Commentaire sur Les Nombres 16:36

ויקח קרח — This section is beautifully expounded in the Midrash of Rabbi Tanchuma.

VAYIKACH KORACH’ (AND KORACH TOOK). “This section is explained in a beautiful way in the Midrash of Rabbi Tanchuma.¹The Rabbis of the Talmud composed two great exegetical commentaries on the Bible, whose aim was to spread moral, ethical and religious teachings, as they are derived from a study of the Scriptures. These are the Midrash Rabbah and Midrash Tanchuma, both works of Palestinian Rabbis. The Midrash Rabbah is on the Five Books of Moses and the five Scrolls. As its name Rabbah (Great), indicates, it is the largest homiletical work of the Rabbis of the Talmud. Next in importance is the Midrash Tanchuma on the Five Books of Moses, composed by Rabbi Tanchuma ben Abba, of the fourth century of the Common Era. This Midrash was very popular, and Rashi relies upon it for a great deal of Agadic material, which he often incorporates into his commentary. On the relationship of the Midrash Tanchuma to Midrash Yelamdeinu, see Volume II, Seder Bo, p. 131, Note 196. Vayikach Korach — he betook himself²Since the object of the verb [vayikach — “and he took”] is not mentioned in the verse, Rashi explains that it is reflexive in meaning, referring to Korach himself: “Korach betook himself to one side etc.” Ramban suggests a number of other possible interpretations. to one side in order to separate himself from the [rest of the] congregation so that he could contend for the priesthood [which Moses had conferred upon Aaron and his sons, and Korach claimed that it belonged to all Israel]. This is [also] Onkelos’ intention in translating [the word vayikach as] v’ithpleig — ‘he separated himself’ from the congregation to persist in his contention. Similarly, Why ‘yikachacha’ thy heart?³Job 15:12. These are the words of Eliphaz the Temanite, when criticizing Job for lack of trust in G-d. means: [Why does your heart] ‘carry you away’ to separate yourself from the rest of the people?”
But the opinion of the Midrash [Tanchuma quoted further on] is not in accordance with the Rabbi’s [i.e., Rashi’s] interpretation,⁴Ramban understood Rashi’s comment as meaning that Korach betook himself physically and left his tent, setting up his quarters outside the camp in order to gather people together to rally to him in his dispute with Moses. In Ramban’s opinion, however, the Midrash clearly means that Korach’s heart stirred him up to revolt (Mizrachi), but not that he betook himself elsewhere physically. See also my Hebrew commentary, pp. 254-255. for the Rabbis have said there: “The term vayikach always denotes ‘division,’ [and here it means] that his heart took control of him, in a similar manner to that which it says, Why ‘yikachacha’ thy heart?”³Job 15:12. These are the words of Eliphaz the Temanite, when criticizing Job for lack of trust in G-d. The verse thus does not mean to say that Korach betook himself [physically] to one side [of the camp]. Similarly, Why ‘yikachacha’ thy heart?³Job 15:12. These are the words of Eliphaz the Temanite, when criticizing Job for lack of trust in G-d. does not mean that it [your heart] takes you to one side to separate yourself [physically] from other people. Instead, the meaning of the [interpretation of the] Midrash on [the phrase] Vayikach Korach is that he took counsel in his heart to do that which [Scripture] relates [subsequently], for [the term] “taking” applies also to counsel and thought. Similarly, Why ‘yikachacha’ thy heart?³Job 15:12. These are the words of Eliphaz the Temanite, when criticizing Job for lack of trust in G-d. means: “What thought does your heart lead you to, that you should be thinking secretly: ‘There is no justice nor Judge,’ and you do not reveal it? Or, and why do thine eyes wink?,³Job 15:12. These are the words of Eliphaz the Temanite, when criticizing Job for lack of trust in G-d. for one can notice from your winkings that you deny G-d’s justice, but you do not utter [that belief] openly, but [instead] you complain [of injustice], as one who conceals his intent.” Eliphaz said this to Job before Job explained his thoughts in a clearly-expressed statement, [saying] that the Creator’s concern does not extend to the individuals of the lower beings [of each species]. Therefore Eliphaz said to Job: And thou sayest: ‘What doth G-d know? Can He judge through the dark cloud?’⁵Job 22:13. This is the true meaning of that reply [of Eliphaz to Job: Why ‘yikachacha’ thy heart? and why do thine eyes wink?³Job 15:12. These are the words of Eliphaz the Temanite, when criticizing Job for lack of trust in G-d. — as is apparent] to one who considers it carefully. Similarly we find the term “taking” used of “thinking”: ‘k’chu’ (take) my instruction;⁶Proverbs, 8:10. This clearly cannot refer to taking physically, but means: “think of my instruction and guide your conduct accordingly.” nor ‘kachath’ (to take) instruction.⁷Jeremiah 17:23.
The Rabbis have further said in the Midrash:⁸Bamidmar Rabbah 18:13. “Scripture does not state here: And Korach ‘quarelled,’ or ‘spoke,’ or ‘commanded,’ but it says vayikach (and he took). What did he take? He did not take anything; rather, it was his heart that took [control of] him, just as Scripture says, Why doth thy heart take thee?”³Job 15:12. These are the words of Eliphaz the Temanite, when criticizing Job for lack of trust in G-d. This [Midrash] coincides with what I have explained. And Onkelos who translated: [vayikach as] v’ithpleig (“and he separated himself”) explained the [expression according to its] general meaning, not according to its literal sense, as is his habit in many places. Thus also he translated [the expression] about ‘d’var’ (the matter of) Korach⁹Further, 17:14. as “about ‘the strife’ of Korach,” while ‘bi’dvar’ (the matter of) Balaam¹⁰Ibid., 31:16. he translated as “through ‘the counsel’ of Balaam,” because he mentions the [whole] subject-matter in his translation [rather than the literal meaning, as illustrated by the change in the translation of the word d’var in the above example].
And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote: “And Korach took [means he took] ‘men,’ the phrase being elliptical, as in: chamor lechem¹¹I Samuel 16:20. [literally: ‘an ass of bread,’ which means: ‘an ass laden with bread’].” Others¹²This interpretation I have found in the commentary of Chizkuni. See Genesis, Vol. I p. 298, Note 109, where the same expression “Others” also refers to Chizkuni. explain that [the word] v’dathan (and Dathan) [in the phrase: And Korach took … and Dathan] is like the verse, And these are the children of Zibeon: ‘and’ Ajah, and Anah¹³Genesis 36:24. See Vol. I, p. 440. [where the letter vav in the word v’ayah is redundant, and here too the vav in v’dathan is redundant], and its correct meaning is thus: “and Korach took Dathan and Abiram” [and they rose up before Moses]. But in my opinion there is no need for [these interpretations], for it is quite correct for the [Sacred] Language to say: “and Korach took and Dathan, and they rose,¹⁴Verse 2. and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron,”¹⁵Verse 3. because the [word] “taking” always occurs at the beginning of an event, being an expression of taking action to [do] that deed. Similarly, And Absalom in his lifetime had ‘taken’ and reared up for himself the pillar¹⁶II Samuel 18:18. [which means that “he bestirred himself” to set up the pillar]. And if you prefer to explain that the term “taking” refers to the object mentioned subsequently, [so that the verse quoted means]: “and Absalom took the pillar and reared it up for himself in his lifetime” — you may likewise explain [our phrase] “and Korach took” [as referring to] the men of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty,¹⁴Verse 2. and they rose up before Moses, and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron.¹⁵Verse 3.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that this incident [of Korach’s rebellion] happened in the wilderness of Sinai when the firstborns were exchanged [for the Levites]¹⁷Above, 3:44-51. and the Levites were separated [to do the Divine service in the Tent of Meeting],¹⁸Ibid., 8:5-22. for [some] Israelites thought that Moses our master did this of his own accord so that he could bestow greatness upon his brother [Aaron] and on the children of Kohath who were his relatives,¹⁹Kohath was Moses’ grandfather. Since Kohath had three other sons beside Amram — namely, Itzhar, Hebron, and Uzziel (above, 3:19) — some people thought that Moses gave the Kohathites special distinction in the Tabernacle service of his own accord (see above, Chapter 4:1-20) because they were his relatives. In actual fact, of course, he did everything by Divine command (see above, 3:40, 4:1 and 8:5). and on all the Levites, since they were of his family. The Levites [nevertheless] joined the conspiracy against him [Moses] because they were given to Aaron and to his sons,²⁰Above, 8:19. and Dathan and Abiram [who were of the tribe of Reuben] joined in the rebellion because Moses took away the right of the firstborn from their ancestor Reuben [and gave it to Joseph].²¹See (Genesis), Vol. I, pp. 570-572. Here the reference is to the fact that Moses considered Joseph’s sons, Ephraim and Menasheh, as two separate tribes, and Dathan and Abiram claimed that this distinction should have been conferred upon Reuben the firstborn. Korach too was a firstborn.²²Exodus 6:21 — And the sons of Itzhar: Korach, and Nepheg, and Zichri. — Now before the Tabernacle was set up, the service of the offerings was performed by any of the firstborn in Israel (Zebachim 112b), but afterwards it was performed only by priests. As a firstborn, Korach was thus personally amongst those deprived of his prerogative under the new order established by Moses. [Thus far are Ibn Ezra’s comments.] Now all this is based on the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra [himself] who has said in many places, as it pleases him, that there is no strict chronological order in the [narrative of the] Torah, but I have already written²³In (Exodus), Vol. II, pp. 252, 419, and in Leviticus 8:2. Here too, Ramban’s objection is that according to Ibn Ezra the rebellion of Korach took place when Israel was still encamped in the wilderness of Sinai although their departure from there has already been recorded long ago (above, 10:12)! Since then there had already been many other stages in their journey through the desert (see e.g. above, 11:35, 12:16)! that in my opinion the whole Torah follows the chronological sequence, except for those places where Scripture [itself] expressly states the “earlier” and the “later,”²⁴I.e., if the verses clearly state the dates. See, for example, the section commencing above in Chapter 9, where the date given is clearly before the date of the previous chapters (see Chapter 1, Verse 1). and even then it is [only changed] for a particular purpose and for good reason. But this matter [i.e., the rebellion of Korach] happened in the wilderness of Paran,²⁵Above, 12:16. in Kadesh-barnea,²⁶Deuteronomy 1:19. It is from Kadesh-barnea that they sent the spies, as related in the Book of Deuteronomy, ibid. after the incident of the spies [and not, as Ibn Ezra wrote, before the sending of the spies].
A correct interpretation by way of homiletic exposition is that Korach became angry because of the status of prince [of the Kohathites]²⁷Above, 3:30. bestowed [by Moses] upon Elizaphan, as our Rabbis have said,²⁸Said Korach: “My grandfather Kohath had four sons: Amram, Itzhar, Hebron and Uzziel (Exodus 6:18). The two sons of Amram, the eldest, namely Moses and Aaron, assumed the royalty and the priesthood. Who is entitled to the next rank — the prince of the Kohathites — if not I, the eldest of the second son of Kohath, Itzhar? And yet he [i.e., Moses] went and appointed Elizaphan, whose father was Uzziel, the youngest son of my grandfather!” (Tanchuma Korach 1, mentioned by Rashi). and he was also jealous of Aaron, as it is said, and seek ye the priesthood also!²⁹Further, Verse 10. Dathan and Abiram [who were of the tribe of Reuben] were attracted to Korach, but not because of the [loss of their] birthright, for it was their father Jacob who had deprived Reuben of it and given it to Joseph;³⁰Genesis 48:5. however, they too, voiced their complaint [by saying that Moses had taken the people out of Egypt] to kill us in the wilderness,³¹Further, Verse 13. and moreover thou hast not brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey.³²Ibid., Verse 14. Now as long as Israel was in the wilderness of Sinai no evil happening befell them, for even after the incident of the [golden] calf, which was a serious and well-known sin, those who died [as a punishment] were few, and the people were saved by Moses’ prayer when he fell down before the Eternal the forty days and forty nights.³³Deuteronomy 9:25. Thus they loved Moses as [they loved] themselves, and they obeyed him, so that had anybody rebelled against Moses at that time, the people would have stoned him. Therefore Korach endured the greatness of Aaron [when he was appointed High Priest], and the firstborns accepted [without protest] the high status of the Levites, and all [the other] acts of Moses. But when they came to the wilderness of Paran²⁵Above, 12:16. and [some people] were burnt in Taberah,³⁴Above, 11:3. and many died in Kibroth-hattaavah,³⁵Ibid., Verse 34. and when after sinning [in the matter of] the spies Moses did not pray on their behalf,³⁶See Ramban above, 14:17 (towards the end) who explains the reason for this. so that the decree against them was thus not annulled, and the princes of all the tribes died by the plague before the Eternal³⁷Ibid., Verse 37. and it was decreed that the whole people would be consumed in the wilderness and there they shall die,³⁸Ibid., Verse 35. then the mood of the whole people became embittered, and they said in their hearts that mishaps occur to them through Moses’ words. Therefore Korach found it an opportune occasion to contest Moses’ deeds, thinking that the people would [readily] listen to him. This was the intention of [the statement of Dathan and Abiram that Moses had taken the people out of Egypt] to kill us in the wilderness,³¹Further, Verse 13. meaning: “Behold, you have brought us to this place and you have not fulfilled that which you promised to give us, [namely to take us to] a land flowing with milk and honey,³²Ibid., Verse 14. for you have not given us any inheritance at all; instead we will die in the wilderness and be wiped out there, for our children will also never come out of the wilderness, and that which you promised our children will also not be fulfilled, just as it did not come to realization with respect to their parents.” This then was the reason why they murmured particularly at this juncture immediately after the [Divine] decree because of the spies. It is likely that all those who assembled [against Moses] were firstborns, and therefore they were annoyed about the priesthood [which was taken away from them],³⁹See Note 22 above. and that is why Moses told them to take censers [and put incense upon them⁴⁰Further, Verses 6-7. as they used formerly to do, and it would become clear thereby whether G-d preferred them or the priests.

ויקח קרח, these verses have to be read as if the Torah had written: “Korach, Datan and Aviram as well as On son of Pelet, plus others totaling 250 men, all men of distinguished standing in the community. They rose up against Moses, supported by people from the Children of Israel.” This is followed by:

ויקח קרח, Korach took, etc. What did the Torah mean when it wrote ויקח, "he took," without telling us what it was that Korach took? Our sages in Bamidbar Rabbah 18 say that he took himself to one side. This implies that he diminished himself thereby. [I have not found this quote in that chapter of the Midrash Rabbah Ed.] When we think of Korach, we automatically think of someone who separated himself from the main body and lost out thereby. If the Midrash meant the same as Onkelos who renders the word as meaning that Korach seceded or differed, this is not accurate, philologically speaking. Clearly, Onkelos did not translate the word but explained its intent. Whereas both the Midrash and Onkelos are correct, there is yet a way to explain the word both as philologically appropriate and as reflecting an acceptable meaning. Furthermore, why did G'd list such great men as Yitzhar, Kehat and Levi, thereby associating them with Korach, when there was no need for this? This is especially puzzling since our sages say in Bamidbar Rabbah 18,5 that Jacob prayed on his deathbed that his name not be associated with that of Korach? This proves that under ordinary circumstances his name should have been associated with Korach and that he was spared this only on account of his prayer. Personally, I am amazed at the list of outstanding ancestors of Korach whom the Torah did list. Thirdly, why did the Torah write ודתן ואבירם, in the same breath? What had they done to be lumped together with Korach? If the Torah meant to tell us that they too quarrelled, the Torah should have mentioned their names beside that of Korach, thus: ויקחו, "they took!" On the other hand, if the Torah meant that Korach took these men to join him in his quarrel with Moses, then their names should not have been preceded by the conjunctive letter ו. Fourthly, what did the Torah mean with the words "they rose up in the face of Moses and Aaron?" If it means that these people came to quarrel, the Torah has stated this already when it wrote ויקהלו על משה ואהרן, "they assembled themselves together against Moses and Aaron?" If the words merely mean that Datan and Aviram assumed an upright posture vis-a-vis Moses and Aaron, why did the Torah write the two verbs ויקהלו and ויקמו in separate verses and separate them from the other 250 men?

ויקח קרח, he approached;

ויקח קרח, “Korach took, etc.” According to Nachmanides the word ויקח, -seeing that the Torah does not spell out what it was that Korach took- refers to Korach “consulting” with his heart to embark on a certain course of action, the details of which the Torah will reveal shortly. The root לקח may be employed when speaking of “taking” advice, etc. It also occurs in Scripture in the context of embarking on a good and wholesome plan, as in Job 15,12 מה יקחך לבך, “How your heart has carried you away!” Another example of the use of that word in such a context is Proverbs 8,10 קחו מוסרי ואל כסף, “accept my discipline instead of silver!” Ibn Ezra explains the word ויקח as an abbreviated version of “Korach took for himself a number of men, etc.” Some commentators believe that the predicate of the words ויקח קרח is Datan and Aviram and that the letter ו in ודתן , is extraneous. We encounter something analogous in Genesis 36,24 ואיה וענה where there also appears no need for the letter ו in the word ואיה. The meaning of the phrase in our verse then would be ויקח קרח דתן ואבירם, “Korach took Datan and Aviram.” Ibn Ezra, in trying to fix the point in time when Korach’s rebellion took place, claims that it occurred in the desert of Sinai [way before the debacle with the spies and the resultant lack of a future for his generation. Ed.] The flashpoint for the rebellion was the exchange of the privileges formerly accorded to the firstborn for the Levites. The rebels believed that Moses had acted high-handedly and that G’d had not initiated this switch. They believed that what had occurred was an act of nepotism on the part of Moses who wanted to fill the most coveted positions in the nation with members of his immediate family. They included not only his brother and nephews, but even the sons of Kehat, and the Levites in general as they were members of his tribe. Datan and Aviram used this as a pretext for rebelling, seeing that they, as members of the tribe of Reuven, had both already been deprived of their status as “firstborns,” and the tribe of Joseph had i.e. members of that tribe, had been given this preferred status. Perhaps they thought that Joshua, who was Moses’ personal valet and a member of the tribe of Ephrayim, whose own status within the tribe of Joseph had already been amended through his being nominated as the senior of Joseph’s sons by his grandfather Yaakov, although he was chronologically the junior, had been promoted as an arbitrary act by Moses. The Levites, generally, resented that only Moses’ immediate family had been accorded the status of priests, not the whole tribe. Nachmanides accuses Ibn Ezra of speculating, seeing that he cited no sources to support his theory. He does not accept the theory that the Torah reports events other than in chronological order, unless, of course the Torah itself, by giving a date for a happening, draws our attention to the fact that it was not recorded in chronological order, such as the events in Numbers 9,1 which clearly occurred earlier than the count described in Numbers chapter 1-2.

This passage is beautifully expounded by Midrash Rabbi Tanchuma. Rashi is answering the question: Why does the Torah use the term “took”? However, given that Rashi says in Parshas Bereishis (3:8) the he comes only to explain the plain meaning of the Torah, not its Midrashic interpretation, he therefore says here that “this chapter is beautifully expounded…” Since the Midrashic explanation is close to the plain meaning, Rashi explains it according to the Midrashic interpretation and it is not necessary to explain it according to the plain meaning.

Kap. 16. V. 1. שלח לך war der Abschnitt von der Empörung gegen Gott, קרח ist der Abschnitt von der Empörung gegen Mosche. — ויקח קרח ohne Objekt. So auch ואבשלם לקח ויצב לו בחייו את מצבת וגו׳ (Sam. II. 18, 18). Grammatisch ist die ganze folgende Tätigkeit das Objekt der לקיחה, logisch bezeichnet beides ein unberechtigtes Vorgehen im eigenen Interesse. Absalom nahm sich das Recht, maßte sich an, sich selbst bei seinen Lebzeiten ein Denkmal zu setzen. Korach nahm sich das Recht, maßte sich an, Mosche und Aharon wegen ihrer Stellung im Volke zur Rede zu stellen. Indem dies aber durch לקיחה ausgedrückt ist, liegt darin zugleich, dass das Motiv seines Vorgehens ein selbstsüchtiges war, er tat es für sich, und die Form der Vertretung der Gesamtheitinteressen war eben nur Form, war Schein.

ויקח קרח, “Korach betook himself;” according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin, folio 109, the above words mean that Korach made a bad bargain by challenging Moses and Aaron. He caused a “bald spot” among the Israelites, his very name meaning: “bald,” devoid of hair where there ought to be hair. An alternate interpretation of the use of the word: ויקח, at the beginning of this portion. The numerical value of the letters in his name i.e. 308, is equivalent to the word שדד, “he destroyed, laid waste;” he did not observe the laws of the Torah.

ויקח קרח, “Korach took, etc.” Korach acquired people, sympathisers; which people did he acquire specifically?Datan and Abiram, sons of Eliav, as well as On ben Pelet, members of the tribe of Reuven, other discontents. The letter ו in the word ודתן is superfluous, but there are numerous such letters ו in similar situations.

ויקח קרח lit., AND KORAH TOOK — He betook himself on one side with the view of separating himself from out of the community so that he might raise a protest regarding the priesthood to which Moses had appointed his brother. This is what Onkelos means when he renders it by ואתפלג — “he separated himself” from the rest of the community in order to maintain dissension. Similar is, (Job 15:12) “Why doth thy heart take thee aside (יקחך)”, meaning, it takes you aside to separate you from other people (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 2). — Another explanation of ויקח קרח is: he attracted (won over) the chiefs of the Sanhedrin amongst them (the people) by fine words. The word is used here in a figurative sense just as in. (Leviticus 8:2) “Take (קח) Aaron”; (Hosea 14:3) “Take (קחו) words with you” (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 1).

בני ראובן, some of the members of that tribe.

Disassociated from the community. Meaning: This taking was in thought — in his heart — and his heart was the subject [of the taking] while Korach was the object. Consequently ויקח (he took) has the same meaning as ויוקח (he was taken) which concurs with the Targum who translates as ואתפלג.

The Torah wanted to tell us about the root cause of the quarrel. Anyone who reads the Torah must ask himself how Korach could even have imagined that his uprising could succeed? Moses' stature as an outstanding prophet had been proven over and over again so that it is strange for Korach to have imagined that he could succeed before the people would simply stone him to death for his impertinence! This is why the Torah tells us that Korach, a very clever man "took," i.e. he took stock of the factors which would give him a chance to rally the people around him. First, the Torah tells us that he was a son of יצהר older than his younger brothers Chevron and Uzziel. Kehat's younger sons could not present a claim against Korach seeing he was the oldest one surviving. [Amram was the oldest son of Kehat but may have died prior to the Exodus. Ed.] Secondly, he was a son (grandson) of Kehat the most illustrious of the sons of Levi, the ones entrusted with carrying the Holy Ark. Our sages say that Korach personally was one of the bearers of the Holy Ark. Thirdly, he was a descendant of Levi the most illustrious of the twelve tribes.

בן יצהר, “son of Yizthar;” who had illuminated the earth as does the sun at noon;

Compare one in Genesis 46,9 ובני ראובן חנוך ופלוא. Pelet and Phalu are identical, Eliav being the son of latter. We know this from Numbers 26,8. Seeing that the Torah previously had written in Numbers 14,35: במדבר הזה יתמו ושם ימותו, “in this desert they will be consumed, there they will die,” the Torah here explains why some of them died as the result of other specific occurrences, not just the sin of the spies. These people were quite numerous, including the twenty four thousand who died during the last year of the wanderings at Shittim as a result of sleeping with Moabite women and having worshipped the deity, Baal Peor of those women. Not a single one of the adult males who had left Egypt and who were alive during that debacle survived the march through the desert. (Numbers 26,64)

בן יצהר בן קהת בן לוי [KORAH] THE SON OF IZHAR, THE SON OF KOHATH, THE SON OF LEVI — It does not, however, make mention of Levi being “the son of Jacob”, because he (Jacob) offered prayer for himself that his name should not be mentioned in connection with their (the Korahites') quarrels, as it is said, (Genesis 49:6) “with their assembly, my glory. be thou not united”. And where is his name mentioned in connection with Korah? In the passage in Chronicles where their (the Korahites’) genealogy is traced in connection with the “Duchan” (properly the platform — the place on which the Levites were stationed for the service of song in the Temple), as it is said, (I Chronicles 6:22—23) “the son of Ebiasaph, the son of Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, the son of Israel” (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 4).

Another interpretation “Korach took”: He won over the heads of the Sanhedrin. Because according to the first interpretation there is a difficulty that ויקח (he took) was explained as ויוקח (he was taken). However, according to the other interpretation there is a difficulty since the verse does not specify whom he took as it does concerning Moshe, where it is written “Take Aharon.” Therefore Rashi also gives the first reason.

The Torah goes on to say ודתן ואבירם, to tell us that Korach took them with him in order to challenge Moses also on their behalf seeing that they were the most important members of the tribe of Reuven, Jacob's first born son. These were the factors which encouraged these three men ויקמו, to claim a superior status vis-a-vis Moses and Aaron who were descended only from the third of Jacob's sons. Datan and Aviram based their assessment on the fact that they were the foremost dignitaries of the tribe of Reuven, which itself was descended from Jacob's firstborn son. The word ואנשים means that they took with them other dignitaries as support by such dignitaries strengthened their case in the eyes of the people. This is the reason why the line starting with ויקמו had to precede mention of the other 250 rebels.

בן קהת, “who in turn was the son of Kehat;” who had blunted the teeth of those who begat him. (By becoming infected with his grandson’s ambitions, though personally being a bearer of the Holy Ark)

ודתן ואבירם AND DATHAN AND ABIRAM — Because the tribe of Reuben had their place, when they encamped, in the South, thus being neighbours of Kohath and his sons, who, too, encamped in the South (cf. Numbers 3:29), they (the Reubenites) joined Korah in his quarrel. “Woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbour!” — And what induced Korah to quarrel with Moses? He was envious of the princely dignity held by Elzaphan the son of Uziel (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 1) whom Moses had appointed prince over the sons of Kohath although this was by the express command of God (Numbers 3:30). Korah argued thus: “My father and his brothers were four in number — as it is said, (Exodus 6:18) “and the sons of Kohath were [Amram and Izhar and Hebron and Uziel]”. — “As to Amram, the eldest, his two sons have themselves assumed high dignity, one as king and the other as High Priest; who is entitled to receive the second (the rank next to it)? Is it not “I” who am the son of Izhar, who was the second to Amram amongst the brothers? And yet he has appointed as prince the son of his (Amram’s) brother who was the youngest of all of them! I hereby protest against him and will undo his decision”. — What did he do? He arose and assembled 250 men, fitted to be heads of the Sanhedrin, most of them of the tribe of Reuben who were his neighbours, viz., Elizur the son of Shedeur, (the prince of the tribe of Reuben; cf. Numbers 1:5), and his colleagues, and others of a similar standing, — for here it states (v. 2) that they were “princes of the congregation, those who were called to the assembly (קראי מועד)”, and there (in another passage) it states, (Numbers 1:16) “these were they who were called to the congregation (קרואי העדה)” (amongst whom was also Elizur the son of Shedeur; cf. Numbers 1:5 and Rashi on Numbers 1:16), — and he attired them in robes of pure purple wool. They then came and stood before Moses and said to him, “Is a garment that is entirely of purple subject to the law of Zizith or is it exempt”? He replied to them: “It is subject to that law”. Whereupon they began to jeer at him: “Is this possible? A robe of any different coloured material, one thread of purple attached to it exempts it, and this that is entirely of purple should it not exempt itself (i.e. ipso facto be exempt) from the law of “Zizith”? (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 2).

Scripture does not mention “the son of Yaakov.” Rashi wishes to explain why the Torah does not also trace his genealogy to Yaakov. He answers that “Yaakov implored…”

We may also explain the whole verse in terms of the opinion offered in Bamidbar Rabbah 18,2 that Korach's main quarrel concerned Elitzafan the son of Uzziel upon whom Moses had bestowed the honour of being the prince, i.e. the chief dignitary of the Kehatites (Numbers 3,30). According to this view Korach "took" a string of arguments to prove that Moses had acted in a high-handed and arrogant manner when he appointed Elitzafan. He pointed out that 1) he was the son of Yitzhar who was senior to Uzziel the youngest of Kehat's sons. If Moses considered seniority of birth as important and this is why he had appointed Aaron as High Priest seeing he was the son of Amram, Kehat's oldest son, then the office of prince of the Kehatites should have been given to him inasmuch as his father was second to Amram in order of seniority of birth. Seeing that this is not what Moses did, Korach construed this as evidence that Moses had not been influenced by considerations of seniority of birth. This raised the question why Aaron had been chosen to be the High Priest? Seeing Moses had not explained the rationale of appointing Aaron as High Priest, Korach challenged that appointment. He claimed that all the Levites were of equal status. The Torah alluded to this when it described Korach as a "son" of Levi.

בן לוי, “the son of Levi;” “who made himself a companion to gehinom, hell.” You may ask why the Torah does not also trace him to the founding father of the Jewish nation, to Yaakov? This is answered by a Rabbi Shmuel son of Yitzchok, who says that Yaakov prayed that his name not be associated with such a person as Korach. This is how he understood Genesis 49,6: בקהלם אל תחד כבודי, “let my honour not be associated with their counsel.”

בני ראובן THE SONS OF REUBEN — this describes Dathan and Abiram and On the son of Peleth.

Where is his name mentioned. Meaning: where is the name of Yaakov mentioned in connection with Korach such that one has to explain why his name is not mentioned here; for surely it is usual for genealogy to be traced back only to the tribe. Re’m writes that there is still a difficulty according to the Midrash (Tanchuma 3) which expounds the verse (Bereishis 49:6) “Do not let my soul come into their plot” as referring to the incident of the spies. Similarly there is a difficulty according to Rashi’s explanation in Parshas Vayechi that “Do not let my soul come into their plot” refers to the incident with Zimri ben Salu, leader of paternal house of Shimon (Bamidbar 25:14). There Rashi did not ask where else the name “son of Yaakov” was mentioned concerning Zimri such that one would have to explain why it was not mentioned. Re’m leaves the matter as requiring further investigation. See what I wrote in Parshas Vayechi that answers the question of Re’m.

Korach was afraid that the only one of his arguments which might succeed was his challenge to the position of Elitzafan, whereas no one would take seriously his argument against giving preference to the sons of Amram over the descendants of Kehat as it was accepted that seniority of birth was a reason to accord someone precedence in rank. This is why he looked for allies among the members of the tribe of Reuven whose claims to superior status based on seniority had been ignored. This then justifies the letter ו preceding mention of Datan and Aviram, i.e. ודתן ואבירם…בני ראובן. He challenged Moses that if he would defend Aaron's appointment as based on seniority, why had he ignored similar claims to senior positions by members of the tribe of Reuven and had not given the position of High Priest to a member of that tribe? When the Torah wrote ויקמו לפני משה ואהרן this means that they rose up in order to present their arguments before Moses and Aaron. They took with them other dignitaries from various segments of the people to ensure that Moses would not dismiss his arguments based on his self-appointed status of authority.

ודתן, “and Datan,” who flouted Jewish law.

Neighboring Kehos and his sons. Rashi wishes to answer how Dasan and Aviram came to be with the sons of Kehos to join Korach in disputing the kehunah. Surely they were neither Levites nor firstborn, as it is written (Bamidbar 26:9) “Eliav’s sons were Nemueil, Dasan and Aviram.” And if they came to dispute the kehunah on behalf of their brother Nemueil, who was a firstborn, it is incongruous that they would have come to do so when Nemueil the subject of the dispute is not mentioned in Scripture as having protested.

Sanhedrin 109 offers another reason why the Torah lists the various ancestors of Korach. The Talmud says that the name קרח is a description of the man, i.e. he made a קרחה, "a bald spot" i.e. a depopulation in Israel. בן יצהר, is a reference to midday, צהרים. Korach caused the world to become even hotter at midday, i.e. to become angry at him during the normally hot part of the day. בן קהת, he kiha i.e. "blunted" or caused his ancestors to gnash their teeth," by making them ashamed of having such a grandson. בן לוי, "he made himself a companion to Gehinom, to hell. The Talmud asks that if we adopt this approach why was יעקב not also mentioned in Korach's genealogy and the meaning would be that Jacob produced a descendant who was "hell-bent," עקב עצמו לגיהנם? The answer given is that Jacob prayed that his name should not be associated with that of Korach. I fail to understand why the Talmud was at pains to associate negative connotations with the names of these righteous men who were Korach's ancestors, even going as far as trying to find negative connotations in the name of our patriarch Jacob? Besides, what point was there in trying to show that the fact that Korach was descended from Jacob paved the way to Gehinom, when the sage in the Midrash told us the same thing already when he explained why the Torah had associated Korach's name with Levi? Why did this association have to be repeated twice?

ואבירם, “and Aviram,” “who prevented his heart from repenting.”

Woe to the wicked and woe to his neighbor. (Maharshal) I have a tradition from my father that this is the explanation: Initially Rashi said “Yaakov implored for compassion…” But this raises the difficulty that the genealogy of Dasan and Aviram was traced back to Reuven and the Torah also did not say “son of Yaakov.” Yet we do not find that Yaakov requested that the genealogy of Reuven’s sons not be traced to him regarding the dispute of Korach. Therefore Rashi explains “woe to the wicked…” and that consequently they were automatically included in his request.

Before answering these questions I must reveal two or three grains of the mystical dimensions of the Torah. 1) The branches of holiness which G'd confers upon the Israelites by means of the Torah are the paths [moral guidelines. Ed.] and the judicial elements of the Torah which G'd legislated and inscribed in the Torah by the hand of His servant Moses. Anyone who tampers with even the precise order in which these details have been recorded in the Torah is as if he were uprooting that particular branch of holiness associated with the nature of his soul, thereby turning this particular branch of holiness into something evil. This is so because he deprived this branch of its power to confer sanctity. This is also the reason why if someone had the wrong thought-association as to when or where he would eat the sacrificial meat of his animal-offering the entire sacrifice is considered impure, unfit and the person who eats from it is guilty of the Karet penalty.

ואון, “and On,” who spent all his days in mourning.

Why did Korach see fit. Meaning: Even though Korach suspected Moshe in all of his actions, that everything he did was on his own accord, nonetheless he should not have disputed the kehunah. For surely Aharon was rightfully before him, being he is the firstborn of Amram. Re’m. You might ask: Why does Rashi not explain this in its place, and also how is this question related to the preceding explanation? The answer is that before he explained about Dasan and Aviram it was understood that one could not ask “why did he see fit” given that he also wanted to be a kohein. However, now he explained that the involvement Dasan and Aviram was because the tribe of Reuven made their camp according to the arrangement of the banners. Consequently one understands that this dispute occurred in the second year after the exodus from Egypt given that the arrangement of the banners began in the second year, as is explained in Parshas Bamidbar. Therefore, Rashi asks why Korach saw fit to dispute with Moshe over the priesthood in the second year. Why did he not dispute with Moshe in the first year, immediately after the building of the Mishkon? Rashi answers that “he envied Elitzafan for his leadership…” for he was also appointed at the time when the banners were arranged. And once Korach had entered into the dispute, he wanted to nullify everything, even those things to which he had no rights.

Elitzafan for his leadership. You might ask: Why did Rashi explain above that he came to cast aspersion regarding the kehunah? The answer is that if Moshe had given Korach the leadership he certainly would not have disputed the kehunah. However once he gave the leadership to Elitzafan, Korach came to dispute everything, even the kehunah. Therefore Rashi explains “I will oppose him and nullify everything he said.” You might ask: Why did he also not dispute the monarchy (which was Moshe’s position). The answer is that since the sacrificial service was originally performed by the firstborn, they would join him in nullifying Moshe’s ruling in order that they could become the kohanim. But regarding the monarchy everyone agreed that Moshe should be king, because it was rightfully his, for he took them out of Egypt. Furthermore they could not all be kings, and therefore they would not have joined him in disputing the monarchy.

2) The very branch against which the person committed a wrong is the first to exact retribution from the sinner, as we know from Jeremiah 2,19 "that the very evil you are guilty of will act as the instrument which disciplines you." The prophet tells us that the source of sanctity once perverted will turn into a source of harm, G'd forbid.

3) The very letters in the written Torah represent the various souls G'd has planted in His people. [This is the reason that Kabbalists insist that there are 600.000 letters in the Torah, something at variance with the count that we arrive at when checking the letters in the Torah. Obviously, Kabbalists use a different method of deciding what constitutes a "letter." Ed.]

בן פלת, “son of Peleth,” a son who performed miracles.”

בני ראובן, “of the members of the tribe of Reuven;” a son who was intelligent enough to correctly interpret the meaning of what his eyes beheld.” Seeing that he was from the tribe of Reuven, Yaakov’s firstborn whom his father had deprived of the privileges of the birthright, Korach thought he had reason to join his rebellion.

Those called from the congregation. There are those who ask: Why did Rashi bring a proof from there where the Torah writes, “Those called from the congregation”? Surely his source there was only because the Torah writes “leaders of [their fathers’] tribes” and here also Scripture writes “leaders of the congregation.” The answer is that if not for those words written there, one would have said they were not the heads of the Sanhedrin, since it is written (v. 2), “Those who were called to meetings.” From this, one would understand that they were not called to every matter dealing with sanctity, rather only at certain times. Therefore Rashi brings a proof from there that they were called each time to any matter of sanctity, for the Torah writes “those called from the congregation” meaning for any matter that the congregation required. Rashi adds “and the like” because the people who were designated by name were only the twelve leaders of the tribes, while here there were two hundred and fifty men. Thus he was forced to add “and the like” to say that they were all leaders of Bnei Yisroel, and among them were leaders of the tribes and heads of the Sanhedrin. The gezeirah shavah (scriptural comparison) teaches that they were of the stature of Elitzur and his companions. And the verse that states that they numbered two hundred and fifty teaches that one should not say that it was specifically the twelve who were designated by name [that were of the stature of Elitzur and his companions], but not the others [rather, they were all of the same stature]. Re’m

4) When G'd created man He thereby created a single "plant" which comprised all branches of holiness. When man sinned, all the souls which were part of him became defective, flawed, and this is why all of Adam's descendants had flawed souls. This process was not reversed or even halted until the soul of Abraham emerged. His soul underwent ten trials, i.e. a tenfold process of refinement. The flawed parts of his soul departed from him through the birth of Ishmael. When Isaac's soul emerged, it was refined by means of the עקדה, his preparedness to give his life for G'd at his father's bidding. Any residue of the flawed parts of his soul departed from him with the birth of Esau. As a result, when Jacob's soul emerged it no longer contained flawed parts. This is the meaning of Baba Metzia 84: "The spiritual beauty of our patriarch Jacob was akin to the spiritual purity of original man." Clearly, what the Talmud meant was the spiritual beauty of Adam before he sinned.

ואמר רב, and he (Korach) said: “enough, too much!” On son of Peleth was saved from sharing Korach’s fate by his wife. She told him that regardless of the outcome of the rebellion, he would not become a member of the priestly caste regardless, so that the outcome would on no account be of personal benefit to him. To this, On answered that seeing he had sat in the council with Korach and had sworn him loyalty, how could he now renege? His wife said to him: he himself has declared the whole community as being holy, so how could he punish you?” (compare verse 3) She told him to simply remain inactive, and she would devise a means to save him. She gave him wine to drink, and made him comfortable in the house. She then sat at the entrance to her tent and busied herself with straightening out her hair, a lengthy procedure, and not one to be watched by males. Before she had completed her coiffure, Korach and his supporters had already been swallowed by the earth. She thus became the model that Solomon had in mind when he wrote in Proverbs 14,1: חכמת נשים בנתה ביתה ואולת בידיה תהרסנו, “the wisest of women builds her house, whereas the foolish one destroys it with her own hands.” Solomon’s model for the foolish woman was Korach’s wife, who had urged him on to confront Moses and Aaron in their desire for more personal glory. She supported her husband in his quarrel by describing Moses as being only concerned with appointing his closest relatives to leading positions but ignoring her husband and appointing his nephews, Aaron’s sons as deputy High Priests instead. He allocated portions of every farmer’s harvest to the priests and even demanding of the Levites’ tithes that they give ten percent to the priests also. She described the manner in which the Levites had been appointed instead of the firstborn of each family’s household as the only ones that could enter sacred grounds as having been a demeaning procedure, each one of them having been bodily heaved as if they were chattel. (Compare the procedures described in Numbers 8,13) In short, Korach’s wife was a demagogue of the first order, who instead of calming his sense of having been passed over when honours were being distributed, egged him on, so that ultimately he and all his family-except his sons who recognised their father’s bias, so that they eventually became authors of the most beautiful hymns in the book of Psalms,-thus partially redeeming the honour of the family. [Different Midrashim elaborate on how Korach used even the occasion when Moses had elevated him to become a Levite as having performed acts to demean him so that no one could recognise him anymore, as all the hair of his body had first to be shaved off. [as had, of course, the hair of all the other 23000 Levites elevated thus on that occasion. Ed.] Korach answered his wife that Moses himself, being a Levite, had also shaved off all his own hair. She answered him that he had done so in order to get all the other Levites to do so, just as Samson when pulling down the pillars in the Temple of the Philistines, was aware that he would die also during the performance of this feat. (Judges 15,30) Korach’s wife ridiculed the law about fringes, and this is why it has been inserted in the Torah at this point. She did the same with the commandment to affix a mezuzah to every room in our houses except the bathrooms and the toilets. The Torah wished to emphasise that observance of these commandments, not on account of the logic behind them, but because they had been commanded by Hashem, brings us closer to Him. These reminders are with us both when we are at home and when we are away from home, when we wear the fringes at the corners of our garments. [In those days, practically all garments started out as being square sheets of cloth. Ed.]

Garments made completely of techeiles. At the end of Parshas Shelach the Torah mentions tzitzis and juxtaposes this to “Korach took,” to teach that he took tzitzis. You might ask: why does Rashi expound the juxtaposition here? Rashi only does so if the verse is not written in its correct place, as I explained in Parshas Shelach (13:2). The answer is that here too, according to my previous explanation (s.v. ‘Why did Korach see fit’) this section is not its correct place given that the dispute of Korach was over the leadership of Elitzafan. Elitzafan's appointment as leader occurred before the departure from the Mountain of Hashem. If so, why was this section placed here when it belongs in Parshas Bamidbar? In order for us to expound the juxtaposition. (Gur Aryeh) You might ask: What did Korach think? If he held that a garment of techeiles was exempt from tzitzis, perhaps Moshe would also answer that it was exempt and there would be no grounds for dispute. And if Korach held that it needed tzitzis, then this would only have been because there was reason to obligate it. So perhaps Moshe would also answer with this reasoning and there would be no grounds for dispute. The answer appears to be that Korach’s main focus was not the garment alone. Rather, he thought that Moshe would answer that a garment made completely of techeiles is exempt from tzitzis, and he would counter that the entire congregation are holy and therefore we do not need a Kohein Gadol. See there where he details the comparison of tzitzis and the kehunah.

From the foregoing it becomes clear that Jacob was perceived as a tree from which twelve branches emerged, one of which was Levi. This branch in turn produced three new branches, Gershom, Kehat and Merari. Kehat himself produced four branches, Amram, Yitzhar, Chevron and Uzziel. The branch produced by Yitzhar was Korach. As soon as Korach tried to tamper with the order of holiness which the Torah had laid down and tried to interfere with who was accorded the priesthood, all the branches of holiness going right back to the root of his soul became flawed. Up until this time all these "branches" had contributed positively to Korach's stature as a distinguished person. The process of these sources of Korach's stature (holiness) becoming flawed commenced with Korach himself and proceeded further and further into his ancestry. Originally, the name Korach (קרח=ice) stood for purity. The name Yitzhar (צהר) symbolised the light of the world when it is at its brightest, i.e. at noon. The name Kehat stood for people gnashing (קהה) their teeth in envy when they beheld the splendid stature of that man. The name "son of Levi" conjured up the image of a person equipped (לוה) by G'd with numerous advantages since birth. Now the branch itself which had borne a complimentary name קרח, had become defective so that its wearer had made a "bald spot," depilation, on this branch. Not only had he caused his own branch to become flawed but also the immediate root that he came from had become flawed, i.e. the name Yitzhar now represented something negative, causing fiery anger in the world. Not only this one immediate root of Korach's soul had become flawed but even that of the previous generation, i.e. בן קהת had become defective so as to cause the teeth of those who had sired them to gnash in anger at their being embarassed by their offspring. Even the root of the first branch which Jacob had produced, the root of Korach's soul, Levi, had become defective and flawed so that it turned on its descendant consigning him to Gehinom instead of afffording him the presence of the Divine. The reason that Jacob is not mentioned was that Jacob had not become aware of Korach's behaviour although Korach's flawed soul affected Jacob's soul also and it was doubtful if Korach's entire soul [his link with the holy soul of Jacob, Ed.] had thereby become irreversibly flawed or not.

Dasan and Aviram and On the son of Peles. So that one does not explain “the sons of Reuvein” as referring to Peles alone, and that he was [identical with] Palu son of Reuvein. We find this language elsewhere, as in “the sons of Dan are Chushim” (Bereishis 46:23) and “the sons of Palu are Eliav” (Bamidbar 26:8) where the Torah refers to them in the plural form even though there was only one son. Therefore Rashi explains that the sons of Reuvein were “Dasan and Aviram and On son of Peles,” meaning that Peles was also one of the descendants of Reuvein. We need not ask how one might have thought that Peles was [another name for] Palu when, if so, the Torah should have placed On before Dasan and Aviram, given that they were sons of Eliav son of Palu whereas On was the son of Palu himself! This is not a difficulty because the Torah merely places first those who were more vociferous in the dispute. You might ask: Perhaps he was really the son of Palu, and how does Rashi know that he was not? It appears that Rashi was careful to state “and On son of Peles” because the Torah should have just said “Dasan, Aviram and On.” Why does Scripture write “son of Peles”? This is Rashi’s inference. Furthermore, the Torah writes “On son of Peles” while it should have written “the sons of Eliav, and On, the sons of Peles, son of Reuvein” given that Eliav and On would have been brothers, both sons of Peles, if he had been Palu. Finally, it should not have said “the sons of Reuvein” instead of “son [of Reuvein]” and “son [of Peles]” instead of “sons [of Peles].” Rather “sons” must mean “from the family of Reuvein” and therefore Rashi adds “and On the son of Peles.” R. Yaakov Triosh. Re’m writes: There are opinions that Rashi means to say that “the sons of Reuvein” refers back to “Dasan and Aviram” alone, and not to On, as if the Torah had said that Dasan and Aviram were from the sons of Reuvein, but that On was a son of Peles and not from the sons of Reuvein. There are also opinions that Rashi’s intention is just the opposite and that it also refers back to On, in order that one not say that “the sons of Reuven” refers to Dasan and Aviram but not to On. This might be so, given that neither On nor Peles are ever mentioned along with the sons of Reuvein. Re’m rejects both of these opinions, and I have written what appears most correct to me.

Remember that there is a disagreement amongst the sages in Sanhedrin 108 as to whether Korach and those who made common cause with him have a share in the hereafter or not. According to the view that through his action Korach's link to Jacob's soul had been irrevocably damaged, these people have no share in the hereafter. This is why the sage in the Talmud asked that if that is indeed so [that Korach and company have no share in the hereafter, Ed.] the Torah should have mentioned Jacob as an antecedent of Korach so that we would have known why he has no share in the hereafter. That sage was very precise in the wording of his question since he added the words שעקב עצמו לגיהנם, "he made himself travel to Gehinom." The word עקב must then be understood as derived from the root "heel," i.e. Korach backtracked morally all the way, winding up in Gehinom as a result. He reached moral rock bottom. We find that our sages employ this kind of terminology in Sotah 49 when speaking of בעקבות משיחא, "at the tail end of the exile." When the sage in the Talmud answered that Jacob offered a prayer that his name not be associated with that of Korach this meant that but for that prayer Korach would have forfeited all claim to the hereafter. G'd did Jacob a favour, however, and the fact that the Torah does not mention Jacob as being an ancestor of Korach indicates that he had not been completely cut off from his holy root, i.e. Jacob. Alternatively, Jacob's prayer was concerned about what damage could happen to his own soul if he was connected to Korach and he prayed to be spared this negative fallout from Korach's rebellion. Clearly, Rabbi Eliezer who quoted Samuel I 2,6: "G'd consigns to Sheol and has raised them," used this verse to substantiate his opinion that Korach and company did not lose their share in the hereafter, as opposed to Rabbi Akiva (Sanhedrin 109). I believe that we must pay very careful attention to the wording used in the verse in Samuel, i.e. ויעל, in the past tense as opposed to the first half of the same verse which describes G'd as ממית ומחיה, "killing and reviving" in the present tense. Also the verse following the one we quoted from Samuel states ה׳ מוריש ומעשיר, "G'd disinherits or makes wealthy," is in the present tense. Why did Hannah change the tenses in this one instance where she referred to someone who had already been raised from Gehinom while still in the process of descending there? It appears clear that she must have referred to Korach who is the only instance of someone who had descended to Sheol while alive. Rabbi Eliezer felt that the verse proves that Korach's place in the hereafter had already been secured prior to his descent to the regions of Gehinom. This was in answer to Jacob's prayer that he not be associated with Korach.

"Korach said 'you children to Levi are trying to take too much'." Rashi asks why did Korach make this foolish mistake? He saw a great chain of people coming out of him, including Shmuel HaNavi who is equal to Moshe Rabbeinu, and so he was sure he'd stay alive. Why did Hashem show him that vision? It's because Hashem tests a tzaddik--this is the way of Hashem to test people in order to grant them good. Sometimes a person reaches a level of greatness and is shown something that makes him good and just in the eyes of G-d. This is all a challenge. Even the greatest tzaddikim-- Hashem shows their greatness by letting them to perform miracles-- this is a test to see how he'll feel about himself and if this will make him negligent about Avodat Hashem. However, a wise man will check his own deed so as not to become haughty and Hashem will bless him seven-fold and he'll be successful. Similarly, in a story with the Besht, he forced one of his students to be a Rabbi and he pretended to be angry with this student (for not accepting the position). The student didn't want this position (continued to push back), and, when the Besht saw this, he told him that this was a test. Therefore, a person must be very G-d fearing--maybe this is only a test. This is meaning of the offer of G-d to Moshe (to destroy Israel and create a new nation from him). If Moshe's accepted the offer, he would've been destroyed. He said "if you destroy them erase me from your book"-- Moshe negated himself for the Jewish people. This is the reason why Hashem to continue to convince Moshe to accept the position of leader of 7 days (burning bush)--Moshe thought this was a test. Moshe Rabbeinu was truly more humble than all people, and he had no arrogance from being a leader of the Jewish people, and he was supposed to do this. Because he was so humble, the test had to come from Hashem Himself since the yetzer hara had already been conquered. Likewise, Avraham Avinu had "Hashem test Avraham." This is also the meaning of the story with Chananya, Mishael and Azarya: first Hashem said that He wouldn't save them and they did the right thing anyways then Hashem saved them. Likewise, Avshalom exalted himself against his father and was enticed to gain the power and this was a challenge and he, because of his arrogance, thought he was worthy. This is also the idea of Korach: Korach saw the great chain of people descended from him and he was supposed to be bittul to Moshe and Hashem wanted him to be humble under Moshe Rabbainu. He was not humble and he argued with Moshe Rabbainu. Hashem should place us among those people who walk before Him for good for all of his days amen. ...

קריאי מועד, the ones who had been referred to in Numbers 1,16 as קרואי העדה. They would be invited to preside over litigation on the days appointed for this (מועד).

ויקומו לפני משה ואנשים מבני ישראל חמשים ומאתים, all these who ganged up on Moses and Aaron were from Korach’s own tribe, i.e. Levites. This is the meaning of Moses saying to them: “רב לכם בני לוי, “enough for you Levites, etc.” (verse 7), as well as when he again addressed them as בני לוי in verse 8, i.e. stressing that the people he was speaking to were all Levites. Perhaps these Levites had been under the impression that their whole tribe had been meant to be priests and that Moses had highhandedly decided to bestow this honour only on his brother Aaron.

V. 2. ויקמו לפני משה וגו׳. Die eigentümlich getrennte Aufeinanderfolge, in welcher die an dem Aufstande Beteiligten vorgeführt werden, bezeichnet wohl den verschiedenen Grad ihrer Beteiligung. Korach erscheint als der Anstifter des Ganzen, daher: ויקח קרח. Ihm schlossen sich als weitere Agitatoren für den Aufstand Datan, Abiram und On an. Diese vier traten vor Mosche auf, ויקמו וגו׳, nachdem sie noch zweihundertundfünfzig Männer aus dem Volke gewonnen hatten, die ihr Auftreten als aufrührerische Masse, ויקהלו על וגו׳, unterstützten.

ואנשים מבני ישראל חמשים ומתים, “and two hundred and fifty of the elite of the Children of Israel.” Who were the men whom the Torah referred to here as the “elite” of the nation? They were Elitzur ben Shdeyur, the leader of the tribe of Reuven and his companions. Even though the Torah did not name them here, it provided us with hints to their identity. We find the expression: ואנשים מבני ישראל, “and distinguished men from among the Children of Israel,” (Numbers 1,17) They appear here in 16,2 again almost referred to in identical terms. Our sages explain this in a parable. When a person up to that time respected for his absolute integrity, was found having stolen something in the public bath, and the owner of the stolen object did not want to embarrass the thief, he started throwing out hints, such as asking the thief: “who stole your robe?” He assumed that a person of high repute would realise that it was he who was referred to, and after the owner describing the thief in detail without mentioning his name, would give him a chance to return the stolen object, making some excuse. The Torah did something similar here by not referring to these rebels by name. (Tanchuma, section 2 on this portion) If you needed proof how serious the sin of Korach and his followers was, consider that as a rule the heavenly tribunal does not judge someone guilty until he reaches the age of 20, as we know from Yishmael in Genesis 21,17 where his prayer was accepted although he was already 16 or 17 at the time, whereas human tribunals hold people accountable already from the age of 13. In this instance, where Korach and followers were judged by a heavenly tribunal, even their infants were punished alongside their parents. The Talmud in tractate Baba Metzia, folio 87, learns from this that maintaining peace between human beings is so important that those who destroy it are judged and punished immediately regardless of age. (Compare author’s commentary on Genesis 18,13).

ויקומו לפני משה, ”they orchestrated an uprising against Moses;” Korach’s specific complaint was that seeing that he was the firstborn of his father’s sons, (Exodus 6,21) Aaron instead had been given preferential treatment. Datan, Abiram and On were angry that their tribe had been deprived of the status that should have been accorded to the firstborn of Yaakov their founding father, and that status had been accorded to Joseph and his descendants instead. They believed that this was due to the fact that Joshua from the tribe of Ephrayim, Joseph’s son, had been chosen by Moses to be his closest disciple and valet, the whole tribe had been promoted to special status. They also considered that the leaders of the various tribes had been chosen as they were each firstborns, and that therefore it was clear that their tribe had been deliberately demoted. (Ibn Ezra) Proof that this was their complaint can be seen from Numbers 17,25, where the Torah reports that finally, when Aaron’s staff, i.e. a representative of the tribe of Levi, brought forth a bud that developed into almonds, the Torah reports that these kinds of complaints ceased. They finally realised that G-d had chosen the tribe of Levi rather that Yaakov’s firstborn son Reuven, i.e. that the system of allocating spiritual and material advantages to the firstborn had been replaced by a system of hereditary spiritual background, such as G-d’s having chosen the descendants of three proven patriarchs as His “firstborn” people, a message relayed to Pharaoh at the beginning of Moses’ career. [some of these words are mine. Ed.] On the other hand, Korach rebelled against what appears to be the message of Exodus 13,2, that all the firstborn are to be sanctified, i.e. they were not holy through birth, and he claimed that the entire people of Israel, ever since they had accepted the Torah had become holy, as all had participated in the revelation at Mount Sinai.

Those who were called to meetings. Until now, they sat with Moshe and Aharon at any time they required advice.

ואנשים מבני ישראל חמשים ומאתים, “together with another two hundred and fifty men from various sections among the Israelites.” He selected twenty three from each tribe excluding members from his own tribe; the reason that he chose the number twenty three was that that number constituted the number of judges required to deal with sins involving capital punishment. Each tribe had a high court comprising that number of judges. If you add Korach, Datan, Aviram and On, you have a total of 253 rebels, not counting the leader. At this juncture, Rashi comments that all these men garbed themselves in prayer shawls made entirely of blue wool. They supposedly challenged Moses by asking if those prayer shawls required fringes, tzitzit. When Moses ruled that they did require fringes, they started ridiculing him and his Torah, by arguing that if a whole garment can be fit to wear by adding a single strand of blue wool, it was nonsensical to disallow these prayer shawls that consisted exclusively of blue wool. Some commentators claim that Korach used this commandment as it was the one most recently written in the Torah. Korach used that commandment as something to challenge Moses with. (Tanchuma Korach section 2.)

קריאי עדה, “elect men of the assembly.” They had been called out to assume a challenging position in front of the Tabernacle.

רב לכם You TAKE TOO MUCH UPON YOU — i.e. much more than is proper have you taken for yourselves in the way of high Office.

ויקהלו על משה ועל אהרן, Korach, Datan and Aviram, assembled in order to incite against Moses and Aaron in the presence of 250 dignitaries of the people who had allowed themselves to be incited. This incident occurred at a time when a number of Israelites had assembled in the vicinity of Moses waiting to have their respective complaints adjudged. The 250 men mentioned walked around as if minding their own business, wanting to consult Moses about some harmless matter. It was their intention to arouse the crowd in order to provide support for Korach’s and his henchmen’s insurrection as soon as the latter would show up and begin asking hostile questions of Moses and Aaron. They selected an hour of day when there was a sizable crowd in Moses’ vicinity in order to reap the maximum benefit from that, and so that all those who were convinced of the validity of Korach’s complaints would spread the word and bring reinforcements from the plain people in the camp.

רב לכם כי כל העדה כלם קדושים, "a great deal for you, for the whole community is holy." They meant that Moses and Aaron had arrogated too much authority to themselves. In the event that Moses and Aaron would ask wherein precisely they had arrogated to themselves too much authority, Korach and company said that in view of the fact that the entire community was holy having experienced direct communication from G'd something not granted to any other nation, plus the fact that G'd remained within its midst, Moses and Aaron had placed themselves above such a holy nation. By saying ובתוכם השם, "and G'd is in their midst," they hinted that the presence of G'd was due to the people and not to the merit of Moses and Aaron.

כלם קדושים, “they are all holy.” Korach referred to the firstborn Israelites as “holy,” seeing the Torah had written in Exodus 13,2: “sanctify for Me every firstborn.”
ומדוע תתנשאו, “and why do you try to elevate yourselves?” He meant Moses and Aaron respectively claiming the position of King and High Priest.

You have taken much more… With this Rashi resolves many issues. He explains that the word רב is a noun as in הרבה ("much") and he adds “much more” because otherwise one might have said that the greatness that they took for themselves was fitting for them. He also adds the word לקחתם ("you have taken") because the word לכם ("for yourselves") alone would not make sense without being together with “you have taken.” Also, because the dispute was over them having taken more than was appropriate, not over what they already had, he writes here “you have taken … for yourselves” rather than “you have.” Rashi also explains that the word לכם means “for yourselves” because without this one might think that they took it in order to divide among others. He also adds the word “distinction” because the word “much” can refer to ignominy as well as to distinction and exaltedness. Therefore Rashi adds the word “distinction.”

V. 3. ויקהלו וגו׳ ויאמרו וגו׳. Korach, Datan und Abiram traten vor Mosche auf, und nachdem sich die von ihnen dazu aufgeregten zweihundertundfünfzig zur Unterstützung ihrer Vorwürfe und Forderungen in Masse eingefunden hatten, sprachen Korach und seine Genossen als Wortführer der Gesamtheit: רב לכם usw. Indem die Aussage: כל העדה וגו׳ durch כי als Begründung der vorangehenden Behauptung רב לכם ausgesprochen ist, die folgende Frage sich auch dem Vorangehenden nicht durch מדוע als eine durch das Vorangehende begründete Frage, sondern durch ומדוע als eine noch fernere Frage anfügt, so scheinen sie mit zwei Behauptungen, oder vielmehr mit einer Behauptung und einem Vorwurf gegen Mosche aufgetreten zu sein. Zuerst die Behauptung: כל העדה usw. und deshalb רב לכם, die ganze Gemeinde, und zwar nicht כלה in ihrer Gesamtheit, sondern כולם in allen ihren einzelnen Gliedern, ist heilig und in ihrer Mitte ist Gott gegenwärtig: jeder einzelne der sechsmalhunderttausend ist heilig und daher Gott nahe, und es bedarf daher keines Priesters, um für ihn den Ausdruck seiner Gedanken und Gesinnungen im Opfer Gott nahe zu bringen; und es sind eben diese sechsmalhunderttausend und nicht irgend ein einzelner, welchem Gott seine Gegenwart zugesagt, Gott bedarf daher keines Propheten, um sein Wort an diese sechsmalhunderttausend gelangen zu lassen. Daher: רב לכם, alle sind Gott nahe und Gott ist allen nahe, darum braucht es keines Aharons und keines Mosche, daher ist die ganze Stellung Mosche und Aharons eine auf Unwahrheit begründete Anmaßung. Und ferner: wenn es denn für die Beziehungen des Volkes zu Gott an der Spitze der Gesamtheit und für dieselbe stehender einzelner bedarf, warum gerade Aharon und Mosche, warum nicht dem Volke die Wahl seiner Vormänner überlassen, was berechtigt Aharon und Mosche sich an die Spitze der Nation zu stellen?!

כי כל העדה כולם קדושים, “for the entire congregation are all holy.” Korach was referring to the firstborn of each family. (Ibn Ezra). He based himself of Exodus 13,2. It follows that it is the firstborn who have the duty and the privilege to perform the service in the Tabernacle.

כלם קדשים [FOR] ALL [THE CONGREGATION] ARE HOLY — they all heard the utterances on Sinai from the mouth of the Almighty (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 4).

כי כל העדה, every one of the people

They all heard [the word] at Sinai. Re’m writes: I do not know why Rashi did not make this comment on the phrases, “You shall be holy” (Vayikra 19:12), “You shall sanctify yourselves and you shall be holy” (ibid. 11:44), and “For [you are] a holy nation” (Devarim 14:2). It appears to me that if not so, here one could have answered that even though the congregation was holy, Moshe and Aharon possessed a higher degree of holiness, for they were prophets and had heard the Word from the mouth of Hashem. Therefore, Rashi explains “they all heard…”

In view of this, מדוע תתנשאו "why do you raise yourselves above the community of G'd?" Korach and company referred specifically to the domain of the Tabernacle and the Sanctuary which Moses had declared out of bounds to ordinary Israelites on pain of death. They accused Moses and Aaron of having insulted the community as a whole by denying them access to the Sanctuary and the opportunity to perform sacrificial service there.

Why do you raise yourselves. They did not dispute with Moshe’s leadership, for every nation needs a king and leader. This was so although they were all holy, and if so, Moshe was no more worthy than anyone else. Regarding the priesthood, however, they said it was not necessary at all.

ומדוע תתנשאו WHY THEN LIFT YE UP YOURSELVES [ABOVE THE ASSEMBLY OF THE LORD] — “If you have taken royal rank for yourself, you should at least not have chosen the priesthood for your brother — it is not you alone who have heard at Sinai: ‘I am the Lord thy God', all the congregation heard it!” (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 4).

כולם קדושים, from head to toe; (compare Numbers 15,8 you will be completely holy”)

If you took … you should not have chosen. (Nachalas Yaakov) This means: If you took the monarchy you took it rightfully, because you heard all the commandments whereas the community heard only “I am Hashem” and “You shall not have.” But, nonetheless you should not have chosen the kehunah for your brother, given that your brother did not hear any more than the rest of the community. This is what Korach means when he says, “Why do you raise yourselves” referring to both Moshe and Aharon, for it would have been enough for Moshe to have taken only the monarchy. However one should not explain that Korach intended to dispute Moshe’s taking the monarchy as well, because in the entire parshah we only find a dispute regarding only the kehunah.

?ומדוע תתנשאו; in respect of the sanctity, by forbidding the firstborn to carry out sacrificial service in the Tabernacle? Moses himself had performed priestly duties during the first seven days of the consecration of the Tabernacle whereas subsequently Aaron and his sons became priests on a permanent basis.

You were not alone in hearing. (Gur Aryeh) If Hashem wished to teach you a new matter, He would have also said it to everyone, not you alone, [saying] that Aharon was to be the kohein and Elitzafan the leader.

ויפל על פניו [AND WHEN MOSES HEARD IT,] HE FELL UPON HIS FACE because of the rebellion, for this was already the fourth offence on their part: when they sinned by worshipping the Golden Calf, it states, (Exodus 32:11) "And Moses besought [the Lord]”; in the case of the “people who complained”, (Numbers 11:1) it states: “and Moses prayed”; at the incident of the “spies”, (Numbers 14:13) “And Moses said unto the Lord, ‘When the Egyptians shall hear it ... [and now I beseech Thee etc.]”; but now at the rebellion of Korah, his hands sank down (he felt himself powerless) A parable! This may be compared to the case of a prince who sinned against his father and for whom his (the father’s) friend gained forgiveness once, twice, three times. When he offended for the fourth time the friend felt himself powerless, for he said, “ How long can I trouble the king? Perhaps he will not again accept advocacy from me!” (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 4).

AND WHEN MOSES HEARD IT, HE FELL UPON HIS FACE. It does not say “and they fell [upon their faces],” for Aaron in his modesty and holiness did not utter a word throughout this whole controversy, but he was as one that held his peace,⁴¹I Samuel 10:27. and who admits that Korach’s status was greater than his own, and he only acted according to Moses’ behest, fulfilling the king’s decree.

וישמע משה ויפל על פניו. When Moses heard this he fell upon his face. Why did the Torah have to tell us that Moses heard what Korach said? Korach and company had been described as addressing Moses; it is obvious that he heard what they said. Furthermore, what precisely is the meaning of Moses "falling?" It appears that inasmuch as the scoffers had not yet completed what they came to say the Torah wanted to inform us that Moses already understood their meaning even though they had not spelled it out as yet. Accordingly, we may assume that Moses "fell" already as soon as Korach accused him of having raised himself above the people. He wanted to demonstrate that far from raising himself above the people he humbled himself and made himself equal to the dust of the earth like a slave prostrating himself before a master. As far as the second accusation was concerned, i.e. the fact that Aaron was the High Priest, he told the rebels that already on the morrow G'd Himself would demonstrate whether Aaron's appointment was an act of nepotism or any other form of autocratic behaviour, or if he had been appointed at the command of G'd Himself.

HE FELL ON HIS FACE. In prayer, and there it was said to him what he would say to Korah.

Moshe fell on his face in order to hear a "vision" from Hashem

וישמע משה ויפול על פניו, “When Moses heard these accusations he fell on his face.” The Torah, in this instance does not describe both Moses and Aaron as falling on their faces, as it had done in Numbers 14,5 seeing hat Aaron, whose position had been challenged kept silent throughout so as not to provide further fuel for Korach’s claims by insisting that he was entitled to this high office. [Incidentally, Aaron’s own silence could be interpreted by disinterested bystanders as support for Korach, i.e. as an admission that he had not come by this office on the basis of personal merit. Ed.] The fact is that Aaron’s silence was due to his honouring the instructions he had received from Moses.

Because of the dispute. You might ask: Surely above regarding the incident of the spies it is also written “Moshe and Aharon fell upon their faces” (Bamidbar 14:5)? The answer is that above one can answer that they fell upon their faces to pray. Since it is not written there that they said anything, one may say that they prayed. However here it is written “Moshe spoke to Korach,” which implies that while he fell upon his face he spoke to them, rather than pray. If so why did he fall upon his face? [It must be] “Because of the dispute.”

V. 4. וישמע משה וגו׳. Mosche hörte oder vielmehr: verstand das Ziel und das Motiv dieser gegen ihn erhobenen Behauptungen und Anklagen. Es war eine Leugnung der Göttlichkeit seiner Sendung und zwar nicht aus irregegangener Gedankenrichtung, die einer Belehrung zugängig gewesen wäre, sondern aus ehrsüchtigem Neide, der unter dem Deckmantel der Vertretung des allgemeinen nur die Befriedigung eigener selbstsüchtiger Interessen verfolgt und zu diesem Ende durch blendende, der Eigenliebe des Volkes in allen seinen Gliedern schmeichelnde Sophismen Mosche und Aharon aus ihrer Stellung zu verdrängen suchte. Sind doch die Prämissen, die Sätze, die Korach seinem Aufruhr zu Grunde legte, falsch und die Schlüsse in ihrer Anwendung auf die Verhältnisse, denen es galt, nicht minder. כל העדה כולם sind keineswegs schon קדושים, אנשי קודש (Schmot 22, 30) Menschen eines heiligen Berufes sind sie, קדושים יהיו (Wajikra 17, 1), sie haben die Bestimmung, heilig zu werden, sie sind auch eben durch diese Bestimmung קדשים לאלקיהם (Bamidbar 15, 40), sind ein עם קדוש לד׳ (Dewarim 7. 6 u. f.), sind Gott geheiligte Menschen, ein Gott geheiligtes Volk, gehören mit jeder Faser ihres Einzeln- und Volksdaseins ausschließlich Gott; aber קדושים "heilig" sind sie noch nicht. Und eben damit sie ewig rastlos zu ihrer heiligen Bestimmung sich emporarbeiten, damit sie nicht ihre Wirklichkeit mit ihrer Bestimmung verwechseln, sich nicht bereits für heilig halten, weil sie einem heiligen Berufe geheiligt sind, damit vielmehr diese ihre heilige Bestimmung ihnen ewig als ein noch fernes von Gott gewiesenes Ziel des Strebens vorschwebe, eben darum fand diese ihre heilige Bestimmung ihre symbolische ideale Darstellung in dem ihre "Bezeugung von Gott" umschließenden Heiligtum, dem eben darum mitnichten ein jeder ohne weiteres zu nahen sich würdig halten darf, dem selbst ein Aharon nur infolge einer Gottesanordnung, und nicht als individuelle Persönlichkeit, sondern nur in dem Gewande seines Dienstsymbols nahe zu treten wagen darf. Und eben darum ist für Volk und Priester gesprochen: והזר הקרב יומת, weil sie ihre Wirklichkeit an die Stelle ihres Berufes setzen und damit die ganze Wirksamkeit des Heiligtums ertöten würden. Die ganze Gliederung des Volkes in ישראל לוים und כהנים, und das Heiligtum in abgegrenzter Mitte spricht zu allen: קדושים תהיו, aber noch nicht: קדושים אתם! — Und ferner: wären sie selbst bereits כולם קדושים, und wenngleich in Wahrheit בתוכם ד׳, — wohl, wenn bereits das Gesetz in seiner Abgeschlossenheit gegeben und dafür der große Grundsatz לא בשמים היא. (Dewarim 31, 12 und B. M. 59b) bereits Geltung hätte haben können, dass davon nichts mehr "im Himmel geblieben," sondern es fortan nur die Gesamtkräfte der Nation zu seiner Verwirklichung zu erwarten gehabt hätte, und wenn bereits die Nation ihre normale Herstellung erlangt gehabt hätte, die die Verwirklichung dieses Gesetzes als alleinige Aufgabe ihres Seins und Wollens haben sollte, dann und dafür freilich hätte das Volk die Leitung und Fürsorge seiner Gesamtobliegenheiten dem Tüchtigsten und Besten aus seiner Mitte selbst zu übertragen gehabt, ganz so, wie ja schon damals für alles von der Nation selbst zu Bewirkende sie ihre נשיאי עדה und קריאי מועד hatten, wovon ja in den zweihundertundfünfzig Verschworenen selber das lebendige Beispiel dastand und sie so — beiläufig — den ersten Teil ihrer Anklagen durch ihr Auftreten selbst widerlegten, indem ja in ihnen selber am Tage lag, dass selbst für Gebiete, hinsichtlich derer sicherlich die unbestrittenste Gleichberechtigung dem Volke innewohnte, es doch seiner gehobenen Vertreter bedurfte. — Allein für das, was nicht aus dem Volke und durch das Volk zu erledigen war, das, wofür die Initiative mitnichten im Volke, überhaupt nicht im Menschenkreise lag, für das, was nicht aus dem Volke, was an das Volk gelangen sollte, für Gottes Sendungen an das Volk, wo ist der Mensch, wo das Volk, dem die Keckheit zur Frage zustände: warum hat Gott dich, gerade dich gesandt, wo der Boden für die damit an Gott gerichtete Keckheit: den und keinen andern wähle zu deinem Boten!! Der echte und wahrhaftige Gottesbote — und keiner mehr, als ein Mosche — ist unter allen Menschen sicherlich der erste und bereiteste, seine Unwürdigkeit zu gestehen und Gott zu bitten, einen Würdigeren, Besseren und Tüchtigeren für seine Heroldschaft zu wählen. Allein, wenn dann doch Gott ihn und keinen andern als den Würdigsten und Tüchtigsten für seine Botschaft gesendet, wer will an ihn mit der Frage hinantreten: מדוע תתנשא על קהל ד׳?! Dieses תתנשא ist die Leugnung der Göttlichkeit seiner Sendung, macht Mosche zum Betrüger und das Faktum seiner Sendung zur Lüge, darum:

וישמע משה, “Moses heard;” he understood that Korach’s rebellion was aimed at usurping the position of his brother Aaron, the High Priest.

Their fourth despicable act. You might ask: Surely this was only the third, given that the dispute of Korach was before the incident of the spies, as I explained above in Parshas Shelach (Bamidbar 13:2). The answer is that above in Parshas Shelach, Rashi was explaining according to his first interpretation in Parshas Devarim (1:1), where he says that Chatzeros was the location of Korach’s dispute. However here Rashi explains according to the alternative interpretation, in which he said that Chatzeros refers to [the incident of] Miriam [speaking against Moshe]. Therefore, it is possible that the incident of the spies was before the dispute of Korach, and therefore this was the fourth despicable act.

וישמע משה ויפל על פניו. Die Wahrhaftigkeit eines Faktums kann nur durch ein Faktum, kann nicht durch innere Gründe erhärtet werden. Innere Gründe können seine Wahrscheinlichkeit, seine Notwendigkeit, nimmer aber seine Wirklichkeit beweisen. Die Wahrhaftigkeit eines Gesandten kann nur durch den Sender, die Sendung Mosches nur durch Gott selber erwiesen werden. Darum hatte der Leugnung Korachs gegenüber Mosche aus sich kein Wort der Entgegnung. Wenn Gott es nicht für recht erkennen würde, dieser Leugnung gegenüber die Wahrhaftigkeit seiner Sendung aufs neue zu beglaubigen, so war seine Sendung überhaupt zu Ende — ויפל על פניו.

ויפול על פניו, “he fell upon his face;” he was ashamed and put his face on the ground in order to offer a prayer. He hoped to receive a revelation from G-d how to confront this challenge.

Aharon aber, obgleich, wie aus dem Verfolg erhellt, seine priesterliche Stellung es eigentlich war, die Korachs Eifersucht erregt hatte, und dieser nur Mosche Autorität zu vernichten suchte, um damit die von ihr getragene eximierte Stellung der Aharoniden aufzuheben — Aharon blieb bei diesem ganzen Vorgang passiv. Amt und Würde trug er nur im Auftrage Mosche. Amt und Würde war auch ihm keine persönliche Frage. Er bricht für sie keine Lanze, hat für sie kein Wort. Des Bruders Wahrhaftigkeit galt allein die Entscheidung. Und die dem Volke aufs neue darzutun, stand allein bei Gott.

בקר וידע וגו׳ TOMORROW THE LORD WILL MAKE KNOWN [WHO ARE HIS] — “Now (this hour of the day)” — he meant — “is a time of excessive drinking, and it is therefore not proper to appear before Him”. But his real intention in postponing the matter was that perhaps they might repent (abandon their opposition) (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 5).

IN THE MORNING THE ETERNAL WILL MAKE KNOWN WHO ARE HIS — “for the Levitical service. AND WHO IS HOLY — for the priesthood.” This is Rashi’s language. He has explained it well; and the verse is thus stating that G-d will make it known if the Levites are His, just as it is said, and the Levites shall be Mine,⁴²Above, 8:14. or whether the firstborns are still His, just as it is said, for all the firstborn are Mine,⁴³Ibid., 3:13. so that He will not exchange them for the Levites. And who is holy, this refers to the priests who are sanctified for the Divine Service, just as it is said, and Aaron was separated, that he should be sanctified as most holy.⁴⁴I Chronicles 23:13. [He mentioned the Levites] because Korach, in [his attempt] to rally all the people to his side, contested also the [position of the] Levites, and tried to restore the entire service [of the offerings] to the firstborns. And then when these firstborns were burnt up,⁴⁵Further, Verse 35. it became clear that G-d did not choose them for the service, but when Aaron’s [burning of the] incense was accepted, it became known that he is the holy one [selected for the priesthood].

וידבר אל קרח ואל כל עדתו, he informed them that he was sensitive to the trumped up nature of their charges and the rebellious nature of their complaints.

בוקר ויודע ה' את אשר לו, “in the morning Hashem will make known the one who is His own, etc.” Moses referred to the fact that clear proof would be forthcoming if the Levites were performing their service with G’d’s consent or if the firstborn were still acceptable to Him as the ones chosen to represent the people as His servants in the Tabernacle. He would prove by the rejection of the 250 people offering incense that when G’d had said in Numbers 3,12 and 8,14 that the Levites had been chosen by Him, that it was not Moses who had chosen to replace the firstborn. In adding the words: ואת הקדוש והקריב אליו, “and who is holy, and He will draw him close to Himself,” Moses referred to Aaron’s position as High Priest. It is also possible that Moses meant that the firstborn must not consider themselves as having been rejected by G’d as we know from Numbers 3,13 and 8,17 כי לי כל בכור בבני ישראל, “for every firstborn among the Children of Israel has a special relationship to Me, etc.” On the other hand, the קדוש, “the priests,” would be confirmed as such by an act of Hashem on the morrow. It is their task to perform service in the Tabernacle/Temple as we read in Chronicles I 23,13 ויבדל אהרן להקדיש קודש קדשים הוא ובניו עד עולם, “Aaron and his sons were sanctified for the Holy of Holies, he and his sons throughout the generations.”

This is a time when we are intoxicated. They were [not actually drunk, but were] engaged in this dispute all day, therefore he said “This is a time when we are intoxicated.” Similarly we find written (Yeshayohu 51:21), “Intoxicated but not from wine.” We learn from here that even if one has not drunk he can be called “intoxicated.” Rashi had a further question: Why did Moshe not settle his own mind? Therefore he answers that “his intention was…”

בקר וידע ה׳ את אשר לו, "In the morning G'd will make known who is His, etc." The reason Moses said that the proof would come on the morrow and he did not offer to provide the proof immediately may either have been due to the fact that the incense offered every afternoon had already been offered on that day, or it may have been so that they could not accuse him of having chosen a time of day when G'd is not particularly well disposed towards the people. According to the Zohar second volume page 39 the late afternoon is a time when the attribute of Justice is in the ascendancy. In addition, Moses may have wanted to give Korach and associates time to reflect on the enormity of their challenge so that they could desist and repent before dawn. Our sages in Bamidbar Rabbah 18,7 suggest additional reasons why Moses delayed until the next morning.

V. 5. בקר .וידבר וגו׳ בקר וגו׳, nicht מחר: morgen, sondern Morgen, d. h. es soll erst der heutige Tag und die Nacht vorübergehen. Da die Entscheidung sich nur an den Empörern und durch deren Untergang bezeugen sollte, so sollte ihnen Zeit zur Besinnung gegeben sein, insbesondere in der Ruhe und Zurückgezogenheit der Nacht, wo jeder mehr auf den Umgang mit den Seinen und dem eigenen Innern gewiesen und dem Einflusse verführender Genossen entzogen ist. Zugleich wollte Mosche die Zeit zu ermahnenden Vorstellungen an die Verirrten benutzen, wie der Verfolg zeigt. In der Tat fehlt auch im Momente der Entscheidung On, den nach der Überlieferung seine Frau von weiterer Teilnahme an der Empörung zurückhielt, und ebenso ermannten sich noch im Momente der Katastrophe die Söhne Korachs zum Besseren und blieben von dem den Vater ereilenden Untergange gerettet. ויודע ד׳ את אשר לו, Gott wird kund tun, wer der Seine, d. h. wer sein Werkzeug, sein Bote und Diener ist; es ist dies die Beglaubigung Mosche, ואת הקדוש והקריב אליו und wer, wenn auch nicht absolut heilig, doch der Heilige, d. h. so heilig ist, dass Gott ihn der Bestimmung würdigt, in Vertretung des Volkes in die Nähe Gottes hintreten zu dürfen und zu sollen. Es ist die Beglaubigung Aharons. Jenes ist die Widerlegung der irrigen Folgerung aus der wahren Tatsache, dass בתוכם ד׳. Dieses die Wiederlegung der irrigen Folgerung aus der irrigen Behauptung, dass כל העדה כולם קדשים.

'בקר וידע ה את אשר לו TOMORROW THE LORD WILL MAKE KNOWN WHO ARE TO BE HIS for the Levitical service,

EVEN HIM WHOM HE HATH CHOSEN WILL HE CAUSE TO COME NEAR UNTO HIM. The meaning of this repetition [since the first half of this verse already says, and who is holy, He will cause him to come near unto Him] is that [at first Moses said] the Eternal will make known who are His, and who is holy, and will cause him to come near unto Him tomorrow, and He will have regard for his offering,⁴⁶See Genesis 4:4. whereas He will not turn to the others and to their offerings. Even him whom He hath chosen forever to stand to minister before Him, him and his seed forever,⁴⁷See Deuteronomy 18:5. will He cause to come near unto Him tomorrow. Thus he is saying that this test will be a proof to them throughout their generations not to contest [the rights of] him who is chosen, nor those of his seed forever.
Now Rabbeinu Chananel⁴⁸See (Exodus), Vol. II, p. 106, Note 45, for a brief biography of this great Rabbinic scholar. See also (Leviticus), Vol. III, p. 324, Note 286. wrote that all these people who assembled [against Moses] were Levites, of the same tribe as Korach, this being the reason for the expressions [by Moses]: ye take too much upon you, ‘ye sons of Levi;’⁴⁹Further, Verse 7. Hear now, ‘ye sons of Levi.’⁵⁰Ibid., Verse 8. Perhaps they thought that their whole tribe had been chosen for the priesthood, and that it was Moses of his own accord who gave the honor to his brother. Thus far [are the words of Rabbeinu Chananel]. But G-d forbid that there should be in the tribe of the ministers of our G-d two hundred and fifty men¹⁴Verse 2. — of the most distinguished [of the people], and princes — who were sons of rebellion,⁵¹Ibid., 17:25. rejecting their leader, the greatest of their tribe, and murmuring against G-d! And [furthermore], if these [rebels] were only of that tribe [of Levi, as Rabbeinu Chananel wrote], then all the tribes of Israel would not have murmured on the next day [after the rebels were killed] saying: ‘Ye have killed the people of the Eternal,’⁵²Ibid., Verse 6. since not one of their own tribe died, [and those who did die were] only of Moses’ and Aaron’s tribe. Similarly the sign of the rod⁵³Ibid., Verses 16-24. Each tribe had to deposit a rod with its name written on it in the Tent of Meeting, before the ark of the Testimony, and Moses placed another rod there with Aaron’s name written on it. G-d promised that he would make the rod of the one who was chosen bud miraculously. Thus the fact that each tribe had to put a rod there shows that the controversy embraced them all. also proves that the controversy embraced all tribes of Israel. In addition, Scripture expressly states, [and they rose up in the face of Moses,] with certain men ‘of the children of Israel,’⁵⁴Above, Verse 2. in order to point out that the men were from all the tribes, not only from the two tribes [previously] mentioned [Reuben and Levi]. But the reason why [Moses said] ye take too much upon you, ‘ye sons of Levi’⁴⁹Further, Verse 7. is that Korach won the tribes over to his side [by persuading them] that it was because of their honor that he wanted to restore the service [of the offerings] to their firstborns, as he said, seeing all the congregation are holy.⁵⁵Ibid., Verse 3. But Moses in his wisdom laid bare the hidden motives of Korach’s heart to the whole people, namely that he was only protesting because of his own [failure to attain the] priesthood; therefore Moses said to him that he had sufficient [honor] in the honor bestowed upon his tribe, for “you have enough honor, you sons of Levi.” Then Moses continued and said, Hear now, ye sons of Levi.⁵⁰Ibid., Verse 8. [This he said] to Korach their leader — as is shown by [the first part of] that verse, And Moses said unto Korach⁵⁰Ibid., Verse 8. — but he included in his words all the Levites, since Moses in his wisdom spoke conciliatory words to Korach and all his tribe, so that none of them should be drawn after him.
Now it was Moses himself who thought of this procedure, and chose the burning of incense [as the test to show who was suitable for the priesthood] rather than any of the other offerings, because he had already seen in the case of Nadab and Abihu that when they offered strange incense before the Eternal they were burnt.⁵⁶Leviticus 10:1-2. Therefore he permitted Aaron to burn the incense, because of the special needs of the time,⁵⁷See Exodus 30:9 (Vol. II, p. 509) that all offerings of incense are forbidden as “strange” incense, except for those especially prescribed [e.g., the daily offering of incense]. In times of emergency and special need, however, such as when the overall authority of the Torah is at stake, it is permitted to suspend temporarily the operation of a particular law or prohibition, and it was this power which Moses now made use of when he allowed Aaron to offer up this non-prescribed incense. Or it may be, as Ramban continues, that this test took place at the Service of the Morning Whole-offering, which included the burning of incense, so that there is no need to say that Moses resorted to special emergency powers. or maybe it was the [daily] incense of the morning which he used to burn when he kindled⁵⁸In the Tur: when he “dressed” the lamps. See Vol. II, pp. 472-474, for an explanation of the Service done in connection with the lamps at the daily Morning Service. See also my Hebrew commentary here, p. 257. the lamps, according to the ordinance, and Moses trusted that G-d confirmeth the word of His servant, and performeth the counsel of His messengers.⁵⁹Isaiah 44:26.
And some scholars⁶⁰So quoted by Ibn Ezra in Verse 4. say that [the meaning of the verse], And when Moses heard it, he fell upon his face,⁶¹Above Verse 4. is [that he did so] in order to inquire of G-d to know what to do, and then he was told, In the morning the Eternal will make known etc.;⁶²Verse 5 before us. According to this interpretation, the test of incense was declared by G-d, as is implied in Moses’ falling on his face to ask for Divine guidance, and the verse only tells us what G-d told him to do when mentioning Moses’ speech to Korach and all his company. but it is mentioned only in Moses’ account to the people. I have already shown you⁶³See e.g., Vol. II, pp. 101, 111. that in many places Scripture will sometimes deal at length with the account of G-d’s communication to Moses, but mention [the matter] in brief in Moses’ narration thereof, and at other times it does the opposite. At other instances [still] it does not mention one of the communications at all, such as in the story of the children of Gad and the children of Reuben, where Scripture tells the event [only] with respect to Moses himself [that he gave them the land east of the Jordan as a conditional inheritance], and [this whole matter] was [in fact] done by the commandment of the Eternal, as they said, As the Eternal hath said unto thy servants, so will we do.⁶⁴Further, 32:31. And in [the Book of] Joshua it is written, [And the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half-tribe of Menasheh returned … to go] unto the land of Gilead, to the land of their possession, whereof they were possessed, ‘according to the commandment of the Eternal by the hand of Moses’.⁶⁵Joshua 22:9. And if we say that [Moses in fact gave these lands to the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Menasheh on his own authority, and the above-mentioned verse which says that it was done according to the commandment of the Eternal] refers to G-d’s [subsequent] agreement to Moses’ action, similar to that which it says, This is the Land wherein ye shall receive inheritance by lot, which the Eternal hath commanded to give unto the nine tribes, and to the half-tribe,⁶⁶Further, 34:13. The verse thus indicates that G-d agreed that the nine and a half tribes should take their inheritance west of the Jordan, and therefore that the remaining two and a half tribes should take the land Moses gave them on the east side of the Jordan. in which case this would be one of the occasions when Moses acted of his own accord and the Holy One, blessed be He, [later] approved his decision⁶⁷In Shabbath 87a, the Talmud mentions three occasions when Moses acted on his own authority and G-d subsequently approved his decisions. Ramban is thus saying here: “In case one should suggest that Moses’ decision to grant the lands east of the Jordan as an inheritance to the two and a half tribes was in reality his own decision, which was subsequently approved by G-d — this hypothesis cannot be correct because etc.,” as Ramban continues. — See also at the end of Seder Naso where Ramban cites cases, where man’s opinion coincided with that on High. There is a marked difference though between the cases of Moses and those mentioned above. Moses according to tradition acted on his own reasoning, and G-d subsequently approved. In the cases mentioned above [such as in the section about the impure people on Passover, etc.] inquiry was first made for Divine guidance, and it happened that the opinion of those seeking guidance coincided with that on High. — [this cannot be so because] it is not right [to say] that Moses would have done anything in connection with the division of the Land without [Divine] permission. For [in dividing the Land] he did everything at the command of G-d, as it is written, [And the Lord spoke unto Moses saying:] Unto these the Land shall be divided etc.⁶⁸Further, 26:53. The verse saying And the Eternal spoke unto Moses clearly indicates that he acted originally on Divine instruction.
My own opinion in this matter [of Moses’ command to Korach and his company to take censers and burn incense], and in that which he said to Aaron [during the outbreak of the plague], Take thy fire-pan, and put fire therein from off the altar, and lay incense thereon⁶⁹Ibid., 17:11. is that the hand of the Eternal was upon him⁷⁰See Ezekiel 37:1. in these matters, and it is this which is called Ruach Hakodesh,⁷¹Literally: “The Holy Spirit.” See in Moreh Nebuchim, II, Chapter 45, beginning: “the second degree of prophecy.” See also further, Seder Balak Note 63, and Ramban ibid. as happened with the books of David and Solomon which were written by Ruach Hakodesh,⁷²Such is also the opinion of Rambam in his Moreh Nebuchim II, 45. and as David said, The spirit of the Eternal spoke by me, and His word was upon my tongue.⁷³II Samuel 23:2. For Moses our teacher was trusted in all His house,⁷⁴See above, 12:7. and I have explained the matter of “the house”⁷⁵Ibid., Verse 6. and mentioned it many times;⁷⁶See e.g. Exodus 32:19. but since this was not in the usual course of Moses’ prophecy, Scripture did not mention G-d’s communication to him about these matters.
Now I have seen in Onkelos’ translation that every time the word k’toreth (incense) appears in this section, he rendered it in his language [Aramaic also] as k’toreth and he did not translate it [as he does in all other places] as k’toreth busmin (aromatic incense), as he usually does.⁷⁷See e.g. Onkelos ibid. 30:8. — But note, however, that in our versions of Onkelos, the word k’toreth in this section is translated as k’toreth busmin (aromatic incense). In the opinion of the author of Minei Targima (Rabbi Yeshayah Pick), Ramban’s version of the text of Onkelos here is the correct one, and later copyists mistakenly amended the text. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 258. From this it would appear that he was of the opinion that this was not the aromatic incense used in the Sanctuary [i.e., Tabernacle], but it [consisted of] frankincense and similar ingredients which he [Moses] made them burn for the test. Onkelos translated likewise in the case of Aaron’s sons [Nadab and Abihu, who burnt the strange incense, for there too he did not render the Hebrew k’toreth as he usually does: k’toreth busmin, but as k’toreth].⁷⁸Leviticus 10:1. In our version of Onkelos, again, the text there is k’toreth busmin (aromatic incense), which in the opinion of the author of Minei Targima is likewise a copyist’s mistake. But in the opinion of our Rabbis⁷⁹Tanchuma Korach 5. it was the sacred incense, and this is the correct interpretation. Perhaps Onkelos [agrees that this was the sacred incense, but he] did not want to praise the incense by adding thereto the word busmin (aromatics), except when it [the incense] was used in performance of the [daily] commandment [to burn incense].

את אשר לו, who was the one who spoke sincerely in honour of G’d (did not mouth pious sounding phrases only)

ואת אשר יבחר בו יקריב אליו, “and the one whom He will choose, He will draw near to Him.” Nachmanides, pointing out that Moses said twice in the same verse that G’d would bring near to Him the one He had chosen, draws our attention to the fact that whereas the first time he added ואת הקדוש, “and the one who is holy,” sees in this a hint that the former refers to G’d’s accepting the incense offering of Aaron on the morrow while rejecting that of the 250 men The second time the words אשר יבחר בו refers to the status of the priests, descendants of Aaron, throughout the ages. The addition of the word מחר, “tomorrow,” in verse 7 means that this demonstration would occur only once and would settle the dispute once and for all. No other challenge would arise against the validity of the priests’ position. Ibn Ezra explains the words ויודע ה' את אשר לו as referring to the tribe that G’d had selected, i.e. the tribe of Levi. This was the answer to Datan and Aviram as well as to the dignitaries who also happened to be firstborns. He feels that all the people who had assembled in this rebellious demonstration were from the tribe of Levi hence the word הקדוש was meant to single out who amongst all these Levites was the one chosen to be the High Priest. Ibn Ezra uses the fact that Moses specifically addressed the members of the tribe of Levi, asking them if they had not already been honoured sufficiently that they now demanded even greater honours to support his explanation. Nachmanides writes that if, as Ibn Ezra claims, all the people ganging up on Moses and Aaron had been members of the tribe of Levi, how can we explain that on the day after Korach and supporters went down into the earth that all the tribes accused Moses of killing G’d’s people, and all of them presented their staffs to the test which staff would produce blossoms, etc.? As to Moses having said to the Levites רב לכם בני לוי, “it is much for you, offspring of Levi,” this reflects that Moses was aware that Korach was trying to fool the people into believing that he was a champion of the firstborns of each tribe who had been deprived of the privilege to perform service in the Tabernacle through the Levites having replaced them. This is why he had prefaced his incitement with the words כי כל העדה כולם קדושים, “for the entire Jewish community are holy.” Moses was intelligent enough to realize that Korach’s target was the priesthood, and Aaron, Moses’ brother being the High Priest, He hinted that if that were not so, it was strange that Korach, a member of the tribe of Levi, had not objected at the time when all the members of his tribe had been elevated to a privileged status. Korach had gladly accepted his elevation to a superior status, thereby contradicting his claim that all the Israelites were equally holy, seeing that Hashem had revealed Himself to all of them at Mount Sinai. This is why the Torah reports in verse 8 that now, instead of speaking to Korach and his rabble, he spoke to Korach in his capacity as their leader, when the latter did not have to posture in front of his cohorts. Moses, in his attempt to calm the situation and to bring about a פיוס, reconciliation, made his remarks to Korach part of his general remarks to the assembled rebels, instead of taking Korach aside, so that these people would become aware of Korach’s duping them into believing that he was championing their cause, and would not follow in his footsteps. Moses, personally, believed that his approach would work, and that is why he chose the offering of incense by lay Israelites as the litmus test rather than the offering of some other sacrifice. He thought that the fact that if even Aaron’s son Nadav and Avihu had died when offering unauthorized incense, surely that reminder would act as a brake on the eagerness of these 250 men when called upon to present incense in grounds not consecrated for such an offering. He permitted Aaron to participate in this test, basing his ruling on the concept of הוראת שעה, an immediate emergency. [We know that Aaron was specifically called upon to perform during such emergencies in Numbers 17,11-13 when Moses also demonstrated that incense was not necessarily what killed the people, but the reverse. Ed.] It is possible, however, that the time frame chosen by Moses for this test was when Aaron would offer the daily incense offering in the Tabernacle. Moses was confident that Hashem would support the initiative of His prophet on this occasion, although he had not yet asked for special permission to deviate from halachic norms. Personally, I do not think that Aaron’s offering of his morning incense could have played a part in this, seeing that the daily incense offering was presented on the golden altar inside the Sanctuary, a location beyond the view of anyone outside, seeing the Tabernacle did not even have any windows. Some commentators believe that the line וישמע משה ויפול על פניו, (verse 4) is the Torah’s way of describing how Moses turned to G’d to receive guidance as to how to deal with this rebellion. In response to Moses’ quest, Hashem answered that He would demonstrate on the following morning who were those chosen by Him and who were not. This would not be the only instance in which the Torah is very succinct, saving the details for another occasion. Sometimes we are told what G’d told Moses to tell the people, and the Torah hardly mentions that Moses conveyed the whole message. On other occasions we become aware of all that G’d had told Moses only when the Torah reports Moses as delivering G’d’s message to them. I have noticed that Onkelos who has translated the word קטורת in other places in the Torah as קטורת בוסמין, i.e. as קטורת הסמים, omits the word בוסמין, fagrances, when translating the word קטורת in our portion. [Our versions of Onkelos do not bear this out; maybe Nachmanides had a different version of Onkelos. Ed.] According to that version of Onkelos, he may have felt that the incense these 250 men were asked to offer in the test consisted only of לבונה, frankincense, and thus did not constitute the kind of affront with probably lethal consequences that the arrogant rebels subjected themselves to. Onkelos, according to that version, also understood the “incense” offered by Nadav and Avihu to have been of this variety. [Note that according to the Torah their capital sin was to bring אש זרה, man-made fire, on their censers. Nowhere does the Torah mention that the incense was what caused their death. Ed.]

For the Levite services. For the Torah writes about them (Bamidbar 8:14), “The Levites shall be Mine.” You might ask: Surely they were only disputing the service of the kehunah? The answer is that Moshe said [to himself] as follows: If I tell them [that Hashem will make known the one who is] holy for the kehunah, when they see that they have no way of disputing the kehunah they will dispute the Levite service. This would have been fitting, given that they were firstborn and the Levites had replaced them. Therefore Rashi explains …

את אשר לו ואת הקדוש, "who is His and who is holy, etc." Why did Moses have to repeat this statement (although he changed the wording somewhat)? The Zohar says that the words אשר לו refer to the status of the Levites, whereas the word קדוש refers to the status of the priesthood. If so, we must still understand why Moses had to mention the Levites altogether seeing that Korach had only challenged the appointment of the priests. If you consider that I have explained that Korach took the elders of Reuven in order to buttress his arguments that Moses had ignored the privileges due to people of seniority, we can understand that Korach had argued that the privileges of seniority should be restored to the members of the tribe of Reuven. In that event Moses also had to defend the appointment of the Levites to their respective positions.

ואת אשר יבחר בו וגו׳ spricht die Art und Weise aus, wie diese Entscheidung sich kund tun werde. Gott wird einen erwählen und ihn als den bezeichnen, der zu Ihm, in seine Nähe, hintreten dürfe und solle, und damit wird die ganze Frage nach allen Seiten entschieden sein. Es wird sich entscheiden, ob jeder, oder nur ein von Gott Bestimmter, und zwar wer Gott als כהן nahen dürfe und solle. Und wenn dies derselbe ist, den bereits Mosche im Namen Gottes als den zum Priestertum ausschließlich Erwählten verkündet hat, so wird damit zugleich die Wahrhaftigkeit der Sendung Mosche überhaupt sich erhärten. Und zwar wird diese Erwählung also sich äußern. Der Erwählte wird derjenige sein, den Gott zu sich hinantreten lässt, dessen Hinantreten Er duldet. Darin liegt unausgesprochen von selbst die Warnung, dass das Hinantreten der Nichterwählten von Gott nicht werde geduldet werden, und die Bezeugung ihrer Verwerfung leicht verhängnisvoll für sie werden könne.

ואת הקדוש AND HIM WHO IS HOLY enough for the priesthood,

ואת הקדוש והקריב אליו, He, G’d, Himself will make it plain who is entitled and worthy to offer sacrifices in His honour.

Them [close] to him. This is the meaning of the verse: In the morning Hashem will make known “who is His” for the [Levite] service, as the Torah states “the Levites shall be Mine” (Bamidbar 8:14). Also, “who is holy” for the kehunah, as it states “Aharon was separated and consecrated as the holy of holies” (Divrei Hayamim I 23:13). Accordingly the phrase “bring close to Him” has no subject, therefore Rashi adds the word “them.” How was this to be done? Let all the two hundred and fifty men who were seeking the kehunah come close “and offer the incense before Him.” The word "before Him" (לפניו) has the same meaning as the word "to him" (אליו) in the phrase “bring close to Him.” Thus the word “to Him” has the sense of “before Him.” In this way, He will determine who is holy, and everyone will know that Aharon is holy for the kehunah when his incense is accepted. [They will also know that] the Levites are fit for the Levite service when all those who offer the incense are burned up, among them being Korach who was a Levite and was still burned up. Thus the complaint of the Levites will be nullified. The Targum proves this point given that the first אליו ("to him") he translated as “before him” and the second as “into his service.” The second אליו ("to him") that appears in the verse must refer to the service of the kehunah. Re’m

We must also try and understand why Moses repeated that G'd would bring close to Him the one whom He considered holy, i.e. ואת הקדש הקריב אליו, ואת אשר יבחר יקריב אליו. Perhaps we can understand this by analysing the nature of Korach's complaints. Firstly, he claimed that Aaron was not specifically suited to be High Priest seeing there were people more qualified than he. Secondly, Korach argued that even if he granted Aaron's qualifications to be High Priest, there were others equally qualified to perform the sacrificial service with him. Why should he enjoy an exclusive? Concerning the argument that there were people better qualified than Aaron, Moses said את אשר לו, that G'd would demonstrate whom He had chosen, i.e. who had been designated for this task since creation. We have a parallel situation in Jeremiah 1,5 where G'd told Jeremiah that He had selected him for his task already before he was born. The words ואת הקדש mean that after having come into the world Aaron had sanctified himself in order to be worthy to occupy the position for which he had been destined. Moses carefully chose the expression והקריב to make it plain that Aaron had already been divinely approved and that G'd had seen fit to make His שכינה come to rest on him. Concerning the claim that others were just as worthy as Aaron to perform the service in the Tabernacle, Moses said ואת אשר יבחר בו יקריב אליו, "if G'd chooses anyone in addition He will bring him close to Him, i.e. they too will be allowed to enter the Tabernacle, etc."

והקריב AND HE WILL BRING them אליו UNTO HIM. The Targum proves that this is so (i.e. that Scripture alludes to two different matters), for it renders the first phrase by “He will bring near to Him”, and the second by “He will bring near to His service”. — A Midrashic explanation of the word בקר (instead of the more usual מחר) is the following: Moses said to him (Korah): “The Holy One, blessed be He, has assigned bounds in His world; can you, perhaps, change the morning into evening? Just as little, will you be able to make this (Aaron’s appointment as High Priest) of none effect, — as indeed it states, (Genesis 1:5) “and it was evening and it was morning… (Genesis 1:4) “and God separated (ויבדל) [light from darkness]”; and in the same sense (that the separation should be of a permanent character) it states, (I Chronicles 23:13) “and Aaron was separated (ויבדל) that he should be sanctified [as most holy … to minister unto him]” (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 5).

ואת אשר יבחר בו יקריב אליו, only the worthy person G’d will select from all those taking part in this commotion. The meaning is reflected in G’d saying later to Moses: הבדלו מתוך העדה, “separate yourselves from among this congregation” (verse 21)

זאת עשו קחו לכם מחתות THIS DO: TAKE YOU CENSERS — What reason had he to speak to them thus? He said to them: according to the custom of the heathens there are numerous forms of divine worship, and consequently numerous priests, for they cannot assemble for worship in one temple; we, however, have One God, one Ark, one Law, one Altar, all constituting one form of worship and therefore we need but one High Priest; — and you, 250 men, all demand the High Priesthood?! I would like this myself, but events will prove that this is impossible. Here you have a rite which is dear to God more than any other — it is the offering of incense, which is even dearer to Him than all the sacrifices, but a deadly poison is contained in it, for through it Nadab and Abihu were burnt!” (cf. Leviticus 10:2). It was on this account that he warned them by saying, And it shall come to pass that the man whom the Lord will choose is the holy one — he is already in his state of holiness (not “he will become holy”; he thus warned them that there was not the slightest likelihood that they would be chosen). This must be the meaning of הוא הקדוש, not "he will become holy”, for do we not know that he whom He would choose would become holy? But this, in effect, is what Moses said to them: “I am telling you this in order that you may not imperil your lives, for only he whom He will choose will come out of this alive, but all of you will perish” (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 5).

VV. 6 u. 7. Mosche hatte Korach durchschaut. Nichts als Neid auf die dem Aharonsstamme mit Zurücksetzung der übrigen levitischen Familien übertragene Priesterwürde hatte ihn zur Empörung gebracht. Um diese Auszeichnung aufzuheben — um vielleicht eventuell sie durch Volkswahl auf sich und seine Deszendenz zu leiten — hatte er die Gleichberechtigung aller zu dieser Würde als Motiv seines Aufstandes geltend gemacht und die Erhebung Aharons zu dieser Würde als nicht von Gott ausgehend verdächtigt. Wohlan denn, waren sie von der Wahrheit ihrer Behauptung durchdrungen, so sollten sie die Probe wagen und ihrer Behauptung gemäß mit einer hohenpriesterlichen Handlung zu Gott hintreten. Das hohepriesterliche Amt gipfelt im קטרת, im Ausdruck des vollendeten höchsten Aufgehens in das göttliche Wohlgefallen. Mit ihm sollten sie, der Behauptung ihrer priesterlichen Würdigkeit gemäß, zu Gott hintreten und sich der göttlichen Entscheidung unterstellen. Allein er warnte sie, nicht nur für alle übrigen Stämme, die in den zweihundertundfünfzig vertreten waren, selbst für die doch bereits dem Heiligtum nahestehenden Leviten, als deren Repräsentant Korach angesehen sein wollte, sei es eine verhängnisvolle Anmaßung, daher: רב לכם בני לוי! —

קחו לכם מחתות, “take censers for yourselves.” It did not occur to Moses that these rebels would take him up on this, after all it was well known to all that anyone offering incense who had not been authorised to do so would die at the hands of G-d, as had even Aaron’s own two elder sons. Seeing that Korach challenged Moses with uncalled for accusations pulled out of thin air, Moses retaliated with equally ridiculous sounding answers, answers that he thought would be challenged instead of being taken seriously.

מחתות CENSERS — vessels into which coals are raked and which have a handle (cf. Rashi on Exodus 27:3).

רב לכם בני לוי means, “It is a great (an important) thing that I have told you, ye sons of Levi”). But were they not fools in that although he so sternly warned them they nevertheless undertook to offer! They, however, sinned against their own souls (i.e., they were regardless of their lives) as it is said, (17:3) “the censers of these sinners against their souls”. — But Korah who certainly was a clever (lit., open-eyed) man, what reason had he to commit this folly? His mind’s eye misled him. He saw by prophetic vision a line of great men (more lit., a great chain) descending from him, amongst them the prophet Samuel who was equal in importance to Moses and Aaron together (cf. Psalms 99:6: משה ואהרן בכהניו ושמואל בקראי שמו), and he said to himself, “On his account I shall escape the punishment”. And he further saw twenty-four Mishmars (shifts of Levites who formed the Temple Choir) arising among his grand-children, all of them prophesying by the Holy Spirit, — as it is said, (I Chronicles 25:5) “All these (prominent musicians) were sons of Heiman” (Heiman was a descendant of Korah; cf. I Chronicles 6:18—23). — He said, “Is it possible that all this dignity is to arise from me and I shall remain silent (be myself of no importance)?” On this account he joined the others in order to attain to that prerogative, because he had indeed heard from the mouth of Moses that all else of them would perish and one would escape: "He whom the Lord will choose will be holy". He mistakenly applied this to himself. But he had not seen correctly, for his sons repented of their rebellious attitude and therefore did not die at that time (cf. Numbers 26:11), and it was from them that Samuel and the Levitical singers were descended. Moses, however, foresaw this. (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 5).

הוא הקדוש, only he is the one accorded the title “holy.” In the test Moses proposes there could be only one winner. Moses made this statement in order to frighten his listeners (as they would become aware of the enormity of the gamble they were going to involve themselves in) and knowing this they might repent and not lose their lives. Just as G’d does not want the sinner to die but to repent, so Moses offered these people the chance to retract and thereby save their lives. (compare Ezekiel 18,32).

But Korach who was astute… Meaning: Since the Torah did not call him a “sinner with his soul,” he must certainly have had some reason that he was relying upon.

והיה האיש אשר יבחר ה' הוא הקדוש, “then the man whom the Lord chooses, he will be the holy one.” This statement by Moses appears superfluous, as the rebels were surely aware that there were only these two alternatives. We must therefore understand Moses’ statement as a warning to them not to become guilty of the punishment for their actions. He reminded them that the incense offering was the one most beloved by Hashem and that it contained a deadly poison for people not qualified to offer same. This had been demonstrated beyond doubt when two of Aaron’s sons, Nadav and Avihu, had been killed by heavenly fire on the spot for daring to offer it while they were not qualified to do so. If all his supporters were to dare to do the same, they would all share the fate of Nadav and Avihu. All of these people, in spite of thus having been warned by Moses, insisted on proceeding with their plan, and they paid the price of disobeying his warning. This is why Numbers 17,3 refers to them all a sinners, guilty of death. If you were to ask how Korach, an extremely intelligent individual, could have committed such obvious foolishness, our sages say that he had foreseen that great men would be descended from him in the future, and he thought that was proof that he had to survive this confrontation with Moses. Compare Rashi on that subject. Furthermore, he misinterpreted the words of blessing in Deuteronomy 7,13: according to which תירושך ויצהרך, “your wine and oil will be blessed,” as a reference to himself seeing that his father’s name had been יצהר, “oil.” He was aware that in any mixture of liquids, oil always rises to the top. He concluded that he had therefore been destined for distinction. Zachariah 4,14, commences with the words: ואלה בני היצהר, “these are the descendants of Yitzhar, etc.” Seeing that oil has no descendants, Korach interpreted this statement by the prophet as referring to himself. Actually, the prophet had referred to Aaron and Chur, who had been anointed as priests or the honour of hereditary monarchy with the oil of anointing. David took the honour of hereditary monarchy, whereas Aaron received that of the Priesthood. Korach reasoned, that if these who had only been anointed with oil had qualified for these honours, he who had been referred to as the descendent of oil twice, surely was in line for these honours. As a result of such considerations, he decided to revolt against Moses. [who in his opinion had forfeited the right to leadership seeing that his whole generation had been decreed to die in the desert. Ed.]

רב לכם means, a great responsibility have you taken upon yourselves in rebelling against the Holy One, blessed be He.

רב לכם בני לוי, you, inasmuch as you are considered people belonging to Korach (compare verse 32), are being judged more sternly, exactingly, precisely because due to your superior social position you must lead even more exemplary lives than ordinary Israelites. G’d will be much more angry at you if you fail to reflect the nobility you already represent.

You have undertaken a great task for yourselves. Rashi explains that רב (too much) here is an adjective, but that the object of adjective is missing. Conversely, he explains the first רב (v. 3) as meaning “much” which is a noun rather than an adjective. This was because there Korach was disputing the great positions that [Moshe and Aharon] had taken for themselves, and therefore Rashi explains it in the sense of “greatness.” But, here Moshe’s surprise was only over the enormity of their brazenness to dispute that what Hashem had instructed, therefore Rashi explains the word רב in the sense of an immense [undertaking]. Without the addition of the words “you have undertaken,” one would not have understood the meaning of the phrase “too much upon yourselves.” He says בעצמכם ("upon yourselves") rather than לעצמכם ("for yourselves") like above (v. 3) because the brazenness, which was the great task that they had undertaken, was part of themselves rather than something that had been taken from elsewhere. Therefore here Rashi explains בעצמכם ("upon yourselves"). Conversely, above it was something taken from elsewhere, because the prominence that they had taken was from elsewhere, thus Rashi explains the word לכם as meaning לעצמכם ("for yourselves"). (Gur Aryeh) One cannot explain this as “too much” like Rashi explains the words רב לכם above (v. 3), because it would be incongruous to refer to one who disputes with Hashem’s instructions as “too much” implying that it would be possible to have a minor dispute. However above, it can be explained as meaning “too much” since they accepted Moshe’s monarchy, but were disputing Aharon’s taking the kehunah as being too much.

ויאמר משה אל קרח שמעו נא בני לוי AND MOSES SAID UNTO KORAH, HEAR, I PRAY YOU, YE SONS OF LEVI — He began to speak to him with gentle words; when, however, he saw that he was stubborn, he said to himself: Before the other tribes join him and perish together with him, I will speak to them all!” He thereupon began to admonish them: “Hear ye, ye sons of Levi!” (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 6).

שמעו נא בני לוי, “Hear now, offspring of Levi!” The following words are addressed to the arguments of the Levites (against Aaron). The previous remarks of Moses were addressed to the arguments of Korach and the firstborn.

VV. 8-11. Nach dem Ernst des Ausspruchs dessen, was morgen zu geschehen habe, wenn sie bei ihren Behauptungen verharren und sich damit der Entscheidung Gottes unterstellen wollten, lässt Mosche es nicht an zuredenden Vorstellungen fehlen und benutzt dazu die noch übrige Zeit des Tages. — ויאמר אל zuredend, nicht וידבר wie V. 5. Indem Mosche Korach und Datan und Abiram (V. 12 f.) getrennt mit Vorstellungen anging, scheint wohl der Aufstand aus zwei Verschiedenes erstrebenden Gruppen sich gebildet zu. haben. Obgleich im Aufstand gegen Mosche und Aharon vereinigt, hatte doch Korach eines, Datan und Abiram ein anderes im Auge. Korach, der Levite, gerierte sich eigentlich als Vindikator der vermeintlich durch Aharons Auszeichnung verletzten Rechte seines Stammes. Er, der vorgebliche Vertreter der Gleichberechtigung aller, ließ sich gleichwohl die ihm und seinem Stamme dem übrigen Volke gegenüber eingeräumten Vorzüge wohl gefallen. Statt sich ihrer konsequenter Weise zu entkleiden, genügten sie ihm nur nicht und suchte er unter dem Scheine der Gleichberechtigung aller nun auch die Priesterwürde für seinen Ehrgeiz. Datan und Abiram scheinen sich hingegen aus Priesteramt und Priesterwürde nicht eben viel gemacht zu haben. Sie fehlen auch V. 17 unter den קטרת-Darbringenden. Ausdrücklich werden nur zweihundertundfünfzig, Korach und Aharon genannt. Dagegen scheint ihnen die politische Stellung Mosche im Wege gewesen zu sein, und haben sie sich wohl Korach nur in der Voraussetzung angeschlossen, dass durch Erschütterung des Vertrauens in die Göttlichkeit der Sendung Mosche seiner Stellung im Volke überhaupt der Boden entzogen sein würde.

ויאמר משה אל קרח, “Moses said to Korach, etc.;” his first words were addressed to Korach and his immediate followers, i.e. fellow Levites.

המעט מכם: ist es weniger als ihr, d. h. ist es weniger, als das euch gebührend Dünkende. — לעבד עבדת ד׳ ולעמד לפני העדה לשרתם (vergl. Verse 2, 6-3). עבדת משכן ד׳ ist der für Aufstellung, Bestand, Schutz und Transport des Heiligtumszeltes und seiner Geräte zu leistende Dienst. Dieser Dienst ist zugleich eine im Dienste der Nation vollzogene Leistung, sie stehen damit dienend לפני העדה (siehe zu 2, 6). לשרתם: das zu leisten, was eigentlich der Nation im Ganzen obliegt (siehe daselbst). Dieser "Dienst der Gesamtheit" macht nach jüdischem Begriff die Würde eines jeden öffentlichen Amtes. Es ist keine Überordnung, sondern Unterordnung, nicht שררות, sondern עבדות (Horiot 10 a). Die Idee der Würde eines solchen öffentlichen "Dienstes" liegt in dem Gedanken, dass ein einzelner sich mit der Idee der Gesamtheit und ihrer Zwecke zu erfüllen, und in ihrem Geiste und von ihrem Standpunkte aus Gesamtzwecke zu versorgen habe.

לכן וגו׳. Durch dein ומדוע תתנשאו על קהל ד׳ hast du mir und Aharon die größte Versündigung gegen Gott, die Usurpation und missbräuchliche Benutzung seines Namens und seiner Autorität zu ehrgeizigen, selbstsüchtigen. Zwecken unterschoben, also, dass unsere ganze Stellung mindestens eine über Gottes Willen hinausgreifende Auflehnung gegen Gott wäre. Diese Anklage fällt mit doppelter Wucht auf dich und deine Mitverschworenen zurück. Es genügt ihnen nicht, das Volk des Gottesheiligtums zu sein, dir nicht, in seinem Namen Diener am Gottesheiligtum zu sein, ihr wollt auch Priester im Heiligtum sein und lehnt euch darum gegen Anordnungen auf, die nicht wir, die Gott getroffen. Ihr seid die נועדים על ד׳, die ihr euch "in der Absicht zusammen gefunden", Empörung gegen Gott zu üben. Das ist ja immer הועד . Es bezeichnet ja immer die zu einem gemeinsamen Zwecke geschehene oder geschehen sollende Vereinigung. Daher ja auch מועד (siehe Schmot 12, 1-2 und 25, 22). Davon ja auch עדה: die durch eine gemeinsame Aufgabe und in ihr vereinigte Gemeinde. Daher auch hier: der durch Gesinnung und Zweck verbundene Anhang Korachs: עדה. Das Verbrecherische liegt nicht in הועד und עדה, sondern in ואהרן וגו׳ — .על ד׳, dass ihr aber Aharon mit als Objekt eurer Empörung hineinzieht, ist ja völlig grundlos. Er verdient auf keinen Fall eure Feindschaft. Die Stellung, die er inne hat, hat er auf meine, im Namen Gottes überbrachte Anordnung angetreten. Ist dabei ein Schuldiger, so bin ich es allein. תלינו, (siehe Schmot zu Kap. 16, 7). Das תלונו :כתיב und תלינו :קרי sagt, dass sie im Grunde nur ihr eigenes Interesse im Auge hatten, sie waren נלונים, allein das ließen sie nicht hervortreten und erregten allgemeine Unzufriedenheit, waren מלינים, um damit ihre egoistische תלונה zu decken.

ולעמד לפני העדה AND TO STAND BEFORE THE CONGREGATION to sing on the Duchan (the Platform).

ולעמוד לפני העדה לשרתם, to serve the Lord by representing the whole community by carrying the sacred vessels, and parts of the Tabernacle. G’d selected you to perform this service לפני העדה, in full view of the whole community to serve as a reminder that another group of your nation, the firstborn, had already been deprived of this privilege due to their having participated in the sin of the golden calf, and you had been chosen to replace them.

המעט מכם, “is it too little for you?” Moses asked if their selection as Levites and their performing duties in and around the Tabernacle was considered by them as something so insignificant?

ולעמוד לפני העדה לשרתם, “and to stand in front of the congregation to serve them,” when they offered their sacrifices.

ויקרב אתך AND HE HATH BROUGHT THEE NEAR to that service from which He has excluded the rest of the congregation of Israel.

ויקרב אתך ואת כל אחיך בני לוי, "He has brought you close together with all your brethren the sons of Levi." What is the meaning of the הבדלה, separation, of which Moses spoke in the previous verse and the הקריבה, the bringing near, of which he speaks in our verse? Maybe Moses referred to two different levels of spiritual elevation. The הבדלה, is the lower level of elevation which all the members of the tribe of Levi participated in and which resulted in their elevation vis-a-vis עדת ישראל. The הקריבה referred to the special status conferred on the Kehatites, whose task of transporting the Holy Ark, etc. reflected their superior status even amongst the Levites. Moses used the word אתך, "especially you personally," indicating that all his brothers depended on Korach and looked up to him.

ויקרב אותך, “he drew you near, etc.” Although Gershon was Levi’s firstborn, and had a claim to be given precedence over Kehat his brother in being given the privilege of transporting the Holy Aark, etc., Hashem demoted him in a manner of speaking in favour of your grandfather, and, as a result, in your favour. You are privileged to carry the Holy Ark on your shoulders.

To the service from which He distanced. Not that He brought you near to Himself, given that he had already said “to bring you closer to Him” (v. 9).

ויקרב אותך ואת אחיך, “and He has brought you near as well as your fellow Levites after you. Korach was a grandson of Kehat, who was one of the Levites charged with carrying the Holy Ark on their shoulders, a privilege reserved only for Kehat and his offspring but not for other Levites. They were also the head of the Levites performing the songs in the Tabernacle as spelled out in Chronicles I16,5.

ובקשתם גם כהונה, “and you also demand a share in the priesthood?”

לכן means because of this — because of all this that I have mentioned, אתה וכל עדתך הנועדים BOTH YOU AND ALL YOUR CONGREGATION WHO ARE GATHERED with you, על ה׳ are AGAINST THE LORD, for it is by His commission that I am acting in giving the Priesthood to Aaron; and this rebellion is therefore not against “us” (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 6).

THEREFORE THOU AND ALL THY COMPANY. “Therefore, because of this [i.e., because of what I have previously said: Hear now, ye sons of Levi: is it but a small thing etc.] thou and all thy company that are gathered together [are] against the Eternal, for I acted as His agent in giving the priesthood to Aaron, and this controversy is [therefore] not directed against us.” This is Rashi’s language. And if so, the verse is saying: “thou and all thy company — it is ye that are gathered together against G-d, and not against Aaron.” And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that the letter hei in the word hano’adim (‘that’ are gathered together) is redundant [thus the verse means: “thou and all thy company ‘are gathered together not against us but against G-d”]. It is possible that the verse is stating: “Therefore thou and all thy company that are gathered together against G-d — for it is not against Aaron [that you are gathered together] — be ye before G-d with Aaron tomorrow,”⁸⁰Verse 16. and the verse is elliptic with respect to the conditions that Moses mentioned. The purport of the verses is thus as follows: At first he [Moses] spoke unto Korach and unto all his company, saying: ‘In the morning the Eternal will make known etc.,’⁸¹Verses 5-7. Ramban is thus stating that all three verses (5-7) were not equally addressed by Moses to the same group. The first two verses (5-6) and first half of Verse 7 were addressed to Korach and all his company, while the concluding part of that verse [ye take too much upon you, ye sons of Levi] Moses spoke only to Korach. This is made necessary because, as Ramban has stated above, among the assembled were people from all tribes. and afterwards he continued speaking to Korach, saying: ye take too much upon you, ye sons of Levi,⁴⁹Further, Verse 7. and told Korach alone, Hear now, ye sons of Levi.⁸²Verse 8. Therefore he repeated himself saying, thou and all thy company that are gathered together against G-d,⁸³In Verse 11 before us. meaning that the punishment would not be directed against Korach alone, but against his whole company, for they are all gathered together against G-d.

לכן, אתה וכל עדתך הנועדים, know that I leave the matter of judging who is right entirely up to the Lord. Let Him decide who has offended Him. I do not take any countermeasures against you at all.

לכן אתה וכל עדתך, "Therefore, you and your whole congregation, etc." The word לכן is equivalent to an oath. Moses swears that Korach and associates are gathered against G'd (not against Moses). Moses did so in the hope that when they realised this they might yet become afraid to continue this quarrel and not go through with the test to determine who was fit to be a priest.

לכן אתה וכל עדתך, a reference to the insurgents described previously as הנועדים על ה'.

Because of this. Meaning: The lamed is not part of the root, unlike the aleph in the word אכן (even so), which is a construct of the words אך (even) and כן (so). There the kaf serves as the kaf of the word אך and as the kaf of the word כן. However here the lamed of the word לכן serves the same purpose as the lamed of אמרי לי אחי (say because of me that he is my brother) (Bereishis 20:13) [which means] “because of me.” Here too לכן means “because of this.”

לכן, “therefore,” i.e. since you have also demanded to have the status of priests;

'הנועדים על ה, “you, the ones who have joined together against the Lord;” you have gathered today and you will see G-d’s response tomorrow;

כי תלונו, “because you have complained;” this word normally should have been spelled with the letter י instead of the letter ו in the middle. [Our author, when making these observations merely points out that the spelling is not a scribe’s error. He does not engage in speculations of why the Torah deviated from the norm. Ed.] The word is read as if it had been spelled: תלינו.

וישלח משה וגו׳ AND MOSES SENT [TO CALL DATHAN AND ABIRAM] — From here we may learn that one should not persist in strife (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 10), for, you see, Moses sought them out in order to conciliate them by peaceful words (Sanhedrin 110a).

AND MOSES SENT TO CALL DATHAN AND ABIRAM. Now Dathan and Abiram were the instigators of this controversy as much as Korach was, as Scripture states, Now Korach took … and Dathan and Abiram … and they rose up in the face of Moses with certain of the children of Israel etc.,⁸⁴Above, Verses 1-2. meaning that they were the ones who roused them together against Moses and Aaron. Then Moses spoke [once] to Korach and to all his company,⁸⁰Verse 16. and furthermore said to him: thou and all thy company,⁸⁵Verse 11. for it was to him [Korach] that he spoke first, since he was the leader amongst them. Now amongst those that were gathered together were also the followers of Dathan and Abiram; therefore Moses wanted to speak to them also now, and to warn them about themselves and all those who were gathered together [with them], who were their company, and to appease them with good words, even comforting words⁸⁶Zechariah 1:13. to Israel, since his [earlier] words to Korach were a conciliation only to the Levites.
The meaning of the expression and Moses sent is that Dathan and Abiram had gone away from his presence whilst he was speaking to Korach [as stated in Verses 5-7], and afterwards it again says, And Moses said unto Korach [Verse 8], who was still standing before him there, or maybe since Korach was a Levite he stayed in the camp of the Levites near the tent of Moses.⁸⁷Accordingly, the speech of Moses to Korach, which is recorded in Verses 8-11, took place near Moses’ and Korach’s tents, and not near the Tent of Meeting. All this happened on the first day [of the rebellion], just as Moses said, thou and they, and Aaron tomorrow,⁸⁰Verse 16. — this being the “morning” he mentioned to them: In the ‘morning’ the Eternal will make it known who are His.⁸⁸Above, Verse 5.
It is possible that Dathan and Abiram, as princes of the congregation,⁵⁴Above, Verse 2. were more distinguished than On the son of Peleth,⁵⁴Above, Verse 2. and if they would have been won over to Moses, On would have followed their counsel; therefore Moses did not send for him. Thus On did not come, and was not present together with them [Dathan and Abiram], nor was he with Korach’s company; since he left him when Dathan and Abiram went away, while Moses was debating with Korach, and he never returned [to Korach’s company], because he changed his mind [after his original participation] on the advice of his wife who saved him, according to the words of our Rabbis.⁸⁹Sanhedrin 109b. She said to her husband: “What benefit will you have from this controversy? Either Moses remains master and you are his disciple, or Korach becomes master and you are his disciple!” For Scripture does not mention him [On] as one who was swallowed up [in the earth] together with Dathan and Abiram, nor was he among the company of those that gathered together against the Eternal⁹⁰See further, 27:3. who offered the incense, since there were two hundred and fifty men besides the four⁹¹I.e., Korach, Dathan, Abiram, and On the son of Peleth. Now since Scripture mentions these four men besides the two hundred and fifty (Verse 2), and the fire which burnt those who offered the incense, destroyed two hundred and fifty men (further, Verse 35), it follows that On must have been saved. The death of Korach, Dathan, and Abiram, however, is expressly mentioned separately (ibid., Verses 27, and 32-33). mentioned at first.

וישלח משה לקרא, Moses despatched a messenger to call, etc. Moses was clever in trying to speak to Datan and Aviram individually, not when all the rebels were together, hoping thereby to persuade them to adopt a more receptive attitude. He also hoped that the honour he paid them by inviting them individually might cause them to at least listen to what he had to say. The Torah uses the word משה although there was no need to tell us who invited Datan and Aviram. The Torah emphasised that these people received an invitation from the king for a private audience.

ויאמרו לא נעלה, to be judged by you or your court. The expression עליה occurs frequently in conjunction with going to a court, to a judge. We find it in Deuteronomy 25,7 ועלתה יבמתו השערה, “his (the deceased’s) widow shall go up to the judges to protest her brother-in-law’s refusal to marry her.” It also occurs in this sense in Judges 4,5 where Boaz is reported as going up to the court to settle the matter of who will marry Ruth.

וישלח משה לקרוא לדתן ואבירם, “Moses sent a messenger to summon Datan and Aviram, etc.” They were at the core of the entire dispute together with Korach, and up until now Moses had carried on a dialogue only with Korach. He had attempted to placate Korach, and was now ready to attempt to placate Datan and Aviram also. He did not summon Aun, son of Pelet, Nachmanides speculates that the reason that Moses did not invite Aun son of Pelet to a dialogue may have been that as a member of the tribe of Reuven, he presumed that Aun would automatically follow the lead of Datan and Aviram who were members of his tribe. If such illustrious men as Datan and Aviram would be reconciled with Moses, he, Aun, would of course follow suit. As it turned out, Aun was no longer with Datan and Aviram, neither did he come to debate with Moses as he had listened to the advice of his wife who had told him not to become a pawn in the hands of such demagogues as Datan and Aviram. Our sages derived this from the fact that when the death of Korach and Datan and Aviram is reported, the Torah never mentioned another word about Aun son of Pelet. Had he persisted in his opposition, surely he would have been enumerated as one of the victims of this rebellion. He clearly did not even belong to the 250 men who presented their incense or he would have died as a result of that. The reason that Moses had to send a messenger to summon Datan and Aviram was that they had gone away during the argument that Moses carried on with Korach. It is also possible that whereas Korach had been positioned in the camp of the Levites, not far from Moses’ own tent, Datan and Aviram being members of the tribe of Reuven, had remained within the confines of their own camp. This entire dialogue occurred on the first day, as the Torah said that G’d had said that on the following morning the issue would be put to the test.

ויאמרו לא נעלה, they said: “we will not go up.” The Tabernacle was on an elevated site in the desert. We find this construction again in verse 24 when the people are instructed to “go up and away from the area surrounding Korach”.

V. 12. וישלח וגו׳. Wir haben schon bemerkt, dass Datan und Abiram eine eigene Fraktion in dieser Verschwörung Korachs gebildet zu haben scheinen. Korachs Empörung galt zunächst Aharons Priesterstellung und nur indirekt, als deren Urquell und Stütze, der Autorität Mosche. Datan und Abiram waren aber direkt gegen Mosche aufgestanden und ihr Ziel war die Beseitigung der politischen Führerschaft Mosche. Die Feindschaft gegen Mosche — direkt oder indirekt — bildete den Kitt der beiden Fraktionen. Darum wollte Mosche Datan und Abiram besonders sprechen, sie aber erwiderten: לא נעלה. In diesem Ausdruck fassten sie mit beißender Ironie die ganze Gehässigkeit ihrer Gesinnung zusammen. שלח לקרא ל־ involviert keineswegs ein von einem Höhern ausgehendes diktatorisches "Vorladen". Es wird vielmehr zur Bezeichnung freundlichster "Einladungen" gebraucht (vergl. Kap. 22, 5. 20 u. 37; — Schmot 2, 20 u. 34, 15; — Sam. I. 16, 3; — Kön. I. 1, 19 und sonst). עלה ist aber nicht bloß das Hinaufgehen zu einem räumlich höher gelegenen Orte, sondern auch das Hingehen zu einer, der Bedeutung nach höheren Stelle, das Hingehen zu einem Höheren, insbesondere das Hingehen zum Gerichte, ועלתה יבמתו השערה. (Dewarim 25, 7); ובועז עלה השער (Ruth 4, 1). Mosche hatte sie in freundlichster Weise zu sich bitten lassen. Sie aber gaben der Einladung die Auffassung einer Vorladung und antworteten: wir kommen nicht hinauf zum "Herrn!" d. h. wir folgen seinem Befehle nicht, es ist eine Anmaßung von ihm, uns so von oben herab zu befehlen, zu ihm zu kommen, er hat nichts zu befehlen.

לא נעלה, “we will not go up [to face Moses]. This does not mean that Moses stood on an elevated platform, but is a standard expression when people are asked to appear before a judge or judges. Our author quotes Deuteronomy 25,7, as well as Judges 4,5, and Ruth 4,1, as proof of his interpretation. In each instance the verb עלה is used for people appearing at a court.

לא נעלה WE WILL NOT GO UP — Their mouth tripped them up (i.e. unwittingly they made mention of their fate) — that they would have only a “descent” (their words are taken to mean: we shall not be going up; we shall go down into the depths of the earth) (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 6).

לא נעלה, “we will not go up.” Ibn Ezra writes that it is possible that the Tabernacle was located on a slight elevation outside the general encampment, or that the word “going up” is used in a spiritual sense, i.e. that anyone invited to meet with Moses at the entrance to the Tabernacle was automatically viewed as “ascending.”

לא נעלה; המעט כי העליתנו מארץ זבת חלב ודבש, "we will not go up; is it not enough that you have taken us away from a land flowing with milk and honey, etc.?" By saying לא נעלה, Datan and Aviram made it clear that seeing they did not consider Moses fit to be their leader, they also did not consider it an honour to be secluded with him in a private audience. They spurned any honour which emanated from Moses.

They justified their attitude vis-a-vis Moses by citing Moses' track record as a leader. They ridiculed what Moses had portrayed as an ascent from Egypt, saying: "is this what you call an ascent that you took us from a land flowing with milk and honey and now we are stuck in a desert, a place only fit to die? If this is your idea of an עליה, ascent, improvement in our lot, then no thank you, we do not want any part of it." They added כי תשתרר עלינו, "your sole purpose is to make yourself a prince over us." They did not even give Moses credit that his invitation was designed to provide them with a "soft landing," a face-saving opportunity to climb down from the limb they were on. By repeating the words גם השתרר, they added insult to injury claiming that Moses was not content with his status as leader prior to the Exodus, but that he wanted to consolidate his position. They hinted thereby that it suited Moses' purpose for the Israelites to remain in the desert for a long time as they were dependent upon him and this strengthened his positon as autocrat. We do know from Shemot Rabbah 5,23 that Moses' position as king was in effect only while the Jewish people were in the desert.

THAT THOU [Moses] WOULDST MAKE THYSELF A PRINCE OVER US ‘GAM HISTAREIR’ — [the repetition of this phrase — literally ‘also to rule’ means]: ‘also many forms of lordship.’ Or⁹²In our text of Ibn Ezra’s commentary the word “or” is missing, so that he is expressing only one thought: “also many forms of lordship — thou and thy brother Aaron.” [it may refer to lordship by] ‘thou and thy brother Aaron.’” This is the language of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra. In my opinion the word gam (also) here means “even.” Similarly: There is none that doeth good, not ‘gam’ (even) one;⁹³Psalms 14:3. The poor is hated ‘gam’ (even) of his own neighbor,⁹⁴Proverbs 14:20. and similar cases. Thus Dathan and Abiram said to Moses: “Is it a small thing on your part that you have done us such a great evil to kill us in the wilderness, for which we should have stoned you, that you would rule over us even in a small measure of lordship, by sending us [a summons] to appear before you, let alone that you should play the king and be elevated over us!”

גם השתרר, the word גם in the Torah appears quite often as an introduction to something opposite or totally different from what had preceded it. Our verse is an example of such use, the line כי תשתרר ילינו גם השתרר meaning “do you now also want to lord it over us?” Another such example is found in Exodus 12,32 where Pharaoh begs Moses to bless him, using the word גם, although this word in that context certainly is not a continuation of any previously discussed thought. Genesis 29,30 as well as Numbers 22,33 where the angel said to Bileam גם הרגתי אותך “I would also have killed you,” is totally out of keeping with the standard meaning of the word גם when it is translated as “also.” [the angel had not killed the ass as yet. Ed.]

כי תשתרר עלינו גם השתרר, “yet you want to lord it over us, yea, dominate us even further?” According to Nachmanides the word גם, normally translated as “also,” needs to be understood as אפילו, “even,” in the sense of “even more so,” in our context here. Others understand the phrase to mean: “is it not enough that you lord it over us, that now you want to impose even your brother over us also?”

המעט כי העליתנו, “is it not enough that you have made us go up, etc.?” Datan and Aviram paraphrased (sarcastically) Moses’ question: “is it not enough that G’d has set you apart to become Levites, etc.” by referring to the “elevation” from a land flowing with milk and honey to the desert. Actually, Egypt, situated at sea level was lower than most of the Land of Canaan except a narrow coastal strip and the Israelites at that time were on a high plateau at the southern end of Eretz Yisrael.

V. 13. המעט וגו׳, hast du uns nicht schon genug unglücklich gemacht, indem du uns aus einem so herrlichen Lande wie Ägypten hinauf (d. h. unter dem Versprechen, uns in ein noch besseres zu bringen, oder der höheren Lage von Palästina wegen) geführt hast, um uns nach deinem jüngsten Verhängnis nun hier, in der Wüste, unsern Tod finden zu lassen, dass השתרר וגו׳. Wir haben drei, dem Laute nach ähnliche, begrifflich jedoch verschiedene Ausdrücke für herrschen: שור ,שרה und שרה .שרר bezeichnet das Herrschen nach der überragenden, größeren Macht, שור nach dem maßgebenden sittlichen Einfluss (siehe Bereschit 17, 15), שרר aber ist verwandt mit סרר, dem Ausdrucke des ungefügigsten Ungehorsams, bezeichnet die Willkürherrschaft, die an kein Gesetz sich bindet, und die werfen sie Mosche vor und finden schon einen Beweis darin, dass er sich erlaubt, sie zu sich rufen zu lassen, wozu er ganz und gar kein Recht habe!!

כי תשתרר עלינו גם השתרר, “but you have also imposed a dictatorship over us!” According to Rash’bam, the Torah uses the word גם, usually translated as “also,” both positively and negatively, i.e. as a continuation of something previous, or as an abrupt opposite of something previously stated. Our verse is an example of Datan and Abiram using it in the latter sense as if asking: “are you now going to also (even) act as dictator? Exodus 12,32 is such an example where the Pharaoh who had railed against Moses and Aaron all the time, suddenly makes a 180 degree turn by pleading for Moses to bless him also when offering sacrifices to the Jewish G-d. Numbers 22,33, is another such example where the angel who had not killed anyone tells Bileam that he would have killed not only his ass but also Bileam if he had been at liberty to do so.

כי תשתרר עלינו גם תשתרר, “that you also want to lord it over us?” The word “over us” refers to the manner in which they perceived Moses as having lorded it over them already in Egypt something which was followed by their continuing to exercise their rule over the people in the desert (this justifies the word גם, also, in this line). On the other hand, one may understand the reason the word השתרר has been repeated as the dual “rule” by Moses as the political autocrat over the people and Aaron as the religious autocrat in his capacity as the High Priest. Other secondary forms of authority wielded by the Levites and the princedom of Elitzafan ben Uzziel are referred to in the word גם, “also.”

ותתן לנו (lit., thou hast given us) — The statement must he referred to the word לא, “not”, mentioned before, the meaning being: Thou hast not brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey, and thou hast not given us inheritance of fields and vineyards. — You told us, (Exodus 3:7) “I will bring you up from the affliction of Egypt” into a good land: from there (from such a land; cf. v. 13), indeed, you have brought us forth, but you have not brought us instead into a land flowing with milk and honey; on the contrary — you have passed a decree upon us to kill us in the wilderness, for you have said, (Numbers 14:29) “Your carcasses shall fall in this desert."

אף לא אל ארץ...ותתן לנו, not only did you worsen our lot by taking us out of Egypt, and bringing us to a desert leaving behind a land which was flowing with milk and honey, but you have mocked us by not even bringing us to another country, even though it might have been inferior to Egypt. To listen to you speak one might think that you had led us to a land of good fields and vineyards and allocated these to us as our inheritance. Anyone listening to your expounding on the Divine commandments linked to possession of such fields and orchards has been totally misled. (reference to Leviticus 19,9-10) When presenting this legislation to us one could think that the fields and orchards under discussion were already ours.

אף לא אל ארץ זבת חלב ודבש הביאותנו, "Moreover, you have not brought us to a land flowing with milk and honey, etc." Since they had already accused Moses of bringing them to a place where all one could do was to die, what was the point of accusing him that he had not brought them to a land flowing with milk and honey? Rashi gives a rather forced explanation to this question. Perhaps we can say that Datan and Aviram did not want to justify their refusal to go and see Moses merely because he had brought them to a place where all one could do was die. They implied that even if all he had done was not to bring them to a land flowing with milk and honey this would be sufficient reason for them to decline his invitation as Moses had failed to deliver on his promise. The words אף לא אל mean that this latter detail is already enough reason to decline his invitation. They were working up to their next argument: "will you put out the eyes of these men?" They implied that the fact that Moses had caused the people actual damage by marooning them in the desert was an additional reason for not coming to see him."

?העיני האנשים ההם תנקר, “do you think that these people who have risen up against you do not have eyes with which they can see this trap that you led us into when you took us out of Egypt, a good land, to bring us to this miserable desert to die here? You certainly did not fulfill your promise to bring us to a land flowing with milk and honey which was the reason that we followed you from Egypt. All that awaits them now are 40 years in this desert in which to await their death.

העיני האנשים ההם תנקר, “even if you were to gouge out the eyes of these men, etc.,” Datan and Aviram referred to the men who had come out of Egypt. The phrase is a sarcastic remark suggesting that even if all are as blind as if their eyes had been gouged out, they, Datan and Aviram, could not be blinded by Moses’ pretensions. If we were to accept Moses’ summons or invitation it would appear as if we too were unable to “see” how he had bamboozled the whole nation.

אף לא אל ארץ זבת חלב ודבש הביאותנו, “nor did you bring us to a land flowing with milk and honey.” They meant: “not only did you take us out of a good place, but if you had brought us instead to another good place and each one of us would have had a field and a vineyard such as we had in Egypt we could have put up with your autocratic ways. But instead you took us out of a good place and have not offered us compensation by providing us with a similarly good place; why then should you claim the right to lord it over us?”

You told us “I will bring you up.” Meaning: If Moshe had not promised to bring them up they would not have said this to him, for he would not have been obliged to do so. Rashi reverses the sequence of the verses to indicate that it would have been appropriate to say: “Is it but a pittance that you have brought us up from a land flowing with milk and honey, and into a land flowing with milk and honey you have not brought us, [rather] to kill us [in the desert], so to exercise your power.” Accordingly, the Torah would not have had to use the word אף ("even") and thus Rashi omits it. However, according to the sequence of the verses the word אף ("even") was necessary in order to explain “Is it not sufficient that you did us the evil of causing us to die in the desert, but even the good that you promised us you did not do.” This implies that “If you had [at least] done the good, then we would have also accepted the bad.” If one explains this way, there would be a difficulty: What was the point of their complaint over the lack of good? Since they were about to die, why would why care about the land flowing with milk and honey? Consequently, Rashi reverses the sequence of the verses. According to his explanation two matters are being addressed here, “not only [did you not fulfill the good]…but you even decreed against us that we die.”

V. 14. אף לא וגו׳ kann sich nicht wie das להמיתנו במדבר des vorigen Verses darauf beziehen, dass nun das ganze aus Ägypten gezogene Geschlecht nach der jüngsten Bestimmung in der Wüste ihr Leben beschließen solle, ohne das verheißene Land zu betreten; denn das ist ja schon gesagt und kann am allerwenigsten mit dem steigenden אף eingeleitet werden, da es ja nur dasselbe sagen würde. Wir glauben, dies vielmehr also verstehen zu dürfen: uns, die Älteren, die wir aus Ägypten gezogen, uns hast du schon wortbrüchig ins Unglück gebracht. Wir haben das schöne Land verlassen und sollen nun in der Wüste sterben. Aber auch an dein weiteres Versprechen, dass, wenn wir auch nicht selbst, wir doch in unseren Kindern zum Besitz des verheißenen Landes kommen sollen, glauben wir noch gar nicht, dessen Erfüllung steht noch gar nicht so fest, wenn du auch so positiv mit uns von dem Besitz an Feld und Weinberg sprichst und uns in bezug darauf (z. B. gleich nach dem ausgesprochenen Verhängnis des Aussterbens in der Wüste: Kap. 15, 2 u. 18) Gesetze erteilst. Wie positiv du uns auch נחלת שדה וכרם zusagst, mit Worten "gibst", — (vergl. Bereschit 1, 15 u. 18, sowie Bamidbar 20, 12 und sonst) — so hast du damit uns doch noch keineswegs wirklich ins Land gebracht. Dein Versprechen in bezug auf die Kinder wird ebenso mit Täuschung enden, wie dein Versprechen an die Väter — העיני וגו׳: meinst du uns blind machen zu können, dass wir die Dinge nicht sehen sollten, wie sie sind?! — Das: ותתן לנו וגו׳ wird in ähnlicher Weise von Siporno in seinem Kommentar erklärt.

העיני האנשים ההם תנקר, “will you gouge out the eyes of these men?” The verse is to be understood as a question, not as a statement, the authors expressing their astonishment that Moses hoped to get away with misleading the people with such trick. They themselves could certainly not be fooled by him, someone who had so utterly failed in his socalled mission up to now. They expressed wonder that the eyes of the Jewish people should have been fooled thus far, it looked to them as if these people had been blind all the time. [They were clearly the greatest demagogues up to that time! Ed.] Now, instead of making good on their promises, they had decreed that a whole generation of Israelites were to perish in this desert! They would not appear in front of him to be judged by him, he had lost all credence as a leader.

העיני האנשים ההם תנקר WILT THOU PUT OUT THE EYES OF THESE MEN etc. — This means: even if you were to send to put out our eyes if we would not come up to you we would not come up!

העיני האנשים ההם תנקר, do you really think that you can fool all these people into not recognising your machinations which are of such a deceptive nature?

לא נעלה. This is the reason why we refuse to come up and be judged by you and your court. This is a typical construction known as כלל ופרט וכלל, stating a general principle, illustrating it with examples, and then reaffirming the general principle having supplied the reasons supporting the theory stated as a general principle.

Even if you send agents to put out. Rashi is answering the question: It is obvious that if you were to put out their eyes, they would not be able to go up.

העיני האנשים ההם תנקר, "should you gouge out the eyes of those men? we will not go up." They meant that they would rather have their eyes gouged out than to pay Moses the compliment of accepting his invitation. This comment revealed the very depth of their hatred. They preferred to have their eyes gouged out rather than to be granted a favour by the righteous Moses. No wonder Moses anger was greatly aroused!

האנשים ההם THESE MEN — [They meant themselves, but spoke of other people’s eyes being put out], like a man who attaches to his fellow the curse which should come upon himself (cf. Rashi on Exodus 1:10).

ויחר למשה מאד AND MOSES WAS VERY DISTRESSED — i.e. he was very much grieved.

RESPECT NOT THOU ‘MINCHATHAM’ (THEIR OFFERING). “According to its plain sense [the meaning of ‘their offering’ is] ‘the incense which they will offer up before You tomorrow — do not turn to it.’ The Midrashic explanation is that Moses said: ‘I know that they have a portion in the Daily Whole-offerings of the congregation; let not [their part in it] be accepted before You favorably.’” This is Rashi’s language. But it does not seem to me to be correct that it is referring to the incense, because it was with reference to Dathan and Abiram that Moses said this, because he became angered by their words, and they were not amongst the company who gathered together to burn the incense. But the plain meaning [of the verse] is that because these people wanted the priesthood, to be able to perform the service of the offerings, Moses said: “Respect not Thou their offering, meaning: respect not the offering which they want to bring before You, nor the prayer which they will pray unto You,” for all offerings, including prayer, are called minchah (offering) in Scripture. Onkelos also rendered [minchatham] as kurbanhon (their offering), meaning “anything that they will offer before You.”

אל תפן אל מנחתם, do not accept any kind of offering these people would You in order to atone for themselves. Moses chose the מנחה type offering as the example as this is usually the most welcome kind of offering to G’d, and we know that he referred to such gift offerings as being ריח ניחוח pleasant fragrance. He explains that the reason such offerings should not be accepted is that he, Moses, has not forgiven the insult fling at him. [In Samuel I 26,19 David explains to King Sha-ul that G’d is apt to be appeased by someone bringing an offering known as מנחה. Ed.] Here Moses conditions G’d accepting such an offering from Korach on he, Moses, first having been appeased by Korach before daring to ask G’d for atonement. We have a standing rule that even Yom Kippur, a day set aside for atonement, does not atone for sins committed between one person and another unless the offender had first reconciled himself with the party whom he had wronged. (Yuma 85). The prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 18,20-23) elaborates the same point also, asking G’d not to forgive the people for sins committed against fellow Jews until they had first been forgiven by those against whom they had sinned.

ויאמר אל ה׳ אל תפן, He said to G'd: "do not turn to their gift-offering." Moses now understood the depth of Datan and Aviram's hatred, that they were thoroughly wicked and actually hated anything or anybody who was good. He was aware that there are no people who do not have certain merits due to good deeds they have performed. He realised that G'd does not withhold the reward for such merits from anyone, and that if the people in question cannot be rewarded in the hereafter because they had forfeited their hereafter, G'd would compensate them in this life. This is based on Deut. 32,4 that "the Lord is one of faithfulness without iniquity." Sanhedrin 106 provides us with an example of the wicked Bileam, who had after all pronounced all the blessings on the Jewish people, collecting his fee for having the Moabites seduce the Israelites, prior to his being slain. Moses did not want G'd to accept even the good deeds Korach and associates had performed for whom they had not yet received a reward. This is what he had in mind when he referred to מנחתם.

אל תפן; the word תפן is derived from the root פנה, as in Genesis 43,34 ותרב משאת בנימין “Binyamin’s gift was more substantial,” after the Torah first described Joseph giving gifts to the other brothers, but introducing Binyamin’s gifts with the words מאת פניו, indicating a “turn around” by treating Binyamin differently than the other brothers. We must view the expression אל תפן as אל תפנה, seeing the vowel pattern under the letters תפ are tzeyreh followed by segol. If the Torah had written אל תפן with the vowel pattern segol, segol, it would have been tafneh, i.e. a causative mode “do not bring about a change.”

אל תפן אל מנחתם, “Do not turn to their gift-offering.” Rashi explains that according to the plain meaning the gift offering referred to was the incense that the rebels were to offer on the following morning. Nachmanides writes that this is not correct, as the words were said concerning Datan and Aviram, and Moses was especially angry at what they had said. Their reason for dissatisfaction had nothing to do with who would be privileged to offer incense at all. They had had their own axe to grind. The plain meaning of the verse is that Moses said to G’d concerning the people who had demanded the right to perform the priestly duties, that He should not accept their incense in order to demonstrate that they had not been chosen to do so. Moses meant that G’d should neither accept their incense offering nor accept their prayer with goodwill. Prayer is also referred to as מנחה in Scripture. Onkelos also supports this explanation when he writes קורבנהון, without specifying, i.e. any offering including prayer.

The incense which they will offer. Meaning: Even the smoke should not rise up before you. (Gur Aryeh) Ramban asks: Moshe was saying this regarding Dasan and Aviram, but they did not offer incense. The answer appears to be that although Dasan and Aviram did not bring any offerings, there is no difficulty, for we still could say that “the agent of a person is considered like [the sender] himself” (Kiddushin 41b). [Those who offered the incense could be considered agents of Dasan and Aviram] because the purpose of those who offered the incense was to say that they were fit to be Kohanim Gedolim, and a Kohen Gadol brings offerings on behalf of all the people, not for himself alone.

V. 15. ויחר וגו׳ eigentlich: dies brannte Mosche sehr, dass man es wagte, ihm den Vorwurf eines Missbrauchs seiner Stellung zu rechtloser Willkür zu machen, das schmerzte ihn tief. — אל תפן אל מנחתם, das Verständnis dieses Satzes hat erhebliche Schwierigkeiten. Es kann dies nicht auf das קטרת hinblicken, das morgen von den mit Korach verbundenen Empörern dargebracht werden sollte. Denn eben daran nahmen ja, wie wir bereits bemerkt, Datan und Abiram keinen Teil. Vielmehr glauben wir eben deshalb, es vielleicht also verstehen zu dürfen: Korachs und der Zweihundertundfünfzig Aufstand war eine direkte Auflehnung gegen Gott und den von ihm angeordneten, durch Aharon zu vollziehenden Opferdienst in seinem Heiligtum. Von diesem in Wahrheit Gott huldigenden Opferdienst sagte sich der Selbstdünkel los, mit welchem sie bereit waren, in eigener Überhebung Gott den Weihrauch ihres Beliebens darzubringen. An dieser priestertümlichen Seite des Aufstandes hatten Datan und Abiram keinen Teil. Mit ihrem "Mincha" frevelten sie nicht. Mit ihrem Mincha blieben sie auf dem normalen Boden der Gesamtnation, mit dem symbolischen Minchaausdruck ihrer Gotteshuldigung verharrten sie im legalen Anschluss an das Gesamtopfer der Nation im Heiligtum und suchten kein individuelles priesterliches Vorangehen für sich, — und gleichwohl אל תפן ל אל מנחתם: denn wenn sie auch im symbolischen Ausdruck der Gotteshuldigung nicht gefrevelt, so war dafür ihr konkretes Vorgehen ein um so tieferer Frevel gegen die Huldigung Gottes. Indem sie wegen des ihnen versagten Eintritts in das verheißene Land Mosche anklagten, diesen Eintritt auch für die Zukunft spöttisch in Zweifel zogen, in allem nur die Ohnmacht Mosche erblickten, der seine Verlegenheit hinter die angebliche Versündigung des Volkes maskierte, indem sie so Mosche als den gewissenlosen Betrüger seiner Nation darstellten und ihn zugleich der gemeinsten Herrschsucht und Gewalttätigkeit beschuldigten, hatten sie überhaupt die ganze Sendung Mosche als gemeinen Betrug erklärt und damit das ganze Göttliche seiner Sendung, sowie die ganze besondere Beziehung Gottes zu Israel, die ja eben nur durch diese Sendung und in ihr Tatsache geworden, geleugnet. Damit hatten sie aber, so weit es sie betraf, den ganzen Boden für nichtig erklärt, auf welchem ein durch Mosche überbrachtes Zeugnis für ein an Mosche und durch Mosche offenbartes Gottesgesetz und ein diesem Gesetze errichtetes Gottesheiligtum und ein diesem Gottesgesetzesheiligtum geweihter Opferdienst für sie noch irgend welche Bedeutung haben könnte. Datan und Abiram traten nicht darum nicht mit ihren מחתות unter die Zweihundertundfünfzig, weil sie damit dem legalen Heiligtum und seinem Opferdienst die Anerkennung belassen wollten, sondern weil sie zu allen diesen Beziehungen überhaupt sich negierend verhielten. Darum אל תפן אל מנחתם! Vielleicht liegt diese Auffassung auch der in במדבר רבה z. St. gegebenen Erläuterung zu Grunde: כך אמר משה לפני הקב׳׳ה רבונו של עולם יודע אני שיש מאלו חלק באותה מנחה שהקריבו ,מלבד עולת התמיד ומנחתה והיתה של כל ישראל קריבה ,הואיל ופירשו אלו מבניך אל תשתכל בחלקם תניחנו האש ואל תאכלנה.

אל תפן אל מנחתם, “do not turn to their gift offering!” The reason why Moses cursed Datan and Abiram, by asking G-d not to accept their offering if any, was because even assuming, as he did, that they would not retract even if G-d were to say, as He did, that He had chosen Aaron and not Moses, they would still challenge the hereditary nature of the priesthood;Korach and his followers, on the other hand, by each taking the censers in which to offer incense outside the Tabernacle, did not challenge the priesthood itself, only Aaron’s appointment as High Priest. Therefore he did not ask G-d not to accept the incense of these 250 men.

אל תפן אל מנחתם TURN NOT THOU TO THEIR OBLATION — According to its plain sense the meaning is: “In respect to the frankincense which they will offer before Thee tomorrow, I beg of Thee do not turn (pay regard) to them”. The Midrashic explanation is: He said, “I know that they have a portion in the continual offerings of the community; let not even this their portion be accepted favourably before Thee — let the fire leave it alone and not consume it” (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 7).

I HAVE NOT TAKEN ONE ASS FROM THEM. The meaning thereof is that Moses said: “What lordship am I exercising over them, for I have never taken from them even one ass to do my work, as is the manner of kings and princes?” For this is the manner of the kingdom,⁹⁵I Samuel 10:25. as it is written, and he will take your asses, and put them to his work.⁹⁶Ibid., 8:16. This is the meaning of Onkelos’ rendition: [“I have not taken one ass from them] sh’chorith (as a levy),” for [in Aramaic] the king’s levy is called shichvur. Thus Moses mentioned the smallest incident amongst the laws of royalty, and then he said, Neither have I hurt one of them by appointing him to my chariot⁹⁷See ibid., Verse 12. or to do my work, as is befitting for a king, or by perverting his judgment [in a lawsuit] or by treating him with disrespect, for [the phrase “hurting” in neither have I ‘hurt’ one of them] includes all kinds of injustice.

לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי, I have not even made use of things which any ordinary person would borrow from his neighbour without giving it a thought. This proves that my position of authority was exclusively used for their benefit and not for mine. Their present complaints prove only that they are extremely ungrateful, seeing that they have benefited from my leadership.

לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי, I have not even appropriated a single donkey of theirs (the entire people) as a form of taxation as do most others rulers from all of their subjects. Seeing that this is so, on what do they base their claim that I behave like a ruler, a despot? If the vowel pattern under the word אחד would not have been “segol” followed by “kametz,” but two successive vowels “patach,” the meaning would be: “I have not taken away a single one of their privately owned asses.” It would have been a construct mode as in Genesis 26,10 אחד העם, i.e. “one of the common people.”

לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי, “I have not taken a single donkey of theirs, etc.” Moses said this in response to the accusation that he had lorded it over the people. He had not levied any taxes on any of the people as is customary and willingly accepted by the subjects of any rulers. He had not even borrowed an animal to carry a load for him. When Onkelos translates this as שחרית, he refers to אנגריא, forced labour owed to the king, or even lesser dignitaries such as town-captains, known as שחוור.

That they have a portion in the continual communal sacrifices. Rashi is answering the question: The verse refers to a מנחה (normally referring to a meal-offering), however incense is not called a מנחה. Therefore he explains it as being a reference to the continual sacrifices, since a meal-offering was also offered with the continual sacrifices. (Nachalas Yaakov) The continual sacrifices provide atonement; the morning continual offering for sins committed at night, and the afternoon continual offering for sins committed during the day. However [Moshe prayed that] they should not provide atonement for them. The Torah mentions their meal-offerings rather than the continual sacrifices because it is considered the principle offering. This is in accordance with the teaching of the Rabbis that one who reads Shema without donning tefillin is like one who offers a burnt-offering without a meal-offering. R. Yona explains that one [who did not bring a meal-offering] also does not receive any reward for the burnt-offering, as the verse writes “[Aside from] the continual burnt-offering with its meal-offering” (Bamidbar 19:16).

You may well ask how Moses could expect G'd to change the rules of how He dealt with the wicked on account of himself?

:לא המור אחד נשאתי וגו׳hätte ich auch nur durch die geringste eigennützige oder gewalttätige Handlung meinen Charakter befleckt, sie hätten ein Recht, an der Göttlichkeit meiner Sendung nicht nur zu zweifeln, sondern sie geradezu zu leugnen. Deine Boten müssen menschlich rein sein. Du sendest keinen, dessen Charakter auch nur einen Anflug jener Richtung hat, in welcher die Bahn liegt für Schurken und Tyrannen. Charakterreinheit ist das erste Kreditiv deiner Sendung. Den Vorwurf, durch herrschsüchtige Willkür den Glauben an meine Botschaft erschüttert zu haben, verdiene ich nicht. Nicht nur keinem einzigen aus dem Volke, nicht einem Lasttier eines einzigen aus dem Volke habe ich meine Lasten zu tragen gegeben und habe nicht einem von ihnen mit Bewusstsein und aus Willkür wehe getan. —

לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי, “I have not appropriated a single donkey from anyone of them;” this remark by Moses is relevant to verse three, when he and Aaron had been accused of having elevated himself above the people. The vocalization of the word חמור corresponds to the plain meaning of the verse, whereas according to Rashi’s interpretation the word echad should have been achad, “one of,” as in Genesis 26,10.

לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי means, I have not taken the ass of any one of them; — even when I went from Midian to Egypt and placed my wife and my sons on the ass (Exodus 4:20), and I surely ought afterwards to have taken the price of that ass from their money, yet I took it only from my own (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 7). The translation given by Onkelos of the word נשאתי is שחרית: in the Aramaic language a forced levy made by the king is so called, viz., שחרור (cf. Rashi on Bava Batra 47a. The translation of Onkelos therefore is: I did not press into my service the ass of any one of them).

ולא הרעותי את אחד מהם, they cannot even accuse me of having wrongly convicted anyone of them in legal proceedings as they never brought any of their quarrels before me to have me adjudicate them.

ולא הרעותי את אחד מהם, “neither have I wronged a single one among them.” [This, if taken at face value, would be nothing to brag about. Ed.] The meaning is that Moses never requested from anyone that he perform some menial task for him that he considered it as beneath his dignity to perform himself.

לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי, “I have not taken the ass of any one of them.” It is usual for political leaders or rulers to arrogate to themselves the right to use other people and animals for their personal convenience and to let them perform chores on their behalf. This is why Moses in rebutting the accusations of Datan and Aviram that he had “lorded” it over the people had to point out that he done nothing of the kind. He had not even used such an animal to carry his personal belongings. Seeing he had not even used a beast of burden for his own personal use, how could he be accused of using people, i.e. his subjects, for such a purpose? How then had he “lorded” it over the people? We find that the prophet Samuel also could say of himself: (Samuel I 12,3) “here I am, come forward against me in the presence of the Lord and in the presence of his anointed one, whose ox or donkey I have taken and whom did I defraud or whom have I robbed? From whom have I accepted a bribe, etc.?”

One. The word “one” does not describe the donkey, meaning “one of them [as] a donkey” to serve me. Accordingly “them” refers to Yisroel, meaning [according to this explanation] that Moshe is referring to Yisroel as donkeys. [Heaven] forbid that he would have spoken in such a way! Rather, “donkey” is juxtaposed to “one” meaning “the donkey of one of them.” Rashi uses the word נטלתי ("I took") instead of נשאתי ("I sequestered") so that one not think that נשאתי is in the sense of “I raised up,” [which is an alternate meaning of the word].

Be aware that the righteous possess the power to annul merits which the wicked have accumulated when they observe that the potential recipients have become thoroughly wicked. This is the mystical dimension of Samuel II 23,3 צדיק מושל יראת אלוקים, "The righteous rules in matters of G'd-fearingness." This means that G'd has given the righteous leeway to cancel merits that the wicked have acquired. The idea is that although G'd Himself does not do this, He has allowed the righteous to be His surrogates in this respect. This is not so surprising as the same principle which has been adopted by a court in our world which has the right to deprive an accused of property he owns under the heading of הפקר בית דין הפקר, that when a Jewish court declares certain property as ownerless such a declaration is binding (compare Gittin 36).

Es ist zweifelhaft, in welchem Sinne das נשאתי hier zu verstehen sei. נשא kommt allerdings einigemal auch einfach als fortnehmen vor: ונשא שה מהעדר (Sam. I. 17, 34) נושא את פת בגם (Daniel 1, 16). Nachdem jedoch משאת ein Geschenk und zwar meistens ein Ehrengeschenk bedeutet (Bereschit 43, 34; Jirmij. 40, 5 und Esther 2, 18) und auch die einem Höheren zu leistende Abgabe, im Sinne wie תרומה, so die Schekelspende zum Heiligtum: משאת משה עבד ד׳ (Chron. II. 24, 69), so kann auch hier נשא: als Gebühr erheben heißen. Ich habe nicht einmal die Leistung eines Esels für mich als Frohn beansprucht. So auch לא חמרא דחד מנהון שחרית .ת׳׳א.

נשאתי, an expression meaning “I have taken.” It occurs in this sense also in Samuel II 5,21: וישאם דוד ואנשיו, “and David and his men took them.”

I could have justifiably taken [that donkey] from them. "Since I needed a donkey, nonetheless I did not take it." For if not so, how is this to his credit! Perhaps it was because he had no need [for a donkey] that he did not take it, but had he needed to, he would have taken one.

You may still ask why Moses demanded such an exceptional punishment for Korach and his associates? Surely the mere fact that they hated Moses was not enough of a reason for Moses to act in this manner? Moreover, did we not learn in Moed Katan 18 that when someone is accused of something, if he is not guilty of the whole accusation he is at least guilty of part of it, and even if he is not guilty of having carried out part of the evil deed attributed to him he may have planned to do so? In view of this how could Moses demand such a penalty? This is the reason that Moses began to justify himself publicly saying that he had never taken anything from anybody, i.e. he had not displayed any sign that he lorded it over the people. He had not been guilty of any of the things that kings normally do without being faulted.

לא חמור אחד מהם: nicht den Esel von irgend einem von ihnen. ולא הרעתי את אחד מהם: auch keinen Besondern unter ihnen, der es durch sein Benehmen, verdient hätte (siehe zu Bereschit 3, 22).

ולא הרעותי את אחד מהם, “and I have not done wrong to a single one of them.” Moses referred to the fact that Datan and Abiram had betrayed him to Pharaoh for killing the Egyptian who had first killed an Israelite without provocation. (Exodus 2,112,15)

He added ולא הרעותי את אחד מהם, "neither have I hurt anyone of them (in some other way)." Moses meant he had not been guilty of any act that would account for someone hating him for it.

When Moses said the words את אחד מהם, this included that he was not even involved when one Jew hurt another Jew in some way. He had never given a verdict in which the guilty had been exonerated, nor had he issued a verdict in which the innocent had been declared guilty. If, as a result of his decision, one party had to pay money to a second party this was not Moses' doing but the guilty party had caused that loss to the other. Seeing that Moses possessed sufficient prophetic insight not to make awards to people who did not deserve them from people who were innocent of wrongdoing, he could say of himself that he had not wronged anybody during his career as leader of the nation. Inasmuch as Datan and Aviram's hatred of him could only be the result of bad character, Moses felt entitled to ask G'd to deprive these men of any merits they might have accumulated in their lives and for which they had not yet been recompensed. I believe that the wicked people concerning whom Moses offered this prayer, i.e. Datan and Aviram, were not considered by him as part of the congregation of Korach concerning whom we applied the verse from Samuel I that their share in the resurrection had already been assured (compare Sanhedrin 108). The souls of these men (Datan and Aviram) must have had their roots in the קליפה, the spiritually negative domain of Satan.

והם [THOU] AND THEY [AND AARON] — they means thy congregation.

AND MOSES SAID UNTO KORACH: ‘BE THOU AND ALL THY CONGREGATION BEFORE THE ETERNAL, THOU, AND THEY, AND AARON, TOMORROW.’ Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that “this has already been stated [above, in Verses 5-7: And he spoke unto Korach and unto all his company, saying: ‘In the morning the Eternal will make known etc.’], but the meaning thereof here is: as Moses said to Korach, Be ye before the Eternal, so they took every man his censer.”⁹⁸Further, Verse 18. Thus according to Ibn Ezra, the verse here does not contain a new command heretofore not mentioned, but is the same charge mentioned already above. The reason why it is repeated here is that at the time of fulfillment Scripture records that the charge previously given to Moses was now fulfilled in deed. Ramban will offer another interpretation.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that at first Moses told them: This do: Take you censers, Korach, and all his company … and it shall be that the man whom the Eternal doth choose, he shall be holy,⁹⁹Above, Verses 6-7. and he did not say that Aaron would be together with them. They [also] remained silent, [so that Moses thought] perhaps they did not find this acceptable and did not agree to it, for they may have thought: “If Aaron will be together with us, either the [Heavenly] fire will come down for all of us, or it will not descend at all, so that we will all be alike; whereas if Aaron will not be together with us, and the fire will not come down, the people will say that He has not chosen us, but will think that He has already chosen him [Aaron] inasmuch as the fire came down on his offerings on the eighth day [of the installation of the priests].¹⁰⁰Leviticus 9:24. But as far as that [eighth] day is concerned we have a complaint against him [Moses], namely that he should not have chosen Aaron to be the priest alone, since [the Heavenly fire] came down only in the merit of [the whole people of] Israel who made the Tabernacle, and it would have come down for any representative of the congregation, for the firstborns had not yet been exchanged at that time [for the Levites].” Therefore Korach did not want to do any sort of trial without [the participation of] Aaron. Now Dathan and Abiram were [also] present when Moses told them [these instructions], and they were thus included in what Moses said, [This do: take you censers,] Korach, and all his company.¹⁰¹Verse 6. But after he sent for them, and they said: ‘We will not come up,’¹⁰²Verse 12. then Moses was very wroth,¹⁰³Verse 15. and wanted to decree that they should not die the common death of all men.¹⁰⁴Further, Verses 29-30. Therefore Moses returned to Korach and said, Take ye every man his censer … two hundred and fifty censers; thou also, and Aaron, each his censer.¹⁰⁵Verse 17. Thus he excluded Dathan and Abiram from this group — this being the meaning of [the expression] two hundred and fifty censers, for why was it necessary to mention the number here [since the number of Korach’s company had already been given above in Verse 2]? He also included Aaron amongst them. Then Korach agreed to Moses, for he thought that the matter [of the test] would be decided equally for [both] them and Aaron [as explained above].

'אתה וכל עדתך היו לפני ה; be ready for judgment in His presence.

אתה וכל עדתך היו לפני השם, "you and your whole congregation be in the presence of the Lord!" Why did Moses not include Aaron in the same breath, seeing he too was supposed to bring incense? Why did he mention Aaron separately? Had Moses done so he would not have had to repeat the words: "you and they." Perhaps Moses wanted to emphasise that the decision would be made on the morrow. He did not want to give the rebels a chance to put off the date of the confrontation and perhaps add to their numbers in the interval. As far as Aaron was concerned Moses did not worry about when the confrontation would take place. He only had to mention that Aaron too would bring his censer.

ויאמר משה אל קרח אתה וכל עדתך היו לפני ה'....מחר, “Moses said to Korach: ‘you and your whole assembly make an appearance in the presence of Hashem tomorrow!” Ibn Ezra points out that Moses had already made the same request in verses 6-7 when he had instructed them to appear with their censers filled with incense. We therefore need to understand this as a reference to what Moses had said before the Torah gave details of the altercation. Nachmanides feels that the difference between verse 6-7 and the present verse is that here Aaron is included as participating in this competition. Perhaps Moses hoped that this fact might get some rebels to withdraw, seeing that they knew that on previous occasions Hashem had up to now always accepted Aaron’s incense offering. Alternately, the rebels felt that the participation of Aaron would ensure that heavenly fire as a sign of acceptance would materialize, as it always did. [After all, Moses’ challenge the first time had not been accepted by the rebels, it seems. Ed.] There had been a previous occasion on the eighth day of the consecration rites, the day when heavenly fire had materialized for Aaron’s incense offering, but that could be explained as G’d accepting Aaron as the people’s chosen representative. At that time the firstborn had not yet been deprived of their status. Now that Aaron’s position as representative of the people had been challenged, there was a good chance that his incense offering would not attract heavenly fire as a sign of acceptance. Datan and Aviram were present when Moses had issued the challenge for the first time. Now, after they had refused to debate the issue with him and had gratuitously insulted him, he excluded them from this test by saying: “only קרח וכל עדתו, “Korach and his entire congregation.” This is why the number 250 again is mentioned in verse 17, i.e. there would be 252 censers, one for Korach and one for Aaron. Once Korach heard that Aaron would also compete in this test he was willing to participate.

Your congregation. You might ask: Does the verse not write “You and your entire congregation”? The answer is that Korach thought Moshe would go with them; therefore Korach told him that he need not come with them because their quarrel was with Aharon, not him. Moshe then replied that “You and Aharon and they, tomorrow…” Re’m explains that this was so that one does not think that the word “they” refers to other people, aside from the two hundred and fifty men mentioned above. This would be similar to Aharon who was also not one of those mentioned. Surely this is not so, because afterwards the Torah writes “Two hundred and fifty fire pans and you [and Aharon]…” (v. 17), which refers to those mentioned above.

V. 16. ויאמר וגו׳. In Versen 6 und 7 war nur hypothetisch ausgesprochen, was sie zu tun hätten, wenn sie die Entscheidung Gottes über ihre anklagenden Behauptungen hervorrufen wollten, hier wird dies nun anordnend wiederholt. Nachdem Mosche Versuche nach keiner Seite hin Erfolg gehabt, sagte er zu Korach: wohlan, da ihr menschlichen Vorstellungen nicht zugänglich seid, היו לפני ד׳, so seid vor Gott, d. h. so stellt euch mit euren Ansprüchen vor Gott hin, wagt es, eure Ansprüche vor Gott geltend zu machen, dass Er zwischen dir, deinem Anhange und Aharon entscheide.

Another reason Moses gave the people until the morning was so that they could sanctify themselves in the interval. This was the meaning of: "be in the presence of the Lord." He certainly did not have to include Aaron as amongst the people who had to sanctify themselves as Aaron was always in a state of readiness to present himself before G'd. He did have to tell Aaron to be present at that time on the morrrow. The reason the whole instruction has been repeated seeing Moses had already told Korach and associates to take censers for incense in verse 6, is that in the interval Moses had rebuked the rebels and pointed out to them that they were guilty of overreaching themselves. In view of the fact that these people did not accept Moses' rebuke he had to tell them again to prepare for the confrontation which would be the test.

והקרבתם איש מחתתו AND OFFER YE [BEFORE THE LORD] EVERY MAN HIS CENSER — “every man” means, the 250 men amongst you.

חמישים ומאתים מחתות, ואתה ואהרון "two hundred and fifty censers as well as you and Aaron." All these words are superfluous in view of what Moses said in verse 16, i.e. "you and your whole congregation as well as Aaron." If all Moses wanted to tell us was how many people were going to appear with the censers this should have been part of verse 16. The words "you and Aaron" are superfluous whichever way you look at it. Perhaps Moses was clever enough to tell Korach not to become part of the 250 men and their censers but to compete only with Aaron. He may have done so to prevent people from claiming that the only reason Korach's incense had not been accepted was because he had become part of the evil congregation of 250 men, but that in a straight confrontation with Aaron he would have won out. Even though all the people offering incense did so at the same time, this did not prevent them from doing so in two groups, i.e. the 250 men on the one hand and Korach and Aaron on the other.

V. 17. וקחו וגו׳ durch Darbringung von קטרת möchten sie ihre Ansprüche aufs Priestertum vor Gott geltend machen. Hier wird auch Aharon genannt und zwar werden die Zweihundertundfünfzig besonders gruppiert, Korach aber zu Aharon gestellt. Es galt ja nämlich der Entscheidung einer zwiefachen Behauptung: der Gleichberechtigung und Gleichwürdigkeit aller zum Priestertum, einer Behauptung, die durch das Auftreten der Zweihundertundfünfzig מקריבי קטרת erhärtet werden sollte; ferner aber auch: dass, wenn die Gesamtheit durch einen einzelnen priesterlich vor Gott vertreten werden sollte, dies nicht gerade Aharon sein müsse, vielmehr eventuell auch Korach es sein könne, eine Behauptung, die sich an Aharons und an Korachs Auftreten zur Seite Aharons zu erproben haben sollte (siehe zu V. 3).

:ונתתם עליהם קטרת וגו׳ in auffallender Weise wird hier sowohl als auch V. 18 und so auch oben V. 7, somit bei diesem ganzen Vorgange das Geben des Räucherwerks nicht auf das Feuer, sondern auf die Pfannen bezogen, während bei Nadab und und Abihu (Wajikra 10, 1) und so auch bei dem normalen Darbringen am י׳׳כ (daselbst 16, 12) das קטרת auf das Feuer gegeben wird. Dort heißt es: ויקחו וגו׳ איש מחתתו ויתנו בהן אש וישימו עליה קטרת, ebenso: ולקח מלא המחתה גחלי אש וגו׳ ונתן את הקטרת על האש hier aber: קחו איש מחתתו ונתתם עליהם קטרת ,קחו לכם מחתות וכו׳ ותנו בהן אש ושימו עליהן קטרת ויקחו איש מחתתו ויתנו עליהם אש וישימן עליהם קטרת. Offenbar treten hier die מחתות in den Vordergrund und repräsentieren die darbringende Persönlichkeit. Bei Nadab und Abihu waren die Personen berechtigt und daher auch ihr כלי, die מחתה. Allein das Opfer war ein unberechtigtes, es war אש זרה, weil אשר לא צוה אותם, weil es ein subjektiv ersonnenes war. Hier aber lag das Rechtswidrige nicht im Opfer. Aharon brachte ja dasselbe. Es war auch vielleicht das gewöhnliche Pflicht-קטרת eines jeden Morgens, das freilich normal auf dem מזבח הזהב darzubringen gewesen wäre. Die Rechtswidrigkeit lag jedenfalls in den Personen, die, indem sie mit ihren מחתות auftraten, sich als zu priesterlicher Funktion berechtigt darstellten. Daher der Nachdruck auf die מחתות: wagt es, auf den von euch gehandhabten Räucherpfannen das קטרת vor Gott darzubringen, das sei eure Probe. Daher denn auch im Momente der wirklichen Ausführung dreimal die anomale Maskulinbeziehung der וישימו עליהם ,ויתנו עליהם ,ונתתם עליהם :מחתות, den Trotz und die Anmaßung hervorkehrend, die darin liegt. Und daher auch selbst vom Feuer nicht, wie oben ויתנו בהם, sondern ויתנו עליהם אש, immer die Pfannen, nicht als die Behälter sondern als die Basis bezeichnend, auf Grund deren die Darbringung gewagt werden solle. Daher auch statt der Menschen die Zahl der מחתות wiederholt: חמשים ומאתים מחתות. Darin liegt: so viel Menschen, so viel כהנים, der schärfste Ausdruck der behaupteten Gleichberechtigung.

ויקהל עליהם קרח AND KORAH CONVENED [ALL THE CONGREGATION] AGAINST THEM, by means of scoffing language: that whole night he went round to all the tribes and tried to win them over: “Do you really think that I care for myself alone? It is only for all of you that I have a care! These men come and occupy every high office: royal rank for himself, for his brother the priesthood!” — until in the end all of them submitted to his persuasion (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 7).

AND KORACH ASSEMBLED ALL THE CONGREGATION AGAINST THEM.¹³²Verse 19. The meaning of [the phrase “all the congregation” is] the leading men of all tribes, who are always summoned [as the congregation’s representatives] unto the door of the Tent of Meeting, or [it may refer to] the firstborn of all Israel who were [originally] eligible for the service [of the offerings]. Scripture does not mention [that Korach assembled] “the people,” [a phrase which it uses in the incidents of the [golden] calf¹³³Exodus 32:9: I have seen ‘this people’ … and the spies,¹³⁴Above, 14:11: How long will ‘this people’ despise Me? for if all Israel were guilty [here in the rebellion of Korach] He would have said: “that I may consume them in a moment¹³⁵Verse 21 before us. — and will make thee a nation.”¹³⁶Above, 14:12. This is the phrase used in the case of the spies, where all the people sinned, and G-d wanted to destroy them and form a new nation from Moses. Since it is not used here, it implies that He did not want to direct His punishment to the whole congregation. Now all that I have mentioned [above] about the firstborn is in accordance with the explanation of our Rabbis, who say¹³⁷Zebachim 112b. See above, Note 22. that the service [of the offerings before the building of the Tabernacle] was performed by the firstborn. But according to the plain meaning of Scripture, all the Israelites [without exception] were at first eligible for the service of the offerings, for such is [indeed] always the law with respect to a High Place of an individual,¹³⁸In the period when it was permitted to bring offerings on High Places, i.e., during the fourteen years of the conquest and division of the Land, [when they had not yet built the Sanctuary at Shiloh], and after the destruction of that Sanctuary until the building of the Sanctuary in Jerusalem, there were two kinds of High Places: those of a private individual, where any Israelite could perform the service, and a public one for the whole congregation of Israel — for example, the one at Nob, and later on at Gibeon. The Passover-offering could only be brought at the public High Place, and the service there was only valid if performed by a priest (Zebachim 119b-120 a-b). See also (Leviticus), Volume III, p. 123, Note 122. and Aaron was chosen for the Service in the Tabernacle and Sanctuary. Korach thus was protesting against this selection [of Aaron alone], and wanted to restore the service [of the offerings] to all the Israelites, seeing all the congregation are holy.¹³⁹Above, Verse 3.

ויקהל עליהם קרח, Korach assembled against them, etc. This tells us that these people did not voluntarily assemble against Moses but only after Korach had put heavy pressure on them to do so. Accordingly, the Torah reports something here that is favourable for this whole congregation of 250 men. On the other hand, the words ויקהל עליהם may only provide the background to the command by G'd in verse 20 to separate themselves from this congregation in order that G'd could destroy them simultaneously and at once. The verse would provide the answer to the people who questioned why the animals had to perish along with their masters. What sin had the animals committed? To this the Torah answered that seeing the animals had obeyed Korach they were considered as if they had been supporters of his.

ויקהל עליהם קרח את כל העדה, “Korach assembled (on the following morning) the whole congregation (all the people)” Nachmanides claims that this phrase cannot be understood at face value, as if indeed Korach had succeeded in rousing the entire people into this confrontation we are faced with a dilemma. How could Moses respond to G’d’s threat to wipe out all the people instantly by saying “if one man sins should the whole people pay the penalty” unless the people had been innocent bystanders? (Verse 22) If G’d had indeed meant to wipe out the whole people, He would have concluded as He had at the time of the golden calf, by saying to Moses that He would found a new Jewish people whose patriarch Moses would become. The words כל העדה in our verse therefore must refer to all of the people’s dignitaries, i.e. they represented the people as a whole. Whatever I have mentioned about the subject of the firstborn, is based on the approach to our portion by our sages of old, who were convinced that the Temple service was the domain of the firstborn prior to the sin of the golden calf If we were to follow the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, originally any Israelite was acceptable for performing sacrificial service in the Tabernacle, something that was the practice during all the many years that private altars were acceptable for presenting offerings to G’d. Aaron’s special privileges extended only to his performing the sacrificial service within the area of the Tabernacle. Korach’s objection concerned this special privilege accorded Aaron, and he wanted that every Israelite would share in that privilege seeing that he claimed that they were all holy.

ויקהל עליהם קרח, “Korach gathered against them, etc.” The firstborn all agreed with Korach’s accusation that Moses had disqualified the firstborn from performing ritual sacrifices, whereas the members of the tribe of Levi agreed with him that they had become subservient to Aaron and his sons at Moses’ bidding. Our sages explain that Korach had said to them: “look at what the son of Amram has done to you! Whereas by rights Reuven is the firstborn of the tribes of Israel, Moses appointed Nachshon the prince of the tribe of Yehudah to offer the first of the inaugural sacrifices in the Tabernacle instead!” These kinds of arguments won Korach sympathy among large segments of the people until the Torah could report that Korach managed to assemble the whole community in a confrontation with Moses. This demonstrates the power of a single sinful individual to cause the whole people to become sinners themselves. This was a demonstration of the far-reaching negative influence exerted by people who engage in לשון הרע, badmouthing others.

With mockery. For if not so, how could he have congregated all of Yisroel against them at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting? Surely only Korach, Dasan and Aviram and the two hundred fifty men were involved in the dispute. If the congregation were in the dispute from the beginning they would have also gathered against Moshe and Aharon. Rather, one must say that only on that night he enticed them with mockery.

V. 19. ויקהל וגו׳. So sicher fühlte sich Korach, so völlig untergegangen muss bei ihm der Gedanke an die Wahrhaftigkeit der hier in Frage stehenden Gottesbeziehungen gewesen sein, dass er selbst im Momente der so verhängnisvollen Entscheidung das ganze Volk zu Teilnehmern seines Streites und zu Zeugen seines Triumphes herbeirief. Es müsste denn sein, dass er durch Massengewalt, ohne die göttliche Intervention abzuwarten, seinen Willen durchzusetzen die Absicht hatte. Jedenfalls war dieser Volkszusammenlauf gegen Mosche und Aharon gerichtet und trat, wer kam, damit auf Korachs Seite.

וירא כבוד ה׳ AND THE GLORY OF THE LORD APPEARED [UNTO ALL THE CONGREGATION] — He came in a pillar of cloud.

He came in a pillar of cloud. Rashi is answering the question: Was the Glory of Hashem not constantly over the Mishkon? Re’m explains that this does not mean that He caused the Divine Presence to rest upon them, because surely He said “Separate yourselves from among this congregation…” (v. 21).

וירא כבוד השם The glory of the Lord appeared, etc. The entire congregation experienced this glory of the Lord in order that they would recognise that it was G'd Himself who carried out this judgment and that only He decides who is worthy to serve Him in the capacity of a priest.

הבדלו מתוך העדה הזאת, “Separate yourselves from amidst this congregation!” Nachmanides raises the question that if the people were not guilty in the matter of Korach’s rebellion, why was G’d so angry also at them, that He threatened to kill them forthwith? On the other hand, if they were guilty, how could Moses ask G’d why He would kill the whole people on account of one man’s sin? Rabbeinu Chananel answers this question by writing that the words העדה הזאת, “this congregation” refers to the congregation of Korach only. [I find it strange that Nachmanides raises the question seeing that Rabbeinu Chananel lived several centuries earlier, and Nachmanides must have known his answer before he raised the question. Ed.] He adds further that G’d’s response to Moses’ question indicates that Moses had misunderstood Him, hence he was told to remove himself only from around the tents of Korach and Datan and Aviram (verse 24) He adds that it was G’d’s hope that when Korach and Datan and Aviram saw that Moses distanced himself from them they would still decide to repent and avoid disaster. Nachmanides goes on to write that he disagrees with the interpretation of Rabbeinu Chananel, seeing that the Israelites were not among the group with Korach in the first place, so that they had no reason to separate themselves from a group which stood apart. Moreover, Aaron was not with Korach and Datan and Aviram at that time but with the 250 men who readied themselves to offer their incense. Moreover, the term עדה never applies to a group of fewer than 10 adults, and Korach, Datan, and Aviram did not constitute a עדה, a congregation. If Rabbeinu Chananel were correct, the Torah should have omitted the words מתוך העדה הזאת, “from the midst of this congregation.” Besides, the very assumption that Moses the greatest prophet of all times should have so grossly misunderstood G’d’s instruction is quite beyond our imagination! The reason for all this is that originally the hearts of the Israelites sympathized strongly with the arguments of Korach, and when Korach and the 250 men lined up with the censers and the incense, Korach reminded the people that what he was about to do was all on their behalf. When the people heard that, they were persuaded by Korach’s arguments and they drew near to watch what would happen. They were actually hoping that the privilege of performing service in the Tabernacle would be restored to the respective firstborns in each family. Thereby they had become guilty of the death penalty, for if someone doubts and suspects his teacher, and especially a teacher and prophet of the caliber of Moses, of acts such as Korach accused him of, he has made himself guilty of death at the hand of heaven. Moses and Aaron tried to find excuses for them by saying to G’d that the people had not translated their doubts and suspicions into punishable acts, and that therefore they did not deserve to die. This is a standard practice when one appeals to G’d’s attribute of mercy, to portray the sin of the accused as being less severe than it might appear at first glance. In doing so, the person pleading the case allows that there are individuals who deserve the full punishment, as it is they who are the instigators.

SEPARATE YOURSELVES FROM AMONG THIS CONGREGATION, THAT I MAY CONSUME THEM IN A MOMENT. One may ask: If [the whole people of] Israel did not sin and did not rebel against their teacher, why was [G-d’s] wrath upon them, saying, that I may consume them in a moment? And if [on the other hand] they also rebelled [against Moses] as did Korach and his company, how could Moses and Aaron say [on their behalf]: shall one man sin, and wilt Thou be wroth with all the congregation?¹⁰⁶Verse 22. Now Rabbeinu Chananel⁴⁸See (Exodus), Vol. II, p. 106, Note 45, for a brief biography of this great Rabbinic scholar. See also (Leviticus), Vol. III, p. 324, Note 286. wrote as follows: “Separate yourselves from among this congregation means the congregation of Korach, not the congregation of the children of Israel. [But Moses and Aaron, thinking that G-d referred to all the people], said: O G-d, the G-d of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin etc.¹⁰⁶Verse 22. Immediately the Holy One, blessed be He, informed Moses that He did not want to destroy the whole congregation of the children of Israel, but only the congregation of Korach. Therefore He explained to him: ‘When I said, Separate yourselves from among this congregation, the meaning was: Get you up from about the dwelling of Korach, Dathan, and Abiram.¹⁰⁷Verse 24. He told them, Get you up from about the dwelling etc., because perhaps when Korach and his company would see them going away, they might repent.”
These are his [Rabbeinu Chananel’s] words, which are not right, for it would not be correct to say about Korach, Dathan, and Abiram — three men — Separate yourselves from among ‘this congregation,’ for they were not “a congregation,” since the Israelites were not among them, and Aaron was going about¹⁰⁸See Ezekiel 46:10. in the midst of the congregation that offered the incense! Besides, the expression separate ‘yourselves’ alludes only to Moses and Aaron, just like Get you up from among the congregation.¹⁰⁹Further, 17:10. Thus it is clear that Moses and Aaron were to separate themselves from the whole congregation, since they were all to be punished, and not only the congregation of Korach. Similarly, that I may consume them in a moment¹¹⁰In Verse 21 before us. refers to a plague, which consumes a mighty and large people in a moment [and cannot therefore refer only to Korach, Dathan, and Abiram]. And [finally], far be it [from us to say] that Moses did not understand his own prophecy and made a mistake therein!
But the meaning thereof is as follows: At first the heart of the people was on the side of Moses and Aaron, but when Korach and his company took every man his censer and laid incense thereon and stood at the door of the Tent of Meeting with Moses and Aaron,¹¹¹Verse 18. Korach called together all the congregation¹¹²Verse 19. and told them that he was concerned about the honor of all of them. This was pleasing to them, so they all assembled to see peradventure it will be right in the eyes of G-d,¹¹³Further, 23:27. and the service [of the offerings] will return to their firstborn, this being the meaning of the verse, And Korach assembled all the congregation against them.¹¹²Verse 19. Thus they [all] became liable to destruction because they cast aspersions on their teacher, which is like casting aspersions on the Divine Presence,¹¹⁴Sanhedrin 110a. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 225-226. and they [likewise] rejected in their hearts the prophecy of a prophet, for which they were liable to death by the hand of Heaven.¹¹⁴Sanhedrin 110a. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 225-226. But Moses and Aaron spoke up in their defense, saying that it was only Korach who sinned in this matter, for he was the cause of it all and it was he who incited them, therefore it was right that he alone should die, in order to publicize and make known his punishment to the [whole] community.
This is indeed the way of those who plead for mercy, for they mitigate the [severity of the] people’s sin, and put [the blame for] it upon the individual who caused it, because he at any rate is [certainly] guilty. And so did David say, Lo, I have sinned, and I have done iniquitously; but these sheep, what have they done? Let Thy hand, I pray thee, be against me, and against my father’s house.¹¹⁵II Samuel 24:17. And the punishment [i.e., the plague in the days of David] came upon the people as well [despite David accepting the blame himself] because of their own sin, for they should have given the [half-] shekels themselves [in order to be counted]¹¹⁶See (Exodus), Vol. II, pp. 510-511. — if [we say that] the punishment was on account of that sin, as our Rabbis explained it.¹¹⁷Berachoth 62b. For the king had not commanded them not to give the [half-] shekels, as he only wanted to know their numbers,¹¹⁸II Samuel 24:2. therefore their guilt and his guilt in this incident was equal. Moreover, in addition to [being punished for] the census, there was a punishment upon the people [already] at the beginning of this matter, as it is written, And again the anger of the Eternal was kindled against Israel, and He moved David against them, [saying: ‘Go, number Israel and Judah’].¹¹⁹Ibid., Verse 1.
Now Rashi wrote there: “I do not know why [G-d’s anger was kindled against Israel].” And I say by way of explanation that Israel was punished because of the delay in the building of the Sanctuary,¹²⁰Literally: “The Chosen House,” a reference to the Temple in Jerusalem. See Deuteronomy 12:11 for the origin of this term. since the ark went from tent to tent¹²¹I Chronicles 17:5. Four hundred years had already passed since the exodus up to that period in the reign of David. as a stranger in the Land,¹²²Jeremiah 14:8. and none of the tribes bestirred themselves to say, “Let us seek G-d and build a house to His Name, just as it is written, even unto His habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come.”¹²³Deuteronomy 12:5. [This situation continued] until David was roused to action in this matter after many years and a long period of time [had elapsed since he had become king], as it is said, And it came to pass, when the king dwelt in his house, and the Eternal had given him rest from all his enemies round about, that the king said unto Nathan the prophet: ‘See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of G-d dwelleth within curtains.’¹²⁴II Samuel 7:1-2. Now G-d, blessed be He, prevented David [from building the Sanctuary], because He said, for thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in My sight,¹²⁵I Chronicles 22:8. and thus the building was [further] delayed until the reign of Solomon. But had Israel really desired this matter [and really wanted to build the Sanctuary], and had they bestirred themselves to action from the start, it would have been done [already] in the days of one of the Judges, or in the days of Saul, or even in the days of David. For had the tribes of Israel aroused themselves in this matter, he [David] would not have been [considered] the builder, but Israel would have been the builders. But since the people did not concern themselves about it, and David was the one who was troubled about it and called for action, and it was he who prepared all the materials [for the House of G-d],¹²⁶Ibid., 29:2. he was the builder. However, since he was a man of judgment, guided [in his actions] by the attribute of justice, he was not fit for [the task of building] the House of Mercy,¹²⁷To my knowledge, Ramban’s use of this term “the House of Mercy” as an alternative name for the Temple in Jerusalem is the first of its kind in Rabbinic literature. It is of interest to note that a generation later, the French Rabbi Estori Haparchi (1282-1357), in his classic book of itinerary on the Land of Israel, Kaftor Va’ferach, mentions for the first time that one of the gates on the eastern side of the wall surrounding Jerusalem was called by the people Shaarei Harachamim — the “Gates of Mercy” — a name which is still used to this day. Since no definite source is known for the name given to this gate, it is possible that it is derived from this concept of the Sanctuary as “the House of Mercy,” and thus the name “Gates of Mercy” is a shortened form of “the gates of the House of Mercy.” See II Chronicles 23:19 for such usage in the Scriptures: the gates of the House of the Eternal. therefore the building [of the Sanctuary] was delayed as long as David lived due to the negligence of Israel [in not coming forth themselves to build it], and therefore the [Divine] wrath was upon them. It was for this reason that the place which the Eternal shall choose … to put His Name there¹²³Deuteronomy 12:5. came to be known, as a result of their punishment through the plague.¹²⁸In II Samuel, Chapter 24, Verses 16-25 it is related that “the angel of the Eternal was, at the moment that the plague ceased, by the treshing-floor of Aravnah the Jebusite,” and on that spot David built the altar. This is the meaning of Ramban’s statement that ‘the place which G-d shall choose’ came to be known [i.e., identified] through the punishment and plague which came upon Israel for their indolence in the pursuit of the building of the Sanctuary. But had the people bestirred themselves to action, the place would have been identified through a more pleasant way. This is Ramban’s clear intention.
Scripture alludes to all this when it says, For I have not dwelt in a house since the day that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle. In all places wherein I have walked among all the children of Israel, spoke I a word with any of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to feed My people Israel, saying: Why have ye not built Me a house of cedar?¹²⁹Ibid., 7:6-7. Thus Scripture is blaming [the people] because the Divine Presence was walking about among all Israel from tent to tent, and from tabernacle¹³⁰I Chronicles 17:5. The continuation here by Ramban [from tent to tent, and from tabernacle] is clearly based on this verse in Chronicles. In II Samuel 7:6 the reading is: in a tent and in a tabernacle. to tabernacle, and there was not one among all the Judges of Israel, who were their shepherds, that bestirred himself in this matter. Scripture also states that G-d too kept distant from them, and did not tell any one of them to build the House, but “now that you [David] have aroused yourself to do it, thou didst well that it was in thy heart,¹³¹I Kings 8:18. and I will now command that it should be built by thy son Solomon, who will be a man of peace.”

!הבדלו. In order that due to your remaining close to them your merit will not reflect on them to their credit. Compare Job 22,30 ימלט אי נקי, “he will be delivered through the cleanness of your hands.”

הבדלו מתוך העדה הואת "separate yourselves from this congregation, etc." This instruction was not addressed to Moses and Aaron as they did not have anything to fear from the attribute of Justice. Nothing would happen to them even if they remained standing close while G'd killed the whole community. I can give you proof of this when you consider that Aaron who was part of that group when he offered his incense remained unharmed while the earth opened underneath Korach and his family and swallowed them. G'd's instructions were addressed to the other righteous men in the congregation, people such as Joshua and Caleb as well as the families of Moses and Aaron. G'd prefaced His instructions to Moses and Aaron with the word לאמור. If the instructions had applied to Moses and Aaron themselves the word לאמור would have confused them. G'd addressed the righteous people who had to demonstrate by separating themselves that they disassociated themselves from Korach and his associates.

הבדלו מתוך העדה הזאת, “Separate yourselves from this congregation, etc.!” The reference was to the congregation of Korach seeing that Moses and Aaron stood next to them at the entrance to the Tabernacle. Moses misunderstood, thinking that the expression: “this congregation” applied to the entire Jewish nation. This is why he answered G’d by saying: “shall one man sin and You will be angry at the entire assembly (people)?” Thereupon G’d explained to him immediately that the expression העדה applied only to the rebel community, i.e. העדה הזאת. This is the meaning of the words: “move away from around the tent of Korach,” an elaboration of what G’d had said previously.
Why did G’d have to give instructions for the people who did not support Korach to separate from him physically, as if He were unable to single out the sinners and kill them only, [as He had done with the firstborn in Egypt? Ed.] Do we not have a saying that when two or three people take shelter under the same talit, the two standing on the outside would die and the one standing in the center would be saved (Midrash Rabbah in connection with the dying of the first born in Egypt)? David elaborated on his phenomenon in Psalms 91,7 when he said: “a thousand may fall at your left side and ten thousand at your right, but it (disaster) shall not reach you.” In view of all this, why did G’d insist on the people distancing themselves physically from the group supporting Korach? It was in order that the contaminated air around Korach and his fellow rebels should not infect the people around him. Just as one has to flee a town in which pestilence rages in order to escape the chance of such infection through radiation of bacteria so the people had to leave the vicinity of Korach. When Lot and family were told by the angel not to stand still while running away from the city of Sodom and his wife ignored the warning she turned into a pillar of salt, i.e. the negative fallout from the sulfur in the air caught up with her (Genesis 19,26).
Another reason for the instruction that the people standing around Korach were to put space between themselves and him may have been the well known fact that when the attribute of Justice is at work it does not distinguish between the guilty and the innocent who are in its path. It was therefore necessary for the ‘innocent’ to take action to save themselves from the attribute of Justice (compare Baba Kama 60). The reason may also have been that G’d ‘honours’ the righteous, i.e. He does not release forces of destruction while the righteous are in the immediate vicinity of the wicked to be destroyed.

הבדלו מתוך העדה הזאת; G’d referred to the congregation of Korach, not to the community of the people of Israel.

V. 21. הבדלו וגו׳. Wie zu V. 19 bemerkt, waren sie durch ihr Erscheinen auf Korachs Seite getreten und hatten sich daher von einer Mitbeteiligung an seiner Schuld nicht freigehalten. Wird doch ihr Zusammenlauf ויקהל עליהם, d. i. ja על משה ואהרן, bezeichnet.

ואכלה אותם כרגע, “so that I may consume them in a moment;” if you were to ask that we have a rule that punishment must not be meted out unless preceded by a warning, Moses had warned them in the name of G-d when he had said to them to come up for judgment in the presence of the Lord on the following morning together with Aaron in verse 16. However, Korach had not complied. This is why G-d could be angry at them without delay, seeing that Korach. instead of complying with G-d’s instruction had assembled the whole congregation as per verse 19, in order to get the maximum publicity value out of his rebellion. As a result, G-d was justified in carrying out sentence immediately. The participants and guilty people had already all been warned. (17,10)

ואכלה אותם כרגע, "and I will consume them in a moment." Why did G'd add the word כרגע, "in a moment?" If all G'd wanted to inform us of was that He possessed the power to wipe out 600.000 people in a flash, He had already told us this in Exodus 33,5 "for if I go up in your midst for one moment, I shall consume you."

It appears according to the Midrash quoted by Rashi on verse 22,4 that this was already the fourth time the Israelites sinned and that the uprising of Korach occurred after the sin of the spies. I have explained there that the decree that the Israelites would die in the desert remained in effect but that Moses' prayer in this instance only prevented G'd from destroying the people all at once instead of over an extended period of time. In view of all this, the congregation we speak about here was already guilty of death in the desert. The Torah therefore reintroduces the threat to kill the whole people at once. This provides us with an answer as to why G'd would decree death for the vast majority of the people who had not been part of this uprising at all. Moses himself speaks about a single person sinning and the whole community becoming the target of G'd's anger (verse 22). Actually, as we demonstrated, the people were under sentence of death regardless of whether they associated themselves with Korach's rebellion or not. We have learned in Shabbat 32 that Satan is always especially active when there is danger. At such times even a relatively mild offence such as talking during the prayers is considered serious enough to free soldiers from participating in expansionary wars lest they endanger themselves needlessly on account of that sin. It is clear that the sin of talking during prayers is not a captial offence. It is only the fact that during war the angel of death is especially active which makes the unatoned for sin of talking during prayers potentially lethal. In our situation, the fact that the people were under sentence of death anyway would have made the angel of death eager to kill them at once if they had not first dissociated themselves from Korach.

After looking further into this matter I have realised that ordering the people to separate themselves from Korach's group could be perceived as therapy for the Jewish people. Had G'd not given these instructions, only those righteous amongst the Jewish people who had not yet been included in the decree that they would die in the desert would have escaped becoming victims of the angel of death at that time. By giving this instruction G'd actually gave the Israelites an opportunity to save themselves from imminent death seeing that all of them had a minor share in Korach's sin because they had not protested it. In fact, failure to protest what Koarch was trying to do was equivalent to being a passive supporter of Korach. G'd instructed Moses and Aaron to separate the righteous and thus enable him to pray on their behalf to ask for them to be spared, invoking his own merit. This is why G'd said to Moses: "tell the whole congregation 'get up from from around the dwelling of Korach, Datan and Aviram'" (verse 24). If we accept this approach the word הבדלו in our verse was meant to alert Moses and Aaron to pray, seeing there was no need for Moses and Aaron to separate themselves in order not to become victims of Korach's sin. Perhaps this is what G'd alluded to when He said לאמור, meaning that the whole purpose of G'd speaking to them at this juncture was לאמור, in order that Moses and Aaron start to pray as we indeed find that they did in verse 22. If we accept this interpretation we need not understand that G'd referred to Moses and Aaron removing their families from around the tent of Korach.

אל אלהי הרוחות O GOD, THE GOD OF THE SPIRITS [OF ALL FLESH] — i.e., “[O God] who knowest the thoughts of every man”. Thy nature is not like that of human beings: an earthly king against whom part of his country commits an offence, does not know who the sinner is, and therefore when he becomes angry he exacts punishment from all of them. But Thou — before Thee all human thoughts lie open and Thou knowest who is the sinner (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 7).

האיש אחד יחטא, by having assembled a whole congregation against us? (verse 19)

ויאמרו קל אלוקי חרוחות, They said: "O G'd the G'd of the spirits of all flesh, etc." The reason Moses used the name קל for G'd was that he realised that the attribute of Justice was in the ascendancy. By invoking the attribute קל Moses hoped to counterbalance the attribute of Justice with the attribute of חסד, loving kindness.

א-לוהי הרוחות, You are conversant with all spirits and hearts, knowing which of the people did not have a share in this sin.

Knower of thoughts. But not “the God of the souls” as would be understood from the word “spirits.” For what would its relevance be here, and what would be the reason for afterwards saying “if one man sins.” Rather, this means “Knower of thoughts” and thus You are able to know who the sinner is.

'ויאמרו, א-ל אלוקי הרוחות לכל בשר וגו, G’d immediately informed Moses that He did not intend to wipe out the nation but only the congregation of Korach. This is why I explained that the words הבדלו, etc. referred only to that Moses and Aaron should put distance between themselves and the congregation of Korach as well as between themselves and Datan and Aviram (compare verse 24). He repeated this instruction in verse 24, hoping that possibly, when the people observed how Moses and Aaron put space between themselves and the insurgents they would follow suit and do the same.

V. 22. אל אלקי הרוחות וגו׳ .ויפלו וגו׳. Du weißt, wie leicht die Geister einer Volksmenge durch blendende Behauptungen und Vorspiegelungen eines geistig überlegenen und bis dahin unangetastetes Vertrauen genießenden Mannes, wie Korach, zu einer Verirrung hingerissen werden können. Wenn Massen zu Verbrechen aufstehen, liegt in der Regel die wahre Schuld auf einigen wenigen höherstehenden Agitatoren. Bei menschlichem Einschreiten blutet gar oft dann die weniger schuldige, nur irregeführte Menge und die Verführer, die eigentlichen Schuldigen bleiben frei. Du aber, אל אלקי הרוחות לכל בשר, als אל, als Allmacht kannst du jeden erreichen, den du als Schuldigen erkennst, und als אלקי הרוחות לכל בשר weißt du genau die wirkliche Schuld eines jeden zu ermessen. האיש אחד וגו׳. Es ist doch nur Korach der Schuldige, und das Volk, als die bloß Verführten, dürfte deiner Milde sich erfreuen. Wir haben schon wiederholt bei ähnlichen Ereignissen zu bemerken Gelegenheit gehabt, wie durch Hervorrufen seiner Fürbitte Gott in Mosche die Einsicht in die Motive seiner Waltung weckt und seinen Geist gleichsam zum Mitdenken der göttlichen Waltungsgedanken erhebt.

אלוקי הרוחות לכל בשר, “O G-d, Spirit of flesh, etc.;” Moses refers to the fact that G-d has knowledge of our innermost thoughts at all times. As a result, He surely knows who is guilty and who is not. G-d tells him that he is quite correct and that is why He tells him now for the innocent to stand back and demonstrate their innocence. All he had to do is to tell people to remove themselves from Korach’s tent.

האיש אחד means, THE ONE MAN IS THE SINNER, and על כל העדה תקצוף YOU ARE ANGRY WITH ALL THE CONGREGATION?! Whereupon the Holy One, blessed be He, replied, “You have spoken well; I know and shall make known who has sinned and who has not sinned” (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 7).

Has sinned will You… Because the Torah does not refer to one who will sin in the future, rather to the dispute in which Korach had already sinned. However the word תקצוף (“shall you be angry”) is understood according to its plain meaning (in the future tense), because He had not yet become angry, rather He was about to do so.

By referring to G'd as the "G'd of the spirits of all flesh," Moses used an argument that always evokes an echo from G'd as He wants that all spirits accept His Kingdom while they are still flesh, i.e. alive in this world. By saying הרוחות, Moses indicated that he referred to something spiritual, i.e. the G'd of thoughts and ideas. We find something parallel in Ezekiel 20,32 והעולה על רוחכם היו לא תהיה, "what enters your thoughts it shall not be!" Moses argued that though the judgment which G'd planned to perform through annihilating the whole people instantaneously was fair, the fact remained that to the outsider the impression this would create would be that G'd killed the whole people on account of the rebellious act of an individual. After all, it was clear that this rebellion did not involve the whole community! If G'd would proceed with what He had planned, the human mind would be so appalled by this that it might forever reject acknowledging such a G'd.

האיש אחד יחטא, shall one man sin, etc.;” the letter ח in the word אחד has the vowel kametz, to teach you that it is not something unusual for a human being to commit a sin; if there was something surprising here, it was that apparently G-d would therefore be angry at the whole congregation that man was a part of.

The Holy One Blessed is He, said “You have spoken well.” (Divrei Dovid) This language implies that Hashem agreed with them. However, this would certainly pose a difficulty, since it is incongruous to say that Hashem would change His mind due to a person’s statement. It appears to me that [to answer this difficulty] one has to preface with the saying that “Anyone who profanes the Name of Heaven in secret will be made to pay for it in public, whether it was done unintentionally or intentionally” (Avot 4:4). This raises a difficulty: Why is the same punishment given for the unintentional and the intentional? Does this make sense? It seems to me that the answer is as follows: If one sins in secret and is punished [in public] by Hashem for this, it will lead to a profanation of Hashem’s Name. Others will not know about the sin and will say that this person was punished for nothing. Therefore, Hashem arranges for the person to sin in public so that people will say that Hashem’s justice is fair. Consequently, when we say that one who profanes the Name of Heaven in secret will be made to pay in public, means that it will be [Heavenly] arranged that he will profane Hashem’s Name a second time in public. Then after he does so a second time, whether unintentionally or intentionally [he will be made to pay in public]. In this vein, Rashi answers that in truth Yisroel were liable. Rashi explains that the phrase, “[Korach] congregated against them” (v. 19) teaches that he enticed them. Thus they were liable in thought, because one who disputes with his Rabbi is like one who disputes the Divine Presence and so they were liable for disputing against Hashem. In response Moshe and Aharon said “If one man sins” meaning that they sinned in secret and it was only known to Hashem. Thus, “shall you be angry with the entire congregation” causing a desecration of Hashem’s Name. Hashem replied “You have spoken well” because I know who sins in secret. This meant that Hashem would arrange a second sin for them, as indeed happened. The people later complained saying “you have killed the people of Hashem” (17:6) and in response Hashem said “I shall annihilate them” (17:10) because their sin had now been revealed.

Moses also intended that his words should have a calming effect on G'd, making Him better disposed towards the Jewish people. He did so by reminding G'd of a variety of creatures who did not only recognize His sovereignty but paid tribute to it such as the angels, the souls of the righteous who have already departed from this earth, as well as the righteous souls who have not yet been assigned bodies to inhabit. We know that there is a store of such souls from Yevamot 62 where we have been taught that the Messiah cannot come until that store of souls has been emptied and all the souls therein have been asssigned bodies to inhabit. All of these souls acclaim and praise the Lord as we know from Proverbs 16,4: "G'd has made everything to serve Him." The songs of praises recited by the souls which inhabit bodies in this world are still more precious to G'd. Why would G'd do something which would make it difficult or impossible for these souls to praise Him if they went to their graves prematurely? By consigning them to death G'd would make it impossible for these souls to grow to love Him! The Zohar elaborates on the theme of how important it is to G'd for man to grow to love Him.

Considering all this, Moses was very astute in using the appellation אלוקי הרוחות לכל בשר, implying that G'd wants that all spirits would acknowledge, praise and love Him while they were still fused to the flesh. Killing them all at once would thwart G'd's desire. It was not reasonable then to allow the attribute of Justice to remain in the ascendancy.

The reason Moses referred to G'd's anger was to demonstrate that though G'd was perfectly aware that this particular rebellion was started by a single man, the punishment it provoked was only due to G'd's anger, i.e. תקצף.

האיש אחד יחטא, "shall one man sin, etc.?" Why did Moses phrase this in the future tense? He should have said: האיש אחד חטא? He referred to the fact that as long as Korach had not actually presented his incense he had not yet challenged Aaron's priesthood except with words. All he had been guilty of so far was ridiculing the system. If he were willing to retract, it would not be too late to save him.

העלו GET YOU UP [FROM ABOUT THE DWELLING OF KORAH] — Understand this as the Targum does: withdraw from the vicinity of Korah’s dwelling.

דבר אל העדה לאמר העלו מסביב, Moses now spelled out what he had meant when he said הבדלו in verse 21. He had meant that the people should only put distance between themselves and the supporters of Korach.

דבר אל העדה לאמור, "speak to the congregation to say, etc." It appears unusual that G'd uses the relatively harsh דבר when the thrust of the message is to save the people from death. He did so in order to demonstrate that He minded terribly that there were Jews who were so careless with their lives that they risked it by not removing themselves from immediate danger. This is why G'd not only employed the tough דבר, but repeated the word לאמור in verse 25 to ensure that the message would get across to the people. G'd demonstrated how important it was to Him that this precious people not be diminished in numbers. The repetition of the word לאמור may mean that the exact wording of G'd's message was left to Moses. If he did not want to phrase it so harshly he was at liberty to do so. As long as the result of the way Moses relayed G'd's message was העלו that the people would remove themselves from around the tents of these rebels this was all that mattered. In fact, Moses did make some changes when he did not mention Korach by name but referred only to "these wicked people (verse 26)."

העלו מסביב למשכן קרח, דתן ואבירם, “get yourselves up from around the dwelling of no one, and Datan and Aviram respectively!” Actually, the Torah should have included in its call for the people to remove their presence from the vicinity of Korach, On, son of Peles, seeing he had figured by name as one of the instigators of the rebellion in verse one of our chapter. Our sages view the failure of the Torah to mention On at this point as proof that he had withdrawn from the rebellion and had done תשובה, had repented his former part in it.
Tanchuma Korach 10 claims that On had been saved by his wife who had said to him: “what difference does it make to you personally if Moses is High Priest or whether Aaron is High Priest seeing that in either event you will only be the student, i.e. subordinate to either of them? Concerning the wife of On (and others like her) Solomon said in Proverbs 14,1: “the wisest of women builds her house, i.e. the wife of On, whereas “folly tears it down with its own hands,” a reference to the wife of Korach who had inflamed his ego when she first belittled the halachah about a blue woolen talit requiring tzitziyot. She became the immediate cause of the rebellion and the death of hundreds (compare Proverbs 7,26).

Depart. Thus העלו ("ascend") is the same meaning as in “יצועי עלה" ("ascended my couch") (Bereishis 49:4). The lamed of למשכן (lit. to the dwelling) is superfluous. Consequently, Rashi writes סביבות ("the vicinity") instead of סביב ("around") to enable it to refer it to the word “dwelling,” given that the word סביב cannot be connected with what follows.

V. 24. העלו וגו׳: durch dieses Entfernen sollten sie sich von der Gemeinschaft mit den Empörern lossagen und ihrהקהל על משה ואהרן sühnen.

Of the dwelling of Korach. However, the 250 men were saved from being swallowed into the earth because their intention was for the sake of Heaven. Moreover, they were enticed by Korach to enter into the dispute in the first place. Their entire sin was in coming too close to bring offerings to Hashem, and so their households were not punished.

ויקם משה AND MOSES ROSE UP [AND WENT UNTO DATHAN AND ABIRAM] — He still believed that they would show respect to him (defer to him if he personally appealed to them), but they did not do so, (and therefore he then addressed himself to all the congregation — cf. next verse) (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 8).

ויקם משה וילך אל דתן ואבירם, Moses rose up and went to Datan and Aviram, etc." Why did the Torah have to write ויקם that Moses rose up? If the Torah only wanted us to know that Moses had been sitting down before, why is this piece of information important to us 3000 years later? We may have to understand this in light of Proverbs 16,18 לפני שבר גאון, that "pride goes before ruin," and Proverbs 16,33 ולפני כבוד ענוה, "whereas humility precedes honour." Our sages in Shemot Rabbah 45,5 explain what David meant in Psalms 113,5 המגביהי לשבת. "When others deride me, G'd elevates me, whereas when I elevate myself G'd puts me in my place." Similarly in our verse. As soon as Moses had decided to waive his dignity and to go and appeal to Datan and Abiram, "he arose," i.e. he was elevated in the eyes of G'd. This is also the meaning of the verses we have quoted from Proverbs.

וילך אל דתן ואבירם, hoping against hope that they might repent.

וילכו אחריו זקני ישראל, “the elders of the people of Israel followed Moses.” The reference is to the 70 elders, appointed in Numbers 11,25.

V. 25. ויקם וגו׳. Datan und Abiram hatten sich am direktesten gegen Mosche vergangen, und gerade um deren mögliche Rettung durch Besinnung eines Besseren sehen wir Mosche sich noch im letzten Augenblick der Entscheidung bemühen.

[DEPART, I PRAY YOU, FROM THE TENTS OF THESE WICKED MEN], AND TOUCH NOTHING OF THEIRS, LEST YE BE SWEPT AWAY IN ALL THEIR SINS. The correct order [in meaning] of this verse is as follows: “Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men, lest ye be swept away in all their sins and touch nothing of theirs.” The meaning [therefore] is that if they do not depart from there, they will be swallowed up by the mouth of the earth, and he furthermore warned them that they should not touch [their property] and try to save any of their wealth by taking it for themselves, for it is a doomed thing.¹⁴⁰See Deuteronomy 7:26. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that [the verse is to be interpreted as it reads, and it is saying] that if they attempt to save their wealth, they will go down into the pit like them [Korach and his company]. And if so, the meaning of this will be like that of the verse, And his [Lot’s] wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt,¹⁴¹Genesis 19:26. In other words, according to Ibn Ezra’s interpretation we do not have to say that they will be swallowed up as a punishment for taking their wealth, but that they will automatically be affected as if it were a contagious disease. This is what happened to Lot’s wife when she turned back to see Sodom, for “the plague entered her mind when she saw the brimstone and salt, and it cleaved to her” (Ramban on Genesis, Vol. I, p. 259). as I have mentioned there in explaining the meaning of it.¹⁴²Ibid., Verse 17 (Vol. I, pp. 258-260).

פן תספו, for you will not deserve being saved if you will remain in their physical proximity at the time they will be punished.

וידבר אל העדה לאמור, He spoke to the congregation, saying, etc. The word לאמור means here that Moses told the people that he had been instructed by G'd to tell them what he was about to say.

ואל תגעו בכל אשר להם פן תספו בכל חטאתם, “and do not even touch any of their belongings lest you will also perish on account of their sin.” The plain meaning of the verse is that the Israelites are to distance themselves sufficiently far from the guilty people to escape the gaping hole in the earth that would swallow Korach and company, and to on no account try and grab some of their belongings as loot which the sinners had forfeited. All their belongings were totally taboo, חרם as of that moment. Ibn Ezra writes that the words פן תספו refer back to not touching any of these men in order to save them, as instead of saving them they too would become victims.

ואל תגעו בכל אשר להם “and do not touch any of their belongings!” G’d meant that if anyone sought to save the money that the rebels would forfeit for themselves they would share the fate of Korach, Datan and Aviram.
When the Torah describes Datan and Aviram as keeping an arrogant upright posture in front of their respective tents when Moses and the elders approached them, the sages of the Midrash understand this as a euphemism for insults hurled at Moses by these two individuals (Tanchuma Korach 3). They base this on the similarity of expressions used by Samuel I 17,4 describing Goliath’s haughty and insulting posture and the language used here. We know that Goliath was insulting vis-a-vis G’d and that David only agreed to fight him in order to teach him not to defy the G’d of Israel (Samuel I 17,45). Moses said that the proof that the death of these people would be because of their defiance of G’d and their curses would be the extraordinary way in which they would die.

בכל חטאתם, “in all their sins.” A better translation would be: “on account of their many sins.”

סורו נא מעל אהלי האנשים הרשעים האלה, "please depart from the tents of these wicked men." Moses was very astute in requesting from the people that by their departure from the tents of Korach they should indicate that they considered these men as wicked and about to perish. They should be afraid lest the evil that would overtake these men would also overtake them. If that would be the motivation behind their removing their presence from the tents of Korach G'd would interpret this positively and save them also from coming to harm. Even though G'd had already indicated that it was sufficient to merely remove oneself from Korach's tent, the righteous, such as Moses, are always concerned with helping their contemporaries to acquire additional merits.

יצאו נצבים [AND DATHAN AND ABIRAM] CAME OUT, STATIONING THEMSELVES [AT THE ENTRANCE OF THEIR TENT] — The word נצבים suggests that they stood with erect stature in a challenging attitude, ready to revile and to curse. The phrase is similar in meaning to (I Samuel 17:16) “And he stationed himself (ויתיצב) there for forty days”, which occurs in the story of Goliath (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 3).

ויעלו מעל קרח ודתן ואבירם, They lifted themselves up from the residence of Korach, etc. The effrontery of Datan and Aviram in continuing to maintain a defiant posture though they had already been abandoned by their fellow travelers who had withdrawn in fear of being punished together with them, made a suitable impression on Moses so that he announced that the people would witness Divine intervention by the manner in which these people were going to die. This was to prove that he had not appointed himself as their leader but that G'd had appointed him at the time. The words את כל המעשים האלה mean that everything Moses had done including insignificant appearing things were all carried out at G'd's instruction. He now said that not only would these people die immediately but they would die a particularly gruesome death.

With haughty bearing. Rashi is answering the question: What is meant by “went out and stood”? It is obvious that they did not go out while sitting! (Re’m). There is another question: What is meant by “went out and stood”? The word “went out” implies that they were moving, while the word “stood” implies that they were still. Rashi answers this question by explaining “to revile and blaspheme…”

V. 27. נצבים, in kecker aufgerichteter Stellung.

ונשיהם ובניהם וטפם AND THEIR WIVES, AND THEIR SONS, AND THEIR LITTLE ONES — Come and see how grievous a sin dissension is: for an earthly tribunal (more lit., a tribunal of here below) does not punish a person before he shows signs of puberty, the heavenly tribunal (more lit., the tribunal of above) not even before he is twenty years old, while here even the sucklings perished (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 3).

As He stood for forty days in connection to Golias. And there it states, "I have blasphemed against Hashem, God of Yisrael." (source)

How inexorably destructive disputes are. (Gur Aryeh) The Torah does not mention their punishment here, only their brazen wickedness in that they “went out and stood.” Nonetheless, one can learn from this that the minors were also punished, since the Torah recalls their sin. [Why was this necessary?] Surely a minor is not liable for punishment, given that he lacks sufficient intelligence. Rather one must say that Scripture comes to teach that they were all punished, both adults and minors, because the sin of dispute is not like other sins. You might ask: How is this sin different from other sins, such that even minors are punished? The answer is that dispute and gehinnom were created at the same time, on the second day of Creation. This is in order to teach that dispute and gehinnom are fundamentally linked, thus the punishment for dispute is inevitably gehinnom. Gur Aryeh goes into detail to explain the reasoning for this.

לעשות את כל המעשים האלה [HEREBY YE SHALL KNOW THAT THE LORD HATH SENT ME] TO DO ALL THESE THINGS — i.e. that I have acted by the Divine Command in giving Aaron the High Priesthood, and in making his sons second in rank in the priesthood and Elzaphan prince of the Kohathites.

בזאת תדעון, "Hereby you shall know, etc." Why did Moses think that after all that had occurred during the preceding two years that the Israelites still did not believe that he was a true prophet? Furthermore, why did he have to repeat כי לא מלבי, "that I did not do all these things arbitraily?" The people did not actually accuse Moses of having acted on his own when he appointed Aaron as High Priest, etc. However, they thought that Moses had exploited his good standing in the eyes of G'd to persuade G'd to agree with his personal choices for these positions. Alternatively, the people had thought that Moses had desired for these particular appointments to be made and G'd had read his mind and indulged him by telling him to make these appointments. The people had not disagreed that Aaron was unworthy to be the High Priest. Moses therefore countered that what was about to occur would be proof that he had not even initiated any of these decisions but that all of them had originated with G'd. As to the people's suspicion that in his heart Moses had wished for these people to be appointed to the positions they had been appointed to at the command of G'd, he said כי לא מלבי, "the thought had never occurred to me." The word כי here indicates that Moses felt he did not need to prove that he had acted on his own. All he had to prove was that he had not even entertained any thought of appointing close relatives to high positions such as the position of being High Priest.

כי לא מלבי, the idea to assign the offering of incense to them did not originate with me,

בזאת תדעון כי ה' שלחני לעשות את כל המעשים האלה, “By this you shall know that it was the Lord who sent me to do all these things.” He referred to the exchanging of the functions formerly performed by the firstborn to be performed by the Levites. The firstborn had disqualified themselves from acting as priests as they had participated in the sin of the golden calf as described in Exodus 32,6: “they offered burnt-offerings and meat-offerings (in honour of the golden calf),” as opposed to the Levites who had remained loyal to G’d and had acted as executioners of the people publicly worshipping the golden calf (Exodus 30,28). The Levites were sanctified in place of the firstborn and chosen to perform sacrificial services. Anyone who did not believe in the selection of the Levites to replace the firstborn indicated thereby that the guilt of the golden calf episode had not yet been expunged and that the people who now challenged Moses and Aaron did not consider these parts of the written Torah as authentic.

Conferring the Kehunah Gedolah on Aharon and [appointing] his sons as assistants. For if not so, why would he have said “all of these deeds”? Surely they were only disputing with Aharon. What is meant by “all of these deeds”? Therefore, although these matters were not mentioned previously, since they were well known, it is as if they had been mentioned [previously]. For if not [that they were included], the doubt over the assistantship and the leadership would have remained. The reason that the monarchy was not mentioned is that it was not being disputed.

V. 28. את כל המעשים האלה bezieht sich wohl auf seine ganze bisherige Wirksamkeit, nicht bloß speziell auf Aharons Erhebung zum Priestertum und das über das ältere Geschlecht verhängte Aussterben in der Wüste.

לעשות את כל המעשים האלה, “to perform all these works.” I have tested them by the manner in which they related to the incense, as I have said, when I gave you a chance to compete against Aaron, each of you with his own censer. An alternate interpretation: to show if the priests could be exchanged for the Levites. (Ibn Ezra)

אם כמות כל האדם, "If, in a manner similar to the death of anyone else, etc." In this instance the term האדם is one that includes Gentiles. We have a parallel for this in Baba Kama 38 where the Talmud explained that the word האדם in Leviticus 18,3 includes Gentiles. So far Moses referred to the actual death. The words ופקדת כל האדם refer to their burial. We have an example of that meaning of the word פקדה in Kings II 9,34 where the burial of Queen Izzevel is described. The words לא ה׳ שלחני mean that if Moses' prediction will fail to materialise this would be proof that G'd had not appointed him but that he himself had originated all he had done though G'd had not hindered him. The words ואם בריאה introduce what is going to happen, i.e. that body and soul will perish simultaneously.

לא ה' שלחני [IF THESE MEN DIE THE COMMON DEATH OF ALL MEN] … THEN THE LORD HATH NOT SENT ME. but I have done everything of my own accord and he (Korah) is therefore right in rebelling against me.

IF THESE MEN DIE THE COMMON DEATH OF ALL MEN. Now many of the people had said to Moses many times, Why hast thou brought us up out of Egypt?¹⁴³Exodus 17:3. [and yet Moses did not ask for them to be especially punished]. But these people deserved punishment more than all other [previous sinners] because they said that thou wouldst make thyself altogether a prince over us.¹⁴⁴Above, Verse 13. Thus they committed two evils:¹⁴⁵Jeremiah 2:13. they trampled upon the honor due to a teacher, and they denied all the deeds of G-d which He did in Egypt and the wilderness, and even at the Revelation on Mount Sinai,¹⁴⁶See (Exodus), Vol. II, p. 251, Note 17. where it is said and they will believe in thee [Moses] forever,¹⁴⁷Exodus 19:9. by saying that Moses was not worthy to rule over them, and that nothing but evil had befallen them through him. Therefore it is said, and Moses was very wroth.¹⁴⁸Verse 15. Also Korach said, wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the assembly of the Eternal?¹³⁹Above, Verse 3. Therefore his tent¹⁴⁹Further, Verse 32. See, however, in my Hebrew commentary p. 263, Note 18, on the exact fate that befell Korach and his tent. was swallowed up by the earth together with them. This was the intention of Moses’ words [when he said: if these men die the common death of all men] then the Eternal hath not ‘sent’ me, meaning that He has not sent me at all to take the people out of Egypt, the expression being similar to: which the Eternal ‘sent’ him [Moses] to do in the land of Egypt;¹⁵⁰Deuteronomy 34:11. and this shall be the token unto thee, that I have ‘sent’ thee.¹⁵¹Exodus 3:12. Similarly, [And Moses said]: “Hereby, ye shall know that the Eternal hath ‘sent’ me to do all these works”¹⁵²Verse 28. means the deeds which you have seen with your [own] eyes, and refers to all that he had done from the day G-d told him, Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh;¹⁵³Exodus 3:10. for the beginning of a prophet’s activity is called sh’lichuth (being sent, a commission), similar to the expressions: Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?;¹⁵⁴Isaiah 6:8. And I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.¹⁵⁵Micah 6:4. And the meaning of the expression all these works¹⁵²Verse 28. is not, as the commentators have said,¹⁵⁶This is the interpretation of Ibn Ezra. the appointment of the Levites instead of the firstborn, and [the appointment of] Aaron to the priesthood,¹⁵⁷This is the interpretation of Rashi. but it refers to the totality of the activities which Moses wrought in the sight of all Israel,¹⁵⁸Deuteronomy 34:12. as I have explained.

לא ה' שלחני, but I had had taken it upon myself to appoint them as the ones with the monopoly to offer incense in the Tabernacle.

אם כמות כל אדם ימותון אלה, “if these die like the death of all other people, etc.” Nachmanides writes that there had been many people who on different occasions had expressed the wish to return to Egypt, expressing their dissatisfaction with Moses’ leadership, in particular his taking them into the desert. Why then should Korach and Datan and Aviram be singled out for a special kind of punishment? The sin of these men was twofold. First they had refused to meet Moses in dialogue and accused him of being high handed. In doing what they did they had denied everything that G’d had done for the Jewish people commencing with appointing Moses as their Saviour. They had also violated the specific commandment issued at Mount Sinai to have absolute faith in the person and mission of Moses, i.e. וגם בך יאמינו לעולם, (Exodus 19,9) The people, at this juncture, had demonstrated that they did not believe in Moses’ divine mission, not when he had come to take them out of Egypt, nor when he led them on the way to the Holy Land after the Egyptian pursuers had drowned in the sea. This is why Moses stressed in verse 28 that the key to their survival lay in their demonstrating that they did believe that all Moses had done he had done at the command of Hashem. The people had not only protested the exchange of the firstborns’ privileges in favour of the Levites, but they had staged a far more serious ideological rebellion, something known as כפירה בעיקר, a denial of basic tenets of Judaism. The swallowing of the 250 men by the earth was unlike any other earthquake where the fissures in the earth remain open, but here the earth swallowed the men and their belongings and closed again immediately leaving no trace of what had occurred.

V. 29. מות כל האדם .אם כמות וגו׳ ist das Sterben eines natürlichen Todes in Folge der jedem Menschen innewohnenden Sterblichkeit. פקדת כל האדם ist das Sterben eines "natürlichen" Todes in Folge eines besonderen, einen Menschen ereilenden tötenden Verhängnisses, wie במים ,באש ,ברעב ,בחרב usw. Ereignisse, die sich auch nur nach den von Gott geordneten, bestehenden Naturgesetzen vollziehen, indem Gottes Verhängnis einen Menschen den Wirkungen dieser natürlichen Ursachen entgegenführt oder überlässt. Ein solcher Tod ist auch פקדת כל האדם, ein Ereignis, das sich nicht außerhalb der Kategorie jener Verhängnisse bewegt, denen auch andere Menschen in gewöhnlichem Lauf der Dinge ausgesetzt sind. So gewiß auch alle sogenannten natürlichen Ereignisse, alles, was nach der bestehenden natürlichen Weltordnung geschieht, nur in Folge göttlichen Willens sich vollzieht, da Gott diese natürliche Weltordnung gesetzt und sie dann so lange wirkt, als Sein Wille diese Wirkung zulässt; so gewiß ferner der Mensch mit allen seinen Leben Tod, Gedeihen und Untergang herbeiführenden Geschicken noch einer besonderen göttlichen Fürsorge untersteht und nichts, nichts Kleines und Großes, selbst in dem "gewöhnlichen Lauf der Dinge", ihn trifft, es habe denn Gottes heiliger Wille es also über ihn gefügt; so gewiß daher auch, wenn אם כמות כל האדם ימתון אלה יפקדת כל האדם יפקד עליהם, jener Tod und dieses Verhängnis nicht minder Gottes unmittelbaren Ausspruch vollführen würden: so würde doch ein solcher Tod und ein solches Verhängnis nicht eine Beglaubigung der Göttlichkeit der Sendung Mosches sein können, einer Sendung, die ja auf ein außerhalb der natürlichen Ordnung der Dinge sich vollziehendes Eingreifen Gottes sich basiert, womit eben Gott sich als ה׳, als außer und über der Weltordnung in freier Persönlichkeit stehend, sich als den bezeugen wollte, von dem diese Weltordnung stammt, durch den diese Weltordnung besteht, durch den sie, der aber nicht durch sie bedingt ist, der sie nicht nur als אלקים einmal geschaffen und geordnet, sondern als ה in jedem Augenblicke die Macht hat, eine ganz neue, durch Vergangenes nicht bedingte Zukunft einzuleiten und der diese freiwaltende Macht für den Menschen zu betätigen bereit ist, dem er von Seiner Persönlichkeit und Seiner Freiheit einen Hauch mitgeteilt und ihn damit Ihm ebenbildlich zum freien persönlichen Wesen geschaffen, das, gottgleich, sich in sittlicher Freiheit dem Zwange der natürlichen Weltwirkungen entheben, und Gottes Willen erkennend und Gottes Willen frei vollbringend, den Kreis der Dinge, den er seine Welt nennt und mit welchem er seinen Gottesdienst auf Erden vollbringt, mit sich in das Bereich der göttlich-sittlichen Freiheit emporheben soll, — und der eben mit der Sendung Mosches die Wiedererhebung und Erziehung der Menschheit zu Sich und zur sittlichen Freiheit beginnen wollte (siehe zu Schmot 6, 3). Ist doch die Sendung Mosche selbst, wie jedes Wort Gottes an Menschen, ein Akt der freiesten Persönlichkeit, der nur durch ein, von dieser freien Persönlichkeit zeugendes אות ומופת Beglaubigung findet. Daher: אם כמות כל האדם וגו׳ לא ד׳ שלחני. Aber:

ואם בריאה BUT IF A CREATION — i.e. an entirely new one.

BUT IF THE ETERNAL CREATE ‘B’RIAH.’ Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote: “Some scholars say that b’riah indicates producing something from nothing. But, [continues Ibn Ezra], many countries have already been rent [by earthquakes], and their inhabitants went down alive into the pit. Rather, the meaning of b’riah is ‘cutting off,’ from [the expression] ‘u’varei’ (and they shall cut) them”¹⁵⁹Ezekiel 23:47. [thus meaning here: “if the Eternal will ‘cut them’ down by causing the ground to open up its mouth etc.”].
The correct interpretation is that the term b’riah is [indeed] used [in the sense of] bringing forth something from nothing, for we have no other word in the Sacred Language denoting this concept [creatio ex nihilo] except for this one. The explanation of the matter is that splitting open the [crust of the] earth is [indeed] not a new creation, but that the ground should open up its mouth to swallow up [certain people] is a new event which had never occurred previously. For when the earth is split open, as happens many times during an earthquake which is called zalzalah,¹⁶⁰The Arabic word for earthquake. See (Exodus), Vol. II, p. 324, Note 512. it remains open and the chasm becomes filled with water, like ponds; but that it should open up and close again immediately — like a person who opens his mouth to swallow and closes it after he has swallowed — this event was a new happening which occurred [only] on that day, as if it were created out of nothing. This is the meaning of the expression, and the earth closed upon them¹⁶¹Verse 33. [that it closed up immediately after consuming them, and left no sign that it had opened]. It is for this reason that [when saying that] the ground did cleave asunder,¹⁶²Verse 31. Scripture says: And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up.¹⁶³Verse 32. And according to the opinion of our Rabbis¹⁶⁴Sanhedrin 110a. Although Gehenna existed already, this movement of its opening was a “new creation.” [who say] that the opening of Gehenna came near to this spot — that phenomenon too, was a new event which occurred [only] at that moment.

וידעתם כי נאצו, for they do not deserve to even be buried together with the remainder of the people.

ואם בריאה יברא ה׳ ופצתה האדמה את פיה, "If G'd will create a new creation and the earth will open its mouth, etc." Why did the word בריאה have to be repeated? Our sages in Sanhedrin 37 explain that the earth's mouth has remained closed ever since the day that the earth opened it in order to hide the blood of Abel whom Cain had slain and that this was the curse the Torah referred to in Genesis 4,11. This meant that whenever the earth wanted to open its mouth in order to sing G'd's praises it had to use its "wings" rather than its mouth. This is the meaning of Isaiah 24,16: מכנף הארץ זמרות שמענו, "we have heard songs from the wings of the earth." In this instance when Moses wanted to punish the wicked he said: ואם בריאה יברא השם "if the Lord will create a new creation." [The author explains why Moses did not say ואם יברא הי בריאה. Ed.] He referred to a creation which had once existed, namely the mouth of the earth, but which had been sealed due to some deed the earth had carried out so that for practical purposes this creative act of G'd had been undone. Now Moses wanted the mouth of the earth to be opened again so that it could swallow Korach and associates. Perhaps this was Moses' way of affording the earth an opportunity to make up for a time when it had opened its mouth to hide a sin, i.e. to swallow the blood of a righteous person, i.e. Abel.

(אם בריאה (חדשה) ה' בארץ), a reference to another example of a ”creative” act by G’d, as for instance the one described in Jeremiah 31,21. Moses speaks of the death of Korach, as opposed to that of Nadav and Avihu, being by means of a new act of creation.

With a death that no one has experienced. With this Rashi resolves a difficulty: Surely it is written (Koheles 1:9), “There is nothing new under the sun.” Therefore he explains, “To kill them with a death…”

V. 30. ואם בריאה וגו׳, wenn aber ihr Untergang durch eine Neuschöpfung herbeigeführt wird, die eben Gott als ה׳ verkündet, in dessen Namen ich aufgetreten und gehandelt, וידעתם כי נאצו האנשים האלה את ה׳, so werdet ihr wissen, dass diese Leute, indem sie die Göttlichkeit meiner Sendung geleugnet, den persönlich frei waltenden Gott und sein Werk überhaupt geleugnet.

יברא ה׳ THE LORD WILL CREATE, to slay them by a kind of death by which no man has hitherto died — and what is this new creation?

If the mouth [of the earth] was created. One may explain that the Rabbis were dealing with the apparent contradiction that: Surely ten things were created on Erev Shabbos at twilight and one of them was the mouth of the earth (Avos 5:6).

ופצתה האדמה את פיה THAT THE EARTH OPEN WIDE HER MOUTH AND SWALLOW THEM, then וידעתם כי נאצו YE SHALL KNOW THAT THEY HAVE PROVOKED the Holy One, blessed be He, and that I have spoken only by authority of the Almighty. Our Rabbis, however, gave the following explanation: ואם בריאה, if there has been a creation, i.e., if there was already a mouth to the earth from the six days of Creation, well and good! but if not, יברא ה׳ the Lord will create one now (Sanhedrin 110a; Nedarim 39b).

ככלתו לדבר את כל הדברים, "when he finished saying all this," The earth timed its action at the precise moment when Moses completed what he had to say. As soon as Moses was finished it swallowed Korach, etc.

ותבקע האדמה אשר תחתיהם, ותפתח הארץ את פיה ותבלע אותם, “The ground which was beneath them split open and the earth opened its ‘mouth’ and swallowed them.” Nachmanides explains why the Torah had to mention both אדמה and ארץ as “opening” in this verse. Had the Torah only written that the ground split open, the phenomenon could have been considered as an ordinary earthquake, although Moses had predicted the time and the place. This is why the Torah added the words “the earth opened its mouth” to tell us that a great miracle, unparalleled, happened here. This is why the miracle had been predicted as a בריאה, a new creation. The place where this took place returned to its original appearance as distinct from an earthquake which leaves behind clear evidence that there had been an upheaval.

ואת כל האדם אשר לקרח, “and every human being belonging to Korach.” This refers to the members of his household and all the rebels accepting his leadership. Korach’s sons were also “swallowed” by the earth but they did not die as a result; this is the meaning of Numbers 26,11: “and the sons of Korach did not die.” Our sages (Megillah 14) explain that a “fortified” place was reserved for them in purgatory where they stayed. [I suppose the meaning is a site safe from the fires of purgatory but inside it. Ed.]
It is possible to explain the verse differently by understanding the words ואת כל האנשים, “and all the men,” as including only the people previously described in verse 30 as כי נאצו האנשים האלה את ה', “for these men had provoked Hashem.” The reason that the Torah called the people who were swallowed as אדם is because they were swallowed by the אדמה, i.e. they returned to the place they originally came from [as in “dust thou art and to dust thou shall return.” Ed.]

ותבקע האדמה אשר תחתיהם, The earth which was underneath them split. Why did the Torah have to write both that the earth "split" and that it "opened its mouth?" Why did the Torah describe the earth as אדמה when describing that it split, and as ארץ when "it opened its mouth?" Perhaps the mouth of the earth had not previously been situated exactly where Korach and his associates stood at the time so that the earth's reaction had to be described as a crack in its surface; for practical purposes this now became the earth's mouth. The crack was described as a crack in the אדמה, the mouth as the mouth of the ארץ.

ואת כל הרכוש, “and all the property.” The Torah informed us that not only the people but their belongings including their tents, their money, etc., were all swallowed up as part of this great act of retribution. Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 10,1 states that even a needle of theirs which had been temporarily in the possession of some other unrelated Israelite would be swept away down into the abyss into which these people disappeared. The reason the Torah writes the words אשר לקרח, “which belonged to Korach,” without specifying that Korach personally was also swallowed by the earth in so many words, is because there was no need for this. Seeing that the Torah had written that Datan and Aviram, and their families as well as Korach’s families and more distant followers had all been swallowed it is clear that he himself as the instigator of the whole rebellion did not escape such a fate. At any rate, even though Korach’s descent into the bowels of the earth is not spelled out, we find it spelled out in Numbers 26,10 where the Torah writes: “it swallowed them, together with Korach.” We find a parallel example when the Torah described the drowning of the Egyptian army in the sea of Reeds where the Torah writes (Exodus 15,4) “the chariots of Pharaoh together with his army were drowned in the sea,” although the Torah does not specifically mention that Pharaoh himself was also drowned at the same time. Nevertheless, David explains in Psalms 136,15: “He flung Pharaoh and his army into the sea of Reeds.”
Our sages (Sanhedrin 106) believe that Korach was not only swallowed by the earth but that his body was also burned; seeing that he was the root cause of the sin he was afflicted with two penalties. They derive this from the words in 26,10: “it swallowed them as well as Korach when the assembly died as the fire consumed the 250 men.” This teaches first of all that Korach was swallowed; he was also consumed by the fire as the words באכול האש refer to Korach as the first one to be burned. The reason that the Torah did not spell out his name specifically as a victim of the fire is that simple logic teaches us that fact. All the people who offered incense were burned together with the incense in their censers. Clearly, there is no reason to believe that Korach would survive his attempt to offer this incense. The other two hundred and fifty men were punished on account of Korach; why would he escape such a penalty? Alternatively, we need simply view the extra word את before the expression החמישים איש as the clue that Korach was included as the word את always means something or someone additional, as we know from Pesachim 22.

AND ALL THE MEN THAT APPERTAINED UNTO KORACH. He [Korach] had acquired [heathen] slaves and bondmaids, and had as members of his household Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Canaanites — the purchase of his money¹⁶⁵Leviticus 22:11. — and these people were punished because they were part of their goods [i.e., those of Korach’s men], for they were punished both personally and in their belongings. Perhaps there were also in Korach’s house Israelites as sojourners and residents, and they were influenced by his counsel and were therefore punished [with Korach]. But it [the phrase all the men that appertained unto Korach] cannot refer to his children, for it is written, But the children of Korach died not,¹⁶⁶Further, 26:11. because they were adults, righteous and good men, and their [own] merit stood in their stead [so that they were not swept away with their father]. He had no minor sons and daughters, since Scripture does not mention “little ones” in the case of Korach [as it does when referring to Dathan and Abiram].¹⁶⁷Above, Verse 27.

ותפתח הארץ את פיה, the fissure in the surface of the earth became wide enough to extend all the way to their houses.

ואת כל האדם אשר לקרח, “and all the people who had joined Korach.” According to Nachmanides this included the servants and maids in Korach’s household who were bodily owned by him. Perhaps he had Jewish helpers in his household also, as well as some proselytes. They could have suffered the same fate as they supported him. It is not possible to understand the words “and every person belonging to him,” as referring to members of his immediate family, seeing that his grown up sons did not die, as the Torah has spelled out elsewhere. (Numbers 26,11) His younger children surely were included in the wordsותבלע אותם ואת בתיהם “it swallowed them and their households.” Or, he had no children that were minors, as the Torah would have mentioned them under the heading of טף.

V. 32. ואת כל האדם אשר לקרח. Da Korach nach Versen 17-19 bei den מקריבי הקטרת war, so scheint er diesem nach nicht mit in diesem Untergang begriffen gewesen zu sein. Kap. 26, 10 heißt es jedoch: ותפתח הארץ וגו׳ ותבלע אתם ואת קרח וגו׳ demgemäß Korach seinen Tod mit in dieser Erdklüftung gefunden hätte. Daher Sanhedrin 110a der Zweifel, bei welcher Katastrophe er sein Ende gefunden, ob mit den בלועים oder den שרופים und dort eine Ansicht, dass er, der Urheber des ganzen Unglücks, von beiden mitbetroffen worden.

ואת כל האדם אשר לקרח “and any human being siding with Korach, etc.” the expression: כל האדם, is somewhat puzzling at this point. It cannot refer to adult members of Korach’s family, as these had repeatedly been referred to as איש; we must therefore assume that it refers to his wife and minor children as well as to his servants and entourage. The Torah states specifically that Korach’s sons (adults?) did not die; compare Numbers 26,11.

כל האדם אשר לקרח, all the people who had made common cause with Korach in this rebellion. Seeing that this is the meaning of the these words, we need not be surprised to be told that Korach’s sons did not die, as they did not “belong” to their father spiritually or philosophically.

ואת כל הרכוש, this was so that his righteous sons not be burdened with inheriting the ill gotten gains of their father. [the author quotes a Sifri on Ki Teytze item 283 in support of this. Ed.]

AND THEY PERISHED FROM AMONG THE ASSEMBLY. The meaning thereof is that they [Korach and his associates] perished in their sight [that of the people], while they were standing amongst them in their midst, since the earth suddenly opened up its mouth and closed it upon them, and the place where they had been [standing] was not noticeable.¹⁶⁸See Nahum 3:17. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that the meaning of the expression is: [they were blotted out from among the assembly] because of the death of their children who would have been in their stead.

ותכס עליהם הארץ, the Torah emphasises that this phenomenon was unlike an earthquake in which the fissures in the earth do not close again to wipe out any traces of what had occurred. Here, the earth looked as if nothing had happened after Korach and his fellow travelers had disappeared.

וירדו…חיים שאולה, they descended into Sheol while still alive. The earth did not kill them but they remained alive so that the bowels of the earth became their Gehinom. The reason the Torah did not say חיים לשאול, but חיים שאולה is that although generally speaking when a word should have the letter ל at the beginning, the letter ה at the end of that word can substitute for the missing letter ל at the beginning, the Torah does not make such changes arbitrarily, without a reason. In this instance the Torah hinted by means of this construction that after Korach and associates descended they did not die but were given the ability to remain alive. This is what is meant by Sanhedrin 100 that G'd gives the wicked the ability to experience their punishment. If they were to die too soon they would not suffer the pain of G'd's retribution. If the Torah had written לשאול instead of שאולה, the meaning would have been that they died as soon as they arrived in Gehinom.

ויאבדו מתוך הקהל, “they were lost from amongst the congregation.” This is a graphic description of how this spectacle affected the onlookers who saw these people one moment and when they looked again they had disappeared from sight within seconds. There was no visible trace of where they once had been. Ibn Ezra writes that the Torah selected the expression ויאבדו to illustrate that seeing that they did not leave any children behind them who would have replaced them, they could be considered as if “lost.” [I have not found this comment of Ibn Ezra in my editions. Ed.] Ibn Ezra adds that there are different opinions as to what happened to Korach himself. Some say that Korach himself was also swallowed up by the earth, what else could the meaning of the words ותבלע אותם be if afterwards the Torah adds: “not only they but all those who belonged to them?” Compare also Numbers 26,10, which is even more specific. Other commentators hold that Korach was burned to death, based on the second half of the same verse that speaks about the fire that consumed the two hundred and fifty men who presented their incense. Some of our most ancient sources believe that Korach was both burned and then his body was swallowed. Personally, (Ibn Ezra speaking) I believe the earth only opened beneath the feet of Datan and Aviram. Korach, at that time stood alongside Aaron and the 250 men offering their incense. Concerning the words ואת קרח “as well as Korach” in Numbers 26,10, these words do not belong with the word ותבלע, “it swallowed,” but belong to the words following, i.e. במות העדה, “when the congregation died.” The reason why the Torah does not mention Korach specifically in the same context as the people who were burned when offering the incense, is simply that once we had heard that the people making common cause with Korach had been burned, their instigator surely did not escape that fate?

V. 33. ותכם וגו׳ ויאברו וגו׳. Die Erde schloss sich in einer Weise über ihnen, dass nicht einmal eine Spur von ihrem Untergang hinterblieb und sie so völlig aus der Mitte des Volkes verschwunden waren.

וירדו הם, “they descended, they;” the reason that these people, not Korach’s family or household members, but sympathisers, over and beyond the two hundred and fifty people mentioned at the beginning of this episode. descended into the bowels of the earth also. The word: הם is a limitation, excluding the two hundred and fifty men who had offered incense, seeing they had done so at the invitation of Moses. Although they had been totally wrong, their motivation was noble so that they died by being burned on the spot, but presumably were buried with honours, just as their censers were used as covers for the altar subsequently. (Numbers 17,3) The people who had not followed Moses’ advice, were the ones that descended into the bowels of the earth. [Actually, of Datan and Aviram the Torah reports that they were burned to death (and that they descended into the bowels of the earth. Deut. 11.6)

נסו לקולם [AND ALL ISRAEL …] FLED AWAY AT THEIR VOICE — i.e. on account of the sound that broke out because of their being swallowed up.

נסו לקולם, when they cried out at the time when they fell into the bowels of the earth. Compare Jeremiah 49,21 לקול נפלם רעשה ארץ, “the earth itself shook when it heard the sound of their downfall.”

נסו לקולם, “they fled when they heard their sound.” This appears to mean that as Korach and companions descended into the bowels of the earth they called out in repentance: “Moses is true and his Torah is true,” as our sages reported Rabbi bar Chanah as hearing over a site reputedly the point where all of this took place (Baba Batra 74). According to the report of the Talmud, an Arab guide took Rabbi bar Chanah to a site at which thin smoke emerged from the earth on top of two small cracks in the surface of the earth. The Arab placed some wet wool on top of the site, ignited it, and told the Rabbi to listen carefully. When Rabbi bar Chanah put his ear to it he could hear the confession of Korach that Moses and his Torah are true whereas he and his crowd were liars. According to that Arab this phenomenon could be observed every thirty days. This was a demonstration of the justice meted out in purgatory, i.e. to make the guilty confess their erstwhile sins.

The sound of [the earth swallowing them up]. Meaning: The sound emitted from the splitting of the earth; this is similar to the sound of thunder which terrifies people causing them to flee. However it was not the sound of their screams when they were swallowed up, because this is not a sound that causes one to flee. On the contrary, it would cause people to gather in order to see the wonder.

Fled from their uproar. Why does it say literally “to their uproar”? The Sages said (Sanhedrin 110a) that Korach and his congregation constantly exclaim that Moshe is true and his Torah is true, and they are deceivers. That exclamation was heard immediately after they were swallowed, and it was “to” that voice emanating from the place in which they were swallowed that “all of Yisroel fled” — to hear what they were saying. They thought that in all likelihood they were confessing about their sin, and they wanted to know what the main sin was, so they would know how to keep away from it and not suffer the same punishment. This is the meaning of what follows: For they said, perhaps the earth will swallow us.

נסו לקולם, “they fled when hearing their sounds”. This is a reference to the outcries of the people being swallowed by the earth. We know of a parallel in Jeremiah 49,21: מקול נפלם רעשה כל הארץ, “at the sound of their downfall the whole earth will shake.”

ואש יצאה מאת ה', “fire had come forth from the Lord, etc.” G’d matches the punishment to the crime. Seeing that Korach had demanded to be elevated to a position in life which he did not deserve he was punished by being relegated instead to a position below the earth. This corresponds to what our sages said on Numbers 21,20: ומבמות הגי, “and from the heights to the valley.” Here, in the matter of the fire described, this was also a demonstration of the principle of “measure for measure,” seeing the 250 men who were firstborn came to offer incense, i.e. a fire-offering on their fire-pans. Seeing that they aspired to a privilege which they had not earned this very fire became the instrument causing their death, i.e. their punishment. Concerning these people David said in Psalms 106,18: ”a fire blazed among their party, a flame that consumed the wicked.”

V. 35. ואש יצאה וגו׳ gleichzeitig, während im Lager sich der Erduntergang vollzog, wurden die מקריבי הקטרת durch אש מאת ד׳ getötet. Das Feuer, das sonst das Opfer verzehrt, ergriff hier die unberechtigten Opferer.