Comentários de Citação sobre Números 1:17

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.

ואנשים מבני ישראל חמשים ומתים, “and two hundred and fifty of the elite of the Children of Israel.” Who were the men whom the Torah referred to here as the “elite” of the nation? They were Elitzur ben Shdeyur, the leader of the tribe of Reuven and his companions. Even though the Torah did not name them here, it provided us with hints to their identity. We find the expression: ואנשים מבני ישראל, “and distinguished men from among the Children of Israel,” (Numbers 1,17) They appear here in 16,2 again almost referred to in identical terms. Our sages explain this in a parable. When a person up to that time respected for his absolute integrity, was found having stolen something in the public bath, and the owner of the stolen object did not want to embarrass the thief, he started throwing out hints, such as asking the thief: “who stole your robe?” He assumed that a person of high repute would realise that it was he who was referred to, and after the owner describing the thief in detail without mentioning his name, would give him a chance to return the stolen object, making some excuse. The Torah did something similar here by not referring to these rebels by name. (Tanchuma, section 2 on this portion) If you needed proof how serious the sin of Korach and his followers was, consider that as a rule the heavenly tribunal does not judge someone guilty until he reaches the age of 20, as we know from Yishmael in Genesis 21,17 where his prayer was accepted although he was already 16 or 17 at the time, whereas human tribunals hold people accountable already from the age of 13. In this instance, where Korach and followers were judged by a heavenly tribunal, even their infants were punished alongside their parents. The Talmud in tractate Baba Metzia, folio 87, learns from this that maintaining peace between human beings is so important that those who destroy it are judged and punished immediately regardless of age. (Compare author’s commentary on Genesis 18,13).

יקבנו Will name. Comp. אשר נקבו which are expressed (Num. 1:17)

are dried up Heb. נחרו. The “nun” serves as a prefix, as: נַעֲשׂוּ, they were made, נִקְנוּ, they were acquired; and it is an expression of dryness, as (Job 30:30): “and my bones dried out (חרה) from the heat”; (Jer. 6:29), “the bellows is heated (נחר).”