In the conflict with Korach, Moshe summons Dathan and Aviram. They refuse, saying: Lo Naaleh! – which is translated as “we will not come.”
Is this translation correct? After all, they could have said “lo navoh” – which really means “we will not come.” Lo naaleh, by contrast, means “we will not rise.”
Why is it phrased this way? Is there another meaning besides simply refusing to do what Moshe asked?
Let’s look at what naaleh means in the text elsewhere. Its first use is with Yaakov, who says to his household:
“Come, let us go up (naaleh) to Bethel, and I will build an altar there to the God who answered me when I was in distress and who has been with me wherever I have gone.”
Note the context! Naaleh refers to going up spiritually, toward the Land and connecting to G-d. It is not merely about physically going someplace!
Is it possible that Dathan and Aviram are saying more than just “we will not come to you, Moshe,” but are instead questioning the entire strategic plan? Are they saying, instead “we do not intend to follow in Yaakov’s footsteps and approach G-d and the Land; instead, we want to return to Egypt, the land truly flowing with milk and honey”? It certainly seems that way – check Deut. 16:13-16: You brought us from a land flowing with milk and honey.
Indeed, the word naaleh in the Torah seems to consistently refer to the same idea of following G-d’s lead!
And at such times as the cloud stayed from evening until morning, they rose up (naaleh) as soon as the cloud lifted in the morning. Day or night, whenever the cloud lifted, they would rise up (naaleh). (N. 9:21)
In the Torah, the word naaleh is always about the path toward Israel and a relationship with G-d!
Most relevantly to the Korach rebellion, we had the failure of the spies, in which Kalev tries to convince the people:
Kalev hushed the people before Moses and said, “Let us by all means go up (naaleh), and we shall gain possession of [the land], for we shall surely overcome it.” (N. 13:30)
So if Dathan and Aviram do not want to naaleh, then they are saying, are they not, that they reject both Kalev and Yaakov, that they reject the idea of rising spiritually upward, of seeking a connection with G-d and with the Chosen Land?
If so, then their rebellion is not merely about who is in charge: it is about the entire strategic direction of the people!
Might this explain the unique nature of Dathan and Aviram’s demise? They said “we will not go up!” So instead, G-d makes them go down!
But if G-d brings about something unheard-of, so that the ground opens its mouth and swallows them up with all that belongs to them, and they go down [the opposite of naaleh] alive into Sheol, you shall know that those involved have spurned G-d.” … They went down [opposite of naaleh] alive into Sheol, with all that belonged to them; the earth closed over them and they vanished from the midst of the congregation.
Are they sent down specifically because they refused to go up?
Who Sees Clearly?
Dathan and Aviram contest Moshe:
Is it not enough that you brought us from a land flowing with milk and honey to have us die in the wilderness …But you did not bring us to a land flowing with milk and honey, and given us possession of fields and vineyards:
Are they challenging Moshe’s view, insisting that the reality is the opposite of what Moshe claims?
They continue: should you naker the vision of these men? (N. 16:13)
What does this word mean? Naker is only found one other place in the Torah, when G-d shows Moshe his back:
And G-d said, “See, there is a place near Me. Station yourself on the rock and, as My Presence passes by, I will put you in a naker of the rock and shield you with My hand until I have passed by.
So is a naker is some kind of visual barrier, blocking clear sight?
Is this why Dathan and Aviram use this word? To suggest that Moshe was blocking their vision similar to how G-d blocked his? If so, then why?
Might it be because they are challenging whether Moshe, who admittedly never sees G-d directly, might have a completely backward understanding?
Are they arguing that Moshe is trying to stop the people from realizing that his leadership failed, that his strategic vision is an error?
And if so, did they not have a point? After all, after the debacle of the spies, they were told that they had no future except to drop dead in the wilderness. What kind of forward-looking plan is that?!
Might their resistance to Moshe’s leadership really be about a different perspective, a genuinely contrasting view of reality?
We now know that Moshe was right and they were wrong. But if you put yourself in their shoes, without the benefit of hindsight, how would you have been able to be sure of the difference between right and wrong?