)
Why does he think that? Because for Korach, the people are already holy. For him, holiness is a state of being, which the Jews already achieved because G-d delivered us from Egypt, and took care of us in the wilderness.
If Korach is right, then the commandments cannot be (as Moshe tells the people) about growing toward holiness, because we are already there! Instead, he sees the commandments as being an expression of Moshe’s capricious abuses of power, with no underlying meaning or justification.
Thus, the very nature of Korach’s criticism of Moshe suggests that the commandments are not divine in origin or justified for any reason beyond Moshe’s whim. And we know this, because, as Korach says, the people are already holy!
So, in his mind, Korach is not challenging G-d at all! He is challenging Moshe for levying arbitrary and meaningless laws on the people.
Why would Korach see the laws as capricious, having no underlying meaning? Because he does not understand them!
It seems to me that this was and is not a problem unique to Korach. It is instead a problem for all peoples and at all times: if the laws do not make sense, if they are merely meaningless rituals, then Torah ideals are unable to grow and spread among Jews, or, indeed, in the world.
The Torah has been denigrated across the millennia in two primary ways: First, there are those (primarily secular) who read the Torah in a cursory manner and who then concoct very superficial, pop-philosophy explanations like: “leprosy is about ancient understandings of contagion”, or “kosher food is about assimilation.” These “explanations” reflect contempt for the ancient world, and the assumption that the document has no real depth, and so can be trivially rationalized. For these critics, any shallow explanation will do.
The second way in the Torah is denigrated is by assuming, as Korach does, that the commandments are really nonsensical because they are actually meant to be tests of faith and obedience. In this approach, the commandments are an ordeal designed to separate the faithful from the unfaithful. So symbolic commandments that are not readily understood are there only to be inscrutable. Their very purpose is thus to see if we will do what we are told, even when we do not understand.
This second approach also denies any deeper depth to the text, and it goes so far as to reject outright the mere idea that there could be good explanations for every commandment.
Both of the above approaches are not supported by the text itself. the Torah itself never suggests that symbolic commandments are either for practical purposes (like health), or deliberately unknowable. On the contrary, the text tells us that we should study and examine it, to love and understand G-d and the Torah He has gifted to us! (see D. 4: 5-6, 29, 6:4-9, 30:11-14). We are commanded to study and learn – not only Talmudic expositions of how to do the commandments: it also includes understanding why we should do them. (The “how” is detailed within the Oral Law, while the “why” is actually found within the written text itself.)
We can correct the error of Korach and all who echo his argument that the commandments are essentially pointless. And we do it by taking a closer look at the commandments, as seen through the text itself.
If the commandments can be explained, then they are not merely tests of faith: the commandments are instead also there to teach us about their underlying meaning.
Which tells us that instead of merely stating something along the lines of: “We cannot know or understand this commandment,” we would do well to instead say, “let’s study the text more carefully to try to understand what G-d had in mind when He gave us this commandment. Let’s try to understand how a symbolic commandment leads us toward holiness – how the commandments guide us toward enhanced relationships with man and G-d.”
In so doing, we not only are fulfilling the commandment to study and learn. We are also able to correct a persistent misbelief that the Torah does not reveal its secrets if we apply ourselves.
After all, the Torah is the single most foundational document in the history of Western Civilization, truly withstanding the Test of Time. We would be fools to not take it seriously, on its own terms.
P.S. The author has offered explanations for a great many of the chukim, the symbolic commandments, including the red heifer, kosher food, and others (see creativejudaism.org and use the search tool). Other authors, including many at Gush (most prominently Menachem Leibtag) and Joseph Cox have also advanced superb explanations for the sacrifices and other symbolic laws.
Note that it is core to biblical exegesis that there are different – but still viable – answers to the same questions, and so any given explanation can shed light without necessarily shedding light using every possible perspective. One is reminded of the parable of the blind men surrounding an elephant and characterizing it by what they perceive. None of these men is wrong but by the same token, none of them grasps the full picture. Explanations for chukim, symbolic commandments, are very much like that. There is always more than one solid explanation for anything commanded in the Torah.