פירוש על במדבר 16:1

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. ...