וּבְנֵ֥י קְהָ֖ת לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָ֑ם עַמְרָ֣ם וְיִצְהָ֔ר חֶבְר֖וֹן וְעֻזִּיאֵֽל׃
Anak-anak Kehat menurut kaum mereka ialah Amram, Yizhar, Hebron, dan Uziel.
Ramban
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?”. Thus the language of Rashi.
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 them]40Further, Verses 6-7. as they used formerly to do, and it would become clear thereby whether G-d preferred them or the priests.
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 them]40Further, Verses 6-7. as they used formerly to do, and it would become clear thereby whether G-d preferred them or the priests.
Ibn Ezra
יששום. Some think that the preposition ב is omitted, and that יששו בם ═ יששום they shall be glad for them: this is not right; for what would be the meaning of 1The cause of the objection is the absence of any noun to which the pronoun them could refer.בם? I think that מ is here substituted for the paragogic נ, which is frequently found in verbs. Comp. 2As to the interchange between מ and נ.פדיון ═ פִּדְיוֹם redemption (Num. 3:19).—The land of Edom alone shall be waste; but Palestine shall be the reverse. According to R. Moses Hakkohen this prophecy refers to the deliverance of Jerusalem.3The difference between the two opinions is, that according to the first, this chapter describes the state of Israel in the time of Messiah; according to the second, the peace and happiness of Judah after the evacuation of Palestine by the Assyrian army, which appears to have taken place after the miraculous defeat of Sennacherib before Jerusalem.
Rabbeinu Bahya
Korach’s personal grievance was twofold. 1) He was “dressed” in jealousy, a negative character trait, a disease for which there is no known therapy. 2) He misinterpreted the meaning of the vision in which he had foreseen that his descendants would achieve outstanding greatness. Concerning the first reason, i.e. his jealousy, this is a very vicious disease. One starts by scheming until one achieves whatever it is that his fellow owns and he does not. Even if one achieves this goal and therefore should cease to be jealous, one has in the meantime become addicted to the craving for personal honour, a desire to lord it over others, a craving for power, until eventually all this becomes similar to עבודה זרה, a form of idolatry. On the other hand, if the jealous person fails in his attempt to equal the one he is jealous of, his whole life is one of frustration and it may, G’d forbid, result in his murdering the object of his jealousy. Solomon already referred to this phenomenon in Proverbs 14,30 when he said: “envy is like rottenness of the bones.” Also Eliphaz is quoted in Job 5,2 as saying: ”jealousy kills the fool.” If someone allows himself to be seduced by jealousy it will eventually kill him. Our sages in Avot 4,28 have said that the three traits “jealousy, greed, and the thirst for personal honour” contribute to man’s premature demise.”
When one displays jealousy of one’s fellow one will eventually hate him and possibly become guilty of murder. The Torah describes this graphically in Deut. 19,11: “if someone hates his fellow, sets an ambush for him, and rises up and slays him.” Concerning such saddening phenomena Solomon commented in Kohelet 4,4: וראיתי אני את כל עמל ואת כל כשרון המעשה כי היא קנאת איש מרעהו, גם זה הבל ורעות רוח, “I have also noted that all labor and skillful enterprise come from men’s envy of each other — another futility and pursuit of the wind.” When Solomon speaks of עמל, labor, he refers to the material possessions, honor, and the other exterior paraphernalia denoting personal power. When he speaks of כל כשרון המעשה, he refers to Torah, repentance, and good deeds.” The word “Hevel” is a reference to Kayin’s brother who had observed his older brother offer a sacrifice and wanted to outdo him as he was jealous of his having preceded him with a good deed. He therefore emulated his father Adam and offered a living creature (as opposed to Kayin who had only offered vegetable matter. compare Tanchuma Bereshit 9 and Bereshit Rabbah 22,15) [This is based on the Torah reporting Kayin as being the first of the brothers to offer the sacrifice, Genesis 4,4. It helps explain why G’d tolerated Hevel being murdered. Ed.] The jealousy led to Kayin and Hevel developing mutual hatred until Kayin murdered his brother. This character trait contains within it the potential destruction of the universe.
The trait of jealousy is not limited to human beings. Even the ministering angels are reported as having been jealous of Adam until they succeeded in seducing him into sinning and he was forced to exchange the “garments” of intelligence for garments made of inferior materials (Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 13). The word בגד “garment,” is related to בגד, “betray.” In other words man’s clothing may betray him. Adam’s superior “garments” were the cause of the angels’ jealousy. The result of this was that the Shechinah departed from him and therefore from mankind on earth.
Korach’s jealousy also resulted in his being expelled from the universe. The immediate focus of Korach’s jealousy and that of his sympathizers was the manner in which Israelites had been appointed to high office. He saw in this high-handed action by Moses, nepotism of a kind. When Moses, in answering Korach’s accusations, says כי לא מלבי, “I did not do these things arbitrarily” (verse 25), it is clear that this was his response to Korach’s accusation. Korach and company had even suggested that the appointment of all the Levites to their position and their replacing the function of the firstborn had only been a device by Moses to elevate members of his own tribe to a higher social status. If even Levites also took part in that uprising it was because they perceived that Aaron and his family, Moses’ closest relatives, had been given the highest rank of all. Korach also believed that Moses had appointed Elitzafan ben Uzziel as prince of the tribe of Levi seeing that Uzziel had been one of Moses’ uncles, though the most junior in age (Numbers 3,19). Korach was particularly irked by the fact that he felt he had been passed over in the sharing out of honors though he was senior to Uzziel, being a son of Yitzhar who was older than Uzziel. In his mind, Amram, Moses’ father had been the firstborn (an honor), whereas his two sons had taken for themselves the highest positions, King and High Priest. Korach felt that the second of these honors should have been his, seeing that he was the son of Yizhar, who was next in line to Amram. When he found that the next highest honour had been given to Elitzafan, son of the younger Uzziel instead, he started the uprising.
How did Korach secure support for his demagoguery? He assembled 250 heads of the respective tribal supreme courts, most of them from the tribe of Reuven; he clothed all of them in talitot made completely of blue wool, תכלת; this is the meaning of “Korach took”, i.e. he took his talit and came to Moses wearing it. The other 250 men did the same. They all asked Moses whether such a talit required tzitziyot in order for it to be fit to wear. When Moses said that indeed even a talit made exclusively of blue wool required tzitziyot these people all started laughing, saying: “if a white talit can be converted into an halachically sound garment by means of a single thread of תכלת, blue wool, surely a talit which is completely of blue wool does not need an additional blue thread in order for it to be fit to be worn!” They then asked a similar question pertaining to the affixing of a mezuzah on a house filled with sacred texts. Moses ruled that such a house too is not absolved from the need to have a mezuzah affixed to its entrance. Thereupon the rebels said that if affixing two paragraphs out of a total of the 275 paragraphs contained in the Torah can make such a house fit to live in, surely when the house contains all 275 paragraphs, seeing that there is a Torah scroll inside, this must be enough to absolve such a house from the need to affix another two of these paragraphs to its door post! They concluded that Moses’ ruling was arbitrary and could not represent instructions he had received from G’d. Korach had asked these questions using his intelligence to make Moses look ridiculous.
There is another nuance contained in these questions, i.e. Korach used the simile of the house full of sacred texts and the talit made completely of blue wool as a parable describing the Jewish people. He meant that seeing the Jewish people are all holy, there was no need to appoint a High Priest who would perform the function for the people which the tzitzit performed for the talit. He compared all the fringes to the religious dignitaries who are part of the oligarchy of the Jewish people. He implied that a nation such as the Jewish nation should be a totally egalitarian society with no special duties or privileges for anyone, especially no hereditary ones.
Korach’s second mistake, one which led him to vent his jealousy, was that he erred in interpreting the chain of prominent people who would be descended from him. Our sages (Tanchuma Korach 5 and quoted by Rashi), say. He was deceived by foreseeing that the prophet Samuel would be descended from him, a prophet who has been described as equal to Moses and Aaron combined, as we know from Psalms 99,6: “Moses and Aaron among His priests and Samuel among those who call upon His name.” He reasoned that he had to be saved as otherwise this prophecy could not be fulfilled. He also foresaw that 24 groups of Levites would be descended from him all of whom prophets, sons of Heiman (Chronicles I 6,18). Seeing that he foresaw such a brilliant future for his descendants he said to himself: “how can I remain silent and not challenge the present hierarchy?” He thought that his speaking up would ensure that the future he foresaw would materialise. This is why he tried to force the issue. He had heard from Moses that everyone of the present hierarchy would perish and only one would be saved. This is how he interpreted Moses’ words אשר יבחר ה' הוא הקדוש, “the one whom the Lord will choose he is the holy one (verse 9).” He thought there would remain only a single person fit for the description “holy,” i.e. himself.
When one displays jealousy of one’s fellow one will eventually hate him and possibly become guilty of murder. The Torah describes this graphically in Deut. 19,11: “if someone hates his fellow, sets an ambush for him, and rises up and slays him.” Concerning such saddening phenomena Solomon commented in Kohelet 4,4: וראיתי אני את כל עמל ואת כל כשרון המעשה כי היא קנאת איש מרעהו, גם זה הבל ורעות רוח, “I have also noted that all labor and skillful enterprise come from men’s envy of each other — another futility and pursuit of the wind.” When Solomon speaks of עמל, labor, he refers to the material possessions, honor, and the other exterior paraphernalia denoting personal power. When he speaks of כל כשרון המעשה, he refers to Torah, repentance, and good deeds.” The word “Hevel” is a reference to Kayin’s brother who had observed his older brother offer a sacrifice and wanted to outdo him as he was jealous of his having preceded him with a good deed. He therefore emulated his father Adam and offered a living creature (as opposed to Kayin who had only offered vegetable matter. compare Tanchuma Bereshit 9 and Bereshit Rabbah 22,15) [This is based on the Torah reporting Kayin as being the first of the brothers to offer the sacrifice, Genesis 4,4. It helps explain why G’d tolerated Hevel being murdered. Ed.] The jealousy led to Kayin and Hevel developing mutual hatred until Kayin murdered his brother. This character trait contains within it the potential destruction of the universe.
The trait of jealousy is not limited to human beings. Even the ministering angels are reported as having been jealous of Adam until they succeeded in seducing him into sinning and he was forced to exchange the “garments” of intelligence for garments made of inferior materials (Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 13). The word בגד “garment,” is related to בגד, “betray.” In other words man’s clothing may betray him. Adam’s superior “garments” were the cause of the angels’ jealousy. The result of this was that the Shechinah departed from him and therefore from mankind on earth.
Korach’s jealousy also resulted in his being expelled from the universe. The immediate focus of Korach’s jealousy and that of his sympathizers was the manner in which Israelites had been appointed to high office. He saw in this high-handed action by Moses, nepotism of a kind. When Moses, in answering Korach’s accusations, says כי לא מלבי, “I did not do these things arbitrarily” (verse 25), it is clear that this was his response to Korach’s accusation. Korach and company had even suggested that the appointment of all the Levites to their position and their replacing the function of the firstborn had only been a device by Moses to elevate members of his own tribe to a higher social status. If even Levites also took part in that uprising it was because they perceived that Aaron and his family, Moses’ closest relatives, had been given the highest rank of all. Korach also believed that Moses had appointed Elitzafan ben Uzziel as prince of the tribe of Levi seeing that Uzziel had been one of Moses’ uncles, though the most junior in age (Numbers 3,19). Korach was particularly irked by the fact that he felt he had been passed over in the sharing out of honors though he was senior to Uzziel, being a son of Yitzhar who was older than Uzziel. In his mind, Amram, Moses’ father had been the firstborn (an honor), whereas his two sons had taken for themselves the highest positions, King and High Priest. Korach felt that the second of these honors should have been his, seeing that he was the son of Yizhar, who was next in line to Amram. When he found that the next highest honour had been given to Elitzafan, son of the younger Uzziel instead, he started the uprising.
How did Korach secure support for his demagoguery? He assembled 250 heads of the respective tribal supreme courts, most of them from the tribe of Reuven; he clothed all of them in talitot made completely of blue wool, תכלת; this is the meaning of “Korach took”, i.e. he took his talit and came to Moses wearing it. The other 250 men did the same. They all asked Moses whether such a talit required tzitziyot in order for it to be fit to wear. When Moses said that indeed even a talit made exclusively of blue wool required tzitziyot these people all started laughing, saying: “if a white talit can be converted into an halachically sound garment by means of a single thread of תכלת, blue wool, surely a talit which is completely of blue wool does not need an additional blue thread in order for it to be fit to be worn!” They then asked a similar question pertaining to the affixing of a mezuzah on a house filled with sacred texts. Moses ruled that such a house too is not absolved from the need to have a mezuzah affixed to its entrance. Thereupon the rebels said that if affixing two paragraphs out of a total of the 275 paragraphs contained in the Torah can make such a house fit to live in, surely when the house contains all 275 paragraphs, seeing that there is a Torah scroll inside, this must be enough to absolve such a house from the need to affix another two of these paragraphs to its door post! They concluded that Moses’ ruling was arbitrary and could not represent instructions he had received from G’d. Korach had asked these questions using his intelligence to make Moses look ridiculous.
There is another nuance contained in these questions, i.e. Korach used the simile of the house full of sacred texts and the talit made completely of blue wool as a parable describing the Jewish people. He meant that seeing the Jewish people are all holy, there was no need to appoint a High Priest who would perform the function for the people which the tzitzit performed for the talit. He compared all the fringes to the religious dignitaries who are part of the oligarchy of the Jewish people. He implied that a nation such as the Jewish nation should be a totally egalitarian society with no special duties or privileges for anyone, especially no hereditary ones.
Korach’s second mistake, one which led him to vent his jealousy, was that he erred in interpreting the chain of prominent people who would be descended from him. Our sages (Tanchuma Korach 5 and quoted by Rashi), say. He was deceived by foreseeing that the prophet Samuel would be descended from him, a prophet who has been described as equal to Moses and Aaron combined, as we know from Psalms 99,6: “Moses and Aaron among His priests and Samuel among those who call upon His name.” He reasoned that he had to be saved as otherwise this prophecy could not be fulfilled. He also foresaw that 24 groups of Levites would be descended from him all of whom prophets, sons of Heiman (Chronicles I 6,18). Seeing that he foresaw such a brilliant future for his descendants he said to himself: “how can I remain silent and not challenge the present hierarchy?” He thought that his speaking up would ensure that the future he foresaw would materialise. This is why he tried to force the issue. He had heard from Moses that everyone of the present hierarchy would perish and only one would be saved. This is how he interpreted Moses’ words אשר יבחר ה' הוא הקדוש, “the one whom the Lord will choose he is the holy one (verse 9).” He thought there would remain only a single person fit for the description “holy,” i.e. himself.