The meaning of "Korach took"

The sidra of Korach begins with:

וַיִּקַּ֣ח קֹ֔רַח בֶּן־יִצְהָ֥ר בֶּן־קְהָ֖ת בֶּן־לֵוִ֑י וְדָתָ֨ן וַאֲבִירָ֜ם בְּנֵ֧י אֱלִיאָ֛ב וְא֥וֹן בֶּן־פֶּ֖לֶת בְּנֵ֥י רְאוּבֵֽן׃

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 —

וַיָּקֻ֙מוּ֙ לִפְנֵ֣י מֹשֶׁ֔ה וַאֲנָשִׁ֥ים מִבְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל חֲמִשִּׁ֣ים וּמָאתָ֑יִם נְשִׂיאֵ֥י עֵדָ֛ה קְרִאֵ֥י מוֹעֵ֖ד אַנְשֵׁי־שֵֽׁם׃

to rise up against Moses, together with two hundred and fifty Israelites, chieftains of the community, chosen in the assembly, men of repute.

(Tangentially, Rashi begins with the statement:

ויקח קרח. פָּרָשָׁה זוֹ יָפֶה נִדְרֶשֶׁת בְּמִדְרַשׁ רַבִּי תַנְחוּמָא:

ויקח קרח — This section is beautifully expounded in the Midrash of Rabbi Tanchuma.

A strong question is how Rashi could call one interpretation beautiful, or well-interpreted, when there is an injunction in the gemara against doing so. I explain the true meaning of this statement in this parshablog post, where I explain that other midrashic sources are absent in this particular patch of pesukim, so Rashi is designating his midrashic source.)

Anyway, on to the new-ish exposition on the sidra. Again, the pasuk begins וַיִּקַּ֣ח קֹ֔רַח… וְדָתָ֨ן וַאֲבִירָ֜ם… וְא֥וֹן בֶּן־פֶּ֖לֶת. What did Korach take? Or, did Korach, Datan and Aviram, and On take? What is there to take? Rashi famously channels the midrash that Korach took, that is, convinced, these people with his words.

Here is what Rashbam says, but we need to work hard on it to understand his intent.

ויקח קרח - כמו: ויקח [אברם] את שרה אשתו ואת לוט - אף כאן - ויקח קרח.

Which I would translate as:

And Korach took: like “And [Avram] took et Sarah [sic] his wife as well as et Lot” (Bereishit 12:5), so too here, Korach took.

This is not entirely clear. He certainly is pointing to another verse, which begins with vayikach X, and then lists a whole bunch of people, and then has an action. That is, that pasuk is:

וַיִּקַּ֣ח אַבְרָם֩ אֶת־שָׂרַ֨י אִשְׁתּ֜וֹ וְאֶת־ל֣וֹט בֶּן־אָחִ֗יו וְאֶת־כׇּל־רְכוּשָׁם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר רָכָ֔שׁוּ וְאֶת־הַנֶּ֖פֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר־עָשׂ֣וּ בְחָרָ֑ן וַיֵּצְא֗וּ לָלֶ֙כֶת֙ אַ֣רְצָה כְּנַ֔עַן וַיָּבֹ֖אוּ אַ֥רְצָה כְּנָֽעַן׃

Abram took his wife Sarai and his brother’s son Lot, and all the wealth that they had amassed, and the persons that they had acquired in Haran; and they set out for the land of Canaan. When they arrived in the land of Canaan,

The way I’ve explained in my own peirush in the past is that vayikach is a null verb. It does not actually refer to the act of taking. Rather, (A) it is an introductory verb saying that there is actually an action, and we will get to it eventually. However, first, we have a whole list of people who are the subjects of the ensuing predicate. They are all actors. It would be unwieldy to say “and Korach, and Datan and Aviram, and On ben Pelet, and these 250 men, all congregated and appeared before Moshe”. So, instead we say vayikach with the full list of participants. And then, we specify the action.

An alternative for Rashbam’s intent is (B) that Korach is the actor, and he took, that means “gathered”, all of these people for the ensuing action.

Finally, the alternative is that (C) Korach, Datan, Aviram, and On, all took. However, I think that we can rule out (C) because of the word et in the quoted pasuk about Avram. The word et is the object marker, which means that Sarai and Lot were taken, not takers. So too here, Korach, and not the others are takers. So, while I personally maintain (A) is the real answer, I suspect that Rashbam meant (B).

Maybe the next commentary from Rashbam on the same pasuk could help us out. He writes:

ודתן ואבירם - אנשים הרבה, עד שקמו עמהם לפני משה חמשים ומאתים.

Which I would translate as:

And Datan and Aviram — many men, until 250 stood with them before Moshe.

To me, this seems like an extension of idea (B). That is, with the dibur hamatchil of “and Datan and Aviram”, the point is that we are listing all the people gathered for the action of standing before Moshe.

---

Meanwhile, unfortunately, the Eliyahu Munk translation of these Rashbam’s is so off the mark that I wondered for a moment if he was working off a variant text. This is not the case. Rather, he didn’t understand the meaning of the Rashbam, and so massaged the words in his translation so that it said something that was sensible to him. This wasn’t censorship for ideology. I think he just didn’t understand its meaning. And admittedly, it was hard to make heads or tails out of it.

Here is how Eliyahu Munk translated these two Rashbam comments:

ויקח קרח - כמו: ויקח [אברם] את שרה אשתו ואת לוט - אף כאן - ויקח קרח.

ויקח קרח, he approached;

ודתן ואבירם - אנשים הרבה, עד שקמו עמהם לפני משה חמשים ומאתים.

בני ראובן, some of the members of that tribe.

The Hebrew doesn’t match the English at all. In the first comment, he does not cite the parallel about Avram. Presumably he read it, and figured out what it had to mean, so wrote this concise comment. But Avram didn’t “approach” Sarah and Lot and all their rechush. He gathered (B) for the ensuing action, or this was a null verb and the action was taken by all (A). Really, it is (B), as discussed above.

In the second comment, he changes the dibbur hamatchil! That is what made be momentarily think Munk worked off an alternate girsa. But no, he sees the 250 people, many people, and that does not seem to him to have anything to do with Datan and Aviram. Rather, he thought, the dibbur hamatchil must be the last words of the pasuk and of the phrase that began with Datan and Aviram. So Korah “took”, that is approached, a bunch of people, and that is the meaning of bnei reuven — many people, thus that he targeted some of the members of that tribe. Or something. I don’t know what went through his head. Regardless, I believe my translation is more accurate. Next, to add it to Sefaria Community translation!