The medrashim and meforshim (commentators) indicate that Korach’s uprising was due to several factors. These factors may be somewhat difficult to comprehend and piece together at first glance. If the sources which detail the story of Korach are not digested with careful analysis, one may come away with the impression that Korach had numerous unrelated and contradictory complaints and that there is not a broad message to be learned from the downfall of Korach and the nullification of his campaign. Despite Korach’s negative traits, the medrashim state that he was extremely intelligent; the narratives about Korach's rebellion must therefore be taken to reflect a consistent thrust in his goal and an underlying plan. Let’s take a look and see if we can formulate a unified understanding of this complex episode.

Medrash Tanchuma (P. Korach, s. 2) and Medrash Rabbah (ibid. 3) note that as soon as Korach heard about the mitzvah of Tzitzis, he challenged Moshe by asking if a garment which is totally techeiles-colored needs tzitzis on its corners; Moshe replied in the affirmative. Korach then asked Moshe if a house which is full of Sifrei Torah must have a mezuzah affixed to it; Moshe again replied in the affirmative. Korach declared that Moshe’s answers were illogical, as how could it be that the thousands of techeiles threads which comprise the entire garment are insufficient to fulfill the requirement of tzitzis, whereas a totally non-techeiles garment that has tzitzis only on its corners does fulfill the requirement; and how could it be that a house which contains Torah scrolls - each of which has all 275 sections of the Torah in it - is incomplete without a mezuzah on its entrance, whereas a house that contains no Sifrei Torah but has merely a mezuzah on its entrance is deemed complete for the purpose of the mitzvah of Mezuzah? The medrashim record that Korach proclaimed that Moshe fabricated these halachos and that Moshe’s answers were utter falsehoods.

Medrash Tanchuma (ibid. s. 2) and Medrash Rabbah (ibid. s. 3) feature another story: After Moshe Rabbeinu informed B’nei Yisroel of the mitzvah of Tzitzis, Korach had 250 techeiles-colored garments made for him and his followers, which they donned and wore to a feast. Because meat was served at the feast, Kohanim arrived to collect Mat’nos Kehunah (parts of meat given to Kohanim). Korach's men confronted the Kohanim and asked them, "Who commanded you to receive these Mat'nos Kehunah? Was it not Moshe? We will not give you anything! Hashem never commanded such a mitzvah!" The medrashim relate that Korach maintained that Moshe Rabbeinu made up this mitzvah as well as the mitzvah of Terumas Ma'aser (the requirement that Levi'im separate one-tenth of their Ma'aser and give it to Kohanim) in order to unfairly benefit the Kohanim, Moshe's close relatives.

Although Korach's rebellion commenced with the above incidents, the medrashim explain that Korach's enmity toward Moshe Rabbeinu originated when Moshe appointed Korach's cousin, Elitzafan ben Uziel, as the Nasi (Prince) of the Levite family of Kehas. Korach reasoned that he himself should have received the appointment as Nasi, for Uziel, the father of Elitzafan and Kehas' fourth son, was younger than Yitzhar, who was Korach's father and Kehas' second son. Rashi (on Bamidbar 16:1) notes that it was Hashem Who commanded Moshe to appoint Elitzafan ben Uziel as the Nasi of the Kehas family, and that because Korach felt that Moshe was acting unfairly by making this appointment, Korach set his mind to rebel against Moshe. (See Medrash Rabbah s. 2, Medrash Tanchuma s. 1 and Ramban on 16:1.)

There is one more statement of Korach which must be considered. In his initial confrontation with Moshe and Aharon, Korach declares, "For the entire nation is holy, and Hashem is in its midst, so why do you elevate yourselves above the congregation of Hashem?" (Bamidbar 16:3) Medrash Tanchuma (s. 4) interprets Korach's statement as, "The entire nation is holy, for it heard Hashem address it at Sinai. Had only you (Moshe and Aharon) heard God at Sinai, you could get away with what you are doing; however, since the entire holy nation was present there and heard Hashem address it, how can you dare elevate yourselves above the others as you have done?"

What do these narratives indicate about Korach's arguments? What was his precise point?

It is clear that Korach accepted the validity of the Torah, as he pointed to Ma'amad Har Sinai (the Revelation at Sinai) as the basis for his rebellion. Furthermore, the Gemara (Sanhedrin 110a) attests to Korach's observance of the halachos of Tzni'us (Modesty). On the other hand, it is difficult to explain that Korach only rejected the Torah She-b'al Peh (Oral Torah), such as the precise regulations of the mitzvos of Tzitzis and Mezuzah - rules which were orally transmitted to Moshe and not specified in the Written Torah - and that Korach only accepted the Torah She-bi'chsav (Written Torah), for Korach's entourage rejected the legitimacy and very existence of the mitzvos of Terumas Ma'aser and Mat'nos Kehunah, which are part of Torah She-bi'chsav. Moreover, was not Korach's argument really with Moshe rather than with the Torah? If so, why did Korach devote so much of his energy to battling against specific halachos of the Torah rather than to taking on Moshe directly for what Korach deemed to be Moshe's abuse of leadership? (The Ramban (ibid.) elucidates that Korach viewed Moshe Rabbeinu as particularly vulnerable to allegations against his leadership at the time that Korach began his uprising. Nonetheless, we see that Korach gave special, unusual attention to halachic issues, seeming to take the discussion in a different direction.) Pinpointing Korach's core argument and exact contention are extremely difficult.

It would appear that the real target of Korach's rebellion was the Torah itself, as presented and applied by Moshe. Please allow me to explain.

Korach was loyal to the Torah, but his loyalty in reality was to his personal, subjective vision of what the Torah was or should be. To be precise, Korach was opposed to and would not accept the impositional nature of the Torah and its dictates; Korach was ready to accept the Torah on his own terms, such as human logic and democratic interpretation. Torah axioms which did not conform to this notion were dismissed as not genuine expressions of Torah; such concepts were rejected by Korach as the adding of invalid layers and unacceptable embellishment to the basics of what the Torah really was in his eyes.

Why did Korach take such a stance? Was he a very misguided, yet sincere religious philosopher? Surely not. Korach felt that the undemocratic and impositional nature of Torah had prevented his ascendancy as the Nasi and was interfering with his life; it was purely out of self-interest that Korach formulated his theology.

Who was responsible, in Korach's eyes, for the alleged distortion, incorrect interpretation and embellishment of Torah? Who was the person who expressed and applied Torah in ways which Korach deemed unpalatable and worked to his disadvantage? It was Moshe! Moshe claimed that Hashem told him to appoint Elitzafan ben Uziel as the Nasi of Mishpachas (the family of) Kehas, and that Hashem told him as well to appoint his brother Aharon as Kohen Gadol and Aharon's sons and progeny as Kohanim. The medrashim relate that Korach viewed this as a power grab on the part of Moshe and as a corruption of Moshe’s mandate. Korach pointed to what seemed to be irrational expressions and applications of Torah (the aforementioned cases of Tzitzis and Mezuzah) on the part of Moshe, and he accused Moshe of fabricating the mitzvos of Terumas Ma'aser and Mat'nos Kehunah to benefit Moshe's close relatives. (V. Medrash Tanchuma s. 3.) Korach affirmed that everyone had a share in interpreting and applying the Torah they were gifted at Sinai, and that Moshe's apparently illogical formulations and applications of Torah were unjust and needed to be stopped. Korach was not out to topple Moshe as a mere personal foe, as attested to by Korach's great fixation on Moshe's halachic positions; Korach likewise was not against the Torah per se, as demonstrated above, for he pointed to Ma'amad Har Sinai as the basis and justification for his revolt. Rather, Korach's campaign was against the impositional nature of Torah which held him back from personal satisfaction and achievement, and Moshe was the one who promulgated, expressed and applied Torah in the manner which irked and hindered Korach in this regard. Therefore did Korach envision that removing Moshe from the scene would enable Torah to be formulated, interpreted and applied comfortably and on the terms which Korach and the masses would approve, directly enabling Korach to stake out the public position and the attainments he craved.

In short, Korach did not oppose the Torah, nor was his campaign against Moshe as a person. Rather, Korach's battle was against Toras Moshe, the expression, interpretation and application of Torah which came from Moshe, for such expression, interpretation and application seemed to fly in face of logic, setting Korach back from realizing his aspirations and achieving that which he rightfully deserved.

This understanding of Korach's approach to Torah and to Moshe, its presenter and interpreter - Korach's opposition to Toras Moshe - is evidenced in many sources, including the Gemara in Bava Basra (74a) and Sanhedrin (110a), which relates that Korach's group suffers perpetually in Gehinom and proclaims, "Moshe and his Torah are true and we are liars." Korach's contention was not against Moshe per se and not against the Torah per se; his contention was against the character of the Torah as formulated, interpreted and applied by Moshe.

Parshas Korach begins with a list of the individuals who joined Korach's rebellion: "....Dasan and Aviram, the sons of Eliav, and On ben (son of) Peles, (all) from the Tribe of Reuven." (Bamidbar 16:1) On ben Peles was part of Korach's group when the uprising commenced, yet his name is absent from those who confronted Moshe and continued the uprising until their demise. The Gemara (Sanhedrin ibid.) and Medrashim (Rabba s. 20 and Tanchuma s. 10), in the name of Rav, explain that On left Korach's entourage early on and that On's wife is to be credited for this. These sources explain that On's wife tried to persuade him with sound reasoning and good tact to abandon Korach's cause, and that she caused Korach to sever his ties with On by making her husband intoxicated and then putting him to sleep, sequestered in their tent, while she sat at the tent's entrance and uncovered her hair, such that when Korach's followers came by to take On with them to confront Moshe and continue the rebellion, they immediately shied away at the sight of On's wife's uncovered hair, which reflected immodesty. Korach’s group was thereby prevented from including On in their campaign.

The Gemara (ibid.) and Medrash (Rabbah s. 4, Tanchuma s. 3, with some variations from Gemara) continue the discussion, contrasting On’s wife with the wife of Korach, noting that Korach's wife was largely to blame for his rebellion. Chazal relate that Korach took his tallis and consulted with his wife, who proclaimed to him, "Look what Moshe has done: He became the King, he appointed his brother Kohen Gadol and his nephews Deputy Kohanim. He ordered that all Terumah must be given to the Kohen and that if you (Levi'im) receive Ma'aser, you must separate one-tenth of it and give it to the Kohen". Korach's wife then reminded Korach that his body was totally shaven as part of the purification process of the Levi'im (in Bamidbar 8:7), and she advised him that the reason that Moshe had him shaven was in order to make him look unattractive when compared with Moshe. The medrash adds that Korach contrasted his treatment and resulting appearance with Aharon, whose appearance and status were enhanced, for Aharon was adorned in ornate clothing as the Kohen Gadol and assigned to the inner sanctum of the Mishkan, demonstrative in the eyes of Korach of Moshe's favoritism toward his brother, thereby sidelining Korach while showcasing Aharon. The Gemara concludes this narrative and states that Korach’s wife pointed out to her husband that the mitzvah of Tzitzis as presented by Moshe was illogical, and she advised Korach to garb his adherents in garments of pure techeiles and to make a public demonstration.

Please pardon the pun, but there are two common strands that run through the above homiletic narratives: hair and clothes. On’s wife uncovered her hair, while Korach’s hair was shaven and contrasted with Moshe’s hair; Aharon was vested in beautiful clothing, and Korach took his tallis before consulting his wife, had been stripped down for shaving, and was advised by his wife to don robes of pure techeiles. Although these aggadic teachings are of great interest at face value, there seems to be a deeper, underlying symbolism.

Hair and clothing are embellishments to the body, enhancing its expression and appearance and giving it a more unique definition and identity. Korach and his wife, who maintained that Moshe was embellishing the Torah with self-serving and illogical expresions, interpretations and applications of Halacha, emphasized Moshe’s hair, Aharon’s garments and the mitzvah of Tzitzis as presented by Moshe; these items symbolized the invalid layers of formulation and exposition which Moshe used to embellish the Torah, in the eyes of Korach and his wife. On the other hand, Korach is presented in these aggadic passages as bare of hair and clothing, symbolic of his alleged grassroots, no-frills approach to Torah, which he sought to free from Moshe Rabbeinu’s distortive “embellishments” and “enhancements”. Although the Gemara (ibid. 109b) proffers an interpretation of the meaning of Korach’s name, we can suggest as per our understanding of his campaign and this homiletic interpretation that the name Korach reached to his essence, for Korach means “bald” or “bare”, referring to Korach’s attempt to shear the Torah from Moshe’s alleged embellishments, enhancements and additions, which irritated Korach and led him to advocate Torah without the “impositions” of Moshe’s interpretations and applications.

It is noted by Chazal that Korach took his tallis when approaching his wife and that she advised him to garb himself and his followers in robes of pure techeiles; this symbolizes that even according to the likes of Korach, there can really be no Torah without the garments of imposed interpretation and structured expression and application. The school of Korach, which professes that Torah must be made bare of these garments, ultimately cannot relate to a Torah of purely abstract and undefined concepts, for even Korach and his ideological mates impose on Torah their own flawed and subjective interpretations, as they too realize that there can be no Torah by any definition without precise expression and interpretation.

When On’s wife repelled Korach and his followers with her loose hair, she was on a symbolic level conveying to Korach that Torah’s formulation and interpretation cannot be left to the masses to do as they see fit; Torah without specific, Divine formulation and interpretation will be manipulated and cannot exist; Halacha is more than a primordial, undefined core or amorphous mass which stands ready to be molded as each individual deems appropriate. By exposing her hair, On’s wife was on a symbolic level affirming to Korach’s entourage the positive value and absolute need for the “embellishment” and “adornment” of Torah - for its Divinely-ordained, objective and exact formulation and interpretation - as represented by her hair, which is the embellishment and adornment of the head. Korach's group could not countenance such concepts and were repelled. Perhaps this is why Chazal apply the pasuk of "With the wisdom of women has she built her home" (Mishlei 14:1) to the wife of On (Gemara and Medrash Tanchuma ibid.), for she not only acted wisely and tactfully to protect her husband; On's wife demonstrated superior wisdom in understanding the underpinnings of Halacha and the absolute necessity for Mesorah, the Divine interpretation and elaboration of Halacha, to accompany, precisely define and explain Torah. This was the real wisdom of the wife of On which for Chazal reserved special praise.

Why, of all mitzvos, did Korach choose Tzitzis and Mezuzah for the purpose of demonstrating how illogical he felt Toras Moshe was? Tzitzis and Mezuzah are mitzvos which serve as reminders of Hashem’s role in our lives. Tzitzis remind us of the mitzvos, and the techeiles thread in tzitzis reminds us of God’s Throne. (Menachos 43b) Mezuzah likewise reminds us of Hashem’s Presence whenever we enter or leave our homes. (Sefer Ha-Chinuch m. 423) Korach objected to the impositional character of Torah; he sought for Halacha to be a comfortable cultural experience, not Divine decrees that hindered his personal objectives. Whereas Korach wished to be free of Divine “impositions” and felt that Halachic expression and interpretation should be left for the people to handle as they see fit, Tzitzis and Mezuzah remind us that we are always bound to Hashem and must be aware of His mastery over everything; even one’s own house cannot be a locus of escape from God, as the sea proved not to be a place of refuge for Yonah (the navi - prophet); so too must one’s clothing, which defines the individual and enables him to express his unique identity, not be devoid of identification with God . The very nature of Tzitzis and Mezuzah irked Korach, who sought to free himself of subjugation to Divine imperatives when they were not to his pleasing. (Perhaps this is why the medrashim relate that Korach “jumped forth” to challenge Moshe as soon as Moshe taught B’nei Yisroel the mitzvah of Tzitzis, as the message of this mitzvah conflicted with Korach’s most basic convictions about the role of Torah in one’s personal life.)

This concept appears to be the link between the parshah and haftarah. The haftarah features Shmuel Ha-Navi’s rebuke to B’nei Yisroel for requesting a Melech (King), as it was feared that the nation would seek to go after the Melech and no longer view itself as directly connected to God. (At that period, B’nei Yisroel were still led by Nevi’im, and Hashem’s command was communicated by the Navi to the nation and made its life focus on a continual basis.) Similarly, Korach sought to free himself from Divine “impositions” and wished to take Halacha into his own hands, breaking away from subjugation to Hashem and assuring that the nation could do as it saw fit within the general realm of Torah values. Korach’s quest to replace Moshe Rabbeinu with leadership that did not impose Divine, objective formulations and interpretations of Halacha upon the nation, thereby severing the nation from a direct relationship of subservience to God via a prophet, set a precedent for the severance of the relationship between Hashem and B’nei Yisroel which Shmuel feared would occur should a Melech lead rather than a Navi. Just as removing Moshe (the Navi) from the scene would enable the nation to veer away from Hashem, as Divinely-defined Halacha would cease to be imposed, so too would removal of future Nevi’im by replacement with a Melech bring the people away from subservience to Hashem.

Medrash Tanchuma (s. 2) notes that Korach carried the Aron (Ark) in the Midbar (Desert), as Korach was from Mishpachas Kehas, which was charged with transporting the most holy vessels of the Mishkan. Why does the Medrash point out Korach's carrying of the Aron? It may very well be, per our understanding of Korach’s approach, that Korach viewed the Torah (represented by the Aron, which contained the Luchos - the Tablets) as being dependent on man. Korach posited that Halacha was to be controlled by human beings to express, interpret and apply as they saw fit. Although Chazal explain that the Aron supernaturally did not require human support and transport in its travels, Korach felt that Halacha was dependent on humans and was therefore subject to being molded by them, as symbolized by the Aron's apparent dependence on and control at the hands of Korach.

The Torah establishes that Dasan, Aviram and On - singled out as Korach's most notable supporters - were from Shevet Reuven. Rashi (on Bamidbar 16:1) explains that the majority of Korach's following was likewise from Shevet Reuven, for Shevet Reuven dwelled adjacent to Mishpachas Kehas in the Machaneh (Encampment) of B’nei Yisroel in the Midbar, and many members of Shevet Reuven thus came under the influence of Korach, their close neighbor. The truth is that the shevatim of Shimon and Gad also encamped next to Mishpachas Kehas, and although Medrash Tanchuma (on Parshas Bamidbar, s. 12) notes the participation of Shimon and Gad in Korach's uprising, it is clear from the medrashim and meforshim that Reuven was the primary neighboring shevet to join and promote Korach's campaign. Why is this?

Before the ascendancy of Yehudah as the shevet which would occupy the monarchy of B’nei Yisroel - for the Melech would be from Shevet Yehudah - Shevet Reuven was to occupy this leadership position. We find that Shevet Reuven was not happy to be the fourth shevet to participate in the Chanukas Ha-Mishkan (Dedication of the Mishkan - see Rashi from Sifri on Bamidbar 7:16), indicative of Shevet Reuven's discontent that it had forfeited its leadership position. In light of this history, we can understand why many members of Shevet Reuven gravitated toward Korach's cause. Shevet Reuven observed how Korach sought to undo the appointment of Elitzafan ben Uziel and implement what he believed should have been the proper order of leadership of Mishpachas Kehas; those members of Shevet Reuven who joined Korach's group reasoned that just as Korach's battle was likely to result in redefined leadership for Mishpachas Kehas - leadership by the one who rightfully should have been its leader - similarly would Shevet Reuven unseat Shevet Yehudah as the head shevet, restoring Malchus (Kingship) to Shevet Reuven, which had an inherent right to it from the start. The Shevet Reuven segment of Korach's supporters believed that Korach would precipitate a revolution so significant such that leadership positions throughout B’nei Yisroel would be subject to restoration to those who logically had claims to them. The Shevet Reuven contingent had envisioned that with Korach's conflagration, the opportunity had finally arrived to take back the Malchus. This is likely why Korach's following from Shevet Reuven had a special and profound vested interest in Korach's success, far exceeding the possible interests of the shevatim of Shimon and Gad.

Nonetheless, irrespective of the major role of Shevet Reuven in Korach's rebellion, Moshe singled out Shevet Levi (Korach and his following from his own shevet), proclaiming, "It is enough for you, sons of Levi" (Bamidbar 16:7), which Rashi explains as, "you have taken a mighty thing upon yourselves - " or "you have been most brazen - to oppose Hashem." (V. Sifsei Chachamim.) Based on our understanding of Korach's own thrust in his revolt versus that of his adherents from neighboring shevatim, it is clear why Moshe singled out Korach and the members of his own shevet. Shevet Reuven was motivated to join Korach as a result of greed; there was a desire for power, to recapture the prestige and control of the monarchy that was forfeited by Reuven long ago. On the other hand, Korach's battle was ideological. He opposed Torah as expressed, interpreted and applied by Moshe Rabbeinu, whom Hashem appointed as His messenger of Torah for K'lal Yisroel; by battling against Toras Moshe, Korach thereby turned on Hashem Himself. Korach's offense was incomparably more severe than that of the Shevet Reuven contingent, which had unfounded aspirations of power but did not profess an approach to Torah which would remove subservience to God from one's life and deny Hashem's mandate. It is for this reason that Korach and his Levite following were singled out, as they had actually rebelled against Hashem by denying Moshe's appointment of Elitzafan ben Uziel as the Nasi of Mishpachas Kehas and by challenging and contradicting Moshe's halachic authority on other matters in order to undermine his authority in appointing Elitzafan, for Moshe was Hashem's designated messenger for this all, and denigrating and delegitimizing Moshe's fulfillment of his Divine charge was tantamount to opposing and rebuffing God.

There are so many lessons to be gleaned from Parshas Korach, but the most readily apparent and practical lesson is that those who attempt to tamper with the Mesorah, no matter how sincere they profess themselves to be in seeking authentic Torah, are so often driven by personal interests, and that the Mesorah (of course) cannot be compromised on their account. Judaism requires submission to God's authority, no matter how much or little sense Halachic axioms make to us from a human perspective. God appointed and supported Moshe Rabbeinu throughout and presented to Moshe the Mesorah, and He likewise safeguarded the Mesorah in the hands of Chazal and the Ba'alei (Bearers of) Mesorah after them. The unbroken chain of Mesorah and how Torah is to be interpreted, applied and lived links us back to Moshe Rabbeinu. When people emerge and claim that they sincerely seek to modify, correct or revisit the Mesorah, all allegedly for the sake of preserving it as it really should be - as did the very religious and brilliant Korach - their sincerity should be scrutinized and doubted.

Those who connect back to Sinai and Chazal through the Mesorah of Toras Moshe know that the Mesorah is immutable, and vigilance against alleged correction or realignment of the Mesorah, which is usually driven by self-interest, must be maintained at all costs; for breaking the Mesorah means the loss of Torah, while upholding the Mesorah is our claim to our mission and our authentic and eternal connection to Hashem.