Difference between revisions of "Korach's Rebellion/2"
m |
m |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
<p>The whole rebellion revolved around one central issue, the choice of Aharon and his family as priests.</p> | <p>The whole rebellion revolved around one central issue, the choice of Aharon and his family as priests.</p> | ||
<mekorot><multilink><a href="PhiloOntheLifeofMosesII" data-aht="source">Philo</a><a href="PhiloOntheLifeofMosesII" data-aht="source">On the Life of Moses II:33:174-179</a><a href="PhiloOntheLifeofMosesII-50-275-287" data-aht="source">On the Life of Moses II: 50: 275-287</a><a href="Philo" data-aht="parshan">About Philo</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="JosephusAntiquitiesoftheJews4-2" data-aht="source">Josephus</a><a href="JosephusAntiquitiesoftheJews4-2" data-aht="source">Antiquities of the Jews 4:2</a><a href="JosephusAntiquitiesoftheJews4-3-1-4" data-aht="source">Antiquities of the Jews 4:3:1-4</a><a href="JosephusAntiquitiesoftheJews4-4-2" data-aht="source">Antiquities of the Jews 4:4:2</a><a href="Josephus" data-aht="parshan">About Josephus</a></multilink>, perhaps <multilink><a href="RashiBemidbar16" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiBemidbar16" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 16</a><a href="RashiBemidbar17" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 17</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink>,<fn>Rashi appears to read the entire narrative in light of a complaint about the priesthood alone. In his comments to verse 5, though, he writes "יודע י״י את אשר לו – לעבודת לוייה", implying that the incense test was meant to address a complaint against the Levites as well. Rashi does not elaborate and nowhere else in his commentary does he refer to such a complaint, suggesting that he thinks that even if some were bothered by the choice of Levites, the main focus of the rebellion was nonetheless the choice of Aharon.</fn> perhaps <multilink><a href="RYosefKaraBemidbar16" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Kara</a><a href="RYosefKaraBemidbar16" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 16</a><a href="RYosefKaraBemidbar17" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 17</a><a href="R. Yosef Kara" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Kara</a></multilink>,<fn>As we do not have all of R"Y Kara's commentary on this chapter, it is difficult to know for sure how he reads the story.  However, in his comments to 16:35, he appears to assume that the complaints of the 250 princes and those of Datan and Aviram were identical (leading him to question why they then deserved different punishments).  As such, it is possible that he thinks that the entire rebellion revolved around one issue, the priesthood.</fn> <multilink><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar16" data-aht="source"> R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar16" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 16</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar17-5-23" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 17:5-23</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RalbagBemidbar16" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagBemidbar16" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 16</a><a href="RalbagBemidbar17-17" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 17:17</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink></mekorot> | <mekorot><multilink><a href="PhiloOntheLifeofMosesII" data-aht="source">Philo</a><a href="PhiloOntheLifeofMosesII" data-aht="source">On the Life of Moses II:33:174-179</a><a href="PhiloOntheLifeofMosesII-50-275-287" data-aht="source">On the Life of Moses II: 50: 275-287</a><a href="Philo" data-aht="parshan">About Philo</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="JosephusAntiquitiesoftheJews4-2" data-aht="source">Josephus</a><a href="JosephusAntiquitiesoftheJews4-2" data-aht="source">Antiquities of the Jews 4:2</a><a href="JosephusAntiquitiesoftheJews4-3-1-4" data-aht="source">Antiquities of the Jews 4:3:1-4</a><a href="JosephusAntiquitiesoftheJews4-4-2" data-aht="source">Antiquities of the Jews 4:4:2</a><a href="Josephus" data-aht="parshan">About Josephus</a></multilink>, perhaps <multilink><a href="RashiBemidbar16" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiBemidbar16" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 16</a><a href="RashiBemidbar17" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 17</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink>,<fn>Rashi appears to read the entire narrative in light of a complaint about the priesthood alone. In his comments to verse 5, though, he writes "יודע י״י את אשר לו – לעבודת לוייה", implying that the incense test was meant to address a complaint against the Levites as well. Rashi does not elaborate and nowhere else in his commentary does he refer to such a complaint, suggesting that he thinks that even if some were bothered by the choice of Levites, the main focus of the rebellion was nonetheless the choice of Aharon.</fn> perhaps <multilink><a href="RYosefKaraBemidbar16" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Kara</a><a href="RYosefKaraBemidbar16" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 16</a><a href="RYosefKaraBemidbar17" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 17</a><a href="R. Yosef Kara" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Kara</a></multilink>,<fn>As we do not have all of R"Y Kara's commentary on this chapter, it is difficult to know for sure how he reads the story.  However, in his comments to 16:35, he appears to assume that the complaints of the 250 princes and those of Datan and Aviram were identical (leading him to question why they then deserved different punishments).  As such, it is possible that he thinks that the entire rebellion revolved around one issue, the priesthood.</fn> <multilink><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar16" data-aht="source"> R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar16" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 16</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBemidbar17-5-23" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 17:5-23</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RalbagBemidbar16" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagBemidbar16" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 16</a><a href="RalbagBemidbar17-17" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 17:17</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink></mekorot> | ||
− | <point><b>"...וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח"</b> – R"Y Bekhor suggests that the verse means that Korach, Datan, Aviram, and On (who were all upset at the choice of Aharon, albeit for different reasons), together, gathered others<fn>According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, the verse is a "מקרא קצר" (a truncated text) whose meaning is made clear by the following verse. The word "people" is missing from the first verse, but understood in light of verse 2 which mentions the 250 princes. R"Y Bekhor Shor points to Bemidbar 13:30 ("ויהס כלב את העם") as a similar case, where the text is brief, relying on a later verse (Devarim 1:29) to provide the missing content.</fn> to join in their rebellion.<fn>Alternatively, this approach could have suggested that Korach "took" the others mentioned in the verse (Datan, Aviram, and On) to join him in his rebellion, recognizing that they, too, shared his grievances against Aharon. [If so, the <i>vav</i> of "וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם" is extraneous and the verse is missing the word "את".]</fn> Accordingly, all four of them might be viewed as the rebellion's leaders, and not just Korach.</point> | + | <point><b>"...וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח"</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor suggests that the verse means that Korach, Datan, Aviram, and On (who were all upset at the choice of Aharon, albeit for different reasons), together, gathered others<fn>According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, the verse is a "מקרא קצר" (a truncated text) whose meaning is made clear by the following verse. The word "people" is missing from the first verse, but understood in light of verse 2 which mentions the 250 princes. R"Y Bekhor Shor points to Bemidbar 13:30 ("ויהס כלב את העם") as a similar case, where the text is brief, relying on a later verse (Devarim 1:29) to provide the missing content.</fn> to join in their rebellion.<fn>Alternatively, this approach could have suggested that Korach "took" the others mentioned in the verse (Datan, Aviram, and On) to join him in his rebellion, recognizing that they, too, shared his grievances against Aharon. [If so, the <i>vav</i> of "וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם" is extraneous and the verse is missing the word "את".]</fn> Accordingly, all four of them might be viewed as the rebellion's leaders, and not just Korach.</point> |
<point><b>Grievances</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor asserts that Korach, being a Levite, resented Aharon's superior position. The other three instigators, being of the tribe of Reuven, thought that their tribes' firstborn status should have qualified them to be priests.<fn>Cf. Josephus. It is not clear if R"Y Bekhor Shor is assuming that originally firstborns performed the tasks later given to the priests, and that the firstborn Reubenites therefore wanted this position back, or if he is simply saying that the tribe of Reuven viewed themselves as meritorious, since Reuven was Yaakov's firstborn.  Since R"Y Bekhor Shor does not mention other firstborns joining in the rebellion, he might be suggesting only the latter. <br/>Rashi, instead, claims that members of the tribe of Reuven joined in Korach's rebellion only because, being camped near Korach, they were the first to be swayed by his arguments.</fn> All, though, were united in challenging Aharon rather than Moshe.<fn>Ralbag asserts that Moshe's words "וּבִקַּשְׁתֶּם גַּם כְּהֻנָּה" prove that this was the main point of contention.  Hoil Moshe similarly suggests that Moshe's statement "<b>וְאַהֲרֹן</b> מַה הוּא כִּי [תַלִּינוּ] (תלונו) <b>עָלָיו</b>" proves that Moshe viewed Korach as attacking Aharon and not himself. [Cf. Moshe's reaction to the nation's complaint in <a href="Shemot16-7" data-aht="source">Shemot 16:7</a>, where he includes himself as the object of attack, "<b>וְנַחְנוּ</b> מָה כִּי [תַלִּינוּ] (תלונו)<b> עָלֵינוּ</b>."]</fn></point> | <point><b>Grievances</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor asserts that Korach, being a Levite, resented Aharon's superior position. The other three instigators, being of the tribe of Reuven, thought that their tribes' firstborn status should have qualified them to be priests.<fn>Cf. Josephus. It is not clear if R"Y Bekhor Shor is assuming that originally firstborns performed the tasks later given to the priests, and that the firstborn Reubenites therefore wanted this position back, or if he is simply saying that the tribe of Reuven viewed themselves as meritorious, since Reuven was Yaakov's firstborn.  Since R"Y Bekhor Shor does not mention other firstborns joining in the rebellion, he might be suggesting only the latter. <br/>Rashi, instead, claims that members of the tribe of Reuven joined in Korach's rebellion only because, being camped near Korach, they were the first to be swayed by his arguments.</fn> All, though, were united in challenging Aharon rather than Moshe.<fn>Ralbag asserts that Moshe's words "וּבִקַּשְׁתֶּם גַּם כְּהֻנָּה" prove that this was the main point of contention.  Hoil Moshe similarly suggests that Moshe's statement "<b>וְאַהֲרֹן</b> מַה הוּא כִּי [תַלִּינוּ] (תלונו) <b>עָלָיו</b>" proves that Moshe viewed Korach as attacking Aharon and not himself. [Cf. Moshe's reaction to the nation's complaint in <a href="Shemot16-7" data-aht="source">Shemot 16:7</a>, where he includes himself as the object of attack, "<b>וְנַחְנוּ</b> מָה כִּי [תַלִּינוּ] (תלונו)<b> עָלֵינוּ</b>."]</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Which tribes did the 250 men come from?</b> This position might suggest that the 250 men comprised any of the following:<br/> | <point><b>Which tribes did the 250 men come from?</b> This position might suggest that the 250 men comprised any of the following:<br/> | ||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
<point><b>The plague</b> – Aharon's saving of the nation via the incense was meant to teach the nation that, contrary to their beliefs, in the right hands, the incense brings life, not death.</point> | <point><b>The plague</b> – Aharon's saving of the nation via the incense was meant to teach the nation that, contrary to their beliefs, in the right hands, the incense brings life, not death.</point> | ||
<point><b>The test of the staffs</b> – The nation's doubts necessitated a new test to confirm who was or was not worthy of priesthood. The blossoming of Aharon's staff decisively proved to the nation that he, and not members of other tribes, was Divinely selected.<fn>This position might point to Hashem's words "וְהָיָה <b>הָאִישׁ</b> אֲשֶׁר אֶבְחַר <b>בּוֹ</b> מַטֵּהוּ יִפְרָח" as evidence that the test's goal was to choose an individual and not a tribe. The fact that the staff is consistently referred to as "Aharon's staff" (see 17:21,23,25) and not as the staff of "the tribe of Levi" further suggests that the point was to highlight Aharon's worthiness specifically.</fn></point> | <point><b>The test of the staffs</b> – The nation's doubts necessitated a new test to confirm who was or was not worthy of priesthood. The blossoming of Aharon's staff decisively proved to the nation that he, and not members of other tribes, was Divinely selected.<fn>This position might point to Hashem's words "וְהָיָה <b>הָאִישׁ</b> אֲשֶׁר אֶבְחַר <b>בּוֹ</b> מַטֵּהוּ יִפְרָח" as evidence that the test's goal was to choose an individual and not a tribe. The fact that the staff is consistently referred to as "Aharon's staff" (see 17:21,23,25) and not as the staff of "the tribe of Levi" further suggests that the point was to highlight Aharon's worthiness specifically.</fn></point> | ||
− | <point><b>When does the story take place?</b> R"Y Bekhor Shor suggests that the story is chronological and follows the Sin of the Spies and the punishment of the nation as a whole. It is possible that the nation's ensuing despair fomented unrest and rebellion.<fn>See R"E Mizrachi that, according to Rashi, the story might have occurred before the Sin of the Spies. [Cf. | + | <point><b>When does the story take place?</b> R"Y Bekhor Shor suggests that the story is chronological and follows the Sin of the Spies and the punishment of the nation as a whole. It is possible that the nation's ensuing despair fomented unrest and rebellion.<fn>See <multilink><a href="REliyahuMizrachiBemidbar13-2" data-aht="source">R"E Mizrachi</a><a href="REliyahuMizrachiBemidbar13-2" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 13:2</a><a href="R. Eliyahu Mizrachi" data-aht="parshan">About R. Eliyahu Mizrachi</a></multilink> that, according to Rashi, the story might not be recorded in chronological order and might have occurred before the Sin of the Spies. [Cf. <multilink><a href="RambanBemidbar16" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanBemidbar16" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 16</a><a href="RambanBemidbar17-62025" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 17:6,20,25</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink>'s understanding of <multilink><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar16" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar16" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 16</a><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar17-617-18" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 17:6, 17-18</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary32-29" data-aht="source">Shemot Second Commentary 32:29</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> below.] He points to Rashi's commentary on Devarim 1:1, where he writes, "וחצרות – מחלוקתו של קרח", suggesting that Rashi must assume that the Korach's rebellion took place in Chazerot, where the nation was encamped<i> before</i> the story of the Spies. R. Mizrachi further notes Rashi's questioning of the juxtaposition of the sin of Miryam and the story of the Spies, suggesting that this implies that Rashi assumes that the two events did not occur one after the other (or Rashi would not question the placement).  As such, this might be further proof that Rashi places the rebellion before the Sin of the Spies.<br/>However, in Rashi's comments to Bemidbar 16:4, he writes that the rebellion of Korach is the fourth time that the nation has erred and lists the Sin of the Spies as the third problematic episode, thus explicitly dating the rebellion <i>after</i> the Sin of the Spies. The contradiction might be obviated in light of the fact that the line enumerating the four sins might be a later addition to Rashi' commentary.  It is found only in the margins in <a href="Commentators:Rashi Leipzig 1" data-aht="page">MS Leipzig 1</a> and is explicitly marked as an addition in MS Oxford Opp. 34.</fn></point> |
<point><b>Placement of the laws of Chapter 18</b><ul> | <point><b>Placement of the laws of Chapter 18</b><ul> | ||
<li>The directives regarding guarding the Mishkan and not coming too close to it might have been repeated here since the rebellion proved that previous warnings had not been sufficient.</li> | <li>The directives regarding guarding the Mishkan and not coming too close to it might have been repeated here since the rebellion proved that previous warnings had not been sufficient.</li> | ||
Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
<li><b>Protesting the selection of the Levites</b> – Ibn Ezra, Ramban, Chizkuni, and Abarbanel view this complaint as emanating mainly from the firstborns<fn>Ibn Ezra claims that Korach, too, was a firstborn and, incensed by the switch, spearheaded the rebellion.</fn> who had originally played a role in the cultic service<fn>In this they follow <multilink><a href="BavliZevachim112b" data-aht="source">Bavli Zevachim</a><a href="BavliZevachim112b" data-aht="source">Zevachim 112b</a><a href="Talmud Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink>.  It seems that though these sources speak of resentment against the Levites, what the firstborns really wanted was not just the secondary position of "serving the priests" but also to resume their original positions as active priests.</fn> but were then displaced by the Levites.<fn>For elaboration, see <a href="Selection of the Priests and Levites" data-aht="page">Selection of the Priests and Levites</a>.</fn>  Netziv and Hoil Moshe, in contrast, claim that the Israelites at large were bothered by the monopoly of the tribe of Levi.</li> | <li><b>Protesting the selection of the Levites</b> – Ibn Ezra, Ramban, Chizkuni, and Abarbanel view this complaint as emanating mainly from the firstborns<fn>Ibn Ezra claims that Korach, too, was a firstborn and, incensed by the switch, spearheaded the rebellion.</fn> who had originally played a role in the cultic service<fn>In this they follow <multilink><a href="BavliZevachim112b" data-aht="source">Bavli Zevachim</a><a href="BavliZevachim112b" data-aht="source">Zevachim 112b</a><a href="Talmud Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink>.  It seems that though these sources speak of resentment against the Levites, what the firstborns really wanted was not just the secondary position of "serving the priests" but also to resume their original positions as active priests.</fn> but were then displaced by the Levites.<fn>For elaboration, see <a href="Selection of the Priests and Levites" data-aht="page">Selection of the Priests and Levites</a>.</fn>  Netziv and Hoil Moshe, in contrast, claim that the Israelites at large were bothered by the monopoly of the tribe of Levi.</li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
− | <point><b>When did the rebellion take place?</b> According to Ibn Ezra, our story is not found in its chronological place,<fn>This, at least, is how <multilink><a href="RambanBemidbar16" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanBemidbar16" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 16</a><a href="RambanBemidbar17-62025" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 17:6, 20, 25</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink> understands Ibn Ezra's position, though Ibn Ezra himself is not explicit. [It is possible that Ibn Ezra alternatively assumes that the impetus for the revolt was the selection of the Levites, but since the first opportunity to rebel was only after the Sin of the Spies, the event occurred where written.]  Ramban attacks Ibn Ezra's approach, claiming that the Torah is always chronological unless explicitly stated otherwise. Both he and Ibn Ezra are consistent with their general positions on chronological issues, with Ibn Ezra not hesitating to posit achronology, claiming: "אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה" and Ramban preferring to read the text as written.  For more, see Chronology.</fn> and actually occurred earlier, soon after the Levites were chosen to replace the firstborns<fn>Cf. <multilink><a href="MidrashAggadahBuberBemidbar17-28" data-aht="source">Midrash Aggadah (Buber)</a><a href="MidrashAggadahBuberBemidbar17-28" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 17:28</a><a href="Midrash Aggadah (Buber)" data-aht="parshan">About Midrash Aggadah (Buber)</a></multilink> who suggests an even earlier chronology, claiming that the story took place after the selection of the Levites but before the building of the Tabernacle.  In contrast to Ibn Ezra, though, the Midrash Aggadah does not assume that the rebellion was spurred by the Levite selection.  Instead, it is motivated to posit achronology because of the events described at the end of Chapter 17, the nation's complaint "כֹּל הַקָּרֵב הַקָּרֵב אֶל מִשְׁכַּן י״י יָמוּת הַאִם תַּמְנוּ לִגְוֺעַ". The Midrash questions, how, if the Levites had already been assigned to guard the Mishkan, the nation would complain that they need safeguards lest they die? This difficulty can be obviated if the story is out of chronological order.<br/> This suggested achronology, however, is somewhat difficult, as the verses speak of the Ohel Moed (see 16:18-19, and 17:7-8, 15, 19), and in the people's complaint, they themselves mention the Mishkan ("כֹּל הַקָּרֵב הַקָּרֵב אֶל מִשְׁכַּן י״י יָמוּת"), implying that it has already been erected   Though it is possible that the verses speak of Moshe's personal Ohel Moed (see Shemot 33:7), and that the word "מִשְׁכַּן י״י " is simply a way of referring to Hashem's presence, this is a difficult reading.</fn> in the aftermath of the Sin of the Golden Calf.<fn>See here v. 28 and <multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary32-29" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra Shemot 32:29</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary32-29" data-aht="source">Shemot Second Commentary 32:29</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> that the firstborns had been the ones actively sacrificing to the Calf (as they were the ones in charge of sacrificial service until that point), making them most culpable.  As the Levites did not participate, they were chosen in their stead. See <a href="Selection of the Priests and Levites" data-aht="page">Selection of the Priests and Levites</a> for elaboration and dissenting views regarding the switch.</fn>  This switch led to much resentment,<fn>Considering that, according to Ibn Ezra (see his comments on 16:28 here), many of the firstborns were killed at the hands of the Levites during the incident, there was probably much enmity between the two groups.</fn> especially on the part of the firstborns, and as such, it was they who made up the bulk of the rebels. This position would need to explain why the | + | <point><b>When did the rebellion take place?</b> According to Ibn Ezra, our story is not found in its chronological place,<fn>This, at least, is how <multilink><a href="RambanBemidbar16" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanBemidbar16" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 16</a><a href="RambanBemidbar17-62025" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 17:6, 20, 25</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink> understands Ibn Ezra's position, though Ibn Ezra himself is not explicit. [It is possible that Ibn Ezra alternatively assumes that the impetus for the revolt was the selection of the Levites, but since the first opportunity to rebel was only after the Sin of the Spies, the event occurred where written.]  Ramban attacks Ibn Ezra's approach, claiming that the Torah is always chronological unless explicitly stated otherwise. Both he and Ibn Ezra are consistent with their general positions on chronological issues, with Ibn Ezra not hesitating to posit achronology, claiming: "אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה" and Ramban preferring to read the text as written.  For more, see Chronology.</fn> and actually occurred earlier, soon after the Levites were chosen to replace the firstborns<fn>Cf. <multilink><a href="MidrashAggadahBuberBemidbar17-28" data-aht="source">Midrash Aggadah (Buber)</a><a href="MidrashAggadahBuberBemidbar17-28" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 17:28</a><a href="Midrash Aggadah (Buber)" data-aht="parshan">About Midrash Aggadah (Buber)</a></multilink> who suggests an even earlier chronology, claiming that the story took place after the selection of the Levites but before the building of the Tabernacle.  In contrast to Ibn Ezra, though, the Midrash Aggadah does not assume that the rebellion was spurred by the Levite selection.  Instead, it is motivated to posit achronology because of the events described at the end of Chapter 17, the nation's complaint "כֹּל הַקָּרֵב הַקָּרֵב אֶל מִשְׁכַּן י״י יָמוּת הַאִם תַּמְנוּ לִגְוֺעַ". The Midrash questions, how, if the Levites had already been assigned to guard the Mishkan, the nation would complain that they need safeguards lest they die? This difficulty can be obviated if the story is out of chronological order.<br/> This suggested achronology, however, is somewhat difficult, as the verses speak of the Ohel Moed (see 16:18-19, and 17:7-8, 15, 19), and in the people's complaint, they themselves mention the Mishkan ("כֹּל הַקָּרֵב הַקָּרֵב אֶל מִשְׁכַּן י״י יָמוּת"), implying that it has already been erected   Though it is possible that the verses speak of Moshe's personal Ohel Moed (see Shemot 33:7), and that the word "מִשְׁכַּן י״י " is simply a way of referring to Hashem's presence, this is a difficult reading.</fn> in the aftermath of the Sin of the Golden Calf.<fn>See here v. 28 and <multilink><a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary32-29" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra Shemot 32:29</a><a href="IbnEzraShemotSecondCommentary32-29" data-aht="source">Shemot Second Commentary 32:29</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> that the firstborns had been the ones actively sacrificing to the Calf (as they were the ones in charge of sacrificial service until that point), making them most culpable.  As the Levites did not participate, they were chosen in their stead. See <a href="Selection of the Priests and Levites" data-aht="page">Selection of the Priests and Levites</a> for elaboration and dissenting views regarding the switch.</fn>  This switch led to much resentment,<fn>Considering that, according to Ibn Ezra (see his comments on 16:28 here), many of the firstborns were killed at the hands of the Levites during the incident, there was probably much enmity between the two groups.</fn> especially on the part of the firstborns, and as such, it was they who made up the bulk of the rebels. This position would need to explain why the Torah records the story of the rebellion out of chronological order.</point> |
<point><b>"...וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח"</b> – Ibn Ezra and Chizkuni suggest that the verse is an abbreviated form ("מקרא קצר"), missing the word "people".<fn>Abarbanel and Netziv, in contrast, suggest that all of Korach, Datan, Aviram, and On together did the "taking".  Abarbanel explains that they gathered both Reubenites and 250 other people from Israel to rebel against Moshe. [In other words, according to him, the words, "בני ראובן" do  not come to identify the tribe of Datan, Aviram and On, but rather are the object of the word "ויקח".]  As such, Abarbanel posits that the Reubenites were a significant portion of the rebels.</fn> Korach "took" many people, including Datan, Aviram, On, and the 250 men. According to this understanding, Korach led the rebellion by collecting many groups with disparate interests and finding a common grievance that would unite them: "מַדּוּעַ תִּתְנַשְּׂאוּ עַל קְהַל י״י".‎<fn>Though each had an individual gripe, they all questioned why power was concentrated in the family of Moshe and Aharon rather than being distributed more equally.</fn></point> | <point><b>"...וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח"</b> – Ibn Ezra and Chizkuni suggest that the verse is an abbreviated form ("מקרא קצר"), missing the word "people".<fn>Abarbanel and Netziv, in contrast, suggest that all of Korach, Datan, Aviram, and On together did the "taking".  Abarbanel explains that they gathered both Reubenites and 250 other people from Israel to rebel against Moshe. [In other words, according to him, the words, "בני ראובן" do  not come to identify the tribe of Datan, Aviram and On, but rather are the object of the word "ויקח".]  As such, Abarbanel posits that the Reubenites were a significant portion of the rebels.</fn> Korach "took" many people, including Datan, Aviram, On, and the 250 men. According to this understanding, Korach led the rebellion by collecting many groups with disparate interests and finding a common grievance that would unite them: "מַדּוּעַ תִּתְנַשְּׂאוּ עַל קְהַל י״י".‎<fn>Though each had an individual gripe, they all questioned why power was concentrated in the family of Moshe and Aharon rather than being distributed more equally.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Who were the 250 men?</b> These sources disagree on this point:<br/> | <point><b>Who were the 250 men?</b> These sources disagree on this point:<br/> |
Latest revision as of 10:52, 17 May 2020
Korach's Rebellion
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Despite the infamy of Korach's rebellion, there is much dispute among commentators as to how to interpret the rebels' protests. The difference of opinion stems from several unknowns in the text, including the historical backdrop of the rebellion, the identity of the bulk of the dissidents, and the relationship between them.
A first approach, taken by R"Y Bekhor Shor and others, assumes that all of the rebels shared a single grievance over the selection of Aharon's family as priests, and that their dispute with Moshe was only in so far as they accused him of nepotism in choosing his brother. Thus, the rebels might have been comprised primarily of Levites who resented the need to "serve" the priests.
Ramban, in contrast, maintains that the rebellion had a dual focus, with Korach and his followers protesting the priesthood of Aharon, while Datan and Aviram challenged Moshe's leadership and highlighted his failure to bring them to the Promised Land. He places the story immediately after the Sin of the Spies, suggesting that the decree that they would perish in the Wilderness is what prompted the revolt.
Ibn Ezra adds a third component to the revolt, suggesting that the rebels questioned not only the choice of Aharon and authority of Moshe, but also the selection of the tribe of Levi as a whole. He reads the story on the backdrop of the replacing of the firstborns with the Levites, suggesting that this newly disenfranchised class comprised the majority of rebels, protesting their loss of status.
Against Aharon
The whole rebellion revolved around one central issue, the choice of Aharon and his family as priests.
- Levites – R. Chananel maintains that the 250 people were all from the tribe of Levi.7 They, like Korach, were unsatisfied with merely "serving the priests" but rather aspired to be priests themselves.
- Reubenites – According to Rashi, the men were mainly from the tribe of Reuven. Rashi suggests that their joining the rebellion was a technical result of their living close to and being swayed by Korach, but it is possible that the tribe as a whole felt that they deserved priestly status due to their ancestor being Yaakov's firstborn.8
- All of Israel – Alternatively, it is possible that this group was comprised of people from all the tribes. This position might maintain that before the Sin of the Calf and the building of the Tabernacle, every individual Israelite had been allowed to sacrifice on private altars, and the people were hoping to return to this status quo.9
- Moshe might have been hoping to weaken the coalition, trying to influence individual members to change course. Thus, after (unsuccessfully) trying to convince the Levites that they had no good cause for rebelling, he turned to attempt to persuade Datan and Aviram.
- According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, though Datan and Aviram agreed with Korach's challenging of Aharon, they opposed the proposed incense test.14 Moshe, thus, called to personally invite them to join the larger assembly in the contest. However, Datan and Aviram refused, claiming that they did not need a test to prove who was in the right.
- The directives regarding guarding the Mishkan and not coming too close to it might have been repeated here since the rebellion proved that previous warnings had not been sufficient.
- Hashem may have introduced the law that the priests (and Levites) are not to inherit land, to highlight to the rebelling nation that priesthood comes not only with privileges, but also with costs.
Against Aharon and Moshe
The rebellion had two focal points. Korach and his 250 followers objected to Aharon's priesthood, while Datan and Aviram challenged Moshe's authority.
- Two complaints – The arguments of Korach and the 250 men and the complaints of Datan and Aviram are totally distinct, one focusing on the cultic realm and one on political issues.
- Different attitudes to Moshe – While Korach and the 250 princes recognize Moshe's authority and heed his words, Datan and Aviram do not.23
- Two locales – Physically, the two groups are located in different places. The fact that Moshe must send for Datan and Aviram (v. 12) may imply that they were situated separately from the other rebels.24
- Two tests / punishments – The two groups are proven wrong and meet their fates in different ways. While the 250 princes are burned by a Heavenly fire, Datan and Aviram are swallowed by the earth.
Against Aharon, Moshe, and the Tribe of Levi
The rebellion was multi-faceted, with various groups complaining about spiritual and/or political status. Some protested the selection of the priestly class, others took issue with Moshe's leadership, while yet others challenged the choice of the Levites.
- Challenging Aharon and the priesthood – Most of these sources assume that Korach was envious of and coveted Aharon's position. Ibn Ezra adds that the Levites as a whole may have resented needing to serve the priests. According to Netziv and Hoil Moshe, in contrast, it was the lay Israelites who wished to be priests.34
- Challenging Moshe – According to Ramban and Hoil Moshe, Datan and Aviram challenged Moshe's overall leadership, blaming him for taking them to die in the Wilderness. In contrast, according to Ibn Ezra and Abarbanel, they35 were upset about their tribe losing its firstborn status to Yosef with regard to a double portion of inheritance and to Yehuda with regard to leadership.36
- Protesting the selection of the Levites – Ibn Ezra, Ramban, Chizkuni, and Abarbanel view this complaint as emanating mainly from the firstborns37 who had originally played a role in the cultic service38 but were then displaced by the Levites.39 Netziv and Hoil Moshe, in contrast, claim that the Israelites at large were bothered by the monopoly of the tribe of Levi.
- Firstborns – Ibn Ezra, Ramban, Chizkuni, and Abarbanel assume that the 250 men were composed mainly of firstborns who protested the selection of the Levites and their being ousted from cultic service.
- Noble Israelites – Hoil Moshe, in contrast, assume that the 250 men were noblemen from all of the tribes, who questioned the monopoly on sacrificial service held by both the priests and the tribe of Levi as a whole. They wished to return to the state which existed before the Sin of the Golden Calf, when all could partake in the service.46 Netziv even presents them as holy men, with noble and sincere, though misguided, motives.47
- Ibn Ezra posits that Datan and Aviram had offered a sacrifice at some point prior to our story, and Moshe prays that it not be accepted by Hashem.
- Hoil Moshe, in contrast, suggests that the phrase is a "תיקון סופרים" and should be read as if it said: "לא אפן אל מנחתם". If so, Moshe's words are not a prayer that the rebels' sacrifices not be accepted, but rather a claim of Moshe's own innocence, paralleling the second half of this verse, "לֹא חֲמוֹר אֶחָד מֵהֶם נָשָׂאתִי".
- Selection of Priests and Levites – According to Ibn Ezra and Abarbanel, the nation was not convinced by the incense test, blaming Moshe for telling the rebels to bring a fatal foreign fire (or otherwise causing the people's deaths). As such, a new test was needed to prove the worthiness of both Aharon and the Levites.
- Selection of the tribe of Levi – Alternatively, Hoil Moshe suggests that the incense test sufficed to convince the nation of Aharon's worthiness, as he alone survived, proving that he was the only one worthy of bringing incense. However, the people still had doubts regarding the selection of the tribe of Levi as a whole.59 Since the bringing of incense was a rite reserved for priests, it shed no light on who was worthy of Levitical service and a new test was needed for this aspect.