Now Korah…betook himself (16:1). Literally, “and Korah took” (va-yikach Korach), which presents a dilemma for translators and commentators since the verb lacks a direct object. What did Korah take? Midrash B’midbar Rabbah 18.4 explains that Korah “took” his tallit—and went to get advice from his wife. BT Sanhedrin 110a goes further and portrays Korah’s wife as playing an active role in the development of his resentment. She complains that Moses has become a king, his brother Aaron is chief priest, and Aaron’s sons are priests, while Levites such as Korah are disadvantaged in a number of ways. Moreover, she continues, Moses humiliated the Levites by ordering them to shave their entire bodies (8:7). Finally, Korah’s wife ridicules the commandment of tzitzit (15:37–41), which requires the presence in the fringes of t’cheilet (a blue thread). If blue thread is so important, she asks rhetorically, why not wear a cloak made entirely of blue thread?
Why does the Babylonian Talmud—and, by implication, B’midbar Rabbah—portray Korah’s wife in this negative way? Rabbi Hanokh Zundel (author of the Etz Yosef commentary on B’midbar Rabbah) hypothesized that because Dathan’s and Abiram’s wives and children were with the rebels at the fateful moment of being swallowed up (16:27), their wives must have shared their husbands’ rebellious sentiments. Presumably, Korah’s wife also agreed with Korah’s anger. Of course, in a patriarchal society, women would have had little choice but to “agree” with their husbands. Korah’s wife, however, may have had a more specific motivation: given that Korah was a first cousin of Moses and Aaron, his rebellion was a family affair—at least in part. Korah’s wife may have zealously pursued what she saw as her husband’s legitimate interests against her powerful cousins-in-law. It is also possible that the Rabbis, who often impute the worst possible motives to women, are portraying Korah’s wife as another Eve who (in rabbinic lore) is leading her innocent husband into temptation and disaster.
On son of Peleth (16:1). The Rabbis give us a different model of a rebel’s spouse in their construction of the wife of On son of Peleth. The Rabbis assume that On did not see the rebellion through to the end, and thus he was spared the collective punishment. This is because he is listed among the rebels in 16:1, but there is no specific mention of his death in 16:23–35 when the rebels are destroyed. In a story found in two versions (B’midbar Rabbah 18.20 and BT Sanhedrin 109b–110a), the Rabbis attribute On’s rescue to his wife. In both versions, On’s wife points out to him that the rebellion will leave him no better off: he is currently subordinate to Aaron; if the rebellion is successful, he will be subordinate to Korah. She observes to herself, “I know that all of the congregation is holy,” citing as proof Korah’s own words in 16:3. She then gets her husband drunk, puts him to bed, and sits at their front door with her hair undone and exposed. The holiness of the congregation is made manifest when the rebels approach the house to summon her husband—and withdraw immediately upon seeing her immodest appearance. By the time On awakens from his drunken sleep, the rebellion has been put down and the rebels destroyed.
In the version of this story in the Midrash (B’midbar Rabbah), On never speaks; we do not know if he agrees with his wife or not. We may reasonably infer that he does not; otherwise, why would she have to get him drunk to put an end to his participation in the rebellion? In the version in the Talmud, however, On appears to agree with his spouse’s assessment of his status after the rebellion. When he asks her, “What should I do?” she makes her observation about communal holiness and executes her plan to save her family from destruction.
The possible appeal to women—especially poor women—of Korah’s overall critique of the Mosaic order is illustrated differently in Midrash T’hillim 1:15. Korah is represented there as showing the injustice of Torah laws by pointing out their adverse impact on a widow with two daughters. Whether the poor widow wishes to plow, sow, harvest, or raise animals—Korah notes—Moses and Aaron are there to regulate how she should plow and sow, and to insist that she gives portions of her harvest and her herds to the priests. The widow, frustrated at all these restraints and exactions, ends up bereft and weeping together with her children.
—Alyssa M. Gray