Korach 5767

I'm very taken with Korach. Oh, I know, if I start up with puns on "Vayikach Korach", we'll be here till carbon emissions decrease, but it still grabs me every time. The first two verses read, translated literally:

"And Korach took (son of YItzhar son of Kehat son of Levi), and Datan and Aviram and On ben Pelet sons of Reuven.
And they rose up before Moshe and men from the sons of Israel two hundred and fifty, princes of the assembly, those called to meeting, men of renown"

The obvious and famous problem is - What did Korach take? There is no object to this purely transitive verb!
Here's a digest of some of the most well-knows solutions to the problem:

1. Rashi: He took himself to the other side, so as to be separated from the assembly to contest the (assignment) of the priesthood (to Aharon).
2. Ibn Ezra: "He took men", the object being omittted (he gives an example of a similar occurance) [ Hizkuni identifies the men he took: Datan and Aviram; Rashbam is similar, but he has Korah, Datan and Aviram taking the 250 men mentioned subsquently]
3. Midrash (as interpreted by Ramban): He took counsel with himself.
4. Ibn Jannach (a famous Spanish grammarian quoted by Ibn Ezra): He undertook to rise up against Moshe. After considering and rejecting other interpretations, Ramban himself explains simiilarly.
5. Bechor Shor: Korah took, and then it relates all the events that transpired as a result.

Of course, there's another, seemingly much larger question looming. That is: what is Korach's beef? What does he want, what motivates his nearly seditious actions. Why, then, get hung up with grammar?

Unless, of course, the key to that larger questions resides in how we understand that hanging word, vayikach! The Chachamim consistently understand the verb lamed-kuf-het as "to buy, to acquire, to gain possession of". Of course, you can only gain possession of something that you don't have. That is why the verb is purely transitive - it can ONLY act on something other than oneself (unlike some verbs which are both transitive and intransitive).

Now Korach was bald. How do I know this? Well, that's what his name means, as does the verb root, kuf-resh-het. That means, he has none of his own hair. It could be because he, like all the other Levites, were shaved bodily a few parashiyot earlier upon their entry into their holy work (in fact, Ibn Ezra locates this dispute there, and the Midrash also brings it as a motive for Korach's uprising). Or/And it could be because he's truly bald. Or: it could have a deeper implication. Nothing comes out of Korach, nothing grows out of him.

If you look at the parashah, you'll see that Korach himself says nothing himself, he does nothing, unless perhaps it's as part of the larger agree he/they assemble. Nothing comes out of Korach because Korach wants/needs/takes everything. There's no object to Korach's taking because, feeling himself to have nothing, he takes EVERYTHING. As the Jewish proverb would have it, "As rich as Korach".

But what is it that he really doesn't have? Himself. Underneath everything that he does/is imputed to him, Korach is desperately trying to take (purchase/acquire/obtain) himself. Because he sees everything as an object, even himself (self measured by one's standing in relation to others), he must always be attempting to obtain it. Always intake, never output - he is the baldest man in the universe.

Moshe, on the other hand, is the ultimate giver. When Yehoshua is zealous for his teachers role as prophet, and wants Moshe to against the seemingly unauthorized "taking" of the holy spirit by Eldad and Medad, Moshe corrects him: "If only one would GIVE - all the people of Hashem - prophets, for Hashem gives His spirit upon them". Moshe, too, uses no object to his verb. Pure giving.

Thus, the source of Korach rebellion: The boundless jealousy, capable only in a man who identifies being with taking, of the man who has it all, because he gives it all.