The Talmud (Sanhedrin 109b, also in Bemidbar Rabbah 18:20) quotes Rav that On backed out of the rebellion, and this would explain why he is not mentioned again. Rav explains that it was On’s wife who convinced him to back out since she pointed out that he was not going to benefit from the rebellion because even if Korah succeeded, On would have to follow Korah. She then got him drunk, and he slept in the tent, while she sat on the front of the tent all disheveled, which caused people to turn away from the tent. Thus, On slept through the whole rebellion, and the Talmud (Sanhedrin 110a) praises On’s wife for her wisdom. While this could have happened, one wonders why the Torah did not mention that On backed out? This would have showed that somebody listened to Moshe’s exhortation for people to desist from the rebellion, 16:26. Also, if On backed out, why did he have to be mentioned in the first place?
Bechor Shor (12th century, France, on 16:1) quotes the Midrash that On backed out, but he writes that the simple explanation is that On was one of the 250 people, who are referred to 16:2. Thus, On did not have to be mentioned again, as whatever happened to the 250 people (they died by fire) also happened to On. This also seems difficult since if On was part of the 250 people, then why was he singled out just once? In addition, 16:1 records On in conjunction with Datan and Aviram, and Datan and Aviram’s part of the rebellion was separate from the 250 men, as Datan and Aviram were fighting with Moshe while the 250 men were upset that Aharon was chosen as the high priest. Thus, if On was with Datan and Aviram he would not have been with the 250 men.
My guess is that On was mentioned to belittle the 250 men. 16:2 described the 250 men as leaders of the people and men of great renown, but we do not know their names! However, we do know of On and his father Pelet, though On had apparently a very minor role in the rebellion. Thus by mentioning On the Torah is telling us that these 250 men were not really men of great renown, even though that was how the people at that time perceived them and how they thought of themselves. Thus, it could be that On backed out of the rebellion or that he remained a rebel to the end though he clearly was not as strident as Datan and Aviram, but his importance was to show that the 250 people were not really men of great repute.
Bechor Shor (12th century, France, on 16:1) quotes the Midrash that On backed out, but he writes that the simple explanation is that On was one of the 250 people, who are referred to 16:2. Thus, On did not have to be mentioned again, as whatever happened to the 250 people (they died by fire) also happened to On. This also seems difficult since if On was part of the 250 people, then why was he singled out just once? In addition, 16:1 records On in conjunction with Datan and Aviram, and Datan and Aviram’s part of the rebellion was separate from the 250 men, as Datan and Aviram were fighting with Moshe while the 250 men were upset that Aharon was chosen as the high priest. Thus, if On was with Datan and Aviram he would not have been with the 250 men.
My guess is that On was mentioned to belittle the 250 men. 16:2 described the 250 men as leaders of the people and men of great renown, but we do not know their names! However, we do know of On and his father Pelet, though On had apparently a very minor role in the rebellion. Thus by mentioning On the Torah is telling us that these 250 men were not really men of great renown, even though that was how the people at that time perceived them and how they thought of themselves. Thus, it could be that On backed out of the rebellion or that he remained a rebel to the end though he clearly was not as strident as Datan and Aviram, but his importance was to show that the 250 people were not really men of great repute.
No comments:
Post a Comment