Why do you think Korach was swallowed up? It never says that anywhere in the Torah AFAIK.

@DoubleAA The simple reading of Bamidbar 16:27-31, and Midrashim which say it explicitly. But if you want to prove otherwise, I'd be interested to see it.

Midrashim might say it, but I don't know what you see in the Pesukim. In my opinion they couldn't be clearer. Datan and Aviram come out of the tent. The earth swallows them and their stuff and Korach's stuff. Pretty clear.

@DoubleAA I said the simple reading because I know you could say that it was for nothing that the verse says they withdrew from the tent of Korach. But I don't think that is the simple reading.

Please cite an opinion that Korach was swallowed up alive (you won't find one) and then ask your question. I have made my point.

@DoubleAA and in my opinion, the pesukim could be much clearer if they meant that Korach was not swallowed up. Do you really mean that it couldn't be clearer? You can't think of a way in which it could have been more clear that Korach wasn't included, after he was the leader of the rebellion? I can think of several ways for it to be more clear.

(Hint: Korach wasn't there. He was in the Mishkan with a fire pan.)

@DoubleAA Please find me the verse where Korach had a firepan? (Hint: you won't find it)

??? Verse 18. Moshe said: you bring a pan. And he brought a pan. 16 and 17 both explicitly address Mr. Korach himself to come with a pan.

@DoubleAA Does not say Korach. That is the 250 men with him. Note that the verse says only 250 people took firepans.

Korach ignored Moshe's explicit instructions? Korach was going to miss out on a chance to be the chosen Levi? That's what you call a "simple read"?

@DoubleAA Yes? He was in the middle of a rebellion against Moshe, listenin to him wasn't his top priority. See Meshesh Chochma on the words ויקחו איש if you are interested in this point, he makes all of these points explicitly.

@DoubleAA My simple read was of 27-31. I don't think your inferences are any less of a finer point than mine are. What is left out and what isn't said explicitly.

A simple read of 4 verses out of context is pretty useless to me (and everyone). I don't know what else to tell you. Again: Please cite an opinion that Korach was swallowed up alive (you won't find one) and then ask your question. I have made my point.

@DoubleAA I don't understand when my assumption is something which a good answer would redress and when it is something which makes a question invalid. My assumption is to read the verses as I see them on the simple level, as implying that Korach was swallowed. The verse in my question says nothing about them being alive, so I don't know why you keep harping on that point. Sanhedrin 110 cites an opinion that he was swallowed, although I don't think I need that gemara to ask my question. Anything else?

@DoubleAA If you want to answer my question by saying he wasn't swallowed, I'm willing to read it and probably downvote it if your only support will be how you want to explain the story, against the Meshech Chochma.

Yes. You should put all relevant citations and such in the question not in comments. Comments are transient.

@DoubleAA Now they aren't. Can you give me an explanation of when my assumptions need to be stated explicitly elsewhere before I can ask a question?

If you think my assumptions are wrong, you can answer with that. But I am not making an unreasonable assumption to assume that Korach was swallowed up. I don't know why I am only allowed to assume that after I bring Gemaras and mefarshim.

@DoubleAA And by the way, I don't need any Midrashim to prove he was swallowed up. We can discuss if he was alive or not, but Parshas Pinchas says explicitly (excluding any non-peshat exegesis) that he was swallowed.

@YEZ I never said it was a requirement. It will significantly improve the value of your post. (You know the drill)

@YEZ If you don't have a source and it's just your word, then others may feel free to downvote at will. Their word vs yours. (You know the drill)

@YEZ Indeed I added the word "alive" on purpose when I told you there would be no such source. Perhaps though that may indicate an answer to your original underlying question? :)

@DoubleAA As I pointed out, the verse I am asking from says nothing about alive either, so I don't know how that would help.