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.

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?

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.

“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.

“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 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.

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 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.

“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.

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.”