על מה זעם קורח?

(Numb. 16:1:) “Now Korah betook himself.” This text is related (to Prov. 18:19), “A brother offended (rt.: psh') is more formidable than a fortified city; [such] contentions are like a castle bar.” The brother offended is Korah, in that he sided against Moses. So he rebelled and sank from whatever glory that he possessed. Now offended (rt: psh') can only imply rebellion, since it is stated (in II Kings 3:7), “The king of Moab has rebelled (psh') against me.” It also says (in II Kings 8:22), “then did Libnah rebel (rt.: psh').” (Prov. 18:19:) “[Such] contentions are like a castle bar.” [The earth raised its bars against him like a castle.] (Prov. 18:19:) “Like a castle bar.” [These words also refer to Korah,] who sided against Moses and against the Omnipresent. (Numb. 16:1:) “[Now Korah …] took.” “Took” can only be a word for "attracting with persuasive words," in that he attracted all the leaders of Israel and the sanhedraot [to follow] after him. Concerning Moses it is written (in Numb. 1:17), “So Moses and Aaron took these men.” And similarly it is written (in Numb. 8:2), “Take Aaron and his sons with him.” And so does it say (in Hos. 14:3), “Take words with you and repent….” And so does it [also] say (in Genesis 12:15), “and the woman was taken to the house of Pharaoh.” Ergo (in Numb. 16:1) “Now Korah […] took,” in that he drew (i.e., took) their hearts with persuasive words. (Numb. 16:1:) “Now Korah […] betook himself.” Because of what did he dissent? Because of Elizaphan, the son of his father's brother, who had been appointed prince (nasi) over his clan. So it says (in Numb. 3:30), “And the prince of the ancestral house for the Kohathite clan was Elizaphan ben Uzziel.” Korah said, “Father had four brothers.” It is so stated (according to Exod. 6:18), “And the sons of Kohath were Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel.” “As for Amram, the first-born; his son Aaron and his sons attained the high priesthood, and his brother Moses [attained] the kingship. So who deserves to get second [place]? Should it not be the second [son]? Now I am Izhar's son. I deserved to be prince of my clan, but he has appointed the son of Uzziel. Should the youngest of father's brothers become superior to me? See, I am dissenting and declaring everything invalid, whatever he had done.” Therefore, there was dissent.

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

Another matter: Fortunate is the man who is not one of the sons of Korah, who did not follow the counsel of their father, as it is said (Numbers 16:26), "Depart now from the tents of these wicked men." And they sinned in the manner of sinners (ibid. 17:3), [which was] the censers of sinners. And in the company of the scorners, [there was] Korah, who mocked Moses and Aaron. What did he do? He assembled the entire congregation, as it is said (ibid. 16:19), "And Korah gathered against them the entire congregation." He began to speak disparagingly and said to them, "There was once a widow in my neighborhood with two orphaned daughters and she had one field. When she came to plow, Moses said to her (Deuteronomy 22:10), 'You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.' When she came to sow, Moses said to her (Leviticus 19:19), 'Your field shall not be sown with two different kinds of seed.' When she came to reap and make a pile [of sheaves], Moses said to her (Deuteronomy 24:19), 'You shall leave [some stalks] for the poor and the stranger.' When she came to make a threshing floor, he said to her, 'You shall give tithes [of your crop] and [separate] terumah, tithes, first tithe, and second tithe.' The righteous woman accepted [the ruling] and complied. What did she do? She sold the field and bought two lambs to clothe herself with their fleece and to enjoy their fruits. When Aaron's firstborn son was born, he came to her and said, 'Give me the firstborns, as the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to me (Deuteronomy 15:19), "Every firstborn that is born in your cattle and your flock, the male [belongs to] Him."' The righteous woman accepted [the ruling] and complied. When it came time to shear them, he said to her, 'Give me the foreleg, cheeks, and stomach.' She said to him, 'Even though I slaughtered them, I did not escape from your hand. Behold, I am under a ban.' He said to her, 'Give [them to me], as the verse states (Numbers 18:14), "Every ban among the people of Israel shall be yours."' He took [the portions] and went on his way. She left weeping, as did her two daughters. Such is the way of these [men], who taunt [others] and hang [their claims] on the Holy One, Blessed be He. [They have done] so much [harm], yet they still continue [to provoke] the Holy One, Blessed be He.

NOW KORAH, THE SON OF IZHAR…TOOK. This event occurred in the wilderness of Sinai when the first-born were set aside and the Levites were placed in their stead. Israel thought that our master Moses acted out of his own will in giving his brother an elevated position. They suspected that he acted similarly towards the sons of Kohath, who were his relatives, and to all the sons of Levi who were of his family. The Levites rebelled against Moses because they were subservient to Aaron and his sons. Dathan and Abiram rebelled because Moses removed the birthright from Reuben their forefather, and gave it to Joseph. It is also possible that they suspected that Moses favored the tribe of Joseph because Joshua was his assistant. Korah too was a first-born, as Scripture clearly states. The banner of Reuben camped in the south. So did Korah, for he was a Kohathite. The princes of the congregation were first-born. They offered the burnt offering. They therefore took the fire pans. The miracle of the staff, which demonstrated to all of Israel that God chose the Levites in place of the first-born, is proof that this explanation is correct. Hence Scripture reads, that there may be made an end of their murmurings against Me (Num. 17:25), for the murmuring was an account of this. Moses also said, that I have not done them of mine own mind (v. 28). He said the aforementioned because Israel had come to believe that he had acted on his own. Furthermore, Moses said, then the Lord hath not sent me (v. 29) in this thing, because Israel had come to believe in him. Here is another rigorous proof: seeing all the congregation are holy (v. 3). The aforementioned alludes to the first-born who are holy, for Scripture states, Sanctify unto Me all the first-born (Ex. 13:2). The first-born were the priests that come near to the Lord (Ex. 19:22). They were the most important ones of the congregation.

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?”
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”) explained the [expression according to its] general meaning, not according to its literal sense, as is his habit in many places. Thus also he translated [the expression] about ‘d’var’ (the matter of) Korach as “about ‘the strife’ of Korach,” while ‘bi’dvar’ (the matter of) Balaam he translated as “through ‘the counsel’ of Balaam,” because he mentions the [whole] subject-matter in his translation [rather than the literal meaning, as illustrated by the change in the translation of the word d’var in the above example].
And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote: “And Korach took [means he took] ‘men,’ the phrase being elliptical, as in: chamor lechem [literally: ‘an ass of bread,’ which means: ‘an ass laden with bread’].” Others explain that [the word] v’dathan (and Dathan) [in the phrase: And Korach took … and Dathan] is like the verse, And these are the children of Zibeon: ‘and’ Ajah, and Anah [where the letter vav in the word v’ayah is redundant, and here too the vav in v’dathan is redundant], and its correct meaning is thus: “and Korach took Dathan and Abiram” [and they rose up before Moses]. But in my opinion there is no need for [these interpretations], for it is quite correct for the [Sacred] Language to say: “and Korach took and Dathan, and they rose, and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron,” because the [word] “taking” always occurs at the beginning of an event, being an expression of taking action to [do] that deed. Similarly, And Absalom in his lifetime had ‘taken’ and reared up for himself the pillar [which means that “he bestirred himself” to set up the pillar]. And if you prefer to explain that the term “taking” refers to the object mentioned subsequently, [so that the verse quoted means]: “and Absalom took the pillar and reared it up for himself in his lifetime” — you may likewise explain [our phrase] “and Korach took” [as referring to] the men of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty, and they rose up before Moses, and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that this incident [of Korach’s rebellion] happened in the wilderness of Sinai when the firstborns were exchanged [for the Levites] and the Levites were separated [to do the Divine service in the Tent of Meeting], for [some] Israelites thought that Moses our master did this of his own accord so that he could bestow greatness upon his brother [Aaron] and on the children of Kohath who were his relatives, and on all the Levites, since they were of his family. The Levites [nevertheless] joined the conspiracy against him [Moses] because they were given to Aaron and to his sons, and Dathan and Abiram [who were of the tribe of Reuben] joined in the rebellion because Moses took away the right of the firstborn from their ancestor Reuben [and gave it to Joseph]. Korach too was a firstborn. [Thus far are Ibn Ezra’s comments.] Now all this is based on the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra [himself] who has said in many places, as it pleases him, that there is no strict chronological order in the [narrative of the] Torah, but I have already written that in my opinion the whole Torah follows the chronological sequence, except for those places where Scripture [itself] expressly states the “earlier” and the “later,” and even then it is [only changed] for a particular purpose and for good reason. But this matter [i.e., the rebellion of Korach] happened in the wilderness of Paran, in Kadesh-barnea, after the incident of the spies [and not, as Ibn Ezra wrote, before the sending of the spies].
A correct interpretation by way of homiletic exposition is that Korach became angry because of the status of prince [of the Kohathites] bestowed [by Moses] upon Elizaphan, as our Rabbis have said, and he was also jealous of Aaron, as it is said, and seek ye the priesthood also! Dathan and Abiram [who were of the tribe of Reuben] were attracted to Korach, but not because of the [loss of their] birthright, for it was their father Jacob who had deprived Reuben of it and given it to Joseph; however, they too, voiced their complaint [by saying that Moses had taken the people out of Egypt] to kill us in the wilderness, and moreover thou hast not brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey. Now as long as Israel was in the wilderness of Sinai no evil happening befell them, for even after the incident of the [golden] calf, which was a serious and well-known sin, those who died [as a punishment] were few, and the people were saved by Moses’ prayer when he fell down before the Eternal the forty days and forty nights. Thus they loved Moses as [they loved] themselves, and they obeyed him, so that had anybody rebelled against Moses at that time, the people would have stoned him. Therefore Korach endured the greatness of Aaron [when he was appointed High Priest], and the firstborns accepted [without protest] the high status of the Levites, and all [the other] acts of Moses. But when they came to the wilderness of Paran and [some people] were burnt in Taberah, and many died in Kibroth-hattaavah, and when after sinning [in the matter of] the spies Moses did not pray on their behalf, so that the decree against them was thus not annulled, and the princes of all the tribes died by the plague before the Eternal and it was decreed that the whole people would be consumed in the wilderness and there they shall die, then the mood of the whole people became embittered, and they said in their hearts that mishaps occur to them through Moses’ words. Therefore Korach found it an opportune occasion to contest Moses’ deeds, thinking that the people would [readily] listen to him. This was the intention of [the statement of Dathan and Abiram that Moses had taken the people out of Egypt] to kill us in the wilderness, meaning: “Behold, you have brought us to this place and you have not fulfilled that which you promised to give us, [namely to take us to] a land flowing with milk and honey, for you have not given us any inheritance at all; instead we will die in the wilderness and be wiped out there, for our children will also never come out of the wilderness, and that which you promised our children will also not be fulfilled, just as it did not come to realization with respect to their parents.” This then was the reason why they murmured particularly at this juncture immediately after the [Divine] decree because of the spies. It is likely that all those who assembled [against Moses] were firstborns, and therefore they were annoyed about the priesthood [which was taken away from them], and that is why Moses told them to take censers [and put incense upon them as they used formerly to do, and it would become clear thereby whether G-d preferred them or the priests.