ויחר למשה מאד ויאמר אל ה' אל תפן אל מנחתם לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי ולא הרעתי את אחד מהם
When Moshe heard the complaints of Korach and his followers, he was deeply distressed and remarked that he had not taken a single donkey from them, which is difficult to understand. Amongst the accusations made by Korach and his supporters, there is no mention of Moshe taking their donkeys. Why did he feel the need to affirm that he had not done so? The Chasam Sofer (Toras Moshe, pg. 74) points out that throughout Tanach, the positions of Melech (king) and Navi (prophet) were never filled by the same person. The Gemora (Gittin 59a) says that from Moshe until Rav Yehuda HaNasi, we never find Torah and political leadership in the same person, as the roles were always kept separate. This explains why the people were astonished when they heard that Shaul was prophesying while he pursued Dovid (Shmuel 1 19:24), because they knew that the jobs of Melech and Navi are mutually exclusive. The Chasam Sofer even suggests that Shaul’s nevuah was a Divine indication that his kingship had been taken away from him and he was now eligible to receive prophecy. Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky writes that this division served as a system of checks and balances by ensuring that there was always someone who could hold the king accountable. Shaul was admonished by Shmuel, and Dovid was rebuked by Nosson. Additionally, the Chasam Sofer notes that the two institutions are fundamentally incompatible. A Melech conducts himself in a regal manner and may not relinquish the honor to which he is entitled (Kesuvos 17a). In contrast, a Navi lives modestly, as we find (Ibid., 7:16) Shmuel annually circulating from city to city to be accessible to the people. The only exception to this rule was Moshe, who in addition to serving as the humble prophet and spiritual leader for his generation was also considered the king (Ramban Devorim 33:5). This was the crux of Korach’s argument, that Moshe was wrong to combine two positions that are inherently distinct. With this introduction, Rav Yisroel Reisman suggests that we can now appreciate why Moshe defended himself by emphasizing that he had not taken a single donkey from the people. This was his way of saying that he had not exercised any of the royal prerogatives associated with the king, such as seizing property (Rambam Hilchos Melochim 4), in which case Korach’s claim that he had unjustly merged the roles of Navi and Melech was unfounded (Parsha Potpourri)
