| א וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח, בֶּן-יִצְהָר בֶּן-קְהָת בֶּן-לֵוִי; וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם בְּנֵי אֱלִיאָב, וְאוֹן בֶּן-פֶּלֶת--בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן. | 1 Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, with Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men; |
Moshe, meanwhile, deals with Datan and Aviram separately:
| יב וַיִּשְׁלַח מֹשֶׁה, לִקְרֹא לְדָתָן וְלַאֲבִירָם בְּנֵי אֱלִיאָב; וַיֹּאמְרוּ, לֹא נַעֲלֶה. | 12 And Moses sent to call Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab; and they said: 'We will not come up; |
What I wish to address here is an unusual trup - cantillation - on two of the psukim - namely, psukim 24 and 27.
כג וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃
כד דַּבֵּ֥ר אֶל־הָֽעֵדָ֖ה לֵאמֹ֑ר הֵֽעָלוּ֙ מִסָּבִ֔יב לְמִשְׁכַּן־קֹ֖רַח דָּתָ֥ן וַֽאֲבִירָֽם׃
כה וַיָּ֣קָם מֹשֶׁ֔ה וַיֵּ֖לֶךְ אֶל־דָּתָ֣ן וַֽאֲבִירָ֑ם וַיֵּֽלְכ֥וּ אַֽחֲרָ֖יו זִקְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
כו וַיְדַבֵּ֨ר אֶל־הָֽעֵדָ֜ה לֵאמֹ֗ר ס֣וּרוּ נָ֡א מֵעַל֩ אָֽהֳלֵ֨י הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֤ים הָֽרְשָׁעִים֙ הָאֵ֔לֶּה וְאַֽל־תִּגְּע֖וּ בְּכָל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר לָהֶ֑ם פֶּן־תִּסָּפ֖וּ בְּכָל־חַטֹּאתָֽם׃
כז וַיֵּֽעָל֗וּ מֵעַ֧ל מִשְׁכַּן־קֹ֛רַח דָּתָ֥ן וַֽאֲבִירָ֖ם מִסָּבִ֑יב וְדָתָ֨ן וַֽאֲבִירָ֜ם יָֽצְא֣וּ נִצָּבִ֗ים פֶּ֚תַח אָֽהֳלֵיהֶ֔ם וּנְשֵׁיהֶ֥ם וּבְנֵיהֶ֖ם וְטַפָּֽם׃
כד דַּבֵּ֥ר אֶל־הָֽעֵדָ֖ה לֵאמֹ֑ר הֵֽעָלוּ֙ מִסָּבִ֔יב לְמִשְׁכַּן־קֹ֖רַח דָּתָ֥ן וַֽאֲבִירָֽם׃
כה וַיָּ֣קָם מֹשֶׁ֔ה וַיֵּ֖לֶךְ אֶל־דָּתָ֣ן וַֽאֲבִירָ֑ם וַיֵּֽלְכ֥וּ אַֽחֲרָ֖יו זִקְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
כו וַיְדַבֵּ֨ר אֶל־הָֽעֵדָ֜ה לֵאמֹ֗ר ס֣וּרוּ נָ֡א מֵעַל֩ אָֽהֳלֵ֨י הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֤ים הָֽרְשָׁעִים֙ הָאֵ֔לֶּה וְאַֽל־תִּגְּע֖וּ בְּכָל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר לָהֶ֑ם פֶּן־תִּסָּפ֖וּ בְּכָל־חַטֹּאתָֽם׃
כז וַיֵּֽעָל֗וּ מֵעַ֧ל מִשְׁכַּן־קֹ֛רַח דָּתָ֥ן וַֽאֲבִירָ֖ם מִסָּבִ֑יב וְדָתָ֨ן וַֽאֲבִירָ֜ם יָֽצְא֣וּ נִצָּבִ֗ים פֶּ֚תַח אָֽהֳלֵיהֶ֔ם וּנְשֵׁיהֶ֥ם וּבְנֵיהֶ֖ם וְטַפָּֽם׃
In pasuk 24, it is לְמִשְׁכַּן־קֹ֖רַח דָּתָ֥ן וַֽאֲבִירָֽם. That is, there is a makef connecting the word לְמִשְׁכַּן to the word קֹרַח. Also, there is a tipcha, a disjunctive accent, dividing Korach from Datan and Aviram. This is somewhat strange. While we might expect a disjunctive accent on first item of a list of three, why make the dash - the makef - between the first two words? If you want a conjunctive accent, we would expect the typical servus - that is, the mercha! Indeed, the presence of the makef suggests a stronger connection between the two words.
The same occurs in pasuk 27. We have מִשְׁכַּן־קֹ֛רַח דָּתָ֥ן וַֽאֲבִירָ֖ם מִסָּבִ֑יב. Again, there is a makef between מִשְׁכַּן and קֹרַח, making it into almost a single word. A tevir occurs on the word קֹרַח, marking it with a disjunctive accent which separates it from Datan and Aviram in the clause. We would expect, rather than the makef, a conjunctive accent, or servus, on the word מִשְׁכַּן - either a darga or a munach. Again, the trup seems to group מִשְׁכַּן and קֹרַח as a unit, and one apart from Datan and Aviram.
How would this make sense? I would put forward the following. The general translation of these phrases is "the dwelling of Korach, Datan, and Aviram." This suggests one tent belonging to all three, or else better, three tents - one for Korach, one for Datan, and one for Aviram. The word מִשְׁכַּן is the same in both absolute and construct form, and here it operates in construct form, to denote possession.
Instead, I would posit that the word קֹרַח does not function as that which possesses the מִשְׁכַּן, but rather as an adjective. Thus, מִשְׁכַּן־קֹרַח is a Korachite dwelling. The word קֹרַח is separated from Datan and Aviram by a disjunctive accent and joined to מִשְׁכַּן by a makef to show that while Datan and Aviram are related to מִשְׁכַּן as the possessors, קֹרַח is even more closely related as the adjective.
What is a Korachite dwelling? Well, this entire thing was Korach's rebellion, and Datan and Aviram are somewhat tangential elements of that rebellion. It is possible that the rebels gathered, discussed, commiserated, and strategized in some meeting place, and that place was the dweeling place(s) of Datan and Aviram.
The full translation would then be:
Note that he is not talking here to Datan and Aviram directly, but to the congregation that is there, that is, people who might associate with them in this Korachite rebellion. If he is warning the people in all these tents, and it meant Korach's tent as well, shouldn't it say that he went to Korach as well. Why only Datan and Aviram? It seems these is the only dwelling he went to.
Further, does Korach live right next to Datan and Aviram? Perhaps, as Korach was a Levite, and there was no individual Levite encampment, but perhaps not.
It continues:
mishkan of Datan and Aviram, only Datan and Aviram, their wives, and their sons come out. Korach does not come out, and his family does not come out. I think this makes sense, since this is not the tent of Korach. It is the dwelling(s) of Datan and Aviram.
It then continues:
Indeed, we know that the sons of Korach did not die, from Bemidbar 26:11:
But it is to be expected that the sons of Korach did not die. There is a midrash about how they did not die, but stay in a suspended part of Gehinnom after being swallowed up. However, it is readily apparent, I think, on a pshat level, that they did not die nor were swallowed up, because they were not in the dwelling place that was swallowed up. Only the dwelling place of Datan and Aviram was involved in this incident, as we see that only Datan, Aviram, and family emerged from the tent involved. Korach's tent was located elsewhere, and so it was not swallowed up.
This will also resolve the famous ambiguity of whether Korach met his untimely demise with those offering incense or with those who were swallowed up. Since it was not Korach's tent involved, and since only Datan and Aviram and their family are mentioned as emerging from the tent, it would seem obvious that Korach was not swallowed up, but died by the heavenly fire.
The problem with this is firstly that only 250 people are mentioned as dying by Divine fire. Back in perek 16:
The second problem is later, in Bemidbar 26:10:
Alternatively, one could parse it: And the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up together with Korach, when that congregation died {either the swallowed-up congregation mentioned as "the men appertaining to Korach" or more likely, based on the parallel word eda to the beginning of Bemidbar 16, as well as the end of the current, the congregation destroyed by fire}, when the fire devoured 250 men, and they became a sign.
It seems to me that the trup, cantillation, favors the second rendition - the one we do not want, that suggests that Korach was swallowed up:
The same occurs in pasuk 27. We have מִשְׁכַּן־קֹ֛רַח דָּתָ֥ן וַֽאֲבִירָ֖ם מִסָּבִ֑יב. Again, there is a makef between מִשְׁכַּן and קֹרַח, making it into almost a single word. A tevir occurs on the word קֹרַח, marking it with a disjunctive accent which separates it from Datan and Aviram in the clause. We would expect, rather than the makef, a conjunctive accent, or servus, on the word מִשְׁכַּן - either a darga or a munach. Again, the trup seems to group מִשְׁכַּן and קֹרַח as a unit, and one apart from Datan and Aviram.
How would this make sense? I would put forward the following. The general translation of these phrases is "the dwelling of Korach, Datan, and Aviram." This suggests one tent belonging to all three, or else better, three tents - one for Korach, one for Datan, and one for Aviram. The word מִשְׁכַּן is the same in both absolute and construct form, and here it operates in construct form, to denote possession.
Instead, I would posit that the word קֹרַח does not function as that which possesses the מִשְׁכַּן, but rather as an adjective. Thus, מִשְׁכַּן־קֹרַח is a Korachite dwelling. The word קֹרַח is separated from Datan and Aviram by a disjunctive accent and joined to מִשְׁכַּן by a makef to show that while Datan and Aviram are related to מִשְׁכַּן as the possessors, קֹרַח is even more closely related as the adjective.
What is a Korachite dwelling? Well, this entire thing was Korach's rebellion, and Datan and Aviram are somewhat tangential elements of that rebellion. It is possible that the rebels gathered, discussed, commiserated, and strategized in some meeting place, and that place was the dweeling place(s) of Datan and Aviram.
The full translation would then be:
Note that he is not talking here to Datan and Aviram directly, but to the congregation that is there, that is, people who might associate with them in this Korachite rebellion. If he is warning the people in all these tents, and it meant Korach's tent as well, shouldn't it say that he went to Korach as well. Why only Datan and Aviram? It seems these is the only dwelling he went to.
Further, does Korach live right next to Datan and Aviram? Perhaps, as Korach was a Levite, and there was no individual Levite encampment, but perhaps not.
It continues:
mishkan of Datan and Aviram, only Datan and Aviram, their wives, and their sons come out. Korach does not come out, and his family does not come out. I think this makes sense, since this is not the tent of Korach. It is the dwelling(s) of Datan and Aviram.
It then continues:
Indeed, we know that the sons of Korach did not die, from Bemidbar 26:11:
But it is to be expected that the sons of Korach did not die. There is a midrash about how they did not die, but stay in a suspended part of Gehinnom after being swallowed up. However, it is readily apparent, I think, on a pshat level, that they did not die nor were swallowed up, because they were not in the dwelling place that was swallowed up. Only the dwelling place of Datan and Aviram was involved in this incident, as we see that only Datan, Aviram, and family emerged from the tent involved. Korach's tent was located elsewhere, and so it was not swallowed up.
This will also resolve the famous ambiguity of whether Korach met his untimely demise with those offering incense or with those who were swallowed up. Since it was not Korach's tent involved, and since only Datan and Aviram and their family are mentioned as emerging from the tent, it would seem obvious that Korach was not swallowed up, but died by the heavenly fire.
The problem with this is firstly that only 250 people are mentioned as dying by Divine fire. Back in perek 16:
The second problem is later, in Bemidbar 26:10:
Alternatively, one could parse it: And the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up together with Korach, when that congregation died {either the swallowed-up congregation mentioned as "the men appertaining to Korach" or more likely, based on the parallel word eda to the beginning of Bemidbar 16, as well as the end of the current, the congregation destroyed by fire}, when the fire devoured 250 men, and they became a sign.
It seems to me that the trup, cantillation, favors the second rendition - the one we do not want, that suggests that Korach was swallowed up:
ט וּבְנֵ֣י אֱלִיאָ֔ב נְמוּאֵ֖ל וְדָתָ֣ן וַֽאֲבִירָ֑ם הֽוּא־דָתָ֨ן וַֽאֲבִירָ֜ם קרואי (קְרִיאֵ֣י) הָֽעֵדָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר הִצּ֜וּ עַל־מֹשֶׁ֤ה וְעַֽל־אַהֲרֹן֙ בַּֽעֲדַת־קֹ֔רַח בְּהַצֹּתָ֖ם עַל־ה׃
י וַתִּפְתַּ֨ח הָאָ֜רֶץ אֶת־פִּ֗יהָ וַתִּבְלַ֥ע אֹתָ֛ם וְאֶת־קֹ֖רַח בְּמ֣וֹת הָֽעֵדָ֑ה בַּֽאֲכֹ֣ל הָאֵ֗שׁ אֵ֣ת חֲמִשִּׁ֤ים וּמָאתַ֨יִם֙ אִ֔ישׁ וַיִּֽהְי֖וּ לְנֵֽס׃
יא וּבְנֵי־קֹ֖רַח לֹא־מֵֽתוּ׃
י וַתִּפְתַּ֨ח הָאָ֜רֶץ אֶת־פִּ֗יהָ וַתִּבְלַ֥ע אֹתָ֛ם וְאֶת־קֹ֖רַח בְּמ֣וֹת הָֽעֵדָ֑ה בַּֽאֲכֹ֣ל הָאֵ֗שׁ אֵ֣ת חֲמִשִּׁ֤ים וּמָאתַ֨יִם֙ אִ֔ישׁ וַיִּֽהְי֖וּ לְנֵֽס׃
יא וּבְנֵי־קֹ֖רַח לֹא־מֵֽתוּ׃
There is an etnachta on the word עֵדָ֑ה, which functions to separate it from the remainder of the verse. Further, there is tevir on the word אֹתָ֛ם, and this is a disjunctive accent which separates it slightly from "and Korach in the death of the congregation."
י וַתִּפְתַּ֨ח הָאָ֜רֶץ אֶת־פִּ֗יהָ וַתִּבְלַ֥ע אֹתָ֛ם וְאֶת־קֹ֖רַח בְּמ֣וֹת הָֽעֵדָ֑ה || בַּֽאֲכֹ֣ל הָאֵ֗שׁ אֵ֣ת חֲמִשִּׁ֤ים וּמָאתַ֨יִם֙ אִ֔ישׁ וַיִּֽהְי֖וּ לְנֵֽס
then
י וַתִּפְתַּ֨ח הָאָ֜רֶץ אֶת־פִּ֗יהָ וַתִּבְלַ֥ע אֹתָ֛ם וְאֶת־קֹ֖רַח || בְּמ֣וֹת הָֽעֵדָ֑ה
י וַתִּפְתַּ֨ח הָאָ֜רֶץ אֶת־פִּ֗יהָ וַתִּבְלַ֥ע אֹתָ֛ם || וְאֶת־קֹ֖רַח
then
י וַתִּפְתַּ֨ח הָאָ֜רֶץ אֶת־פִּ֗יהָ וַתִּבְלַ֥ע אֹתָ֛ם || וְאֶת־קֹ֖רַח
Thus, first we had "the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and Korach in/during the death of the congregation." Then, we had "the earth opened its mouth ans swallowed them and Korach." Then, we had "the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them." This all seems to group Korach with them in being swallowed.
On the other hand, it seems that "in/during the death of the congregation" refers to the dying by Divine fire mentioned at the end of the verse, and yet it precedes the etnachta. Thus, the fact that Korach precedes the etnachta break is not a total disaster.
Still, I would have expected the etnachta there. And even if we keep the etnachta in place, I would want a zakef gadol on the word otam, rather than the tevir. The difference between these two cantillations is that the zakef subdivides a clause ending in etnachta, while tevir subdivides a clause ending in tipcha. If there were a zakef on otam, it would have been:
First "the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and Korach in/during the death of the congregation." Then, "the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them" plus a second clause "and Korach in/during the death of the congregation." Instead, we have what I first described in terms of order of subdivision.
Perhaps the two trup are arguing with one another. While trup is really early, it is not miSinai.
On the other hand, it seems that "in/during the death of the congregation" refers to the dying by Divine fire mentioned at the end of the verse, and yet it precedes the etnachta. Thus, the fact that Korach precedes the etnachta break is not a total disaster.
Still, I would have expected the etnachta there. And even if we keep the etnachta in place, I would want a zakef gadol on the word otam, rather than the tevir. The difference between these two cantillations is that the zakef subdivides a clause ending in etnachta, while tevir subdivides a clause ending in tipcha. If there were a zakef on otam, it would have been:
First "the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and Korach in/during the death of the congregation." Then, "the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them" plus a second clause "and Korach in/during the death of the congregation." Instead, we have what I first described in terms of order of subdivision.
Perhaps the two trup are arguing with one another. While trup is really early, it is not miSinai.
Returning for a moment to the original trup discussion - that of the makef and mishkan Korach - I would note that the trup does indeed answer these difficulties of why Korach and his family did not emerge from his dwelling, and why the sons of Korach did not die, but on the other hand, perhaps this is why this particular trup came about in the first place - to resolve these questions.
In the end though, I believe that this interpretation is what the trup in perek 16 aims at, and I think that the trup does in fact accurately render the original intent, which was "Korachite tent."
In the end though, I believe that this interpretation is what the trup in perek 16 aims at, and I think that the trup does in fact accurately render the original intent, which was "Korachite tent."
No comments:
Post a Comment