Мидраш к Бамидбар 1:17

(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.

Another interpretation (of 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 sanhedria <to follow> after him.⁴Tanh., Numb.5:1, cont.; Numb. 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. 20:25): TAKE AARON AND HIS SON <ELEAZAR>…. 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 […] took.” What is written above the matter (in Numb. 15:38)?⁵Numb. R. 18:3. “Speak unto the Children of Israel and tell them to make tassels (zizit) for themselves.’” Korah quickly said to Moses, “In the case of a prayer shawl (tallit) which is all blue, what is the rule about it being exempt from [having] the tassel?” Moses said to him, “[Such a prayer shawl] is required to have the tassels.” Korah said to him, “Would not a prayer shawl which is all blue exempt itself, when four [blue] threads exempt it? In the case of a house which is full of [scriptural] books, what is the rule about it being exempt it from [having] the mezuzah (which contains only two passages of scripture)?” [Moses] said to him, “[Such a house] is required to have the mezuzah.” [Korah] said to him, “Since the whole Torah has two hundred and seventy-five parashiot in it⁶Cf. yShab. 16:1 (15c); Soferim 16:10; M. Pss. 22:19, according to which there are 175 parashiot in the Torah where an expression of speaking, saying, or commanding occurs. See also Alfa Beta deRabbi ‘Aqiva, longer recension, Tsade (Eisenstein, p. 421). and they do not exempt the house [from having the mezuzah], would the two parashiot which are in the mezuzah exempt the house?” [He also] said to him, “These are things about which you have not been commanded. Rather you are inventing them [by taking them] out of your own heart.” Here is what is written (in Numb. 16:1), “Now Korah […] took.” (Numb. 16:1:) “Now Korah […] took.” Now “took (rt.: lqh)” can only be a word of discord, in that his heart carried him away (rt.: lqh). Thus is [the word] used (in Job 15:12), “How your heart has carried you away (rt.: lqh) […].” This explains what Moses said to them (in Numb. 16:9), “Is it too small a thing for you that the God of Israel has separated you [from the congregation to draw you near unto Himself, to perform the service of the Lord's tabernacle …?” Plus] that whole passage up to (vs. 29), “If these people die the common death of every person.” The sages have said, “Korah was a great sage and was one of the bearers of the ark, as stated (in Numb. 7:9), ‘But to the children of Kohath He gave no [wagons], because they had the service of the holy objects, which they carried on their shoulders.’” Now Korah was the son of Izhar, [who was] the son of Kohath. When Moses said (in Numb. 15:38), “And put on the tassel of each corner a thread of blue,” what did Korah do? He immediately ordered them to make two hundred and fifty blue shawls for those two hundred and fifty heads of sanhedraot who rose up against Moses to wrap themselves in, just as it is stated (in Numb. 16:2), “And they rose up against Moses, together with two hundred and fifty men from the children of Israel.” And who are they? (Numb. 16:2, cont.:) “Princes of the congregation, chosen in the assembly, men of repute.” Korah arose and made them a banquet at which they all wrapped themselves in blue prayer shawls. [When] Aaron's sons came to receive their dues, [namely the] breast and right thigh,⁷I.e., the priestly share of the animals slaughtered for the feast. See Lev.7:31-32. they arose against them and said to them, “Who commanded you to receive such? Was it not Moses? [If so,] we shall not give you anything, as the Holy One, blessed be He, has not commanded it.” They came and informed Moses. He went to placate⁸Rt.: PYS. See the Gk.: peithein, peisai in the aroist. them. They immediately confronted him, as stated (ibid.), “And they rose up against Moses.” And who were they? Elizur ben Shedeur and his companions (the princes), the men (according to Numb. 1:17) “who were mentioned by name.” Although the text has not publicized⁹From PRSM. Cf. Gk: parresiazesthai. their [names], it has given clues¹⁰Gk.: semeia. to their [identity], so that you [can] identify them from the [various] verses. A parable: To what is the matter comparable? To a scion of good parentage who stole articles from the bathhouse. The owner of what was stolen did not want to publish his [name. Rather,] he began to give clues about his [identity]. When they said to him, “Who stole your articles,” he said, “A scion of good parentage, a tall person with beautiful teeth and black hair.” After he had given his clues, they knew who he was. So also here where the text has concealed them and not specified their names, it comes and gives clues to their [identity]. You know who they are. It is stated elsewhere (in Numb. 1:16), “These were elected by the congregation, princes of their ancestral tribes, heads of thousands within Israel.” Then it is written (in vs. 17), “So Moses and Aaron took these men who were mentioned by name.” Now here it is written (in Numb. 16:2-3), “princes of the congregation, elected by the assembly, men of renown. They gathered together against Moses and Aaron.”

2) Variantly: "Take Aaron and his sons with him": What is the intent of this? In many places the "taking" of men is mentioned in respect to Moses, viz. (Numbers 3:41): "And you shall take the Levites for Me — I am the L–rd." (Numbers 11:16): "And you shall take them (the seventy elders) to the tent of meeting." (Numbers 1:17): "and Moses… took these men who were designated by name." (Numbers 27:18): "Take for yourself Joshua the son of Nun." Now did Moses "string men over his shoulders"? (The intent is that) the Holy One Blessed be He said to him: "Take" them with words so that their hearts not be tied to other things.

2 (Numb. 16:1) “[Now Korah …] took”:²In 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. 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 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 attained greatness, 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, (in Numb. 16:1) “Now Korah […] took.”

3 (Numb. 16:1) “Now Korah […] took”: What is written above the matter (in Numb. 15:38)? “Speak unto the Children of Israel and tell them to make tassels (zizit) for themselves.’” Korah quickly said to Moses, “In the case of a prayer shawl (tallit) which is all blue, what is the rule about it being exempt from [having] the tassel?” Moses said to him, “[Such a prayer shawl] is required to have the tassels.” Korah said to him, “Would not a prayer shawl which is all blue exempt itself, when four [blue] threads exempt it? In the case of a house which is full of [scriptural] books, what is the rule about it being exempt it from [having] the mezuzah (which contains only two passages of scripture)?” [Moses] said to him, “[Such a house] is required to have the mezuzah.” [Korah] said to him, “Since the whole Torah has two hundred and seventy-five parashiot in it³Cf. yShab. 16:1 (15c); Soferim 16:10; M. Pss. 22:19, according to which there are 175 parashiot in the Torah where an expression of speaking, saying, or commanding occurs. See also Alfa Beta deRabbi ‘Aqiva, longer recension, Tsade (Eisenstein, p. 421). and they do not exempt the house [from having the mezuzah], would the one parasha which is in the mezuzah exempt the house?” [He also] said to him, “These are things about which you have not been commanded. Rather you are inventing them [by taking them] out of your own heart.” Here is what is written (in Numb. 16:1), “Now Korah […] took.” (Numb. 16:1) “Now Korah […] took”: Now “took (rt.: lqh)” can only be a word of discord, in that his heart carried him away (rt.: lqh). Thus is [the word] used (in Job 15:12), “How your heart has carried you away (rt.: lqh) […].” This explains what Moses said to them (in Numb. 16:9), “Is it too small a thing for you that the God of Israel has separated [you from the congregation to draw you near unto Himself, to perform the service of the Lord's tabernacle …]?” The sages have said, “Korah was a great sage and was one of the bearers of the ark, as stated (in Numb. 7:9), ‘But to the children of Kohath He gave no [wagons], because they had the service of the holy objects, which they carried on their shoulders.’” Now Korah was the son of Izhar, [who was] the son of Kohath. When Moses said (in Numb. 15:38), “And put on the tassel of each corner a thread of blue,” what did Korah do? He immediately ordered them to make two hundred and fifty blue shawls for those two hundred and fifty heads of sanhedraot who rose up against Moses to wrap themselves in, just as it is stated (in Numb. 16:2), “And they rose up against Moses, together with two hundred and fifty men from the children of Israel, princes of the congregation, chosen in the assembly.” Korah arose and made them a banquet at which they all wrapped themselves in blue prayer shawls. [When] Aaron's sons came to receive their dues, [namely the] breast and right thigh,⁴I.e., the priestly share of the animals slaughtered for the feast. See Lev.7:31-32. they arose against them and said to them, “Who commanded you to receive such? Was it not Moses? [If so,] we shall not give you anything, as the Holy One, blessed be He, has not commanded it.” They came and informed Moses. He went to placate⁵Rt.: PYS. See the Gk.: peithein, peisai in the aroist. them. They immediately confronted him, as stated (ibid.), “And they rose up against Moses.” And who were they? Elizur ben Shedeur and his companions (the princes), the men (according to Numb. 1:17) “who were mentioned by name.” Although the text has not publicized⁶From PRSM. Cf. Gk: parresiazesthai. their [names], it has given clues⁷Gk.: semeia. to their [identity], so that you [can] identify them from the [various] verses. A parable: To what is the matter comparable? To a scion of good parentage who stole articles from the bathhouse. The owner of what was stolen did not want to publish his [name. Rather,] he began to give clues about his [identity]. When they said to him, “Who stole your articles,” he said, “A scion of good parentage, a tall person with beautiful teeth and black hair.” After he had given his clues, they knew who he was. So also here where the text has concealed them and not specified their names, it comes and gives clues to their [identity]. You know who they are. It is stated elsewhere (in Numb. 1:16-17), “These were elected by the congregation, princes of their ancestral tribes, heads of thousands within Israel. So Moses and Aaron took these men who were mentioned by name.” Now here it is written (in Numb. 16:2-3), “princes of the congregation, elected by the assembly, men of renown. They gathered together against Moses and Aaron.”