1. And Korah . . . took up. The verb (it is the first word here in the Hebrew text) is in the singular, thus thematically focusing on the principal agent, Korah, who becomes the archetype of the presumptuous rebel against just authority. The function of the verb is nevertheless not entirely clear: the verb “to take” is transitive and should have a direct object but none appears in this sentence. Abraham ibn Ezra solves this difficulty by claiming that an elliptical object, “men,” is implied. Others construe “take” to have the idiomatic sense of “take himself aside” or “rebel.” This translation replicates the ambiguity of the Hebrew.

Dathan and Abirman . . . sons of Reuben. The conjoining of Levites and Reubenites is the first signal of an underlying problem in the entire episode, abundantly registered by biblical scholars. This is a rare instance in which the editorial orchestration of literary sources, instead of producing polyphonic complexity, generates repeated dissonance. Two rebellions have been combined, a rebellion of Levites for priestly privilege and a rebellion of Reubenites for political power. It is fitting that the latter should come out of the tribe of Reuben, for Reuben is the firstborn who has been passed over in the struggle for political preeminence. As the two stories twine around each other, it emerges that there are two different places of confrontation—for Korah and his people, the sanctuary (“before the LORD”), where the trial of the fire-pans occurs; and for Dathan and Abiram and their followers, the entrance to their tents. And there are also two different modes of destruction—a consuming fire engulfs the Levites while the Reubenites are swallowed up by the earth. Perhaps this odd weaving together of the two rebellions was intended to suggest that political and sacerdotal power are inseparable (an idea that might have appealed to Priestly editors), but from a modern perspective it makes peculiar reading.

3. they are all holy. Korah and his followers throw back in Moses’s face the idea he has transmitted to them that all Israel should be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6).

raise yourselves up. The verb also could mean “play the chieftain.”

4. Moses heard and fell on his face. This gesture of prostration ordinarily is an expression of reverence and self-abnegation, as indeed it is in verse 22; but here it would have to be a reflex of extreme dismay. Moses will promptly pick himself up and deliver an ominous prediction to the rebels.

5. Korah and to all his community. The Hebrew ʿadato has often been rendered as his “band” or his “faction.” But it is the term regularly used (as in “community chieftains” in verse 2) to indicate the legitimate organized collective of Israelites, and the point is that Korah has deflected a legitimate collectivity, the ʿedah, into a mutinous break-off group, so the term needs to be preserved for both the legitimate organization and the rebellion.

bring close. In ritual contexts, the verbal stem q-r-b almost always suggests the privilege of access to sanctified space and to the divine presence.

7. You have too much, sons of Levi. Moses is obviously flinging their own initial words of complaint against him (verse 3) back against them. This phrase will then be antithetically reversed at the very beginning of Moses’s next speech (verse 8), “Is it too little . . . ?”

9. divided you . . . to bring you close . . . to do the work . . . to stand before the community to serve them? The expansively synonymous character of Moses’s language underscores the immense bounty that the Levites received in being charged with all the (nonpriestly) work of the Tabernacle. (“Stand before” has the idiomatic sense of “serve.”)

11. Therefore you and all your community . . . and Aaron, what is he. The syntax here seems a bit disjunct, perhaps because the story of Korah is at this point interrupted by the story of Dathan and Abiram. Aaron is singled out here because from among the Levite clans it is upon Aaron and his sons that priesthood has been conferred.

12. Moses sent to call. The purpose of the summons is not stated, but it is clearly an expression of Moses’s political authority over these Reubenites, which they categorically reject by declaring, “We will not go up.” In this second story, where power rather than priestly privilege is at issue, the rebellion is directed against Moses, and Aaron now is not mentioned.

13. Is it too little. These words of course echo the phrase just used by Moses (verse 9) in addressing Korah and his followers and reflect an effort to pull the two strands together.

from a land flowing with milk and honey. Previous recollections in the “murmurings” stories of the fleshpots of Egypt are now ratcheted up as the house of bondage is represented in the very terms of bounty that have been repeatedly used for the promised land. The claim that the wilderness is no more than a death trap for the liberated slaves has been made from the start.

14. to a land flowing with milk and honey you have not brought us. This complaint is abundantly justified. They are still stuck in the pitiless rocky landscape of the Sinai desert, and the effort of the ten scouts to lead an expedition against the high country of Canaan has just been turned back in disastrous defeat.

Would you gouge out the eyes of these men? “These men” is a euphemism for “us,” employed to avoid saying something dire about oneself. Gouging out the eyes was sometimes a punishment of rebels in the ancient Near East, although the Reubenites may simply be saying, as ibn Ezra proposes, that they are not blind to Moses’s outrageous behavior.

15. Do not turn to their offering. Dathan and Abiram have mentioned no offering, so this could be an attempt to harmonize this story with Korah’s.

16. And Moses said to Korah. The narrative thread broken off at the end of verse 11 is now resumed.

21. Divide yourselves from this community. There is some ambiguity here about the scope of the noun ʿedah. If it means Korah’s faction, then in the next verse Moses and Aaron plead that only the ringleaders be punished, not all 250 rebels. But the subsequent occurrences of “community” in the story seem to point to the whole Israelite people, so perhaps Moses and Aaron fear that God is exhibiting another impulse to destroy the entire populace and to start again with the two brothers.

24. the dwelling. The Hebrew mishkan is also the term for “Tabernacle.” Its use may be still another effort to tie the two stories together, as its application to profane dwellings is generally in the plural (mishkenot).

Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. The first of these names appears to be an interpolation, for Korah has been instructed to stand by the Tent of Meeting, not in front of his own tent.

27. they moved up. This is the same verb as the rebels’”we will not go up,” used here in a different conjugation to convey the sense of “removed themselves from.” It occurs equally in verse 24.

Dathan and Abiram. Korah has now, properly, disappeared from the scene in front of the tents.

32. the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and their households. This justice by cataclysmic portent is pitiless, and scarcely accords with the discrimination of guilty agents elsewhere in the Mosaic Code—everyone associated with Dathan and Abiram is engulfed, down to the little children.

and every human being that was Korah’s. Once more the name is inserted in order to try to splice the two strands, for one may infer that Korah should be awaiting destruction by fire at the Tent of Meeting.

34. And all Israel . . . fled at the sound of them. The real thrust of the story is not considered justice but monitory spectacle: terror surges through the whole people as they witness the earth gaping, then closing (no mere earthquake!), with the rebel Reubenites tumbling into the underworld.

35. And a fire had gone out from the LORD. Here we have the report of the denouement of the trial of the fire-pans, suspended after verse 22. The use of the pluperfect reflects an attempt to hold the two narrative lines together: while Dathan, Abiram, and company were being swallowed by the earth, a divine fire coming out from the sanctuary has consumed Korah and his people. But, pointedly, explicit reference to Korah is omitted from this verse because verse 32 has just placed him alongside Dathan and Abiram. The consequent confusion is carried into postbiblical Hebrew tradition, where Korah is sometimes represented as having been buried alive and sometimes as having been incinerated.