Korach's Rebellion/2

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.

Sources:PhiloOn the Life of Moses II:33:174-179On the Life of Moses II: 50: 275-287About Philo, JosephusAntiquities of the Jews 4:2Antiquities of the Jews 4:3:1-4Antiquities of the Jews 4:4:2About Josephus, perhaps RashiBemidbar 16Bemidbar 17About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki,¹ perhaps R. Yosef KaraBemidbar 16Bemidbar 17About R. Yosef Kara,² R. Yosef Bekhor ShorBemidbar 16Bemidbar 17:5-23About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, RalbagBemidbar 16Bemidbar 17:17About R. Levi b. Gershom

"...וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח" – 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 others³ to join in their rebellion.⁴ Accordingly, all four of them might be viewed as the rebellion's leaders, and not just Korach.

Grievances – 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.⁵ All, though, were united in challenging Aharon rather than Moshe.⁶

Which tribes did the 250 men come from? This position might suggest that the 250 men comprised any of the following:

• Levites – R. ChananelBemidbar 16About R. Moshe b. Nachman 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

"רַב לָכֶם בְּנֵי לֵוִי" – According to R. Chananel, Moshe's singling out of the Levites is logical; he mentions them since most of the rebels were from that tribe. The other sources might suggest that Moshe specifies the Levites, not because they were the majority, but because their complaint was the most improper, given their already exalted status.

Purpose of the incense test – Since the sole contested issue was who was deserving to serve as priest, and since offering incense was a rite reserved for priests, it constituted an appropriate test.

"וְיֹדַע י״י אֶת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ וְאֶת הַקָּדוֹשׁ וְהִקְרִיב אֵלָיו וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר בּוֹ יַקְרִיב אֵלָיו " – This position would suggest that there is no special significance to the doubling in this verse¹⁰ and that all three phrase ("אֶת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ", "אֶת הַקָּדוֹשׁ", "אֵת אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר בּוֹ") speak only of the selection of Aharon.¹¹

Datan and Aviram's complaint – According to this approach, Datan and Aviram are not really bothered by Moshe's leadership as a whole, only by (what they perceive as) his nepotism in choosing his brother. Their words "כִּי תִשְׂתָּרֵר עָלֵינוּ גַּם הִשְׂתָּרֵר" are an accusation that Moshe is abusing his power for self-interest.¹²

"וַיִּשְׁלַח מֹשֶׁה לִקְרֹא לְדָתָן וְלַאֲבִירָם" – According to this position, Moshe's "sending" separately to Datan and Aviram does not imply that from the outset they were a distinct group in a distinct location.  Rather, after the initial discussion, or perhaps when Moshe turned to address the Levites specifically, everyone else (and not just Datan and Aviram) had dispersed to their tents.¹³  Accordingly, the reason Moshe decided to single out Datan and Aviram was either because:

• 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.

"אַל תֵּפֶן אֶל מִנְחָתָם" – According to this approach, Datan and Aviram shared the same grievances about the priesthood as the rest of the rebels, and it was originally assumed that they too would participate in the incense test.  Thus, Rashi maintains that the "minchah" offering of this verse refers to the incense to be brought at the test, and Moshe initially prayed that their incense not be accepted. Only because they later refused to participate in the incense offering was there a need to devise a different test to prove them wrong, leading to the miracle of the earthquake.¹⁵

"בְּזֹאת תֵּדְעוּן כִּי י״י שְׁלָחַנִי לַעֲשׂוֹת אֵת כׇּל הַמַּעֲשִׂים הָאֵלֶּה" – Rashi and R"Y Bekhor Shor assert that "כׇּל הַמַּעֲשִׂים הָאֵלֶּה" refers specifically to the appointment of Aharon.¹⁶ The earth's swallowing of Datan and Aviram was meant to prove that, in contrast to their claims of nepotism, the selection of Aharon as priest came from Hashem, and not Moshe.

Different punishments – If Datan and Aviram's complaints were no different than that of the other rebels, one might have expected them to share the same fate and be burnt while offering incense rather than swallowed up.  According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, it is possible that their refusal to partake in the incense test is what necessitated their own special punishment.¹⁷ Alternatively, it is possible that as the leaders of the rebellion, they received a more unique punishment than their followers.

"אַתֶּם הֲמִתֶּם אֶת עַם י"י" – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, the nation was not convinced by the incense test and instead blamed Moshe for involving incense, as it had already been proven in the past (by Nadav and Avihu) to be fatal.  They further claimed that since Nadav and Avihu, who were by all accounts chosen for the priesthood, had nonetheless died when they brought incense, the test could not serve as proof of unworthiness for the position.¹⁸

The plague – 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.

The test of the staffs – 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.¹⁹

When does the story take place? 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.²⁰

Placement of the laws of Chapter 18

• 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.

Sources:RambanBemidbar 16Bemidbar 17:6, 20, 25About R. Moshe b. Nachman #2,²¹ R. S.R. HirschBemidbar 16Bemidbar 17:6:18Bemidbar 17:6-28About R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, various contemporary scholars²²

Two groups – Several factors might support the idea that the rebellion was in essence a two-pronged revolt, led by two distinct parties with disparate goals:

• 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.

When did the rebellion take place? Ramban asserts that the story is in its chronological place and follows the decree that the entire nation would perish in the Wilderness as a result of the Sin of the Spies. It is this which prompted Datan and Aviram's complaint against Moshe's leadership.²⁵ In addition, though Korach's grievance against Aharon's appointment preceded the decree, it was only now that he felt he could act upon it. Beforehand, no one would have dared rebel against Moshe after all he had done to redeem the nation from Egypt. The decree, though, embittered the nation, making the situation ripe for Korach's incitement.²⁶

"...וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח" – According to Ramban, the word "וַיִּקַּח" does not mean that anyone actually took anything, but is rather "לשון התעוררות", language which connotes a decision to act.  If so, the verse might imply that there were two distinct and equal sets of leaders of the rebellion: Korach on one hand, and Datan, Aviram, and On²⁷ on the other.²⁸ They all "awoke" to rebel. [Alternatively, Korach was the ring leader who "took" all of the others under his command, uniting two groups of dissidents who otherwise had little in common.]

Who were the 250 men? According to Ramban, the 250 people were likely an assortment from all of the tribes.²⁹ He maintains that before the selection of Aharon and the building of the Tabernacle, private altars were allowed and anyone could act as a priest, performing their own sacrificial service. The entire nation was literally a "מַמְלֶכֶת כֹּהֲנִים וְגוֹי קָדוֹשׁ".  The people's argument here, "כִּי כׇל הָעֵדָה כֻּלָּם קְדֹשִׁים" is a call to go back to this state of affairs.

"רַב לָכֶם בְּנֵי לֵוִי" – If the rebels were not predominantly Levites, it is not clear why the tribe is singled out by Moshe. Ramban claims that Moshe is really addressing only Korach, highlighting how he, being more exalted than others, has no real cause for complaint.  Moshe speaks in the plural in an attempt to subtly dissuade any other Levites who might have been tempted to join the revolt.³⁰

Purpose of the incense test – The incense test was intended only for those who challenged Aharon's priesthood.  Since the people claimed that all were equally qualified to serve Hashem, Moshe chose a cultic rite which was normally performed by the priest as a means to test their claims.

"וַיִּשְׁלַח מֹשֶׁה לִקְרֹא לְדָתָן וְלַאֲבִירָם" – Ramban explains that while Moshe was speaking with Korach and the 250 men, Datan and Aviram had departed, as the discussion did not pertain to their grievances. Moshe, therefore, now sends to them to address their concerns and actions. Alternatively, Datan and Aviram had never been part of the original dialogue between Moshe and the rebels.

Datan and Aviram's speech – Datan and Aviram's words do not address the spiritual realm at all, but instead focus only on Moshe's leadership, blaming him both for taking the nation out of Egypt and for not bringing them to Israel.³¹  Their complaint, then, is completely distinct from that of the 250 men.

"אַל תֵּפֶן אֶל מִנְחָתָם" – As this approach assumes that Datan and Aviram were never meant to be part of the incense test, Ramban suggests that the word "מִנְחָתָם" refers not to the incense, but to any prayer or alternative sacrifice that the two might offer in supplication to Hashem.

"בְּזֹאת תֵּדְעוּן כִּי י״י שְׁלָחַנִי לַעֲשׂוֹת אֵת כׇּל הַמַּעֲשִׂים הָאֵלֶּה " – Both Ramban and R. Hirsch posit that Moshe is referring to his leadership as a whole and not merely to the appointment of Aharon to the priesthood.  In response to Datan and Aviram's accusations, Moshe declares that all the actions which he had performed as a leader, from the day Hashem commissioned him to free the nation until now, had been via Divine command.

Different punishments – Since Datan and Aviram's crime was distinct from that of the 250 men, it makes sense that they are killed in different ways.

Test of staffs – R. Hirsch maintains that the incense test did not accomplish its intended goal of proving Aharon's worthiness  The people believed that the 250 men had died as a punishment for their personal assault on the honor of Aharon, but not because they were otherwise unworthy of the priesthood. As such, a new demonstration was needed, leading to the test of the staffs.³²

"הַאִם תַּמְנוּ לִגְוֺע" and the laws of Chapter 18 – This approach might suggest that although the people had already been warned against coming too close and the Levites had already been commissioned with guarding the Mishkan to prevent this, the deaths during the rebellion led to renewed fear on the part of the people and thus a repetition of the directives.

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.

Sources:Ibn EzraBemidbar 16Bemidbar 17:6, 17-18Shemot Second Commentary 32:29About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, ChizkuniBemidbar 16Bemidbar 17About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach, RambanBemidbar 16Bemidbar 17:6, 20, 25About R. Moshe b. Nachman #1,³³ AbarbanelBemidbar 16Bemidbar 17About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, Netziv,Bemidbar 16Bemidbar 17About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin Hoil MosheBemidbar 16About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi

Grievances – Though all of these commentators agree that the rebels were composed of many groups with distinct interests, they disagree regarding the specifics of who was upset about what:

• 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.

When did the rebellion take place? According to Ibn Ezra, our story is not found in its chronological place,⁴⁰ and actually occurred earlier, soon after the Levites were chosen to replace the firstborns⁴¹ in the aftermath of the Sin of the Golden Calf.⁴²  This switch led to much resentment,⁴³ 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.

"...וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח" – Ibn Ezra and Chizkuni suggest that the verse is an abbreviated form ("מקרא קצר"), missing the word "people".⁴⁴ 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".‎⁴⁵

Who were the 250 men? These sources disagree on this point:

• 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

Conflicting grievances – One of the difficulties with Ibn Ezra's reconstruction of the rebellion is that, according to him, the various rebel factions had conflicting interests, as both the Levites themselves and the firstborns who resented the Levites were joining forces.⁴⁸

"העיקר חסר מן הספר" – A weaknesses of this approach is the fact that the firstborns are never mentioned in the text. If they played a significant role in the rebellion, one would have thought that they would be discussed explicitly in the chapter.

"כׇל הָעֵדָה כֻּלָּם קְדֹשִׁים" – Ibn Ezra suggests that these words support the idea that the rebellion revolved around the replacing of the firstborns by the Levites, for this statement hints to the firstborns' sanctified status, as Hashem said of them, "קַדֶּשׁ לִי כׇל בְּכוֹר".

Prior role of firstborns – Most of these sources follows Bavli ZevachimZevachim 112bAbout the Bavli in assuming that the firstborns were involved in the sacrificial service, acting as priests, until they were replaced by the tribe of Levi.  However, this is never explicit in Torah. We are told that the firstborns were sanctified in the aftermath of the Plague of Firstborns, but not what form that sanctification took.⁴⁹

Purpose of incense test – According to most of these sources, the test was meant to discern both who was worthy of the Levites' position and who merited priesthood.⁵⁰  However, as bringing incense is a priestly, rather than Levite, function, it is not clear how the same test could be used for both groups. This, perhaps, is what leads Hoil Moshe to conclude that the incense proved only who was worthy of the priesthood.⁵¹

"וְיֹדַע י״י אֶת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ וְאֶת הַקָּדוֹשׁ וְהִקְרִיב אֵלָיו וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר בּוֹ יַקְרִיב אֵלָיו " – Most of these sources suggest that the doubling in the verse matches the dual purpose of the test.  It was to discern "אֶת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ" as far as the status of the Levites,⁵² and "אֶת הַקָּדוֹשׁ" regarding the priesthood.⁵³

"וַיִּשְׁלַח מֹשֶׁה לִקְרֹא לְדָתָן וְלַאֲבִירָם" – According to Abarbanel, Moshe recognized that Datan and Aviram's grievance was distinct from the others (as it did not relate exclusively to cultic practices).⁵⁴ He, therefore, summoned them separately to address their specific complaints and perhaps to appease them, hoping they would break away from the rest of the rebels.⁵⁵ They, however, refused to dialogue, saying "לֹא נַעֲלֶה".‎⁵⁶

"אַל תֵּפֶן אֶל מִנְחָתָם" – As these sources assume that Datan and Aviram's claims were not to be addressed by the incense test, they explain that the "minchah" refers to something else:

• 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".

" בְּזֹאת תֵּדְעוּן כִּי י״י שְׁלָחַנִי לַעֲשׂוֹת אֵת כׇּל הַמַּעֲשִׂים הָאֵלֶּה " – Ibn Ezra claims that Moshe is speaking, not of his entire mission, but only of the switching of the firstborns and Levites.⁵⁷

Different punishments – The various groups received different punishments, since they erred in different ways.  Those who rebelled over cultic issues (the choice of Aharon and the Levites) were punished by fire, while those who rebelled against Moshe's leadership were swallowed by the earth.⁵⁸

Test of the staffs – These sources disagree regarding the goal of the test:

• 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.

Why staffs? If the test was meant to demonstrate which tribe was chosen (and not just who was worthy of priesthood), the decision to do so via the blossoming of a staff might be symbolic. The word "מַטֶּה" (like its synonym "שבט") refers to both a staff and a tribe.⁶⁰  The blossoming of the Levite's staff, thus, represents the blossoming of the tribe.

"הַאִם תַּמְנוּ לִגְוֺע" and the laws of Chapter 18 – If the rebellion took place right after the selection of the Levites, it is possible that the laws of Chapter 18, including the warnings against coming too close  to the Mishkan and the assignment of the Levites to be guards, had not yet been given, and were only relayed in the aftermath of and as a reaction to the rebellion.⁶¹

¹ 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.

² 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.

³ 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.

⁴ 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 vav of "וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם" is extraneous and the verse is missing the word "את".]

⁵ 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.
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.

⁶ 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 "וְאַהֲרֹן מַה הוּא כִּי [תַלִּינוּ] (תלונו) עָלָיו" proves that Moshe viewed Korach as attacking Aharon and not himself. [Cf. Moshe's reaction to the nation's complaint in Shemot 16:7, where he includes himself as the object of attack, "וְנַחְנוּ מָה כִּי [תַלִּינוּ] (תלונו) עָלֵינוּ."]

⁷ See below that this is supported by the fact that Moshe addresses the Levites directly, telling them "רַב לָכֶם בְּנֵי לֵוִי"  and "שִׁמְעוּ נָא בְּנֵי לֵוִי".

⁸ Cf. R"Y Bekhor Shor above.

⁹ See RambanBemidbar 16About R. Moshe b. Nachman's comments at the end of Bemidbar 16:21 and Hoil MosheBemidbar 16Bemidbar 1:2Shemot 20:20About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi, both discussed below.

¹⁰ I.e. it is simply a rhetorical device, meant for emphasis.

¹¹ See the above note that Rashi, nonetheless, does differentiate between the clauses, suggesting that the test will prove who is to serve as both Levites ("וְיֹדַע י״י אֶת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ") and priests ("אֶת הַקָּדוֹשׁ").  As nowhere else in his commentary, though, does Rashi suggest that the people were complaining about the selection of the Levites, it is unclear why he includes them in this verse.

¹² According to this reading, then, Datan and Aviram's complaint about the decree to die in the Wilderness ("הַמְעַט כִּי הֶעֱלִיתָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ לַהֲמִיתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר") was only of secondary importance.

¹³ According to this reading, in verse 16, Moshe speaks not to Korach and his entire congregation (who had already gone to their tents), but to Korach alone, telling him to gather everyone the next day for the test.

¹⁴ Accordingly, it was perhaps when Moshe proposed the contest that they left the original discussion to return to their tents.

¹⁵ R"Y Bekhor Shor agrees with Rashi that the minchah in this verse refers to the incense offering, however he also asserts that the brothers had previously expressed their refusal to participate in the incense test when they responded "לֹא נַעֲלֶה". This seeming contradiction could perhaps be obviated if R"Y Bekhor Shor is assuming that Moshe believed that Datan and Aviram planned on bringing their own individual incense offering, despite not being part of the general test. Alternatively, Moshe may have thought that there was still a chance that Datan and Aviram would still change their mind and decide to join the other incense offerers.

¹⁶ The phrase "all these deeds" is slightly difficult for this position, as it suggests that Moshe was attempting to prove multiple points, not just one as claimed by this approach.

¹⁷ R"Y Kara adds that their punishment was harsher because they were the only ones to refuse to abide by Moshe's ruling that the issue be resolved though the incense test.

¹⁸ The fact that Aharon alone was saved might prove that he was more worthy than others (and, thus, deserving of the high priesthood), but it still did not prove that others were not worthy of being regular priests

¹⁹ This position might point to Hashem's words "וְהָיָה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר אֶבְחַר בּוֹ 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.

²⁰ See R"E MizrachiBemidbar 13:2About R. Eliyahu Mizrachi that, according to Rashi, the story might not be recorded in chronological order and might have occurred before the Sin of the Spies. [Cf. RambanBemidbar 16Bemidbar 17:6,20,25About R. Moshe b. Nachman's understanding of Ibn EzraBemidbar 16Bemidbar 17:6, 17-18Shemot Second Commentary 32:29About R. Avraham ibn Ezra 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 before 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.
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 after 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 MS Leipzig 1 and is explicitly marked as an addition in MS Oxford Opp. 34.

²¹ This is how Ramban interprets the chapter "על דרך הפשט".  See his later addition to  the end of his commentary on Bemidbar 16:21. [For more about Ramban's additions to his commentary, see Ramban's Updates].  Most of Ramban's commentary on the chapter, though, is "על דרך רבותנו", who assume that the firstborns were originally involved in sacrificial service.  See Ramban in the third approach below.

²² See, for instance, R"T Granot, "פוליטיקה ואידיאולוגיה במרד דתן ואבירם", R"M Leibtag, "התיאור החסר בפרשת קורח", R"E Samet, "משה אל מול המורדים: מנהיגות במבחן ההתנגדות בשתי חזיתות", and R"A Bazak, "את מי לקח קורח".

²³ This, in turn, leads to two very different reactions on the part of Moshe. Only to Datan and Aviram does he respond with anger.

²⁴ It is not clear if the two groups were always separate, or if Datan and Aviram were present when Korach's group made their arguments, and only left afterwards.

²⁵ Their complaint that Moshe is not taking them to the Promised Land, but to die in the wilderness ("לַהֲמִיתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר") is a direct allusion to the decree.

²⁶ Cf. Shadal Bemidbar 16:1Bemidbar 16:1About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto.

²⁷ Though the verse groups On with Datan and Aviram rather than Korach, it is difficult to know what role he played in the rebellion since he is never again mentioned in the chapter.

²⁸ According to this reading, verses 1-2 might be seen as a heading for the entire chapter, which then divides to discuss each grievance separately. Verses 3-11 focus on the complaints of Korach and the 250 men, while verses 12-14 speak of Datan and Aviram's rebellion. If so, Datan and Aviram were not even present during the discussion regarding the priesthood and incense test (see the note above).

²⁹ As evidence, he points to the phrase, "וַאֲנָשִׁים מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל" which implies that they were not all from one tribe or distinct group.

³⁰ It is also possible that, even if the 250 men were from many tribes, there was a disproportionately large group from Levi, as they would have been more swayed by Korach, their tribesman, than others. Moreover, despite their more exalted status, they might have resented having to serve Aharon.

³¹ While the first approach above focused on Datan and Aviram's words, "כִּי תִשְׂתָּרֵר עָלֵינוּ גַּם הִשְׂתָּרֵר", seeing in them a claim of abuse of power and nepotism, this approach highlights the rest of their speech, "הַמְעַט כִּי הֶעֱלִיתָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ לַהֲמִיתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר... אַף לֹא אֶל אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ הֲבִיאֹתָנוּ".

³² Ramban, instead, suggests that the test of the staffs was supposed to prove that the tribe of Levi was chosen. It is unclear, though, if he is suggesting this only according to the Midrashic approach, "על דרך רבותנו", (see below) which views the rebellion as revolving around the rejection of the firstborns, or if he thinks that even according to the Peshat reading of the story, after Aharon's priesthood was proven, the people raised a new issue and wanted additional proof regarding the selection of the entire tribe of Levi.

³³ This is Ramban's explanation of the chapter, "על דרך רבותנו". See the previous approach for his alternative reading "על דרך הפשט".

³⁴ See the discussion below about the identity of the 250 men.

³⁵ See the note below, that according to Abarbanel, there was an entire contingent of Reubenites in addition to Datan and Aviram.

³⁶ As Moshe would seem not to be responsible for either of these, this approach must explain why the rebels would blame him.  Abarbanel implies that these points were emphasized during the division of the camp, when Yosef clearly received two portions (Ephraim and Menashe each had their own encampment) and Yehuda was chosen to travel first. This might have led the people to believe that Moshe was involved in the decision. Ibn Ezra adds that maybe they suspected Moshe of favoritism, as his loyal servant, Yehoshua, was also from the tribe of Yosef.

³⁷ Ibn Ezra claims that Korach, too, was a firstborn and, incensed by the switch, spearheaded the rebellion.

³⁸ In this they follow Bavli ZevachimZevachim 112bAbout the Bavli.  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.

³⁹ For elaboration, see Selection of the Priests and Levites.

⁴⁰ This, at least, is how RambanBemidbar 16Bemidbar 17:6, 20, 25About R. Moshe b. Nachman 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.

⁴¹ Cf. Midrash Aggadah (Buber)Bemidbar 17:28About Midrash Aggadah (Buber) 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.
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.

⁴² See here v. 28 and Ibn Ezra Shemot 32:29Shemot Second Commentary 32:29About R. Avraham ibn Ezra 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 Selection of the Priests and Levites for elaboration and dissenting views regarding the switch.

⁴³ 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.

⁴⁴ 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.

⁴⁵ 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.

⁴⁶ See Hoil Moshe Shemot 20:20Bemidbar 16Shemot 20:20About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi, Bemidbar 1:2Bemidbar 1:2About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi and his opinion in Altars of Earth, Stone, and Wood.

⁴⁷ According to Netziv, these people were not actually attempting to effect a change of policy and recognized that the priesthood was to remain in the hands of the tribe of Levi. However, they burned with a desire to get closer to Hashem through active sacrificial service, even at the pain of death. [Cf. Netziv's reading of the episode of the ma'apilim whom he also depicts as acting out of noble motives, cognizant that their actions might nonetheless be fatal.]

⁴⁸ As the other commentators do not have the Levites (excluding Korach) play a significant role in the rebellion (or do not single out the firstborns), this is not a problem for them.

⁴⁹ As priests are mentioned before the erection of the Tabernacle and appointment of Aharon (see Shemot 19:22: "וְגַם הַכֹּהֲנִים הַנִּגָּשִׁים אֶל ה' יִתְקַדָּשׁוּ"), Ibn Ezra and others suggest that such a position existed and was held by the firstborns.

⁵⁰ Abarbanel further claims that, at least originally, it was also meant to test the claims of the Reubenites against Yehuda/Yosef. It is unclear, though, how this could be proven via the ritualistic offering of incense.  It is further difficult how, practically, the same test could simultaneously choose those worthy of being Levites and those worthy of ruling, considering that these would be different groups. Regardless, see below that Abarbanel posits that in the end, there was a change of plan and the Reubenites did not participate in the incense test.

⁵¹ See his comments to 17:18.

⁵² See Ramban who notes that the language of "אֶת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ' is reminiscent of earlier statements of Hashem (in Bemidbar 3:12-13) relating to the selection of both the Levites ("וְהָיוּ לִי הַלְוִיִּם") and the firstborns ("כִּי לִי כׇּל בְּכוֹר"). The test is meant to demonstrate which of these two groups is truly His ("לוֹ"). Cf. Netziv who suggests that the phrase "אֶת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ" alludes back to Moshe's cry "מִי לה' אֵלָי" at the Sin of the Golden Calf and therefore hints to the Levites who answered Moshe's call and proved themselves to be Hashem's.

⁵³ Abarbanel adds that "אֵת אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר בּוֹ" refers to the contest between Reuven and Yehuda / Yosef. [See the above note that he maintains that the incense test was originally supposed to address the Reubenites' concerns as well.]

⁵⁴ According to many of these sources, Datan and Aviram had joined in the original complaints against Aharon and the tribe of Levi as well.  They simply had additional grievances which also needed to be addressed. See Ibn Ezra who explains the doubling in Datan and Aviram's words, "כִּי תִשְׂתָּרֵר עָלֵינוּ גַּם הִשְׂתָּרֵר" to refer to the power held by both Aharon and Moshe.

⁵⁵ Abarbanel suggests that Moshe thought to offer them some special portion or other position of leadership upon arrival in Israel so as to appease them.  Datan and Avram retorted that, as they are all doomed to die in the Wilderness, this gesture would be worthless.

⁵⁶ See above that, according to Abarbanel, originally Datan and Aviram's claims were to be disproved through the incense test together with those of everyone else. In face of their refusal to negotiate, however, Moshe changed his mind and devised a new test for them alone. Abarbanel explains that it was this change in plan which necessitated Moshe's repeated instructions to Korach "אַתָּה וְכׇל עֲדָתְךָ הֱיוּ לִפְנֵי י״י אַתָּה וָהֵם וְאַהֲרֹן מָחָר", in which he excluded Datan and Aviram. [Others explain the repetition by positing a different change in plan, that Aharon was now to be included in the test, but had not been before.]

⁵⁷ Abarbanel, instead, claims that Moshe is speaking of each of the three issues being contested: the choice of Aharon, the selection of tribe of Levi, and the tribal status of Yehuda and Yosef (vs. Reuven).

⁵⁸ The verses are somewhat ambiguous regarding the fate of Korach himself. From Bemidbar 26:10, it sounds as if he shared the fate of Datan and Aviram.  On the other hand, Devarim 11:6 mentions only Datan and Aviram as being swallowed up by the earth, omitting Korach.  [See also Bemidbar 16:27 which similarly has only Datan and Aviram emerging from their tents, and 16:32 which mentions Korach's possessions being swallowed, but not Korach himself.] 
Ibn Ezra, Abarbanel, and Hoil Moshe all attempt to prove that Korach was burned together with the 250 men. As he, like they, protested on cultic grounds, it is logical that they all were punished in the same manner. See, though, the opinion in Bavli Sanhedrin 110aSanhedrin 110aAbout the Bavli, which suggests that Korach received a dual punishment, being both burned and swallowed. This possibility, too, could make sense according to this approach which presents Korach as being the ringleader who united both groups of rebels.

⁵⁹ Cf. Ramban who agrees that the new test was meant to demonstrate only the selection of the tribe of Levi.  Ramban, though, develops the idea differently.

⁶⁰ See, for example, Shemot 31:2, 35:34, Bemidbar 1:21-39, or Bemidbar 3:6.

⁶¹ Cf. Midrash Aggadah BuberBemidbar 17:28About Midrash Aggadah (Buber) discussed above.