The rebellion had been quelled. The rebels were swallowed up alive by a giant sinkhole formed just for this purpose (Bamidbar 16:31-33). The political leaders who insisted on being religious leaders too were burnt by a fire sent by G-d to devour them (16:35). Many who had supported the rebellion perished in a plague (17:12-14). Aharon’s blossoming staff proved that the Tribe of Levi had been chosen by G-d to serve in the Mishkan (17:23-24). After all of this, the nation still had one issue that concerned them, although they didn’t complain about it (compare their “saying” what their concern was in 17:27 to their “complaining” in 17:6, and the lack of “congregating against Moshe and Aharon” as there had been in 6:3 and 16:19). What was their concern? Whomever tries to get too close to G-d (and His Mishkan) will perish (17:28). They had just seen people who seem to have wanted to increase their connection with G-d perish when they tried to get too close. How can a nation that is supposed to strive to get close to G-d avoid getting too close and suffering the consequences? G-d’s answer was that the Tribe of Levi would “safeguard the Tent of Meeting” (a.k.a. the Mishkan) so that “a stranger,” (anyone who doesn’t belong) “does not come close” (18:4). By making the priestly class responsible for the sanctity of the Mishkan, including forbidding entry to those who shouldn’t be there, this concern was addressed.

Rabbi Yitzchok D. Frankel, sh’lita, author of “Machat Shel Yad,” shared with me a question he posed in his Chumash shiur. Since the Levi’im being the guards of the Mishkan had already been established (1:53; see Rashi on 3:6), what was being added here that would alleviate what the nation was concerned about? They must have known that this task had been assigned to the Levi’im, as the next verse (1:54) says that the Children of Israel fulfilled everything that had been commanded. How could the role of being the Mishkan’s “security guards” be presented as if it was a newly added responsibility if it had been included in their assignments well before Korach’s rebellion? Chizkuni (18:1) seems to be addressing this issue when he explains G-d’s message to Moshe and Aharon to be that the nation’s concern was not justified, as the Levi’im were already responsible for preventing unauthorized access. However, this doesn’t explain why they were concerned in the first place and/or how they were no longer concerned, since nothing had really changed.

Ibn Ezra uses this question to support his opinion that Korach’s rebellion occurred earlier, at Mt. Sinai, when the Mishkan was first built and the Levi’im replaced the firstborn. According to him, the responsibility to prevent unauthorized access described in 1:53 was the result of this concern; we just weren’t told how it came about until now. However, Ibn Ezra’s position that the rebellion happened at Mt. Sinai is very difficult to accept. Not only does its placement in the narrative strongly indicate that it occurred well after the nation left Sinai, but Dasan and Aviram’s words, attacking Moshe for taking them “out of a land flowing with milk and honey” (perversely referring to Egypt) “to kill us in the desert” (16:13) makes little sense if the decree that the generation would die in the desert, issued after the sin of the spies, hadn’t been made yet.

The answer Rabbi Frankel shared with his shiur was from Reb Asher Pillar, an answer that I like very much. Yes, the Levi’im had already been given the responsibility of making sure no one gets too close to G-d’s Mishkan, but they had failed miserably. Not only did people perish as a result of the rebellion because they crossed the line of what they should/could do, but Levi’im were a primary force behind this rebellion. How could the nation be confident that the line wouldn’t be crossed again if those responsible to protect against it happening had proven to be inadequate? Who watches the watchmen? Therefore, another layer was added. Instead of the Levi’im being in charge of this responsibility, now the Kohanim were given the responsibility of overseeing the Levi’im. “You (Aharon), and your sons and your father’s house with you, will bear the iniquity of the Temple” (18:1). With the Kohanim being the Levi’im’s new bosses, the nation could be confident that a similar lapse wouldn’t occur. Abarbanel may take this a bit further, suggesting (I think) that the responsibility of the Kohanim was more than just overseeing the Levi’im, but that they (and those Levi’im who failed to fulfill their role) would personally “bear the iniquity,” i.e. be liable for punishment. If the nation’s concern was that they would continue to die for overstepping their boundary, placing the punishment for any inadvertent “overstepping” on those who should have prevented it would certainly alleviate this concern.

There is another aspect of G-d’s “answer” to the nation’s concern that is quite puzzling. Usually, G-d spoke to Moshe (sometimes with Aharon) with instructions to share the communication with the rest of the nation. Here, even though this divine communication is apparently a response to the nation’s concern, it is addressed only to Aharon (through Moshe, see Rashi), without any instructions (or indication, except for the fact that the content relates directly to them) that it should be shared with the rest of the nation. I would have expected G-d’s answer to the nation, which included laws that affected them directly (the “gifts” they must give to the Kohanim and Levi’im), to be addressed to them. Instead, it is addressed to Aharon. Why was this “answer,” and these laws, given over in such a roundabout way?

Included in the “gifts” taught after the nation expressed their concern about coming too close to G-d’s Mishkan was “ma’aser,” the tithe that had to be given to the Levi’im (18:21). Although it had been referenced at Mt Sinai (Vayikra 27:30), all we are told there is that it “belongs to G-d;” that G-d designated it for the Levi’im is taught to us here. Although “ma’aser” must be given to a Levi, which Levi it is given to is completely up to each farmer (see Rashi on Bamidbar 5:10). Would anyone give the “ma’aser” from their crops to a Levi who was being derelict in his Levitical obligations? I would suggest that besides adding a managerial level on top of the Levi’im to ensure that they fulfilled their responsibility, there was another “layer” added. Knowing that their livelihood was dependant on being chosen as a “ma’aser” recipient, the Levi’im would make sure to do their job and prevent any further catastrophe from happening. And knowing that this was in the best interest of the Levi’im alleviated the nation’s concern that this function wouldn’t be performed properly. Nevertheless, it would be inappropriate to directly connect the two, to address the nation’s concern by saying that they had leverage over the Levi’im since they could choose which Levi would get their “ma’aser.” By giving this information to Aharon, who would make sure that the laws would be properly implemented, the nation’s concern could be addressed without doing so overtly.

This point is made when the Torah states (as part of G-d’s communication with Aharon) that the Levi’im get “ma’aser” as payment for their work in the Mishkan (18:21), which refers to all of their “jobs,” not just being security guards. That this has implications which ease the nation’s concern is made clear in the next verse, which states that as a result of “ma’aser” being given to the Levi’im, “the Children of Israel will no longer get too close to the Tent of Meeting” (18:22). Besides having the Kohanim overseeing their functions, the Levi’im have to (indirectly) answer to the rest of the nation too. And once these additions were in place, there was no longer the same concern that there would be continuous punishment for getting too close to G-d’s Mishkan