In the ancient world, a victory monument (Greek: τρόπαιον, Latin: tropaeum) on which were hung the enemy’s armor and arms, was erected as a warning to foes and was dedicated in thanksgiving to a god. This would appear to be what the Philistines did with the armor and weapons of Saul: “They put his armor in the temple of Ashtaroth” (I Samuel 31:10). David seems to have acted in a similar fashion following his defeat of Hadadezer king of Zobah: “And David took the shields of gold which were carried by the servants of Hadadezer, and brought them to Jerusalem” (I Chronicles 18:7).

We should not, therefore, be surprised that, following the defeat of the two-hundred-and-fifty men of Korah’s congregation who offered incense, their fire pans were dedicated to God in a manner that appears to accord with ancient custom:

[Remove] the fire pans of those who have sinned at the cost of their lives, and let them be made into hammered sheets as plating for the altar — for once they have been used for offering to the Lord, they have become sacred — and let them serve as a warning to the people of Israel. Eleazar the priest took the copper fire pans which had been used for offering by those who died in the fire; and they were hammered into plating for the altar, as the Lord had ordered him through Moses. It was to be a reminder to the Israelites, so that no outsider — one not of Aaron's offspring — should presume to offer incense before the Lord and suffer the fate of Korah and his band (Numbers 17:3-5).

In addition to the purpose of serving as a warning, the Bible also refers to the holiness of the fire pans, and the sages saw a positive message in their dedication as a covering of the altar. Thus, in providing a Scriptural basis for the halakhic principle “we increase in holiness and do not diminish” the Talmud explains:

From where do we know that we increase? R. Aha b. Jacob said, from the verse “[Remove] the fire pans of those who have sinned at the cost of their lives, and let them be made into hammered sheets as plating for the altar — for once they have been used for offering to the Lord, they have become sacred — and let them serve as a warning to the people of Israel”. Originally they were accessories of the altar, and now they are part of the altar itself (TB Menahot 99a).

In other words, the fire pans of Korah and his followers were elevated in holiness from mere accessories to part of the altar.

1. Hanging a defeated enemy’s armor and weapons in the middle of the battlefield – as was the ancient Greek custom – was clearly intended as a deterrent. The Philistine and Roman practice of displaying them in a temple served to demonstrate power and warn potential enemies. Did incorporating the enemy’s “weapons” into the Temple’s holy vessels serve the same purposes and deliver the same messages?

2. The bronze vessels of Solomon’s temple were cast from David’s spoils of war: “And from Tibhath and from Cun, cities of Hadadezer, David took very much bronze; with it Solomon made the bronze sea and the pillars and the vessels of bronze” (I Chronicles 18:8). Is casting Temple vessels from plundered metal comparable to making an altar from the fire pans? Is the same symbolic message conveyed? Is the plunder also elevated in holiness or is it merely recycled?

3. The Talmud assumes that the fire pans of Korah’s band were holy vessels, and therefore they had to be treated with respect. But Nahmanides (1194-1270) notes that “they offered alien incense, and holy vessels made by a foreigner to make sinful offerings outside [the sanctuary] are not holy vessels”. In other words, the fire pans of Korah and his band were not holy vessels at all. They were vessels of transgression. Why, then, were the fire pans deemed sacred? Could it be that, as Nahmanides suggests, “they dedicated them to Heaven, because they thought that God would answer them”. Is it possible that the holiness of the fire pans derived from the mistaken, sinful intentions of Korah and his followers? What might we learn from such an understanding?

4. The Talmud in Menahot continues by bringing another homily concerning the idea that we increase holiness and do not decrease it: “the first tablets that you smashed, and you shall deposit them in the ark (Deut. 10:2) – R. Joseph learned: This teaches us that both the tablets and the fragments of the tablets were deposited in the Ark. Hence, we learn that a scholar who, to his misfortune, has forgotten his learning must not be treated with disrespect.” Why does the Talmud bring this lesson immediately following the matter of Korah and the holiness of the fire pans? Are we supposed to see a connection and draw a moral lesson?