Midrash su Levitico 8:2

(Numb. 16:1:) “Now Korah betook himself.” This text is related (to Prov. 18:19), “A brother offended (rt.: psh') is more formidable than a fortified city; [such] contentions are like a castle bar.” The brother offended is Korah, in that he sided against Moses.¹Numb. R. 18:1, 14. So he rebelled and sank from whatever glory that he possessed. Now offended (rt: psh') can only imply rebellion, since it is stated (in II Kings 3:7), “The king of Moab has rebelled (psh') against me.” It also says (in II Kings 8:22), “then did Libnah rebel (rt.: psh').” (Prov. 18:19:) “[Such] contentions are like a castle bar.” [The earth raised its bars against him like a castle.] (Prov. 18:19:) “Like a castle bar.” [These words also refer to Korah,] who sided against Moses and against the Omnipresent.²See the commentary of Enoch Zundel on Tanh., Numb.5:1. This explanation is also given by Issachar Berman Ashkenazi in his commentary, Mattenot Kehunnah, on Numb. R. 18:1. (Numb. 16:1:) “[Now Korah …] took.”³In this and some of the following sections, the midrash is explaining the fact that the transitive verb, TOOK, has no object. Biblical translations offer solutions such as translating the verb intransitively, e.g., BETOOK HIMSELF, or by supplying an object, e.g., TOOK MEN. “Took” can only be a word for "attracting with persuasive words," in that he attracted all the leaders of Israel and the sanhedraot [to follow] after him.⁴Numb. R. 18:2. Concerning Moses it is written (in Numb. 1:17), “So Moses and Aaron took these men.” And similarly it is written (in Numb. 8:2), “Take Aaron and his sons with him.” And so does it say (in Hos. 14:3), “Take words with you and repent….” And so does it [also] say (in Genesis 12:15), “and the woman was taken to the house of Pharaoh.” Ergo (in Numb. 16:1) “Now Korah […] took,” in that he drew (i.e., took) their hearts with persuasive words. (Numb. 16:1:) “Now Korah […] betook himself.” Because of what did he dissent? Because of Elizaphan, the son of his father's brother, who had been appointed prince (nasi) over his clan. So it says (in Numb. 3:30), “And the prince of the ancestral house for the Kohathite clan was Elizaphan ben Uzziel.” Korah said, “Father had four brothers.” It is so stated (according to Exod. 6:18), “And the sons of Kohath were Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel.” “As for Amram, the first-born; his son Aaron and his sons attained the high priesthood, and his brother Moses [attained] the kingship. So who deserves to get second [place]? Should it not be the second [son]? Now I am Izhar's son. I deserved to be prince of my clan, but he has appointed the son of Uzziel. Should the youngest of father's brothers become superior to me? See, I am dissenting and declaring everything invalid, whatever he had done.” Therefore, there was dissent.

1) (Vayikra 8:1) ("And the L–rd spoke to Moses, saying (Vayikra 8:2): "Take Aaron, and his sons with him, and the garments, and the oil of anointment, and the bullock of the sin-offering and the two rams and the basket of unleavened bread.") "Take Aaron and his sons with him": What is the intent of this? Because (Shemoth 32:35): "And the L–rd smote the people with plague because they had made the calf that Aaron had made" implies that Aaron was rejected, from "Take Aaron and his sons with him" all knew that he was (re-) accepted. Whence is it derived that Moses knew that Aaron was rejected? From (Devarim 9:20): "And against Aaron the L–rd was wroth to destroy him, and I prayed also on Aaron's behalf at that time," and it is not written there (as it is in the preceding verse in respect to Moses' prayer on behalf of Israel) "And the L–rd hearkened to me at that time too." From "Take Aaron and his sons with him," Moses knew that Aaron was (re-) accepted. Whence do we derive that it was in Aaron's heart that he had been rejected? It is written at the end of the episode (Vayikra 9:7) ("And Moses said to Aaron) draw near to the altar." (Why was this command necessary?) Had not Moses just presented to him the entire order of sacrifices? (We must say, then, that Moses saw Aaron hesitating, apparently feeling that his service would be rejected, and) to dispel this from his heart, he told him that the L–rd had said to him "Take Aaron and his sons with him," thus apprising Aaron that he had been (re-) accepted.

Another interpretation (of Lev. 21:1): SPEAK UNTO THE PRIESTS. What is written above of the matter (in Lev. 20:27)? WHEN A MAN OR A WOMAN HAS A GHOST OR A FAMILIAR SPIRIT…. This text is related (to Is. 8:19): AND WHEN THEY SAY UNTO YOU: INQUIRE OF GHOSTS AND FAMILIAR SPIRITS.⁴Tanh., Lev. 8:2; Lev. R. 6:6. The Holy One said to Israel: If they say unto you: INQUIRE OF GHOSTS, and forsake the God who is in the heavens, say to them (ibid. cont.): SHOULD NOT A PEOPLE INQUIRE OF ITS GOD? Just as Elijah said to Ahaziah (in II Kings 1:3): IS IT FOR LACK OF A GOD IN ISRAEL < THAT YOU ARE SENDING TO INQUIRE OF BAAL-ZEBUB >…? Why should we forsake the everlasting God? (Jer. 10:10:) BUT THE LORD IS A TRUE GOD; [HE IS A LIVING GOD AND AN EVERLASTING KING]. It is also written (in Deut. 4:4): BUT YOU WHO CLUNG TO THE LORD YOUR GOD ARE < ALL > ALIVE < TODAY >. We therefore seek a living God; however, [the god< s > of] the nations of the world are dead, < and > (according to Ps. 115:8:) THOSE WHO MAKE THEM SHALL BE LIKE THEM. What is written after < Is. 8:19 >, (in vs. 20)? FOR INSTRUCTION (Torah) AND FOR TESTIMONY: [IF THEY DO NOT SPEAK ACCORDING TO THIS WORD, SUCH A ONE SHALL HAVE NO DAWN].⁵Similarly in the 1985 JPS translation: FOR ONE WHO SPEAKS THUS THERE SHALL BE NO DAWN. So understood, the clause means that a necromancer will not live to see the dawn. Such a translation fits the immediate context of the midrash. The clause can also mean: SUCH A ONE HAS NO LIGHT, i.e., a necromancer cannot enlighten. This translation better fits the interpretations that follow. R. Johanan and R. Laqish differed. R. Johanan said: The Holy One said: IF THEY DO NOT SPEAK ACCORDING TO THIS WORD to the nations of the world THEY (sic) HAVE NO LIGHT;⁶See the previous note. [but R. Laqish says: IT (i.e., the word of a necromancer) HAS NO LIGHT.] The ghosts and the familiar spirits do not enlighten (literally: raise up the dawn) on their own, since they are < themselves > set in darkness; and all the more does this < principle > hold true for the nations of the world. So if you should say: Of whom shall we inquire? see, it says (in Deut. 17:9–11): AND YOU SHALL COME UNTO THE LEVITICAL PRIESTS AND UNTO THE JUDGE…. < YOU SHALL ACT > ACCORDING TO THE TORAH WHICH THEY SHALL TEACH YOU.