“And the sons of Eliav were Datan and Aviram. These are the same Datan and Aviram that were leaders of the congregation and that strove with Moshe and Aharon among the congregation of Korach, in their strife against Hashem.” Sefer BeMidbar 26:9
In our parasha, Hashem directs Moshe and Elazar
to take a census of the nation. The
Torah recounts the details of this census.
In discussing the Shevet of Reuven, the Torah tells us that Phalu that
son of Reuven had one son – Eliav.
Eliav, in turn had three sons –Nemuel, Datan and Aviram. The Torah then tells us the Datan and Aviram
were involved in Korach’s conflict with Moshe and Aharon. They were punished for this rebellion. The earth opened and swallowed Datan, Aviram
and Korach. The Torah then adds that
Korach’s children were not killed in this punishment.
It is
interesting that the Torah seems to assign a prominent leadership role to Datan
and Aviram in this rebellion. This does
not seem to accord with Rashi’s opinion. Rashi implies that Korach was the true leader of the rebellion and
he influenced Datan and Aviram to join his insurgency.[1] Rashi’s
contention is supported by the opening of Parshat Korach that describes Korach
as the ringleader of the rebellion.
However,
Gershonides rejects Rashi’s position based upon the passages in our parasha that seem to attribute the
leadership role in the rebellions to Datan and Aviram. Gershonides points to another element of our
parasha’s account of the rebellion
that seems to support his position.
A brief
introduction is needed in order to understand Gershonides’ position. As we have noted, the account in our parasha ends by telling us that Korach
was killed by Hashem for his actions but his children were spared. The earth opened and swallowed Korach. It is likely that Korach and his children
were situated in proximity of each other.
But nonetheless, the children were not swallowed. Rashi is bothered by a problem. The Torah tells us that the children to
Korach were spared. This implies that
we would presume that they died like their father. The Torah is compelled to correct us and reveal that our
presumption is wrong. Korach was killed
but his children were spared. Why would
we presume that Korach’s children should have been punished?
Rashi
explains that Korach’s children were deeply involved in the rebellion. Korach’s children were among the first to
join him. In the formative stage of the
rebellion, they offered their father support and advice. However, they subsequently recognized the
impact of their actions and reconsidered.
They repented their mistake and were spared from death.[2] According to
Rashi, the apparent intention of the passage is that although they too had been
deeply involved in the rebellion, Korach’s children were saved by their
repentance. In other words, the pasuk intends to demonstrate the
efficacy of teshuva –
repentance.
Gershonides
points out that Rashi does offer an explanation for the Torah’s statement that
the children of Korach did not die. But
there is another problem that Rashi’s interpretation does not address. This section of the parasha is describing the census taken by Moshe and Elazar. Specifically, it is providing details
regarding the population of Shevet Reuven.
Korach was a Leyve. We can understand that he is mentioned as an
associate of Datan and Aviram. The
Torah is explaining why Datan and Aviram died and tells us that they were
involved in the rebellion of Korach.
But this is an odd juncture to mention that the sons of Korach were
spared. Why mention this point in the
midst of an account of the census of Shevet Reuven?
Based on
this consideration, Gershonides suggests that the simple message of the
passages suggest and alternative to Rashi’s interpretation. Gershonides begins by emphasizing that these
passages are an account of the fate of Datan, Aviram, and their children. Korach is only mentioned in passing to
explain the reason for the death of Datan, Aviram, and their children. The Torah tells us that the children of
Korach did not die. The apparent
purpose of this comment – given the context – is to establish a contrast. Datan and Aviram’s role in the rebellion was
so substantial that their punishment extended to their children. Not only were Datan and Aviram punished,
their children were also killed. In
contrast, Korach’s role was apparently less significant. So, although Korach was killed, his children
were spared. This interpretation
supports Gershonides’ contention that Datan and Aviram were the instigators of
the rebellion. Korach played a lesser,
supporting role.[3]
Before
proceeding, let is summarize the positions of Rashi and Gershonides. Rashi maintains that Korach was the initial
instigator and leader of the rebellion.
His children were among his initial followers and advisors. However, they repented and were spared
death. Gershonides argues that Datan
and Aviram were the initial instigators.
Korach was a supporter of their rebellion. As a result of their role in the rebellion, Datan and Aviram were
punished with death and this punishment extended to their children. Korach played a lesser role. Therefore, although he was killed, his
children were spared.
Of
course, there is one obvious problem with Gershonides’ position. The Torah in Parshat Korach describes the
rebellion in detail. There, the Torah
mentions Korach before mentioning Datan and Aviram.[4] The obvious
implication is that Korach was the leader and Datan and Aviram were junior
partners.
Gershonides
does not ignore this problem. He
explains that Korach is given prominence in this initial account because of his
greater stature – he was a more important person.[5]
This is
a difficult statement to understand.
Why does Korach’s greater stature dictate that he should be given prominence
in the initial account? It seems that
Gershonides maintains that although Datan and Aviram were the initial
instigators, the rebellion would not have gained its tremendous momentum and
popular support without the involvement of a leader of stature. Korach’s participation lent credibility to
the rebellion. As a result of his
public support and leadership, the rebellion took hold among the people.
We can
now understand the contrast between the two accounts of the rebellion. In the initial account – in Parshat Korach,
the Torah’s objective is to recount the incident of the rebellion and its
impact on Bnai Yisrael. From the
perspective of this impact, it is irrelevant who the initial instigator was. Korach’s involvement in a leadership role
was the crucial factor in converting a personal grievance into a popular
cause. Therefore, in discussing the
rebellion from the perspective of the impact on Bnai Yisrael, Korach is given
prominence.
In
contrast, the objective of the Torah in our parasha
is not to recount the rebellion and its impact on the nation. Here, the intention is to explain the fate
of Datan and Aviram. The Torah is
telling us why they and their children died.
In this context, it is important for the Torah to note that Datan and
Aviram were the instigators. It is this
role that explains their deaths and the deaths of their children.
Let us
contrast the position of Rashi with that of Gershonides. According to Rashi, there is little
distinction between leader and follower.
Datan and Aviram were killed with their children. Korach and his children were also destined
to die. However, Korach’s children were
spared because they repented.
Gershonides disagrees. He argues
that the responsibility of the instigator is greater than that of the follower
– even a prominent, key follower.
Therefore, Datan and Aviram’s children were killed but Korach’s were
spared.
Perhaps,
it is possible to extend our understanding of this debate between Gershonides
and Rashi one step further. Gershonides
argues that Datan and Aviram were the instigators. Korach – because of a flaw in his personality – was drawn into
their insurgency. He would not have
initiated this rebellion. But once
underway, he became involved and assumed a leadership role. It seems that Gershonides maintains that the
subsequent punishment corresponded with the internal wickedness of the parties
involved. Datan and Aviram were the
self-motivated in their involvement.
They were more corrupt than Korach.
Korach was drawn into an insurgency he would not have initiated. His wickedness was les than that of Datan
and Aviram. As a result his punishment
– although severe – was less that that of Datan and Aviram.
Rashi
maintains that the punishment does not correspond to the internal wickedness of
the parties. He maintains that Korach
was the leader and Datan and Aviram were his followers. Nonetheless, they all deserved the same
fate. Korach’s children were only
spared because of their repentance. It
seems that according to Rashi, there is little or no distinction between leader
and follower. The punishment
corresponds with the outcome. All three
of these individuals openly confronted and challenged Moshe’s authority. Irregardless of their roles as leader and
followers, they all engaged in identical behavior towards Moshe. This behavior dictated the punishment. All were condemned to a death that included
not only themselves but also their children.