אֵ֚לֶּה קריאי [קְרוּאֵ֣י] הָעֵדָ֔ה נְשִׂיאֵ֖י מַטּ֣וֹת אֲבוֹתָ֑ם רָאשֵׁ֛י אַלְפֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל הֵֽם׃
그들은 회중에서 부름을 받은 자요 그 조상 지파의 족장으로서 이스라엘 천만 인의 두령이라
Rashi
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).
Rabbeinu Bahya
The Talmud in Sanhedrin 109 views the words: “Korach the son of Yitzhar, son of Kehat, son of Levi took,” as a string of allusions that Korach, i.e. “the bald one” made a bald spot in Israel (by his and his followers’ disappearance). He was the son of Yitzhar, i.e. a son who managed to arouse the anger of the whole world against him publicly, in broad daylight as if it were noon; “the son of Kehat,” i.e. his conduct blunted the teeth of his father and grandfather, i.e. they were ashamed of this offspring; “the son of Levi,” a “son” who wound up” i.e. was escorted, לויה, to purgatory. The same Midrash sees in the name דתן a hint at “violating the דת אל, G’d’s law.” In the name אבירם, this Midrash sees a reference to a refusal to repent, i.e. maintaining a defiant posture, רם, upright. The name און is understood there as a reference to אנינות, someone who sat disconsolate, seeing he had first made common cause with Korach until his wife blocked his way so that he was prevented by miraculous ways, פלא, from becoming enmeshed in that guilt. The word בן ראובן is seen as an allusion to this son “seeing,” ראו, the error of his ways and understanding the abyss he was facing. The expression קריאי מועד is understood as a reference to these people having been called by Moses to assemble at the entrance to the Tabernacle. The words אנשי שם, men of distinction, are a reference to their status prior to the Exodus.
The twelve princes of the various tribes were part of the total of 250 men Korach had been able to attract to his uprising. Our sages in Bamidbar Rabbah 18 arrive at the same conclusion basing themselves on the use of the words קריאי מועד both here and in Numbers 1,16. Rashi also supports this theory in his commentary on the appointment of the prince of Reuven, Elitzur ben Shede-ur and his colleagues described as נקבו בשמות (Numbers 1,17) “designated by their names,” i.e. the reputation they had acquired for themselves. Even though the Torah did not spell out the fact that all of these tribal leaders joined in Korach’s rebellion the Torah threw out sufficient hints that this was so. It is similar to the owner of a bath house whose well reputed son had stolen a number of valuable trinkets from that bath house. Seeing that the son had enjoyed a fine reputation up until then, the owner did not want to accuse him outright of being a thief, but he threw out hints, such as when asked who the thief was he would describe the thief as possessing certain features which were common knowledge as belonging to his son. Nonetheless, he refused to name the person to whom these features belonged. Similarly here. Although the Torah hinted in various ways that the 12 princes were part of the uprising it did not mention any names other than those of Korach, Datan, and Aviram (and On). This is merely part of the ways of the Torah which have been described as דרכיה דרכי נועם, “its ways are ways of loveliness,” i.e. the Torah avoids embarrassment to people unless absolutely unavoidable as a way of ensuring others do not become guilty of the crimes of the people named.
The twelve princes of the various tribes were part of the total of 250 men Korach had been able to attract to his uprising. Our sages in Bamidbar Rabbah 18 arrive at the same conclusion basing themselves on the use of the words קריאי מועד both here and in Numbers 1,16. Rashi also supports this theory in his commentary on the appointment of the prince of Reuven, Elitzur ben Shede-ur and his colleagues described as נקבו בשמות (Numbers 1,17) “designated by their names,” i.e. the reputation they had acquired for themselves. Even though the Torah did not spell out the fact that all of these tribal leaders joined in Korach’s rebellion the Torah threw out sufficient hints that this was so. It is similar to the owner of a bath house whose well reputed son had stolen a number of valuable trinkets from that bath house. Seeing that the son had enjoyed a fine reputation up until then, the owner did not want to accuse him outright of being a thief, but he threw out hints, such as when asked who the thief was he would describe the thief as possessing certain features which were common knowledge as belonging to his son. Nonetheless, he refused to name the person to whom these features belonged. Similarly here. Although the Torah hinted in various ways that the 12 princes were part of the uprising it did not mention any names other than those of Korach, Datan, and Aviram (and On). This is merely part of the ways of the Torah which have been described as דרכיה דרכי נועם, “its ways are ways of loveliness,” i.e. the Torah avoids embarrassment to people unless absolutely unavoidable as a way of ensuring others do not become guilty of the crimes of the people named.
Rashbam
קריאי מועד, the ones who had been referred to in Numbers 1,16 as קרואי העדה. They would be invited to preside over litigation on the days appointed for this (מועד).
Ramban
프리미엄 회원 전용Rashi
for when he was but one I called him For he was one single person in the land of Canaan where I exiled him from his land and from his birthplace. I called him, meaning that I raised him and exalted him. An expression [similar to] (Num. 1:16) “Those called of (קְרִיאֵי) the congregation.” And just as he was a single person and I exalted him, so will I exalt you, who are singled out to Me.
Ramban
프리미엄 회원 전용Rav Hirsch
프리미엄 회원 전용Avi Ezer
프리미엄 회원 전용Rashi
I even called him [i.e., I called] Cyrus. Others say: The Lord loves Israel. I even called him, [i.e.,] Abraham. This calling is an expression of exaltation, to be My called one. Comp. (Num. 1:16), “These are the called ones of the congregation.”