Korah 5774 - English

By Rabbi Gustavo Kraselnik
Kol Shearith Israel - Panamá

This week’s parashah is named after the leader of the most challenging revolt against the leadership of Moses and Aaron: Korah.  The rebellion is well known, mainly due to its Hollywood style ending: “and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up with their households, all Korah's people and all their possessions” (Num. 16:32).

What is not so well known is the enigma that involves one of the leaders of Reuben’s tribe, associated with Korah’s rebellion, On ben (son of) Pellet, who mysteriously disappears from the story.

Just at the beginning of the chapter, we are introduced to the leaders of the revolt: “Now Korah, son of Izhar son of Kohath son of Levi, betook himself, along with Dathan and Abiram sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth, descendants of Reuben“ (16:1).

None the less, the following verses only mention Dathan and Abiram, with no other reference to On, not just here but in the entire Bible!  What happened?  As occurs in other instances, the answer can come from several places: in this case, both the scientific research and the Midrash have something to say.

Modern researchers suggest that “On be Peleth” is not a person but the fruit of an alteration in the text.  “Peleth” is a different form of the name Pallu, and “On” is a dittography, that is, a mistaken repetition of a letter or word, in this case, the word Ben.  According to this theory, the verse should be read as: “Now Korah, son of Izhar son of Kohath son of Levi, betook himself, along with Dathan and Abiram sons of Eliab, son of Peleth, descendants of Reuben.“

Three arguments seem to confirm this reading: 1. On ben Peleth, as we said, does not appear again in the entire Torah; 2. The names “On” and “Peleth” are never mentioned in any of the family trees of Reuben’s tribe; and 3. Eliab was a son of Pallu son of Reuben (Num. 26:8).

So, it would seem that On ben Peleth is, literally, a literary creation (a very appropriate redundancy), which reminds us that the sacred texts, far beyond their holiness and authorship, have suffered involuntary modifications throughout the generations, as a consequence of the mistakes performed by the copyists.

The Midrash, however, cannot content itself with this “technical” answer.  The absence of On ben Peleth must have some in-depth explanation, which we finally find in the Talmud.  In accordance with our sages, the reason for On’s noninvolvement in Korah’s revolt is due to his wife’s intervention.

The Sanhedrin Tractate (109b and 110a) tells us how On’s wife tried to make him reconsider his decision: “What will you gain from this quarrel? Whomever the winner is (Moses or Aaron), you will continue to be the pupil!” Since she couldn’t convince him, she decided to take action. She gave him wine to drink, intoxicated him, and laid him down inside the tent.  Then she sat at the entrance to the tent and loosened her hair (an immodest act in a married woman), so that whomever came to call on On saw her and went back. 

Unlike Korah’s wife, who encouraged his rebellion (another Midrash story), On’s wife prevented him from participating in the uprising and dying along with Korah’s followers; thus deserving the words of Mishlei: “The wise woman builds up her household…” (Proverbs 14:1).

In short, On ben Peleth may or may not have lived, but wise wives do exist (and I bear witness), and thanks to their wisdom and determination, they more than once prevent us from doing things we shouldn’t do.

Shabbat Shalom,

Gustavo