Bamidbar: Exalted Servants

From Rabbi Aviva Richman “Dismantling Holiness With Love” at https://www.hadar.org/torah-resource/dismantling-holiness-love
There are two possibilities of what this danger might actually be. One concern is exposure of what is most holy and usually hidden, like other passages where we see that inappropriate access to the ark can lead to death. But Ibn Ezra sides with a different concern, that Kehat would see the sacred being covered. 2 It is precisely in the moment that logistics involve “packing up” the sacred that a sense of holiness might vanish. What used to demarcate the space from which the divine voice emanated now becomes a nondescript piece of luggage; God’s voice is gone. The moment those who transported the ark thought of it as just moving furniture is when the mishkan would be truly dismantled, robbed of its essence.

From Prof. Adele Berlin's "The Levite Rebellion Against the Priesthood: Why Were We Demoted?" at https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-levite-rebellion-against-the-priesthood-why-were-we-demoted
. . .The P source, however, establishes a hierarchy of religious officials, with Aaron and his descendants, the Priests, at the apex and the other Levites below them (see Num. 18:1-7). Only the Aaronides may enter the holiest parts of the sanctuary and only they may officiate at sacrifices. The other Levites served in subordinate positions in the sanctuary.
With this as background, it is easier to understand the Korah episode. The Korah story reflects part of the history of the growth of the priesthood. Korah’s complaint harks back to a recollection that the elevated role of Aaron and his sons was once the role of all Levites. The establishment of this new hierarchy offends the Levites and this is voiced by Korah.

From "Who Were the Levites?" by Prof Mark Leuchter at https://www.thetorah.com/article/who-were-the-levites
In many cultures around the world, eldest sons inherit the property and position of the father—this is called patrilineal primogeniture—and the other sons must find other ways of sustaining themselves. They sometimes joined the priesthood. The dedication of sons to priestly sanctuaries/clans is not uncommon in rural peasant economies;^[9] these children are assimilated into the priestly clan at the site, trained in ritual function, and enculturated in their lore. In Europe, for instance, later sons of wealthy families would try to make their fortune as soldiers or become pastors, living off the funds of the community they served.
Although Israel does not appear to have used a primogeniture based inheritance system, firstborns were favored with a double portion of inheritance. Moreover, splitting territory into small pieces to accommodate all of a person’s sons could make the family insolvent. It thus seems likely that the Israelites would have done what many societies do, namely dedicating at least one son to “the priesthood.”
This practice would have taken off during times of uncertainty and economic turmoil. Families would have adopted the practice of devoting their own sons to service at their local sanctuaries as a way to alleviate stress they faced if they could not sustain their families with their own crops or flocks.^[10] Dedicating sons to the priesthood would have provided some relief for struggling families, allowing family resources to go further within the household, but also assuring that the son given over to priestly service would benefit from the security of the sanctuary, its priestly staff, and resources.^[11]
Both archaeological and textual evidence in the biblical record points to frequent periods of economic strain in early Israel,^[12] and the dedication of sons as “Levites” to the stable sanctuaries anchoring disparate communities became a fairly common agrarian practice. Over time, this practice became conventional such that even wealthier families would have felt the social responsibility to participate in this institution.