The defiant response of Dathan and Abiram to Moses marks a dramatic climax in the rebellion. Their reply is a bitter combination of broken promises, sharp mockery, and an absolute refusal to recognize his authority. They accuse Moses of failing entirely, noting that he neither brought them to a promised land flowing with milk and honey nor provided them with any inheritance of fields and vineyards. The primary approach among commentators is that this complaint is twofold: Moses failed to deliver the destination and failed to provide the property [רש״י, גור אריה]. The rebels present a simple political equation. A leader earns authority either through the benefits he provides to his people or through sheer force. Since Moses uprooted them from a prosperous life in Egypt and left them empty-handed in a barren desert, they argue he has completely lost the moral right to govern them [רבנו בחיי, אבן עזרא, ביאור יש״ר, אדרת אליהו].
A deeper, more cynical layer emerges from their accusations. Dathan and Abiram mock the glaring gap between their bleak reality in the wilderness and the agricultural laws Moses teaches them. They point out the absurdity of receiving commandments about mixed seeds, gleanings, and leaving the corners of the field for the poor when they have no land to cultivate. They challenge him, asking how he can distribute instructions about fields and vineyards that he never actually secured for them [ספורנו, הכתב והקבלה, שפתי כהן, רש״ר הירש]. This grievance is magnified by the recent divine decree that their generation will die in the wilderness. With no remaining hope for an inheritance, Moses has no compromise or future promise left to offer them [מלבי״ם, בכור שור].
Driven by this profound sense of injustice, the rebels launch a frontal attack, accusing Moses of trying to gouge out their eyes. The primary approach among commentators views this as a sharp metaphor for deception. The rebels mockingly ask if Moses truly believes he can blind them to reality. They clearly see he has led them into a desolate wasteland rather than a lush land, and they declare that no illusion can hide his failure [רשב״ם, ספורנו, חזקוני, מלבי״ם, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. Other scholars interpret the threat of blindness literally, seeing it as an expression of extreme stubbornness. They declare that even if Moses were to send men to forcefully gouge out their eyes to compel their obedience, they would still refuse to follow him [רש״י, רבנו בחיי, לבוש האורה]. Another perspective views this as an expression of abysmal hatred, suggesting the rebels would rather suffer blindness than accept any favor from Moses [אור החיים]. A unique alternative interpretation suggests the threat is directed at the inhabitants of Canaan, meaning that even if Moses somehow managed to strike and blind the mighty Canaanites, the rebels would still refuse to enter the land [הכתב והקבלה, ברכת אשר, פענח רזא].
The phrasing of their accusation uses the third person, referring to the eyes of those men rather than their own eyes. This reflects a common psychological tendency. When a person speaks in anger or utters a curse, they instinctively avoid directing the curse at their own body, choosing instead to project the harm onto unnamed others [רש״י, רבנו בחיי, שפתי כהן]. However, some suggest the phrase is actually aimed at other people, specifically the rest of the Israelites. In their arrogance, Dathan and Abiram tell Moses that while he might successfully blind the rest of the nation to his failures, he cannot deceive them [שד״ל]. Alternatively, they might be referring specifically to the elders and leaders who foolishly, in their view, continue to follow Moses [אבן עזרא, קונטרס חיבה יתירה].
The rebels seal their argument with an absolute refusal to go up. Their message is built as a structural envelope. They open their response with a flat refusal, detail their various grievances, and conclude with the same resolute decision not to move [רשב״ם, ביאור יש״ר]. Midrashic scholars point out a tragic irony in this concluding defiance. The wicked are ultimately tripped up by their own words. By repeatedly insisting that they will not go up, they unknowingly decreed their own punishment. Indeed, they never went up, but instead went down alive into the depths of the earth [רבנו בחיי].
On a practical level, the fact that the messenger faithfully delivered this harsh and insulting response back to Moses, and that it was permanently recorded, serves as an important legal precedent. It teaches that an agent of a court who returns to report words of blasphemy and disrespect directed at him or his senders does not violate the prohibition against gossip. Rather, it is an essential part of his duty to present the reality exactly as it occurred [תורה תמימה, נחל קדומים].