Parshat Korach The Rebellion
Ben Chamesh L'Mikra | July 01, 2024
Print This Article
View Original PDF

Parshat Korach The Rebellion

Ben Chamesh L'Mikra | June 27, 2025

Parshat Korach

The Rebellion

Parshat Korach tells the story of the rebellion of Korach against Moshe and Aharon. The Torah states that though the Israelites rebelled Moshe prayed that they should be spared. This Sicha analyzes a curious Rashi and sheds new light onto Moshe’s defense of the Jewish People.

This week’s Torah portion tells the story of Korach and his contention on the status of Moshe and Aharon in that they were raised above the rest of the nation. They claimed that Moshe and Aharon were guilty of taking the kingship and the priesthood for themselves instead of giving it to others.

After the debacle of this rebellion G-d wished to destroy all those that participated in this uprising against Moshe, yet Moshe and Aharon prayed for them that they should be spared.

The Torah expresses the defense that they uttered as follows:

Text 1
They fell on their faces and said, "O G-d, the G-d of the spirits of all flesh, if one man sins, shall You be angry with the whole congregation?"
Bamidbar 16:22

With these words Moshe defended those who had sinned in this mutiny from being wiped out by G-d.

Rashi explains that with the words, “O G-d, the G-d of the spirits,” Moshe and Aharon were arguing the case as to why the entire congregation did not deserve to be destroyed. He provides the following elucidation:

Text 2
[G-d who] knows the thoughts [of every man]. Your attributes are not like those of earthly beings. A mortal king against whom part of his country transgresses does not know who the sinner is, and, therefore, when he is angry, he metes out punishment upon them all. But as for You, all thoughts are revealed before You, and You know who the sinner is.
Rashi, ibid

Because G-d knows who the sinner is and who is not guilty, there is therefore no reason to annihilate everyone.

G-d of the spirits

The words from the verse that Rashi focuses on in his explanation is the expression, “G-d, the G-d of the spirits.” It is understood therefore, that if Rashi’s commentary revolves around these words it is because there can possibly be some misunderstanding with this specific expression. Rashi thus chooses to give further clarification.

A simple understanding of the above Rashi indicates that the misunderstanding which Rashi finds necessary to explain is the definition of the word “spirits.”

Rashi is negating that the word “spirits” (Heb. ruchos) in this circumstance means the G-d of souls, and instead explains that it means the G-d who is the knower of thoughts. Rashi therefore defines the meaning of “O G-d, the G-d of the spirits,” as “[G-d who] knows the thoughts [of every man].”

When Rashi selects one explanation on a verse at the expense of another, it is because the interpretation that Rashi chose is clearer according to the rudimentary understanding of the verse. It is understood therefore, that the reason that Rashi chose to define the meaning of the word “spirits” in this instance as thoughts and not souls, is because this interpretation fits best with the verse’s basic meaning.

The evidence for Rashi’s interpretation that this is indeed the intent of the word “spirits” in this verse is the continuation of the verse itself. Only by means of employing Rashi’s understanding of the word spirits to mean thoughts, does the rest of the verse, “if one man sins, shall You be angry with the whole congregation,” make sense. It is because G-d knows the thoughts of man that He does not punish the innocent—not because He knows the souls of man.

Conversely, interpreting the words “G-d of the spirits” to mean “G-d of the souls” has absolutely no connection to the content of the verse of not punishing many for the sins of one person. It is because G-d is the G-d of the spirit, i.e. that He knows the thoughts of man, that He can thus punish justly.

See Rashi, Bereishis 18:23.

Questions

While Rashi’s general point seems to be clear, the specifics of his explanation seem to be superfluous and not understood.

After Rashi explains that the meaning of “G-d of the spirit” is that He knows man’s thoughts, Rashi says: “Your attributes are not like those of earthly beings. A mortal king against whom part of his country transgresses does not know who the sinner is, and, therefore, when he is angry, he metes out punishment upon them all. But as for You, all thoughts are revealed before You, and You know who the sinner is.” The general analogy and the specifics of it are not understood for the following reasons:

  • A) Why does Rashi need to add the allegory of a mortal king at all? How is the explanation of G-d knowing who the sinner is enhanced through presenting the comparison between a mortal king and G-d?
  • B) If it is indeed pertinent for Rashi to bring this allegory to explain how G-d differs in the way that he punishes from a mortal king, why did he not bring it earlier in the Torah, in the story of Avraham and the destruction of the city of Sedom (where Avraham challenges G-d with punishing the righteous together with the wicked)? If the allegory is pertinent to the story of Moshe and Korach, it should have added insight to the story of Avraham and Sedom as well.
  • C) The allegory itself does not seem to make sense, as it implies that a mortal king need not be discerning in the manner in which he gives retribution and that he can punish indiscriminately. A mortal king as well, if ruling with uprightness, would not mete out punishment on the entire kingdom if only one man transgressed. He would appoint a judge to determine who the sinner was, so as not to wrongly penalize the innocent. Even if he could not ascertain who sinned, it would not be a rational excuse to punish everyone. What then, can possibly be the intent of this allegory?
  • D) In his presentation of the allegory Rashi states, that a king against whom “part of his country transgresses does not know who the sinner is.” He begins with the term “sarcha” (transgresses) and finishes with the word “choteh” (sinner). Why the change of terms?
  • E) He begins the allegory in the plural, “part of the country transgresses,” and finishes in the singular, “who the sinner is.” This does not seem consistent. Why does Rashi transition from the plural to the singular?

The next Rashi

In the same verse, on the continuing words, “if one man sins,” Rashi comments with the following:

Text 3
[One man] is the sinner, shall You be angry with the whole congregation? The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “You have spoken well. I know and will make known who sinned and who did not sin.”
Rashi, ibid

Rashi’s commentary on these words as well are not understood, and leads one to question various points:

  • A) What is Rashi trying to explain with his explanatory words, “[one man] is the sinner,” that is not already clear in the verse’s statement, “if one man sins?” He does not seem to add anything.
  • B) (As mentioned,) Rashi is meticulous in the words from the verse that he chooses to base his commentary on, as those are the particular words that he is explaining. Here, Rashi based his explanation on the phrase, “if one man,” yet his interpretation seems to focus on the rest of the verse as well, i.e., “shall You be angry with the whole congregation." If Rashi’s intent is to explain the rest of the verse, he should have made that known in his choice of words that he highlighted.
  • C) What does Rashi add in his explanation with the words, “The Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘You have spoken well. I know and will make known who sinned and who did not sin?’” It does not seem connected with the main point that he is explaining.
  • D) In G-d’s response to this challenge of Moshe and Aharon, he makes it known that the punishment will be received by three people (Korach, Dasan and Aviram). In their question though, they only seemed to have expressed that one individual sinned (“if one man sins”). If so, why does Rashi say in his commentary that G-d declared, “you have spoken well,” as if agreeing with Moshe and Aharon’s words, when it seems that they were mistaken in their identification of the sinners?
  • E) The words in Rashi “I know,” seem superfluous, as the main idea that Rashi is conveying is that G-d will make known who the sinners are through his punishment, not that He Himself knows. This is especially curious being that he is quoting from the Medrash, which does not include this initial term in its commentary.

In addition to all of the above, another general difficulty arises: While this verse seems to imply that only one individual sinned—as stated by Moshe and Aharon—previous verses clearly state that there were others involved in the rebellion.

Text 4
They confronted Moshe together with two hundred and fifty men from the children of Israel, chieftains of the congregation, representatives of the assembly, men of repute.
Bamidbar 16:2

This incident was not a transgression of one man, but of many. Why then, does Moshe seem to later imply that only one man sinned?

Rebels and followers

The resolution to all of the above difficulties can be understood through prefacing with the following background of how the story of Korach unfolded:

On the verse, “Korach assembled all the congregation against them at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, and the glory of the Lord appeared before the entire congregation,” Rashi makes the following comment:

Parshat Korach

The Rebellion

Parshat Korach tells the story of the rebellion of Korach against Moshe and Aharon. The Torah states that though the Israelites rebelled Moshe prayed that they should be spared. This Sicha analyzes a curious Rashi and sheds new light onto Moshe’s defense of the Jewish People.

This week’s Torah portion tells the story of Korach and his contention on the status of Moshe and Aharon in that they were raised above the rest of the nation. They claimed that Moshe and Aharon were guilty of taking the kingship and the priesthood for themselves instead of giving it to others.

After the debacle of this rebellion G-d wished to destroy all those that participated in this uprising against Moshe, yet Moshe and Aharon prayed for them that they should be spared.

The Torah expresses the defense that they uttered as follows:

Text 1
They fell on their faces and said, "O G-d, the G-d of the spirits of all flesh, if one man sins, shall You be angry with the whole congregation?"
Bamidbar 16:22

With these words Moshe defended those who had sinned in this mutiny from being wiped out by G-d.

Rashi explains that with the words, “O G-d, the G-d of the spirits,” Moshe and Aharon were arguing the case as to why the entire congregation did not deserve to be destroyed. He provides the following elucidation:

Text 2
[G-d who] knows the thoughts [of every man]. Your attributes are not like those of earthly beings. A mortal king against whom part of his country transgresses does not know who the sinner is, and, therefore, when he is angry, he metes out punishment upon them all. But as for You, all thoughts are revealed before You, and You know who the sinner is.
Rashi, ibid

Because G-d knows who the sinner is and who is not guilty, there is therefore no reason to annihilate everyone.

G-d of the spirits

The words from the verse that Rashi focuses on in his explanation is the expression, “G-d, the G-d of the spirits.” It is understood therefore, that if Rashi’s commentary revolves around these words it is because there can possibly be some misunderstanding with this specific expression. Rashi thus chooses to give further clarification.

A simple understanding of the above Rashi indicates that the misunderstanding which Rashi finds necessary to explain is the definition of the word “spirits.”

Rashi is negating that the word “spirits” (Heb. ruchos) in this circumstance means the G-d of souls, and instead explains that it means the G-d who is the knower of thoughts. Rashi therefore defines the meaning of “O G-d, the G-d of the spirits,” as “[G-d who] knows the thoughts [of every man].”

When Rashi selects one explanation on a verse at the expense of another, it is because the interpretation that Rashi chose is clearer according to the rudimentary understanding of the verse. It is understood therefore, that the reason that Rashi chose to define the meaning of the word “spirits” in this instance as thoughts and not souls, is because this interpretation fits best with the verse’s basic meaning.

The evidence for Rashi’s interpretation that this is indeed the intent of the word “spirits” in this verse is the continuation of the verse itself. Only by means of employing Rashi’s understanding of the word spirits to mean thoughts, does the rest of the verse, “if one man sins, shall You be angry with the whole congregation,” make sense. It is because G-d knows the thoughts of man that He does not punish the innocent—not because He knows the souls of man.

Conversely, interpreting the words “G-d of the spirits” to mean “G-d of the souls” has absolutely no connection to the content of the verse of not punishing many for the sins of one person. It is because G-d is the G-d of the spirit, i.e. that He knows the thoughts of man, that He can thus punish justly.

See Rashi, Bereishis 18:23.

Questions

While Rashi’s general point seems to be clear, the specifics of his explanation seem to be superfluous and not understood.

After Rashi explains that the meaning of “G-d of the spirit” is that He knows man’s thoughts, Rashi says: “Your attributes are not like those of earthly beings. A mortal king against whom part of his country transgresses does not know who the sinner is, and, therefore, when he is angry, he metes out punishment upon them all. But as for You, all thoughts are revealed before You, and You know who the sinner is.” The general analogy and the specifics of it are not understood for the following reasons:

  • A) Why does Rashi need to add the allegory of a mortal king at all? How is the explanation of G-d knowing who the sinner is enhanced through presenting the comparison between a mortal king and G-d?
  • B) If it is indeed pertinent for Rashi to bring this allegory to explain how G-d differs in the way that he punishes from a mortal king, why did he not bring it earlier in the Torah, in the story of Avraham and the destruction of the city of Sedom (where Avraham challenges G-d with punishing the righteous together with the wicked)? If the allegory is pertinent to the story of Moshe and Korach, it should have added insight to the story of Avraham and Sedom as well.
  • C) The allegory itself does not seem to make sense, as it implies that a mortal king need not be discerning in the manner in which he gives retribution and that he can punish indiscriminately. A mortal king as well, if ruling with uprightness, would not mete out punishment on the entire kingdom if only one man transgressed. He would appoint a judge to determine who the sinner was, so as not to wrongly penalize the innocent. Even if he could not ascertain who sinned, it would not be a rational excuse to punish everyone. What then, can possibly be the intent of this allegory?
  • D) In his presentation of the allegory Rashi states, that a king against whom “part of his country transgresses does not know who the sinner is.” He begins with the term “sarcha” (transgresses) and finishes with the word “choteh” (sinner). Why the change of terms?
  • E) He begins the allegory in the plural, “part of the country transgresses,” and finishes in the singular, “who the sinner is.” This does not seem consistent. Why does Rashi transition from the plural to the singular?

The next Rashi

In the same verse, on the continuing words, “if one man sins,” Rashi comments with the following:

Text 3
[One man] is the sinner, shall You be angry with the whole congregation? The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “You have spoken well. I know and will make known who sinned and who did not sin.”
Rashi, ibid

Rashi’s commentary on these words as well are not understood, and leads one to question various points:

  • A) What is Rashi trying to explain with his explanatory words, “[one man] is the sinner,” that is not already clear in the verse’s statement, “if one man sins?” He does not seem to add anything.
  • B) (As mentioned,) Rashi is meticulous in the words from the verse that he chooses to base his commentary on, as those are the particular words that he is explaining. Here, Rashi based his explanation on the phrase, “if one man,” yet his interpretation seems to focus on the rest of the verse as well, i.e., “shall You be angry with the whole congregation." If Rashi’s intent is to explain the rest of the verse, he should have made that known in his choice of words that he highlighted.
  • C) What does Rashi add in his explanation with the words, “The Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘You have spoken well. I know and will make known who sinned and who did not sin?’” It does not seem connected with the main point that he is explaining.
  • D) In G-d’s response to this challenge of Moshe and Aharon, he makes it known that the punishment will be received by three people (Korach, Dasan and Aviram). In their question though, they only seemed to have expressed that one individual sinned (“if one man sins”). If so, why does Rashi say in his commentary that G-d declared, “you have spoken well,” as if agreeing with Moshe and Aharon’s words, when it seems that they were mistaken in their identification of the sinners?
  • E) The words in Rashi “I know,” seem superfluous, as the main idea that Rashi is conveying is that G-d will make known who the sinners are through his punishment, not that He Himself knows. This is especially curious being that he is quoting from the Medrash, which does not include this initial term in its commentary.

In addition to all of the above, another general difficulty arises: While this verse seems to imply that only one individual sinned—as stated by Moshe and Aharon—previous verses clearly state that there were others involved in the rebellion.

Text 4
They confronted Moshe together with two hundred and fifty men from the children of Israel, chieftains of the congregation, representatives of the assembly, men of repute.
Bamidbar 16:2

This incident was not a transgression of one man, but of many. Why then, does Moshe seem to later imply that only one man sinned?

Rebels and followers

The resolution to all of the above difficulties can be understood through prefacing with the following background of how the story of Korach unfolded:

On the verse, “Korach assembled all the congregation against them at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, and the glory of the Lord appeared before the entire congregation,” Rashi makes the following comment:

PDF Preview
View The Full Article (PDF)
Ben Chamesh L'Mikra | July 01, 2024