Numbers · Chapter 16

And Korah son of Izhar son of Kohath son of Levi separated himself, along with Dathan and Abiram sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth, sons of Reuben.

ויקח קרח — This section is beautifully expounded in the Midrash of Rabbi Tanchuma. ויקח קרח lit., AND KORAH TOOK — He betook himself on one side with the view of separating himself from out of the community so that he might raise a protest regarding the priesthood to which Moses had appointed his brother. This is what Onkelos means when he renders it by ואתפלג — “he separated himself” from the rest of the community in order to maintain dissension. Similar is, (Job 15:12) “Why doth thy heart take thee aside (יקחך)”, meaning, it takes you aside to separate you from other people (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 2). — Another explanation of ויקח קרח is: he attracted (won over) the chiefs of the Sanhedrin amongst them (the people) by fine words. The word is used here in a figurative sense just as in. (Leviticus 8:2) “Take (קח) Aaron”; (Hosea 14:3) “Take (קחו) words with you” (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 1). בן יצהר בן קהת בן לוי [KORAH] THE SON OF IZHAR, THE SON OF KOHATH, THE SON OF LEVI — It does not, however, make mention of Levi being “the son of Jacob”, because he (Jacob) offered prayer for himself that his name should not be mentioned in connection with their (the Korahites') quarrels, as it is said, (Genesis 49:6) “with their assembly, my glory. be thou not united”. And where is his name mentioned in connection with Korah? In the passage in Chronicles where their (the Korahites’) genealogy is traced in connection with the “Duchan” (properly the platform — the place on which the Levites were stationed for the service of song in the Temple), as it is said, (I Chronicles 6:22—23) “the son of Ebiasaph, the son of Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, the son of Israel” (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 4). 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 San...

VAYIKACH KORACH’ (AND KORACH TOOK). “This section is explained in a beautiful way in the Midrash of Rabbi Tanchuma. Vayikach Korach — he betook himself to one side in order to separate himself from the [rest of the] congregation so that he could contend for the priesthood [which Moses had conferred upon Aaron and his sons, and Korach claimed that it belonged to all Israel]. This is [also] Onkelos’ intention in translating [the word vayikach as] v’ithpleig — ‘he separated himself’ from the congregation to persist in his contention. Similarly, Why ‘yikachacha’ thy heart? means: [Why does your heart] ‘carry you away’ to separate yourself from the rest of the people?”. Thus the language of Rashi. But the opinion of the Midrash [Tanchuma quoted further on] is not in accordance with the Rabbi’s [i.e., Rashi’s] interpretation, for the Rabbis have said there: “The term vayikach always denotes ‘division,’ [and here it means] that his heart took control of him, in a similar manner to that which it says, Why ‘yikachacha’ thy heart?” The verse thus does not mean to say that Korach betook himself [physically] to one side [of the camp]. Similarly, Why ‘yikachacha’ thy heart? does not mean that it [your heart] takes you to one side to separate yourself [physically] from other people. Instead, the meaning of the [interpretation of the] Midrash on [the phrase] Vayikach Korach is that he took counsel in his heart to do that which [Scripture] relates [subsequently], for [the term] “taking” applies also to counsel and thought. Similarly, Why ‘yikachacha’ thy heart? means: “What thought does your heart lead you to, that you should be thinking secretly: ‘There is no justice nor Judge,’ and you do not reveal it? Or, and why do thine eyes wink?, for one can notice from your winkings that you deny G-d’s justice, but you do not utter [that belief] openly, but [instead] you complain [of injustice], as one who conceals his intent.” Eliphaz said this to Job before Job explained his thoughts in a clearly-expressed statement, [saying] that the Creator’s concern does not extend to the individuals of the lower beings [of each species]. Therefore Eliphaz said to Job: And thou sayest: ‘What doth G-d know? Can He judge through the dark cloud?’ This is the true meaning of that reply [of Eliphaz to Job: Why ‘yikachacha’ thy heart? and why do thine eyes wink? — as is apparent] to one who considers it carefully. Similarly we find the term “taking” used of “thinking”: ‘k’chu’ (take) my instruction; nor ‘kachath’ (to take) instruction. The Rabbis have further said in the Midrash: “Scripture does not state here: And Korach ‘quarelled,’ or ‘spoke,’ or ‘commanded,’ but it says vayikach (and he took). What did he take? He did not take anything; rather, it was his heart that took [control of] him, just as Scripture says, Why doth thy heart take thee?” This [Midrash] coincides with what I have explained. And Onkelos who translated: [vayikach as] v’ithpleig (“and he separated himself”) expla...

"And Korah took" — [the object is] men, by an abbreviated construction, like "[he loaded] a donkey [with] bread" — and many [examples in Scripture] are like this. R. Jonah says that the meaning of "and he took" is that he took [initiative] to rise up against someone.

ויקח קרח, The arrangement and meaning of the verse is as if it said: "And Korach, Datan and Aviram, and On ben Pelet took two hundred and fifty chiefs of the congregation, and they rose up before Moses, along with men from the Children of Israel." And after that:

ויקח קרח, Korach took, etc. What did the Torah mean when it wrote ויקח, "he took," without telling us what it was that Korach took? Our sages in Bamidbar Rabbah 18 say that he took himself to one side. This implies that he diminished himself thereby. [I have not found this quote in that chapter of the Midrash Rabbah Ed.] When we think of Korach, we automatically think of someone who separated himself from the main body and lost out thereby. If the Midrash meant the same as Onkelos who renders the word as meaning that Korach seceded or differed, this is not accurate, philologically speaking. Clearly, Onkelos did not translate the word but explained its intent. Whereas both the Midrash and Onkelos are correct, there is yet a way to explain the word both as philologically appropriate and as reflecting an acceptable meaning. Furthermore, why did G'd list such great men as Yitzhar, Kehat and Levi, thereby associating them with Korach, when there was no need for this? This is especially puzzling since our sages say in Bamidbar Rabbah 18,5 that Jacob prayed on his deathbed that his name not be associated with that of Korach? This proves that under ordinary circumstances his name should have been associated with Korach and that he was spared this only on account of his prayer. Personally, I am amazed at the list of outstanding ancestors of Korach whom the Torah did list. Thirdly, why did the Torah write ודתן ואבירם, in the same breath? What had they done to be lumped together with Korach? If the Torah meant to tell us that they too quarrelled, the Torah should have mentioned their names beside that of Korach, thus: ויקחו, "they took!" On the other hand, if the Torah meant that Korach took these men to join him in his quarrel with Moses, then their names should not have been preceded by the conjunctive letter ו. Fourthly, what did the Torah mean with the words "they rose up in the face of Moses and Aaron?" If it means that these people came to quarrel, the Torah has stated this already when it wrote ויקהלו על משה ואהרן, "they assembled themselves together against Moses and Aaron?" If the words merely mean that Datan and Aviram assumed an upright posture vis-a-vis Moses and Aaron, why did the Torah write the two verbs ויקהלו and ויקמו in separate verses and separate them from the other 250 men? The Torah wanted to tell us about the root cause of the quarrel. Anyone who reads the Torah must ask himself how Korach could even have imagined that his uprising could succeed? Moses' stature as an outstanding prophet had been proven over and over again so that it is strange for Korach to have imagined that he could succeed before the people would simply stone him to death for his impertinence! This is why the Torah tells us that Korach, a very clever man "took," i.e. he took stock of the factors which would give him a chance to rally the people around him. First, the Torah tells us that he was a son of יצהר older than his younger brothers Chevron and Uzziel. Ke...

ויקח קרח, “Korach took, etc.” Korach acquired people, sympathisers; which people did he acquire specifically?Datan and Abiram, sons of Eliav, as well as On ben Pelet, members of the tribe of Reuven, other discontents. The letter ו in the word ודתן is superfluous, but there are numerous such letters ו in similar situations. Compare one in Genesis 46,9 ובני ראובן חנוך ופלוא. Pelet and Phalu are identical, Eliav being the son of latter. We know this from Numbers 26,8. Seeing that the Torah previously had written in Numbers 14,35: במדבר הזה יתמו ושם ימותו, “in this desert they will be consumed, there they will die,” the Torah here explains why some of them died as the result of other specific occurrences, not just the sin of the spies. These people were quite numerous, including the twenty four thousand who died during the last year of the wanderings at Shittim as a result of sleeping with Moabite women and having worshipped the deity, Baal Peor of those women. Not a single one of the adult males who had left Egypt and who were alive during that debacle survived the march through the desert. (Numbers 26,64)

שוחר טוב יבקש רצון ודורש רעה תבואנו, בוטח בעשרו הוא יפול וכעלה צדיקים יפרחו “He who diligently strives for good will find favor; but he who seeks evil, it will come to him. He who relies on his wealth will fall; but the righteous will sprout forth like foliage.” (Proverbs 11,27-28). In these verses Solomon warns man to endeavor to further the interests of his fellow and not to try and cause him any harm; he should do so as he can expect to reap the fruits of his activities, i.e. if he is helpful he will succeed, whereas if he is the reverse he will inevitably fail. Solomon espouses the principle of מדה כנגד מדה, that sooner or later he will be measured by the yardstick he applied to others. He bases himself on Isaiah 3,10: “hail the just man, for he shall fare well, he shall eat the fruit of his works.” Concerning the wicked person the same prophet writes in verse 11 of the same chapter: “woe to the wicked man, for he shall fare ill; as his hands have dealt, so it shall be done to him. The expression שוחר used by Solomon here is a reference to prayer. The word appears in a similar sense in Proverbs 8,17: ומשחרי ימצאונני, “those who seek Me out diligently (in prayer) will find Me.” In our opening verse too Solomon speaks of people who are so concerned with the well being of their fellow that they pray on his behalf. Such people are considered as if concerned with the securing of G’d’s goodwill. This is why our sages said in Baba Kama 92 that if someone prays for G’d to grant a particular request to a third party and he himself is in need of having that same request granted by G’d for his own needs, not only will his prayer concerning the third party be granted but his own unspoken prayer will also be granted. Proof is found in Job 42,10: “The Lord restored Job’s fortunes when he prayed on behalf of his friends, and the Lord gave Job twice what he had before.” We learn from this that if someone is the leading member of the congregation and in a unique position he is obligated to offer prayers on behalf of the other members of the community who are less fortunate than he is. If he fails to do so he will punished for this omission as we know from what our sages explained in connection with someone who committed involuntary murder and who must remain in a city of refuge until the death of the High Priest (Numbers 35,25). The Talmud Makkot 11 explained why the length of time such a man has to remain in the city of refuge is tied to the death of the High Priest. The High Priest should have prayed on behalf of the people of his generation that no one should become guilty of killing anyone even unintentionally. Seeing he had failed to do so he is punished in that presumably all the people in cities of refuge will wish for his speedy death so that they may leave that city. We find that anyone who fails to offer a prayer which he should have offered is called “a sinner,” as we know from Samuel I 12,23: “far be it from me to become guilty against the Lord by refraining from praying on your behalf.” [G’d had sent lightning, thunder, and rain in the middle of the summer to indicate that He had been displeased with the people’s request to be ruled over by a king. The people became scared at these unusual phenomena at that time of year. Ed.] We find a similar occurrence with David who prayed on behalf of others, their sicknesses, etc., when he said (Psalms 38,5,13) “yet when they were ill my dress was sackcloth, I kept a fast — may what I prayed for happen to me!” He added in Psalms 141,5: “my prayers are still against their evil deeds.” He meant: “while I am still alive I pray on their behalf as they have committed evil deeds.” At any rate from David’s statement that what he prayed for others he should also himself be granted we learn that praying for others has positive results for oneself, i.e. a form of מדה כנגד מדה, that it is appropriate to entreat G’d on behalf of others who need to be cured or otherwise helped. It stands to reason that if one prays that evil befall others that G’d will let such evil befall the petitioner. This is much worse than not praying on behalf of one’s fellow. Not only did one fail to pray on behalf of one’s fellow one even engaged in prayer to G’d to victimize him! Most of those who wish evil on others are the ones who rely on their material wealth to protect them against harm. Wealth is the principal reason why one individual lords it over his neighbour who is less affluent. Such people arrogate to themselves the right to revenge themselves for any slight they think has been inflicted upon them. The word הוא in the line בוטח בעשרו הוא יפול, refers to the word בוטח. This is another facet of the principle of מדה כנגד מדה i.e. that the very wealth which someone put his trust in will be the cause of his fall. It is similar to Kohelet 5,12: עושר שמור בעליו לרעתו, “riches hoarded by their owner (lead) to his misfortune.” Alternatively, the word הוא in the verse quoted at the opening refers to the word עושר, wealth, meaning that as a result of the fact that the wealthy made his wealth the source of his faith he is punished by losing it. Concerning wealth Solomon also said (Proverbs 23,5) “you see it then it is gone, it grows wings and flies away like an eagle, heavenward.” We also have a verse in Psalms 92,13: “the righteous bloom like a date-palm; they thrive like a cedar in Lebanon.” The speed with which the righteous may be rescued is compared to the blossoming of a development of a leaf, making way for the development of the fruit. What happens to the righteous is the exact reverse of what happens to the wealthy who makes his wealth the object he puts his trust in instead of putting his trust in the Lord. This is the plain meaning of the verses quoted. A Midrashic approach to the verses from Proverbs we quoted at the beginning of this introduction to Parshat Korach understands Solomon as referring to Mordechai when he wrote שוחר טוב יבקש רצון. The opposite is true of Haman who is characterized by Solomon as a person who set all his faith in his immense material wealth. Another person who set his faith in his personal wealth was Korach who also wound up losing all his possessions within seconds. The Torah spells out that not only he but his possessions went down into the earth (Numbers 16,32). On the other hand, the people described in the latter half of the verses quoted by Solomon are Moses and Aaron who represent the righteous “who will sprout forth like foliage.” Of Aaron we are told specifically that his staff sprouted, representing the house of Levi (Numbers 17,23). There were two outstandingly wealthy men in the world, one A Jew the other a Gentile. They were Korach and Haman respectively. Both listened to their wives and as a result they came to an evil end. Haman had listened to his wife’s advice to build a gallows and ask the King’s permission to hang Mordechai from it (Esther 5,14). As a result of accepting his wife’s advice he himself was hung on that gallows. Korach had also listened to the advice of his wife and as a result lost his life and all his wealth. His wife had asked him what new halachah he had heard from Moses on a certain day. He told her that Moses had expounded on that day on the laws of techelet for the tzitzit. When his wife wanted to know details, Korach explained to her that Moses had said that they had been commanded by G’d to put the tzitziyot on the four corners of their garments and that one of the threads should be blue wool, seeing that it is written in the Torah: “they shall put on the tzitzit a thread of blue wool.” Korach’s wife responded that surely Moses was making fun of them. She would make him a talit which was all blue wool. She proceeded to do so. Thereupon most of the elders from the tribe of Reuven, a total of 250 men all dressed up in such a talit completely made of blue wool and came to Moses asking if such a talit required tzitziyot. This is the meaning of: ויקח קרח בן יצהר בן קהת בן לוי, “Korach son of Yitzhar, son of Kehat took, etc.” The question arises here “what was it that Korach took?” Answer: he took his talit, the one made of all blue wool, and presented it to Moses asking if such a talit required tzitziyot. This is the reason that this paragraph follows immediately after the paragraph detailing laws about tzitzit. According to the plain meaning of the text, the words “Korach took” mean that he persisted in his quarrel with Moses and Aaron. This is also the view of Onkelos who translates the word ויקח as ואתפליג, “he separated from the assembly.” Ibn Ezra understands the verse as abbreviated and suggests that the noun in that verse, i.e. “men” is missing. The complete verse would be “Korach took men.” Alternatively, it may refer specifically to three men mentioned by name, i.e. Datan, Aviram, and On. In that event the letter ו at the beginning of the word ודתן would be superfluous as he had the same reason as Korach. It is more likely that he was prompted by a different reason hinted at by the letter ו. Datan, Aviram, as well as On whom Korach took with him in his confrontation with Moses supported him in his quarrel as they viewed the fact that the birthright had been transferred from their tribe [Reuven, Yaakov’s oldest son] to Joseph as a grave injustice and insult to their tribe. They suspected Moses of having done this in order to justify the elevation of Joshua who was from the tribe of Joseph (Ephrayim) as his personal valet. The fact that Ephrayim had a flag of its own, i.e. that the tribe of Joseph possessed two flags enraged them. Both On as well as the two hundred and fifty men who joined Korach were all firstborn sons who had an axe to grind considering themselves deprived of the honour due to them from birth. Seeing that in the time before the Levites had been appointed the firstborn had performed the priestly functions all these people felt keenly disadvantaged. Korach himself was also a firstborn as we know from Exodus 6,21. Korach’s personal grievance was twofold. 1) He was “dressed” in jealousy, a negative character trait, a disease for which there is no known therapy. 2) He misinterpreted the meaning of the vision in which he had foreseen that his descendants would achieve outstanding greatness. Concerning the first reason, i.e. his jealousy, this is a very vicious disease. One starts by scheming until one achieves whatever it is that his fellow owns and he does not. Even if one achieves this goal and therefore should cease to be jealous, one has in the meantime become addicted to the craving for personal honour, a desire to lord it over others, a craving for power, until eventually all this becomes similar to עבודה זרה, a form of idolatry. On the other hand, if the jealous person fails in his attempt to equal the one he is jealous of, his whole life is one of frustration and it may, G’d forbid, result in his murdering the object of his jealousy. Solomon already referred to this phenomenon in Proverbs 14,30 when he said: “envy is like rottenness of the bones.” Also Eliphaz is quoted in Job 5,2 as saying: ”jealousy kills the fool.” If someone allows himself to be seduced by jealousy it will eventually kill him. Our sages in Avot 4,28 have said that the three traits “jealousy, greed, and the thirst for personal honour” contribute to man’s premature demise.” When one displays jealousy of one’s fellow one will eventually hate him and possibly become guilty of murder. The Torah describes this graphically in Deut. 19,11: “if someone hates his fellow, sets an ambush for him, and rises up and slays him.” Concerning such saddening phenomena Solomon commented in Kohelet 4,4: וראיתי אני את כל עמל ואת כל כשרון המעשה כי היא קנאת איש מרעהו, גם זה הבל ורעות רוח, “I have also noted that all labor and skillful enterprise come from men’s envy of each other — another futility and pursuit of the wind.” When Solomon speaks of עמל, labor, he refers to the material possessions, honor, and the other exterior paraphernalia denoting personal power. When he speaks of כל כשרון המעשה, he refers to Torah, repentance, and good deeds.” The word “Hevel” is a reference to Kayin’s brother who had observed his older brother offer a sacrifice and wanted to outdo him as he was jealous of his having preceded him with a good deed. He therefore emulated his father Adam and offered a living creature (as opposed to Kayin who had only offered vegetable matter. compare Tanchuma Bereshit 9 and Bereshit Rabbah 22,15) [This is based on the Torah reporting Kayin as being the first of the brothers to offer the sacrifice, Genesis 4,4. It helps explain why G’d tolerated Hevel being murdered. Ed.] The jealousy led to Kayin and Hevel developing mutual hatred until Kayin murdered his brother. This character trait contains within it the potential destruction of the universe. The trait of jealousy is not limited to human beings. Even the ministering angels are reported as having been jealous of Adam until they succeeded in seducing him into sinning and he was forced to exchange the “garments” of intelligence for garments made of inferior materials (Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 13). The word בגד “garment,” is related to בגד, “betray.” In other words man’s clothing may betray him. Adam’s superior “garments” were the cause of the angels’ jealousy. The result of this was that the Shechinah departed from him and therefore from mankind on earth. Korach’s jealousy also resulted in his being expelled from the universe. The immediate focus of Korach’s jealousy and that of his sympathizers was the manner in which Israelites had been appointed to high office. He saw in this high-handed action by Moses, nepotism of a kind. When Moses, in answering Korach’s accusations, says כי לא מלבי, “I did not do these things arbitrarily” (verse 25), it is clear that this was his response to Korach’s accusation. Korach and company had even suggested that the appointment of all the Levites to their position and their replacing the function of the firstborn had only been a device by Moses to elevate members of his own tribe to a higher social status. If even Levites also took part in that uprising it was because they perceived that Aaron and his family, Moses’ closest relatives, had been given the highest rank of all. Korach also believed that Moses had appointed Elitzafan ben Uzziel as prince of the tribe of Levi seeing that Uzziel had been one of Moses’ uncles, though the most junior in age (Numbers 3,19). Korach was particularly irked by the fact that he felt he had been passed over in the sharing out of honors though he was senior to Uzziel, being a son of Yitzhar who was older than Uzziel. In his mind, Amram, Moses’ father had been the firstborn (an honor), whereas his two sons had taken for themselves the highest positions, King and High Priest. Korach felt that the second of these honors should have been his, seeing that he was the son of Yizhar, who was next in line to Amram. When he found that the next highest honour had been given to Elitzafan, son of the younger Uzziel instead, he started the uprising. How did Korach secure support for his demagoguery? He assembled 250 heads of the respective tribal supreme courts, most of them from the tribe of Reuven; he clothed all of them in talitot made completely of blue wool, תכלת; this is the meaning of “Korach took”, i.e. he took his talit and came to Moses wearing it. The other 250 men did the same. They all asked Moses whether such a talit required tzitziyot in order for it to be fit to wear. When Moses said that indeed even a talit made exclusively of blue wool required tzitziyot these people all started laughing, saying: “if a white talit can be converted into an halachically sound garment by means of a single thread of תכלת, blue wool, surely a talit which is completely of blue wool does not need an additional blue thread in order for it to be fit to be worn!” They then asked a similar question pertaining to the affixing of a mezuzah on a house filled with sacred texts. Moses ruled that such a house too is not absolved from the need to have a mezuzah affixed to its entrance. Thereupon the rebels said that if affixing two paragraphs out of a total of the 275 paragraphs contained in the Torah can make such a house fit to live in, surely when the house contains all 275 paragraphs, seeing that there is a Torah scroll inside, this must be enough to absolve such a house from the need to affix another two of these paragraphs to its door post! They concluded that Moses’ ruling was arbitrary and could not represent instructions he had received from G’d. Korach had asked these questions using his intelligence to make Moses look ridiculous. There is another nuance contained in these questions, i.e. Korach used the simile of the house full of sacred texts and the talit made completely of blue wool as a parable describing the Jewish people. He meant that seeing the Jewish people are all holy, there was no need to appoint a High Priest who would perform the function for the people which the tzitzit performed for the talit. He compared all the fringes to the religious dignitaries who are part of the oligarchy of the Jewish people. He implied that a nation such as the Jewish nation should be a totally egalitarian society with no special duties or privileges for anyone, especially no hereditary ones. Korach’s second mistake, one which led him to vent his jealousy, was that he erred in interpreting the chain of prominent people who would be descended from him. Our sages (Tanchuma Korach 5 and quoted by Rashi), say. He was deceived by foreseeing that the prophet Samuel would be descended from him, a prophet who has been described as equal to Moses and Aaron combined, as we know from Psalms 99,6: “Moses and Aaron among His priests and Samuel among those who call upon His name.” He reasoned that he had to be saved as otherwise this prophecy could not be fulfilled. He also foresaw that 24 groups of Levites would be descended from him all of whom prophets, sons of Heiman (Chronicles I 6,18). Seeing that he foresaw such a brilliant future for his descendants he said to himself: “how can I remain silent and not challenge the present hierarchy?” He thought that his speaking up would ensure that the future he foresaw would materialise. This is why he tried to force the issue. He had heard from Moses that everyone of the present hierarchy would perish and only one would be saved. This is how he interpreted Moses’ words אשר יבחר ה' הוא הקדוש, “the one whom the Lord will choose he is the holy one (verse 9).” He thought there would remain only a single person fit for the description “holy,” i.e. himself. 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.

And Korach, son of Yitzhar, son of Kehat, son of Levi, took. Regarding this “taking,” there are many interpretations because it is not specified whether the taking was physical [with hands] or verbal, like take the Levites (Numbers 8:6). Some say that the whole story continues until [the mention of] the sons of Reuben, meaning that he took the sons of Reuben for his dispute, because he sought to gather to himself all those with bitter souls, and he knew that they were bitter about the birthright that was taken from Reuben. And even though it was Jacob who took it away and not Moses, nevertheless, by [arguing that] all authority should return to its original owners, they would think that their birthright would also be returned to them, and thus they would agree with Korach. Some say that he took for his argument the fact that he was the son of Yitzhar, for this was his main argument, saying “my father’s brothers were four…” and since I am the son of Yitzhar, who is more worthy to take the second [position of leadership], as Rashi explained. And some say that the “vav” of and Datan is additional, like the “vav” of and Ayah and Anah (Genesis 36:24), and the meaning is that he took Datan and Aviram to join him. And it is correct to say that both interpretations are valid: That he took for his argument the fact that he was the son of Yitzhar, and he also took Datan and Aviram and On. According to this, the “vav” would not be additional. And in the Midrash (Bamidbar Rabbah 18:3) they said, “And Korach took” — what did he take? A garment entirely of blue, etc. And it concludes that he also asked about a house full of books, whether it requires a mezuzah, etc. The interpretation about tzitzit is understood as a connection to the adjacent text, since the story of Korach follows the passage about tzitzit, but how was mezuzah even mentioned? It seems to me that this is derived from the verse and Dathan and Abiram came out standing at the entrance of their tents. Why did it need to specify the entrance of their tents? Rather, they stood there to insult and blaspheme regarding the mezuzah at the entrance of their tents. Behold, Korach disputed the passage about tzitzit, and Dathan and Abiram added further dispute about the commandment of the mezuzah at the entrance of the tent, claiming that Moses had fabricated these two commandments from his own imagination. This was consistent with the nature of their dispute, as Rabbi Bachya explained: they argued that just as a garment entirely of blue logically should be exempt from tzitzit, and a house full of books should be exempt from mezuzah, so too when the entire congregation is holy, they have no need for a leader. Furthermore, this hints that the main reason for these two commandments is to serve as reminders of God’s commandments, as it is written and you shall see it and remember, etc. Similarly, the mezuzah serves to remind one of God when entering and exiting. And at a time when the entire congregation is holy, they need no reminder, for God and His commandments are constantly before them regardless, and such reminders are only necessary for people who might forget God. For this reason, they and their children were punished. One should consider: if Korach and his assembly sinned, why should their children be punished? But it is because they disputed tzitzit and mezuzah, and it is concluded (Shabbat 32b) by Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir — one said children die for the sin of neglecting tzitzit, and one said for the sin of neglecting mezuzah, etc. The reasoning for both is the same, as both exist as reminders: the mezuzah is to keep God before one’s eyes constantly when entering and exiting, and the tzitzit is a reminder of the commandments. And it is written Because you have forgotten the Torah of your God, I too will forget your children (Hosea 4:6). For by forgetting the generation [toledot] of good deeds, I will also forget your offspring [toledot] in general. Additionally, children are a branch of the person, just as tzitzit are branches from the garment. “And Korach son of Yitzhar, etc. took.” The verse does not mention “son of Jacob” because Korach was flattering the sons of Reuben, saying in a flattering way, “I do not trace my lineage back to our father Jacob, and may I have no part with him in his taking the birthright from Reuben.” Therefore, the verse also does not trace his lineage back to Jacob. And our Sages said (Sanhedrin 109b): And Korach took — for he made a baldness [korcha] in the world; son of Yitzhar — for he heated up the whole world like the midday sun [tzohorayim]; son of Levi — for he became an escort [levaya] to Gehenna. And why not also mention “son of Jacob”? [Because] Jacob asked for mercy for himself that he not be mentioned among them, as it says (Genesis 49:5), Let my soul not enter their counsel; let my honor not be united with their assembly. According to its plain meaning, it certainly would not be an honor for him if he were mentioned among them, because through this his name would be expounded negatively, and therefore he asked that his honor not be united there. Another explanation: So that people would not say that this trait is an inheritance in Korach’s hands from Jacob, who contested the birthright, namely the priesthood, for in earlier times the service was performed by the firstborn. People would say that from Jacob, Korach learned to contest the priesthood. Similarly, in the incident of Zimri, people would say that it is an inheritance in their hands from Jacob, who took two sisters [as wives]. Therefore, the verse traces the lineage of Korach the zealot only to Levi, who was also zealous against Joseph. Nevertheless, the statement requires explanation: What is the baldness that he made, and how did he heat up the world like the midday sun? According to the allusion from the verse, besides the statement of the Talmud, there is room to interpret the names in a different way, which is: Scripture certainly doesn’t depart from its plain meaning that the names are as they plainly appear, but since all this lineage is detailed, it seems that his name and the names of his ancestors were an indication of the future, that they would produce a son who would break through the fence of the world, and he is Korach. For the names allude to his arguments and his dispute because Korach is a term for baldness of hair, as is concluded in the chapter Chelek (110), “and further, he shaved your [referring to the Levites] hair and mocked you, etc.” For he ridiculed you for making you bald from your hair. So we find that he took this as an argument against Moses, that he made the Levites bald. Son of Yitzhar — this is from the term for oil, as he contested the priesthood because [Moses] poured the anointing oil on Aaron’s head, half of which was 250 [measures], as is found in the portion Ki Tisa (30:23). And therefore he took 250 men for his dispute. Even though some say he took this number so that it would also amount to the number of a small Sanhedrin for each tribe when you add to them the three — Dathan, Abiram, and On — excluding the tribe of Levi from which no one was among them. Nevertheless, according to our approach, we can say that he took this number to say, “These are the sons of ‘oil’ who deserve to be anointed with the anointing oil, half of which is 250 [measures], just as Aaron was anointed with it.”Son of Kehat — this comes from the expression and to him shall be the gathering [yikhat] of peoples (Genesis 49:10), and it is an expression of gathering and assembly, because he gathered them and his spirit collected them to assemble against Moses and Aaron, as it says, And they gathered against Moses and Aaron. Son of Levi — Rashi explained in the portion Vayetzei (29:34) that he was called Levi because “they accompanied him with gifts” [livuhu bematanot], and Korach also took the [matter of the] gifts as an argument against Aaron, as is concluded in the Yalkut on this portion (16:1) in the story of a widow who had a sheep and came to shear it, then Aaron came and took the first of the fleece, etc. For all these reasons, the term “taking” applies, as he took all of them as arguments to strengthen his dispute. However, according to what is concluded in the Midrash, Korach — who made a bald spot [korcha] in the world, etc., it appears that the author of this Midrash intends to say that Korach disputed the existence of the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is written, who had assembled against the Lord when they opposed the Lord (Numbers 26:9). But where do we find that Korach assembled against the Lord? Even though our Sages of blessed memory said (Sanhedrin 110a) that one who disputes his teacher is like one who disputes the Divine Presence, nevertheless, this itself is difficult — why should it be considered like disputing the Divine Presence?Rather, it is because Korach claimed that the world is eternal, co-eternal with the Holy One, Blessed be He, and that it exists necessarily. He needed this heretical belief to strengthen his argument, as he claimed and said, For all the congregation are holy, and the Lord is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord? His intention was to say that no created being has superiority or authority over another, just as there is no primacy [God forbid] of the Blessed One over His creations. This is why he said, and the Lord is among them. It would have been appropriate to say that the Lord is at their head, not among them in the middle, but this indicated and acknowledged, as it were, that He has no primacy. How much more so, a fortiori, why do you exalt yourselves?Moses replied to him, In the morning — the Holy One, Blessed be He, set boundaries in His world — “Can you transform morning into evening? So too, you cannot nullify this,” as it says, And there was evening and there was morning… and He divided (Genesis 1:4-5). And it is written, I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine (Leviticus 20:26). And just as He distinguished Israel from the nations, so did He distinguish Aaron, etc. [Rashi, quoting the Midrash]. And any intelligent person would be astonished at this vision, what does the vision of evening and morning have to do with this? Rather, it is because Korach fundamentally disagreed with the principle, claiming that the world is primordial and that the appearance of evening and morning is all by chance, and if so, why would such a distinction come from the Almighty to differentiate between one man and another? Moses responded to him with proof from [Korach’s own] claim, because chance events do not persist for long periods, and we clearly see that you cannot nullify the distinction between morning and evening. Therefore, this is not by chance, but was created according to His will. Just as He preceded all creation, so He has apportioned some of His honor to whom He desires, and set boundaries for the day, giving it its limit within the day, and made Israel supreme over all nations. Similarly, by His will, He granted this greatness to Aaron. And this is what is meant by if the Lord creates a creation, etc. Rashi explains: “If a mouth for the earth has existed since the six days of creation, it is better [mutav], and if not, the Lord will create one.” This is difficult for me, because why was ki tov [that it was good] not said about it, as we do not find the term mutav [it is better] explicitly in the verse. But certainly, this is its interpretation: Korach disputed the creation of the six days of creation and argued that these things never existed. And I say that there was a creation, therefore I say if a creation — meaning, if there was a new creation during the six days of creation, then the Lord will create something new in the earth and it shall open its mouth, etc. And they will know that these men have provoked the Lord — by saying that there was never any creation. And now they will believe retroactively that there was indeed a creation, just as the Lord has now created something new in the earth. And this is the opinion of Rava (in Nedarim 39b) who interpreted the verse Sun and moon stood in their habitation [zevul] (Habakkuk 3:11). What were they doing in Zevul [one of the heavens]? Rather, during Korach’s dispute, they ascended to Zevul, etc. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “For My honor you did not protest,” etc. The reason is that Korach challenged the boundaries of morning and evening, meaning the sun and moon, claiming that it was not God who assigned each one its boundary and domain — one for day and one for night. Therefore, they ascended from the firmament to Zevul, because it was not fitting for them to illuminate for one who does not believe that God created all this. But they improperly said that justice should be done to the son of Amram [Moses], until the Holy One said to them, “For My honor you did not protest,” etc. Surely this matter pierces and rises up to the Throne of Glory and affects My honor more than Moses’ honor. And I think the reason they specifically ascended to Zevul is because Korach challenged the priesthood, and it is said in the Midrash regarding the daily morning and evening offerings that it is in their merit that the sun and moon, the lights of day and night, are sustained. If the priesthood were to be nullified and placed in the hands of someone unworthy, then by what merit would the luminaries be sustained? Therefore, they ascended to Zevul, because in it is the Temple, and Michael is the High Priest there, as stated in Tractate Chagigah (12b). From here we have proof that Korach disputed the boundaries of the sun and moon and the creation itself. Therefore, they said that he made a “korcha” [baldness/gap] in the world, because with the removal of God’s divinity, so to speak, the entire world becomes a bald spot. And when the sun and moon ascended to Zevul, the sun came out of its sheath, and through this, it made the entire world as hot as noon [tzahoraim]. One who touches matters of divinity causes a dulling of teeth for those who believe in Him, as it is written regarding Egypt, that their teeth were dulled [kehot] when they saw the binding of the lamb (Tur, Orach Chayim, section 430). Therefore, they referred to him as son of Kehat, meaning he dulled [hikhah] the teeth of those who begat him. And this is enough of what we have said by way of homiletic interpretation, and now we will come to explain the dispute in a straightforward manner.

ויקח קרח, “Korach took, etc.” According to Nachmanides the word ויקח, -seeing that the Torah does not spell out what it was that Korach took- refers to Korach “consulting” with his heart to embark on a certain course of action, the details of which the Torah will reveal shortly. The root לקח may be employed when speaking of “taking” advice, etc. It also occurs in Scripture in the context of embarking on a good and wholesome plan, as in Job 15,12 מה יקחך לבך, “How your heart has carried you away!” Another example of the use of that word in such a context is Proverbs 8,10 קחו מוסרי ואל כסף, “accept my discipline instead of silver!” Ibn Ezra explains the word ויקח as an abbreviated version of “Korach took for himself a number of men, etc.” Some commentators believe that the predicate of the words ויקח קרח is Datan and Aviram and that the letter ו in ודתן , is extraneous. We encounter something analogous in Genesis 36,24 ואיה וענה where there also appears no need for the letter ו in the word ואיה. The meaning of the phrase in our verse then would be ויקח קרח דתן ואבירם, “Korach took Datan and Aviram.” Ibn Ezra, in trying to fix the point in time when Korach’s rebellion took place, claims that it occurred in the desert of Sinai [way before the debacle with the spies and the resultant lack of a future for his generation. Ed.] The flashpoint for the rebellion was the exchange of the privileges formerly accorded to the firstborn for the Levites. The rebels believed that Moses had acted high-handedly and that G’d had not initiated this switch. They believed that what had occurred was an act of nepotism on the part of Moses who wanted to fill the most coveted positions in the nation with members of his immediate family. They included not only his brother and nephews, but even the sons of Kehat, and the Levites in general as they were members of his tribe. Datan and Aviram used this as a pretext for rebelling, seeing that they, as members of the tribe of Reuven, had both already been deprived of their status as “firstborns,” and the tribe of Joseph had i.e. members of that tribe, had been given this preferred status. Perhaps they thought that Joshua, who was Moses’ personal valet and a member of the tribe of Ephrayim, whose own status within the tribe of Joseph had already been amended through his being nominated as the senior of Joseph’s sons by his grandfather Yaakov, although he was chronologically the junior, had been promoted as an arbitrary act by Moses. The Levites, generally, resented that only Moses’ immediate family had been accorded the status of priests, not the whole tribe. Nachmanides accuses Ibn Ezra of speculating, seeing that he cited no sources to support his theory. He does not accept the theory that the Torah reports events other than in chronological order, unless, of course the Torah itself, by giving a date for a happening, draws our attention to the fact that it was not recorded in chronological order, such as the events in Numbers 9,1 which clearly occurred earlier than the count described in Numbers chapter 1-2.

ויקח קרח, he approached; בני ראובן, some of the members of that tribe.

ויקח קרח, “Korach betook himself;” according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin, folio 109, the above words mean that Korach made a bad bargain by challenging Moses and Aaron. He caused a “bald spot” among the Israelites, his very name meaning: “bald,” devoid of hair where there ought to be hair. An alternate interpretation of the use of the word: ויקח, at the beginning of this portion. The numerical value of the letters in his name i.e. 308, is equivalent to the word שדד, “he destroyed, laid waste;” he did not observe the laws of the Torah. בן יצהר, “son of Yizthar;” who had illuminated the earth as does the sun at noon; בן קהת, “who in turn was the son of Kehat;” who had blunted the teeth of those who begat him. (By becoming infected with his grandson’s ambitions, though personally being a bearer of the Holy Ark) בן לוי, “the son of Levi;” “who made himself a companion to gehinom, hell.” You may ask why the Torah does not also trace him to the founding father of the Jewish nation, to Yaakov? This is answered by a Rabbi Shmuel son of Yitzchok, who says that Yaakov prayed that his name not be associated with such a person as Korach. This is how he understood Genesis 49,6: בקהלם אל תחד כבודי, “let my honour not be associated with their counsel.” ודתן, “and Datan,” who flouted Jewish law. ואבירם, “and Aviram,” “who prevented his heart from repenting.” ואון, “and On,” who spent all his days in mourning. בן פלת, “son of Peleth,” a son who performed miracles.” בני ראובן, “of the members of the tribe of Reuven;” a son who was intelligent enough to correctly interpret the meaning of what his eyes beheld.” Seeing that he was from the tribe of Reuven, Yaakov’s firstborn whom his father had deprived of the privileges of the birthright, Korach thought he had reason to join his rebellion. ואמר רב, and he (Korach) said: “enough, too much!” On son of Peleth was saved from sharing Korach’s fate by his wife. She told him that regardless of the outcome of the rebellion, he would not become a member of the priestly caste regardless, so that the outcome would on no account be of personal benefit to him. To this, On answered that seeing he had sat in the council with Korach and had sworn him loyalty, how could he now renege? His wife said to him: he himself has declared the whole community as being holy, so how could he punish you?” (compare verse 3) She told him to simply remain inactive, and she would devise a means to save him. She gave him wine to drink, and made him comfortable in the house. She then sat at the entrance to her tent and busied herself with straightening out her hair, a lengthy procedure, and not one to be watched by males. Before she had completed her coiffure, Korach and his supporters had already been swallowed by the earth. She thus became the model that Solomon had in mind when he wrote in Proverbs 14,1: חכמת נשים בנתה ביתה ואולת בידיה תהרסנו, “the wisest of women builds her house, whereas the foolish one destroys it with her own hands.” Solomon’s model for the foolish woman was Korach’s wife, who had urged him on to confront Moses and Aaron in their desire for more personal glory. She supported her husband in his quarrel by describing Moses as being only concerned with appointing his closest relatives to leading positions but ignoring her husband and appointing his nephews, Aaron’s sons as deputy High Priests instead. He allocated portions of every farmer’s harvest to the priests and even demanding of the Levites’ tithes that they give ten percent to the priests also. She described the manner in which the Levites had been appointed instead of the firstborn of each family’s household as the only ones that could enter sacred grounds as having been a demeaning procedure, each one of them having been bodily heaved as if they were chattel. (Compare the procedures described in Numbers 8,13) In short, Korach’s wife was a demagogue of the first order, who instead of calming his sense of having been passed over when honours were being distributed, egged him on, so that ultimately he and all his family-except his sons who recognised their father’s bias, so that they eventually became authors of the most beautiful hymns in the book of Psalms,-thus partially redeeming the honour of the family. [Different Midrashim elaborate on how Korach used even the occasion when Moses had elevated him to become a Levite as having performed acts to demean him so that no one could recognise him anymore, as all the hair of his body had first to be shaved off. [as had, of course, the hair of all the other 22300 Levites elevated thus on that occasion. Ed.] Korach answered his wife that Moses himself, being a Levite, had also shaved off all his own hair. She answered him that he had done so in order to get all the other Levites to do so, just as Samson when pulling down the pillars in the Temple of the Philistines, was aware that he would die also during the performance of this feat. (Judges 15,30) Korach’s wife ridiculed the law about fringes, and this is why it has been inserted in the Torah at this point. She did the same with the commandment to affix a mezuzah to every room in our houses except the bathrooms and the toilets. The Torah wished to emphasise that observance of these commandments, not on account of the logic behind them, but because they had been commanded by Hashem, brings us closer to Him. These reminders are with us both when we are at home and when we are away from home, when we wear the fringes at the corners of our garments. [In those days, practically all garments started out as being square sheets of cloth. Ed.]

And they rose up before Moses, along with men of the children of Israel — two hundred and fifty leaders of the assembly, conveners of the appointed time, men of renown.

"Before Moses" — that they did not rise up in secret. There is a difference between "before" (לִפְנֵי) and "away from" (מִפְּנֵי). "Called of the assembly" — who were summoned to the Tent of Meeting. "Men of renown" — before they went out of Egypt. A precise grammarian has said that "chieftains of the congregation" are the princes who stand over the census, and they are the objects of the verb "took" — as if it were written: "And Korah, Dathan, Abiram, and On took [these] chieftains of the congregation to speak with them." But this is somewhat forced.

ויקומו לפני משה, ”they orchestrated an uprising against Moses;” Korach’s specific complaint was that seeing that he was the firstborn of his father’s sons, (Exodus 6,21) Aaron instead had been given preferential treatment. Datan, Abiram and On were angry that their tribe had been deprived of the status that should have been accorded to the firstborn of Yaakov their founding father, and that status had been accorded to Joseph and his descendants instead. They believed that this was due to the fact that Joshua from the tribe of Ephrayim, Joseph’s son, had been chosen by Moses to be his closest disciple and valet, the whole tribe had been promoted to special status. They also considered that the leaders of the various tribes had been chosen as they were each firstborns, and that therefore it was clear that their tribe had been deliberately demoted. (Ibn Ezra) Proof that this was their complaint can be seen from Numbers 17,25, where the Torah reports that finally, when Aaron’s staff, i.e. a representative of the tribe of Levi, brought forth a bud that developed into almonds, the Torah reports that these kinds of complaints ceased. They finally realised that G-d had chosen the tribe of Levi rather that Yaakov’s firstborn son Reuven, i.e. that the system of allocating spiritual and material advantages to the firstborn had been replaced by a system of hereditary spiritual background, such as G-d’s having chosen the descendants of three proven patriarchs as His “firstborn” people, a message relayed to Pharaoh at the beginning of Moses’ career. [some of these words are mine. Ed.] On the other hand, Korach rebelled against what appears to be the message of Exodus 13,2, that all the firstborn are to be sanctified, i.e. they were not holy through birth, and he claimed that the entire people of Israel, ever since they had accepted the Torah had become holy, as all had participated in the revelation at Mount Sinai. ואנשים מבני ישראל חמשים ומאתים, “together with another two hundred and fifty men from various sections among the Israelites.” He selected twenty three from each tribe excluding members from his own tribe; the reason that he chose the number twenty three was that that number constituted the number of judges required to deal with sins involving capital punishment. Each tribe had a high court comprising that number of judges. If you remove Datan, Aviram and On, you have a total of 253 rebels, not counting the leader. At this juncture, Rashi comments that all these men garbed themselves in prayer shawls made entirely of blue wool. They supposedly challenged Moses by asking if those prayer shawls required fringes, tzitzit. When Moses ruled that they did require fringes, they started ridiculing him and his Torah, by arguing that if a whole garment can be fit to wear by adding a single strand of blue wool, it was nonsensical to disallow these prayer shawls that consisted exclusively of blue wool. Some commentators claim that Korach used this commandment as it was the one most recently written in the Torah. Korach used that commandment as something to challenge Moses with. (Tanchuma Korach section 2.) קריאי עדה, “elect men of the assembly.” They had been called out to serve in the Tabernacle.

Those called to the assembly, men of renown. It appears that men of bitter heart who loved excessive honor and authority gathered to Korach, thinking that he would give positions of authority to all of them. For this was the desire of all men of renown who said among themselves, Let us make a name for ourselves lest we be held in contempt (Genesis 11:4). And this is proven by their opening words, It is too much for you (Numbers 16:3). For they said it is proper that authority should rotate from one person to another, saying “It is too much for you” — meaning that for many days you have exercised authority over Israel, and it is fitting that you give the staff of leadership to others, for all the congregation are holy (Numbers 16:3). The word all is superfluous, but what they were saying is this: It is known that a congregation consists of no fewer than 10 people, and in every congregation of Israel, all are holy. Each congregation in itself possesses holiness, for nothing sacred can be done with fewer than 10. In every congregation of 10, there is holiness, and among them is the Lord (Numbers 16:3). And you not only exalt yourselves over a congregation of 10, but you exalt yourselves over the entire assembly of the Lord, and this cannot be tolerated. That is why he began with congregation and concluded with assembly, suggesting that even if you were exalting yourselves over a congregation of 10, we would have reason to complain against you, since every congregation possesses holiness. How much more reason do we have to complain about why you exalt yourselves over the entire assembly of the Lord, over all of them together. And regarding what is written, and among them is the Lord — for wherever you find the greatness of the Holy One, blessed be He, there you find His humility (Megillah 31a). Behold, the Holy One, blessed be He, demonstrates humility to Israel and walks among them, that is to say, in their midst and not at their head, as if to say, “I am like a brother and companion to you, and I do not seek to go at the head as would be My right.” So how can you exalt yourselves over the assembly of the Lord?

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).

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).

And they gathered against Moses and against Aaron and said to them: You have taken too much upon yourselves! For the entire assembly are all of them holy, and among them the Shechinah of Hashem rests — why then do you exalt yourselves over the congregation of Hashem?

רב לכם You TAKE TOO MUCH UPON YOU — i.e. much more than is proper have you taken for yourselves in the way of high Office. כלם קדשים [FOR] ALL [THE CONGREGATION] ARE HOLY — they all heard the utterances on Sinai from the mouth of the Almighty (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 4). ומדוע תתנשאו WHY THEN LIFT YE UP YOURSELVES [ABOVE THE ASSEMBLY OF THE LORD] — “If you have taken royal rank for yourself, you should at least not have chosen the priesthood for your brother — it is not you alone who have heard at Sinai: ‘I am the Lord thy God', all the congregation heard it!” (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 4).

"Too much for you" — meaning, "enough for you"; the sense being: you have seized the greater portion. "For all the congregation are all holy" — for the entire congregation, from the day of the Sinai revelation, were holy. "And Hashem is among them" — for the Levites were chosen after the Divine Presence was already dwelling among the children of Israel; and even if Moses had known, while on Mount Sinai, that the tribe of Levi would be chosen, Israel did not know this. "You exalt yourselves" — to make Aaron the High Priest, with Moses above him, since he had taught him.

ויקהלו על משה ועל אהרן, Korach, Datan and Aviram, assembled in order to incite against Moses and Aaron in the presence of 250 dignitaries of the people who had allowed themselves to be incited. This incident occurred at a time when a number of Israelites had assembled in the vicinity of Moses waiting to have their respective complaints adjudged. The 250 men mentioned walked around as if minding their own business, wanting to consult Moses about some harmless matter. It was their intention to arouse the crowd in order to provide support for Korach’s and his henchmen’s insurrection as soon as the latter would show up and begin asking hostile questions of Moses and Aaron. They selected an hour of day when there was a sizable crowd in Moses’ vicinity in order to reap the maximum benefit from that, and so that all those who were convinced of the validity of Korach’s complaints would spread the word and bring reinforcements from the plain people in the camp. כי כל העדה, every one of the people כולם קדושים, from head to toe; (compare Numbers 15,8 you will be completely holy”) ?ומדוע תתנשאו; in respect of the sanctity, by forbidding the firstborn to carry out sacrificial service in the Tabernacle? Moses himself had performed priestly duties during the first seven days of the consecration of the Tabernacle whereas subsequently Aaron and his sons became priests on a permanent basis.

רב לכם כי כל העדה כלם קדושים, "a great deal for you, for the whole community is holy." They meant that Moses and Aaron had arrogated too much authority to themselves. In the event that Moses and Aaron would ask wherein precisely they had arrogated to themselves too much authority, Korach and company said that in view of the fact that the entire community was holy having experienced direct communication from G'd something not granted to any other nation, plus the fact that G'd remained within its midst, Moses and Aaron had placed themselves above such a holy nation. By saying ובתוכם השם, "and G'd is in their midst," they hinted that the presence of G'd was due to the people and not to the merit of Moses and Aaron. In view of this, מדוע תתנשאו "why do you raise yourselves above the community of G'd?" Korach and company referred specifically to the domain of the Tabernacle and the Sanctuary which Moses had declared out of bounds to ordinary Israelites on pain of death. They accused Moses and Aaron of having insulted the community as a whole by denying them access to the Sanctuary and the opportunity to perform sacrificial service there.

כי כל העדה כולם קדושים, “for the entire congregation are all holy.” Korach was referring to the firstborn of each family. (Ibn Ezra). He based himself of Exodus 13,2. It follows that it is the firstborn who have the duty and the privilege to perform the service in the Tabernacle.

כלם קדושים, “they are all holy.” Korach referred to the firstborn Israelites as “holy,” seeing the Torah had written in Exodus 13,2: “sanctify for Me every firstborn.” ומדוע תתנשאו, “and why do you try to elevate yourselves?” He meant Moses and Aaron respectively claiming the position of King and High Priest.

And Moses heard and fell upon his face.

ויפל על פניו [AND WHEN MOSES HEARD IT,] HE FELL UPON HIS FACE because of the rebellion, for this was already the fourth offence on their part: when they sinned by worshipping the Golden Calf, it states, (Exodus 32:11) "And Moses besought [the Lord]”; in the case of the “people who complained”, (Numbers 11:1) it states: “and Moses prayed”; at the incident of the “spies”, (Numbers 14:13) “And Moses said unto the Lord, ‘When the Egyptians shall hear it ... [and now I beseech Thee etc.]”; but now at the rebellion of Korah, his hands sank down (he felt himself powerless) A parable! This may be compared to the case of a prince who sinned against his father and for whom his (the father’s) friend gained forgiveness once, twice, three times. When he offended for the fourth time the friend felt himself powerless, for he said, “ How long can I trouble the king? Perhaps he will not again accept advocacy from me!” (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 4).

AND WHEN MOSES HEARD IT, HE FELL UPON HIS FACE. It does not say “and they fell [upon their faces],” for Aaron in his modesty and holiness did not utter a word throughout this whole controversy, but he was as one that held his peace, and who admits that Korach’s status was greater than his own, and he only acted according to Moses’ behest, fulfilling the king’s decree.

"And he fell on his face" — of his own will. Some say: in the manner of prophecy.

וישמע משה ויפל על פניו. When Moses heard this he fell upon his face. Why did the Torah have to tell us that Moses heard what Korach said? Korach and company had been described as addressing Moses; it is obvious that he heard what they said. Furthermore, what precisely is the meaning of Moses "falling?" It appears that inasmuch as the scoffers had not yet completed what they came to say the Torah wanted to inform us that Moses already understood their meaning even though they had not spelled it out as yet. Accordingly, we may assume that Moses "fell" already as soon as Korach accused him of having raised himself above the people. He wanted to demonstrate that far from raising himself above the people he humbled himself and made himself equal to the dust of the earth like a slave prostrating himself before a master. As far as the second accusation was concerned, i.e. the fact that Aaron was the High Priest, he told the rebels that already on the morrow G'd Himself would demonstrate whether Aaron's appointment was an act of nepotism or any other form of autocratic behaviour, or if he had been appointed at the command of G'd Himself.

וישמע משה, “Moses heard;” he understood that Korach’s rebellion was aimed at usurping the position of his brother Aaron, the High Priest. ויפול על פניו, “he fell upon his face;” he was ashamed and put his face on the ground in order to offer a prayer. He hoped to receive a revelation from G-d how to confront this challenge.

וישמע משה ויפול על פניו, “when Moses heard this he fell on his face.” Aaron was not included, as the Torah reports only that Moses fell on his face, singular. The fact that Aaron is not reported as falling on his face was because the main complaint of Korach was directed at Aaron’s appointment as High Priest. It would have been unbecoming for the modest Aaron to remonstrate by displaying such a reaction. Moses, who felt insulted on behalf of the challenge to his brother, was entitled to react in such a manner. The fact that Moses fell on his face, i.e. “was floored,” may have been the cause for Korach already incurring a punishment for his conduct seeing he had humiliated Moses. This is probably the source from which Rabbi Eliezer learned (Baba Metzia 59) that he could punish Rabbi Gamliel by displaying his humiliation by merely falling on his face, or sitting on the floor and weeping in shame. Every intelligent student knows that entreaty (a form of prayer) is addressed to the attribute of Justice and that it represents G’d’s “left hand.” We have an explicit verse distinguishing between different kinds of prayers [and the addresses to which they are directed in the first instance, Ed.] In Psalms 30,9 David says: אליך י-ה-ו-ה אקרא, ואל א-ד-נ-י אתחנן, ”to You O Lord I called, and to my G’d I made appeal.” Another verse describing an entreaty being addressed to the attribute of Justice is found in Deut. 3,24: א-ד-נ-י אלוקים אתה החילות וגו'. At that time Moses’ prayer had been described as a תחנה in the preceding verse. [The concept with which we are all familiar is that G’d employs the right hand to attract, to draw near to Him, whereas when He has occasion to reject, to push away, He uses His left hand, i.e. the “weaker” hand to do so. Ed.] Our sages also make a distinction between prayers offered and described as לפני ה', and those addressed as לה', the former being addressed to the attribute of Justice. A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Korach 4: The words: “Moses fell on his face when he heard this” may be compared to a father whose son has become guilty of a major misdemeanor. He had a friend who would always intercede on behalf of that son and calm down the father’s irritation. When the son had become guilty of serious misconduct for a fourth time, the father’s friend felt that he could no longer defend the son’s conduct in good conscience by offering a variety of excuses. Here too, Moses had reached the stage where after having interceded on behalf of the people after the sin of the golden calf, and again when the people complained about their diet and the advantages of Egypt, and more recently when hey had rejected the Holy Land after hearing the report of the ten spies, Moses had come to the end of his rope as a defender of the people. This is why “he fell down.”

And Moses heard and fell on his face. In tractate Sanhedrin (110) they said: What news did he hear? This teaches that they suspected him of adultery, as it is said They were jealous of Moses in the camp (Psalms 106:16). For each man was jealous of him with his wife. This matter is very far from reason, and we do not learn it from the words of tradition, for who can say that this suspicion was specifically at this time, as there is no hint of it in the verse. Therefore, I say that the author of this aggadah wanted to interpret the verse For all the congregation are holy, and why do you lift yourselves up above the assembly of the Lord. What does holiness have to do with arrogance? And if you say there is a relationship between them and that holiness should prevent arrogance, then he should have said, “Why do you lift yourselves up above the holy assembly” or “the holy congregation.” But certainly Korah said thus to Moses, because we find in tractate Sotah (4b) that our Rabbis said: Anyone who is arrogant will eventually stumble into adultery. And elsewhere they said (ibid.): Anyone who is arrogant is as if he has committed all the sexual sins. It is known that wherever you find holiness, there you find a fence against sexual immorality, for sexual sins desecrate holiness. And thus Korah said, based on his own reasoning: Behold, all the congregation is holy and guarded against sexual immorality, so why do you lift yourselves up to dominate and be arrogant, for this will cause you to stumble into adultery and desecrate the holiness of the people. Therefore, he said above the assembly of the Lord and did not say “above the holy assembly,” because after arrogance there is no holiness here, for anyone who is arrogant will eventually stumble into adultery, and this causes the desecration of the people’s holiness. By this, Moses understood that Korah suspected him of eventually stumbling into adultery; therefore it is said, And Moses heard and fell on his face. The reason for this seems to be that anyone who is arrogant wants to be higher than all the high ones — with none beside him ruling the whole world except him. And since every woman is subjugated under the hand of her husband, as it is written And he shall rule over you (Genesis 3:16), therefore the arrogant person cannot tolerate even this rule being in the hand of another. And therefore he specifically mentioned adultery and not other sexual sins. And the language is precise when it says “eventually stumbles into adultery,” for anyone who is arrogant goes about examining all kinds of authority that he sees in others, to conquer everything under his hand so that his hand is in all forms of rule. And the man will not rest with all the authority he has already achieved until eventually he sets his eyes also on the man’s rule over his wife and wants to conquer it under his control. This is the meaning of “eventually,” because truly this rule that he eventually seeks is the end of all things and the limit of them all. And this is a very precious interpretation, both in this portion and in the language of the Gemara.

וישמע משה ויפול על פניו, “When Moses heard these accusations he fell on his face.” The Torah, in this instance does not describe both Moses and Aaron as falling on their faces, as it had done in Numbers 14,5 seeing that Aaron, whose position had been challenged kept silent throughout so as not to provide further fuel for Korach’s claims by insisting that he was entitled to this high office. [Incidentally, Aaron’s own silence could be interpreted by disinterested bystanders as support for Korach, i.e. as an admission that he had not come by this office on the basis of personal merit. Ed.] The fact is that Aaron’s silence was due to his honouring the instructions he had received from Moses.

HE FELL ON HIS FACE. In prayer, and there it was said to him what he would say to Korah.

And he spoke to Korah and to all his assembly, saying: In the morning Hashem will make known who is fit for Him and who is holy, and He will bring that one near before Him; and the one whom He chooses, He will bring near to His service.

בקר וידע וגו׳ TOMORROW THE LORD WILL MAKE KNOWN [WHO ARE HIS] — “Now (this hour of the day)” — he meant — “is a time of excessive drinking, and it is therefore not proper to appear before Him”. But his real intention in postponing the matter was that perhaps they might repent (abandon their opposition) (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 5). 'בקר וידע ה את אשר לו TOMORROW THE LORD WILL MAKE KNOWN WHO ARE TO BE HIS for the Levitical service, ואת הקדוש AND HIM WHO IS HOLY enough for the priesthood, והקריב AND HE WILL BRING them אליו UNTO HIM. The Targum proves that this is so (i.e. that Scripture alludes to two different matters), for it renders the first phrase by “He will bring near to Him”, and the second by “He will bring near to His service”. — A Midrashic explanation of the word בקר (instead of the more usual מחר) is the following: Moses said to him (Korah): “The Holy One, blessed be He, has assigned bounds in His world; can you, perhaps, change the morning into evening? Just as little, will you be able to make this (Aaron’s appointment as High Priest) of none effect, — as indeed it states, (Genesis 1:5) “and it was evening and it was morning… (Genesis 1:4) “and God separated (ויבדל) [light from darkness]”; and in the same sense (that the separation should be of a permanent character) it states, (I Chronicles 23:13) “and Aaron was separated (ויבדל) that he should be sanctified [as most holy … to minister unto him]” (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 5).

IN THE MORNING THE ETERNAL WILL MAKE KNOWN WHO ARE HIS — “for the Levitical service. AND WHO IS HOLY — for the priesthood.” This is Rashi’s language. He has explained it well; and the verse is thus stating that G-d will make it known if the Levites are His, just as it is said, and the Levites shall be Mine, or whether the firstborns are still His, just as it is said, for all the firstborn are Mine, so that He will not exchange them for the Levites. And who is holy, this refers to the priests who are sanctified for the Divine Service, just as it is said, and Aaron was separated, that he should be sanctified as most holy. [He mentioned the Levites] because Korach, in [his attempt] to rally all the people to his side, contested also the [position of the] Levites, and tried to restore the entire service [of the offerings] to the firstborns. And then when these firstborns were burnt up, it became clear that G-d did not choose them for the service, but when Aaron’s [burning of the] incense was accepted, it became known that he is the holy one [selected for the priesthood]. EVEN HIM WHOM HE HATH CHOSEN WILL HE CAUSE TO COME NEAR UNTO HIM. The meaning of this repetition [since the first half of this verse already says, and who is holy, He will cause him to come near unto Him] is that [at first Moses said] the Eternal will make known who are His, and who is holy, and will cause him to come near unto Him tomorrow, and He will have regard for his offering, whereas He will not turn to the others and to their offerings. Even him whom He hath chosen forever to stand to minister before Him, him and his seed forever, will He cause to come near unto Him tomorrow. Thus he is saying that this test will be a proof to them throughout their generations not to contest [the rights of] him who is chosen, nor those of his seed forever. Now Rabbeinu Chananel wrote that all these people who assembled [against Moses] were Levites, of the same tribe as Korach, this being the reason for the expressions [by Moses]: ye take too much upon you, ‘ye sons of Levi;’ Hear now, ‘ye sons of Levi.’ Perhaps they thought that their whole tribe had been chosen for the priesthood, and that it was Moses of his own accord who gave the honor to his brother. Thus far [are the words of Rabbeinu Chananel]. But G-d forbid that there should be in the tribe of the ministers of our G-d two hundred and fifty men — of the most distinguished [of the people], and princes — who were sons of rebellion, rejecting their leader, the greatest of their tribe, and murmuring against G-d! And [furthermore], if these [rebels] were only of that tribe [of Levi, as Rabbeinu Chananel wrote], then all the tribes of Israel would not have murmured on the next day [after the rebels were killed] saying: ‘Ye have killed the people of the Eternal,’ since not one of their own tribe died, [and those who did die were] only of Moses’ and Aaron’s tribe. Similarly the sign of the rod also proves that the controversy embraced all ...

"Him who is His" — the chosen tribe. This is a response to Dathan, Abiram, and the chieftains of the congregation who were the firstborn. "And the holy one" — within his tribe, to be the High Priest.

וידבר אל קרח ואל כל עדתו, he informed them that he was sensitive to the trumped up nature of their charges and the rebellious nature of their complaints. את אשר לו, who was the one who spoke sincerely in honour of G’d (did not mouth pious sounding phrases only) ואת הקדוש והקריב אליו, He, G’d, Himself will make it plain who is entitled and worthy to offer sacrifices in His honour. ואת אשר יבחר בו יקריב אליו, only the worthy person G’d will select from all those taking part in this commotion. The meaning is reflected in G’d saying later to Moses: הבדלו מתוך העדה, “separate yourselves from among this congregation” (verse 21)

בקר וידע ה׳ את אשר לו, "In the morning G'd will make known who is His, etc." The reason Moses said that the proof would come on the morrow and he did not offer to provide the proof immediately may either have been due to the fact that the incense offered every afternoon had already been offered on that day, or it may have been so that they could not accuse him of having chosen a time of day when G'd is not particularly well disposed towards the people. According to the Zohar second volume page 39 the late afternoon is a time when the attribute of Justice is in the ascendancy. In addition, Moses may have wanted to give Korach and associates time to reflect on the enormity of their challenge so that they could desist and repent before dawn. Our sages in Bamidbar Rabbah 18,7 suggest additional reasons why Moses delayed until the next morning. את אשר לו ואת הקדוש, "who is His and who is holy, etc." Why did Moses have to repeat this statement (although he changed the wording somewhat)? The Zohar says that the words אשר לו refer to the status of the Levites, whereas the word קדוש refers to the status of the priesthood. If so, we must still understand why Moses had to mention the Levites altogether seeing that Korach had only challenged the appointment of the priests. If you consider that I have explained that Korach took the elders of Reuven in order to buttress his arguments that Moses had ignored the privileges due to people of seniority, we can understand that Korach had argued that the privileges of seniority should be restored to the members of the tribe of Reuven. In that event Moses also had to defend the appointment of the Levites to their respective positions. We must also try and understand why Moses repeated that G'd would bring close to Him the one whom He considered holy, i.e. ואת הקדש הקריב אליו, ואת אשר יבחר יקריב אליו. Perhaps we can understand this by analysing the nature of Korach's complaints. Firstly, he claimed that Aaron was not specifically suited to be High Priest seeing there were people more qualified than he. Secondly, Korach argued that even if he granted Aaron's qualifications to be High Priest, there were others equally qualified to perform the sacrificial service with him. Why should he enjoy an exclusive? Concerning the argument that there were people better qualified than Aaron, Moses said את אשר לו, that G'd would demonstrate whom He had chosen, i.e. who had been designated for this task since creation. We have a parallel situation in Jeremiah 1,5 where G'd told Jeremiah that He had selected him for his task already before he was born. The words ואת הקדש mean that after having come into the world Aaron had sanctified himself in order to be worthy to occupy the position for which he had been destined. Moses carefully chose the expression והקריב to make it plain that Aaron had already been divinely approved and that G'd had seen fit to make His שכינה come to rest on him. Concerning the claim that others were just as w...

בקר וידע ה' את אשר לו, in the morning the Lord will make known who is His own.” Moses meant by this that “whereas you are claiming that we are trying to dominate the congregation of the Lord and that I do things without authority, on my own, tomorrow you will know if this is so; tomorrow you will have evidence that the Levites are His, especially.” He needed to reconcile the apparent contradiction between Numbers 8,14 “the Levites will be Mine” and Exodus 13,2: “sanctify for Me every firstborn.” The additional words ואת הקדוש refer to the occupant of the position of High Priest, i.e. Aaron, seeing that we have a verse in Chronicles I 23,13: “He set apart Aaron to sanctify him to become ‘holy of holies.’” A Midrashic approach (based on Tanchuma Korach 5). The words “in the morning G‘d will make known, etc.” are to be understood as a sort of oath quoting G’d, i.e. “just as the magicians of Egypt if they assembled at the same time in the same location would be unable to change morning to evening, and just as I (G’d) distinguished between light and darkness, so I have set apart Aaron to make him ‘holy of holies.’”

“Come morning, the Lord will make known who is His.” This does not mean a time limitation saying that tomorrow this sign will occur, for if so, it should have said Come morning the Lord will make known, what is the meaning of and He will make known with the letter vav [and]? And it should have said “who belongs to Him” rather than who is His. Rather, this is its interpretation: the morning will confirm and clarify with whom the judgment lies. This is because Korah disputed the priesthood and the priestly gifts, as is found in the Midrash (Yalkut 16:1) in the story that Korah told to the entire congregation: “There was a widow who had a sheep, and Aaron took the first of the fleece, the firstborn, the foreleg, and the cheeks, etc.” Evidence for this is that after the earth was calm and quiet from the dispute, God gave Aaron the gifts as “an everlasting covenant of salt.” This implies that Korah was challenging them. And Moses said, By this you shall know that God gave Aaron the gifts in exchange for his service, because anything given in the morning is something given with joy and with a shining countenance, which indicates that the giving is proper, as Rashi explained in Parshat Beshalach (16:7) regarding the manna that was given in the morning. Therefore, it is stated later regarding the priestly gifts, And I, behold, I have given to you — Rashi explains: “with joy,” like behold, he is coming out to meet you, and when he sees you, he will rejoice in his heart (Exodus 4:14), meaning with a shining countenance. And anything given with joy and with a shining countenance is given “in the morning, in the morning,” when He bestows good with that which was properly requested. Thus, the morning will clarify that the truth is with Aaron, and the Lord will make known who is His. For the silver and gold belong to Him, blessed be He, and from His possessions, God gives to His servants who do His will, and not as Korah said, that Aaron took them without the King’s permission, blessed be He. And from the fact that Moses said “I have not taken even a single donkey from them.” We can infer that just as they suspected him of giving the priesthood to Aaron so that he would benefit from the priestly gifts, they also suspected Moses of saying that kingship was his alone so that he could benefit from the royal privileges: He will take your donkeys, etc. (First Samuel 8:16). Therefore, he defended himself by saying not only did he not forcibly take a donkey from any of them, but he did not even accept one as a gift. This is why he used the term “nasati” [carried/lifted], which is similar to the phrase vayisa masot [and he sent gifts] (Genesis 43:34). And since it is the way of kings to harm those who do not give them gifts, he said, nor have I harmed any of them. And according to what we explained above, that Korah disputed the Creation, Moses said here “boker” [morning]. For since you cannot change morning into evening, through this the Lord will make known who is His. For to the Blessed One belongs the world and its fullness, and He is the One who crowns kings, and it is in His blessed hand to bring near to Him whomever He chooses.

בוקר ויודע ה' את אשר לו, “in the morning Hashem will make known the one who is His own, etc.” Moses referred to the fact that clear proof would be forthcoming if the Levites were performing their service with G’d’s consent or if the firstborn were still acceptable to Him as the ones chosen to represent the people as His servants in the Tabernacle. He would prove by the rejection of the 250 people offering incense that when G’d had said in Numbers 3,12 and 8,14 that the Levites had been chosen by Him, that it was not Moses who had chosen to replace the firstborn. In adding the words: ואת הקדוש והקריב אליו, “and who is holy, and He will draw him close to Himself,” Moses referred to Aaron’s position as High Priest. It is also possible that Moses meant that the firstborn must not consider themselves as having been rejected by G’d as we know from Numbers 3,13 and 8,17 כי לי כל בכור בבני ישראל, “for every firstborn among the Children of Israel has a special relationship to Me, etc.” On the other hand, the קדוש, “the priests,” would be confirmed as such by an act of Hashem on the morrow. It is their task to perform service in the Tabernacle/Temple as we read in Chronicles I 23,13 ויבדל אהרן להקדיש קודש קדשים הוא ובניו עד עולם, “Aaron and his sons were sanctified for the Holy of Holies, he and his sons throughout the generations.” ואת אשר יבחר בו יקריב אליו, “and the one whom He will choose, He will draw near to Him.” Nachmanides, pointing out that Moses said twice in the same verse that G’d would bring near to Him the one He had chosen, draws our attention to the fact that whereas the first time he added ואת הקדוש, “and the one who is holy,” sees in this a hint that the former refers to G’d’s accepting the incense offering of Aaron on the morrow while rejecting that of the 250 men The second time the words אשר יבחר בו refers to the status of the priests, descendants of Aaron, throughout the ages. The addition of the word מחר, “tomorrow,” in verse 7 means that this demonstration would occur only once and would settle the dispute once and for all. No other challenge would arise against the validity of the priests’ position. Ibn Ezra explains the words ויודע ה' את אשר לו as referring to the tribe that G’d had selected, i.e. the tribe of Levi. This was the answer to Datan and Aviram as well as to the dignitaries who also happened to be firstborns. He feels that all the people who had assembled in this rebellious demonstration were from the tribe of Levi hence the word הקדוש was meant to single out who amongst all these Levites was the one chosen to be the High Priest. Ibn Ezra uses the fact that Moses specifically addressed the members of the tribe of Levi, asking them if they had not already been honoured sufficiently that they now demanded even greater honours to support his explanation. Nachmanides writes that if, as Ibn Ezra claims, all the people ganging up on Moses and Aaron had been members of the tribe of Levi, how can we explain that on the day after Korach and supporters went down into the earth that all the tribes accused Moses of killing G’d’s people, and all of them presented their staffs to the test which staff would produce blossoms, etc.? As to Moses having said to the Levites רב לכם בני לוי, “it is much for you, offspring of Levi,” this reflects that Moses was aware that Korach was trying to fool the people into believing that he was a champion of the firstborns of each tribe who had been deprived of the privilege to perform service in the Tabernacle through the Levites having replaced them. This is why he had prefaced his incitement with the words כי כל העדה כולם קדושים, “for the entire Jewish community are holy.” Moses was intelligent enough to realize that Korach’s target was the priesthood, and Aaron, Moses’ brother being the High Priest, He hinted that if that were not so, it was strange that Korach, a member of the tribe of Levi, had not objected at the time when all the members of his tribe had been elevated to a privileged status. Korach had gladly accepted his elevation to a superior status, thereby contradicting his claim that all the Israelites were equally holy, seeing that Hashem had revealed Himself to all of them at Mount Sinai. This is why the Torah reports in verse 8 that now, instead of speaking to Korach and his rabble, he spoke to Korach in his capacity as their leader, when the latter did not have to posture in front of his cohorts. Moses, in his attempt to calm the situation and to bring about a פיוס, reconciliation, made his remarks to Korach part of his general remarks to the assembled rebels, instead of taking Korach aside, so that these people would become aware of Korach’s duping them into believing that he was championing their cause, and would not follow in his footsteps. Moses, personally, believed that his approach would work, and that is why he chose the offering of incense by lay Israelites as the litmus test rather than the offering of some other sacrifice. He thought that the fact that if even Aaron’s son Nadav and Avihu had died when offering unauthorized incense, surely that reminder would act as a brake on the eagerness of these 250 men when called upon to present incense in grounds not consecrated for such an offering. He permitted Aaron to participate in this test, basing his ruling on the concept of הוראת שעה, an immediate emergency. [We know that Aaron was specifically called upon to perform during such emergencies in Numbers 17,11-13 when Moses also demonstrated that incense was not necessarily what killed the people, but the reverse. Ed.] It is possible, however, that the time frame chosen by Moses for this test was when Aaron would offer the daily incense offering in the Tabernacle. Moses was confident that Hashem would support the initiative of His prophet on this occasion, although he had not yet asked for special permission to deviate from halachic norms. Personally, I do not think that Aaron’s offering of his morning incense could have played a part in this, seeing that the daily incense offering was presented on the golden altar inside the Sanctuary, a location beyond the view of anyone outside, seeing the Tabernacle did not even have any windows. Some commentators believe that the line וישמע משה ויפול על פניו, (verse 4) is the Torah’s way of describing how Moses turned to G’d to receive guidance as to how to deal with this rebellion. In response to Moses’ quest, Hashem answered that He would demonstrate on the following morning who were those chosen by Him and who were not. This would not be the only instance in which the Torah is very succinct, saving the details for another occasion. Sometimes we are told what G’d told Moses to tell the people, and the Torah hardly mentions that Moses conveyed the whole message. On other occasions we become aware of all that G’d had told Moses only when the Torah reports Moses as delivering G’d’s message to them. I have noticed that Onkelos who has translated the word קטורת in other places in the Torah as קטורת בוסמין, i.e. as קטורת הסמים, omits the word בוסמין, fagrances, when translating the word קטורת in our portion. [Our versions of Onkelos do not bear this out; maybe Nachmanides had a different version of Onkelos. Ed.] According to that version of Onkelos, he may have felt that the incense these 250 men were asked to offer in the test consisted only of לבונה, frankincense, and thus did not constitute the kind of affront with probably lethal consequences that the arrogant rebels subjected themselves to. Onkelos, according to that version, also understood the “incense” offered by Nadav and Avihu to have been of this variety. [Note that according to the Torah their capital sin was to bring אש זרה, man-made fire, on their censers. Nowhere does the Torah mention that the incense was what caused their death. Ed.]

Do this: take for yourselves fire-pans, Korah and all his assembly,

זאת עשו קחו לכם מחתות THIS DO: TAKE YOU CENSERS — What reason had he to speak to them thus? He said to them: according to the custom of the heathens there are numerous forms of divine worship, and consequently numerous priests, for they cannot assemble for worship in one temple; we, however, have One God, one Ark, one Law, one Altar, all constituting one form of worship and therefore we need but one High Priest; — and you, 250 men, all demand the High Priesthood?! I would like this myself, but events will prove that this is impossible. Here you have a rite which is dear to God more than any other — it is the offering of incense, which is even dearer to Him than all the sacrifices, but a deadly poison is contained in it, for through it Nadab and Abihu were burnt!” (cf. Leviticus 10:2). It was on this account that he warned them by saying, And it shall come to pass that the man whom the Lord will choose is the holy one — he is already in his state of holiness (not “he will become holy”; he thus warned them that there was not the slightest likelihood that they would be chosen). This must be the meaning of הוא הקדוש, not "he will become holy”, for do we not know that he whom He would choose would become holy? But this, in effect, is what Moses said to them: “I am telling you this in order that you may not imperil your lives, for only he whom He will choose will come out of this alive, but all of you will perish” (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 5). מחתות CENSERS — vessels into which coals are raked and which have a handle (cf. Rashi on Exodus 27:3).

"This" — is the test.

קחו לכם מחתות, “take censers for yourselves.” It did not occur to Moses that these rebels would take him up on this, after all it was well known to all that anyone offering incense who had not been authorised to do so would die at the hands of G-d, as had even Aaron’s own two elder sons. Seeing that Korach challenged Moses with uncalled for accusations pulled out of thin air, Moses retaliated with equally ridiculous sounding answers, answers that he thought would be challenged instead of being taken seriously.

זאת עשו, קחו לכם מחתות, ”you are to do the following: ‘take fire-pans for yourselves, etc.” Moses said: “seeing that you have accused me of substituting the Levites for the firstborn in order to give high rank to my brother Aaron and his sons, and that I have made the Levites subservient to Aaron, and that I have done all this arbitrarily without instruction from G’d, I will give you a chance to test your claim.” Take fire-pans and offer incense, a procedure which is forbidden to non-priests on pain of death- seeing the Torah wrote: ‘anyone not authorised to do this who approaches sacred precincts will die’ (Numbers 1,51). If you will succeed in your offering and will be saved from the punishment spelled out, I will admit that your claim that G’d does not make any distinction between one tribe and another is correct.” This is also what is meant by the Midrash which claims that “Moses gave these people a deadly poison.” The Midrash meant that the advice Moses gave these rebels, i.e. to offer incense contained a deadly ingredient; if they would accept the challenge they would become guilty of death at the hands of G’d. Had the Midrash meant this literally, the fact that these rebels died would not have demonstrated that it was G’d’s judgment that killed them and the rebels would have had further cause for complaint against Moses. You should know that Onkelos translates the word קטורת, incense, in this paragraph as קטרת instead of as קטרת בוסמין as he does elsewhere. [Rabbi Chavell quotes Nachmanides as emending the text in Onkelos as our text does not correspond to what our author writes, and in our text Onkelos writes קטרת בוסמין, Ed.] It appears, based on the changed use of the word קטרת by Onkelos, that he felt that what the 250 men offered on their pans was not the classic mixture of incense described in Exodus chapter 30, but a different mix of incense altogether, the one usually described by the Torah as לבונה, frankincense. Onkelos makes the same distinction when describing the “incense” offered by the sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu. Perhaps he did not want to add the word בוסמין whenever the offering of this mixture was unauthorized. At any rate, the opinion of our sages in the Tanchuma is that the mixture in question which the 250 rebels presented in their fire-pans was identical to that regularly offered inside the Tabernacle mornings and evenings. This is the view of Nachmanides.

and place fire in them and lay upon them incense of spices before Hashem tomorrow; and the man whom Hashem chooses — he is the holy one. You have taken too much upon yourselves, sons of Levi!

רב לכם בני לוי means, “It is a great (an important) thing that I have told you, ye sons of Levi”). But were they not fools in that although he so sternly warned them they nevertheless undertook to offer! They, however, sinned against their own souls (i.e., they were regardless of their lives) as it is said, (17:3) “the censers of these sinners against their souls”. — But Korah who certainly was a clever (lit., open-eyed) man, what reason had he to commit this folly? His mind’s eye misled him. He saw by prophetic vision a line of great men (more lit., a great chain) descending from him, amongst them the prophet Samuel who was equal in importance to Moses and Aaron together (cf. Psalms 99:6: משה ואהרן בכהניו ושמואל בקראי שמו), and he said to himself, “On his account I shall escape the punishment”. And he further saw twenty-four Mishmars (shifts of Levites who formed the Temple Choir) arising among his grand-children, all of them prophesying by the Holy Spirit, — as it is said, (I Chronicles 25:5) “All these (prominent musicians) were sons of Heiman” (Heiman was a descendant of Korah; cf. I Chronicles 6:18—23). — He said, “Is it possible that all this dignity is to arise from me and I shall remain silent (be myself of no importance)?” On this account he joined the others in order to attain to that prerogative, because he had indeed heard from the mouth of Moses that all else of them would perish and one would escape: "He whom the Lord will choose will be holy". He mistakenly applied this to himself. But he had not seen correctly, for his sons repented of their rebellious attitude and therefore did not die at that time (cf. Numbers 26:11), and it was from them that Samuel and the Levitical singers were descended. Moses, however, foresaw this. (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 5). רב לכם means, a great responsibility have you taken upon yourselves in rebelling against the Holy One, blessed be He.

"Too much for you, sons of Levi." This is its meaning: whereas he had said to them [earlier] "is it too little," now [he says] "too much for you." The text states "and Moses said to Korah" — for the first address was to Korah and all his congregation, while this one is to the Levites [specifically].

הוא הקדוש, only he is the one accorded the title “holy.” In the test Moses proposes there could be only one winner. Moses made this statement in order to frighten his listeners (as they would become aware of the enormity of the gamble they were going to involve themselves in) and knowing this they might repent and not lose their lives. Just as G’d does not want the sinner to die but to repent, so Moses offered these people the chance to retract and thereby save their lives. (compare Ezekiel 18,32). רב לכם בני לוי, you, inasmuch as you are considered people belonging to Korach (compare verse 32), are being judged more sternly, exactingly, precisely because due to your superior social position you must lead even more exemplary lives than ordinary Israelites. G’d will be much more angry at you if you fail to reflect the nobility you already represent.

רב לכם בני לוי, “You have gone too far, O sons of Levi!” Moses meant that G’d had already given the Levites plenty. In the following verse he spells out precisely what it was that G’d had given the Levites. It is worth noting that in the entire paragraph Moses refers only to the Ineffable Name when referring to G’d. Only here in this verse, seeing Moses had to mention אלוקי ישראל was he forced to employ a different attribute of G’d in order to allude to their attributes (the attribute of the founding father of the Levites, the original Levi, brother of Shimon who was described as an exponent of the attribute of Justice by our author on Numbers 1,51).

והיה האיש אשר יבחר ה' הוא הקדוש, “then the man whom the Lord chooses, he will be the holy one.” This statement by Moses appears superfluous, as the rebels were surely aware that there were only these two alternatives. We must therefore understand Moses’ statement as a warning to them not to become guilty of the punishment for their actions. He reminded them that the incense offering was the one most beloved by Hashem and that it contained a deadly poison for people not qualified to offer same. This had been demonstrated beyond doubt when two of Aaron’s sons, Nadav and Avihu, had been killed by heavenly fire on the spot for daring to offer it while they were not qualified to do so. If all his supporters were to dare to do the same, they would all share the fate of Nadav and Avihu. All of these people, in spite of thus having been warned by Moses, insisted on proceeding with their plan, and they paid the price of disobeying his warning. This is why Numbers 17,3 refers to them all a sinners, guilty of death. If you were to ask how Korach, an extremely intelligent individual, could have committed such obvious foolishness, our sages say that he had foreseen that great men would be descended from him in the future, and he thought that was proof that he had to survive this confrontation with Moses. Compare Rashi on that subject. Furthermore, he misinterpreted the words of blessing in Deuteronomy 7,13: according to which תירושך ויצהרך, “your wine and oil will be blessed,” as a reference to himself seeing that his father’s name had been יצהר, “oil.” He was aware that in any mixture of liquids, oil always rises to the top. He concluded that he had therefore been destined for distinction. Zachariah 4,14, commences with the words: ואלה בני היצהר, “these are the descendants of Yitzhar, etc.” Seeing that oil has no descendants, Korach interpreted this statement by the prophet as referring to himself. Actually, the prophet had referred to Aaron and Chur, who had been anointed as priests or the honour of hereditary monarchy with the oil of anointing. David took the honour of hereditary monarchy, whereas Aaron received that of the Priesthood. Korach reasoned, that if these who had only been anointed with oil had qualified for these honours, he who had been referred to as the descendent of oil twice, surely was in line for these honours. As a result of such considerations, he decided to revolt against Moses. [who in his opinion had forfeited the right to leadership seeing that his whole generation had been decreed to die in the desert. Ed.]

And Moses said to Korah: Hear now, sons of Levi.

ויאמר משה אל קרח שמעו נא בני לוי AND MOSES SAID UNTO KORAH, HEAR, I PRAY YOU, YE SONS OF LEVI — He began to speak to him with gentle words; when, however, he saw that he was stubborn, he said to himself: Before the other tribes join him and perish together with him, I will speak to them all!” He thereupon began to admonish them: “Hear ye, ye sons of Levi!” (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 6).

ויאמר משה אל קרח, “Moses said to Korach, etc.;” his first words were addressed to Korach and his immediate followers, i.e. fellow Levites.

שמעו נא בני לוי, “Hear now, offspring of Levi!” The following words are addressed to the arguments of the Levites (against Aaron). The previous remarks of Moses were addressed to the arguments of Korach and the firstborn.

Is it too little for you that the God of Israel has set you apart from the congregation of Israel to bring you near before Him, to perform the service of the Tabernacle of Hashem and to stand before the congregation to minister to them —

ולעמד לפני העדה AND TO STAND BEFORE THE CONGREGATION to sing on the Duchan (the Platform).

"Is it too little" — is this thing small in your eyes? "Before the congregation to serve them" — by bringing their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices.

ולעמוד לפני העדה לשרתם, to serve the Lord by representing the whole community by carrying the sacred vessels, and parts of the Tabernacle. G’d selected you to perform this service לפני העדה, in full view of the whole community to serve as a reminder that another group of your nation, the firstborn, had already been deprived of this privilege due to their having participated in the sin of the golden calf, and you had been chosen to replace them.

המעט מכם, “is it too little for you?” Moses asked if their selection as Levites and their performing duties in and around the Tabernacle was considered by them as something so insignificant? ולעמוד לפני העדה לשרתם, “and to stand in front of the congregation to serve them,” when they offered their sacrifices.

“Is it a small thing for [literally, from] you, etc.” The verse doesn’t say “for you” but rather from you, because it’s speaking about the rebellion and betrayal coming from you. Is such a rebellion a small and minor matter, where someone who is given an appointment protests that he wasn’t given an even greater appointment? Some say this is speaking about the fact that the Levites are the smallest of all the tribes, [as the verse states] for the Lord has set you apart, etc. — meaning for the service of the Ark, which consumes you [and makes you small]. Yet you seek the priesthood as well, putting yourselves in even greater danger, because whoever approaches closer to the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord is in greater danger. And what is Aaron? For he was always extremely humble and did not consider himself anything, therefore he survives even though he is very close to God, as it is written (Sanhedrin 14a) “Be submissive and endure.” But anyone who does not match his level of humility will not survive if he approaches God with an arrogant heart.

and that He has brought you near, and all your brothers the sons of Levi with you? And now you seek the high priesthood as well?

ויקרב אתך AND HE HATH BROUGHT THEE NEAR to that service from which He has excluded the rest of the congregation of Israel.

"And He brought you near" — and after He had brought you near, you and your brethren, you sought the priesthood as well.

ויקרב אתך ואת כל אחיך בני לוי, "He has brought you close together with all your brethren the sons of Levi." What is the meaning of the הבדלה, separation, of which Moses spoke in the previous verse and the הקריבה, the bringing near, of which he speaks in our verse? Maybe Moses referred to two different levels of spiritual elevation. The הבדלה, is the lower level of elevation which all the members of the tribe of Levi participated in and which resulted in their elevation vis-a-vis עדת ישראל. The הקריבה referred to the special status conferred on the Kehatites, whose task of transporting the Holy Ark, etc. reflected their superior status even amongst the Levites. Moses used the word אתך, "especially you personally," indicating that all his brothers depended on Korach and looked up to him.

ויקרב אותך ואת אחיך, “and He has brought you near as well as your fellow Levites after you. Korach was a grandson of Kehat, who was one of the Levites charged with carrying the Holy Ark on their shoulders, a privilege reserved only for Kehat and his offspring but not for other Levites. They were also the head of the Levites performing the songs in the Tabernacle as spelled out in Chronicles I16,5. ובקשתם גם כהונה, “and you also demand a share in the priesthood?”

ויקרב אותך, “he drew you near, etc.” Although Gershon was Levi’s firstborn, and had a claim to be given precedence over Kehat his brother in being given the privilege of transporting the Holy Aark, etc., Hashem demoted him in a manner of speaking in favour of your grandfather, and, as a result, in your favour. You are privileged to carry the Holy Ark on your shoulders.

Therefore it is you and all your assembly who have convened against Hashem — and Aaron, what is he that you murmur against him?

לכן means because of this — because of all this that I have mentioned, אתה וכל עדתך הנועדים BOTH YOU AND ALL YOUR CONGREGATION WHO ARE GATHERED with you, על ה׳ are AGAINST THE LORD, for it is by His commission that I am acting in giving the Priesthood to Aaron; and this rebellion is therefore not against “us” (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 6).

THEREFORE THOU AND ALL THY COMPANY. “Therefore, because of this [i.e., because of what I have previously said: Hear now, ye sons of Levi: is it but a small thing etc.] thou and all thy company that are gathered together [are] against the Eternal, for I acted as His agent in giving the priesthood to Aaron, and this controversy is [therefore] not directed against us.” This is Rashi’s language. And if so, the verse is saying: “thou and all thy company — it is ye that are gathered together against G-d, and not against Aaron.” And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that the letter hei in the word hano’adim (‘that’ are gathered together) is redundant [thus the verse means: “thou and all thy company ‘are gathered together not against us but against G-d”]. It is possible that the verse is stating: “Therefore thou and all thy company that are gathered together against G-d — for it is not against Aaron [that you are gathered together] — be ye before G-d with Aaron tomorrow,” and the verse is elliptic with respect to the conditions that Moses mentioned. The purport of the verses is thus as follows: At first he [Moses] spoke unto Korach and unto all his company, saying: ‘In the morning the Eternal will make known etc.,’ and afterwards he continued speaking to Korach, saying: ye take too much upon you, ye sons of Levi, and told Korach alone, Hear now, ye sons of Levi. Therefore he repeated himself saying, thou and all thy company that are gathered together against G-d, meaning that the punishment would not be directed against Korach alone, but against his whole company, for they are all gathered together against G-d.

"Therefore" — therefore you have conspired, you and all your congregation, in that you are assembling against Hashem. The sense is like "and rulers take counsel together against Hashem and against His anointed" (Ps. 2:2) — they convened an assembly to quarrel with Hashem. Similarly, "when they contended against Hashem." Some say that the heh of "the assembled" (הַנֹּעָדִים) is a pleonastic addition. "What is he?" — what sin has he committed, what is he doing [to warrant this]?

לכן, אתה וכל עדתך הנועדים, know that I leave the matter of judging who is right entirely up to the Lord. Let Him decide who has offended Him. I do not take any countermeasures against you at all. (2) [It is] AGAINST ADONAI. Know that I am casting my burden on Adonai [see Ps. 55:23] to pursue a remedy for the affront to us, and I will not arise against you at all.

לכן אתה וכל עדתך, "Therefore, you and your whole congregation, etc." The word לכן is equivalent to an oath. Moses swears that Korach and associates are gathered against G'd (not against Moses). Moses did so in the hope that when they realised this they might yet become afraid to continue this quarrel and not go through with the test to determine who was fit to be a priest.

לכן, “therefore,” i.e. since you have also demanded to have the status of priests; הנועדים על ה, “you, the ones who have joined together against the Lord;” you have gathered today and you will see G-d’s response tomorrow; כי תלונו, “because you have complained;” this word normally should have been spelled with the letter י instead of the letter ו in the middle. [Our author, when making these observations merely points out that the spelling is not a scribe’s error. He does not engage in speculations of why the Torah deviated from the norm. Ed.] The word is read as if it had been spelled: תלינו.

לכן אתה וכל עדתך הנועדים, “therefore you and your whole assembly who have banded together.” Moses meant: “you who have banded together against me and Aaron have actually banded together against G’d. We find a similar construction in Psalms 2,2: ורוזנים נוסדו יחד על ה', “and regents intrigue together against the Lord.” Another similar verse is found in Numbers 26,9 בהצותם על ה', “when they agitated against the Lord.” ואהרן מה הוא, “for who is Aaron?” “What did he do to you and how did he sin against you that you challenge his position as High Priest?”

לכן אתה וכל עדתך, a reference to the insurgents described previously as הנועדים על ה'.

And Moses sent to summon Dathan and Abiram sons of Eliab, but they said: We will not come up.

וישלח משה וגו׳ AND MOSES SENT [TO CALL DATHAN AND ABIRAM] — From here we may learn that one should not persist in strife (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 10), for, you see, Moses sought them out in order to conciliate them by peaceful words (Sanhedrin 110a). לא נעלה WE WILL NOT GO UP — Their mouth tripped them up (i.e. unwittingly they made mention of their fate) — that they would have only a “descent” (their words are taken to mean: we shall not be going up; we shall go down into the depths of the earth) (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 6).

AND MOSES SENT TO CALL DATHAN AND ABIRAM. Now Dathan and Abiram were the instigators of this controversy as much as Korach was, as Scripture states, Now Korach took … and Dathan and Abiram … and they rose up in the face of Moses with certain of the children of Israel etc., meaning that they were the ones who roused them together against Moses and Aaron. Then Moses spoke [once] to Korach and to all his company, and furthermore said to him: thou and all thy company, for it was to him [Korach] that he spoke first, since he was the leader amongst them. Now amongst those that were gathered together were also the followers of Dathan and Abiram; therefore Moses wanted to speak to them also now, and to warn them about themselves and all those who were gathered together [with them], who were their company, and to appease them with good words, even comforting words to Israel, since his [earlier] words to Korach were a conciliation only to the Levites. The meaning of the expression and Moses sent is that Dathan and Abiram had gone away from his presence whilst he was speaking to Korach [as stated in Verses 5-7], and afterwards it again says, And Moses said unto Korach [Verse 8], who was still standing before him there, or maybe since Korach was a Levite he stayed in the camp of the Levites near the tent of Moses. All this happened on the first day [of the rebellion], just as Moses said, thou and they, and Aaron tomorrow, — this being the “morning” he mentioned to them: In the ‘morning’ the Eternal will make it known who are His. It is possible that Dathan and Abiram, as princes of the congregation, were more distinguished than On the son of Peleth, and if they would have been won over to Moses, On would have followed their counsel; therefore Moses did not send for him. Thus On did not come, and was not present together with them [Dathan and Abiram], nor was he with Korach’s company; since he left him when Dathan and Abiram went away, while Moses was debating with Korach, and he never returned [to Korach’s company], because he changed his mind [after his original participation] on the advice of his wife who saved him, according to the words of our Rabbis. For Scripture does not mention him [On] as one who was swallowed up [in the earth] together with Dathan and Abiram, nor was he among the company of those that gathered together against the Eternal who offered the incense, since there were two hundred and fifty men besides the four mentioned at first.

"We will not come up." It is possible that the Tent of Meeting was situated within the camp on elevated ground, and hence the word "go up" (עָלָה) is used — [going] around [to reach it]. Alternatively, whoever goes to the service of Hashem or to the chosen place is called "one who goes up."

וישלח משה לקרא, Moses despatched a messenger to call, etc. Moses was clever in trying to speak to Datan and Aviram individually, not when all the rebels were together, hoping thereby to persuade them to adopt a more receptive attitude. He also hoped that the honour he paid them by inviting them individually might cause them to at least listen to what he had to say. The Torah uses the word משה although there was no need to tell us who invited Datan and Aviram. The Torah emphasised that these people received an invitation from the king for a private audience. לא נעלה; המעט כי העליתנו מארץ זבת חלב ודבש, "we will not go up; is it not enough that you have taken us away from a land flowing with milk and honey, etc.?" By saying לא נעלה, Datan and Aviram made it clear that seeing they did not consider Moses fit to be their leader, they also did not consider it an honour to be secluded with him in a private audience. They spurned any honour which emanated from Moses. They justified their attitude vis-a-vis Moses by citing Moses' track record as a leader. They ridiculed what Moses had portrayed as an ascent from Egypt, saying: "is this what you call an ascent that you took us from a land flowing with milk and honey and now we are stuck in a desert, a place only fit to die? If this is your idea of an עליה, ascent, improvement in our lot, then no thank you, we do not want any part of it." They added כי תשתרר עלינו, "your sole purpose is to make yourself a prince over us." They did not even give Moses credit that his invitation was designed to provide them with a "soft landing," a face-saving opportunity to climb down from the limb they were on. By repeating the words גם השתרר, they added insult to injury claiming that Moses was not content with his status as leader prior to the Exodus, but that he wanted to consolidate his position. They hinted thereby that it suited Moses' purpose for the Israelites to remain in the desert for a long time as they were dependent upon him and this strengthened his positon as autocrat. We do know from Shemot Rabbah 5,23 that Moses' position as king was in effect only while the Jewish people were in the desert.

לא נעלה, “we will not go up [to face Moses]. This does not mean that Moses stood on an elevated platform, but is a standard expression when people are asked to appear before a judge or judges. Our author quotes Deuteronomy 25,7, as well as Judges 4,5, and Ruth 4,1, as proof of his interpretation. In each instance the verb עלה is used for people appearing at a court.

ויאמרו לא נעלה, they said: “we will not go up.” The Tabernacle was on an elevated site in the desert. We find this construction again in verse 24 when the people are instructed to “go up and away from the area surrounding Korach”.

“And they said, ‘We will not come up.’” To which mountain did He call them to ascend? And what did they mean when they said, Will you put out the eyes of these men? The explanation of the matter is that Moses sent for them to speak words of peace to their hearts, but they suspected Moses of sending for them because they were important figures and central to this dispute. They thought Moses wanted to offer them some position of authority as a form of bribery so they would withdraw from the dispute, and then automatically everyone else would withdraw as well. Therefore, they responded to Moses, We will not come up. That is, “We will not accept from you any elevation or position of authority as a bribe.” Regarding this they said, Will you put out the eyes of these men? Because a bribe blinds (Deuteronomy 16:19). They were saying, “Do you think you can blind our eyes with this bribe?” And to explain the phrase these men: It appears they were not referring to themselves but to all the men who were with them. For they meant, “Even if we keep quiet because you give us some position of authority or inheritance of field and vineyard, nevertheless, the men who are with us — all the more so are they defiant. Will you put out the eyes of those men who are with us, that they should be so blind as not to notice this scheme? Therefore, we will not come up — we will not accept from you any authority or elevation.” And as for what they inserted into this story, “Is it a small thing that you have brought us up [from a land flowing with milk and honey]…” They are saying one thing and then another. First they said that this is Your way — that You promise and do not fulfill, for You promised the children of Israel to bring them to a land flowing with milk and honey, but You brought us up from Egypt, a good land, and all this You did in order to Lord over us, to demonstrate Your authority over us. And not only You, but You have also made others Lord over us, such as Aaron and others. Furthermore, you have not brought us to a land flowing with milk and honey, nor given us an inheritance of fields and vineyards (Numbers 16:14)… They are saying: In any case, why are You sending for us? If it is to promise us some inheritance of fields and vineyards when we arrive in the land, this is something that has not yet come to pass, since You have not yet brought us there, so give us now an inheritance of fields and vineyards. And even if You think our companions will not notice this ruse because this giving is for the distant future, nevertheless there are several problems: First, we will not go up to the land because it has already been decreed that we will die in the desert; and even if You say this giving will be for our descendants, what benefit is there for us in this? And even for our descendants, the matter is uncertain, because it is Your way to promise and not fulfill. Moreover, the matter has not yet come into existence. And if You want to give us some authority immediately, there is another concern — that our companions will notice this ruse: Would you put out the eyes of these men? (Numbers 16:14) so that they would not see this stratagem clearly. And some say that the “gouging out of eyes” refers to the hornet, which God promised to send before them (Exodus 23:28) in order to gouge out the eyes of the Canaanites. But they [the spies] said, “Even if they are truly blind, nevertheless he is stronger than us and we cannot go up against those people” — this is what they meant by we will not go up.

וישלח משה לקרוא לדתן ואבירם, “Moses sent a messenger to summon Datan and Aviram, etc.” They were at the core of the entire dispute together with Korach, and up until now Moses had carried on a dialogue only with Korach. He had attempted to placate Korach, and was now ready to attempt to placate Datan and Aviram also. He did not summon Aun, son of Pelet, Nachmanides speculates that the reason that Moses did not invite Aun son of Pelet to a dialogue may have been that as a member of the tribe of Reuven, he presumed that Aun would automatically follow the lead of Datan and Aviram who were members of his tribe. If such illustrious men as Datan and Aviram would be reconciled with Moses, he, Aun, would of course follow suit. As it turned out, Aun was no longer with Datan and Aviram, neither did he come to debate with Moses as he had listened to the advice of his wife who had told him not to become a pawn in the hands of such demagogues as Datan and Aviram. Our sages derived this from the fact that when the death of Korach and Datan and Aviram is reported, the Torah never mentioned another word about Aun son of Pelet. Had he persisted in his opposition, surely he would have been enumerated as one of the victims of this rebellion. He clearly did not even belong to the 250 men who presented their incense or he would have died as a result of that. The reason that Moses had to send a messenger to summon Datan and Aviram was that they had gone away during the argument that Moses carried on with Korach. It is also possible that whereas Korach had been positioned in the camp of the Levites, not far from Moses’ own tent, Datan and Aviram being members of the tribe of Reuven, had remained within the confines of their own camp. This entire dialogue occurred on the first day, as the Torah said that G’d had said that on the following morning the issue would be put to the test. לא נעלה, “we will not go up.” Ibn Ezra writes that it is possible that the Tabernacle was located on a slight elevation outside the general encampment, or that the word “going up” is used in a spiritual sense, i.e. that anyone invited to meet with Moses at the entrance to the Tabernacle was automatically viewed as “ascending.”

ויאמרו לא נעלה, to be judged by you or your court. The expression עליה occurs frequently in conjunction with going to a court, to a judge. We find it in Deuteronomy 25,7 ועלתה יבמתו השערה, “his (the deceased’s) widow shall go up to the judges to protest her brother-in-law’s refusal to marry her.” It also occurs in this sense in Judges 4,5 where Boaz is reported as going up to the court to settle the matter of who will marry Ruth.

Is it too little that you have brought us up from a land producing milk and honey to put us to death in the wilderness, that you must also lord it over us so greatly?

THAT THOU [Moses] WOULDST MAKE THYSELF A PRINCE OVER US ‘GAM HISTAREIR’ — [the repetition of this phrase — literally ‘also to rule’ means]: ‘also many forms of lordship.’ Or [it may refer to lordship by] ‘thou and thy brother Aaron.’” This is the language of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra. In my opinion the word gam (also) here means “even.” Similarly: There is none that doeth good, not ‘gam’ (even) one; The poor is hated ‘gam’ (even) of his own neighbor, and similar cases. Thus Dathan and Abiram said to Moses: “Is it a small thing on your part that you have done us such a great evil to kill us in the wilderness, for which we should have stoned you, that you would rule over us even in a small measure of lordship, by sending us [a summons] to appear before you, let alone that you should play the king and be elevated over us!”

"Is it too little" — is this a trivial thing, that you brought us up from a land flowing with milk and honey? For Egypt is to the south of the land of Israel, and one who comes from Egypt to the land of Canaan is in truth going up. "That you would also lord over us" — you brought us up from Egypt so that you could lord over us. "To lord over us greatly" — you and your brother exercise many forms of dominion.

כי תשתרר עלינו גם השתרר, “but you have also imposed a dictatorship over us!” According to Rash’bam, the Torah uses the word גם, usually translated as “also,” both positively and negatively, i.e. as a continuation of something previous, or as an abrupt opposite of something previously stated. Our verse is an example of Datan and Abiram using it in the latter sense as if asking: “are you now going to also (even) act as dictator? Exodus 12,32 is such an example where the Pharaoh who had railed against Moses and Aaron all the time, suddenly makes a 180 degree turn by pleading for Moses to bless him also when offering sacrifices to the Jewish G-d. Numbers 22,33, is another such example where the angel who had not killed anyone tells Bileam that he would have killed not only his ass but also Bileam if he had been at liberty to do so.

המעט כי העליתנו, “is it not enough that you have made us go up, etc.?” Datan and Aviram paraphrased (sarcastically) Moses’ question: “is it not enough that G’d has set you apart to become Levites, etc.” by referring to the “elevation” from a land flowing with milk and honey to the desert. Actually, Egypt, situated at sea level was lower than most of the Land of Canaan except a narrow coastal strip and the Israelites at that time were on a high plateau at the southern end of Eretz Yisrael. כי תשתרר עלינו גם תשתרר, “that you also want to lord it over us?” The word “over us” refers to the manner in which they perceived Moses as having lorded it over them already in Egypt something which was followed by their continuing to exercise their rule over the people in the desert (this justifies the word גם, also, in this line). On the other hand, one may understand the reason the word השתרר has been repeated as the dual “rule” by Moses as the political autocrat over the people and Aaron as the religious autocrat in his capacity as the High Priest. Other secondary forms of authority wielded by the Levites and the princedom of Elitzafan ben Uzziel are referred to in the word גם, “also.”

כי תשתרר עלינו גם השתרר, “yet you want to lord it over us, yea, dominate us even further?” According to Nachmanides the word גם, normally translated as “also,” needs to be understood as אפילו, “even,” in the sense of “even more so,” in our context here. Others understand the phrase to mean: “is it not enough that you lord it over us, that now you want to impose even your brother over us also?”

גם השתרר, the word גם in the Torah appears quite often as an introduction to something opposite or totally different from what had preceded it. Our verse is an example of such use, the line כי תשתרר ילינו גם השתרר meaning “do you now also want to lord it over us?” Another such example is found in Exodus 12,32 where Pharaoh begs Moses to bless him, using the word גם, although this word in that context certainly is not a continuation of any previously discussed thought. Genesis 29,30 as well as Numbers 22,33 where the angel said to Bileam גם הרגתי אותך “I would also have killed you,” is totally out of keeping with the standard meaning of the word גם when it is translated as “also.” [the angel had not killed the ass as yet. Ed.]

Moreover, you have not brought us into a land producing milk and honey, nor given us an inheritance of fields and vineyards. Will you blind the eyes of those men? We will not come up.

ותתן לנו (lit., thou hast given us) — The statement must he referred to the word לא, “not”, mentioned before, the meaning being: Thou hast not brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey, and thou hast not given us inheritance of fields and vineyards. — You told us, (Exodus 3:7) “I will bring you up from the affliction of Egypt” into a good land: from there (from such a land; cf. v. 13), indeed, you have brought us forth, but you have not brought us instead into a land flowing with milk and honey; on the contrary — you have passed a decree upon us to kill us in the wilderness, for you have said, (Numbers 14:29) “Your carcasses shall fall in this desert." העיני האנשים ההם תנקר WILT THOU PUT OUT THE EYES OF THESE MEN etc. — This means: even if you were to send to put out our eyes if we would not come up to you we would not come up! האנשים ההם THESE MEN — [They meant themselves, but spoke of other people’s eyes being put out], like a man who attaches to his fellow the curse which should come upon himself (cf. Rashi on Exodus 1:10).

"Moreover, you have not brought us to a land flowing with milk and honey." The meaning: you took us out of a good place, and had you brought us to an equally good place and given us fields and vineyards as we had in Egypt, and then sought to rule — we would have borne it. But you removed us from a good place, from our fields and vineyards, and did not bring us to a place like it. Why then do you seek dominion? "Will you gouge out the eyes of those men?" — the meaning: do you wish to gouge out the eyes of those men, an allusion to those who left Egypt — as if to say, do you wish to blind eyes so that they cannot see? For what you have done to us is plain to the eyes. It is a figure of speech to say that someone's eyes are closed, meaning he does not see. Therefore [they say] "we will not come up." Some say: do you wish to darken eyes so that they cannot see — meaning, you are performing an illusion for us; we will not come up. Others say: even if you were to gouge out our eyes, we would not come up. He said "those men" in the manner of people who are lacking in self-awareness and are unwilling to speak disparagingly of themselves. The most correct interpretation in my view is that "those men" refers to the elders who were with Moses, for so it is written, "and the elders of Israel went after him."

אף לא אל ארץ...ותתן לנו, not only did you worsen our lot by taking us out of Egypt, and bringing us to a desert leaving behind a land which was flowing with milk and honey, but you have mocked us by not even bringing us to another country, even though it might have been inferior to Egypt. To listen to you speak one might think that you had led us to a land of good fields and vineyards and allocated these to us as our inheritance. Anyone listening to your expounding on the Divine commandments linked to possession of such fields and orchards has been totally misled. (reference to Leviticus 19,9-10) When presenting this legislation to us one could think that the fields and orchards under discussion were already ours. העיני האנשים ההם תנקר, do you really think that you can fool all these people into not recognising your machinations which are of such a deceptive nature?

אף לא אל ארץ זבת חלב ודבש הביאותנו, "Moreover, you have not brought us to a land flowing with milk and honey, etc." Since they had already accused Moses of bringing them to a place where all one could do was to die, what was the point of accusing him that he had not brought them to a land flowing with milk and honey? Rashi gives a rather forced explanation to this question. Perhaps we can say that Datan and Aviram did not want to justify their refusal to go and see Moses merely because he had brought them to a place where all one could do was die. They implied that even if all he had done was not to bring them to a land flowing with milk and honey this would be sufficient reason for them to decline his invitation as Moses had failed to deliver on his promise. The words אף לא אל mean that this latter detail is already enough reason to decline his invitation. They were working up to their next argument: "will you put out the eyes of these men?" They implied that the fact that Moses had caused the people actual damage by marooning them in the desert was an additional reason for not coming to see him." העיני האנשים ההם תנקר, "should you gouge out the eyes of those men? we will not go up." They meant that they would rather have their eyes gouged out than to pay Moses the compliment of accepting his invitation. This comment revealed the very depth of their hatred. They preferred to have their eyes gouged out rather than to be granted a favour by the righteous Moses. No wonder Moses anger was greatly aroused!

העיני האנשים ההם תנקר, “will you gouge out the eyes of these men?” The verse is to be understood as a question, not as a statement, the authors expressing their astonishment that Moses hoped to get away with misleading the people with such trick. They themselves could certainly not be fooled by him, someone who had so utterly failed in his so-called mission up to now. They expressed wonder that the eyes of the Jewish people should have been fooled thus far, it looked to them as if these people had been blind all the time. [They were clearly the greatest demagogues up to that time! Ed.] Now, instead of making good on these promises, he had decreed that a whole generation of Israelites were to perish in this desert! They would not appear in front of him to be judged by him, he had lost all credence as a leader.

אף לא אל ארץ זבת חלב ודבש הביאותנו, “nor did you bring us to a land flowing with milk and honey.” They meant: “not only did you take us out of a good place, but if you had brought us instead to another good place and each one of us would have had a field and a vineyard such as we had in Egypt we could have put up with your autocratic ways. But instead you took us out of a good place and have not offered us compensation by providing us with a similarly good place; why then should you claim the right to lord it over us?” העיני האנשים ההם תנקר, “even should you gouge out those men’s eyes, we will not come!” the meaning of “those men” is a reference to Datan and Aviram themselves, as they would not associate such a disaster with themselves as victims by identifying themselves with it even conditionally. They simply meant that even if the penalty for not appearing in front of Moses as asked would be the loss of their eyesight they would not give him the satisfaction of doing his bidding. Ibn Ezra interprets the verse as “do you want to gouge out the eyes of those men so that they cannot see” (what you are doing to them?) The subject of האנשים ההם are the people who had left Egypt, Datan and Aviram saying that these people had not been blind enough not to see how their lot had deteriorated under Moses’ rule. It is like someone saying about others: “these people must have their eyes shut, this is why they do not see.” The mouth of the wicked always leads them into a trap both when they commence speaking and when they conclude what they have to say. At the beginning Datan and Aviram had said: “we will not go up!” They also concluded their diatribe with the words: “we will not go up!” Their opening words were foolish and so were the same words at the end. A Midrashic approach to the words: “are you going to gouge out the eyes of those men, we will not go up!” It is significant that the Torah did not quote them as saying: “we will not go,” or; “we will not come,” but wrote “we will not ascend, go up.” Their mouth betrayed them as having refused to ascend. They died by descending into the earth and into purgatory. They had prepared the way they were going to die with their own mouths.

העיני האנשים ההם תנקר, “even if you were to gouge out the eyes of these men, etc.,” Datan and Aviram referred to the men who had come out of Egypt. The phrase is a sarcastic remark suggesting that even if all are as blind as if their eyes had been gouged out, they, Datan and Aviram, could not be blinded by Moses’ pretensions. If we were to accept Moses’ summons or invitation it would appear as if we too were unable to “see” how he had bamboozled the whole nation.

?העיני האנשים ההם תנקר, “do you think that these people who have risen up against you do not have eyes with which they can see this trap that you led us into when you took us out of Egypt, a good land, to bring us to this miserable desert to die here? You certainly did not fulfill your promise to bring us to a land flowing with milk and honey which was the reason that we followed you from Egypt. All that awaits them now are 40 years in this desert in which to await their death. לא נעלה. This is the reason why we refuse to come up and be judged by you and your court. This is a typical construction known as כלל ופרט וכלל, stating a general principle, illustrating it with examples, and then reaffirming the general principle having supplied the reasons supporting the theory stated as a general principle.

And Moses was exceedingly angry, and he said before Hashem: Do not accept their offering with favor. I have not coveted a single donkey from any one of them, and I have not wronged any one of them.

ויחר למשה מאד AND MOSES WAS VERY DISTRESSED — i.e. he was very much grieved. אל תפן אל מנחתם TURN NOT THOU TO THEIR OBLATION — According to its plain sense the meaning is: “In respect to the frankincense which they will offer before Thee tomorrow, I beg of Thee do not turn (pay regard) to them”. The Midrashic explanation is: He said, “I know that they have a portion in the continual offerings of the community; let not even this their portion be accepted favourably before Thee — let the fire leave it alone and not consume it” (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 7). לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי means, I have not taken the ass of any one of them; — even when I went from Midian to Egypt and placed my wife and my sons on the ass (Exodus 4:20), and I surely ought afterwards to have taken the price of that ass from their money, yet I took it only from my own (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 7). The translation given by Onkelos of the word נשאתי is שחרית: in the Aramaic language a forced levy made by the king is so called, viz., שחרור (cf. Rashi on Bava Batra 47a. The translation of Onkelos therefore is: I did not press into my service the ass of any one of them).

RESPECT NOT THOU ‘MINCHATHAM’ (THEIR OFFERING). “According to its plain sense [the meaning of ‘their offering’ is] ‘the incense which they will offer up before You tomorrow — do not turn to it.’ The Midrashic explanation is that Moses said: ‘I know that they have a portion in the Daily Whole-offerings of the congregation; let not [their part in it] be accepted before You favorably.’” This is Rashi’s language. But it does not seem to me to be correct that it is referring to the incense, because it was with reference to Dathan and Abiram that Moses said this, because he became angered by their words, and they were not amongst the company who gathered together to burn the incense. But the plain meaning [of the verse] is that because these people wanted the priesthood, to be able to perform the service of the offerings, Moses said: “Respect not Thou their offering, meaning: respect not the offering which they want to bring before You, nor the prayer which they will pray unto You,” for all offerings, including prayer, are called minchah (offering) in Scripture. Onkelos also rendered [minchatham] as kurbanhon (their offering), meaning “anything that they will offer before You.” I HAVE NOT TAKEN ONE ASS FROM THEM. The meaning thereof is that Moses said: “What lordship am I exercising over them, for I have never taken from them even one ass to do my work, as is the manner of kings and princes?” For this is the manner of the kingdom, as it is written, and he will take your asses, and put them to his work. This is the meaning of Onkelos’ rendition: [“I have not taken one ass from them] sh’chorith (as a levy),” for [in Aramaic] the king’s levy is called shichvur. Thus Moses mentioned the smallest incident amongst the laws of royalty, and then he said, Neither have I hurt one of them by appointing him to my chariot or to do my work, as is befitting for a king, or by perverting his judgment [in a lawsuit] or by treating him with disrespect, for [the phrase “hurting” in neither have I ‘hurt’ one of them] includes all kinds of injustice.

"And [Moses] was very angry." I have already explained this passage: for the burnt-offering and the meal-offering extend the wrath upon the wicked. Dathan and Abiram were important men and had brought a meal-offering before this incident — that is the meaning of "Do not turn to their offering"; and turn to me instead, for I have not taken a single donkey of theirs. The meaning of "I have taken" is: I have placed a burden upon it. "And I have not wronged" — any one of them in anything.

אל תפן אל מנחתם, do not accept any kind of offering these people would You in order to atone for themselves. Moses chose the מנחה type offering as the example as this is usually the most welcome kind of offering to G’d, and we know that he referred to such gift offerings as being ריח ניחוח pleasant fragrance. He explains that the reason such offerings should not be accepted is that he, Moses, has not forgiven the insult fling at him. [In Samuel I 26,19 David explains to King Sha-ul that G’d is apt to be appeased by someone bringing an offering known as מנחה. Ed.] Here Moses conditions G’d accepting such an offering from Korach on he, Moses, first having been appeased by Korach before daring to ask G’d for atonement. We have a standing rule that even Yom Kippur, a day set aside for atonement, does not atone for sins committed between one person and another unless the offender had first reconciled himself with the party whom he had wronged. (Yuma 85). The prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 18,20-23) elaborates the same point also, asking G’d not to forgive the people for sins committed against fellow Jews until they had first been forgiven by those against whom they had sinned. לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי, I have not even made use of things which any ordinary person would borrow from his neighbour without giving it a thought. This proves that my position of authority was exclusively used for their benefit and not for mine. Their present complaints prove only that they are extremely ungrateful, seeing that they have benefited from my leadership. ולא הרעותי את אחד מהם, they cannot even accuse me of having wrongly convicted anyone of them in legal proceedings as they never brought any of their quarrels before me to have me adjudicate them.

ויאמר אל ה׳ אל תפן, He said to G'd: "do not turn to their gift-offering." Moses now understood the depth of Datan and Aviram's hatred, that they were thoroughly wicked and actually hated anything or anybody who was good. He was aware that there are no people who do not have certain merits due to good deeds they have performed. He realised that G'd does not withhold the reward for such merits from anyone, and that if the people in question cannot be rewarded in the hereafter because they had forfeited their hereafter, G'd would compensate them in this life. This is based on Deut. 32,4 that "the Lord is one of faithfulness without iniquity." Sanhedrin 106 provides us with an example of the wicked Bileam, who had after all pronounced all the blessings on the Jewish people, collecting his fee for having the Moabites seduce the Israelites, prior to his being slain. Moses did not want G'd to accept even the good deeds Korach and associates had performed for whom they had not yet received a reward. This is what he had in mind when he referred to מנחתם. You may well ask how Moses could expect G'd to change the rules of how He dealt with the wicked on account of himself? Be aware that the righteous possess the power to annul merits which the wicked have accumulated when they observe that the potential recipients have become thoroughly wicked. This is the mystical dimension of Samuel II 23,3 צדיק מושל יראת אלוקים, "The righteous rules in matters of G'd-fearingness." This means that G'd has given the righteous leeway to cancel merits that the wicked have acquired. The idea is that although G'd Himself does not do this, He has allowed the righteous to be His surrogates in this respect. This is not so surprising as the same principle which has been adopted by a court in our world which has the right to deprive an accused of property he owns under the heading of הפקר בית דין הפקר, that when a Jewish court declares certain property as ownerless such a declaration is binding (compare Gittin 36). You may still ask why Moses demanded such an exceptional punishment for Korach and his associates? Surely the mere fact that they hated Moses was not enough of a reason for Moses to act in this manner? Moreover, did we not learn in Moed Katan 18 that when someone is accused of something, if he is not guilty of the whole accusation he is at least guilty of part of it, and even if he is not guilty of having carried out part of the evil deed attributed to him he may have planned to do so? In view of this how could Moses demand such a penalty? This is the reason that Moses began to justify himself publicly saying that he had never taken anything from anybody, i.e. he had not displayed any sign that he lorded it over the people. He had not been guilty of any of the things that kings normally do without being faulted. He added ולא הרעותי את אחד מהם, "neither have I hurt anyone of them (in some other way)." Moses meant he had not been guilty of any act that would account for...

אל תפן אל מנחתם, “do not turn to their gift offering!” The reason why Moses cursed Datan and Abiram, by asking G-d not to accept their offering if any, was because even assuming, as he did, that they would not retract even if G-d were to say, as He did, that He had chosen Aaron and not Moses, they would still challenge the hereditary nature of the priesthood;Korach and his followers, on the other hand, by each taking the censers in which to offer incense outside the Tabernacle, did not challenge the priesthood itself, only Aaron’s appointment as High Priest. Therefore he did not ask G-d not to accept the incense of these 250 men. לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי, “I have not appropriated a single donkey from anyone of them;” this remark by Moses is relevant to verse three, when he and Aaron had been accused of having elevated himself above the people. The vocalization of the word חמור corresponds to the plain meaning of the verse, whereas according to Rashi’s interpretation the word echad should have been achad, “one of,” as in Genesis 26,10. נשאתי, an expression meaning “I have taken.” It occurs in this sense also in Samuel II 5,21: וישאם דוד ואנשיו, “and David and his men took them.” ולא הרעותי את אחד מהם, “and I have not done wrong to a single one of them.” Moses referred to the fact that Datan and Abiram had betrayed him to Pharaoh for killing the Egyptian who had first killed an Israelite without provocation. (Exodus 2,112,15)

אל תפן אל מנחתם, “do not turn to their gift-offering.” It is a well known fact that both the total-offering and the gift-offering brings long life for the people offering it even if the people concerned are wicked. Moses prayed that contrary to this accepted norm G’d should punish the rebels immediately. Rashi, on the other hand, views the meaning of the above prayer by Moses as a plea to G’d not to accept the incense offering which they were going to bring on the morrow. It seems that the subject of the words “their gift-offering” were Datan and Aviram. This is also the opinion of Nachmanides. If that indeed were so we would have to ask why Moses only prayed concerning the offering by Datan and Aviram who were not the principal rebels and why he did not also pray concerning the offerings of Korach and the other 250 rebels? Besides, seeing that Moses was not aware of any merit that these people had which would postpone their punishment at this time, why did he have to pray that their offering not be accepted altogether? He should have prayed that equal punishment should befall all of these people, so why single out only Datan and Aviram? In view of these problems I believe that the words: “their gift-offering” refer to that by the twelve princes, i.e. to the inaugural offerings which were reported at the end of Parshat Nasso (Numbers 7) when each one of them had offered a bowl full of incense although they were not priests and therefore had no right to do so (Numbers 7,16). Moses did not bother to pray to G’d concerning His possible acceptance of the offering of Datan and Aviram as he was not aware of any merit they had accumulated which could delay the punishment due to them for their provocative conduct. Furthermore, from the moment that these two men had reiterated their refusal to appear near the Tabernacle as directed by Moses he knew that their own mouths had already convicted them and that they were lost in his eyes. He did, however, pray that G’d not accept the incense offering of the 12 princes who were the mainstay of the other 250 rebels that the merit they had accumulated through their inaugural offerings should not cause G’d to delay their punishment at this time. After Moses had offered his prayer that the offering of the princes not be accepted, he reverted to the comments made by Datan and Aviram, offering his rebuttal of the accusation by these men that he had “lorded it over the people,” by pointing out that he had never been the beneficiary of his position as leader to the extent of even a single donkey, nor had he caused anything negative to befall a single Israelite due to his conduct. The opinion of our sages in Tanchuma Korach 7 is that the point of Moses’ prayer was that G’d should not accept their financial contribution as expressed by their half-shekel contribution to the daily public offerings which were brought also on their behalf. לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי, “I have not taken the ass of any one of them.” It is usual for political leaders or rulers to arrogate to themselves the right to use other people and animals for their personal convenience and to let them perform chores on their behalf. This is why Moses in rebutting the accusations of Datan and Aviram that he had “lorded” it over the people had to point out that he done nothing of the kind. He had not even used such an animal to carry his personal belongings. Seeing he had not even used a beast of burden for his own personal use, how could he be accused of using people, i.e. his subjects, for such a purpose? How then had he “lorded” it over the people? We find that the prophet Samuel also could say of himself: (Samuel I 12,3) “here I am, come forward against me in the presence of the Lord and in the presence of his anointed one, whose ox or donkey I have taken and whom did I defraud or whom have I robbed? From whom have I accepted a bribe, etc.?”

אל תפן אל מנחתם, “Do not turn to their gift-offering.” Rashi explains that according to the plain meaning the gift offering referred to was the incense that the rebels were to offer on the following morning. Nachmanides writes that this is not correct, as the words were said concerning Datan and Aviram, and Moses was especially angry at what they had said. Their reason for dissatisfaction had nothing to do with who would be privileged to offer incense at all. They had had their own axe to grind. The plain meaning of the verse is that Moses said to G’d concerning the people who had demanded the right to perform the priestly duties, that He should not accept their incense in order to demonstrate that they had not been chosen to do so. Moses meant that G’d should neither accept their incense offering nor accept their prayer with goodwill. Prayer is also referred to as מנחה in Scripture. Onkelos also supports this explanation when he writes קורבנהון, without specifying, i.e. any offering including prayer. לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי, “I have not taken a single donkey of theirs, etc.” Moses said this in response to the accusation that he had lorded it over the people. He had not levied any taxes on any of the people as is customary and willingly accepted by the subjects of any rulers. He had not even borrowed an animal to carry a load for him. When Onkelos translates this as שחרית, he refers to אנגריא, forced labour owed to the king, or even lesser dignitaries such as town-captains, known as שחוור. ולא הרעותי את אחד מהם, “neither have I wronged a single one among them.” [This, if taken at face value, would be nothing to brag about. Ed.] The meaning is that Moses never requested from anyone that he perform some menial task for him that he considered it as beneath his dignity to perform himself.

אל תפן; the word תפן is derived from the root פנה, as in Genesis 43,34 ותרב משאת בנימין “Binyamin’s gift was more substantial,” after the Torah first described Joseph giving gifts to the other brothers, but introducing Binyamin’s gifts with the words מאת פניו, indicating a “turn around” by treating Binyamin differently than the other brothers. We must view the expression אל תפן as אל תפנה, seeing the vowel pattern under the letters תפ are tzeyreh followed by segol. If the Torah had written אל תפן with the vowel pattern segol, segol, it would have been tafneh, i.e. a causative mode “do not bring about a change.” לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי, I have not even appropriated a single donkey of theirs (the entire people) as a form of taxation as do most others rulers from all of their subjects. Seeing that this is so, on what do they base their claim that I behave like a ruler, a despot? If the vowel pattern under the word אחד would not have been “segol” followed by “kametz,” but two successive vowels “patach,” the meaning would be: “I have not taken away a single one of their privately owned asses.” It would have been a construct mode as in Genesis 26,10 אחד העם, i.e. “one of the common people.”

And Moses said to Korah: You and all your assembly, present yourselves before Hashem — you, and they, and Aaron — tomorrow.

והם [THOU] AND THEY [AND AARON] — they means thy congregation.

AND MOSES SAID UNTO KORACH: ‘BE THOU AND ALL THY CONGREGATION BEFORE THE ETERNAL, THOU, AND THEY, AND AARON, TOMORROW.’ Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that “this has already been stated [above, in Verses 5-7: And he spoke unto Korach and unto all his company, saying: ‘In the morning the Eternal will make known etc.’], but the meaning thereof here is: as Moses said to Korach, Be ye before the Eternal, so they took every man his censer.”The correct interpretation appears to me to be that at first Moses told them: This do: Take you censers, Korach, and all his company … and it shall be that the man whom the Eternal doth choose, he shall be holy, and he did not say that Aaron would be together with them. They [also] remained silent, [so that Moses thought] perhaps they did not find this acceptable and did not agree to it, for they may have thought: “If Aaron will be together with us, either the [Heavenly] fire will come down for all of us, or it will not descend at all, so that we will all be alike; whereas if Aaron will not be together with us, and the fire will not come down, the people will say that He has not chosen us, but will think that He has already chosen him [Aaron] inasmuch as the fire came down on his offerings on the eighth day [of the installation of the priests]. But as far as that [eighth] day is concerned we have a complaint against him [Moses], namely that he should not have chosen Aaron to be the priest alone, since [the Heavenly fire] came down only in the merit of [the whole people of] Israel who made the Tabernacle, and it would have come down for any representative of the congregation, for the firstborns had not yet been exchanged at that time [for the Levites].” Therefore Korach did not want to do any sort of trial without [the participation of] Aaron. Now Dathan and Abiram were [also] present when Moses told them [these instructions], and they were thus included in what Moses said, [This do: take you censers,] Korach, and all his company. But after he sent for them, and they said: ‘We will not come up,’ then Moses was very wroth, and wanted to decree that they should not die the common death of all men. Therefore Moses returned to Korach and said, Take ye every man his censer … two hundred and fifty censers; thou also, and Aaron, each his censer. Thus he excluded Dathan and Abiram from this group — this being the meaning of [the expression] two hundred and fifty censers, for why was it necessary to mention the number here [since the number of Korach’s company had already been given above in Verse 2]? He also included Aaron amongst them. Then Korach agreed to Moses, for he thought that the matter [of the test] would be decided equally for [both] them and Aaron [as explained above].

"And Moses said to Korah" — he had already said as much; but the meaning is: when Moses told Korah, "Be before Hashem" — they took each man his fire-pan. "Tomorrow" — and that was the day on which Moses called to Dathan and Abiram. It is possible that he called them beforehand, and this is the more correct view because of the word "morning" (בֹּקֶר).

'אתה וכל עדתך היו לפני ה; be ready for judgment in His presence.

אתה וכל עדתך היו לפני השם, "you and your whole congregation be in the presence of the Lord!" Why did Moses not include Aaron in the same breath, seeing he too was supposed to bring incense? Why did he mention Aaron separately? Had Moses done so he would not have had to repeat the words: "you and they." Perhaps Moses wanted to emphasise that the decision would be made on the morrow. He did not want to give the rebels a chance to put off the date of the confrontation and perhaps add to their numbers in the interval. As far as Aaron was concerned Moses did not worry about when the confrontation would take place. He only had to mention that Aaron too would bring his censer. Another reason Moses gave the people until the morning was so that they could sanctify themselves in the interval. This was the meaning of: "be in the presence of the Lord." He certainly did not have to include Aaron as amongst the people who had to sanctify themselves as Aaron was always in a state of readiness to present himself before G'd. He did have to tell Aaron to be present at that time on the morrrow. The reason the whole instruction has been repeated seeing Moses had already told Korach and associates to take censers for incense in verse 6, is that in the interval Moses had rebuked the rebels and pointed out to them that they were guilty of overreaching themselves. In view of the fact that these people did not accept Moses' rebuke he had to tell them again to prepare for the confrontation which would be the test.

ויאמר משה אל קרח אתה וכל עדתך היו לפני ה'....מחר, “Moses said to Korach: ‘you and your whole assembly make an appearance in the presence of Hashem tomorrow!” Ibn Ezra points out that Moses had already made the same request in verses 6-7 when he had instructed them to appear with their censers filled with incense. We therefore need to understand this as a reference to what Moses had said before the Torah gave details of the altercation. Nachmanides feels that the difference between verse 6-7 and the present verse is that here Aaron is included as participating in this competition. Perhaps Moses hoped that this fact might get some rebels to withdraw, seeing that they knew that on previous occasions Hashem had up to now always accepted Aaron’s incense offering. Alternately, the rebels felt that the participation of Aaron would ensure that heavenly fire as a sign of acceptance would materialize, as it always did. [After all, Moses’ challenge the first time had not been accepted by the rebels, it seems. Ed.] There had been a previous occasion on the eighth day of the consecration rites, the day when heavenly fire had materialized for Aaron’s incense offering, but that could be explained as G’d accepting Aaron as the people’s chosen representative. At that time the firstborn had not yet been deprived of their status. Now that Aaron’s position as representative of the people had been challenged, there was a good chance that his incense offering would not attract heavenly fire as a sign of acceptance. Datan and Aviram were present when Moses had issued the challenge for the first time. Now, after they had refused to debate the issue with him and had gratuitously insulted him, he excluded them from this test by saying: “only קרח וכל עדתו, “Korach and his entire congregation.” This is why the number 250 again is mentioned in verse 17, i.e. there would be 252 censers, one for Korach and one for Aaron. Once Korach heard that Aaron would also compete in this test he was willing to participate.

And let each man take his fire-pan and place incense of spices upon them, and let each man bring his fire-pan before Hashem — two hundred and fifty fire-pans — and you and Aaron, each his fire-pan.

והקרבתם איש מחתתו AND OFFER YE [BEFORE THE LORD] EVERY MAN HIS CENSER — “every man” means, the 250 men amongst you.

חמישים ומאתים מחתות, ואתה ואהרון "two hundred and fifty censers as well as you and Aaron." All these words are superfluous in view of what Moses said in verse 16, i.e. "you and your whole congregation as well as Aaron." If all Moses wanted to tell us was how many people were going to appear with the censers this should have been part of verse 16. The words "you and Aaron" are superfluous whichever way you look at it. Perhaps Moses was clever enough to tell Korach not to become part of the 250 men and their censers but to compete only with Aaron. He may have done so to prevent people from claiming that the only reason Korach's incense had not been accepted was because he had become part of the evil congregation of 250 men, but that in a straight confrontation with Aaron he would have won out. Even though all the people offering incense did so at the same time, this did not prevent them from doing so in two groups, i.e. the 250 men on the one hand and Korach and Aaron on the other.

And each man took his fire-pan and placed fire upon them and laid incense of spices upon them, and they stood at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, along with Moses and Aaron.

"And Moses and Aaron" — [were] with them.

And Korah assembled against them all the congregation at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and the Glory of Hashem appeared to all the congregation.

ויקהל עליהם קרח AND KORAH CONVENED [ALL THE CONGREGATION] AGAINST THEM, by means of scoffing language: that whole night he went round to all the tribes and tried to win them over: “Do you really think that I care for myself alone? It is only for all of you that I have a care! These men come and occupy every high office: royal rank for himself, for his brother the priesthood!” — until in the end all of them submitted to his persuasion (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 7). וירא כבוד ה׳ AND THE GLORY OF THE LORD APPEARED [UNTO ALL THE CONGREGATION] — He came in a pillar of cloud.

AND KORACH ASSEMBLED ALL THE CONGREGATION AGAINST THEM. The meaning of [the phrase “all the congregation” is] the leading men of all tribes, who are always summoned [as the congregation’s representatives] unto the door of the Tent of Meeting, or [it may refer to] the firstborn of all Israel who were [originally] eligible for the service [of the offerings]. Scripture does not mention [that Korach assembled] “the people,” [a phrase which it uses in the incidents of the [golden] calf and the spies, for if all Israel were guilty [here in the rebellion of Korach] He would have said: “that I may consume them in a moment — and will make thee a nation.” Now all that I have mentioned [above] about the firstborn is in accordance with the explanation of our Rabbis, who say that the service [of the offerings before the building of the Tabernacle] was performed by the firstborn. But according to the plain meaning of Scripture, all the Israelites [without exception] were at first eligible for the service of the offerings, for such is [indeed] always the law with respect to a High Place of an individual, and Aaron was chosen for the Service in the Tabernacle and Sanctuary. Korach thus was protesting against this selection [of Aaron alone], and wanted to restore the service [of the offerings] to all the Israelites, seeing all the congregation are holy.

ויקהל עליהם קרח, Korach assembled against them, etc. This tells us that these people did not voluntarily assemble against Moses but only after Korach had put heavy pressure on them to do so. Accordingly, the Torah reports something here that is favourable for this whole congregation of 250 men. On the other hand, the words ויקהל עליהם may only provide the background to the command by G'd in verse 20 to separate themselves from this congregation in order that G'd could destroy them simultaneously and at once. The verse would provide the answer to the people who questioned why the animals had to perish along with their masters. What sin had the animals committed? To this the Torah answered that seeing the animals had obeyed Korach they were considered as if they had been supporters of his. וירא כבוד השם The glory of the Lord appeared, etc. The entire congregation experienced this glory of the Lord in order that they would recognise that it was G'd Himself who carried out this judgment and that only He decides who is worthy to serve Him in the capacity of a priest.

ויקהל עליהם קרח, “Korach gathered against them, etc.” The firstborn all agreed with Korach’s accusation that Moses had disqualified the firstborn from performing ritual sacrifices, whereas the members of the tribe of Levi agreed with him that they had become subservient to Aaron and his sons at Moses’ bidding. Our sages explain that Korach had said to them: “look at what the son of Amram has done to you! Whereas by rights Reuven is the firstborn of the tribes of Israel, Moses appointed Nachshon the prince of the tribe of Yehudah to offer the first of the inaugural sacrifices in the Tabernacle instead!” These kinds of arguments won Korach sympathy among large segments of the people until the Torah could report that Korach managed to assemble the whole community in a confrontation with Moses. This demonstrates the power of a single sinful individual to cause the whole people to become sinners themselves. This was a demonstration of the far-reaching negative influence exerted by people who engage in לשון הרע, badmouthing others.

ויקהל עליהם קרח את כל העדה, “Korach assembled (on the following morning) the whole congregation (all the people)” Nachmanides claims that this phrase cannot be understood at face value, as if indeed Korach had succeeded in rousing the entire people into this confrontation we are faced with a dilemma. How could Moses respond to G’d’s threat to wipe out all the people instantly by saying “if one man sins should the whole people pay the penalty” unless the people had been innocent bystanders? (Verse 22) If G’d had indeed meant to wipe out the whole people, He would have concluded as He had at the time of the golden calf, by saying to Moses that He would found a new Jewish people whose patriarch Moses would become. The words כל העדה in our verse therefore must refer to all of the people’s dignitaries, i.e. they represented the people as a whole. Whatever I have mentioned about the subject of the firstborn, is based on the approach to our portion by our sages of old, who were convinced that the Temple service was the domain of the firstborn prior to the sin of the golden calf If we were to follow the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, originally any Israelite was acceptable for performing sacrificial service in the Tabernacle, something that was the practice during all the many years that private altars were acceptable for presenting offerings to G’d. Aaron’s special privileges extended only to his performing the sacrificial service within the area of the Tabernacle. Korach’s objection concerned this special privilege accorded Aaron, and he wanted that every Israelite would share in that privilege seeing that he claimed that they were all holy.

And Hashem spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying:

הבדלו מתוך העדה הזאת, “Separate yourselves from amidst this congregation!” Nachmanides raises the question that if the people were not guilty in the matter of Korach’s rebellion, why was G’d so angry also at them, that He threatened to kill them forthwith? On the other hand, if they were guilty, how could Moses ask G’d why He would kill the whole people on account of one man’s sin? Rabbeinu Chananel answers this question by writing that the words העדה הזאת, “this congregation” refers to the congregation of Korach only. [I find it strange that Nachmanides raises the question seeing that Rabbeinu Chananel lived several centuries earlier, and Nachmanides must have known his answer before he raised the question. Ed.] He adds further that G’d’s response to Moses’ question indicates that Moses had misunderstood Him, hence he was told to remove himself only from around the tents of Korach and Datan and Aviram (verse 24) He adds that it was G’d’s hope that when Korach and Datan and Aviram saw that Moses distanced himself from them they would still decide to repent and avoid disaster. Nachmanides goes on to write that he disagrees with the interpretation of Rabbeinu Chananel, seeing that the Israelites were not among the group with Korach in the first place, so that they had no reason to separate themselves from a group which stood apart. Moreover, Aaron was not with Korach and Datan and Aviram at that time but with the 250 men who readied themselves to offer their incense. Moreover, the term עדה never applies to a group of fewer than 10 adults, and Korach, Datan, and Aviram did not constitute a עדה, a congregation. If Rabbeinu Chananel were correct, the Torah should have omitted the words מתוך העדה הזאת, “from the midst of this congregation.” Besides, the very assumption that Moses the greatest prophet of all times should have so grossly misunderstood G’d’s instruction is quite beyond our imagination! The reason for all this is that originally the hearts of the Israelites sympathized strongly with the arguments of Korach, and when Korach and the 250 men lined up with the censers and the incense, Korach reminded the people that what he was about to do was all on their behalf. When the people heard that, they were persuaded by Korach’s arguments and they drew near to watch what would happen. They were actually hoping that the privilege of performing service in the Tabernacle would be restored to the respective firstborns in each family. Thereby they had become guilty of the death penalty, for if someone doubts and suspects his teacher, and especially a teacher and prophet of the caliber of Moses, of acts such as Korach accused him of, he has made himself guilty of death at the hand of heaven. Moses and Aaron tried to find excuses for them by saying to G’d that the people had not translated their doubts and suspicions into punishable acts, and that therefore they did not deserve to die. This is a standard practice when one appeals to G’d’s attribute of mercy, to portray the sin of the accused as being less severe than it might appear at first glance. In doing so, the person pleading the case allows that there are individuals who deserve the full punishment, as it is they who are the instigators.

Separate yourselves from the midst of this congregation, and I will destroy them in an instant.

SEPARATE YOURSELVES FROM AMONG THIS CONGREGATION, THAT I MAY CONSUME THEM IN A MOMENT. One may ask: If [the whole people of] Israel did not sin and did not rebel against their teacher, why was [G-d’s] wrath upon them, saying, that I may consume them in a moment? And if [on the other hand] they also rebelled [against Moses] as did Korach and his company, how could Moses and Aaron say [on their behalf]: shall one man sin, and wilt Thou be wroth with all the congregation? Now Rabbeinu Chananel wrote as follows: “Separate yourselves from among this congregation means the congregation of Korach, not the congregation of the children of Israel. [But Moses and Aaron, thinking that G-d referred to all the people], said: O G-d, the G-d of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin etc. Immediately the Holy One, blessed be He, informed Moses that He did not want to destroy the whole congregation of the children of Israel, but only the congregation of Korach. Therefore He explained to him: ‘When I said, Separate yourselves from among this congregation, the meaning was: Get you up from about the dwelling of Korach, Dathan, and Abiram. He told them, Get you up from about the dwelling etc., because perhaps when Korach and his company would see them going away, they might repent.”These are his [Rabbeinu Chananel’s] words, which are not right, for it would not be correct to say about Korach, Dathan, and Abiram — three men — Separate yourselves from among ‘this congregation,’ for they were not “a congregation,” since the Israelites were not among them, and Aaron was going about in the midst of the congregation that offered the incense! Besides, the expression separate ‘yourselves’ alludes only to Moses and Aaron, just like Get you up from among the congregation. Similarly, that I may consume them in a moment refers to a plague, which consumes a mighty and large people in a moment [and cannot therefore refer only to Korach, Dathan, and Abiram]. And [finally], far be it [from us to say] that Moses did not understand his own prophecy and made a mistake therein!But the meaning thereof is as follows: At first the heart of the people was on the side of Moses and Aaron, but when Korach and his company took every man his censer and laid incense thereon and stood at the door of the Tent of Meeting with Moses and Aaron, Korach called together all the congregation and told them that he was concerned about the honor of all of them. This was pleasing to them, so they all assembled to see peradventure it will be right in the eyes of G-d, and the service [of the offerings] will return to their firstborn, this being the meaning of the verse, And Korach assembled all the congregation against them. Thus they [all] became liable to destruction because they cast aspersions on their teacher, which is like casting aspersions on the Divine Presence, and they [likewise] rejected in their hearts the prophecy of a prophet, for which they were liable to death by the hand of Heaven. But ...

"Separate yourselves" — for they were with them at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.

!הבדלו. In order that due to your remaining close to them your merit will not reflect on them to their credit. Compare Job 22,30 ימלט אי נקי, “he will be delivered through the cleanness of your hands.”

הבדלו מתוך העדה הואת "separate yourselves from this congregation, etc." This instruction was not addressed to Moses and Aaron as they did not have anything to fear from the attribute of Justice. Nothing would happen to them even if they remained standing close while G'd killed the whole community. I can give you proof of this when you consider that Aaron who was part of that group when he offered his incense remained unharmed while the earth opened underneath Korach and his family and swallowed them. G'd's instructions were addressed to the other righteous men in the congregation, people such as Joshua and Caleb as well as the families of Moses and Aaron. G'd prefaced His instructions to Moses and Aaron with the word לאמור. If the instructions had applied to Moses and Aaron themselves the word לאמור would have confused them. G'd addressed the righteous people who had to demonstrate by separating themselves that they disassociated themselves from Korach and his associates. ואכלה אותם כרגע, "and I will consume them in a moment." Why did G'd add the word כרגע, "in a moment?" If all G'd wanted to inform us of was that He possessed the power to wipe out 600.000 people in a flash, He had already told us this in Exodus 33,5 "for if I go up in your midst for one moment, I shall consume you." It appears according to the Midrash quoted by Rashi on verse 22,4 that this was already the fourth time the Israelites sinned and that the uprising of Korach occurred after the sin of the spies. I have explained there that the decree that the Israelites would die in the desert remained in effect but that Moses' prayer in this instance only prevented G'd from destroying the people all at once instead of over an extended period of time. In view of all this, the congregation we speak about here was already guilty of death in the desert. The Torah therefore reintroduces the threat to kill the whole people at once. This provides us with an answer as to why G'd would decree death for the vast majority of the people who had not been part of this uprising at all. Moses himself speaks about a single person sinning and the whole community becoming the target of G'd's anger (verse 22). Actually, as we demonstrated, the people were under sentence of death regardless of whether they associated themselves with Korach's rebellion or not. We have learned in Shabbat 32 that Satan is always especially active when there is danger. At such times even a relatively mild offence such as talking during the prayers is considered serious enough to free soldiers from participating in expansionary wars lest they endanger themselves needlessly on account of that sin. It is clear that the sin of talking during prayers is not a captial offence. It is only the fact that during war the angel of death is especially active which makes the unatoned for sin of talking during prayers potentially lethal. In our situation, the fact that the people were under sentence of death anyway would have made the ...

ואכלה אותם כרגע, “so that I may consume them in a moment;” if you were to ask that we have a rule that punishment must not be meted out unless preceded by a warning, Moses had warned them in the name of G-d when he had said to them to come up for judgment in the presence of the Lord on the following morning together with Aaron in verse 16. However, Korach had not complied. This is why G-d could be angry at them without delay, seeing that Korach. instead of complying with G-d’s instruction had assembled the whole congregation as per verse 19, in order to get the maximum publicity value out of his rebellion. As a result, G-d was justified in carrying out sentence immediately. The participants and guilty people had already all been warned. (17,10)

הבדלו מתוך העדה הזאת, “Separate yourselves from this congregation, etc.!” The reference was to the congregation of Korach seeing that Moses and Aaron stood next to them at the entrance to the Tabernacle. Moses misunderstood, thinking that the expression: “this congregation” applied to the entire Jewish nation. This is why he answered G’d by saying: “shall one man sin and You will be angry at the entire assembly (people)?” Thereupon G’d explained to him immediately that the expression העדה applied only to the rebel community, i.e. העדה הזאת. This is the meaning of the words: “move away from around the tent of Korach,” an elaboration of what G’d had said previously. Why did G’d have to give instructions for the people who did not support Korach to separate from him physically, as if He were unable to single out the sinners and kill them only, [as He had done with the firstborn in Egypt? Ed.] Do we not have a saying that when two or three people take shelter under the same talit, the two standing on the outside would die and the one standing in the center would be saved (Midrash Rabbah in connection with the dying of the first born in Egypt)? David elaborated on his phenomenon in Psalms 91,7 when he said: “a thousand may fall at your left side and ten thousand at your right, but it (disaster) shall not reach you.” In view of all this, why did G’d insist on the people distancing themselves physically from the group supporting Korach? It was in order that the contaminated air around Korach and his fellow rebels should not infect the people around him. Just as one has to flee a town in which pestilence rages in order to escape the chance of such infection through radiation of bacteria so the people had to leave the vicinity of Korach. When Lot and family were told by the angel not to stand still while running away from the city of Sodom and his wife ignored the warning she turned into a pillar of salt, i.e. the negative fallout from the sulfur in the air caught up with her (Genesis 19,26). Another reason for the instruction that the people standing around Korach were to put space between themselves and him may have been the well known fact that when the attribute of Justice is at work it does not distinguish between the guilty and the innocent who are in its path. It was therefore necessary for the ‘innocent’ to take action to save themselves from the attribute of Justice (compare Baba Kama 60). The reason may also have been that G’d ‘honours’ the righteous, i.e. He does not release forces of destruction while the righteous are in the immediate vicinity of the wicked to be destroyed.

Separate yourselves from among this congregation, etc. It is reasonable to understand that even initially, the Holy One, blessed be He, did not intend to punish those who had not sinned, but rather said this only in reference to Korah’s congregation. But Moses understood it to refer to the entire congregation of Israel because it had already been said, and Korah gathered the entire congregation against them. Moses thought that all of Israel had agreed with him [Korah], and therefore God said regarding the entire congregation, and I will consume them in an instant, and He was not concerned that they would say, because the Lord was not able, etc. For in any case, they were wandering in the desert for forty years, and even if He were to destroy them all, nevertheless within forty years He could make Moses and Aaron into a great nation, just as a few people in Egypt suddenly became a great and mighty nation. Therefore, Moses said in his prayer, O God of the spirits of all flesh. This is because Moses did not see any wrongdoing among Israel, for even though it says, and Korah gathered the entire congregation against them, still there is no proof from here that Israel had actually gathered against Moses. Rather, Korah did what he did and gathered them against Moses and Aaron in the manner of all who entice and mislead, and who can say that Israel was persuaded by his words? However, since Moses understood that the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to destroy all of Israel in an instant, this was because He is the God of the spirits and knows what is in the spirit of each and every person, and He knew that in their hearts they agreed with Korah. Nevertheless, Moses said, Shall one man sin? He said this about Korah, the instigator, for he was the primary sinner in this incitement, and it is not proper to be angry with the entire congregation. For we find it is said, And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses (Numbers 12:1), yet Aaron was not punished because Miriam initiated the speaking and Aaron was secondary to her. Similarly, the entire congregation deserves some merit in their defense because they did not come to this sin on their own, but rather because of the pressure of the instigator who enticed and misled with his smooth speech. And if they nevertheless deserve some punishment, still justice does not dictate that they should receive the same punishment as the instigator — to destroy them all in an instant with the same death — for even the serpent who enticed received an additional curse beyond that of Adam and Eve, because all can be healed except for the serpent who has no remedy (Bereshit Rabbah 20:5).

And they fell upon their faces and said: O God, God of the spirits of all flesh — shall one man sin, and let wrath fall upon the entire congregation?

אל אלהי הרוחות O GOD, THE GOD OF THE SPIRITS [OF ALL FLESH] — i.e., “[O God] who knowest the thoughts of every man”. Thy nature is not like that of human beings: an earthly king against whom part of his country commits an offence, does not know who the sinner is, and therefore when he becomes angry he exacts punishment from all of them. But Thou — before Thee all human thoughts lie open and Thou knowest who is the sinner (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 7). האיש אחד means, THE ONE MAN IS THE SINNER, and על כל העדה תקצוף YOU ARE ANGRY WITH ALL THE CONGREGATION?! Whereupon the Holy One, blessed be He, replied, “You have spoken well; I know and shall make known who has sinned and who has not sinned” (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 7).

"And they fell on their faces" — to pray. The word "God" (אֵל) here indicates that He has the power to destroy them in an instant — He is the God of the spirits, meaning the explanation of "God" is that He can destroy them, for the spirits are in His hand. "One man shall sin" — this is Korah, who assembled the entire congregation against Moses and Aaron. Others say that the meaning of "God of the spirits" is that He has the power to search the spirits, for He is their God, and He knows that the one — namely Korah — sinned alone, even if he caused others to sin. The most correct view in my opinion is that the meaning of "separate yourselves from amidst this congregation" is: [separate] Korah and all his congregation, so that fire may come forth and consume them and destroy them instantly.

האיש אחד יחטא, by having assembled a whole congregation against us? (verse 19)

ויאמרו קל אלוקי חרוחות, They said: "O G'd the G'd of the spirits of all flesh, etc." The reason Moses used the name קל for G'd was that he realised that the attribute of Justice was in the ascendancy. By invoking the attribute קל Moses hoped to counterbalance the attribute of Justice with the attribute of חסד, loving kindness. By referring to G'd as the "G'd of the spirits of all flesh," Moses used an argument that always evokes an echo from G'd as He wants that all spirits accept His Kingdom while they are still flesh, i.e. alive in this world. By saying הרוחות, Moses indicated that he referred to something spiritual, i.e. the G'd of thoughts and ideas. We find something parallel in Ezekiel 20,32 והעולה על רוחכם היו לא תהיה, "what enters your thoughts it shall not be!" Moses argued that though the judgment which G'd planned to perform through annihilating the whole people instantaneously was fair, the fact remained that to the outsider the impression this would create would be that G'd killed the whole people on account of the rebellious act of an individual. After all, it was clear that this rebellion did not involve the whole community! If G'd would proceed with what He had planned, the human mind would be so appalled by this that it might forever reject acknowledging such a G'd. Moses also intended that his words should have a calming effect on G'd, making Him better disposed towards the Jewish people. He did so by reminding G'd of a variety of creatures who did not only recognize His sovereignty but paid tribute to it such as the angels, the souls of the righteous who have already departed from this earth, as well as the righteous souls who have not yet been assigned bodies to inhabit. We know that there is a store of such souls from Yevamot 62 where we have been taught that the Messiah cannot come until that store of souls has been emptied and all the souls therein have been asssigned bodies to inhabit. All of these souls acclaim and praise the Lord as we know from Proverbs 16,4: "G'd has made everything to serve Him." The songs of praises recited by the souls which inhabit bodies in this world are still more precious to G'd. Why would G'd do something which would make it difficult or impossible for these souls to praise Him if they went to their graves prematurely? By consigning them to death G'd would make it impossible for these souls to grow to love Him! The Zohar elaborates on the theme of how important it is to G'd for man to grow to love Him. Considering all this, Moses was very astute in using the appellation אלוקי הרוחות לכל בשר, implying that G'd wants that all spirits would acknowledge, praise and love Him while they were still fused to the flesh. Killing them all at once would thwart G'd's desire. It was not reasonable then to allow the attribute of Justice to remain in the ascendancy. The reason Moses referred to G'd's anger was to demonstrate that though G'd was perfectly aware that this particular rebellion was started by ...

אלוקי הרוחות לכל בשר, “O G-d, Spirit of flesh, etc.;” Moses refers to the fact that G-d has knowledge of our innermost thoughts at all times. As a result, He surely knows who is guilty and who is not. G-d tells him that he is quite correct and that is why He tells him now for the innocent to stand back and demonstrate their innocence. All he had to do is to tell people to remove themselves from Korach’s tent. האיש אחד יחטא, shall one man sin, etc.;” the letter ח in the word אחד has the vowel kametz, to teach you that it is not something unusual for a human being to commit a sin; if there was something surprising here, it was that apparently G-d would therefore be angry at the whole congregation that man was a part of.

ויפלו על פניהם, “they fell on their faces” (Moses and Aaron),” in prayer. This is the source for our prostrating ourselves during certain parts of our prayers, supplications. You should know that there are actually three distinct considerations present when we “fall on our faces” during prayer. 1) To show awe of the fact that we are in the presence of the Shechinah, so that we may wrap ourselves in shame and humility in the face of it, a normal reaction when displaying one’s inadequacies. The petitioner wants to demonstrate his awareness of facing the presence of G’d. This has been described by David in the words: “I am ever mindful of the Lord’s presence” (Psalms 16,8). We fall on our faces to symbolize this feeling. We find that Moses hid his face already when G’d first appeared to him at the burning bush (Exodus 3,6) as he was afraid to look at what he perceived to be the presence of G’d. 2) We want to display our anguish and pain by prostrating ourselves. 3) We want to demonstrate that we relax our emotional control, i.e. our posture of being in control of ourselves, and throw ourselves instead completely on G’d’s mercy. The wording describing נפילת אפים is found even in connection with the chayot hakodesh, certain groups of angels. Our sages, when describing these angels as reciting their hymns of adulation in the presence of the Lord, speak of these angels first prostrating themselves before the Lord. This is based on Ezekiel 1,14 where the prophet describes these angels as running to and fro, i.e. as not being allowed to remain stationary in a certain place and to look at any point above the layer of heaven they found themselves in. They had to ‘dash’ below that layer of heaven immediately they had sung the hymn and the speed with which they did this is expressed by the prophet with the word כמראה הבזק, “as the appearance of a flash of lightning.” The reason Ezekiel does not call lightning ברק in this instance but בזק is that the former is a manifestation in our terrestrial world, always descending, whereas בזק is its counterpart in the celestial regions traveling both upward and downward. The word בזק is a variation of זיקות, “a flash of fire, a spark.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 50,1 commenting on the arrival of the angels who were going to destroy Sodom and save Lot, respectively, explain the expression כמראה הבזק in Ezekiel 1,14 by comparing it to the olive waste which when used as fuel bursts into flame immediately, and produces flames which travel both in an upward and a downward direction. This is the meaning of the words רצוא ושוב in Ezekiel 1,14. [The author elaborates further on that vision, something which has no relevance to our subject. Ed.]. The second important aspect of prostrating oneself during certain prayers is that through expressing one’s anguish and pain one is helped in making one’s repentance meaningful and this in turn ensures that G’d will listen favorably to our entreaties. We are told in Taanit 24 as well as in Baba Metzia 59 of incidents in which righteous people who experienced pain during their prayers had their prayers answered immediately, such as rain materializing out of nowhere, or that Rabbi Eliezer was prevented by his own wife from prostrating himself during prayer as his prayers were immediately answered by G’d when he fell on his face. In some instances such prayers involved considerable economic harm to the community the petitioner lived in. Once his wife made an error in the date of the month thinking it was New Moon (when one does not prostrate oneself in one’s prayers), and she did not therefore monitor him while he prayed. She was the sister of Rabbi Gamliel who had put Rabbi Eliezer in ban for his publicly disagreeing with the majority decision of the other sages. When his wife saw that Rabbi Eliezer prostrated himself in prayer she remonstrated with him saying that his prayers had already caused the death of her brother. While telling her husband that her brother Rabbi Gamliel had died, a long blast of the shofar emanated from the house of Rabbi Gamliel announcing the Rabbi’s death. Rabbi Eliezer wanted to know how it was that his wife had already known about this? She told him that whereas the gates of prayer had been shut since the destruction of the Temple, she had a tradition from her grandfather that prayer accompanied by tears on account of the petitioner feeling wronged was still able to penetrate the iron curtain between the Jewish people and G’d and that her husband’s tearful prayer complaining about the decree making him an outcast had had this effect. As a result Rabbi Gamliel who had confirmed that decision had died. The third element in “falling on one’s face” during prayers of entreaties is the utter denial of self, surrendering oneself to the mercy of G’d at the expense of what we usually call one’s own personality, one’s ego. A person becomes so engrossed in his prayer that he closes his eyes, is blind to his surroundings and totally oblivious of any danger that might face him while he was so indifferent to his physical surroundings. Such a person acknowledges at such a time that he is completely unable to chart a course unless he receives guidance from G’d. This is described in Jeremiah 10,23 as כי לא לאדם דרכו, “I know, O Lord it is not up to man to choose his road, that man as he walks cannot direct his own steps.” The Gentiles symbolize such feelings when they pray by arranging their hands in a posture of entreaty vis-a vis G’d, although they themselves cannot explain to you whence they took this custom. The real reason is that it is an expression of the denial of self and the petitioner’s personal aspirations. By folding his hands in the manner described, the petitioner shows G’d that he is willing to leave to Him that which he normally tries to accomplish with his own hands. He signals to G’d that his hands are as if shackled, unable to perform their assigned tasks. Seeing that placing one’s feet in a parallel position close to each other expresses the same thought even more forcefully, our Rabbis decreed that we do with our feet what the Christians do with their hands. Ravi Hai Gaon has said that when prostrating oneself during prayer one should do so with his face on his left side signaling that he is willing to submit to the attribute of Justice which is perceived as being on the left side of G’d. This is an allusion to the “hand” of G’d which orchestrated the liberation of the Jewish people on Passover. When Moses commenced his prayer on this occasion with the words אל, אלו-הי הרוחות, “O G’d, G’d of the spirit of all flesh, etc.,” he referred to G’d’s power to destroy a multitude instantly. He implied that seeing that G’d’ is familiar with the individual spirit of each individual there was no need for Him to apply collective punishment seeing He was well aware of who was guilty and who was not, as distinct from human rulers who do not possess such knowledge about what goes on in the hearts of their subjects. האיש אחד יחטא, “because of one man who sins,” i.e. because of Korach and his group whom he seduced into sin so that eventually all the people became confrontational against Moses and Aaron, ועל כל העדה תקצוף, “against the whole assembly You will vent Your anger?” Moses meant that Korach and his rebels had seduced the people into sin, a sin which was really of their making. This prayer which Moses and Aaron offered while they had prostrated themselves, was a short prayer, similar to the one he offered when he prayed for Miriam to be cured in Numbers 12,13. On that occasion he had described his Creator, praising Him as אל, also using entreaty as evident by the word נא, whereas here he was a little more long-winded in heaping praise on his Creator by referring to His attribute as אלו-הי הרוחות לכל בשר. Our sages have taught us, using Moses’ prayers as models, that one must always introduce one’s entreaty with expressions praising the attributes of Hashem before speaking of one’s own concerns, requests (Berachot 32). This is why in our עמידה prayer the principal prayer in which we voice our requests, the first three benedictions are devoted to reciting G’d’s praises and mighty deeds. Only after that do we approach G’d with our collective and individual concerns and requests. I believe that the word הרוחות in Moses’ prayer here refers to the angels, i.e. G’d, Who is the G’d of the angels who are composed exclusively of רוחות, spirits, not flesh. The same G’d, according to Moses, is also the G’d of all flesh. The reason Moses phrased it thus was to say that He is the G’d in the celestial regions as well as in the terrestrial part of His universe. I also believe that the expression אלו-הי הרוחות used by Moses here as an attribute for G’d is similar to Avraham referring to G’d as אלו-הי השמים והארץ, “G’d of the heaven and G’d of the earth” (Genesis 24,3). In Moses’ instance there is the additional allusion to G’d governing all four directions on earth. We also find this elsewhere though it is expressed as אני ה' בקרב הארץ “I am the Lord in the midst of the (whole) globe” (Exodus 8,18). G’d is similar to a king who, though resident in the center of the country, exercises his dominion over the far corners of his country. Seeing that the patriarchs described G’d’s kingdom as extending “vertically,” starting from heaven above and including earth below, Moses preferred to describe His dominion as extending “horizontally,” i.e. in all directions, East to West and North to South. In this manner he completed the praise of G’d seeing that now G’d had been acknowledged as extending His supervisory powers to all six extremities of the universe.

א-לוהי הרוחות, You are conversant with all spirits and hearts, knowing which of the people did not have a share in this sin.

And Hashem spoke to Moses, saying:

And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the congregation, saying: Get away from around the dwelling of Korah. Never did it enter My mind to punish the entire congregation. On the contrary, I know that they were not persuaded by Korah. And what I said, Separate yourselves from the midst of this congregation, I was referring to all of Israel, that they should separate themselves from the congregation of Korah. And the proof for this is from what was first said, And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying. What does saying mean? To whom should they say this? Rather, God wanted them to tell all of Israel to separate themselves. And Moses did not understand the words of the Holy One, blessed be He, because the word saying can be the Torah’s statement referring to what would be in the end. But further on it says, Rise up from the midst of the congregation, etc. For there it says, When the congregation gathered against Moses, etc. Because there they truly gathered against them, therefore He said to Moses and Aaron, Rise up — a language of elevation appropriate for Moses and Aaron according to their level. But here He said “Separate yourselves,” for He was saying this to all of Israel, as the language of elevation is not appropriate for the entire congregation, as mentioned. And Moses did not understand this from the difference in language, because he had not yet heard the statement Rise up. And proof for our words that rise up is not a language of separation is that it says afterward, and go quickly to the congregation — which implies that they were not among them. So what does rise up mean? Rather, it is a language of elevation, because all of them went down to Sheol, but for you the greatness and elevation will remain, for you will become a mighty people in order to fulfill the oath. And Ramban wrote something close to this interpretation in the name of Rabbi Chananel, and from there you can see what I have added of my own to his words, for with them many questions are resolved.

Speak to the congregation, saying: Withdraw from all around the dwelling of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.

העלו GET YOU UP [FROM ABOUT THE DWELLING OF KORAH] — Understand this as the Targum does: withdraw from the vicinity of Korah’s dwelling.

"The dwelling of Korah." The most correct view in my opinion is that Korah had a tent for himself, for his household, and for his property, at a distance from the camp of the Levites, and alongside his tent were the tents of Dathan and Abiram — for none but the Levites alone would encamp around the Tabernacle. From this verse we learn that the standard-bearer camped near the Levite camp.

דבר אל העדה לאמר העלו מסביב, G'd now spelled out what he had meant when he said הבדלו in verse 21. He had meant that the people should only put distance between themselves and the supporters of Korach.

דבר אל העדה לאמור, "speak to the congregation to say, etc." It appears unusual that G'd uses the relatively harsh דבר when the thrust of the message is to save the people from death. He did so in order to demonstrate that He minded terribly that there were Jews who were so careless with their lives that they risked it by not removing themselves from immediate danger. This is why G'd not only employed the tough דבר, but repeated the word לאמור in verse 25 to ensure that the message would get across to the people. G'd demonstrated how important it was to Him that this precious people not be diminished in numbers. The repetition of the word לאמור may mean that the exact wording of G'd's message was left to Moses. If he did not want to phrase it so harshly he was at liberty to do so. As long as the result of the way Moses relayed G'd's message was העלו that the people would remove themselves from around the tents of these rebels this was all that mattered. In fact, Moses did make some changes when he did not mention Korach by name but referred only to "these wicked people (verse 26)."

העלו מסביב למשכן קרח, דתן ואבירם, “get yourselves up from around the dwelling of no one, and Datan and Aviram respectively!” Actually, the Torah should have included in its call for the people to remove their presence from the vicinity of Korach, On, son of Peles, seeing he had figured by name as one of the instigators of the rebellion in verse one of our chapter. Our sages view the failure of the Torah to mention On at this point as proof that he had withdrawn from the rebellion and had done תשובה, had repented his former part in it. Tanchuma Korach 10 claims that On had been saved by his wife who had said to him: “what difference does it make to you personally if Moses is High Priest or whether Aaron is High Priest seeing that in either event you will only be the student, i.e. subordinate to either of them? Concerning the wife of On (and others like her) Solomon said in Proverbs 14,1: “the wisest of women builds her house, i.e. the wife of On, whereas “folly tears it down with its own hands,” a reference to the wife of Korach who had inflamed his ego when she first belittled the halachah about a blue woolen talit requiring tzitziyot. She became the immediate cause of the rebellion and the death of hundreds (compare Proverbs 7,26).

And Moses arose and went to Dathan and Abiram, and the elders of Israel went after him.

ויקם משה AND MOSES ROSE UP [AND WENT UNTO DATHAN AND ABIRAM] — He still believed that they would show respect to him (defer to him if he personally appealed to them), but they did not do so, (and therefore he then addressed himself to all the congregation — cf. next verse) (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 8).

"The elders of Israel" — the most correct view in my opinion is that these are the seventy chosen elders.

ויקם משה וילך אל דתן ואבירם, Moses rose up and went to Datan and Aviram, etc." Why did the Torah have to write ויקם that Moses rose up? If the Torah only wanted us to know that Moses had been sitting down before, why is this piece of information important to us 3000 years later? We may have to understand this in light of Proverbs 16,18 לפני שבר גאון, that "pride goes before ruin," and Proverbs 16,33 ולפני כבוד ענוה, "whereas humility precedes honour." Our sages in Shemot Rabbah 45,5 explain what David meant in Psalms 113,5 המגביהי לשבת. "When others deride me, G'd elevates me, whereas when I elevate myself G'd puts me in my place." Similarly in our verse. As soon as Moses had decided to waive his dignity and to go and appeal to Datan and Abiram, "he arose," i.e. he was elevated in the eyes of G'd. This is also the meaning of the verses we have quoted from Proverbs.

וילכו אחריו זקני ישראל, “the elders of the people of Israel followed Moses.” The reference is to the 70 elders, appointed in Numbers 11,25.

וילך אל דתן ואבירם, hoping against hope that they might repent.

And he spoke to the congregation, saying: Move away now from beside the tents of these wicked men, and do not touch anything that belongs to them, lest you be struck down in all their sins.

[DEPART, I PRAY YOU, FROM THE TENTS OF THESE WICKED MEN], AND TOUCH NOTHING OF THEIRS, LEST YE BE SWEPT AWAY IN ALL THEIR SINS. The correct order [in meaning] of this verse is as follows: “Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men, lest ye be swept away in all their sins and touch nothing of theirs.” The meaning [therefore] is that if they do not depart from there, they will be swallowed up by the mouth of the earth, and he furthermore warned them that they should not touch [their property] and try to save any of their wealth by taking it for themselves, for it is a doomed thing. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that [the verse is to be interpreted as it reads, and it is saying] that if they attempt to save their wealth, they will go down into the pit like them [Korach and his company]. And if so, the meaning of this will be like that of the verse, And his [Lot’s] wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt, as I have mentioned there in explaining the meaning of it.

"Touch nothing that belongs to them" — for if they came to rescue their possessions, they would go down alive to Sheol just as [Korah's people] did. "In all their sins" — on account of the great number of their sins.

פן תספו, for you will not deserve being saved if you will remain in their physical proximity at the time they will be punished.

וידבר אל העדה לאמור, He spoke to the congregation, saying, etc. The word לאמור means here that Moses told the people that he had been instructed by G'd to tell them what he was about to say. סורו נא מעל אהלי האנשים הרשעים האלה, "please depart from the tents of these wicked men." Moses was very astute in requesting from the people that by their departure from the tents of Korach they should indicate that they considered these men as wicked and about to perish. They should be afraid lest the evil that would overtake these men would also overtake them. If that would be the motivation behind their removing their presence from the tents of Korach G'd would interpret this positively and save them also from coming to harm. Even though G'd had already indicated that it was sufficient to merely remove oneself from Korach's tent, the righteous, such as Moses, are always concerned with helping their contemporaries to acquire additional merits.

בכל חטאתם, “in all their sins.” A better translation would be: “on account of their many sins.”

ואל תגעו בכל אשר להם “and do not touch any of their belongings!” G’d meant that if anyone sought to save the money that the rebels would forfeit for themselves they would share the fate of Korach, Datan and Aviram. When the Torah describes Datan and Aviram as keeping an arrogant upright posture in front of their respective tents when Moses and the elders approached them, the sages of the Midrash understand this as a euphemism for insults hurled at Moses by these two individuals (Tanchuma Korach 3). They base this on the similarity of expressions used by Samuel I 17,4 describing Goliath’s haughty and insulting posture and the language used here. We know that Goliath was insulting vis-a-vis G’d and that David only agreed to fight him in order to teach him not to defy the G’d of Israel (Samuel I 17,45). Moses said that the proof that the death of these people would be because of their defiance of G’d and their curses would be the extraordinary way in which they would die.

ואל תגעו בכל אשר להם פן תספו בכל חטאתם, “and do not even touch any of their belongings lest you will also perish on account of their sin.” The plain meaning of the verse is that the Israelites are to distance themselves sufficiently far from the guilty people to escape the gaping hole in the earth that would swallow Korach and company, and to on no account try and grab some of their belongings as loot which the sinners had forfeited. All their belongings were totally taboo, חרם as of that moment. Ibn Ezra writes that the words פן תספו refer back to not touching any of these men in order to save them, as instead of saving them they too would become victims.

And they withdrew from around the dwelling of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, from every side; and Dathan and Abiram went out and stood at the entrance of their tents, with their wives and their sons and their little ones.

יצאו נצבים [AND DATHAN AND ABIRAM] CAME OUT, STATIONING THEMSELVES [AT THE ENTRANCE OF THEIR TENT] — The word נצבים suggests that they stood with erect stature in a challenging attitude, ready to revile and to curse. The phrase is similar in meaning to (I Samuel 17:16) “And he stationed himself (ויתיצב) there for forty days”, which occurs in the story of Goliath (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 3). ונשיהם ובניהם וטפם AND THEIR WIVES, AND THEIR SONS, AND THEIR LITTLE ONES — Come and see how grievous a sin dissension is: for an earthly tribunal (more lit., a tribunal of here below) does not punish a person before he shows signs of puberty, the heavenly tribunal (more lit., the tribunal of above) not even before he is twenty years old, while here even the sucklings perished (Midrash Tanchuma, Korach 3).

"And their sons" — the adults. "And their little ones" — young boys and girls.

ויעלו מעל קרח ודתן ואבירם, They lifted themselves up from the residence of Korach, etc. The effrontery of Datan and Aviram in continuing to maintain a defiant posture though they had already been abandoned by their fellow travelers who had withdrawn in fear of being punished together with them, made a suitable impression on Moses so that he announced that the people would witness Divine intervention by the manner in which these people were going to die. This was to prove that he had not appointed himself as their leader but that G'd had appointed him at the time. The words את כל המעשים האלה mean that everything Moses had done including insignificant appearing things were all carried out at G'd's instruction. He now said that not only would these people die immediately but they would die a particularly gruesome death.

And Moses said: By this you shall know that Hashem has sent me to do all these deeds, for it is not of my own will.

לעשות את כל המעשים האלה [HEREBY YE SHALL KNOW THAT THE LORD HATH SENT ME] TO DO ALL THESE THINGS — i.e. that I have acted by the Divine Command in giving Aaron the High Priesthood, and in making his sons second in rank in the priesthood and Elzaphan prince of the Kohathites.

"To do all these deeds" — to replace the firstborn with the Levites. Know that this was a great matter, and infuriating to one who did not believe it — to remove the firstborn from their priestly function and restore the distinction to Moses' family alone. All this came about because of the sin of the Golden Calf: for it is written "they offered burnt-offerings and presented peace-offerings" — it was the firstborn who brought them up, since they alone were the priests at that time; and the sons of Levi slew those who worshipped the calf. There is a question on this matter and its answer is in the portion of "And Moses went" (Vayelech).

בזאת תדעון, "Hereby you shall know, etc." Why did Moses think that after all that had occurred during the preceding two years that the Israelites still did not believe that he was a true prophet? Furthermore, why did he have to repeat כי לא מלבי, "that I did not do all these things arbitraily?" The people did not actually accuse Moses of having acted on his own when he appointed Aaron as High Priest, etc. However, they thought that Moses had exploited his good standing in the eyes of G'd to persuade G'd to agree with his personal choices for these positions. Alternatively, the people had thought that Moses had desired for these particular appointments to be made and G'd had read his mind and indulged him by telling him to make these appointments. The people had not disagreed that Aaron was unworthy to be the High Priest. Moses therefore countered that what was about to occur would be proof that he had not even initiated any of these decisions but that all of them had originated with G'd. As to the people's suspicion that in his heart Moses had wished for these people to be appointed to the positions they had been appointed to at the command of G'd, he said כי לא מלבי, "the thought had never occurred to me." The word כי here indicates that Moses felt he did not need to prove that he had acted on his own. All he had to prove was that he had not even entertained any thought of appointing close relatives to high positions such as the position of being High Priest. אם כמות כל האדם, "If, in a manner similar to the death of anyone else, etc." In this instance the term האדם is one that includes Gentiles. We have a parallel for this in Baba Kama 38 where the Talmud explained that the word האדם in Leviticus 18,3 includes Gentiles. So far Moses referred to the actual death. The words ופקדת כל האדם refer to their burial. We have an example of that meaning of the word פקדה in Kings II 9,34 where the burial of Queen Izzevel is described. The words לא ה׳ שלחני mean that if Moses' prediction will fail to materialise this would be proof that G'd had not appointed him but that he himself had originated all he had done though G'd had not hindered him. The words ואם בריאה introduce what is going to happen, i.e. that body and soul will perish simultaneously.

לעשות את כל המעשים האלה, “to perform all these works.” I have tested them by the manner in which they related to the incense, as I have said, when I gave you a chance to compete against Aaron, each of you with his own censer. An alternate interpretation: to show if the priests could be exchanged for the Levites. (Ibn Ezra)

בזאת תדעון כי ה' שלחני לעשות את כל המעשים האלה, “By this you shall know that it was the Lord who sent me to do all these things.” He referred to the exchanging of the functions formerly performed by the firstborn to be performed by the Levites. The firstborn had disqualified themselves from acting as priests as they had participated in the sin of the golden calf as described in Exodus 32,6: “they offered burnt-offerings and meat-offerings (in honour of the golden calf),” as opposed to the Levites who had remained loyal to G’d and had acted as executioners of the people publicly worshipping the golden calf (Exodus 30,28). The Levites were sanctified in place of the firstborn and chosen to perform sacrificial services. Anyone who did not believe in the selection of the Levites to replace the firstborn indicated thereby that the guilt of the golden calf episode had not yet been expunged and that the people who now challenged Moses and Aaron did not consider these parts of the written Torah as authentic.

כי לא מלבי, the idea to assign the offering of incense to them did not originate with me.

If these men die as all men die, and the fate that befalls all men befalls them, then Hashem has not sent me.

לא ה' שלחני [IF THESE MEN DIE THE COMMON DEATH OF ALL MEN] … THEN THE LORD HATH NOT SENT ME. but I have done everything of my own accord and he (Korah) is therefore right in rebelling against me.

IF THESE MEN DIE THE COMMON DEATH OF ALL MEN. Now many of the people had said to Moses many times, Why hast thou brought us up out of Egypt? [and yet Moses did not ask for them to be especially punished]. But these people deserved punishment more than all other [previous sinners] because they said that thou wouldst make thyself altogether a prince over us. Thus they committed two evils: they trampled upon the honor due to a teacher, and they denied all the deeds of G-d which He did in Egypt and the wilderness, and even at the Revelation on Mount Sinai, where it is said and they will believe in thee [Moses] forever, by saying that Moses was not worthy to rule over them, and that nothing but evil had befallen them through him. Therefore it is said, and Moses was very wroth. Also Korach said, wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the assembly of the Eternal? Therefore his tent was swallowed up by the earth together with them. This was the intention of Moses’ words [when he said: if these men die the common death of all men] then the Eternal hath not ‘sent’ me, meaning that He has not sent me at all to take the people out of Egypt, the expression being similar to: which the Eternal ‘sent’ him [Moses] to do in the land of Egypt; and this shall be the token unto thee, that I have ‘sent’ thee. Similarly, [And Moses said]: “Hereby, ye shall know that the Eternal hath ‘sent’ me to do all these works” means the deeds which you have seen with your [own] eyes, and refers to all that he had done from the day G-d told him, Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh; for the beginning of a prophet’s activity is called sh’lichuth (being sent, a commission), similar to the expressions: Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?; And I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. And the meaning of the expression all these works is not, as the commentators have said, the appointment of the Levites instead of the firstborn, and [the appointment of] Aaron to the priesthood, but it refers to the totality of the activities which Moses wrought in the sight of all Israel, as I have explained.

אם כמות כל האדם ימותו אלה, “if these people die like any other human being, etc.” Our sages (Tanchuma Korach 8) illustrate this by a parable. The bridal attendants of the king’s daughter who held proof of that daughter’s virginity at her wedding in their hands were challenged by one of the wedding guests who claimed that the evidence they claimed to possess was forged. Thereupon these bridal attendants demanded from the king that he personally confirm that what they held in their hands was proof of his daughter’s virginity, and that if the king would refuse to do so they themselves would have to conclude that the accusation was true and that they had been furnished with forged evidence. The king responded by saying that it was better to execute the guest than to have the loyal attendants spread lies about the chastity his daughter. This is what motivated Moses to demand such an unusual penalty for Korach and his fellow-rebels. He argued that if these rebels were allowed to die in bed like most mortals, and the physicians would check on them prior to their deaths as they do with most sick people, then he Moses, would also deny that he had ever been appointed by G’d to lead the Jewish people and that he had arrogated all this authority to himself without divine appointment. Korach would then be considered as having a valid complaint. We have a similar incident in Jewish history which is described in Kings I 22,28 where Michaya (the true prophet) said to Tzekekiah (the false prophet): “if you ever come home safe, then I will also admit that the Lord has not spoken to me.” Something similar occurred at Mount Carmel (Kings I 18,36-37) when the prophet Elijah proclaimed: “let it be known today that You are the G’d in Israel and that I am Your servant, and that I have done all these things at Your bidding. Answer me, O Lord, answer me, that this people may know that You, O Lord are G’d; for You have turned their hearts backward.” What Elijah meant with this postscript was ”if You do not respond to my request I myself will say that You have turned their hearts backward.” It is a well known fact that the quarrel initiated by Korach at that time has become the root cause for the neglect or worse of the entire Torah seeing that each individual nowadays reserves the right for himself to reject a part of the Torah as not being divinely decreed. The moment one begins to challenge even a minute part of the Torah as being “man-made,” the flood gates have been opened to reject Torah as a whole. Eventually, the challenger will declare that the entire Torah is man’s invention and that the lawgiver perpetrated a colossal fraud relying on the gullibility of his people. In order to head off such events in the future the punishment for Korach and his fellow rebels had to be especially severe. They had brought this upon themselves seeing that we have a principle that anyone who challenges the words of Moses is considered as having challenged the word of the Lord Himself (Sanhedrin 110). One may raise a very serious question in connection with this whole episode. Firstly, how can we explain that Moses, the loyal shepherd of the people, who had repeatedly interceded on their behalf when the people had sinned, such as at the golden calf, the spies, etc., in this instance instead of interceding on their behalf actually demanded an extreme penalty for the instigators? Why did he not spend his energy instead to get these people to repent their error? After all, there is no sin so severe that it cannot be expiated through sincere repentance by the sinner! Even people whose sin was inspired by a rebellious attitude and a desire to affront G’d deliberately is subject to such repentance as we do not fail to mention on Yom Kippur! If these people had entertained serious doubts about Moses’ claim to be only the spokesman of G’d-given instructions and that he had distributed positions of influence based on his personal choices, Moses could have called for some miracle by G’d which would have confirmed that what he had claimed was divinely inspired and approved and this would have made the doubters repent their error! Furthermore, granted that the people who had challenged Moses’ authority had brought such a punishment upon themselves, why would their children, their babies, be mentioned as part of their sin (verse 27)? Surely any minor children of Datan and Aviram could not be held responsible for their parents’ action? Surely G’d who is righteous would not punish the innocent! If we were to address what is written in this paragraph only based on the plain text, i.e. the פשט, the question raised would be very difficult indeed. In order to do justice to these verses we must fall back on a kabbalistic approach involving the doctrine of transmigration of souls, סוד הגלגול. Let me acquaint you with several verses in the Torah where the subject is alluded to. In Genesis 11,4 the Torah reports the people of the generation of the tower as saying: הבה נבנה לנו עיר ומגדל וראשו בשמים ונעשה לנו שם, “now then let us build a city and a tower whose top will be in the heaven so that we will make a name for ourselves.” Concerning that generation G’d is on record in Genesis 11,6 as: “and this is what they have begun to do!” As a result, we read that G’d scattered these people all over the earth and confused their language. In Genesis 19,4 the Torah, speaking of the people of Sodom, writes: “and the men of the city, the men of Sodom surrounded the house;” the Torah found it necessary to explain that the people previously referred to as “the people of the city” were in fact identical with the people of Sodom! Later the Torah continues describing that Lot’s guests, the angels smote these men with a temporary kind of blindness (Genesis 19,11). Here in connection with the assembly of rebels who had joined Korach, the Torah writes: ויקומו לפני משה,”they arose (in a confrontational posture) before Moses.” the Torah should have written על משה, “against Moses,” instead of לפני משה, “in front of” or “in the presence of Moses.” However the Torah clearly wanted us to realize that this occurred “before (the generation of) Moses," i.e. historically long before Moses. The people referred to there were the same as the אנשי שם men who had made a name for themselves,” (16,3) because they were reincarnates of the people who had made a name for themselves when they began to build the city and the tower hundreds of years ago during the 10th generation after the deluge. They were the reincarnates of the people referred to in connection with the men of Sodom as אנשי העיר, the people who had planned the city and tower already at that time [maybe 80 years later than the report of what happened in Genesis chapter 11. Ed]. When Onkelos translated the opening words of our paragraph ויקח קרח as ואתפליג, he hinted at the connection between Korach and the generation known a דור הפלגה, the generation when G’d destroyed the unity of mankind by mixing up their languages and scattering them all over the globe. We must understand what happened in terms of a parable. A father had a son who became a delinquent when he grew up. At first the father contented himself with reprimanding his son. When the son persisted in his errant behavior the father punished him physically. When this did not help either the father gave up on the son and rejected him absolutely. When the people described as “making a name for themselves” displayed rebellious tendencies for the first time, G’d scattered them all over the earth (as a warning Genesis 11,8). When a group of reincarnates conducted themselves in similar amoral fashion in Sodom, G’d struck them with blindness as a further warning before giving them a third opportunity to mend their ways in different bodies. When, during the generation of Moses, these people repeated their gross disobedience to G’d a third time, G’d gave up on them, destroyed them so that they would not again be reincarnated in order to expiate sins committed in a former life on earth. Now when the punishment is first referred to and Datan and Aviram defiantly say that even if Moses would deprive them of their eyesight (as had happened to the people of Sodom) they would not alter their opposition to him, we find another allusion to the fact that history repeated itself here and that what Moses faced now had already happened “before Moses.” Although, basically, G’d performs deeds of loving kindness with the children of the pious, the ones who love Him, (Exodus 20,6) they no longer qualified for the benefits that accrue from that attribute of G’d. Concerning the mystical dimension of this whole subject of reincarnation, Solomon says (Kohelet 4,9 and 4,12 respectively) “two are better than one;” he continues a little later: “and the threefold thread is not easily broken.” What he means is that here are occasions when even a threefold thread tears asunder, i.e. the example we just described. However, this is a rare occurrence and that is why Solomon mentions it as a remote possibility. We find these thoughts expressed clearly in the Sefer Habahir (item 121-122), (the question being what is meant in Psalms 146,10 ימלוך ה' אלו-היך ציון לדור ודור), whereas in Chronicles I 11,1 Zion is described as ציון עיר דוד, as if the city belongs exclusively to David (who lived only for one generation). Rabbi Akiva said that when Kohelet writes: דור הולך ודור בא, the meaning is [not the generally accepted one that a generation appears on the stage of history only to be replaced by the next generation, Ed.] “a generation follows a generation which has already left the stage of history, i.e. “it reappears on the stage of history.” We can describe this in terms of a parable of a king who had many servants and who outfitted them in all kinds of exotic uniforms in accordance with his means. When the servants were found soiling their uniforms the king stripped them of these fancy uniforms and dismissed them. The king then laundered all these uniforms carefully until no trace of their stains and dirt remained. He hung them up for storage; in the meantime the king acquired other servants whom he provided with the uniforms previously worn by the first set of servants who had not displayed much care about their outfits. At that time the king did not yet know if the new servants would prove worthier of their uniforms than the ones he had dismissed. Nonetheless, these new servants were recipients of uniforms which had been worn before them. Thus far the comment in the Sefer Habahir. Now you can understand our verse here very easily and the question of why Moses did not engage in prayer on behalf of these people becomes pointless. Also the question of why G’d included the children of the sinners in our paragraph disappears. [There is a limit to the opportunities granted to people in the form of reincarnation. This limit is reached with the third transmigration. If at that time the soul does not make use of its body to rehabilitate itself for sins committed in its previous appearance on earth, it is not entitled to another life, i.e. to biological offspring. Ed.]. Perhaps this is what our sages in Midrash Tehillim 46 had in mind when they commented on psalm 46,1 למנצח לבני קרח על עלמות שיר, “a psalm for the sons of Korach on the mysteries of song.” The Midrash understands the opening words as the sons of Korach singing a hymn to G’d although they did not understand the workings of the Lord in order to appreciate it. In other words, עלמות שיר, “although the workings of G’d in history are sometimes obscure, beyond our ability to fathom, He deserves to be praised for what He does.” [The word עלמות is understood by the author of the Midrash as meaning “something hidden,” נעלם]. We have another Midrash in Tanchuma Korach 3 which draws our attention to the extraordinary seriousness with which G’d viewed this quarrel. Whereas normally, culpability for sins commences with the age of 13 for sins judged by a human tribunal and does not commence before the sinner is twenty years of age for sins subject to be judged by a celestial tribune, in this instance G’d “punished” even the infants suckling on their mothers’ breasts by wiping out the entire families of the sinners. This is the meaning of Numbers 16,32: “the earth swallowed them, their houses, and every person belonging to Korach as well as all his tangible property. All of them descended to sheol.” The word אותם in our verse refers to Datan and Aviram mentioned previously in verse 26 as well as their wives and children who all had assumed a defiant posture, adults and children alike.

“If these men die the death of all mankind, etc.” In tractate Nedarim (39b), Resh Lakish said: There is a hint to visiting the sick from the Torah, as it is said, If these men die the death of all mankind, etc. — that is, they are sick and lying on their beds, and people come to visit them — then the Lord has not sent me. Rashi explains that this relies on the end of the verse which says, and the visitation of all mankind be visited upon them; this visitation refers to visiting [the sick].Now, I have room to explain this visitation in another way, for there are two types of benefits in visiting [the sick]. The first is that they inquire after the needs of the sick person. The second is for the benefit of those who go there, because just as it is good to go to a house of mourning so that the living will take it to heart, so too it is good to go to the sick, because through this one will examine and search one’s deeds. For the hard-hearted who are far from righteousness will go there, those who have no fear of God before their eyes, and their uncircumcised heart is too dull to understand their end — that it is emptiness and their end is a place of worms. And this is [the meaning of] the visitation of all mankind — for the end is the visitation of all mankind that will be visited upon them. Visited in the sense of remembrance, meaning if the visitation of all mankind — that is, death — is remembered upon them, this will certainly be through people visiting them, and this merit will be extended to many through them, and they will not receive punishment according to their measure. Then, as they say, it is true that the Lord has not sent me. But if the Lord creates a new creation, etc. — that they do not die the way of all the world, then the visitation of all mankind will not be remembered through them, for we do not learn from novel situations, because it would not enter a person’s mind to die in such a strange manner. By this they will know that these men have despised the Lord and are not worthy that any merit should be extended through them to others. And the reason for such a death, according to what I wrote above that they denied the renewal of the world and its creation, Moses said: If creation — if truly there was a new creation during the six days of creation — then God will confirm my words and create something new in the earth now, and through it they will recognize and know that God makes new things. And why specifically this creation was created is according to what our Sages of blessed memory said (Avot 3:2): “If not for the fear of authority, people would swallow each other alive.” And they did not want any leader because they said, The entire congregation is holy and God is among them, so why do you raise yourselves above God’s assembly? (Numbers 16:3) According to their ignorant reasoning, a person would swallow his fellow alive, therefore they were punished according to their own measure — that they would descend to the pit alive. For even one who is negligent in eulogizing a worthy person, our Sages of blessed memory said (Shabbat 105b) that he deserves to be buried alive because it appears that he does not feel the absence of the complete person who had imposed his authority upon people. All the more so Korah’s assembly, who explicitly stated that they did not want anyone to be elevated as head. Therefore, Moses said that if they die on their beds and do not descend alive to the pit, then God did not send me to make all the appointments of authority and leadership of the people. However, if they descend alive to the pit, by this it will be known that they were [punished] according to their own trait, because God sent me to make all the appointments so that all this people, each person in his place, would come in peace. Therefore it is said, and they perished from among the assembly. Because God wanted all of Israel to be in one assembly and one union, and every congregation and gathering needs a leader so that one person does not swallow his fellow alive. But they did not want this, therefore they perished, because he [Korah] came to divide and separate between brothers through his dispute.

אם כמות כל אדם ימותון אלה, “if these die like the death of all other people, etc.” Nachmanides writes that there had been many people who on different occasions had expressed the wish to return to Egypt, expressing their dissatisfaction with Moses’ leadership, in particular his taking them into the desert. Why then should Korach and Datan and Aviram be singled out for a special kind of punishment? The sin of these men was twofold. First they had refused to meet Moses in dialogue and accused him of being high handed. In doing what they did they had denied everything that G’d had done for the Jewish people commencing with appointing Moses as their Saviour. They had also violated the specific commandment issued at Mount Sinai to have absolute faith in the person and mission of Moses, i.e. וגם בך יאמינו לעולם, (Exodus 19,9) The people, at this juncture, had demonstrated that they did not believe in Moses’ divine mission, not when he had come to take them out of Egypt, nor when he led them on the way to the Holy Land after the Egyptian pursuers had drowned in the sea. This is why Moses stressed in verse 28 that the key to their survival lay in their demonstrating that they did believe that all Moses had done he had done at the command of Hashem. The people had not only protested the exchange of the firstborns’ privileges in favour of the Levites, but they had staged a far more serious ideological rebellion, something known as כפירה בעיקר, a denial of basic tenets of Judaism. The swallowing of the 250 men by the earth was unlike any other earthquake where the fissures in the earth remain open, but here the earth swallowed the men and their belongings and closed again immediately leaving no trace of what had occurred.

לא ה' שלחני, but I had had taken it upon myself to appoint them as the ones with the monopoly to offer incense in the Tabernacle.

But if Hashem creates a new creation and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them and all that is theirs, and they go down alive into Sheol — then you shall know that these men have provoked anger before Hashem.

ואם בריאה BUT IF A CREATION — i.e. an entirely new one. יברא ה׳ THE LORD WILL CREATE, to slay them by a kind of death by which no man has hitherto died — and what is this new creation? ופצתה האדמה את פיה THAT THE EARTH OPEN WIDE HER MOUTH AND SWALLOW THEM, then וידעתם כי נאצו YE SHALL KNOW THAT THEY HAVE PROVOKED the Holy One, blessed be He, and that I have spoken only by authority of the Almighty. Our Rabbis, however, gave the following explanation: ואם בריאה, if there has been a creation, i.e., if there was already a mouth to the earth from the six days of Creation, well and good! but if not, יברא ה׳ the Lord will create one now (Sanhedrin 110a; Nedarim 39b).

BUT IF THE ETERNAL CREATE ‘B’RIAH.’ Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote: “Some scholars say that b’riah indicates producing something from nothing. But, [continues Ibn Ezra], many countries have already been rent [by earthquakes], and their inhabitants went down alive into the pit. Rather, the meaning of b’riah is ‘cutting off,’ from [the expression] ‘u’varei’ (and they shall cut) them” [thus meaning here: “if the Eternal will ‘cut them’ down by causing the ground to open up its mouth etc.”].The correct interpretation is that the term b’riah is [indeed] used [in the sense of] bringing forth something from nothing, for we have no other word in the Sacred Language denoting this concept [creatio ex nihilo] except for this one. The explanation of the matter is that splitting open the [crust of the] earth is [indeed] not a new creation, but that the ground should open up its mouth to swallow up [certain people] is a new event which had never occurred previously. For when the earth is split open, as happens many times during an earthquake which is called zalzalah, it remains open and the chasm becomes filled with water, like ponds; but that it should open up and close again immediately — like a person who opens his mouth to swallow and closes it after he has swallowed — this event was a new happening which occurred [only] on that day, as if it were created out of nothing. This is the meaning of the expression, and the earth closed upon them [that it closed up immediately after consuming them, and left no sign that it had opened]. It is for this reason that [when saying that] the ground did cleave asunder, Scripture says: And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up. And according to the opinion of our Rabbis [who say] that the opening of Gehenna came near to this spot — that phenomenon too, was a new event which occurred [only] at that moment.

"A creation" (בְּרִיאָה). Some say that this word indicates the bringing into existence of something that did not previously exist. I have already explained that the word derives only from the root of "and He cut them out" (וַיִּבְרָא אֹתָהֶן) — for many clefts have split open and their inhabitants descended into Sheol. Its meaning is thus like that of "a cutting" (גְּזֵרָה). "And the earth opens its mouth" — like "and opens" (וּפָתְחָה); similarly, "he opens his mouth" (יִפְצֶה פִּיו). I have already alluded to the reason why the human soul — which is supernal, intermediate, and capable of speech — addresses things higher than itself in the manner of its palace, which is the body, and also [addresses] things lower than itself; and the meaning is so that those who hear may understand.

וידעתם כי נאצו, for they do not deserve to even be buried together with the remainder of the people.

ואם בריאה יברא ה׳ ופצתה האדמה את פיה, "If G'd will create a new creation and the earth will open its mouth, etc." Why did the word בריאה have to be repeated? Our sages in Sanhedrin 37 explain that the earth's mouth has remained closed ever since the day that the earth opened it in order to hide the blood of Abel whom Cain had slain and that this was the curse the Torah referred to in Genesis 4,11. This meant that whenever the earth wanted to open its mouth in order to sing G'd's praises it had to use its "wings" rather than its mouth. This is the meaning of Isaiah 24,16: מכנף הארץ זמרות שמענו, "we have heard songs from the wings of the earth." In this instance when Moses wanted to punish the wicked he said: ואם בריאה יברא השם "if the Lord will create a new creation." [The author explains why Moses did not say ואם יברא הי בריאה. Ed.] He referred to a creation which had once existed, namely the mouth of the earth, but which had been sealed due to some deed the earth had carried out so that for practical purposes this creative act of G'd had been undone. Now Moses wanted the mouth of the earth to be opened again so that it could swallow Korach and associates. Perhaps this was Moses' way of affording the earth an opportunity to make up for a time when it had opened its mouth to hide a sin, i.e. to swallow the blood of a righteous person, i.e. Abel.

ואם בריאה יברא ה, “but if the Lord will create a new phenomenon, etc.;” these words do not refer to “earth,” seeing that since the first six days of creation, according to our sages (in Avot 5,6) no such new phenomenon had been created. Scripture itself is witness to this statement when the Torah wrote in Numbers 16,30 in our chapter that the earth, i.e. an existing phenomenon, would open earth, i.e. an its mouth. Furthermore the Torah had written already in connection with Kayin (Genesis 4,11) that the earth did open its mouth. This is clear proof that the “mouth” of the earth and its function already existed. What Moses meant was the following: if a new phenomenon which had never been observed until now, namely the descent of fully alive human beings into the bowels of the earth, will occur, this will be proof, etc.

ואם בריאה יברא ה', “But if the Lord will display a totally new phenomenon, etc.” The reason Moses used the term בריאה, which reminds us of the creation of the universe out of no pre-existing raw materials was that he wanted to emphasize that the miracle about to occur was equal in dimension to that which was required to bring the universe into existence. It appears that the Torah should really have written: ואם בריאה יברא אלו-הים, using the attribute of G’d which He employed when starting the creative process, instead of the attribute י-ה-ו-ה which Moses employed here. After all, Moses threatened that the attribute of Justice was poised to strike these people. It was this attribute which orchestrated the sinking into the earth of Korach and associates in verse 32. However, it was not Moses’ style to invoke the attribute of Justice against the people, even against rebels of the type of Korach and cohorts. The reason he never did so was that his entire prophetic mission was under the aegis of the attribute י-ה-ו-ה, the attribute of Mercy. This is why he had said earlier (verse 28) “through this you will know that Hashem has sent me.” He meant that the attribute זאת would inform the people that Moses’ mission was at the behest of Hashem. (compare our author on Genesis 49,28 and Exodus 6,3). The sin of these men had been extraordinary in its undermining the whole basis of Moses as G’d’s delegate and faithful communicator of G’d’s words at the people’s own request as we know from Deut. 5,22. In Exodus 34,10 G’d had already allowed for the possible demon-stration of miracles which parallel those performed at the outset of creation when He had said: “in the presence of the entire people I will perform wonderful deeds the likes of which have not been created anywhere on earth, etc.” Moses considered that the time had arrived for G’d to demonstrate such a miracle. This was a practical demonstration of the principle עת לעשות ה' הפרו תורתך, “at a time when something has to be done to demonstrate the power of the Lord, when they have breached Your Torah.” (Psalms 119,126). At this juncture it was not enough to orchestrate the punishment of these people through one of G’d’s agents, intermediaries such as angels, but He Himself had to be involved in that demonstration. The situation was similar to that prevailing prior to the slaying of the Egyptian firstborn by G’d Himself when the Torah had written (Exodus 12,23) “and י-ה-ו-ה, i.e. G’d’s essence will traverse the land of Egypt to smite Egypt, etc.” Our sages (Haggadah shel Pessach) interpreted these words to mean that no angel of whatever rank would orchestrate that plague but that G’d Himself, personally, would do this. Moses concluded his prediction here with the words: “then you will know that these men had provoked Hashem.” You will note that Moses employs the expression תדעון, וידעתם, “i.e. “definitive knowledge” both at the beginning and at the end of his prediction. He hinted that just as if the people had not been redeemed after the plague of the slaying of the firstborn that would have been a desecration of the Lord’s name, so non-occurrence of the phenomenon which Moses now predicted would also be a desecration of the Lord’s, name by him, Moses. (Compare what author wrote on Exodus 11,4).

(אם בריאה (חדשה) ה' בארץ), a reference to another example of a ”creative” act by G’d, as for instance the one described in Jeremiah 31,21. Moses speaks of the death of Korach, as opposed to that of Nadav and Avihu, being by means of a new act of creation.

And it came to pass, as he finished speaking all these words, that the earth beneath them split open.

ככלתו לדבר את כל הדברים, "when he finished saying all this," The earth timed its action at the precise moment when Moses completed what he had to say. As soon as Moses was finished it swallowed Korach, etc. ותבקע האדמה אשר תחתיהם, The earth which was underneath them split. Why did the Torah have to write both that the earth "split" and that it "opened its mouth?" Why did the Torah describe the earth as אדמה when describing that it split, and as ארץ when "it opened its mouth?" Perhaps the mouth of the earth had not previously been situated exactly where Korach and his associates stood at the time so that the earth's reaction had to be described as a crack in its surface; for practical purposes this now became the earth's mouth. The crack was described as a crack in the אדמה, the mouth as the mouth of the ארץ.

ותבקע האדמה אשר תחתיהם, ותפתח הארץ את פיה ותבלע אותם, “The ground which was beneath them split open and the earth opened its ‘mouth’ and swallowed them.” Nachmanides explains why the Torah had to mention both אדמה and ארץ as “opening” in this verse. Had the Torah only written that the ground split open, the phenomenon could have been considered as an ordinary earthquake, although Moses had predicted the time and the place. This is why the Torah added the words “the earth opened its mouth” to tell us that a great miracle, unparalleled, happened here. This is why the miracle had been predicted as a בריאה, a new creation. The place where this took place returned to its original appearance as distinct from an earthquake which leaves behind clear evidence that there had been an upheaval. ואת כל האדם אשר לקרח, “and every human being belonging to Korach.” This refers to the members of his household and all the rebels accepting his leadership. Korach’s sons were also “swallowed” by the earth but they did not die as a result; this is the meaning of Numbers 26,11: “and the sons of Korach did not die.” Our sages (Megillah 14) explain that a “fortified” place was reserved for them in purgatory where they stayed. [I suppose the meaning is a site safe from the fires of purgatory but inside it. Ed.] It is possible to explain the verse differently by understanding the words ואת כל האנשים, “and all the men,” as including only the people previously described in verse 30 as כי נאצו האנשים האלה את ה', “for these men had provoked Hashem.” The reason that the Torah called the people who were swallowed as אדם is because they were swallowed by the אדמה, i.e. they returned to the place they originally came from [as in “dust thou art and to dust thou shall return.” Ed.] ואת כל הרכוש, “and all the property.” The Torah informed us that not only the people but their belongings including their tents, their money, etc., were all swallowed up as part of this great act of retribution. Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 10,1 states that even a needle of theirs which had been temporarily in the possession of some other unrelated Israelite would be swept away down into the abyss into which these people disappeared. The reason the Torah writes the words אשר לקרח, “which belonged to Korach,” without specifying that Korach personally was also swallowed by the earth in so many words, is because there was no need for this. Seeing that the Torah had written that Datan and Aviram, and their families as well as Korach’s families and more distant followers had all been swallowed it is clear that he himself as the instigator of the whole rebellion did not escape such a fate. At any rate, even though Korach’s descent into the bowels of the earth is not spelled out, we find it spelled out in Numbers 26,10 where the Torah writes: “it swallowed them, together with Korach.” We find a parallel example when the Torah described the drowning of the Egyptian army in the sea of Reeds where the Torah writes (Exodus 15,4) “the chariots of Pharaoh together with his army were drowned in the sea,” although the Torah does not specifically mention that Pharaoh himself was also drowned at the same time. Nevertheless, David explains in Psalms 136,15: “He flung Pharaoh and his army into the sea of Reeds.” Our sages (Sanhedrin 106) believe that Korach was not only swallowed by the earth but that his body was also burned; seeing that he was the root cause of the sin he was afflicted with two penalties. They derive this from the words in 26,10: “it swallowed them as well as Korach when the assembly died as the fire consumed the 250 men.” This teaches first of all that Korach was swallowed; he was also consumed by the fire as the words באכול האש refer to Korach as the first one to be burned. The reason that the Torah did not spell out his name specifically as a victim of the fire is that simple logic teaches us that fact. All the people who offered incense were burned together with the incense in their censers. Clearly, there is no reason to believe that Korach would survive his attempt to offer this incense. The other two hundred and fifty men were punished on account of Korach; why would he escape such a penalty? Alternatively, we need simply view the extra word את before the expression החמישים איש as the clue that Korach was included as the word את always means something or someone additional, as we know from Pesachim 22.

And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and the people of their households, and all the people who belonged to Korah, and all the possessions.

AND ALL THE MEN THAT APPERTAINED UNTO KORACH. He [Korach] had acquired [heathen] slaves and bondmaids, and had as members of his household Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Canaanites — the purchase of his money — and these people were punished because they were part of their goods [i.e., those of Korach’s men], for they were punished both personally and in their belongings. Perhaps there were also in Korach’s house Israelites as sojourners and residents, and they were influenced by his counsel and were therefore punished [with Korach]. But it [the phrase all the men that appertained unto Korach] cannot refer to his children, for it is written, But the children of Korach died not, because they were adults, righteous and good men, and their [own] merit stood in their stead [so that they were not swept away with their father]. He had no minor sons and daughters, since Scripture does not mention “little ones” in the case of Korach [as it does when referring to Dathan and Abiram].

"And their households" — this is a general term for their wives, their children, and their little ones. "And all the possessions" — of all of them.

ותפתח הארץ את פיה, the fissure in the surface of the earth became wide enough to extend all the way to their houses. כל האדם אשר לקרח, all the people who had made common cause with Korach in this rebellion. Seeing that this is the meaning of the these words, we need not be surprised to be told that Korach’s sons did not die, as they did not “belong” to their father spiritually or philosophically. ואת כל הרכוש, this was so that his righteous sons not be burdened with inheriting the ill gotten gains of their father. [the author quotes a Sifri on Ki Teytze item 283 in support of this. Ed.]

ואת כל האדם אשר לקרח “and any human being siding with Korach, etc.” the expression: כל האדם, is somewhat puzzling at this point. It cannot refer to adult members of Korach’s family, as these had repeatedly been referred to as איש; we must therefore assume that it refers to his wife and minor children as well as to his servants and entourage. The Torah states specifically that Korach’s sons (adults?) did not die; compare Numbers 26,11.

ואת כל האדם אשר לקרח, “and all the people who had joined Korach.” According to Nachmanides this included the servants and maids in Korach’s household who were bodily owned by him. Perhaps he had Jewish helpers in his household also, as well as some proselytes. They could have suffered the same fate as they supported him. It is not possible to understand the words “and every person belonging to him,” as referring to members of his immediate family, seeing that his grown up sons did not die, as the Torah has spelled out elsewhere. (Numbers 26,11) His younger children surely were included in the wordsותבלע אותם ואת בתיהם “it swallowed them and their households.” Or, he had no children that were minors, as the Torah would have mentioned them under the heading of טף.

And they went down, they and all that was theirs, alive into Sheol; and the earth covered over them, and they perished from the midst of the congregation.

AND THEY PERISHED FROM AMONG THE ASSEMBLY. The meaning thereof is that they [Korach and his associates] perished in their sight [that of the people], while they were standing amongst them in their midst, since the earth suddenly opened up its mouth and closed it upon them, and the place where they had been [standing] was not noticeable. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that the meaning of the expression is: [they were blotted out from among the assembly] because of the death of their children who would have been in their stead.

"And they went down" — the meaning: when they descended, the earth closed over them and they were no longer seen. "And it covered them" — the earth itself. "And they perished" — because their sons who would have stood in their place [also perished].

ותכס עליהם הארץ, the Torah emphasises that this phenomenon was unlike an earthquake in which the fissures in the earth do not close again to wipe out any traces of what had occurred. Here, the earth looked as if nothing had happened after Korach and his fellow travelers had disappeared.

וירדו…חיים שאולה, they descended into Sheol while still alive. The earth did not kill them but they remained alive so that the bowels of the earth became their Gehinom. The reason the Torah did not say חיים לשאול, but חיים שאולה is that although generally speaking when a word should have the letter ל at the beginning, the letter ה at the end of that word can substitute for the missing letter ל at the beginning, the Torah does not make such changes arbitrarily, without a reason. In this instance the Torah hinted by means of this construction that after Korach and associates descended they did not die but were given the ability to remain alive. This is what is meant by Sanhedrin 100 that G'd gives the wicked the ability to experience their punishment. If they were to die too soon they would not suffer the pain of G'd's retribution. If the Torah had written לשאול instead of שאולה, the meaning would have been that they died as soon as they arrived in Gehinom.

וירדו הם, “they descended, they;” the reason that these people, not Korach’s family or household members, but sympathisers, over and beyond the two hundred and fifty people mentioned at the beginning of this episode. descended into the bowels of the earth also. The word: הם is a limitation, excluding the two hundred and fifty men who had offered incense, seeing they had done so at the invitation of Moses. Although they had been totally wrong, their motivation was noble so that they died by being burned on the spot, but presumably were buried with honours, just as their censers were used as covers for the altar subsequently. (Numbers 17,3) The people who had not followed Moses’ advice, were the ones that descended into the bowels of the earth. [Actually, of Datan and Aviram the Torah reports that they were burned to death (and that they descended into the bowels of the earth. Deut. 11.6)

וירדו הם וכל אשר להם חיים שאולה, “They and all which belonged to them descended into Sheol while alive.” “Sheol” is the lowest recess of purgatory. There are a total of seven regions in purgatory [parallel to the seven regions or layers of heaven, Ed.]. The seven regions are named in Eiruvin 19, Sheol being the lowest. David also appears to describe it as such in Psalms 9,18. The reason that David uses the expression ישובו when referring to the wicked whom he wants consigned to that place instead of writing: וירדו, “let them descend,” is that the word ישובו is an allusion to the tortures experienced in that region, unending tortures, something final from which there is no recovery. The word ישובו suggests that although these souls have undergone searing fire, they will be subjected to such treatment again and again. I have seen a comment in Midrash Sidduro shel Olam that Sheol is the seventh layer, consisting partly of fire and partly of hail (ice). The wicked jump from the fire into the ice to cool off and from the ice into the fire to warm themselves, a continuous process. The angel supervising what goes on in purgatory keeps hounding them and prodding them just as a shepherd prods his flock from hill to hill to mountain. The Midrash bases itself on Psalms 49,15: “Sheeplike they head for Sheol, with death as their shepherd.” ויאבדו מתוך הקהל, “they were lost from amidst the congregation.” This is the source for the sages telling us that anyone who attacks the Torah and wants to undermine its principles has no share in the hereafter. This is the true meaning of the words: “from among the community.” Basically, the whole community of Israel has a share in the hereafter. These people who descended into the bowels of the earth thereby lost their claim to the hereafter. This is what our sages explained in Sanhedrin 109 that Rabbi Akiva interpreted the words ותכס עליהם הארץ to mean that they died in this world whereas the additional words ויאבדו מתוך הקהל refer to their losing their share in the hereafter. Normally, we would have expected the Torah to write: ויאבדו מתוך ישראל, “they were lost from Israel.” The expression: מתוך הקהל means that they lost their share in the hereafter. Do not raise the point that seeing these people had been punished so harshly already in this world, surely their share in the world to come would therefore be preserved for them! Did we not find that Achan ben Carmi who had also been punished severely in this world had been assured by Joshua that he would not forfeit his share in the hereafter? (Joshua 7,28) The men who associated with Korach were guilty of a far greater crime than had been Achan who had basically only been a thief (and who had confessed at the end). Nonetheless, although the people of this uprising had forfeited their share in the afterlife of the souls, they did not forfeit their entitlement to the resurrection of the bodies when the time comes (Sanhedrin 108 according to Rabbi Eliezer), based on Samuel I 2,6 ה' ממית ומחיה מוריד שאול ויעל, “The Lord kills and revives, consigns to Sheol and raises them even from there.”

ויאבדו מתוך הקהל, “they were lost from amongst the congregation.” This is a graphic description of how this spectacle affected the onlookers who saw these people one moment and when they looked again they had disappeared from sight within seconds. There was no visible trace of where they once had been. Ibn Ezra writes that the Torah selected the expression ויאבדו to illustrate that seeing that they did not leave any children behind them who would have replaced them, they could be considered as if “lost.” [I have not found this comment of Ibn Ezra in my editions. Ed.] Ibn Ezra adds that there are different opinions as to what happened to Korach himself. Some say that Korach himself was also swallowed up by the earth, what else could the meaning of the words ותבלע אותם be if afterwards the Torah adds: “not only they but all those who belonged to them?” Compare also Numbers 26,10, which is even more specific. Other commentators hold that Korach was burned to death, based on the second half of the same verse that speaks about the fire that consumed the two hundred and fifty men who presented their incense. Some of our most ancient sources believe that Korach was both burned and then his body was swallowed. Personally, (Ibn Ezra speaking) I believe the earth only opened beneath the feet of Datan and Aviram. Korach, at that time stood alongside Aaron and the 250 men offering their incense. Concerning the words ואת קרח “as well as Korach” in Numbers 26,10, these words do not belong with the word ותבלע, “it swallowed,” but belong to the words following, i.e. במות העדה, “when the congregation died.” The reason why the Torah does not mention Korach specifically in the same context as the people who were burned when offering the incense, is simply that once we had heard that the people making common cause with Korach had been burned, their instigator surely did not escape that fate?

And all Israel who were around them fled at their sound, for they said: Lest the earth swallow us as well.

נסו לקולם [AND ALL ISRAEL …] FLED AWAY AT THEIR VOICE — i.e. on account of the sound that broke out because of their being swallowed up.

"At their cry" — because of their cry.

נסו לקולם, “they fled when hearing their sounds”. This is a reference to the outcries of the people being swallowed by the earth. We know of a parallel in Jeremiah 49,21: מקול נפלם רעשה כל הארץ, “at the sound of their downfall the whole earth will shake.”

נסו לקולם, “they fled when they heard their sound.” This appears to mean that as Korach and companions descended into the bowels of the earth they called out in repentance: “Moses is true and his Torah is true,” as our sages reported Rabbi bar Chanah as hearing over a site reputedly the point where all of this took place (Baba Batra 74). According to the report of the Talmud, an Arab guide took Rabbi bar Chanah to a site at which thin smoke emerged from the earth on top of two small cracks in the surface of the earth. The Arab placed some wet wool on top of the site, ignited it, and told the Rabbi to listen carefully. When Rabbi bar Chanah put his ear to it he could hear the confession of Korach that Moses and his Torah are true whereas he and his crowd were liars. According to that Arab this phenomenon could be observed every thirty days. This was a demonstration of the justice meted out in purgatory, i.e. to make the guilty confess their erstwhile sins.

They fled at their voice: The text should have said “from their voice” rather than at their voice. Furthermore, where did they flee to, and how can one escape from the Divine? Our Sages said (Tanchuma Korach 11) that [once they were swallowed up] Korach and his assembly were continuously saying, “Moses is true and his Torah is true, and we were liars.” That voice began to bubble up immediately after they were swallowed up, and all Israel fled toward that voice coming from the place of swallowing to hear what they would say. They assumed that the swallowed people were confessing their sin and wanted to know what their main sin was, so they could guard themselves from it and not have this [fate] pass over them as well. This is the meaning of for they said, lest the earth swallow us up. Since they said “Moses is true and his Torah is true,” this implies that they had denied his Torah as well. Perhaps they tied this to the fact that they had heard I am and You shall have no other directly from God, and therefore God wanted all Israel to hear everything directly from Him. They claimed that what Moses told them beyond that was not legitimate, and there was no reason to give credence to his words which they had not heard themselves. In my opinion, this is the intent of Rashi’s explanation of for all the congregation are holy — not only you heard I am and You shall have no other. They meant that since the entire congregation heard these two commandments, if God had desired more commandments beyond these, why didn’t He let us hear them directly? But surely you are making everything up yourselves. And because they disputed the Torah, they confessed by saying “Moses is true and his Torah is true.”

נסו לקולם, when they cried out at the time when they fell into the bowels of the earth. Compare Jeremiah 49,21 לקול נפלם רעשה ארץ, “the earth itself shook when it heard the sound of their downfall.”

And fire went out from before Hashem and consumed the two hundred and fifty men who were offering the incense of spices.

The heh of "the two hundred and fifty" (הַחֲמִשִּׁים) draws itself and another [letter] along with it [in the grammatical construction]. Some say that Korah was among those swallowed, and the proof is: "and it swallowed them and Korah." Others say that he was burned, and the evidence is: "and Korah, at the death of the congregation, when the fire consumed." The Sages said that he was both burned and swallowed. In my opinion, the earth split only at the place of Dathan and Abiram, for this is all that is mentioned. Korah was standing with his fire-pan, together with Aaron and the chieftains of the congregation who were offering incense. The clause "and Korah" in that verse is not connected with "and it swallowed them" but rather with "at the death of the congregation." If someone objects and asks: why is Korah not mentioned among those burned? — the answer is that since the text already stated that his congregation, which came to support him, was burned, there is no need to mention Korah separately, for the matter is known by an argument from lesser to greater. It is comparable to "the chariots of Pharaoh and his host" — the Song [of the Sea] does not mention that Pharaoh drowned, yet in truth he did drown, as it is written "and He shook Pharaoh and his host." The reliable proof that Korah was among those burned [and not swallowed] is: "and let him not be like Korah and his congregation."

ואש יצאה מאת ה', “fire had come forth from the Lord, etc.” G’d matches the punishment to the crime. Seeing that Korach had demanded to be elevated to a position in life which he did not deserve he was punished by being relegated instead to a position below the earth. This corresponds to what our sages said on Numbers 21,20: ומבמות הגי, “and from the heights to the valley.” Here, in the matter of the fire described, this was also a demonstration of the principle of “measure for measure,” seeing the 250 men who were firstborn came to offer incense, i.e. a fire-offering on their fire-pans. Seeing that they aspired to a privilege which they had not earned this very fire became the instrument causing their death, i.e. their punishment. Concerning these people David said in Psalms 106,18: ”a fire blazed among their party, a flame that consumed the wicked.”