Comentario citado sobre Números 16:27

ויצא בן אשה ישראלית, “the son of an Israelite woman went out, (became involved in a serious argument) the word יצא is used in this sense also in Numbers 16,27: יצאו נצבים, “they went out in a challenging posture;” as well as in Proverbs 25,8: אל תצא לריב מהר, “do not be in a hurry to start a quarrel; this is the plain meaning of the line. Rashi on this line comments that this man whose father was an Egyptian, went to pitch his tent among the tents of the tribe of Dan, his mother’s tribe, as stated by the Torah. The Danites rejected him as tribal allegiance is based on the father and not on the mother. When he came to Moses complaining, the court upheld the opinion of the Danites. As a result of being frustrated, he cursed the G-d Who had so discriminated against him. The Torah had ruled that the tribes should each take up positions in camp in the vicinity of their respective tribal flags. Numbers 2,2. This man then ridiculed a religion which sees fit to offer its G-d bread that had been baked as long ago as a whole week ago, instead of presenting Him daily with fresh bread. This had come to his attention on a Sabbath. According to tradition, the incident with the blasphemer and that with the person who had collected kindling on the Sabbath occurred about the same time. This seems difficult to accept as the incident with the person collecting firewood on the Sabbath occurred in the first year of the Israelites’ wandering. Any incident involving tribal allegiance could not have happened until the second year when the order in which the Israelites took up their positions relative to the Tabernacle in their midst was established during the second month of the second year.

The son of an Israelite woman came out from his tent. Compare, “they came out and stood at the entrance of their tents” [Numbers 16:27].

כי מתו כל האנשים, “for all the people have died, etc.” according to Rashi the words כל האנשים refer to Datan and Aviram, the two men who had told Pharaoh about his slaying the Egyptian. How could G’d describe them as “having died,” when during the uprising of Korach a couple of years later, they were very much alive and ringleaders in that rebellion? The answer is that whereas at the time the incident with the Egyptian occurred these two men were among the wealthiest Jews in Egypt, so that what they said carried weight, in the meantime both had become paupers so that their influence was nil, no more than that of dead people. Sometimes people afflicted with the dreaded disease tzoraat are described as “dead,” as they are isolated beyond contact with society, but this was not the case with Datan and Aviram, whose posture in Numbers 16 shows them a) to have resided within the camp, and b) to have had good eyesight. C) They could not even have been described as “dead” because they had no children, as the Torah describes their challenging Moses brazenly together with their wives and children (Numbers 16,27). However, it is difficult to understand why both of these men should have wanted Moses dead, seeing he had saved the life of one of them by his interference in their quarrel? Besides, granted that both men had become paupers, how did this prevent them from being a threat to Moses’ life? They could still act as informers to Pharaoh? According to the plain meaning of the text, G’d informed Moses that the one who had ever been a real threat to him, i.e. Pharaoh, had died physically.

ויפגעו AND THEY MET — men of Israel met — את משה ואהרן וגו׳ MOSES AND AARON etc.; Our Rabbis explained that wherever it speaks of people “quarelling” (2:13; cf. Rashi on that verse) or “standing” these were Dathan and Abiram about whom it is stated (Numbers 16:27) “[And Dathan and Abiram] came out standing” (Nedarim 64b).