מדרש אויף במדבר 16:1

(Numb. 16:1:)¹This supplement comes from Codex Vaticanus, Ebr. 34. It is found neither in Buber’s primary Oxford manuscript nor in the traditional version of the Tanhuma. NOW KORAH BEN IZHAR BEN KOHATH BEN LEVI BETOOK HIMSELF (literally: TOOK)…. Let our master instruct us: Is it legitimate to save the Holy Scriptures on the Sabbath? Thus have our masters taught (in Shab. 16:1): IN THE CASE OF ALL HOLY SCRIPTURES,²I.e., Torah, Prophets, and Writings, all three. ONE SHOULD SAVE THEM FROM THE FIRE WHETHER ONE READS FROM THEM OR DOES NOT READ FROM THEM.³According to Sanh. 115a, the Prophets are what one reads from and the Writings are what one does not read from. As for the books of the minim, however, one does not save them from the fire on the Sabbath.⁴TShab. 13(14):5 mentions gilyonim in this context. While gilyonim properly refers to the unwritten portions of a scroll, it became a term for the Christian Gospels and seems to have this meaning here and in Shab. 116a. R. Jose the Galilean says: If I find the books of the minim, I cut out their Divine Names and burn the rest.⁵See yShab. 16:1 (15c); Sifre to Numb. 5:23 (16); Numb. R. 9:36; also Sanh. 110b. R. Tarfon said to him: May I bury my children, if the books of the minim should fall into my hands, I should burn them together with their Divine Names. Moreover, if someone were pursuing me, I should flee into an idolatrous temple, but I should not flee to a house of the minim. <The reason is> that idolaters do not know the Holy One when they deny him, [while these do know him when they deny him]; and it is concerning them that David said (in Ps. 139:21): DO I NOT HATE THOSE WHO HATE YOU O LORD? AND LOATHE THOSE WHO RISE UP AGAINST YOU …? What caused Korah to disappear from the world? It could only be that he withdrew into heresy (minut) and sided against Moses and Aaron. Where is it shown? From what they read on the matter (in Numb. 16:1): NOW KORAH <BEN IZHAR BEN KOHATH BEN LEVI> TOOK (heretical texts)….

(Numb. 16:1:) NOW KORAH <BEN IZHAR BEN KOHATH BEN LEVI> 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.¹Tanh., Numb.5:1; Numb. 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. <These words also refer to Korah,> who sided (PSh') against the Holy One and against Moses.²See the commentary of Enoch Zundel on the parallel text in Tanh., Numb.5:1. He would have the text read: “The earth raised its bars against him as <if it were> a castle.” This explanation is also given by Issachar Berman Ashkenazi in his commentary, Mattenot Kehunnah, on Numb. R. 18:1.

(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.