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.

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.

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.”

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.’”

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.

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).

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.

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.

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?”

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”.

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.”

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.

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?br 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.?”

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.”

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.

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.”