What does "Korah took..." mean?
What seems enticing about Korah's argument? What does his argument lack?
(א) וַיִּקַּ֣ח קֹ֔רַח בֶּן־יִצְהָ֥ר בֶּן־קְהָ֖ת בֶּן־לֵוִ֑י וְדָתָ֨ן וַאֲבִירָ֜ם בְּנֵ֧י אֱלִיאָ֛ב וְא֥וֹן בֶּן־פֶּ֖לֶת בְּנֵ֥י רְאוּבֵֽן׃ (ב) וַיָּקֻ֙מוּ֙ לִפְנֵ֣י מֹשֶׁ֔ה וַאֲנָשִׁ֥ים מִבְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל חֲמִשִּׁ֣ים וּמָאתָ֑יִם נְשִׂיאֵ֥י עֵדָ֛ה קְרִאֵ֥י מוֹעֵ֖ד אַנְשֵׁי־שֵֽׁם׃ (ג) וַיִּֽקָּהֲל֞וּ עַל־מֹשֶׁ֣ה וְעַֽל־אַהֲרֹ֗ן וַיֹּאמְר֣וּ אֲלֵהֶם֮ רַב־לָכֶם֒ כִּ֤י כָל־הָֽעֵדָה֙ כֻּלָּ֣ם קְדֹשִׁ֔ים וּבְתוֹכָ֖ם יְהוָ֑ה וּמַדּ֥וּעַ תִּֽתְנַשְּׂא֖וּ עַל־קְהַ֥ל יְהוָֽה׃
ויקח קרח, “Korah took, etc.” Korah acquired people, sympathisers; which people did he acquire specifically? Datan and Abiram, sons of Eliav, as well as On ben Pelet, members of the tribe of Reuven, other discontents. The letter ו in the word ודתן is superfluous, but there are numerous such letters ו in similar situations.
Korah did not make a private meeting; there is a difference between LIFNEI in Hebrew and Mipnei.
How does Ramban describe the motivation of Korah? Of Datan and Aviram?
Does Ramban's commentary make it more understandable or less understandable that Korah led his rebellion?
Does Ramban's commentary make Korah's rebellion more justifiable?
ויקח קרח ... והנכון בדרש שכעס קרח על נשיאות אלצפן כמאמר רבותינו (תנחומא קרח א) וקנא גם באהרן כמו שנאמר ובקשתם גם כהונה (פסוק י) ונמשכו דתן ואבירם עמו ולא על הבכורה כי יעקב אביהם הוא אשר נטלה מראובן ונתנה ליוסף אבל גם הם אמרו טענתם להמיתנו במדבר (פסוק יג) ולא אל ארץ זבת חלב ודבש הביאתנו (פסוק יד) והנה ישראל בהיותם במדבר סיני לא אירע להם שום רעה כי גם בדבר העגל שהיה החטא גדול ומפורסם היו המתים מועטים ונצלו בתפלתו של משה שהתנפל עליהם ארבעים יום וארבעים לילה והנה היו אוהבים אותו כנפשם ושומעים אליו ואלו היה אדם מורד על משה בזמן ההוא היה העם סוקלים אותו ולכן סבל קרח גדולת אהרן וסבלו הבכורים מעלת הלוים וכל מעשיו של משה אבל בבואם אל מדבר פארן ונשרפו באש תבערה ומתו בקברות התאוה רבים וכאשר חטאו במרגלים לא התפלל משה עליהם ולא בטלה הגזרה מהם ומתו נשיאי כל השבטים במגפה לפני ה' ונגזר על כל העם שיתמו במדבר ושם ימותו אז היתה נפש כל העם מרה והיו אומרים בלבם כי יבואו להם בדברי משה תקלות ואז מצא קרח מקום לחלוק על מעשיו וחשב כי ישמעו אליו העם וזה טעם להמיתנו במדבר אמרו הנה הבאת אותנו אל המקום הזה ולא קיימת בנו מה שנדרת לתת לנו ארץ זבת חלב ודבש כי לא נתת לנו נחלה כלל אבל נמות במדבר ונהיה כלים שם כי גם זרענו לא יצאו מן המדבר לעולם ויבטל מן הבנים מה שנדרת להם כאשר נתבטל מן האבות וזה טעם תלונתם הנה במקום הזה אחר גזרת המרגלים מיד והקרוב כי היו אלה הנקהלים כולם בכורות כי על כן חרה להם על הכהונה ולכך אמר להם משה שיקחו מחתות כמנהגם הראשון ויתגלה הדבר אם יבחר השם בהם או בכהנים:
Korach took:...The real reason for Korach’s rebellion is as explained in Midrash Rabbah and Tanchuma — Korah was angry ...He was also envious of Aharon, as it says (v. 10), “And yet you ask to be kohanim as well?”
Dasan and Aviram did not join with Korah for the same reason. And it was not Moshe who took away the right of the firstborn from the tribe of Reuven, for it was their forefather Yaakov who took it away from Reuven and gave it to Yosef.
[do you think they held a grudge?]
Rather, they stated their complaint (v. 13): “You brought us out of Egypt to kill us in the desert” and (v. 14), “Even into a land flowing with milk and honey you have not brought us.”
[Korah was calculating...] As long as the Bnei Yisroel were in the Sinai desert, no bad event occurred, for even the very severe Sin of the Golden Calf resulted in relatively few deaths. The rest of the people were saved through Moshe’s prayers, which lasted forty days and forty nights (Devarim 9:28). Thusly, the nation loved Moshe with all their soul, and obeyed him. If someone would have rebelled at that time he would have been stoned by the people. Therefore, Korah bided his time and refrained from reacting to Aharon’s appointment as Kohein Gadol. In the same way, the firstborn refrained from reacting to the elevation of the Levites and all of Moshe’s actions.
However, when they arrived in the Paran Desert many were burnt in Taveirah (11:1) and died in Kivros Hataavoh (11:33). When they sinned with the spies, Moshe did not succeed in annulling the decree with his prayer, and the leaders of the tribes died in a plague before Hashem. It was decreed upon the entire people to die in the wilderness. As a result, the people were embittered, and they began to feel that all their failures came as a result of Moshe’s leadership.
Korach saw his opportunity now to dispute with Moshe, and he reasoned the people would listen to him. Thus, this is the explanation of Dasan and Aviram’s statement: “To kill us in the desert.” They claimed: You have brought us to this place, and you have not fulfilled the promise to bring us to a land flowing with milk and honey. You have not given us any inheritance at all. We will die in this desert and be annihilated here, and even our children will never leave this desert, for just as you have not fulfilled your promise to us, you will never fulfill your promise to our children.
How does the Kedushat Levi text that follows suggest a way to empathize with Korah and yet understand that God (and thusly Moses and Aaron) needed to quash the rebellion?
Numbers 15,1. “Korach, son of Yitzhar, son of Kehat, son of Levi, and Datan and Aviram took, etc;”
Nachmanides writes that seeing that the (spies) people knew that the members of their generation would not enter the Holy Land, the Israelites’ love of Moses had already been undermined so that the people would be more receptive to criticism of him. This is also the reason why this episode was written in the Torah immediately following the story of the spies. There had been several instances since the sin of the golden calf when many people had died without Moses having been able to prevent this, so that Korach felt that an attempt at insurrection could meet with broad support.
...
The Torah Moses presented to the Jewish people reflected the power of the word used by G’d when He created the universe; however, in common with other forms of energy emanating from G’d’s essence which had to be “screened” in order that their impact would not prove harmful instead of beneficial, even in our world of the עשיה (making/doing), where matter appears as if it is “real,” this is so only because what we see with our three-dimensionally oriented eyes has already undergone such a process of being screened before we see it. This has been alluded to when the prophet Isaiah 44,6 quoted G’d saying: אני ראשון ואני אחרון, “I am no different at the end from the way I was at the beginning.” [The usual translation, is, of course: “I am first and I am last,” but I changed it to fit the author’s interpretation. Ed.]
G’d meant that if He employed “screens” to protect us from His outpouring of Divine energy at the beginning of creation, He did the same when He came to the final stage of His creative activity, i.e. earth and man. The form that these “screens” take in our material world is the attributes through which we try to understand the nature of the Creator, His מידות.
When Korach had realized that the generation of which he was a part would not be granted residence in the land of Canaan, he no longer accepted Moses’ Torah as something to be understood as having been “screened” by G’d before He entrusted it to us in the format that we are familiar with.
When G’d punished Korach by making the earth open its “mouth” to swallow him and his followers alive, He actually paid him back מידה כנגד מידה, “tit for tat,” seeing that Korach had refused to believe that the earth as we see it is not the “real thing;” he was taught at the last moment of his life how wrong he had been, and that the earth had hidden dimensions he had never dreamed of.
This has all been hinted at when the Torah listed as Korach’s antecedents, i.e. Yitzhar-alluding to brightness, light, Kehat- and Levi. The word vayakhel alludes to “unity” as we know from Genesis 49,10 where Yaakov blessed Yehudah by saying that the other tribes would rally around him. The word לוי derived from ילוה, when his mother Leah, at his birth, expressed her hope that this son would be the cause of her husband spending more time with her; (Genesis 29,34) When looking at the three names together, they suggest that Korach only believed in the world of the power of speech, the world that we know as the three-dimensional world, and could not believe that behind what we see with our physical eyes there is hidden another dimension, one which makes it far easier to relate to the home of the Creator and the army of angels with whom He has surrounded Himself. [some of these words are mine. When someone insists on believing that the world we see is all there is in the universe, so that physical death is the end of all life, he has made the beginning of life equally irrelevant. Ed.]
The words of Isaiah 44:6 are therefore most important if we wish to understand G’d’s actions in creating different sections in His universe.
What kind of people are portrayed by this Midrash? What does it say about the character of those involved?
3 (Numb. 16:1) “Now Korah […] took”: What is written at the end of the Torah portion that comes before the Korah story? (in Numb. 15:38)? The Jewish People learns how to do the mitzvah of tzitzit. “Speak unto the Children of Israel and tell them to make tassels (tzizit) for themselves.’” Korah quickly said to Moses, with the mob behind him, “In the case of a prayer shawl (tallit) which is all blue, what is the rule about it being exempt from [having] the tassels?” Moses said to him, “[Such a prayer shawl] is required to have the tassels.” Korah said to him, “Would not a prayer shawl which is all blue exempt itself, when four [blue] threads exempt it? In the case of a house which is full of [scriptural] books, what is the rule about it being exempt it from [having] the mezuzah (which contains only two passages of scripture)?” [Moses] said to him, “[Such a house] is required to have the mezuzah.” [Korah] said to him, “Since the whole Torah has two hundred and seventy-five parashiot in it and they do not exempt the house [from having the mezuzah], would the one parasha which is in the mezuzah exempt the house?”
[He also] said to him, “These are things about which you have not been commanded. Rather you are inventing them [by taking them] out of your own heart.”
Here is what is written (in Numb. 16:1), “Now Korah […] took.” Now “took (rt.: lqh)” can only be a word of discord, in that his heart carried him away (lqh). Thus is [the word] used (in Job 15:12), “How your heart has carried you away (rt.: lqh) […].” You are "so taken with yourselves!"
This explains what Moses said to them (in Numb. 16:9): “Is it too small a thing for you that the God of Israel has given you a unique job and set you apart for a holy task [to carry the ark and help to perform the service]?” The Sages have said, “Korah was a great sage and was one of the bearers of the ark, as stated (in Numb. 7:9), ‘But to the children of Kohath He gave no [wagons], because they had the service of the holy objects, which they carried on their shoulders.’” Now Korah was the son of Izhar, [who was] the son of Kohath.
When Moses said (in Numb. 15:38), “And put on the tassel of each corner a thread of blue,” what did Korah do? He immediately ordered them to make two hundred and fifty blue shawls for those two hundred and fifty heads of sanhedraot (courts) who rose up against Moses to wrap themselves in, just as it is stated (in Numb. 16:2), “And they rose up against Moses, together with two hundred and fifty men from the children of Israel, princes of the congregation, chosen in the assembly.” Korah arose and made them a banquet at which they all wrapped themselves in blue prayer shawls. [When] Aaron's sons came to receive their dues, [namely the] breast and right thigh (the priestly share of the animals slaughtered for the feast. See Lev.7:31-32) they arose against them and said to them, “Who commanded you to receive such? Was it not Moses? [If so,] we shall not give you anything, as the Holy One, blessed be He, has not commanded it.”
They came and informed Moses. He went to placate them. They immediately confronted him, as stated (ibid.), “And they rose up against Moses.” And who were they? Elizur ben Shedeur and his companions (the princes), the men (according to Numb. 1:17) “who were mentioned by name.” Although the text has not publicized their [names], it has given clues to their [identity], so that you [can] identify them from the [various] verses.
A parable: To what is the matter comparable? To a scion of good parentage who stole articles from the bathhouse. The owner of what was stolen did not want to publish his [name. Rather,] he began to give clues about his [identity]. When they said to him, “Who stole your articles,” he said, “A scion of good parentage, a tall person with beautiful teeth and black hair.” After he had given his clues, they knew who he was. So also here where the text has concealed them and not specified their names, it comes and gives clues to their [identity]. You know who they are. It is stated elsewhere (in Numb. 1:16-17), “These were elected by the congregation, princes of their ancestral tribes, heads of thousands within Israel. So Moses and Aaron took these men who were mentioned by name.” Now here it is written (in Numb. 16:2-3), “princes of the congregation, elected by the assembly, men of renown. They gathered together against Moses and Aaron.”
Parshat Beha’alotcha recounts the story of members of Bnei Yisrael successfully taking initiative.
In Bamidbar (Chapter 9), a group of people approaches Moshe and Aharon and says that they’re tameh and therefore unable to bring the Korban Pesach. They famously ask, “lamah nigara?” “Why should we be excluded from bringing the Korban Pesach?” Moshe brings their query to HaShem, who surprisingly grants their request, creating a new holiday called Pesach Sheni to satisfy their demand. What happens in this story is pretty remarkable. Bnei Yisrael have a challenge and a request, and HaShem grants it by creating a new holiday.
If you think about it, almost all of the mitzvot were instituted because HaShem wanted them, but one mitzvah was instituted only after a group of Bnei Yisrael took initiative to ask for it. They could have not done anything; after all, did they really expect HaShem to institute a new holiday to give them a second chance? But instead they took action. They took initiative and advocated for themselves. Pesach Sheni teaches us that ‘If you don’t ask, the answer is always no.’
Korach’s rebellion is another famous story about initiative. Seemingly, in Korach’s rebellion, Korach and his followers are just asking Moshe for what they want, just like by Pesach Sheni. The beginnings of the stories seem similar, so why do the responses so sharply contrast? Why is the request for Pesach Sheni granted, but Korach and his followers get killed for their request?
In the case of Pesach Sheni, the individuals who approach Moshe approach him as a figure of authority. Before they even ask their question, they recognize that ‘anachnu tmeim’ – we are impure. Only then do they go on to challenge. In the case of Korach, he and his followers refuse to admit that Moshe has any more authority than the rest of the nation, believing that ‘Kol haEidah kulam kedoshim’. Additionally, the intentions of the questioners in the story of Pesach Sheni were pure and le-shem shamayim, whereas Korach’s intentions were self-centered and his cause was anti-Halachic and anti-authoritarian.
The Rav elaborates on both of these points in his article The “Common-Sense” Rebellion Against Torah Authority. Korach thought that mitzvot were based on common sense. Why would wearing an entire garment of tcheilet not fulfill the mitzvah if a pair of tzizit with just one techeilet strand does? Since Korach perceived mitzvot as being based on common sense, he therefore declared that all rational people have the right to interpret Jewish law according to their best understanding. There’s no need for gedolim or Torah authorities, since we could all be our own authority by just using common sense.
Korach’s approach is problematic, for it fails to understand the relationship between Hokhma, knowledge, and Da’at, intellegence, in Judaism. The Rav writes that:
“Korah’s appeal to common sense in Judaism was basically a claim that only da’at, and not hokhmah, is involved in the application of Halakhah… The halakhic legal system, as a hokhmah, has its own methodology, mode of analysis, conceptualized rationale, even as do mathematics and physics… the Oral Law has its own epistemological approach, which can be understood only by a lamdan who has mastered its methodology and its abundant material. Just as mathematics is more than a group of equations, and physics is more than a collection of natural laws, so, too, the Halakhah is more than a compilation of religious laws. It has its own logos and method of thinking and is an autonomous self-integrated system. The Halakhah need not make common sense any more than mathematics and scientific conceptualized systems need to accommodate themselves to common sense.”
The Rav notes that Korach’s rebellion was not quelled when he and his followers were swallowed by the ground as punishment for their actions. The common sense argument that was the rallying cry of Korach’s rebellion is still alive today. He explains that some people believe they can use their own common sense to decide the relevance and format of contemporary Judaism. They admit they don’t have formal training in Jewish texts and sources, yet like Korach, they still insist they have a right to decide major religious questions by exercising common sense, eliminating the need for religious authorities. They leave science to scientists and math to mathematicians, but they refuse to leave Halakha to Halakhic experts.
On Parshat Korach it is important to remember what the members of Korach’s rebellion did not – that we don’t know everything. We should always pursue knowledge and learning, have strong opinions, and take initiative, but all while recognizing that sometimes there are authorities we have to yield to since our common sense is not always enough.
For the Rav’s complete article: https://www.scribd.com/doc/13615801/Rav-Soloveitchik-The-Common-sense-Rebellion-Against-Torah-Authority
What aspect of Korah's personality or element of his story in the Torah is important for us as as an example - of what not to do and what we might feel we must do?
KORAH
BY MARC GARY, EXECUTIVE VICE CHANCELLOR AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
In a remarkable reversal of accepted rabbinic understanding of this parashah, the Hasidic sage, Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk, the Kotzker Rebbe, referred to Korah as “unzer heilige zeide”—our holy grandfather. How can this be? How can this demagogue be “our holy grandfather”? The rebbe’s meaning is a mystery but let me offer a possible interpretation of his words. We are all descendants of Korah, because we are heirs to a tradition of rebellion against perceived injustice. And he is our “holy grandfather,” because his expressed vision—of a community where everyone is treated as equally holy and entitled to respect and freedom from arbitrary and abusive authority—is one worthy of pursuit.