(א) וַיִּקַּ֣ח קֹ֔רַח בֶּן־יִצְהָ֥ר בֶּן־קְהָ֖ת בֶּן־לֵוִ֑י וְדָתָ֨ן וַאֲבִירָ֜ם בְּנֵ֧י אֱלִיאָ֛ב וְא֥וֹן בֶּן־פֶּ֖לֶת בְּנֵ֥י רְאוּבֵֽן׃ (ב) וַיָּקֻ֙מוּ֙ לִפְנֵ֣י מֹשֶׁ֔ה וַאֲנָשִׁ֥ים מִבְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל חֲמִשִּׁ֣ים וּמָאתָ֑יִם נְשִׂיאֵ֥י עֵדָ֛ה קְרִאֵ֥י מוֹעֵ֖ד אַנְשֵׁי־שֵֽׁם׃ (ג) וַיִּֽקָּהֲל֞וּ עַל־מֹשֶׁ֣ה וְעַֽל־אַהֲרֹ֗ן וַיֹּאמְר֣וּ אֲלֵהֶם֮ רַב־לָכֶם֒ כִּ֤י כׇל־הָֽעֵדָה֙ כֻּלָּ֣ם קְדֹשִׁ֔ים וּבְתוֹכָ֖ם יְהֹוָ֑ה וּמַדּ֥וּעַ תִּֽתְנַשְּׂא֖וּ עַל־קְהַ֥ל יְהֹוָֽה׃
(9) The sons of Eliab were Nemuel, and Dathan and Abiram. These are the same Dathan and Abiram, chosen in the assembly, who agitated against Moses and Aaron as part of Korah’s band when they agitated against God. (10) Whereupon the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up with Korah—when that band died, when the fire consumed the two hundred and fifty men—and they became an example. (11) The sons of Korah, however, did not die.
(16) There was envy of Moses in the camp, and of Aaron, the holy one of the Eternal. (17) The earth opened up and swallowed Dathan, closed over the party of Abiram. (18) A fire blazed among their party, a flame that consumed the wicked.
Where Did On Disappear to? by thetorah.com
Peleth in our verse may have been a scribal error for Pallu. Accordingly, the text should read: Dathan and Abiram Sons of Eliab, son of Pallu, son of Reuben. This would parallel nicely with the full description of Korach’s genealogy.
Rav says: On, son of Peleth, his wife saved him. She said to him: What is the difference to you? If this Master is the senior, you are the student. And if this Master is the senior, you are the student.
He said to her: What shall I do? I took counsel and I took an oath with them.
She said to him: I know that the entire assembly is holy, as it is written: “For all the assembly is holy” (Numbers 16:3).
She said to him: Sit, for I will save you. She gave him wine to drink and caused him to become drunk and laid him inside their tent. She sat at the entrance and exposed her hair. Anyone who came and saw her backed away.
In the meantime they were swallowed.
The unnamed wife of On ben Pelet is a politician to her fingertips. She can see that her husband is of lowly status and is never likely to amount to much. Whoever wins in the rebellion, he will never be an important part of the hierarchy. He isn’t much of a catch, one gets the feeling, but he is hers and she would rather he were alive than dead. Whether this is love or not is irrelevant, his fate would have repercussions on her status, she does not want to be the widow of a dissident – that would make her even more vulnerable than she is now.
So, in time honoured fashion, she gets him drunk. We think of Boaz and Ruth, of Noah and his daughters, of Yael and Sisera – when a woman wants to get a man pliant and to do her bidding it seems, the answer is to ply him with intoxicants. The drunken On ben Pelet is ushered into the tent to sleep it off. But this is still not enough to ensure he doesn’t rouse and put himself – and her – into danger. So she sits at the entrance with loosened hair – immodest, sexually charged, a terror to the scouts who may come to demand his presence. Like Rachel she uses her body to prevent anyone coming to search. And her husband slumbers on all unknowing.
Korah’s wife said to him: See what Moses is doing. He is the king, he appointed his brother High Priest, and he appointed his brother’s sons deputy priests. If teruma comes, he says: Let it be for the priest; if the first tithe comes, which you as Levites take, he says: Give one tenth to the priest. And furthermore, he shears your hair and waves you as if you are as insignificant as excrement (see Numbers 8:5–11), as though he set his sights on your hair.
Korah said to her: But didn’t he also do so? She said to him: Since it is all done for his own prominence, he also said metaphorically: “Let me die with the Philistines” (Judges 16:30).
She said to him: And furthermore, that which he said to you, to prepare sky-blue dye, if it enters your mind that using sky-blue dye is considered a mitzva, take out robes tentirely of sky-blue dye, and dress all the students of your academy thus!
This is that which is written: “The wisdom of women builds her house” (Proverbs 14:1); this is the wife of On, son of Peleth. And: “Folly plucks it down with her hands” (Proverbs 14:1); this is referring to the wife of Korah.
Given the obscurity of On Ben Pelet, it is remarkable, and surely a mark of the influence of feminism on current religious discourse, that this particular midrash about his unnamed wife appears in so many current internet Divrei Torah about this Parsha. The salutary influence of the wife of On ben Pelet as opposed to the malign influence of Korah’s wife is trumpeted all over the blogosphere as evidence of the life-or-death importance of choosing the right wife. Indeed, On Ben Pelet’s consort demonstrates laudable initiative, smarts, and insight all of which save her husband’s life.
Why is it, then, that this midrash leaves me with something of a sour, uncomfortable taste in my mouth?
Is it because the supposed excellence of the wife of On Ben Pelet seems to depend on her husband having absolutely no agency, personality, or capacity to learn? The midrash opens with the assertion that On Ben Pelet never repented for his part in the rebellion and thus played no role whatsoever in his own salvation. Geveret On Ben Pelet, as she is referred to in a Mercaz Harav blog, takes complete charge of his fate. An attentive reader cannot help but discern the irony in the appellation, Geveret On, given that one of the meanings of the word "און" is power or strength and that the title “Geveret” derives from the root גבר or man. In this midrash On Ben Pelet entirely lacks conventionally masculine "און," hence his wife’s ability and need to assume it herself. On’s rank powerlessness is reinforced by all of the details of their exchange in the midrash, beginning with Mrs. On’s opening statements to her husband in response to his having joined Korah’s uprising. “What difference is any of this going to make to you?” she asks him. “Either Moses will be the master or it’ll be Korah. Either way, you’ll be but a student.” The use of the terms “rav” and “talmid” transfer this whole power struggle to the context of a beit midrash, heaping on additional irony. Given the esteem accorded in the rabbinic tradition to the relationship of student and teacher, and the importance of acquiring a “rav,” there would certainly be much at stake in choosing the right teacher or master. But not for On, who responds simply by claiming that he has given his word to Korah and thus there is nothing he can do to change his current course of action.
Mrs. On takes further steps that demonstrate the intellectual and moral acumen her husband so shamefully lacks. Her decision to get On drunk, and then to sit at the entrance of the tent with her hair exposed unveils the hypocrisy at the heart of Korah and Co.’s claim that the whole congregation is holy: so holy that they won’t dare approach the tent for fear of violating the norms of (sexual) modesty, even as they make a bold and immodest grab for Moses and Aaron’s power. The reference in the midrash to a woman perched by a tent in a sexually provocative guise brings to mind the biblical Yael (Shoftim 4-5) sitting by her tent and luring an unsuspecting Sisera to his death. Here are brave Korah and his men so easily frightened away by Mrs. On’s ruse, while On himself is dead drunk, completely unconscious of what is going on around him.
Viewed from one angle, this Talmudic midrash presents an admirable image of an unnamed, unheralded woman who nevertheless takes control of a situation so as to save her hapless husband’s life. Viewed from another angle, however, Mr. On’s agency and smarts become less about women’s capacity and more about the shamefulness of On, and by extension all of all those who followed Korah, in the same way that in the book of Judges, the feminine bravery of Devorah and Yael and the perspicacity of the wife of Manoah (the unnamed mother of Shimshon), cast doubt on the honor of men in their community and buttress the argument for a centralized alternative to the free-for-all known as the era of the judges.