Datan and Aviram in Pshat and in Drash

שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים עִבְרִים נִצִּים:

Two Hebrew men fighting. (Shemot 2:13)

The Criteria for Explicit Mention in the Torah

The personalities of Datan and Aviram feature throughout Parshat Shemot. Whenever the term “אנשים — men” is used, and these men are not identified, Rashi informs us that they are none other than Datan and Aviram. This is a similar phenomenon to the Yeshiva of Shem and Ever, which is not mentioned explicitly at any point during Sefer Bereishit, yet Rashi identifies it in numerous pesukim. However, the difference between the Yeshiva of Shem and Ever on the one hand and Datan and Aviram on the other, is that the latter are in fact mentioned explicitly later on in the Chumash, in Parshat Korach, whereas the Yeshiva of Shem and Ever receives no explicit mention whatsoever. And indeed, Rabbeinu Bachye writes (Bereishit 29:10, s.v. vayigash Yaakov):

Chazal, who received the truth, received a tradition according to which, before going to Lavan’s house he (Yaakov) learned in the Yeshiva of Ever for fourteen years, even though there is no mention of this in the pasuk.

We have explained earlier on[1] the reason for the absence of any mention of the Yeshiva of Shem and Ever is that the criteria for something being mentioned in the Torah is that it reaches the level of Netzach — absolute permanence. The Yeshiva of Shem and Ever does not answer to these criteria, for since the time of the giving of the Torah, there exists either Taryag Mitzvot, or the seven mitzvot of Bnei Noach. The “intermediate Torah” of Shem and Ever, which represents more than the seven mitzvot of Bnei Noach, but does not yet reach the Taryag Mitzvot that obligate Bnei Yisrael, is thus considered a matter of historical interest. Therefore, although such a Yeshiva existed, for we are informed about it by Chazal — mekablei ha’emet — nonetheless, the Torah does not write about things that are merely informational, but rather about things the knowledge of which is of enduring and permanent value. Thus, the Yeshiva found no mention in the Torah.

Identifying Datan and Aviram

Let us return to Datan and Aviram in light of Rashi’s peirush where he identifies them on numerous occasions in which the Torah itself does not state who they are. Indeed, we should remind ourselves that the first time we see the names Datan and Aviram in the pasuk is later on in Parshat Korach (Bamidbar perek 16), where they disappear from the face of the earth together with Korach and his men. It is almost as if the Torah does not wish for them to remain mentioned in the pesukim for any significant amount of time, and therefore it eradicates them almost as soon as they first appear!

And yet elsewhere, where the Torah does not specify, Rashi informs us that it is indeed referring to them. Thus, for example, in our pasuk Rashi writes:

שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים עִבְרִים: דתן ואבירם, הם שהותירו מן המן.

Two Hebrew men — [These are] Datan and Aviram, they are the ones who left over from the manna.

Rashi is referring to the pasuk later on (16:20) which states that some men left over from their portion of manna. Commenting on that pasuk as well, Rashi says simply, “וַיּוֹתִרוּ אֲנָשִׁים: דתן ואבירם — some men left over: Datan and Aviram.”

Similarly, later on (4:19) when Moshe is told by Hashem, “כִּי מֵתוּ כָּל הָאֲנָשִׁים הַמְבַקְשִׁים אֶת נַפְשֶׁךָ — for all the men who tried to kill you are dead,” Rashi comments (s.v. ki):

דתן ואבירם. חיים היו אלא שירדו מנכסיהם, והעני חשוב כמת.

Datan and Aviram. They were (actually) alive, except they had become impoverished, and a poor person is considered as dead.

The picture that emerges is that any “men” who are mentioned by the Torah in a negative context are identified by Rashi as Datan and Aviram. Hence, the men who were “fighting” (perek 2), “left over from the manna” (perek 16), or “tried to kill you” (perek 4), are all Datan and Aviram.

With regard to the final case of “the men who tried to kill you,” we may ask the following question. Why did Rashi need to explain that the men whom the pasuk clearly says were dead, were actually Datan and Aviram who were very much alive, which then required Rashi to invoke the principle that “a poor man is as dead”? Would it not be simpler to explain that the reference is to Pharaoh’s men who were trying to kill him, and were now dead? The answer is that Rashi is responding here to a pshat consideration in the pasuk. The pasuk describes the men with the words “י הָאֲנָשִׁים הַמְבַקְשִׁים אֶת נַפְשֶׁךָ — who are trying to kill you,” and does not say “אשר ביקשו את נפשך — who tried to kill you”! This tells us that whoever these men are, they are still trying to kill Moshe, and if they are termed “dead,” it is because they are considered as such for a different reason, namely, due to their poverty.

Identified through the Midrash

There is one further case of Rashi identifying Datan and Aviram. At the end of Parshat Shemot (5:20) the pasuk states:

וַיִּפְגְּעוּ אֶת מֹשֶׁה וְאֶת אַהֲרֹן נִצָּבִים לִקְרָאתָם בְּצֵאתָם מֵאֵת פַּרְעֹה:

They confronted Moshe and Aharon standing opposite them, when they left Pharaoh’s presence.

Here, too, the pasuk does not specify who it was that “confronted” Moshe. In this case it does not even use the term “אנשים” used elsewhere. Rashi comments:

וַיִּפְגְּעוּ: אנשים מישראל את משה ואת אהרן. ורבותינו דרשו כל "נצים" ו"נצבים" דתן ואבירם היו שנאמר בהם "יצאו נצבים."

And they confronted — Men from among Yisrael (confronted) Moshe and Aharon. And Rabboteinu expounded that whenever the term “נצים (fighting)” or “נצבים (standing)”is used, the reference is to Datan and Aviram, about whom it says (Bamidbar 16:27) “יָצְאוּ נִצָּבִים — they went out standing.”

We should note that in all other cases Rashi simply states that the “men” in the pasuk are Datan and Aviram. Even in the pasuk that describes them as “נצים — fighting,” Rashi merely comments on the word “אנשים” and identifies them. Yet, in this final pasuk, Rashi feels compelled to identify them through the medium of Midrash, using the words “נצים” and “נצבים.” Why is this case different?

Between Pshat and Drash

We would like to suggest that there is a major difference between Rashi identifying Datan and Aviram as the “אנשים” in a negative context, and identifying them here through Midrash Chazal. In this last case, it is actually not entirely clear that these men are doing or saying anything negative. It is entirely possible that their outburst, of “יֵרֶא ה’ עֲלֵיכֶם וְיִשְׁפֹּט אֲשֶׁר הִבְאַשְׁתֶּם אֶת רֵיחֵנוּ בְּעֵינֵי פַרְעֹה וּבְעֵינֵי עֲבָדָיו לָתֶת חֶרֶב בְּיָדָם לְהָרְגֵנוּ — may Hashem look upon you and judge, for you have made our scent repugnant in the eyes of Pharaoh and his servants, to place a sword in their hands with which to kill us,” was rooted in their deep pain at their brothers’ suffering that was seemingly brought about by Moshe and Aharon’s interference. Indeed, we see that Moshe and Aharon did not respond to them at all. On the contrary, Moshe himself proceeds to say something very similar to Hashem in the following pasuk, “לָמָה הֲרֵעֹתָה לָעָם הַזֶּה — Why have You done evil to this people”?

Therefore, Rashi informs us that on the level of pshat, the word “וַיִּפְגְּעוּ” has no definitive connotation, either positive or negative. However, “Rabboteinu darshu”; Chazal explained through Midrash, that these are Datan and Aviram. The meaning here is that Chazal are not coming through the Midrash to identify these men, but rather to characterize them and their underlying motivation. It is true that one could assess their words in a positive light and see within them only concern for the welfare of Am Yisrael. However, through the Midrash, Chazal are looking beyond the pshat, namely, beyond the surface layer of the words that these men said and that those around them heard, and are revealing to us that in fact these words were not the product of concern for their people, but were based on motives that were appropriate to Datan and Aviram.

This is the difference between pshat and drash. The pshat records for us that which was said and what people heard. By contrast, the drash goes deeper into the thoughts and intentions that lie behind the words. In this instance, based on the Torah using the same term (נצבים) as it did in connection with Korach, the drash discerns that these words do not belong to the beit midrash of ohavei Yisrael, but rather to the “beit midrash” of the enemies of Moshe and his Torah — Datan and Aviram. It is for this reason that Rashi on this occasion introduces his comment regarding these men with the words “רבותינו דרשו.”

[1] See Parshat Toldot, Chapter 16.