레위기 8:2 미드라쉬: Midrash Tanchuma, Sifra, Midrash Tanchuma Buber & Vayikra Rabbah

(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 Exod. 22:24 [25]:) IF YOU LEND MONEY <TO MY PEOPLE, TO THE POOR PERSON WITH YOU, YOU SHALL NOT ACT TOWARD HIM AS A CREDITOR. > What is the difference between a human act and an act of the Holy One? When someone human is in debt to a comrade, he says: Give me what you have on hand. He says to him: I have nothing now. They immediately have a quarrel and humiliate each other. But the Holy One is not like that. Thus you find that in the summer the day borrows from the night until the summer solstice.³¹Below, Lev. 8:2; Exod. R. 31:15. Then from the summer solstice until the winter solstice the night borrows from the day. Where is it shown? <Where> David said (in Ps. 19:3 [2]): ONE DAY POURS OUT SPEECH TO ANOTHER. The former is lending to the latter and the latter is lending to the former; but no one hears what the difference is between them, as stated (in vs. 4 [3]): THERE IS NO UTTERANCE; THERE ARE NO WORDS…. But when humans lend to each other, one hears quarreling. The Holy One said to Moses: Go and say to those Israelites: Although you lend to each other, you shall not treat <the borrower > with contempt.