Bemidbar chapter 16 – Korah's rebellion: The great rebellion by an unholy coalition

Bemidbar 16 records Korah’s rebellion against Moshe and begins by recording that Korah took, and then mentions three other people, Datan, Aviram and On, 16:1. On is a mystery person in this chapter since we never hear of him again in the chapter, see our discussion on 16:1, “A few unworthy men.”

What is this taking in the first half of 16:1? Who or what did Korah take? Ibn Ezra (on 16:1, see Alter, 2004, p. 762) explains that Korah took unnamed people to join his rebellion. Ibn Ezra also quotes Ibn Janach (Spain, 990-1055) that the taking relates to the opening word in the following verse, 16:2, that Korah took himself to stand against (oppose) Moshe. Hizkuni (on 16:1) explains that Korah took Datan, Aviram and On. This approach reads 16:1 as if there was no vav before the name Datan. The Rashbam and the Bekhor Shor (on 16:1) explain that Korah, Datan and Aviram took the 250 people mentioned in 16:2, but the Torah uses the singular, Korah took in 16:1, to teach us that of the three, Korah was the more active personality in this rebellion, (see 17:14; 26:9), and he gathered or took together different groups of people to make a coalition against Moshe.

I wonder if there is a literary pun between Korah and the word take, va-yikach, since two of the letters are the same in both words. Also, maybe the lack of an object who was taken is to insinuate that Korah was not that successful in attracting people. Even with deaths of 14,700 people after the rebellion (17:14), this is still a small number of people within the entire population.

The second half of 16:1 informs us that Datan, Aviram and On joined with Korah, and they were named possibly since they were his first followers, the most prominent or the most belligerent of his followers.

The beginning of 16:2 records that “they stood before Moshe.” The “they” refers to Korah, Datan and Aviram (and On?), and it can mean that they literally stood before Moshe or that they started organizing a challenge to Moshe. The they could also refer to other anonymous people that Korah took in 16:1. The reminder of 16:2 refers to 250 well known people that joined the rebellion. It would seem that the group of 250 people joined after Korah, Datan, Aviram and On began the rebellion. With regard to speculation as to who were these 250 people, see our discussion below on 16:2,"Who were the 250 men who were part of Korah’s rebellion?”

As noted by many (for example, see S. R. Hirsch on 16:8-11) the rebellion consisted of two groups of people. One group was the 250 people who wanted to become priests or high priests and the second group was led by Datan and Aviram, but it also included other people, who were upset with Moshe’s political leadership. Korah was part of both groups and unified the two groups in the rebellion, 16:1,5,8,16,19,24. The Torah uses several words to connect the two groups. We will point out these literary hints and show that chapter 16 is one unit and not disjointed.

The beginning of 16:3 records that the group of rebels gathered on Moshe and Aharon. If one understands that 16:2 was referring to the rebels challenging Moshe without meeting him in person, then 16:3 records the first face to face confrontation between Moshe and the rebels, while if one understands that 16:2 refers to a physical meeting between Moshe and the rebels, then 16:3 records a second face to face confrontation between Moshe, this time also Aharon, with the rebels.

From 16:5,8 we know that Korah was part of this gathering referred to in 16:3, but it is not clear if Datan and Aviram was also part of the gathering in 16:3. 16:12 records that Moshe sends messengers to speak to them, which means that they were not present at the ensuing conversation, but did they leave after the rebels’ accusations in 16:3 (Aaron Israel, personal correspondence, suggested this to me) or did they not participate at all in this gathering. If they were not part of the gathering in 16:3, and 16:2 does not refer to an actual confrontation, then it could be that Datan and Aviram did not encounter Moshe until 16:27. If they were part of the gathering of 16:3, then when did they leave? Maybe after Moshe started to speak to Levites, as they decided that his speech was not relevant to them.

16:3 then records that the rebels said to Moshe and Aharon that since everybody is kadosh, why did Moshe and Aharon lord over them and the Jewish people? It is not clear exactly what the rebels wanted at this point: Did they want a democracy? Did they want anarchy? Did they want to replace Moshe and Aharon?

16:4 records that Moshe fell on his face. Why? The Rashbam (on 16:4) suggests it was to pray and that G-d then instructed Moshe what to respond to the claim of Korah and the 250 people. While this could be, this is not recorded in the Torah, and it could be that this falling down might have been just for Moshe to collect his thoughts how to respond to the rebels. With this idea, Moshe's response in the following verses was his idea, see our discussion on Shemot 16:6-13, "Predicting the future." In class, Nissim Edri suggested that he fell because he was so sad that the people would make these accusations against him. This would be like his falling on his face when the people said that they wanted to go back to Egypt after hearing the report of the spies, 14:5.

16:4 does not record that Aharon responded to the accusations of the rebels, even though later he would fall on his face, 16:22, and he fell on face when the people said that they wanted to go back to Egypt after hearing the report of the spies, 14:5. Maybe Aharon felt guilty about being the high priest since he had participated in the sin of the golden calf, Shemot 32:4,5.

16:5-7 record Moshe's first response to the rebels. He told them that in following morning there would be a test of the fire-pans that the people would put incense on these fire-pans and then G-d would make it known who was the one person who was kadosh. This statement is a repudiation of the claim of Korah and his followers that all the people are kadosh in 16:3. Also, since Moshe said that one person would be shown to be kadosh from the test this indicates that Moshe understood that the rebellion was because people were upset that he had appointed his brother Aharon to be the high priest, which might have been seen as a case of nepotism. It is interesting that Moshe did not include himself in this test, as this test was just to prove that Aharon was chosen by G-d to be the high priest.

Rashi (on 16:5) suggest that Moshe made the test for the following day to give the people a chance to think and decide to stop their rebellion. In class, David said that the people needed time to prepare the test. This is reasonable since they had to get incense and fire-pans, and it is not obvious that both items were so readily available.

In the end of 16:7, Moshe mentioned that the people from the tribe of Levi should not participate in this rebellion since they already have an official status though not as high a level as the priests. We know that Korah was from the tribe of Levi, 16:1, and most likely many of his followers were also Levites. Furthermore, as a literary point, Korah initially claimed to Moshe and Aharon that rav lachem “too much is yours,” 16:3, and Moshe responded to the Levites with the same words rav lachem bnei Levi, “too much is yours, sons of Levi,” 16:7.

16:8-11 records how after Moshe explained the test for the following day, he expanded on his plea for the Levites to desist from the rebellion. In these verses, Moshe was both trying to speak specifically to Korah and at the same time speak to the Levites who were part of the rebellion. 16:10 records how he explicitly stated that the rebels desired to be priests, and in 16:11 he tried to get them to stop attacking his brother Aharon. Moshe began this plea with a literary point, as in the end of 16:7, he said rav lachem, "too much is yours" and in 16:9, he began, ha-meaht, is it too little for you?

16:12 records that after Moshe tried to persuade the Levites from within the group of Korah and the 250 people to stop rebelling, he then attempted to talk to Datan and Aviram by sending messengers to ask them to come to him. However, they refused to come, and they spoke with great impudence to Moshe, 16:12-14. They accused Moshe of taking the people out Egypt, a land flowing with milk and honey (!), to have them die in the desert. Note, that while the end of 16:14 records literally Datan and Aviram’s insolent accusation to Moshe “will you gauge out the eyes of those men,” Levine (1993, p. 414) explains that the phrase “those men” is a euphemism for Datan and Aviram’s eyes since “when harm or evil is spoken of, it is customary to deflect its effects onto a third person or persons.”

We see that Datan and Aviram were in close communication with Korah and the 250 people since they mimic Moshe's words to the Levites who were with Korah. In 16:9, Moshe said ha-meaht “is it too little” to the Levites, and Datan and Aviram used this same word ha-meaht, 16:13, when they accused Moshe “is it too little” that you took us out of Egypt. In class, Dror Haburu suggested that maybe they had heard Moshe speak these words, and then they left to go to their tents.

N. Leibowitz (1982, p. 206) adds that just as Moshe ended with a rhetorical question when he spoke to the group of 250 in 16:10, so too Datan and Aviram included a rhetorical question in 16:13. Milgrom (1990, p. 133) also notes that Datan and Aviram used the word tistarer, lord over, in 16:13 which is similar to the word that Korah and the 250 men said in 16:3, titnase`u, raise yourself.

In addition, Gary Rendsburg (2002, pp. 415,416) notes that Datan and Aviram’s retort to Moshe comprised one word/ sound four times, which he calls a leading word. 16:12,14 record that Datan and Aviram twice said that they would not go up to Moshe, lo naaleh, and in 16:13 they said that Moshe took them up from Egypt, he-elitanu, and that Moshe was ruling over them, alenu. 

This same word/ sound also appears by Moshe’s last statement to the Levites right before he sent for Datan and Aviram, when Moshe questioned the Levites why were they protesting against Aharon, alav, end of 16:11. In addition, when Moshe gave the instructions to the 250 men, he also used a word with the same sound, alehen, on it, 16:7. All these six words have the letters ayin and lamed. In addition, while the word for protesting used by Moshe, talinu, 16:11, in reference to the Levites, does not have the letter ayin, it has a similar sound to the words he-elitanu and alenu in 16:13 and the word lanu in 16:14 said by Datan and Aviram via the letters lamed, nun and vav. These words/ sounds are a literary way to connect the two groups of rebels.

Datan and Aviram's claim in 16:13 that Moshe was killing the people is difficult. They must have been claiming that it was Moshe's fault that the people were to die in the desert. The people were stuck in the desert due to the sin of the spies. Was Moshe responsible for the sin of the spies? Maybe they were claiming that Moshe should not have sent the spies since they believed it was his decision to send the spies. Or, maybe they were upset that Moshe did not join the people when they tried to go to the land of Israel on their own, 14:44, since they thought that Moshe made this decision on his own without speaking to G-d.

In any event, we see that while the two groups of rebels had different complaints against Moshe, they were unified by the same underlying rationale. Korah and the 250 people claimed that Moshe appointed Aharon as the high priest on his own since Aharon was his brother, and Datan and Aviram claimed that Moshe caused the people to be stuck and die in the desert on his own. We see that this was the main point of contention from Moshe’s words in 16:28,29 prior to the land opening up.

16:15 records Moshe's response to Datan and Aviram's claim. The verse records that Moshe was angry probably because they spoke with so much impudence. 16:15 records three statements Moshe said to G-d: One, do not accept their minhah; Two, I did not take a donkey from them; Three, I did not wrong any of them. To understand these statements, we need to understand that while Moshe was responding to the statements of Datan and Aviram, he was still standing in front of Korah and the 250 people. Moshe heard Datan and Aviram's tirade from their messenger, but he had not moved from his discussion with Korah and the 250 men. Thus, the first statement "not to accept their minhah," means, as explained by Rashi (on 16:15) that Moshe was asking G-d not accept the incense offering the following day of the 250 people. This was a hint or warning to the 250 people not go ahead with their incense test the following day since if G-d would not accept their incense they could die. 

Moshe's second statement that he did not take a donkey from anybody was against the claim of the Korah and the 250 men, that he appointed Aharon to be the priest since he was his brother, as here Moshe denies taking anything at all for himself even a donkey. Note, in Moshe's second statement he did not literally say that he did not take any donkey but that he did not lift anything, nasa`ti, and when Korah and the 250 men complained in 16:3 of Moshe lording over them, they used the same word, titnase`u. 

Moshe’s third statement was in response to Datan and Aviram's tirade that he had caused the people to die in the desert. Moshe said he had not wronged the people, which was saying that the people were destined to die in the desert because of their sins and not his actions.

16:16,17 then record that Moshe told Korah and the 250 people to appear the following morning and offer an incense offering. These instructions, repeat Moshe’s instructions from 16:5-7. The Ramban (on 16:16) notes that here Moshe specifically included Aharon in the test, and this was not mentioned previously. In addition, from a literary perspective, the repetition of the instructions forms a bookend after the interlude with Datan and Aviram, which occurs numerous times in the Torah, for example, Shemot 6:13,29. Furthermore, it is typical that people repeat instructions to make sure they are understood. Also, maybe Moshe repeated the instructions to the test since he wanted to make sure that the 250 people understood the risk they were taking by doing the test since it is possible that from the first set of instructions in 16:5-7, the 250 people did not comprehend that they could die from the test. Finally, when Moshe repeated the instruction, he again used the leading word/ sound based on the letters, ayin and lamed, alehem, 16:17.

16:18 records that on the following day, the 250 people (not Datan and Aviram), went to the entrance of the ohel moed to do the incense test, and they stood near Moshe and Aharon. The entrance to the ohel moed is usually referring to the area in the courtyard of the mishkan by the curtain that leads into the mishkan itself, though it could also refer to the entrance to the courtyard. 16:18 twice records the word alehem, the eighth and ninth times this word/ sound appears in the chapter.

16:19 records that Korah gathered all of the edah on them, alehem, by the entrance to the ohel moed, and that the glory of G-d appeared to/ before the edah. The word alehem, is the fourth time this word appears since 16:17, and the tenth time this sound of the letters ayin and lamed appears in the chapter.

This information about the gathering in front of the ohel moed in 16:19 appears to repeat 16:18. Also, what does it mean “on them” in 16:19? On who? In addition, why now did the glory of G-d appear?

Rashi (on 16:19) suggests that during the time from Moshe’s instructions concerning the test the previous day until the morning of the incense test, Korah went around to gather (take, like in 16:1) more supporters to the rebellion. This is logical. 16:18 then refers to the 250 people from 16:2 that they were standing by the entrance to the ohel moed, while 16:19 refers to Korah and these additional people, who were supporting the 250 people, who also gathered in the ohel moed (the courtyard of the mishkan), and who are referred to as he-edah. The phrase “on them” in 16:19 would then be that these additional people were added to the gathering of the 250 people and Moshe and Aharon mentioned in 16:18.

My understanding is that usually only the Levites and priests could enter the courtyard, and the 250 people, who were not all Levites, were given special permission to be in the courtyard to do the test.  However, these additional people who entered the courtyard of the mishkan did not have permission to be there, and this infringement might be what caused the appearance of the glory of G-d. Maybe there was a fear that people would enter the inner room of the mishkan, and the glory of G-d was to stop them.

16:20,21 record that G-d told Moshe and Aharon to separate from this edah, since G-d (the glory of G-d?) was going to kill ha-edah. Why would G-d threaten to kill Korah, the 250 people and the additional people if they were allowed to do the incense test, which was not yet finished since it appears that Aharon had not yet lit his fire-pan? The answer is that the threat was with regard to the additional people, ha-edah from 16:19, who were not included in the incense test, and who had no reason to be in the courtyard of the mishkan.

G-d did not want to kill these people since otherwise G-d would have done so without informing Moshe. Instead, G-d wanted Moshe and Aharon to pray, which they did in 16:22. G-d’s threat here is similar to G-d’s statement to Moshe by the sin of the golden calf, Shemot 32:10,  by the sin of the spies  Bemidbar 14:11-20, and in the next chapter 17:10, see our discussion on Bemidbar 17:10,11, “A quick learner.”

16:22 records that Moshe and Aharon prayed for the edah, which again is the additional rebels that Korah gathered in between the announcement of the test and the morning of the test. Moshe and Aharon blamed their actions on one person, which was Korah who had convinced them to join the rebellion, 16:19. It is not recorded that these additional rebels died, as the Torah only records that 250 people died by the ohel moed, 16:35. This would mean that G-d accepted Moshe and Aharon’s prayers in 16:22. However, maybe these were the people who afterwards claimed that Moshe and Aharon killed the people of G-d, 17:6, and then they were killed in the ensuing plague, 17:17:14.

While in 16:22 Moshe and Aharon were praying for G-d to spare ha-edah, the group of additional people that gathered with Korah in 16:19, Moshe and Aharon’s prayer was just as relevant to the people who had gathered around Datan and Aviram. G-d responded to Moshe and Aharon’s prayer by telling Moshe to go to the tents of Korah, Datan and Aviram to speak to ha-edah, the people who gathered around these tents that they should move away, he-alu, from Datan and Aviram (and Korah?), 16:23,24. This word he-alu is again the word/ sound with the letters ayin and lamed. Note, the word used for tent in 16:24 is mishkan, which here is not a cultic place, but a regular tent, and it connects with Moshe’s words in 16:9, that it should have been enough for the Levites to work in the mishkan/ ohel moed.

Aharon was not told to accompany Moshe to go got Datan and Aviram, 16:23, since Aharon had to remain with the 250 people since he was involved in the incense test, 16:16. When Moshe went to the tents of Korah, Datan and Aviram, Aharon participated in the incense test with the 250 people. However, Aharon was no longer involved in the "action," which further indicates that the rebellion was primarily in reference to Moshe since the finale of the rebellion is Moshe speaking in the following verses.

The word ha-edah in 16:22,24 connects the two groups of rebels. In 16:22, the reference to the word ha-edah is to the additional rebels with Korah and the 250 people, while in 16:24 (and in 16:26) the term ha-edah is referring to the additional rebels with Datan and Aviram. This term ha-edah in these verses gives a seamless transition from the focus being on the rebellious group of Korah and 250 men to focusing on the other rebellious group of Datan and Aviram.

16:25,26 record that Moshe followed G-d’s instructions and went to Datan and Aviram's compound (for the first time) to request the people to separate from Datan and Aviram. This request was a warning to them to save their lives, which is similar to Moshe’s (and Aharon’s) prayer to G-d to spare the people who had joined the 250 people, 16:22, and in both cases the word, chet, appears, 16:22,26.

In addition, 16:25 states that Moshe got up, kam, since he had fallen on his face to pray, 16:24, but when he fell on face beforehand, 16:4, the Torah did not mention that he stood afterwards prior to his speaking to Korah, 16:5. Possibly, here the word kam is mentioned to connect to the beginning of the rebellion, when Korah, Datan and Aviram (and On?) stood, kamu, before Moshe, 16:2. Now, Moshe is standing and this standing signals that the rebellion is about to end.

One curiosity about 16:25 is that for the first and only time in this incident the elders of the people are mentioned, as they accompanied Moshe when he went to Datan and Aviram. Maybe this mention was to show that not everybody was involved in the rebellion or for the elders to be witnesses to the impending miracle.

The first half of 16:27 records that the people who had been with Datan and Aviram accepted Moshe’s warning to separate from Datan and Aviram. This separation is referred to by the word, va-yealu, which is not the usual word for people leaving an area, but it corresponds to the word he-alu in 16:24. Their separation is also the opposite of what Datan and Aviram did, as they said in 16:12,14, lo naaleh, we will not go up to Moshe, but their supporters separated from them. This word ve-yealu is the twelfth time this word/ sound appears in the chapter.

The second half of 16:27 records that Datan and Aviram remained with their families steadfast in their rebellion. 16:27 records that they were standing by the entrance of their tents, petach ohalehem, which is another literary connection with the 250 people who were by the entrance of the ohel moed, petach ohel moed, 16:18,19. Also, Datan and Aviram had accused Moshe of blinding the people, 16:14, while they had blinded their family to stay with them and die.

16:28-30 record that Moshe made an impassioned speech to counter the claims of the two groups of rebels that he was doing things on his own without being commanded by G-d. Moshe said if that G-d would do an unprecedented miracle to swallow up Datan and Aviram, then this would show that Moshe did not act on his own. 16:31-34 then record that this happened. Note, Moshe ended his speech by using the word, ni-atsu, 16:30, which has a similar sound to the description of the Datan and Aviram being defiant, nitsavim in 16:27. Also, Rendsburg (2002, pp. 416, 417) quotes Moshe Garsiel, who noted that the phrase Moshe used in 16:30, ve-im beriah, has the five letters of the name Aviram.

Moshe’s speech and ensuing miracle are the crucial points of the incident since the lesson of this incident is to teach again that Moshe is a messenger of G-d. This lesson was known from the plagues and the splitting of Yam Suf, Shemot 14:31, but maybe after some time (a year?), people were starting to doubt that Moshe was G-d's messenger. Also, maybe the arguments of Korah and the 250 people that if everybody was kadosh, 16:3, then how could it be that G-d has chosen Aharon to be the high priest was causing people to believe that it was Moshe's decision to appoint Aharon. Also, after the debacle of the spies, as argued by Datan and Aviram, maybe people were starting to doubt that Moshe was G-d's messenger. Thus, this miracle of the land swallowing up Datan and Aviram again showed that Moshe was G-d's messenger, and hence Moshe had to announce this sign before it occurred. Maybe this lesson is why this incident is recorded in the Torah since from a narrative perspective the whole rebellion could have been skipped.

16:33 records that the ground covered Datan and Aviram and maybe Korah (see our discussion on 16:32-35, "How did Korah die?), and has the leading and connecting word, alehem, which is the thirteenth time in the chapter this word/ sound appears, seven by the rebellious group of Datan and Aviram and six by the rebellious group of the 250 men. A 14th time, and the seventh by the group fighting against Aharon occurs by the aftermath of the rebellion, in 17:11, aleha, when Aharon again takes a pan with ketoret. This count does not include the word al, which appears seven times in chapter 16, 16:3(3),4,11,22(2), and the words me-al, 16:26,27.

Simultaneously with the ground opening up and swallowing Datan and Aviram, 16:35 records that a fire went forth, most likely from the glory of G-d mentioned in 16:19, and killed the 250 people offering the incense, see also 26:10. This test showed that G-d had chosen Aharon since Aharon was the only person who survived the incense test. Not only did the two groups of rebels die at the same time, but since both groups were standing by the entrance to their respective tents, then from a literary point of view, they died in the same location. Also, the fire went forth, yatsa, 16:35, just like Datan and Aviram, yatsu, went out of their tents, 16:27.

Many have noted, already by Philo (Moses 2:285,286), that the punishments to the two groups were parallel, as one group, Datan and Aviram, was punished from below while the other group, the 250 people, was punished from above. In addition, the different punishments were to answer the different claims of the two groups. The group of 250 people wanted to become priests so they were given this opportunity by being able to offer the incense offering, which Rashi (on 16:6) explains was the most desired sacrifice. This was a cultic test to see if G-d would accept them as priests, but this had no relevance to Datan and Aviram who were arguing that Moshe should not be the leader of the people. Had Datan and Aviram died from the fire of G-d by the incense offering this would have just proved that they were not worthy of being priests but that was not their argument. Instead, Datan and Aviram's punishment was that a new miracle was done which was a sign that Moshe was truly G-d’s emissary since Datan and Aviram had challenged Moshe's leadership.

The different punishments also correspond to the different statements of each group. Datan and Aviram said that they would “not go up” to see Moshe, 16:12,14, and they were punished by going down in to the ground. With regard to the group of 250 men the key word is k-r-v, come close, which is mentioned in 16:5,9,10,17,35. Ostensibly they wanted to become priests to become close to G-d. Yet there are limits to how close mankind can get to G-d without being killed, and they were killed when they tried to get too close to G-d.

Bibliography:

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Leibowitz, Nehama, 1982, Studies in Bemidbar, translated and adapted by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Levine, Baruch A., 1993, Numbers 1-20, The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday.

Milgrom, Jacob, 1990, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Rendsburg, Gary, A., 2002, The Leitwort in parashat Korah, in A divinely given Torah in our day and age, Vol. II, edited by Aryeh A. Frimer and Shlomo H. Pick, Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University, pp. 414-417.

Bemidbar (Numbers) 17:10,11 – Moshe, a quick learner

Bemidbar17:10 records that G-d told Moshe that he and Aharon should separate from the people since G-d was about to kill the people who had accused Moshe and Aharon of killing the 250 men (17:6), and the end of 17:10 records that Moshe and Aharon fell on their faces when they heard this threat. I think that G-d did not really intend to kill all the people since then G-d would have killed the people without speaking to Moshe. (This same point can be made in other cases where G-d threatened to kill the people, as for example, after the sin of the golden calf, Shemot 32:10, after the sin of the spies, Bemidbar 14:12, and in the previous chapter, 16:21.) Moshe understood that something could be done to save the people, and then Moshe sent out Aharon to walk between the people with an incense pan to stop the plague that had started to kill the people, 17:11-15.

How did Moshe know that Aharon should take an incense pan and walk amongst the people? Why did he choose this action instead of praying as he did by the sin of the golden calf and by the sin of the spies?

One possibility is the G-d gave the instructions to Moshe to tell Aharon to take the incense pan when Moshe fell on his faces. In a similar situation in the beginning of Korah’s rebellion, when Moshe fell on his face, 16:4, the Rashbam (on 16:4) makes the suggestion that when Moshe fell on his face, G-d gave Moshe instructions what to say to Korah. If G-d did speak to Moshe on that occasion, then here too G-d could have spoken to Moshe when Moshe fell on his face. However, in both cases there is no indication in the Torah that G-d spoke to Moshe when Moshe fell on his face.

Rashi (on 17:11) quotes a second possibility from the Talmud (Shabbat 89a) that when Moshe was on Mount Sinai the angel of death told him that the incense could stop a plague. The Talmud ends that if
this was not true, then how could Moshe have known that the incense would stop the plague?

My guess is that Moshe deduced this information by the first stage of Korah's revolt. 16:21 records that G-d told Moshe and Aharon to remove themselves from the 250 men who had come to do the test of fire pans since G-d was about to kill them. 16:25 then records that Moshe left, but it is not recorded that Aharon left, and according to 16:17 he was supposed to stay with the 250 men since he was part of the test of the fire pans. How then was Aharon protected if he did not leave? Did he have immunity since he was the high priest? This could be, but his two sons, Nadav and Avihu did not have immunity (Vayikra 10:2) and 16:21 and 17:10 imply that he did not have immunity, though maybe one could argue that these were not real threats. Yet, even these if these cases were not real threats, still the basis for the possible threat is that if a plague goes out from G-d then even the innocents can be killed, see Rashi on Shemot 12:22. 

If Aharon did not have immunity, how did he survive the fire that went out and killed the 250 men? It must be that when he brought his incense as part of the test of the 250 men, the incense gave him immunity from the fire that killed the 250 men. This would be similar to the incense that protects the high priest when he goes in the Holy of Holies, the inner room of the mishkan on Yom Kippur, Vayikra 16:2,13. Why then did G-d have to tell Aharon and Moshe to separate from the rebels prior to the incense test in 16:21, if he had this protection? It could be that G-d was just threatening Moshe and Aharon to get Moshe to act or it could be that Aharon had not yet lit the incense so he did not yet have this protection from the incense. In any event, from the fact that Aharon was with the 250 men but was saved when the 250 men died, 16:35, Moshe realized that the incense, if brought correctly, could protect a person from danger, and hence he knew to instruct Aharon to walk through the people with the incense to stop the plague.

Bemidbar 17:27,28 (Korah) - The people’s state of mind after the rebellion of Korah and the miracle of the blossoming of the staffs: Hopeless in the desert

After Korah's rebellion and its aftereffects, 17:27,28 record, “And the Israelites said to Moshe, saying, “we gavanu, we are lost, all of us are lost. Whoever so much as comes near to the mishkan of G-d will die. Ha-im tamnu legvoah? (variation on Alter’s 2004, p. 772, translation). The words gavanu and legvoah are translated by Alter as to perish, while Fox (1995, p. 746) translates them to expire. Why did the people think that they were dying? There was no plague at that moment, and even the test of the staffs (the previous narrative, 17:16-26) did not involve any plague.

I believe the standard explanation of verses 17:27,28 is that these verses are an introduction to chapter 18. The next verses (chapter 18) record that G-d spoke to Aharon to tell him about his work in the mishkan to guard the mishkan. Rashi (on 18:1) explains that this message to Aharon at this point was for him to ensure that the priests and Levites would stop the general public from improperly entering the mishkan since the people just said they would die if they entered the mishkan. Similarly, Ibn Ezra (on 17:27) explains that the people had just seen the 250 men die by the rebellion of Korah when they attempted to offer an incense offering, and they were worried that they too would die if they came to the mishkan. This approach is difficult since if the people were scared of entering the mishkan, then why was there a need for the priests and the Levites to keep them out since they would stay out on their own?

Yet, maybe there was a fear that one person would enter the mishkan improperly since he/ she was not scared, and the entire nation would be punished due to that person. The basis for this idea could be that 18:5 refers to the Levites saving the people from a ketsef and a ketsef could mean a punishment for the entire nation. Yet, ketsef can also refer to punishments that are focused just on the sinners, and the term negef in 8:19 indicates that the potential danger here to the people was only to the person would enter the mishkan improperly and not to the entire nation.

Rashi (on 17:28, also see Rashbam and Bekhor Shor on 17:28) explains that in 17:27,28, the people were expressing their fear that they would accidentally enter the mishkan and die. This is also difficult. The people stated in 17:27,28 that they were gavenu and all lost, but if they were referring to a person who accidentally entered the mishkan, then this would be a few people, and does not relate to the fears of everybody dying.

There is also a discontinuity between the statements of 17:27,28 and chapter 18. The people complained to Moshe in 17:27, and there is no record in chapter 18 that Moshe responded to them. In the beginning of chapter 18, G-d spoke to Aharon and there is no indication that the message was to be immediately passed on to the people in response to their fears expressed in 17:27,28.

My guess is that the people’s statement in 17:27,28 is a conclusion to the rebellion of Korah, and not an introduction to chapter 18.

My understanding is that Korah's rebellion occurred after the sin of the spies. (This follows the Ramban's position, on 16:1, and not the Ibn Ezra's position, also on 16:1.) The sin of the spies caused the people to be punished that they would die in the desert. This decree must have been pretty depressing because it meant that their lives were literally going nowhere. After the people heard this decree they tried to go to Israel on their own, but this failed, 14:40-45. What was left for the people to do?

Maybe they thought that if they would increase their worship of G-d, then the decree could be rescinded. The desire of the 250 men to be priests was an expression of this desire to increase their worship of G-d. However, this was also unsuccessful when the 250 men died (16:35) since man is to worship G-d as G-d commands and not as man chooses. Afterwards, the test of the staffs showed that the people could not even become helpers in the mishkan like the Levites, 17:16-26. Thus, the people were now at a complete loss since they realized that they could not become priests or Levites, which meant that the decree of dying in the desert was not going to be rescinded. 

17:27,28 expresses the people's realization of the hopelessness of their situation. The word gavah (twice) in these verses does not refer to death, but to a condition where a person is alive but something (in this case, G-d’s decree) is impacting the person that he/ she will die because of this thing, the person understands that the thing will kill him, and a person has no ability to reverse this thing, see our discussion on Bemidbar 20:29 and Devarim 10:6, "Where did Aharon die?" and Bereshit 47:18. This was the situation of the people once they realized that they were doomed to die, 17:27. This dying is referring to the decree of death for their initial refusal to enter the land of Israel. They also said (the first half of 17:28) that if they went to the mishkan they would die since this shows that they understood that they could not increase their worship of G-d to have the decree rescinded since they would die if they entered the mishkan. There is nothing left for them to do other than to state, the second half of 17:28, Ha-im tamnu legvoah, which can be understood as the people saying “Is there no way to stop G-d’s decree from being fulfilled?” This was a rhetorical question with the answer being no. The people understood that they would have to accept the punishment of dying in the desert, and there was nothing for Moshe to say.

Bibliography:

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.

Bemidabr 16:2 (Korah) - Who were the 250 men who were part of Korah’s rebellion?

Bemidbar 16:2 records that part of Korah's coalition consisted of 250 men of great renown. Who were they? Many suggestions have been offered.

Rashi (on 16:1) writes that most of the group of 250 men was from the tribe of Reuven since both the tribe of Reuven and Kehat, from whom Korah descended, camped on the south of the mishkan. Yet, other than 16:1 there is no mention in the Torah that the tribe of Reuven played any particular role in the rebellion. It would seem that Datan, Aviram and On were a bunch of malcontents (see Shemot Rabbah 1:29) who used this opportunity to join Korah’s rebellion. The mention of their tribal status is not unusual and it is natural for a small group of three people to have family ties. I doubt that one can extrapolate from them that the 250 men were also from the tribe of Reuven. Also, as we discussed above on chapter 16, "Korah’s rebellion: The great rebellion by an unholy coalition," Datan, Aviram and On were distinct from the 250 men within Korah's coalition.

Ibn Ezra (on 16:1) suggest that the 250 men were firstborn sons. He argues that they were the priests prior to the building of the mishkan, Shemot 19:22, and maybe they were the ones who offered sacrifices at Mount Sinai, Shemot 24:5. With this approach, the rebellion involved people from all the tribes since the firstborn sons could have been from any tribe. Ibn Ezra notes that in 16:3 Korah questioned Moshe “that were not all the people kadosh?” and we know that the firstborn sons were kadosh from Shemot 13:2. According to this approach, the grievance of the 250 men was not simply with the switching of the firstborn sons for the Levites but with the designation of Aharon to be the high priest instead of a firstborn son, Korah or anybody else, being the high priest. This approach can also accord with the idea that the tribe of Reuven was involved in the rebellion since Reuven was the firstborn of Yaakov.

The problem with this approach is that the Torah does not record that the rebellion centered around the rights of the firstborn sons, and it is not recorded that the firstborn sons were the people who offered sacrifices prior to the building of the mishkan/ ohel moed, (see Ramban on 16:1). The firstborn sons did have a special status due the 10th plague but that was not translated into any work in the mishkan/ ohel moed, but rather that they had to be redeemed, 3:40-51. When Korah stated that “all the people are kadosh" the simple understanding is that he was referring to the entire nation, and not just to the firstborn sons.

A third possibility of the identity of the 250 men is the opinion of Rabbenu Hananel (quoted in the Ramban on 16:5) that they were Levites. Moshe twice refers to them as Levites, 16:7,8. Also, 16:1 recorded that Korah was from the tribe of Levi. The idea would be that they were upset that Aharon was chosen to do the main work in the mishkan/ ohel moed instead of them.

Ramban (on 16:5) rejects this approach since he could not accept that this great tribe would have joined in a rebellion against Moshe. This argument is not convincing. Even though the tribe had remained steadfast during the time of the golden calf, this was all the more reason that they should have been upset that Aharon was chosen to be the high priest since he had participated in the sin of the golden calf.

The Ramban raises three questions regarding this approach. One, in 17:6 the people complain that Moshe and Aharon killed the people of G-d, but according to Rabbenu Hananel only people from the tribe of Levi died and not the general population. Two, in chapter 17, as part of the aftermath of the rebellion, the staffs of all of the tribes were tested to see who really was supposed to work in the mishkan/ ohel moed and the staff representing the tribe of Levi was successful. Yet, if Rabbenu Hananel was correct, then the other tribes were not upset with Aharon working in the mishkan/ ohel moed, and the test should have been within the tribe of Levi. Three, 16:2 records that the 250 men were from the children of Israel, which implies that they were from all the tribes. Another reason to think that not all the 250 men were Levites is that 27:3 records that the daughters of Tzelofhad stated that their father was not part of the 250 men (note the exact phrase, ha-noadim al G-d, in 16:11 and 27:3) and Tzelofhad was from the tribe of Menashe, 27:1. If all of the 250 men were Levites, then of course Tzelofhad had not been part of this group, but if this group consisted of people from all tribes, then it was possible that he had been with the group, which would be why Tzelofhad's daughters had to state that he had not been part of the 250 men.

The Ramban believes that the 250 men were from all of the tribes, yet why did Moshe refer to the tribe of Levi twice? The Ramban (on 16:5) explains that in 16:7, Moshe said, “too much is yours, sons of Levi” to convince the rest of the population that Korah was not really on their side. Korah had told the people that he was fighting for all of their rights, but Moshe was pointing out to the people that Korah was not concerned about that issue since he was already a Levi, and instead he wanted to be the high priest. With regard to 16:8, Ramban (on 16:5,11) explains that when Moshe said, “Hear me, sons of Levi,” he was talking primarily to Korah.

My guess is that, as noted by the Ramban, it seems unlikely that all 250 people were Levites, but naturally as Korah was from the tribe of Levi so too many of the followers, but not all, would have been from that tribe. They would have been friends of Korah, which would have given then great influence within the rebellion, and it was to these people that Moshe was speaking to in 16:7,8 to get them to quit. If these people would have quit the rebellion, then maybe the whole rebellion might have collapsed.

Bemidbar Chapter 16 (Korah) - How did Korah die?

One confusing point of chapter 16 is how did Korah die? The 250 people died from a fire from the heavens when they attempted to offer the incense, 16:35, while Datan and Aviram (On?) died when the earth swallowed them up, 16:32. Presumably, Korah as the ringleader of the whole rebellion died, but was it by the fire or by the swallowing of the earth?

The Talmud (Sanhedrin 110a) presents two more possibilities. Rabbi Yochanon says that he did not die in either manner, and Rashi explains that according to this opinion, he died in the plague that occurred after the rebellion, 17:14. This seems unlikely. He was the ringleader, and hence he should died with at least one of the groups of rebels. An anonymous opinion in the Talmud (also in Numbers Rabbah 18:19) argues that Korah died both through the swallowing of the earth and through the fire. Rashi explains that first the fire burned his soul and then his body rolled to where the earth had split and fell into the crevice. This is unlikely to be understood literally.

Ibn Ezra (on 16:35, see also Luzzato on 16:21) argues that only Datan and Aviram were swallowed by the ground since they are the only ones explicitly mentioned, also see Devarim 11:6. Korah would have been with the group of 250 men, and died by the fire with them. Why was he not mentioned as being with the 250 men? Ibn Ezra explains that once the text recorded that the group was burnt there was no need to mention Korah. Also he brings a proof from 17:5, which records that the fire-pans used by people would serve as a reminder that the people should not become like Korah and his group. He explains that this not becoming like Korah means not to suffer his fate to die as he did by the fire-pans. Also, he interprets that the words of Bemidbar 26:10 “and Korah” join with the word “community”, which would mean that Korah died with the group of 250.

Not with standing these strong arguments, I always thought that the ground swallowed up Korah. (See comments of Rambam on Pirkei Avot 5:5 that mentions Korah by the miracle of the land being swallowed.) The crucial question is where was Korah at the time of the deaths, with Datan and Aviram or with the 250 people? Ibn Ezra believes Korah was with the 250 because he was going to offer up the incense with them. 16:17 records that Korah had a fire-pan (the reference to the word you), and 16:18 records that all the people who were take the fire-pans, which includes Korah, were waiting to offer their incense to G-d by the ohel moed. Also, 16:19 records that Korah was by the ohel moed. However, afterwards, 16:25 records that Moshe left the ohel moed to go the tents of Datan and Aviram, which were not near the ohel moed.

My guess is that Korah would have followed Moshe to be where the “action” was since he was he ringleader and even the elders accompanied Moshe. Korah would have joined Datan and Aviram in their stand against Moshe and immediately afterwards the land swallowed them up. Thus, when 16:32 records that the earth swallowed up everything that appertained to Korah, this would include Korah himself. There would have been no time for him to have returned to the test of fire-pans.  Accordingly, 16:35 which records the death of the 250 men by fire makes no mention of Korah, and Rashi, (in Sanhedrin when explaining Rabbi Yochanon's opinion) notes that if Korah died with the 250 people then the Torah should have recorded that 251 people died.

According to this approach, Bemidbar 26:10 means that the earth swallowed them (Datan and Aviram) and Korah when the group of 250 died by the fire. Also, 17:5 means that one should learn from the fire-pans incident not to act like Korah and then 17:5 would then not be referring to his death.

Devarim 11:6 which only mentioned Datan and Aviram as dying from the earth does not exclude Korah from also having died from the swallowing of the earth. Hoffmann (commentary on Devarim, p.140) argues that Moshe did not want to mention the sins of Korah out of consideration for his children who were still alive, while the deaths of Datan and Aviram could be mentioned since all of their relatives were dead. Hoffmann points out that Korah’s name is also omitted for the same reason in Psalm 106:17 since the Psalm was sung by the sons of Korah.

Netziv notes that Moshe also did not mention the deaths of the 250 people in Devarim 11:6. This suggests that Moshe mentioned Datan and Aviram since they had spoke against going to the land of Israel, and Moshe was emphasizing their deaths so the new generation would not follow in their example of not wanting to go to the land of Israel. However, Korah never made any statement against going to the land of Israel so there was no need to mention his death.

Also, it is possible that Moshe purposefully omitted Korah’s name since in chapter 10 in Devarim, Moshe had just mentioned the sin of the golden calf. This incident was one of the strongest claims that Korah had against Aharon since Aharon had participated in the sin of the golden calf. Thus, Moshe did not want to mention Korah immediately after discussing the sin of the golden calf because this could renew all the questions about the choice of Aharon to be high priest. Datan and Aviram were mentioned since their complaint was not about the mishkan but about the march in the desert.

Bemidabr 16:1 (Korah) - A few unworthy men

Bemidbar 16:1 records that Korah took Datan and Aviram, the sons of Eliav, and On the son of Pelet, the sons of Reuven. This verse records the names of the main figures in the rebellion against Moshe in the desert, but who was On? He is never mentioned again in the Torah. Why is On mentioned in 16:1?

 

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.