And the people were as murmurers, speaking evil in the ears of Hashem; and when Hashem heard it, His anger was kindled; and the fire of Hashem burnt among them, and devoured in the uttermost part of the camp.
verse value 3695 — יְהֹוָ֑ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 16 words, 69 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֑ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "evil" (רַ֖ע, 2 letters) and the longest is "as·complaining" (כְּמִתְאֹ֣נְנִ֔ים, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 26: Hashem, Hashem, Hashem. 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "as·complaining" (כְּמִתְאֹ֣נְנִ֔ים), "his·anger" (אַפּ֔וֹ), "and·burned·among·them" (וַתִּבְעַר־בָּם֙). The root יהוה appears 3 times in this verse. 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 389x in Numbers); "and·it·came·to·pass" (root היה, 180x in Numbers); "the·people" (root עם, 85x in Numbers). First appearance of the root רע ("evil") in Numbers. First appearance of the root אזן ("in·the·ears·of") in Numbers. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'Hashem', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 10 words.
Onkelos
And the people were as those who were conducting themselves badly before Hashem, and it was heard before Hashem, and His anger grew strong, and a fire from before Hashem blazed among them and consumed at the edge of the camp.
Rashi
ויהי העם כמתאננים AND THE PEOPLE WERE COMPLAINING — The term העם “the people” always denotes wicked men. Similarly it states, (Exodus 17:4) “what shall I do unto this people (לעם הזה)? [yet a little and they will stone me]”, and it further states, ( 13:10) “This evil people [which refuses to hear my words]”. But when they are worthy men who are spoken of they are called עמי “My people”, as it is said, (Exodus 5:1) “Let My people go”; (Micah 6:3) “O My people, what have I done unto thee” (Sifrei Bamidbar 85). כמתאננים — The term מתאננים denotes [people who seek] “a pretext” — they seek a pretext how to separate themselves from following the Omnipresent. Similarly is stated in the narrative of Samson, (Judges 14:4) “for he sought a pretext (תואנה) [against the Philistines]” (Sifrei Bamidbar 85). רע באזני ה׳ means a pretext that was evil in the ears of the Lord, i.e., that they intended that it should reach His ears and that He might show annoyance. They said: “Woe unto us! How weary we have become on this journey: it is now three days that we have had no rest from the wearisomeness of the march!” ויחר אפו AND HIS WRATH GLOWED — He said in anger: How ungrateful you are, “I meant it for your good — that you might immediately come into the land”. בקצה המחנה [AND THE FIRE … DESTROYED THEM THAT WERE] IN THE EXTREMITY OF THE CAMP — i.e. those amongst them who were extreme in baseness — these were “the mixed multitude”. But R. Simeon the son of Manassia said: it means that the fire consumed the most distinguished and prominent ones among them (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 85 and Rashi’s two explanations of ומקצה אחיו on Genesis 47:2).
Ramban
AND THE PEOPLE WERE ‘K’MITHON’NIM.’ Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that [the word k’mithon’nim is] “of the root aven (wickedness); similarly, the thoughts of ‘oneich’ (thy evil thoughts), for they spoke words of wickedness.” But this is not correct, for why would Scripture have concealed their sin, and not stated [clearly what it was], as it does in all other places! The correct interpretation appears to me to be that as they got further away from Mount Sinai, which was near an inhabitable settlement, and entered the great and dreadful wilderness in their first journey, they became upset and said: “What shall we do? How shall we live in this wilderness? What shall we eat and what shall we drink? How shall we endure the trouble and the suffering, and when shall we come out of here?” The word k’mithon’nim is thus related to the expression, Wherefore doth a living man ‘yithonein’ (complain), a strong man because of his sins? which is an expression indicating pain, and feeling sorry for oneself. Similarly, ben oni means “the son of my sorrow; “‘v’anu hadayagim’ (and the fishers shall lament) and all they that cast angle into the Nile shall mourn. Thus when Scripture states that they felt anxious and upset, it has thereby already mentioned and told [the nature of] their sin. It states that they were k’mithon’nim (‘as’ murmurers), meaning that they spoke in the bitterness of their soul as do people who suffer pain, and this was evil in the sight of the Eternal, since they should have followed Him with joyfnlness, and with gladness of heart by reason of the abundance of all good things which He gave them, but they behaved like people acting under duress and compulsion, murmuring and complaining about their condition. It is for this reason that He states with regard to the second [sin, or punishment], and the children of Israel also wept ‘again,’ meaning that their first sin consisted of complaining about their lack of comforts in the wilderness, and now they again did a similar thing, and they did not receive correction from the fire of G-d which devoured them.
Ibn Ezra
"And the people were" — This passage is juxtaposed here because after the Ark traveled from Mount Sinai they encamped at Kibroth-hattaavah, and Scripture now relates what occurred there. "Like complainers" (כְּמִתְאֹנְנִים) — from the root אוֹן, as in "the scheming of your אוֹן." The meaning of "and Hashem heard" is that they spoke words of wickedness. "And it consumed" (וַתֹּאכַל) — accented on the penultimate syllable, like וַיֹּאמֶר. When forced to the ultimate accent, the language is reversed; but only this form have we found [here].
Sforno
כמתאוננים, on account of the difficulties of the journey. They did not actually complain in their hearts as they had nothing to complain about. They only voiced complaints as a form of testing G’d.
Chizkuni
כמתאוננים, “as murmurers;” the word is related to און and עמל, “as in Jeremiah 4,14: מחשבות אונך, “your evil designs.” וישמע ה, “the Lord heard;” He heard that they uttered complaints and dissatisfaction., “your evil designs.” ותבער בהם אש, “and the Lord’s fire raged among them;” this was a punishment fitting the crime, as they had dared to look at the glory of the Lord which is also known as fire, i.e. אש אוכלת, Exodus 24,17. They had already been warned not to do this in Exodus chapter 24. Rashi explained this in connection with Exodus 24,10. ותאכל בקצה המחנה, “and it devoured at the outer edges of the camp.” Therefore the people complained against Moses (verse 2) since they were afraid that the fire would spread throughout the camp.
Rabbeinu Bahya
ויהי העם כמתאוננים, “The people were as if looking for a pretext to complain.” The word מתאונן occurs in Lamentations 3,39 where it means “complain.” As the people entered the desert they experienced a variety of uncomfortable sensations. These complaints were very displeasing in the ears of the Lord, seeing they were caused by the fact that instead of marching joyfully towards their destiny and the Holy Land, the people marched only grudgingly. The reason the word מתאוננים is spelled with the prefix כ i.e. a preposition describing something in relative terms, i.e. “as if,” is because at that stage they did not yet dare verbalize their feelings of discontent. They did not want Moses to hear their complaint. This is why the Torah describes G’d as “hearing” unspoken complaints by the people. Moses had not heard these complaints.
Kli Yakar
And the people were as those who complain, etc. We do not find explicitly in Scripture what this complaint was, yet the verse does not come to conceal but to explain. However, since we find two explicit complaints in Scripture — the first, We remember the fish, etc. and the second, weeping among their families regarding matters of forbidden relationships, etc. — therefore, certainly the entire passage speaks about one matter, and it was all one complaint originating from the passage And it came to pass when the Ark set forward, which is the mystery of the inverted letter nun at the end of the passage and in the word kemitonnenim [as those who complain].For it is surprising in the eyes of many, and also in my eyes it is surprising, what our Sages interpreted (Tractate Shabbat 130a): And Moses heard the people weeping among their families — concerning matters of forbidden relationships that were prohibited to them. What is the connection of this complaint to here? And why did they not weep at the time when the forbidden relationships were prohibited to them? And if at that time they were silent and each of them accepted it, now what happened to them that they came to mention the past and to regret the past which they had already accepted and upheld?Furthermore, they explicitly said, We remember the fish, and they said, Who will feed us meat? And without doubt, all these verses from and the Children of Israel also wept again until And Moses heard the people weeping are all speaking about one weeping. For this reason, our Sages endeavored to interpret the complaint in a distant way, for in Tractate Yoma (75a), Rav and Shmuel disagree about it — one says it refers to actual fish, and one says it refers to forbidden relationships, using a euphemistic expression, as it is written (Proverbs 30:20), She eats and wipes her mouth. According to his view, it is also simple to say that Who will feed us meat is also a euphemistic expression. And even according to his words, we need to provide a good reason and understanding of what this complaint has to do here, and why they were silent when the forbidden relationships were prohibited to them. Indeed, according to what we have explained above regarding the entire section of “When the Ark traveled.” It was written only to encourage Israel regarding the commandment to be fruitful and multiply, that they should multiply abundantly like these fish. [Hence] the entire section will be properly understood, and its companion will attest to it — the inverted nun at the end of the section and the inverted nun in the word “kemitonnenim,” because nun represents a fish, and fish are extremely prolific in reproduction. Now, initially when sexual prohibitions were imposed upon them, they did not object to this because they thought there was [now] an impediment to their spirit [and they would not be held accountable if they did not engage in reproduction], until they heard the section of When the Ark traveled, which explained to them that whoever does not engage in being fruitful and multiplying causes the Divine Presence to depart from Israel. Then, resentment entered their hearts and they said: “It would be understandable if we could be fruitful and multiply like these fish with all women, we would be confident that we would never cause the departure of the Divine Presence. However, since forbidden relationships have been prohibited to us, we are the opposite of fish” — which is represented by the inverted nun. And this is an explanation of the passage: After they heard Return, O Lord, to the myriads of thousands of Israel (Numbers 10:36), which encouraged them regarding the commandment to be fruitful and multiply, to be like these fish, they immediately had thoughts in their hearts about forbidden sexual relations, for this is the inverted nun. Therefore, and the people were as complainers — it does not say “complainers” but rather as complainers [kemitonnenim], with the comparative letter kaf, saying: Behold, we are like this Onan [a mourner in grief] who is forbidden marital relations, so too we are not permitted marital relations with all women. And since grief [aninut] is only in the heart, for they had not yet expressed their complaint outwardly, therefore Moshe did not yet sense their complaint. However, God heard and listened to the voice of their complaint. Therefore it says evil in the ears of the Lord, and the fire of the Lord burned among them (Numbers 11:1). For they sinned with heat [passion], and the fire of desire and sexual arousal burned within them. Therefore, measure for measure, the fire of the Lord burned among them and consumed at the edge [ketzeh] of the camp — or among the leaders [ketzinim], or among those who were set apart [muktzim]. And this matter will be explained further on.
Tur HaArokh
ויהי העם כמתאוננים, “It happened when the people were in a frustrated mood looking for things to complain about;” Nachmanides, quoting Ibn Ezra who considers that the root of the word מתאוננים is און, (as in Job 15,35) does not agree, saying that there is no reason why the Torah should gloss over the people’s sinful behaviour by being so oblique. We have no other instance where the Torah downplays the people’s errant conduct. Nachmanides therefore believes that the correct interpretation is that when the people now faced the terrible desert, they became full of misgivings and fear as to how they would fare on the journey ahead of them. He therefore understands the word מתאוננים as in Lamentations 3,39 מה יתאונן אדם חי גבר על חטאיו?, “Of what shall a living man complain? Each one of his own sins.” Such a negative attitude by a nation that should have looked forward with joyful anticipation to coming ever closer to the promised land, was considered as sinful by Hashem. He had shown them ample proof of making their lives tolerable even in the desert, and they had no reason to be despondent. When we view matters from this perspective we can understand why the Torah writes in verse 4 וישובו ויבכו גם בני ישראל, that the Children of Israel wept a second time, etc.” The first time had been what we read about in verse 1. The people had not learned a lesson from the heavenly fire that had claimed many lives among the people.
Rashbam
כמתאוננים, experiencing the frustrations connected with the tedious journey.
Daat Zkenim
ויהי העם כמתאוננים, “the people were like murmurers;” the people were already mourning the potential casualties they would incur when going into battle against the Canaanites in order to conquer their land. They were lacking in faith and dreading warfare.
And the people cried to Moses; and Moses prayed to Hashem, and the fire abated.
verse value 2907
Insights
Verse structure: 8 words, 36 letters. The shortest word is "the·people" (הָעָ֖ם, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·prayed" (וַיִּתְפַּלֵּ֤ל, 6 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "and·died·down" (וַתִּשְׁקַ֖ע). The root משה appears 2 times in this verse. 7 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·Hashem" (root יהוה, 389x in Numbers); "to·Moses" (root משה, 217x in Numbers); "the·people" (root עם, 85x in Numbers). First appearance of the root צעק ("and·cried·out") in Numbers. First appearance of the root פלל ("and·prayed") in Numbers. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·Moses', dividing the verse into phrases of 3 and 5 words. Full calculation: וַיִּצְעַ֥ק [and·cried·out] (276) + הָעָ֖ם [the·people] (115) + אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֑ה [to·Moses] (376) + וַיִּתְפַּלֵּ֤ל [and·prayed] (556) + מֹשֶׁה֙ [Moses] (345) + אֶל־יְהֹוָ֔ה [to·Hashem] (57) + וַתִּשְׁקַ֖ע [and·died·down] (876) + הָאֵֽשׁ [the·fire] (306) = 2907.
Onkelos
And the people cried out to Moses, and Moses prayed before Hashem, and the fire subsided.
Rashi
ויצעק העם אל משה AND THE PEOPLE CRIED UNTO MOSES — A parable! This may be compared to the case of an earthly king who was angry with his son, and the son went to a friend of his father and said to him, “Go and ask forgiveness for me from father!” (Sifrei Bamidbar 86). ותשקע האש THEN THE FIRE SANK — it sank on the very spot; because if it had turned along one of the sides of the camp it would gradually have rolled along the whole of that side (Sifrei Bamidbar 86).
Ibn Ezra
"And the people cried out to Moses" — with entreaties. "And the fire died down" (וַתִּשְׁקַע הָאֵשׁ) — the sense is 'it was extinguished,' and it has no other occurrence.
Sforno
ותשקע האש. This was something supernatural, not compatible with the normal behaviour of fire. Fire rises, does not sink into the earth.
Kli Yakar
And the people cried out to Moses. And not to God, because they thought that since Moses had not yet perceived their sin, they would think that it was a coincidence happening to them, and he would pray for them. And that is what Moses did, thinking that the place had caused this to them, for there are places in the earth where a great hidden wind causes the ground to quake, and there are places where there is hidden fire. Therefore, Moses called the name of the place Tav’erah because he thought that the place had caused this to them, and not their sin.
And the name of that place was called Taberah, because the fire of Hashem burnt among them.
verse value 2218 — יְהֹוָֽה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 8 words, 35 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָֽה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "among·them" (בָ֖ם, 2 letters) and the longest is "the·name·of·the·place" (שֵֽׁם־הַמָּק֥וֹם, 7 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "Taberah" (תַּבְעֵרָ֑ה), "because·burned" (כִּֽי־בָעֲרָ֥ה). 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 389x in Numbers); "that" (root הוא, 70x in Numbers); "and·he·called" (root קרא, 24x in Numbers). First appearance of the root בם ("among·them") in Numbers. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'Taberah', dividing the verse into phrases of 4 and 4 words. Full calculation: וַיִּקְרָ֛א [and·he·called] (317) + שֵֽׁם־הַמָּק֥וֹם [the·name·of·the·place] (531) + הַה֖וּא [that] (17) + תַּבְעֵרָ֑ה [Taberah] (677) + כִּֽי־בָעֲרָ֥ה [because·burned] (307) + בָ֖ם [among·them] (42) + אֵ֥שׁ [a·fire·of] (301) + יְהֹוָֽה [Hashem] (26) = 2218.
Onkelos
And he called the name of that place Taberah, because a fire from before Hashem had blazed among them.
Ramban
AND HE [Moses] CALLED THE NAME OF THAT PLACE TABERAH (Burning). [The meaning thereof is that] he called the place on which the fire came down in the uttermost part of the camp by that name, and they did not journey from that place, for whilst still encamped there they fell a lusting [for flesh], and called the name of the city or place Kibroth-hattaavah (the graves of lust).
Ibn Ezra
"Taberah" — I will yet explain it [in the appropriate place].
Chizkuni
תבערה, “punitive fire by the Lord.”
Tur HaArokh
ויקרא שם המקום ההוא תבערה, “He called the name of that place Taveyrah.” According to Nachmanides theמקום ההוא refers to the edge of the camp where the heavenly fire had descended the people called Taveyrah, and they did not move on from that place, as it was at that very same location that they cultivated their craving for meat. Subsequently, they called that whole town or that place קברות התאווה, “graves where the victims of inordinate desire were buried.”
And the mixed multitude that was among them fell a lusting; and the children of Israel also wept on their part, and said: "Would that we were given flesh to eat!
verse value 3879
Insights
Verse structure: 14 words, 61 letters. The shortest word is "also" (גַּ֚ם, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·the·mixed·multitude" (וְהָֽאסַפְסֻף֙, 7 letters). 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "and·the·mixed·multitude" (וְהָֽאסַפְסֻף֙), "felt·a·craving" (הִתְאַוּ֖וּ), "craving" (תַּאֲוָ֑ה). 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·children·of" (root בן, 499x in Numbers); "and·they·said" (root אמר, 246x in Numbers); "who" (root אשר, 223x in Numbers). First appearance of the root אוה ("felt·a·craving") in Numbers. First appearance of the root בכה ("and·wept") in Numbers. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'craving', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 9 words. Full calculation: וְהָֽאסַפְסֻף֙ [and·the·mixed·multitude] (292) + אֲשֶׁ֣ר [who] (501) + בְּקִרְבּ֔וֹ [in·their·midst] (310) + הִתְאַוּ֖וּ [felt·a·craving] (418) + תַּאֲוָ֑ה [craving] (412) + וַיָּשֻׁ֣בוּ [and·they·returned] (324) + וַיִּבְכּ֗וּ [and·wept] (44) + גַּ֚ם [also] (43) + בְּנֵ֣י [the·children·of] (62) + יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל [Israel] (541) + וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ [and·they·said] (263) + מִ֥י [who] (50) + יַאֲכִלֵ֖נוּ [will·feed·us] (117) + בָּשָֽׂר [meat] (502) = 3879.
Onkelos
And the mixed multitude that was among them craved a craving, and they returned and wept — also the children of Israel — and said: Who will feed us meat?
Rashi
והאספסף AND THE THRONG — This was the mixed multitude that had gathered themselves unto them when they left Egypt (the word is from the root אסף, “to gather”) (Sifrei Bamidbar 86). — The next words of the Biblical text must be inverted to read as follows: וישבו גם בני ישראל ויבכו AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL ALSO AGAIN WEPT together with them. מי יאכלנו בשר WHO SHALL GIVE US FLESH TO EAT? — But did they not have flesh? Has it not been already stated, (Exodus 12:38) “and a mixed multitude went up with them and flocks and herds, [even very much cattle]”?! If you say, “They had already eaten them”, then I reply, “But is it not stated at a later period, when they were about to enter the Land, (Numbers 32:1), “Now the children of Reuben had cattle in a very great multitude”? But the truth is that they were only seeking a pretext (Sifrei Bamidbar 86).
Ramban
AND THE MIXED MULTITUDE THAT WAS AMONG THEM ‘HITHAVU TA’AVAH’ (FELL A LUSTING). The meaning of this [double expression, which translates literally as “lusted a lust,” is] that they had nothing lacking in the wilderness, for they had plenty of manna and they could make of it all different kinds of delicacies with distinguished flavors, as Scripture relates further on, but they goaded themselves to a great desire, as if they wanted to eat [even] charcoal or earth and other bad foods. AND THEY SAID: WHO SHALL GIVE US FLESH TO EAT. [They used this expression who shall give us] because there was not enough meat for the whole people to have every day, although they did eat it many times, for some of them had herds, but [only] the important people ate it [every day], as happens in camps and places where prices are high. But about fish they said, We remember the fish, like one who remembers forgotten things, since they had not eaten any fish from the day that they left Egypt until now.
Ibn Ezra
"And the mixed multitude" (וְהָאסַפְסֻף) — those who had gathered unto Israel but were not of them; they are the erev rav. The word is reduplicated, like סַחַרְחַר (spinning round) and חֳמַרְמְרוּ (churning). "And they wept again" — after the craving. "Also the children of Israel" — along with them.
Sforno
וישובו ויבכו, they again pretended to have justified complaints, testing G’d’s patience. This time they cried that they had agreed to leave Egypt. This was equivalent to insulting the Presence of the Shechinah that had honoured them with its presence amongst them. Moses tells them this explicitly in verse 20 when he said: יען מאסתם את ה' אשר ,בקרבכם ותבכו לפניו לאמור למה זה יצאנו ממצרים?, “because you despised the Lord Who is in your midst and you cried, saying: “why is this that we left Egypt?” מי יאכלנו בשר?, They said this in order to test if He would permit incestuous relations to His people (compare Psalms 78,18 where Assaph says וינסו א-ל בלבבם לשאל אוכל לנפשם, they asked openly for meat, and in their hearts for sexual gratification other than by their wives).
Chizkuni
והאספסוף אשר בקרבו התאוו תאוה וגו, “and the mixed multitude that were amongst the people, etc.” everything written here until the beginning of verse 30 when Moses selects the elders who are to assist him, occurred during the first three days after the people had moved away from Mount Sinai. The letter א (though silent anyways) is not read. וישובו ויבכו גם בני ישראל, “and in due course even the elite of the people, the בני ישראל, who had already complained previously, now also joined the weeping of discontent that had been started by the mixed multitude. This is when they expressed their urge to be given meat to eat. מי יאכילנו בשר, “if only someone would feed us meat!” The quails which had materialized on the evening before the manna started its daily appearance (Exodus 16,13) had come to an end some time ago. From this verse we understand the substance of the people’s complaint.
Rabbeinu Bahya
והאספסף, “and the rabble,” these people were the fellow travelers, they were not natural born Israelites. They were described elsewhere as ערב רב, “a mixed multitude.” The word אספסף, is a doubling of certain letters just as we find in the word סחרחר, or חמרמרו מעי in Psalms 38,11 (reeling) or in Lamentations 1,20 (my entrails are distressed).
Kli Yakar
“And the mixed multitude that was within it [Israel] lusted a lust.” All these words are connected, and their explanation is as follows: The Children of Israel knew the truth that the fire of God burned in them as a punishment, not by chance. Therefore, they ceased their complaints. But the mixed multitude, whose origin was from the Egyptians who were steeped in immorality, did not accept discipline and further added rebellion and expressed outwardly what they had initially contemplated in their hearts. This is what it means: And the mixed multitude that was initially within them, in their hearts, lusted a lust, and they returned — meaning they returned to their wayward behavior and brought their complaints outward and cried. And the Children of Israel also wept — from the fact that it says also, we learn that the mixed multitude were crying first and made the Children of Israel cry with them. The repetition of the phrase lusted a lust reflects the nature of sexual immorality, where desire leads to more desire, as the Sages said (Sukkah 52b): “To satisfy it is to make it hungry.” And they said with a full mouth, Who will feed us meat? — referring to the “flesh” of immorality, using a euphemistic expression, as we say in the Talmud “we remember the fish” is a euphemistic expression, and all the more so the term “meat/flesh” can be interpreted this way. And why they began with meat and ended with fish, is because the term fish indicates more promiscuity in sexual matters than the term “meat,” since fish are more sexually unrestrained than the flesh of any living creature. Therefore, they said as a compromise, Who will feed us meat, meaning that they wanted to be permitted in sexual matters like other living flesh, although not to the extent of fish, for they did not ask for that much. Nevertheless, they said, We remember the fish that we ate in Egypt for free. Because while we were among the Egyptians who were immersed in sexual depravity, everything was permitted to us, even to be like fish, and now we wish we could at least be like other living flesh. This is the meaning of Who will feed us meat. And it is plausible to understand that this is all quite literal, but their intention was to request meat which heats the body more and increases sexual desire. This is the meaning of the double expression they craved a craving — they craved something that would increase sexual desire. And although fish are cooling, they still increase bodily fluids and semen as well, and furthermore, one who eats fish adopts its nature of being sexually unrestrained. Fish have these two negative aspects, therefore they said as a compromise, Who will feed us meat which sustains desire, and we remember the fish which sustains even greater promiscuity. Nevertheless, they wished, If only we had meat as a compromise. According to this interpretation, what Moses said, Where would I get meat… if all the fish of the sea can be understood literally, for they complained about these two things that assist in procreation. And God gave them quail, which heats the body even more and fulfills their request. And so it says in the Midrash (Tanchuma 16) that it is written (Psalms 78:27), He rained meat upon them like dust, and it is written elsewhere (Leviticus 18:6), No man shall approach any flesh of his flesh — referring to forbidden sexual relations, for this is what their souls desired. And if you say that fish nevertheless cool and reduce desire, then you should interpret the verses as follows: They asked for meat which warms and increases desire, and they said We remember the fish, etc., and the cucumbers and the watermelons, for all these things cool [the body]. Nevertheless, they were not harmful to reproduction because we also had leeks, onions, and garlic which are very warming and cancel out the cooling effect. But now “our soul is dried up, etc.” Or they said that in Egypt those cooling things did not harm us. Also the leeks, garlic, and onions, even though they are harmful to pregnant women and nursing mothers, nevertheless we were fruitful and multiplying, and none of these things that counteract procreation harmed us at all, neither for men nor for women. And now our soul is dry because we don’t have enough fluids that increase seed, as our eyes are only toward the manna, and it is absorbed into the limbs and is not digested in the stomach and liver, therefore it is not a basis for procreation. But the verse testifies to the opposite and says and the manna was like coriander seed. For its appearance was like seed to tell you that it increases seed, and it was “gad” [coriander], as our Sages said (Yoma 75a) that it would tell [magid] whether a child was nine months from the first husband or seven months from the second, like the numerical value of “gad” which indicated if he was a seven-month child. And all these are things that assist procreation. They said that the manna causes dryness because it has no moisture, but the verse says and its taste was like the taste of fresh oil - meaning moisture, which is the opposite of dryness. And what they said, “There is nothing at all.” Some say that this is what they said: “Even though it [the manna] has the taste of all types of food, nonetheless, there is nothing at all (Numbers 11:6) — it doesn’t have the taste of all foods, for it doesn’t have the taste of leeks and onions, etc.” And in the Akeidah [Rabbi Yitzchak Arama’s commentary], he explains except for the manna our eyes [see] (Numbers 11:6) — even though it has all tastes, nevertheless, our eyes see only the manna, and a blind person eats but is not satisfied.
Tur HaArokh
התאוו תאוה, “they induced a craving in themselves.” Nachmanides writes that actually they did not lack anything at all as they had enough manna to satisfy each one of them, and they were able to satisfy their palates by wishing how that manna should taste each time they ate it. However, they abused these powers of imagination and wished the manna to taste revoltingly in order to have an excuse to complain about not getting proper food. ויאמרו מי יאכילנו בשר, “they said: ‘who is going to feed us meat?’” Nachmanides explains this request by saying that not all the people had meat to eat on a daily basis, even though most of them had access to meat on frequent occasions, as a good part of the people owned livestock and they would slaughter them regularly. The adults would eat of these animals, whereas the younger people were not so lucky. The fact is that, seeing that they spoke of “remembering we used to eat fish in Egypt without needing to pay for them,” (verse 5) indicates that as far as even fish were concerned they could do no more than ”remember” it
We remember the fish, which we were wont to eat in Egypt for nought; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic;
verse value 5234
Insights
Verse structure: 10 words, 71 letters. The shortest word is "free" (חִנָּ֑ם, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·the·melons" (וְאֵת֙ הָֽאֲבַטִּחִ֔ים, 10 letters). 9 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "we·remember" (זָכַ֙רְנוּ֙), "the·fish" (אֶת־הַדָּגָ֔ה), "that·we·used·to·eat" (אֲשֶׁר־נֹאכַ֥ל). 10 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "that·we·used·to·eat" (root אכל, 27x in Numbers); "we·remember" (root זכר, 23x in Numbers); "in·Egypt" (root מצרי, 23x in Numbers). First appearance of the root שום ("and·the·garlic") in Numbers. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'free', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 5 words. Full calculation: זָכַ֙רְנוּ֙ [we·remember] (283) + אֶת־הַדָּגָ֔ה [the·fish] (418) + אֲשֶׁר־נֹאכַ֥ל [that·we·used·to·eat] (602) + בְּמִצְרַ֖יִם [in·Egypt] (382) + חִנָּ֑ם [free] (98) + אֵ֣ת הַקִּשֻּׁאִ֗ים [the·cucumbers] (857) + וְאֵת֙ הָֽאֲבַטִּחִ֔ים [and·the·melons] (482) + וְאֶת־הֶחָצִ֥יר [and·the·leeks] (720) + וְאֶת־הַבְּצָלִ֖ים [and·the·onions] (584) + וְאֶת־הַשּׁוּמִֽים [and·the·garlic] (808) = 5234.
Onkelos
We remember the fish that we used to eat in Egypt freely, the cucumbers and the melons, the leeks and the onions and the garlic.
Rashi
אשר נאכל במצרים חנם [WE REMEMBER THE FISH] WHICH WE DID EAT IN EGYPT FOR NOTHING — If you say that they meant that the Egyptians gave them fish for nothing (without payment), then I ask, “But does it not state, (Exodus 5:18): [Go, therefore, now, and work], for there shall no straw be given you”? Now, if they did not give them straw for nothing, would they have given them fish for nothing! — What then is the force of the word חנם? It means: free from (i.e. without us having been burdened with) heavenly commands (Sifrei Bamidbar 87). את הקשאים THE CUCUMBERS — R. Simeon said, “Why did the manna change its flavor into that of anything one wished (as the Midrash states) except into these vegetables here mentioned, the taste of which it appears not to have assumed since the people lusted for them? Because they are injurious to nursing mothers. So indeed people say to a woman: Do not eat garlic and onions on account of the baby. A parable! This may be compared to a king, etc. as it is related in the Sifrei Bamidbar 87. הקשאים These are concombres in O. F., (English = cucumbers). אבטיחים are boudekes in O. F. (English = melons). החציר are leeks, porels in O. F. [The Targum renders the names of the vegetables by בוציניא etc.].
Ramban
WE REMEMBER THE FISH WHICH WE WERE WONT TO EAT IN EGYPT FOR NOUGHT. According to the plain meaning of Scripture [the explanation of the verse is that] the Egyptian fishermen used to put them to work to bring in the fish that they caught in their trawls and nets, and they would give them some fish [to eat], as is the custom of those that spread nets [upon the waters]. And cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic are very abundant in Egypt, for it is as a garden of herbs, and when they dug for the Egyptians in gardens and in all manner of service in the field they would eat the vegetables. Or perhaps the Israelites who were the king’s slaves doing his work would be supported by him with sparing bread and scant water, and they would be dispersed throughout the city and would enter the gardens and fields, and eat of the vegetables without leaving anything over, as the king’s servants do. And [in addition it is possible that] they would give them at the edge of the river [Nile] small fish from the king’s portion which have no market-price in Egypt, as I have explained in Seder V’eileh Shemoth. This was the complaint of the children of Israel, not the complaint of the mixed multitude [who were originally not of the stock of Israel and were not enslaved in Egypt, therefore they could not say, We remember the fish, which we were wont to eat in Egypt for nought; but after the mixed multitude fell a lusting they all] complained to Moses and demanded of him, Give us flesh, that we may eat, as Scripture mentions further on.
Ibn Ezra
"The fish" (הַדָּגָה) — a generic name [for the species]. "Free" (חִנָּם) — cheaply, as though it were free. "The cucumbers" (הַקִּשֻּׁאִים) — with an alef in place of the heh, as in מִקְשֶׁה (cucumber patch), like וְעַמִּי תְלוּאִים (with alef for heh), and there are many such cases. "Watermelons" (אֲבַטִּחִים) — well-known from the Arabic tongue, and has no cognate in [all of] Scripture. "Leeks" (חָצִיר) — the greens, that is, the grass of the field; and so too [in] "Who makes grass grow on the mountains" (Ps. 147:8) — it is a general term. The Aramaic translator interpreted it as a specific term, and that too is correct. "The onions and the garlic" — well known, and they are linguistically close to the Arabic.
Chizkuni
זכרנו את הדגה, “we remember now the fish, etc.” when the Nile overflows its banks and irrigates the fields of the Egyptians who had dug narrow canals to absorb these waters, and the water eventually retreats again, it leaves behind little fish in the indentations in the soil, and the wives of the Israelites would scoop these up and use as food. This could be done without effort, and the women who had come equipped with bowls or flasks could keep these fish alive for quite some time. Our sages have explained this to us. (No source quoted) אשר נאכל במצרים חנם, “which we used to eat in Egypt without having to pay for it.” (Ibn Ezra) את הקשואים ואת האבטיחים, “the cucumbers and the melons;” these would be eaten as dessert. ואת החציר ואת הבצלים, “as well as the leeks and the onions;” these would be used in the cooking pots to provide seasoning for the food to be boiled. ואת השומים, “and the garlic,” for making the meat and fish tasty.
Rabbeinu Bahya
את הקשואים ואת האבטיחים, “the cucumbers and the melons, etc.” The people spoke in a desultory way of the superior food the Lord had provided, the manna. In order to belittle the manna they compared it unfavorably to such food as is universally considered as inferior such as cucumbers and melons. We know that the land of Egypt produced excellent food, seeing the Torah had described the land of Egypt as “a garden of the Lord” in Genesis 13,10 when describing the fertility of the Jordan valley. In order to emphasize their disdain for the manna the people did not compare it unfavorably with Egypt’s best produce but they compared it to Egypt’s most inferior produce. Moreover, the fact that they mentioned fish was an outright insult against the manna seeing the only kind of fish the Israelites had been given in Egypt were the fish which had already begun to decompose and to stink. They were given only fish which had been caught at least 4 or 5 days previously. This is the reason they spoke about remembering הדגה instead of דגים or הדג, “the fish.” The word הדגה means that these fish were recognizable only as a species not individually. We know that this is an appropriate distinction from Jonah 2,1 where the prophet describes G’d as commanding דג גדול, “a large fish” to swallow Jonah. However, when the Torah refers to the fish in the river Nile at the time the river was turned into blood, the dead fish are described as דגה. The river is described as “stinking with these dead fish.” (Exodus 7,17). When Jonah prayed inside the belly of the fish, that fish is described as דגה, because Jonah describes himself as praying from “Sheol,” i.e. from the grave (Jonah 2,3). If someone sits inside a dead belly he is equivalent to sitting in a grave. If, later on, we read that G’d commanded Jonah to be spewed out and to be swallowed by a second (smaller) fish, this was only because it was not dignified for Jonah to sit inside a dead fish. The second fish was then ordered to spew out Jonah on dry land (Jonah 2,11). To get back to our main subject: The Israelites expressed their disgust at what was a most valuable gift from G’d. The people were not so much wanting something as expressing their dissatisfaction with what they had. Significantly, throughout this episode the Torah speaks of the people as העם, “the people,” a term describing the lowest common denominator. They are not referred to as either עדה or בני ישראל, which would have pointed at people on a spiritually higher level. Eventually (verse 5) the בני ישראל, the elite of the people, also became infected with this discontent. The place referred to in verse 34 as קברות התאוה is none other than תבערה which was mentioned in verse 3. The meaning both times is that at the very site where their unjustified desires surfaced they were punished. The “fire” is none other than their “burning desire.” The reason these two paragraphs dealing with תאוה desire, is written adjacent to the story of Miriam making uncalled for comments about Moses and his family life or lack thereof, is because Miriam too made inadmissible comments, just as had the people who had denigrated the manna or who had wanted to stuff themselves on a meat diet. The paragraph reporting Miriam’s inadmissible comments is followed by the one with the spies who also made inadmissible comments about Eretz Yisrael being a country which devours its inhabitants, etc. It is also possible to see in the fact that the Israelites referred to cucumbers and melons at this time proof of their bad character and the strength of their desire. Not only the rabble but also some of the elite of the people were caught up in this irrational desire. This is reflected in the doubling of the words התאוו תאוה with which the Torah describes these feelings of the people. It means that the people drew on reservoirs of desire, the source of their animalistic soul. They allowed their feeling free reign. Our sages in commenting on the words בוכה למשפחותיו captured the underlying feelings of the people when they translated these words as: “they cried because certain incestuous sexual unions had become forbidden at Mount Sinai” (Yuma 75). When they said בלתי אל המן עינינו, “our eyes are focused only on the manna,” they meant that just as the manna was composed of a single element as distinct from earth which is composed of four elements, they felt very keenly they had been denied these other elements and what they would contribute to their well being. The fact is that the very fact that the manna was not מורכב, composed of several elements, made it close to abstract, helping to sharpen the people’s wits seeing it was intellectual in essence. Instead of appreciating this aspect of the manna as a valuable asset, they considered it as a serious shortcoming to their well being. In picking on specific examples of food that they were nostalgic about, i.e. fish and cucumbers, one reminiscent of the element of earth, dust, the other of the element of water, they indicated their desire to feel close to these elements. This is the reason they made no mention of fruit grown on trees. Fruit grown on trees also contains parts of the element רוח, the very element they felt they already had too much of. The Talmud in Yuma 75 explains that the reason the Israelites mentioned five categories of food here, i.e. cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic was that although the manna could assume the taste of any food under the sun, it could not assume the taste of these five plants. G’d had arranged it thus as the taste of these five plants is potentially harmful to both pregnant women and women who are nursing babies. We know ourselves that doctors recommend that pregnant women and nursing mothers should abstain from certain foods out of consideration for their babies or fetuses. Nachmanides adds that the reason the Torah adds the word חנם when the people described the conditions under which they ate fish, i.e. “for free, without having to pay for them,” was because the Egyptians employed the Israelites to pull the fish out of their nets and instead of paying them wages, they gave the Israelites some of the fish for free. This was an established custom in Egypt. Thus far Nachmanides. Our sages in Yuma do not see it in this light at all. They say that the word חנם, “for free,” means that these fish had not had owners and G’d arranged for the fish to be caught in the nets or jugs of the Israelites. This is spelled out in Sotah 11. A Midrashic approach based on Sifri Behaalotcha 87. The Midrash asks: how could the Israelites’ argument that they ate these fruit and fish for free be taken at face value when we know that the Egyptians did not even supply the Jewish labourers with the straw they needed for their brickmaking for free (Exodus 5,18)? Therefore we cannot understand the word חנם to mean “free” in the sense of “without payment;” rather the meaning is that they did not have to undertake any obligations of a ritual nature in order to eat fish. By using the word חנם here, the people indicated that the commandments of the Torah were a burden for them and that they wished themselves free from that burden. It is a reminder of the description of the Exodus when the Torah mentioned how difficult it was to extract one nation from amidst another nation, i.e. the Jews and the Egyptians had been so intermingled culturally (Deut. 4,34). The Israelites had practiced idolatry no less than their masters the Egyptians.
Tur HaArokh
זכרנו את הדגה אשר נאכל, “we remember the fish we used to eat, etc.” Nachmanides understands these words literally, pointing out that the Egyptian fishermen would employ the Jews and would let them eat the fish they did not think they could sell at the local fish market. The various vegetables mentioned in our verse were so plentiful in Egypt that even Hebrew slaves could afford them, or that they dug them out of the ground and no one would protest this. We have the Torah on record as comparing the whole of the land of Egypt to a garden full of greens. (Genesis 13,10) [The author paints one or two additional scenarios that would explain the words in our text. They are of speculative character. Ed.] Some commentators do not understand the word דגה as fish at all, but view it as a simile describing abundance, as in Genesis 48,16 וידגו לרוב בקרב הארץ, “may they proliferate abundantly.” Accordingly, the people would have been complaining about the abundant sources of food they had enjoyed in Egypt and the variety, compared to what they condescendingly described as the monotonous diet of manna.
Daat Zkenim
זכרנו את הדגה, “we remember the fish, etc.” the word דגה for fish, we have found already in Yaakov’s blessing for Joseph and his children in Genesis 48,13: וידגו לרוב בקרב הארץ, “may they multiply as fish on the face of the earth.” The Torah then lists details of the food the Israelites claimed to have had in abundance in Egypt, all for free.
but now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have nought save this manna to look to."—
verse value 2159
Insights
Verse structure: 8 words, 33 letters. The shortest word is "at·all" (כֹּ֑ל, 2 letters) and the longest is "our·eyes" (עֵינֵֽינוּ, 6 letters). 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "our·gullets" (נַפְשֵׁ֥נוּ), "is·withered" (יְבֵשָׁ֖ה), "to·the·manna" (אֶל־הַמָּ֥ן). 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "at·all" (root כל, 98x in Numbers); "our·gullets" (root נפש, 47x in Numbers); "our·eyes" (root עין, 39x in Numbers). First appearance of the root עתה ("and·now") in Numbers. First appearance of the root בלת ("except") in Numbers. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'at·all', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 3 words. Full calculation: וְעַתָּ֛ה [and·now] (481) + נַפְשֵׁ֥נוּ [our·gullets] (486) + יְבֵשָׁ֖ה [is·withered] (317) + אֵ֣ין [there·is·nothing] (61) + כֹּ֑ל [at·all] (50) + בִּלְתִּ֖י [except] (442) + אֶל־הַמָּ֥ן [to·the·manna] (126) + עֵינֵֽינוּ [our·eyes] (196) = 2159.
Onkelos
And now our appetite is faint; there is nothing at all except the manna before our eyes.
Rashi
אל המן עינינו OUR EYES ARE ON THIS MANNA (i. e. we see nothing but this manna) — “manna in the morning, manna in the evening!” (Sifrei Bamidbar 87)
Ramban
BUT NOW OUR SOUL IS DRIED AWAY. This means that because of their many desires their temperaments had become heated and then dried up, as Onkelos translates it [“but now our soul is lusting”]. Or it may be that [they meant that] our soul is dried away because there is nothing with which to moisten it, since food produces [essential] liquids in the body which satisfy the soul. And they said, we have nought save this manna ‘to look to,’ meaning that even the food [i.e., the manna] on which we live is not in our possession so that our soul can be nourished and satisfied with it; but we desire it and look to it [i.e., we are dependent upon it] at all times, in anticipation that it will come to us; thus we have nothing at all save our hope for the manna. They thus gave expression to the known proverb: “One cannot compare a person who has bread in his basket with one who does not have bread in his basket.” Therefore Scripture tells how many qualities the manna had, stating that its taste was as the taste of a cake baked with oil, thus declaring that the souls of those who ate it did not dry up, for it [the manna] supplied the body with the [essential] liquids and kept it satisfied, and the souls of those who ate it were like a watered garden and like a spring of water.
Ibn Ezra
"Our soul is dried out" — this is the desiring soul, which is seated in the liver. "There is nothing at all" — we lack every thing. "Our eyes" — because [the manna] descends from heaven [and there is nothing else to look at].
Chizkuni
ועתה נפשנו יבשה, “and now our soul is dried up;” they were afraid that seeing that the manna was absorbed by their bodies entirely, none of it being waste to be excreted, that this would so interfere with their intestinal organs that it would kill them internally. They did not understand how a human being born from the womb of a woman can survive on food such as the manna alone. They challenged Rabbi Shimon by asking: “what is it that keeps you alive?” Is it not the excrement which is described in the Torah inDeuteronomy 23,14: ויתד תהיה לך על אזנך, “and have a paddle with you to cover your excrement!” (Torah addressing the Jewish soldier) The Rabbi answered the questioners that what is excreted are only the contributions to food provided by the gentiles. None of the manna needs to be excreted as it originated in the heavenly spheres where there is no useless or harmful substance. Scriptural proof for this is to be found in when David said in Psalms 78,25: לחם אבירים אכל איש, “each man ate a hero’s meal.” The type of man who can thrive on manna is the one who deserves the title אבירים. A different interpretation: if the people had become spiritually flawed, they would find that some of the manna turned into excrement within them.
Tur HaArokh
נפשנו יבשה, “our life is parched;” Nachmanides describes the emotional state of the Israelites as having “died out,” due to the many different cravings they had been experiencing. Alternately, he writes, the meaning of the phrase could be that whereas natural foods provide the body with moisture, lubricating it, they did not experience such feelings when eating manna, but felt parched instead. בלתי אל המן עינינו, “we have nothing to look forward to but manna.” Even the food that we live on now, i.e. the manna, we must always hopefully and expectantly look for it if it will materialise, and we have no stored surplus enabling us to experience peace of mind; rather we need to crave for it, never knowing if it will materialise. In response to these spurious complaints the Torah gives us details in verse 7-9 of the multifaceted uses the manna could be put to. Even its external appearance was extremely pleasing to the eye.
Now the manna was like coriander seed, and its appearance as the appearance of bdellium.
verse value 758
Insights
Verse structure: 6 words, 27 letters. The shortest word is "it·was" (ה֑וּא, 3 letters) and the longest is "like·coriander·seed" (כִּזְרַע־גַּ֖ד, 6 letters). 5 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "and·the·manna" (וְהַמָּ֕ן), "like·coriander·seed" (כִּזְרַע־גַּ֖ד), "and·its·color" (וְעֵינ֖וֹ). The root עין appears 2 times in this verse. 5 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "it·was" (root הוא, 70x in Numbers); "and·its·color" (root עין, 39x in Numbers); "and·the·manna" (root מן, 30x in Numbers). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'it·was', dividing the verse into phrases of 3 and 3 words. Full calculation: וְהַמָּ֕ן [and·the·manna] (101) + כִּזְרַע־גַּ֖ד [like·coriander·seed] (304) + ה֑וּא [it·was] (12) + וְעֵינ֖וֹ [and·its·color] (142) + כְּעֵ֥ין [like·the·color·of] (150) + הַבְּדֹֽלַח [bdellium] (49) = 758.
Onkelos
Now the manna was like coriander seed, and its appearance was like the appearance of bdellium.
Rashi
והמן כזרע גד AND THE MANNA WAS AS CORIANDER SEED — He who said that (the previous verse) did not say this: Israel said, “our eyes are only on this manna”, but the Holy One, blessed be He had it written in the Torah, and the manna was like coriander seed” — as much as to say “See, ye people of the world, about what My sons were complaining, whilst as a matter of fact the manna is excellent in so many different ways!” (Sifrei Bamidbar 88). כזרע גד i.e. it was round like גד, coriander-seed in O. F. הבדלח is the name of a precious stone. BEDELLIUM. (Some editions add the O. F. קרישטל crystal).
Ibn Ezra
"Now the manna" — Scripture describes the ignorance of the complainers: for the manna was like coriander seed, light to gather, and it appeared white; moreover they could eat it as it was, or grind it in a mill and make cakes, or pound it and cook it in a pot; and it had a fine taste, like the richness of oil. Furthermore it fell upon a clean place after the dew had washed the ground. "Like coriander seed" — in the construct state, like נְטַע שַׁעֲשׁוּעִים (a delightful planting). "Gad" — some say it is coriander (כסברתא), and some say mustard, from the root גְּדִין; but I do not know [which is correct].
Chizkuni
והמן כזרע גד, “and the manna was like coriander seed;” the letter כ has the vowel chirik, and the letter ז has the semi vowel sh”va.
Rashbam
והמן כזרע גד הוא, whereas its appearance was like that of crystals. In other words, whereas in fact it was soft inside, it appeared hard from the outside. When looking at it the people said ונפשנו יבשה, “we are completely dried out, like someone who has to eat hard and dry kernels of wheat. If so, why did G’d become angry as we are told in verse 10? Now the Torah explains the reason for G’d’s anger. When the people would grind the manna crystals in their mortars or mills, its taste was like something creamy, oily. This taste which originally had been described as similar to crackers smeared with honey (Exodus 15,31) changed to be like nuts after they are ground. After undergoing grinding it now became moist and like an oily substance. Seeing that it did not taste dry at all, the people’s complaint was unfounded, and this is why G’d became angry at the unjustified accusation that the manna was the reason that their whole system dried out. In Beshalach, where the taste is described as a wafer smeared with honey, the Torah spoke about what the manna tasted like raw, in its original state, prior to assuming the taste of rich cream.
The people went about, and gathered it, and ground it in mills, or beat it in mortars, and seethed it in pots, and made cakes of it; and the taste of it was as the taste of a cake baked with oil.
verse value 4147 — וְהָיָ֣ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 18 words, 71 letters. Notable word values: "and·it·was" (וְהָיָ֣ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. Verse gematria: 4147 is divisible by 13, the value of echad ('one') and ahavah ('love'). The shortest word is "or" (א֤וֹ, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·gathered" (וְלָֽקְט֜וּ, 5 letters). 13 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "would·go·about" (שָׁ֩טוּ֩), "and·gathered" (וְלָֽקְט֜וּ), "and·ground" (וְטָחֲנ֣וּ). The root טעם appears 2 times in this verse. 17 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·it·was" (root היה, 180x in Numbers); "and·made" (root עשה, 127x in Numbers); "the·people" (root עם, 85x in Numbers). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'into·cakes', dividing the verse into phrases of 13 and 5 words.
Onkelos
The people would go about and gather it, whoever wished ground it in a mill, or whoever wished pounded it in a mortar, and they cooked it in a pot and made it into cakes; and its taste was like the taste of dough kneaded with oil.
Rashi
שטו [AND THE PEOPLE] WENT ABOUT — The term שיוט (i. e. any form of the root שוט) denotes strolling about; esbanoyer in O. F., English to walk about leisurely — they got the manna without exertion (cf. however, Yoma 75a and thereon s. v. ירד המן עליו). וטחנו ברחים וגו׳ AND THE PEOPLE GROUND IT WITH MILL STONES [OR POUNDED IT IN THE MORTAR, AND BAKED IT IN PANS] — As a matter of fact it (the manna) never went into a mill, nor a pot, nor a mortar, but its taste changed, according to one’s desire, into that of ground or pounded or cooked grain (Sifrei Bamidbar 89). בפרור — means [IN] A POT. לשד השמן [AND ITS TASTE WAS AS THE TASTE OF] — לשד השמן i. e. moisture of oil. Thus did Dunash ibn Labrat explain it. Similar to it is, (Psalms 32:4) נהפך לשדי בחרבוני קיץ, where the ל in the word לשד is a root-letter, the meaning being: “my sap (לשדי) is turned by the drought of summer”. Our Rabbis (Sifrei Bamidbar 89) explained it as meaning “breasts’ (i. e. just as the suckling imbibes, so to speak, every possible flavor with the mother-milk. so the Israelites found all flavors in the manna; cf. Sifrei), but really the subject of “breasts” has nothing to do with oil. One cannot, however, in order to justify the explanation of our Rabbis say that השמן in לשד השמן has a meaning similar to (Deuteronomy 32:15) וישמן ישורון, “But Jeshurun waxed fat (וישמן)” (when the meaning would be: “And the taste of it was similar to that of a fat breast”), for then the מ ought to be punctuated with Kametz (our Tséré: הַשָּׁמֵן) and the accent ought to be on the last syllable, beneath the מ. Now, however, that the מ is punctuated with Patach Katon (our Segol) and the accent is on the ש, it can only have a sense connected with שמן “oil”. As to the ש which is punctuated with Kametz Gadol (שָׁמן) and not with Segol (since the noun “oil” is שֶׁמן,) this is so because the word is at the end of the verse (and in the pausal form שֶׁמֶן becomes שָׁמֶן). — Another explanation is that לשד is an acrostic of ליש, “kneading”, שמן “oil”, דבש “honey”, i. e. that the manna was like “dough kneaded with oil, and smeared with honey” (קטף literally means “to tear”, and when used of dough it means “to tear a lump of dough into pieces for which purpose the kneader moistens his hands with some liquid; here with honey) (Sifrei Bamidbar 89). The rendering of Onkelos who translates the phrase by דליש במשחא, “[as the taste] of dough with oil”, inclines to the meaning given by Dunash, because dough which is kneaded with oil has in it some moisture of oil.
Ibn Ezra
"The people went about" (שָׁטוּ הָעָם) — from the root מָשׁוֹט (to roam) through the land; and this indicates that it did not fall together in one spot but was scattered and dispersed. "In a mill" (בָּרֵחַיִם) — a hand-mill; and it is not possible to split this noun [into singular form], for a mill [by definition] consists of two [stones]. "In a mortar" (בַּמְּדוֹכָה) — [a vessel of] wood or stone in which they pounded [it]; and it is also possible to make cakes from what was pounded. "Cakes" (עֻגוֹת) — as in "make cakes" (וַעֲשִׂי עֻגוֹת, Gen. 18:6). "Richness" (לֶשַׁד) — some say the lamed is an addition, like the lamed in שַׁלְאֲנָן (tranquil) and שַׁלְוָה (ease), and that שֶׁמֶן (oil) should properly be accented on the ultimate syllable because it is an adjective modifying a noun. But in my view the lamed of לֶשַׁד is part of the root, as in נֶהְפַּךְ לְשַׁדִּי (Ps. 32:4) — the opposite of "parched by the summer heat" — and it denotes the rich moisture that rises above all [other] oils; and שֶׁמֶן is then accented on the penultimate, as it normally is.
Chizkuni
שטו העם ולקטו, “the people would leave the camp and collect;” the word שטו is familiar to us from Job 1,7 שוט, “roaming.” According to a midrash found in the Talmud, tractate Yuma folio 75, the line: שטו העם ולקטו, refers to the righteous Israelites who were eating the manna while it was descending through the atmosphere. They did not even have to bother to leave their homes and to collect it. וטחנו בריחים או דכו במדוכה, “they ground it in a mill, or pounded it in mortars;” this refers to the average Israelite. ובשלו בפרוד, “or they boiled in pots.” According to that midrash, this refers to the relatively wicked Israelites, who had to spend more time and effort to make the manna palatable for themselves. This is also why the Torah reports in Numbers 15,32, that the Israelites found a man gathering kindling on the Sabbath. He was a sinner and wanted to boil the manna on the Sabbath.
Rabbeinu Bahya
שטו העם ולקטו וטחנו ברחים או דכו, “the people would stroll and gather it, and grind it in a mill or pound it in a mortar.” We know the expression שטו from Job 1,7 when Satan described himself as roaming all over earth. This indicates that when the people went out to collect the manna they did not do so in groups, but each one pursued a different path. The word ולקטו “and they collected,” means that the manna was ready to be eaten forthwith. It did not have to be cooked, baked, or fried. Most foods lend themselves to one method of preparation for eating it. If a new method is tried this food will often not be tasty. Not so with the manna. This food was amenable to all known ways of preparing food and it would be equally tasty. It would be at least as tasty as baked goods made with dough kneaded with oil. The Torah quotes this example to contrast it with what some of the people had said, i.e. “our soul is dried out” (from eating manna, verse 6). The Torah provides objective rather than subjective yardsticks. According to the Torah’s description it would be impossible for a person to “dry out” from dough which contained both oil and honey. According to one opinion the word לשד is an acronym of the three words לישת שמן דבש, “something kneaded from oil and honey.” According to another opinion the letter ל in the words לשד השמן is part of the root of the word לשד. We find that word in Psalms 32,4 לשדי בחרבוני קיץ, “my vital juices in the summer drought.” Applied to our verse it would mean that far from dehydrating a person the manna would do the reverse as it tasted like something soaked in oil. The word השמן as opposed to merely שמן, suggests that this was the highest quality oil. In this verse you will find an interesting allusion if you take one letter each from the words העם ולקטו וטחנו ברחים או and ending with the word השמן, yielding מטטרו-ן, the name of the angel running the universe on behalf of G’d and responsible for rainfall, i.e. ממטיר which is mentioned in connection with the מן. The word שטו is an allusion to the “employer” of Mattatron who sends him to “roam” (לשוט) over earth in his efforts to discharge his duties.
Tur HaArokh
טעמו כטעם לשד השמן, “it tasted like a dough kneaded with oil.” The Torah testifies that this answers the accusation that the manna was completely dry-tasting, saying that, on the contrary, it contained elements which made it taste moist without requiring the people to even have to add an additive in order to make it moist tasting. After eating it the person having eaten it would feel very refreshed.
Rashbam
לשד, all of it the substance, no part of it refuse, waste. The expression occurs in Psalms 32,4 נהפך לשדי בחרבוני קיץ סלה, “my vigor waned as in a summer drought.” On this verse, Rashi describes this as “my moisture dried up as when figs become dry.” שטו, the expression occurs also in Job 1,7 and in Jeremiah 5,1 and in both instances refers to “roaming over an area.”
And when the dew fell upon the camp in the night, the manna fell upon it.—
verse value 1364
Insights
Verse structure: 7 words, 29 letters. The shortest word is "the·dew" (הַטַּ֛ל, 3 letters) and the longest is "upon·the·camp" (עַל־הַֽמַּחֲנֶ֖ה, 7 letters). 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "and·when·descending" (וּבְרֶ֧דֶת), "the·dew" (הַטַּ֛ל), "would·fall" (יֵרֵ֥ד). The root ירד appears 2 times in this verse. 6 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "upon·it" (root על, 128x in Numbers); "upon·the·camp" (root מחנה, 49x in Numbers); "the·manna" (root מן, 30x in Numbers). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'at·night', dividing the verse into phrases of 4 and 3 words. Full calculation: וּבְרֶ֧דֶת [and·when·descending] (612) + הַטַּ֛ל [the·dew] (44) + עַל־הַֽמַּחֲנֶ֖ה [upon·the·camp] (208) + לָ֑יְלָה [at·night] (75) + יֵרֵ֥ד [would·fall] (214) + הַמָּ֖ן [the·manna] (95) + עָלָֽיו [upon·it] (116) = 1364.
Onkelos
And when the dew descended upon the camp at night, the manna descended upon it.
And Moses heard the people weeping, family by family, every man at the door of his tent; and the anger of Hashem was kindled greatly; and Moses was displeased.
verse value 4198 — יְהֹוָה֙ = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 14 words, 59 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָה֙) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "it·was·distressing" (רָֽע, 2 letters) and the longest is "by·his·clans" (לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָ֔יו, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 345: Moses, Moses. 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "weeping" (בֹּכֶה֙), "at·the·entrance·of" (לְפֶ֣תַח), "his·tent" (אׇהֳל֑וֹ). The root משה appears 2 times in this verse. 13 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 389x in Numbers); "Moses" (root משה, 217x in Numbers); "each" (root איש, 130x in Numbers). First appearance of the root מאד ("very") in Numbers. First appearance of the root רעע ("it·was·distressing") in Numbers. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'his·tent', dividing the verse into phrases of 8 and 6 words. Full calculation: וַיִּשְׁמַ֨ע [and·heard] (426) + מֹשֶׁ֜ה [Moses] (345) + אֶת־הָעָ֗ם [the·people] (516) + בֹּכֶה֙ [weeping] (27) + לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָ֔יו [by·his·clans] (874) + אִ֖ישׁ [each] (311) + לְפֶ֣תַח [at·the·entrance·of] (518) + אׇהֳל֑וֹ [his·tent] (42) + וַיִּֽחַר־אַ֤ף [and·was·kindled·anger] (305) + יְהֹוָה֙ [Hashem] (26) + מְאֹ֔ד [very] (45) + וּבְעֵינֵ֥י [and·in·the·eyes·of] (148) + מֹשֶׁ֖ה [Moses] (345) + רָֽע [it·was·distressing] (270) = 4198.
Onkelos
And Moses heard the people weeping by their families, each man at the entrance of his tent, and the anger of Hashem grew very strong, and in the eyes of Moses it was evil.
Rashi
בכה למשפחתיו [THEN MOSES HEARD THE PEOPLE] WEEP THROUGHOUT THEIR FAMILIES — i.e. the members of each family gathered together and wept in order to display their discontent in public. Our Rabbis, however, said that למשפחתיו means “the people wept because of family affairs” — because of the intermarriage of blood-relaltives that had been forbidden to them (Sifrei Bamidbar 90; Yoma 75a).
Ibn Ezra
"Weeping by their families" — the families gathered together to weep, as people do when weeping over the dead. "Each man at the entrance of his tent" — publicly. "And in the eyes of Moses it was evil" — [this is] a past-tense verb, or the word הָיָה is to be understood.
Or HaChaim
ויחר אף ה׳ מאד. G'd's anger was kindled very much. The reason why the Torah describes G'd's anger as מאד, "very much," is that people who fall victim to seduction by Satan have been victimised, in a sense. The same could not be said of the people described in our paragraph who had actually provoked the evil urge within themselves. There is no category of sin which is greater than that. ובעיני משה רע, and it was wicked in the eyes of Moses. Man is upset if something he considers his own creation does not live up to his expectations. You may find an illustration of this when the prophet Samuel is reported as having aged prematurely and died as a result of the anguish of seeing King Saul whom he had crowned not having met the challenge of wiping out Amalek. In order to save Samuel from experiencing Saul's death at the hands of the Philistines (compare Taanit 5) G'd had him die prematurely. Moses too was upset at Israel acting in a manner not befitting them. Alternatively, we may understand the words ובעיני משה רע as referring to G'd's anger. It displeased Moses that G'd had become so angry at the Israelites on this account. According to Sifri 1,95 G'd gave Moses a preview of the punishment He was going to exact from Israel on account of this misdemeanour. Moses reacted by asking G'd whether He really considered it fair to feed the Israelites meat only to let them die as a result of their eating the meat.
Kli Yakar
“And Moses heard the people weeping by their families, each at the entrance of his tent.” For one cannot say that families gathered together in groups and wept, since it says each at the entrance of his tent. Rather, certainly [they were weeping] about matters of their families. And the anger of the Lord was kindled, and in Moses’ eyes it was bad. Specifically now [it was bad in Moses’ eyes], but before that it was bad only in the ears of the Lord, because Moses did not understand their intention. And regarding what it says, we remember [which refers to] the past, and that we would/will eat [nochal] which implies the future, this is what they said: that whenever we said in the past Let us appoint a leader and return to Egypt, at that time we remembered the fish that we will eat in the future when we arrive there. And regarding what it says free from the commandments, this will be explained, God willing, later in Parashat Pinchas (26:64), that they said this about tithes and offerings. And it consumed at the edge of the camp. Literally at the edge, therefore all the people fled from the edge when they saw that around the camp it was extremely turbulent, and they fled into the camp because they were afraid to be at the edges. Therefore it is said, And the asafsuf that was among them. We do not find anywhere in the Torah that the mixed multitude is called “asafsuf” except here, because “sifsef” [meaning “gathered”] has twice the word “sof” [end], and they meant to say that all the people who were found at every end and extremity of the camp, seeing that around them the fire of God burned, therefore fled to the midst of the camp. This is what is meant by that was among them — in the middle, as mentioned. And our Sages of blessed memory (Sifrei 11:1) interpreted it [the phrase “at the edge of the camp”] as referring to the officers of the camp or the outcasts of the camp, but the language is not clear to me because the word “edge” [katzeh] does not connote an officer [katzin], nor an outcast [muktzeh]. It seems to me that everyone agrees that the word edge does not depart from its simple meaning, which refers to the extremity of the camp, as every instance of “ketz” [edge] denotes an end. However, every edge has two extremities — a beginning and an end. In the normal course of the world, the officers of the people walk at the head of the camp, which is the first edge, while the outcasts walk at the end of the camp, which is the last edge. According to all opinions, the edge of the camp does not depart from its simple meaning, but the Scripture does not specify which edge — whether it refers to the officers of the people who walk first at the first edge, or to the outcasts of the camp who walk at the last edge. Therefore, our Sages disagree on this matter — some say it refers to the officers, and others say it refers to the outcasts. Their disagreement depends on what our Sages said (Bava Kamma 60a) that calamity comes to the world only because of the wicked, but it always begins with the righteous, as it is said If a fire breaks out and catches in thorns, and a stack of grain is consumed (Exodus 22:5). The stack of grain has already been consumed. According to this, the one who says it refers to the officers of the camp holds that this verse speaks of those with whom the calamity begins, while the one who says it refers to the outcasts holds that this verse speaks of those who cause the calamity. But since it says the mixed multitude [ha’asafsuf] with a double “sof” [end], this implies that it refers to both the officers and the outcasts, for both are at an “end” — one at the first end and one at the final end. This is also implied by the language of the verse and catches in thorns [u’matzah kotzim], meaning two extremities, as “kotzim” [thorns] is related to “ketz” [end], and a stack of grain is consumed — everything is included, even the average people in the middle. Therefore it says “ha’asafsuf” — meaning two ends. That was among them is like “and that which was among them” [ve’asher bekirbo], referring to the average people, similar to The sun [and] moon stood still in their habitation (Habakkuk 3:11) where the conjunction “and” is missing, is as if it said “the sun and the moon.” So too here, it is as if it said “the mixed multitude and those who were among them” — all turned away together, they became corrupt from the sole of the foot to the head; all of them craved a craving. According to the midrashic approach, one can say that this is the attribute of the Holy One, blessed be He: In times when creatures are evil and sinful, the Holy One, blessed be He, stretches forth His hand to both extremes — to the good and to the evil — so that all those in the middle will learn a moral lesson through a fortiori reasoning [kal vachomer]. For if He were to affect only the lowly ones, then the righteous among them would attribute it to their good deeds, saying, “Evil will not approach us because we are not sinners like them.” Therefore, He affects even the most perfect among them, and then those of lesser stature will draw a fortiori reasoning, saying, “If fire has seized the moist [wood], what will happen to the dry thorns?” And if He were to affect only the righteous among them, the lesser ones would say, “Of course these deserve to be punished since they are close to God, and around Him it is exceedingly turbulent (Psalms 50:3), for whoever is closer to God must be more meticulous in his actions, since one who rebels against the king within his palace is not comparable to one who rebels outside his palace.” Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, grasps both extremes, thus nullifying all these arguments, and everyone between the extremes will fear God and not return to folly. This matter is explained by Ezekiel (15:2-4): Son of man, what will become of the wood of the vine… both its ends were consumed by fire and its middle is charred; can it still be useful for any work? For he compared Israel to a vine whose fire consumes its two ends while its middle is charred and shaken. So the Holy One, blessed be He, grasps the asafsuf, the chiefs and the outcasts, so that those in the midst will be shaken and afraid. And when they all turned away from the path, then the fire consumed them all, both the asafsuf and those in the midst, which is its interior. Perhaps the “chiefs” are not the righteous but rather the hypocrites who present themselves as virtuous so that they might be appointed as leaders and chiefs, while inwardly they set their ambush. The Holy One, blessed be He, exposed these hypocrites and caused them to bring their wickedness out into the open, for he who covers hatred deceitfully, his wickedness will be revealed in the assembly (Proverbs 26:26).
And Moses said to Hashem: "Why have You dealt ill with Your servant? and why have I not found favor in Your sight, that You lay the burden of all this people upon me?
verse value 3817
Insights
Verse structure: 15 words, 64 letters. The shortest word is "favor" (חֵ֖ן, 2 letters) and the longest is "to·Hashem" (אֶל־יְהֹוָ֗ה, 6 letters). 6 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "have·You·dealt·ill" (הֲרֵעֹ֙תָ֙), "to·Your·servant" (לְעַבְדֶּ֔ךָ), "not·have·I·found" (לֹא־מָצָ֥תִי). The root מה appears 2 times in this verse. 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·Hashem" (root יהוה, 389x in Numbers); "and·he·said" (root אמר, 246x in Numbers); "Moses" (root משה, 217x in Numbers). First appearance of the root מצא ("not·have·I·found") in Numbers. First appearance of the root חן ("favor") in Numbers. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'in·Your·eyes', dividing the verse into phrases of 10 and 5 words.
Onkelos
And Moses said before Hashem: Why have You dealt ill with Your servant? And why have I not found favor before You, that You have placed the burden of all this people upon me?
Ibn Ezra
"Why have You dealt ill with Your servant?" — Scripture speaks of what is soon to come [i.e., Moses anticipates the burden]. "And why have I not found favor in Your eyes?" — as I said [at Sinai]: "Send by the hand of whomever You will send" (Exod. 4:13). The word מָצָתִי is missing an alef, and there are many such cases, for it is no surprise that the alef — king of the letters — is dropped.
Sforno
למה הרעות לעבדך? “Why did you appoint me against my will to lead this people out of Egypt? ולמה לא מצאתי חן בעיניך?, When I asked You to send whomever You are in the habit of sending, (Exodus 4,13) why did You not accept my request? לשום את משא כל העם הזה עלי, You could only have done this in order to burden me with the load of this whole nation, as if You could not have found another more suitable leader, or at least You could have provided me with someone else who would be suitable to share this burden and who would be good for them.
Or HaChaim
למה הרעת לעבדך…ולמה לא מצאתי חן, "Why have You dealt ill with Your servant,…and why have I not found grace?" It is somewhat difficult to understand why Moses first complained about the damage he felt that he had suffered and only afterwards about the lack of some positive achievement, i.e. not finding grace? Logic would have dictated that these two elements be cited in an ascending order! We must understand what Moses said in light of what our sages said in connection with Exodus 32,34 where G'd told Moses: "go and lead the people, etc." Sifri 1,91 there describes G'd telling Moses that the Israelites were obstinate pestering people who cursed their leaders and threatened to stone them, etc. Thus far the Sifri on the subject. We may understand Moses' reaction here in light of what G'd had told him at the time when the sin had been the golden calf. When he used the expression הרעת, Moses meant: "why did You G'd make me experience this misconduct of Your children?" After I have accepted that burden at least You should have helped me to carry this great burden which You have imposed upon me. When Moses asked: "why have l not found grace," the word מצתי, "I have found," is spelled without the customary letter א. Moses hinted that he had not even found a minimal amount of grace. An alternate way of looking at our verse assumes that Moses did not want G'd to give the Israelites meat so as to prevent their death after eating the meat. Moses asked G'd why He had placed such a heavy burden upon him instead of granting him grace. The letter ל in the word לשום את משא כל העם הזה עלי, is to be understood as giving a reason. Moses complained that if G'd refused to accede to his request not to grant the Israelites' wish to eat meat, why would he have to watch the debacle that would occur as a result of G'd granting the Israelites' request to be fed meat? He also foresaw that the improper behaviour of the Israelites would eventually lead to his own death in the desert. He felt that these results were not the proper reward he could have expected for all his toil on behalf of the Jewish people. Moses' second complaint then may be seen as even greater than his original request. This disposes of the question we raised regarding the sequence of Moses' complaints.
Chizkuni
ולמה לא מצתי חן, “and why have I not found favour, etc.?” The word מצתי is one which on occasion is spelled without the letter א when that letter is the last root letter.
Have I conceived all this people? have I brought them forth, that You should say to me: Carry them in your bosom, as a nursing-father carries the sucking child, to the land which You swore to their fathers?
verse value 6466 — הֶאָנֹכִ֣י = 86 (Elohim)
Insights
Verse structure: 19 words, 89 letters. Notable word values: "did·I" (הֶאָנֹכִ֣י) = 86, equal to Elohim. The shortest word is "upon" (עַ֚ל, 2 letters) and the longest is "all·the·people" (אֵ֚ת כׇּל־הָעָ֣ם, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 566: all·the·people, the·infant. 11 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "did·I" (הֶאָנֹכִ֣י), "did·I·conceive" (הָרִ֗יתִי), "if·I" (אִם־אָנֹכִ֖י). The root אנכי appears 2 times in this verse. 16 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "that·You·should·say" (root אמר, 246x in Numbers); "as" (root אשר, 223x in Numbers); "upon" (root על, 128x in Numbers). First appearance of the root אנכי ("did·I") in Numbers. First appearance of the root אדמה ("the·land") in Numbers. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'did·I·engender·them', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 13 words.
Onkelos
Am I the father of all this people, or are they my sons, that You say to me: Carry them in Your strength, as a guardian carries an infant, to the land that You swore to their forefathers?
Rashi
כי תאמר אלי means, [HAVE I CONCEIVED ALL THIS PEOPLE] THAT THOU SHOULDST always SAY UNTO ME, “Carry them in thy bosom!?” And where did He speak thus to him? When He said to him, (Exodus 32:34) “Go, lead the people”; and it further states, (Exodus 6:13) “[And the Lord spoke unto Moses and unto Aaron] and gave them a charge concerning the children of Israel” saying unto them: “Take charge of them even under the risk (lit., under the condition) that they may stone you or at least insult you” (Sifrei Bamidbar 91; cf. Rashi on that verse). על האדמה אשר נשבעת לאבתיו UNTO THE LAND WHICH THOU SWAREST UNTO THEIR FATHERS hast Thou bidden me to carry them in my bosom.
Ramban
DID I ‘HARITHI’ ALL THIS PEOPLE? In the opinion of Onkelos [who rendered it: “Am I ‘the father’ of all this people?” the word harithi] is like [the expression] beyond the blessing of ‘horai’ (my progenitors), for a father is called horeh [of the root haroh, “to conceive” or “become pregnant”] because it is he who causes conception and brings about the pregnancy [of the mother]. Thus Moses is saying: “Am I their father [who has caused their conception], or am I their mother who has given birth to them?” But the masters of the plain meaning of Scripture interpreted the verse in the opposite manner: “Am I their mother who was pregnant with them and gave birth to them?” Similarly, ‘Vatahar’ eth Miriam v’eth Shammai means “she was pregnant with them and gave birth to them.” “Or am I their father who begot them?” [the word y’lidetihu being] like: ‘vayoled Noach’ (and Noah begot); thy father that ‘y’ladecha’ (begot thee), and other similar expressions. And Moses said, as ‘ha’omein’ carrieth the sucking child, [the word ha’omein] being a reference to the [nursing-] father or mother. In my opinion the whole verse is a figurative reference to the mother, and the meaning thereof is as follows: “Have I conceived all this people and have I given birth to them?” Moses mentioned it in this way [speaking as the mother] because it is the woman who suffers the pain of raising children, remembering what she suffered for them from birth, pregnancy, and conception. But Moses said omein [in the masculine] since he is speaking of himself as a nursing-father, since he is not an omeneth (a nursing-mother).
Ibn Ezra
"Did I conceive them?" (הָרִיתִי) — am I indeed their mother? "Did I give birth to him?" (יְלַדְתִּיהוּ) — or am I their father, as in "begot Shelah" (Gen. 11:13)? "Carry them" — until they come to the land.
Sforno
האנוכי הריתי, true, a natural father knows how to guide his children even if they have differences of opinions among them. The reason such a father can be successful is that all his children know that he loves them all and has their best interests at heart. But these people do not put their trust in me at all; they suspect me and constantly provoke me to see what I would do for them.
Or HaChaim
האנכי הריתי את כל העם הזה, "Did I conceive this whole people?" The reason that Moses made such an apparently inappropriate comparison is based on Sanhedrin 19 where we are told that whoever teaches the son of his friend Torah is considered as if he had given birth to him. There is also a comment in Tikkuney Hazohar 70 that all the souls of the people who marched through the desert were "branches" of Moses' own soul and that he was considered the father of all those souls. Moses may have alluded to two periods in the life of a son when the father is responsible for his deeds. The first period is an obligation of a biblical nature such as before the son reaches the age of five or six when he commences to study Torah. The second period is a rabbinic decree. According to the rabbis the father is responsible for misdemeanours committed by his son until the son reaches the age of 13 (compare Ketuvot 49 and 68 respectively). Although at the time Moses asked this question the Talmud had not yet added the additional years that a father is responsible for his son, it is something most people will accept readily, especially Moses who was a prophet. In view of the fact that Abraham is reputed to have observed all the rabbinic ordinances already in his time (Yuma 28) although they had not yet been instituted, Moses, with his prophetic insight certainly was aware of all these ordinances. Concerning the period during which a father is responsible for the deeds of his son by biblical injunction Moses asked האנכי הריתי, "did I conceive them?" Concerning the period during which a father is responsible for the deeds of his son by rabbinic ordinance he asked אם אנכי ילדתיהו "did I give birth to them?" The meaning of the letter ה in the word האנכי is one that expresses confirmation, i.e. willingness to accept the premise implied in both G'd's legislation and rabbinic ordinances. Had the children of Israel been minors, Moses would gladly have shouldered the responsibility that Jewish law imposes upon him. He complained that he should not be expected to shoulder that responsibility for people who had long since become adults and were responsible for their own actions. Even if the Israelites had been his own biological children he would long since have been free of the burden of being saddled with their mistakes. He added -by inference- that if he would have been asked to provide something minor for the Israelites, he would gladly have provided it providing it would be in his power to do so; however, how could he be expected to supply a whole nation with meat in the middle of the desert? By asking מאין לי בשר, Moses also implied that the request did not even constitute something necessary for the wellbeing of the people, it was merely a luxury!
Chizkuni
האנכי הריתי, “was it I who has conceived these people?” Am I their mother who had conceived them? אם אנכי ילידתיהו, “did I sire them?” Was I their father? The root ילד has been used in this sense in Genesis 10,24. (Ibn Ezra) על האדמה, not “on the earth,” but as in אל האדמה “on to the earth.” Compare Genesis 38,12, על גוזזי צאן, “to the shearing of the sheep.” Compare also Exodus 10,21: נטה ידך על השמים, not “incline your hand over the heaven,” but “incline your hand in the direction of the heaven.”
Tur HaArokh
האנכי הריתי, “did I conceive this people?” Nachmanides writes that Onkelos’ opinion that the words mean “am I their father,” which is based on the phrase ברכות הורי, “the blessings of my fathers” (Genesis 49,26) is an expanded version of the role of fathers who are viewed as if they had conceived, as without the insertion of their semen in the mother’s womb the mother could not have conceived. אם אנכי ילידיתיהו, “did I perhaps give birth to them?” Am I their mother the one who has given birth to them? The scholars who concentrate primarily on the plain meaning, פשט, take the opposite approach, saying that the word הריתי should be understood as referring to a mother, Moses asking if he, a man, should really be expected to relate to the Jewish people as a mother is expected to relate to them, i.e. to carry them in his bosom as a mother carries her baby, etc. The verb ילד is used by Moses to describe a father’s part in producing a child, as in ויולד את נח, (Genesis 5,28) whereas the verb הרה is used by Moses to describe the mother’s input, as in ותהר את מרים “she became pregnant with Miriam.” (Chronicles I 4,17) This is why Moses illustrates further כאשר ישא האומן את היונק, “as the nurse carries a suckling.” I believe that Moses spoke in terms of what mothers have to go through before they have a baby, followed by the possibly far greater difficulties in raising their children. A mother is constantly reminded of her pre-natal pains, etc. whenever the children do not act in a manner that compensates her for the pains endured before they came into this world.
Rashbam
ילידתיהו, as in Genesis 10,26 ויקטן ילד את אלמודד, where the Torah does not mean that the man Yoktan gave birth to Elmoded, but that he raised Elmoded as if he had given birth to him, or simply that his sperm begat him. Such an indirect “birthing” is no less significant, as G’d in Deuteronomy 11,31 describes the Israelites as “inheriting” the Canaanites. They had certainly not been direct descendants so that the term “inheriting” would seem appropriate. Nonetheless, seeing that Noach was the progenitor of mankind after the deluge, in an extended, sense the Israelites could view themselves as the “heirs” of the Canaanites. [I have elaborated on the author’s words. Ed.] ילידתיהו, there are two vowels chirik here, seeing that the active mode מפעל, miphal, of this type of verb is like the causative mode מפעיל, maphil, and the Torah had to make sure we understood what mode Moses is using. On the other hand, with roots such as ישב, which describe a direct activity of the body, we do not find this pattern of two chiriks, but a patach instead. The same applies to roots such as ישן or ירד.
Daat Zkenim
כי תאמר אלי שאהו בחיקך, that You should say to me: “carry them in your bosom;” Moses implies that if he had not been commanded to carry on in his position, he would by now have quit.
Whence should I have flesh to give to all this people? for they trouble me with their weeping, saying: Give us flesh, that we may eat.
verse value 3289
Insights
Verse structure: 12 words, 49 letters. Verse gematria: 3289 is divisible by 13, the value of echad ('one') and ahavah ('love'). The shortest word is "to·me" (לִי֙, 2 letters) and the longest is "to·all·the·people" (לְכׇל־הָעָ֣ם, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 502: meat, meat. 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "from·where" (מֵאַ֤יִן), "when·they·weep" (כִּֽי־יִבְכּ֤וּ), "that·we·may·eat" (וְנֹאכֵֽלָה). The root בשר appears 2 times in this verse. 10 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "saying" (root אמר, 246x in Numbers); "before·me" (root על, 128x in Numbers); "to·give" (root נתן, 119x in Numbers). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'this', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 6 words. Full calculation: מֵאַ֤יִן [from·where] (101) + לִי֙ [to·me] (40) + בָּשָׂ֔ר [meat] (502) + לָתֵ֖ת [to·give] (830) + לְכׇל־הָעָ֣ם [to·all·the·people] (195) + הַזֶּ֑ה [this] (17) + כִּֽי־יִבְכּ֤וּ [when·they·weep] (68) + עָלַי֙ [before·me] (110) + לֵאמֹ֔ר [saying] (271) + תְּנָה־לָּ֥נוּ [give·us] (541) + בָשָׂ֖ר [meat] (502) + וְנֹאכֵֽלָה [that·we·may·eat] (112) = 3289.
Onkelos
Where am I to get meat to give to all this people? For they weep before me, saying: Give us meat that we may eat.
Ibn Ezra
"From where" (מֵאַיִן) — with the mem as a [preposition indicating] place; and without the mem it means 'no,' as found in "you are from nothing" (מֵאַיִן, Isa. 41:24).
Sforno
מאין לי בשר?, Clearly, they know very well that I do not have any meat to give them; if so when they cry and demand “give us meat,” they as much accuse me of being able to provide them with meat but denying them their desire! This is only a crude attempt to find out if my actions as their leader have indeed been prompted by my carrying out Your command! What can I attain from You on their behalf?
Daat Zkenim
!תנו לנו בשר, “give us meat!” Their request was inappropriate, seeing that one of the qualities of the manna was that it assumed the taste of whatever the person consuming it wished it to taste like. We know this from Psalms 106,15: ויתן להם שאלתם, בשר., “He gave them whatever they had asked for.” The people had meat from sheep and oxen, as they had taken herds with them from Egypt, as stated Exodus 12,38: “and a mixed multitude went up with them, as well as very much livestock, both flocks and herds.” If you were to say that they had consumed all these herds and flocks in the desert, we have a verse in Numbers 32,1 according to which the tribes of Reuven and Gad had a surfeit of flocks and cattle. Seeing that this was so prompted Rabbi Shmuel to state that what they really lusted for were the women that had now become forbidden for them as wives, (sexual partners) since these laws had been promulgated. If they were described as lusting for “meat,” this shows how they saw in marital unions primarily the element of sexual unions. (Compare Talmud, tractate Yuma folio 75, as well as Bamidbar Rabbah 15, section 24). The Midrash there quotes Psalms 78,27: וימטר עליהם כעפר שאר, וכחול ימים עוף כנף, “He made it rain upon them meat like dust, winged birds like the sands of the sea. Whenever the word שאר appears in the Torah, it is a euphemism for the sexual aspect of marriage, as we know from Leviticus 18,6: איש איש אל כך שאר בשרו לא תקרבו לגלות ערוה, “none of you must approach sexually any kin of his,” The Midrash reinforces its interpretation by pointing out that the Torah, apparently gratuitously, added that the people cried למשפחותם, “on account of their families,” i.e. family members now out of bounds for them for the purpose of sexual union. (Compare Talmud, tractate Shabbat folio 130). It was this that caused Hashem’s anger in verse 10, and Moses” displeasure. At that time Moses said to Hashem that up until that time he had the seventy elders who had been appointed already when he made ready to ascend Mount Sinai for the first time, as we know from Exodus 24,9, where Nadav and Avihu had been named as his assistants as well as seventy unnamed elders. Now, he said, there was no one left that he could call on to assist him. This is why he exclaimed: “I alone am unable to continue to carry this burden!” Nonetheless we are bound to ask what had happened to the seventy elders mentioned in Exodus chapter 24. We must conclude that they had been amongst the people who had been described as murmurers in verse one of our chapter where many people had died by heavenly fire as stated. We had read there in verse four that not only the mixed multitude of Egyptians who had joined the bandwagon of the Jewish people at the Exodus, but also בני ישראל, always an expression describing the elite of the Jewish people, had been included amongst those who had died then. There is a dispute amongst the sages if the people there described as אספסף, had been part of the mixed multitude or had been these seventy elders. According to one view the expression בקצה המחנה, normally translated as “at the outer edge of the camp,” had in fact been the elders whom at this point the Torah referred to euphemistically. Actually, they had been guilty of death by heavenly fire already from the event described in Exodus chapter 24. They too had been guilty of disrespect when experiencing a vision of the Divine glory, not only Nadav and Avihu, who had been named there. (Exodus 24,11) At the time, i.e. the revelation at Mount Sinai and the joyful atmosphere prevailing then, G–d did not wish to disturb these festivities by killing them. We find an allusion to this episode in Psalms 106,18: ותבער אש בעדתם, “fire consumed their congregation.” The expression עדה, “congregation,” is always reserved for describing the highest court of seventy. Compare Numbers15,24: ואם מעיני העדה נעשתה לשגגה, “and if an error was committed because the true situation had been hidden from the eyes of the עדה, i.e. the highest court, Sanhedrin. (Compare Bamidbar Rabbah 15,24)
I am not able to bear all this people myself alone, because it is too heavy for me.
verse value 1725 — כָבֵ֖ד = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 9 words, 37 letters. Notable word values: "heavy" (כָבֵ֖ד) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "for" (כִּ֥י, 2 letters) and the longest is "all·the·people" (אֶת־כׇּל־הָעָ֣ם, 7 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "I·cannot" (לֹֽא־אוּכַ֤ל), "by·myself" (לְבַדִּ֔י). 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "for" (root כי, 79x in Numbers); "this" (root זה, 61x in Numbers); "to·carry" (root נשא, 48x in Numbers). First appearance of the root יכל ("I·cannot") in Numbers. First appearance of the root כבד ("heavy") in Numbers. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'this', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 3 words. Full calculation: לֹֽא־אוּכַ֤ל [I·cannot] (88) + אָנֹכִי֙ [I] (81) + לְבַדִּ֔י [by·myself] (46) + לָשֵׂ֖את [to·carry] (731) + אֶת־כׇּל־הָעָ֣ם [all·the·people] (566) + הַזֶּ֑ה [this] (17) + כִּ֥י [for] (30) + כָבֵ֖ד [heavy] (26) + מִמֶּֽנִּי [for·me] (140) = 1725.
Onkelos
I am not able alone to carry all this people, for it is too heavy for me.
Ramban
I AM NOT ABLE TO BEAR ALL THIS PEOPLE MYSELF ALONE. The meaning thereof is not that the elders should help him to give the people flesh, for where should they get it from? Moreover, even if they would have many leaders they would still only complain against Moses our teacher who took them out of Egypt, as they used to say to him, And wherefore have ye made us to come up out of Egypt? [asking him] that he should give them through his prayers all that they asked for, and grant them their desires [and so they would still continue to complain to him rather than to the elders]! But Moses thought that if they would have many leaders they would appease their wrath by speaking to their hearts when they would start complaining. Or it is possible that when the elders prophesied, and the spirit [which was upon Moses] was put upon them, the people would know that these elders are established as prophets, and would not all gather against Moses but would ask for their desires from them as well [by means of their prayers].
Ibn Ezra
"For it is too heavy" (כִּי כָבֵד) — a past-tense verb, as in "for Isaac was old" (כִּי זָקֵן יִצְחָק, Gen. 27:1); or the word הוּא is to be understood.
Sforno
לא אוכל אנכי לבד, You will have to provide me with assistants to enable me to carry this burden.
Or HaChaim
לא אוכל אנכי לבדי לשאת, I cannot carry (this burden) all by myself." Here Moses revealed his own wishes in the matter. He told G'd that his refusal to carry the load all by himself was not due to lack of good will to carry out G'd's assignment but to his conviction that it was beyond his ability to do so.
Chizkuni
לא אוכל אנכי לבדי, “I cannot all by myself, etc.” Moses had said all this after the fire of G-d had burned against all the officers in the camp, seeing that as long as these had still been alive, they had shared the burden of leading the people with him.
Tur HaArokh
לא אוכל לבדי שאת, “I cannot carry this burden all by myself.” Nachmanides writes that Moses did not request that the elders become his assistants in his supplying meat for the people, for where would they take it from? Moreover, he was quite aware that even if a large number of providers would be appointed, whenever they would find reason to complain these complaints would continue to be addressed to him, seeing that it had been he who had taken them out of Egypt, and the source of all their complaints were always traced to that event. What Moses hoped to accomplish by having the elders appointed was that if the people had a number of leaders, by the time the complaints would be transmitted to him if they proved beyond the competence of the elders to deal with, the people’s anger and fury would have at least partially spent itself seeing that the elders would have tried to blunt their anger and frustration. It is also possible that Moses thought that once the people found out that the elders possessed holy spirit and were able to prophesy, they would show loyalty to these prophets and not gang up on Moses as they had been in the habit of doing. They would therefore demand from these divinely inspired elders to satisfy their various cravings.
And if You deal thus with me, kill me, I pray You, out of hand, if I have found favor in Your sight; and let me not look upon my wretchedness."
verse value 3163
Insights
Verse structure: 11 words, 50 letters. The shortest word is "with·me" (לִּ֗י, 2 letters) and the longest is "if·I·have·found" (אִם־מָצָ֥אתִי, 7 letters). 6 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "and·if·thus" (וְאִם־כָּ֣כָה), "You·would·deal" (אַתְּ־עֹ֣שֶׂה), "kill·me" (הׇרְגֵ֤נִי). The root הרג appears 2 times in this verse. 10 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "You·would·deal" (root עשה, 127x in Numbers); "and·let·me·not·see" (root ראה, 47x in Numbers); "in·Your·eyes" (root עין, 39x in Numbers). First appearance of the root הרג ("kill·me") in Numbers. First appearance of the root נא ("please") in Numbers. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'in·Your·eyes', dividing the verse into phrases of 9 and 2 words. Full calculation: וְאִם־כָּ֣כָה [and·if·thus] (92) + אַתְּ־עֹ֣שֶׂה [You·would·deal] (776) + לִּ֗י [with·me] (40) + הׇרְגֵ֤נִי [kill·me] (268) + נָא֙ [please] (51) + הָרֹ֔ג [kill] (208) + אִם־מָצָ֥אתִי [if·I·have·found] (582) + חֵ֖ן [favor] (58) + בְּעֵינֶ֑יךָ [in·Your·eyes] (162) + וְאַל־אֶרְאֶ֖ה [and·let·me·not·see] (244) + בְּרָעָתִֽי [my·wretchedness] (682) = 3163.
Onkelos
And if this is what You are doing to me, slay me now outright — if I have found favor before You — so that I may not see my wretchedness.
Rashi
ואם ככה את עשה לי AND IF THOU DO THUS WITH ME [KILL ME, I PRAY THEE …] — The Hebrew word for “Thou” appears in the feminine form את instead of the masculine אתה to intimate that Moses’ strength grew weak as that of a woman when the Holy one, blessed be He, showed him the punishment which He was to bring in future upon them for this (for their sin). He, (Moses) therefore, said before Him, “If so, kill me first” (Sifrei Bamidbar 91). ואל אראה ברעתי AND LET ME NOT SEE MY EVIL — It ought to have written (according to the Midrashic explanation above) “and let me not see their evil”, only that Scripture modified the expression (i.e. it used a euphemistic expression referring the evil to himself instead of to the whole people). This is one of the variations occurring in the Torah such as writers make for the purpose of modifying and improving the phrase (cf. Rashi on Genesis 18:22 and Midrash Tanchuma, Beshalach 16).
Ramban
AND IF ‘AT’ (THOU) DO THUS WITH ME. “[The Hebrew word for Thou appears here in the feminine form at, instead of atah in the masculine, because] Moses’ strength grew weak, like that of a woman, because the Holy One, blessed be He, showed him the punishment He was to bring upon them for this [sin of theirs]. Moses then said to Him, ‘If so, kill me, I pray Thee.’” This is Rashi’s language. But I do not understand this. For the pronoun at refers here to Him on high, [for since it is Moses who is speaking in the verse, his use of the second-person pronoun must be referring to G-d; so how can Rashi explain that the feminine form is used to indicate that Moses’ strength weakened like that of a woman]! But according to the plain meaning of Scripture, the custom of the [Hebrew] language is [to use the form at] even when referring to a man, such as, ‘at’ (thou) the far-covering cherub. And by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], And if ‘at’ do thus with me refers to the attribute of justice [“attribute” in Hebrew being feminine, and the meaning of the verse is: “if it be decreed that the attribute of justice encounter me, then kill me, I pray Thee], just as it is said, and the anger of the Eternal was kindled greatly. Similarly, ‘v’at’ shalt speak unto us is a reference to the great fire, from which you shall speak the words of G-d unto us, and we will hear it from your mouth, and do it. Similarly, ‘at’ the far-covering cherub alludes to the second cherub. The student versed [in the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand. HORGEINI NA HAROG’ (KILL ME, I PRAY THEE). This means that Thou should send upon me those that kill by the sword, for it is better for me to die even by the sword of man than to live with this grief. It is possible that the sense [of the term horgeini] is “take my life” [and not, as explained before, that it means death by human agency]. A similar [usage of the term is found in these verses]: and let their men be ‘harugei maveth’ (slain of death), and their young men smitten of the sword in battle; and breathe ‘baharugim ha’eileh’ (upon these slain).
Ibn Ezra
"[You]" (אֶת) — [the form] אֶת serves for both masculine and feminine, as do לְךָ, בְּךָ, עִמְּךָ, and אִתְּךָ; but אַתָּה is masculine only. "Kill me" (הָרְגֵנִי) — that is, put me to death; do this for me in Your righteousness and for the sake of my entreaty — and this is the meaning of "and if I have found favor in Your eyes." "And let me not see" — any further the evil in which I find myself. There is no need for a scribal emendation [of this text].
Sforno
ואם ככה את עושה לי, If You in Your perfection decided not to provide me with assistants in order not to belittle me in the eyes of the people, and You want to continue to lead the people in the manner which You have done so far, הרגני נא הרוג אם מצאתי חן בעיניך, so that You will be free to appoint someone else, someone, or several, who are able to lead the people more perfectly. This is reminiscent of what the sages have said about the prophet Samuel who died before his time in order to enable the Kingdom of David to become reality sooner. (compare Tossaphot on Taanit 5) ואל אראה ברעתי, the result of my inadequacy as a leader. If I had to witness this, this would be worse for me than dying at this time.
Or HaChaim
ואם ככה את עשה לי, "but if You will deal thus with me, etc." Moses was afraid that G'd would say to him that he must continue to carry this burden even against his will as it is the fate of a servant of G'd that he continue to serve his G'd until he dies, as we know from Deut 6,5 where we are commanded to love G'd with our entire soul, i.e. even if we have to die in the process. This is why Moses said: "if that is my fate then please let me die now." He added that the reason he asked to die now was so that he would not be a witness to his own failure as a leader. Moses was afraid that if instead of G'd letting him die the people would kill him for not providing meat, he would become the cause of their becoming guilty of murder. Their punishment would be that they would be wiped out by G'd. He, Moses, would much rather die now than for Israel to become guilty of such a crime. Solomon expressed such a thought in Proverbs 17,27 when he said: "it is not good for the righteous to become the cause of retribution." The reason Moses repeated the words הרגני נא הרוג, was that he was certain he would meet with death either at the hands of G'd or at the hands of Israel. If G'd were to kill him now, therefore, He would only be taking the life of a person who was already dead for all practical purposes. In order to interpret the verse in this way the word harog must be read as harug. Yalkut Shimoni item 735 on our verse expresses it thus: "If I do not give them meat they will kill me; on the other hand, if I oppose You (by speaking against You) You will be forced to kill me." The wording of our verse can tolerate all these various interpretations.
Chizkuni
ואם ככה את עושה לי, “and if You will deal with me in this fashion;” according to Rashi, Moses had felt that he had become weak like a woman, so that he was not even able to complete the last word, (which should have been: אתה in the masculine mode). He was full of psychological pain and anger, so that he addressed G-d as if he were addressing a human being and runs out of breath before being able to complete a sentence. Other commentators understand the word: את here as if vocalised with a segol, similar to בך, or לך, which can be used both in the masculine and in the feminine mode. ואל אראה ברעתי, “so that I will no longer have to deal with the evil that has befallen me.”
Rabbeinu Bahya
ואם ככה את עושה לי, ”And if this is how You will deal with me, etc.” The word את in this verse is a reference to the attribute of Justice. Moses refers to the reaction of G’d described in verse 10 where the Torah wrote ויחר אף ה' מאד, that “G’d had become exceedingly angry.” The word את as describing the attribute of Justice is also found in Deut. 5,24 when the people expressed their inability to endure the sound of the voice of G’d. It is also found in Ezekiel 28,14 את כרוב ממשח הסוכך, “You are a great protective cherub.” This is a pseudonym for the second highest ranking angel known as כבוד, his partner being the angel known as תפארת. [compare author’s comment on Exodus 25,18 on the subject of the cherubs. Ed.] I have already explained that seeing the written text of the Torah does not contain vowels, it is possible to supply the vowel kametz when reading the word עושה with the vowel kametz under the letter ש, so that it sounds as “ossah.” The reason we have been forbidden to write the vowels in the written text of the Torah scroll is to enable a person to understand a variety of meanings in the text which he could not find if he were bound to a specific vowel pattern under or over the consonants. For instance, in Genesis 22,12 the word ידעתי in the sequence עתה ידעתי כי ירא אלוהים אתה, normally translated as “now I know that you are truly G’d-fearing,” would have a different meaning if the letter ד in ידעתי had a dagesh in it. It would become transitive in meaning, i.e. “Avraham made known (to the world) who and what he was in relation to G’d.” Another example where a minor change in vocalization makes a substantial difference in meaning is found in Exodus 2,5 in connection with how the daughter of Pharaoh saved Moses. The conventional reading of the words is ותשלח את אמתה ותקחה, “she dispatched her maid and took it (the basket).” The word אמה then would have the same meaning as the word שפחה. However, one can understand the word אמתה as meaning “her arm” indicating a miraculous lengthening of her arm; this is the way the sages in Sotah 12 understood it as if the letter מ had a dagesh in it. There are numerous such examples throughout the Torah. הרגני נא הרוג, “please kill me (now).” It is possible to explain the repetition of the infinitive here as referring to the original person whose soul had been reincarnated in Moses’ body, i.e. Hevel. He meant that he preferred to be killed by G’d now and not by the hands of mortal man later on. According to the Midrash, Moses pleaded with G’d to “kill the one who was already dead” [seeing that his original incarnation had been killed this would not account as a death wish which is halachically inadmissible. Ed.] He implied: “if I speak to the Israelites opposing their demand they will kill me. If I fail to carry out Your instructions I will make myself liable to the death penalty. In other words, I am dead already.”
Kli Yakar
And if this is what You do to me. Rashi explained that Moses’ strength was weakened [tashash] like a female, and many who saw this were puzzled by this interpretation — for why would Moses use the feminine pronoun At [You — feminine form] toward the Almighty just because his strength was weakened like a female? But I say there is no difficulty at all, because our Sages of blessed memory said (Yalkut Shimoni Ha’azinu 945) that the righteous add strength to the Power above, as it is said And now, I pray, let the power of the Lord be great (Numbers 14:17), while the wicked weaken His strength, as it is said You neglected [teshi, here understand as weakened] the Rock who begot you (Deuteronomy 32:18). The explanation of this matter is that due to the cessation of divine influence because of the actions of the wicked, it appears as if there is weakness in strength, so to speak. And here, because the hands of the lover [Moses] became weak and his strength diminished like a female, he did not have the strength to add power to the Might above. Therefore, he used the feminine pronoun At toward the Almighty to indicate that one thing depends on the other, and this is a precious interpretation. And it is reasonable to understand that this refers to what was written “as a nursing father carries,” and it did not say “nurse” [female form]. Abarbanel explained that You make me like a male nursemaid who carries the infant but has no breasts to nurse the child when he cries; similarly, I have no means to fulfill their requests. And regarding this it says, if You [At] deal thus with me — for this feminine comparison is applicable to You, as it were, because it is in Your power to quench their thirst, and You are able as a man [with power], so how can You impose the female likeness upon me when I am male without breasts to nurse? The comparison to You, the Most High, is not about weakness, God forbid, but rather indicates capability, like a female who has breasts to nurse.
Tur HaArokh
ואם ככה את עושה לי, “and if this is how You deal with me, etc.” Rashi says that the feminine mode in the word את instead of אתה when addressing Hashem, is an allusion to the fact that Moses’ spiritual reserves were close to being exhausted. Nachmanides writes that he did not understand Rashi’s conclusions about the use of the word את, seeing that Moses employed this pronoun of G’d while addressing Him. According to the plain meaning of the text the pronoun את is indeed found being used when addressing a male as in Ezekiel 28,14: את כרוב ממשח הסוכך, “You-who have been anointed to act as protector, etc.” [According to this Moses would accuse G’d of treating him as no longer deserving to be regarded as possessing the strength expected of a male. Of course, Moses would have brought this upon himself by his self-admitted inability to deal with the people’s challenges. Ed. Rabbi Chavel cites an interesting commentary on our verse by Rabbi Wolf Heidenheim.] הרגני נא הרוג, “”then kill me now!” Moses requested that G’d dispatch one of His agents to kill him even by the sword used by a human being, as he considered it preferable to die at the hands of a human being to continuing to live a life full of frustration. Alternately, he asked for a different mode of death, and he used the word הרג, as one would say המיתני, “arrange for my death forthwith.” ואל אראה ברעתי, “so that I will not have to watch my wretchedness.” The words call to mind when Jonah said to G’d repeatedly טוב מותי מ.., It is better that I die (now) than…” (Jonah)
Daat Zkenim
ואל אראה ברעתי, “so that I do not have to look at my wretchedness.” Moses prefers to die immediately instead of his fate remaining tied to theirs.
And Hashem said to Moses: "Gather to Me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them to the tent of meeting, that they may stand there with you.
verse value 6360 — יְהֹוָ֜ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 21 words, 91 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֜ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "there" (שָׁ֖ם, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·let·them·take·their·place" (וְהִֽתְיַצְּב֥וּ, 7 letters). 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "gather·for·me" (אֶסְפָה־לִּ֞י), "that·they" (כִּי־הֵ֛ם), "and·officers·of·it" (וְשֹׁטְרָ֑יו). The root זקן appears 2 times in this verse. 19 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 389x in Numbers); "and·he·said" (root אמר, 246x in Numbers); "whom" (root אשר, 223x in Numbers). First appearance of the root זקן ("of·the·elders·of") in Numbers. First appearance of the root יצב ("and·let·them·take·their·place") in Numbers. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'and·officers·of·it', dividing the verse into phrases of 14 and 7 words.
Onkelos
And Hashem said to Moses: Gather before Me seventy men from the elders of Israel, whom you know to be elders of the people and its officers; and bring them to the Tent of Meeting, and let them stand there with you.
Rashi
אספה לי GATHER UNTO ME [SEVENTY MEN OF THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL] — "This" — the Lord said — “is the reply to your complaint which you uttered (v. 14) I am not able to bear all this people alone”’ (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 92). But where were the first elders, that God commanded him to gather elders anew? Had they not sat as judges together with them (with Moses and Aaron) in Egypt, as it is stated, (Exodus 3:16) “Go and gather the elders of Israel together”? But these had died by the consuming fire of Taberah (v. 3). They really had deserved this for their conduct at Sinai, as it is said, (Exodus 24:11) "And they beheld God” which means, that they comported themselves irreverently towards God — like a person who nibbles his bread and at the same time addresses the king — for this is the meaning of the words, “[And they saw God] and ate and drank”. The Holy One, blessed be He, however, did not wish to give any cause for mourning at the joyous event of the Lawgiving, and therefore punished them here (at Taberah) (Midrash Tanchuma, Beha'alotcha 16). אשר ידעת כי הם וגו׳ WHOM THOU KNOWEST TO BE [THE ELDERS OF THE PEOPLE, AND BAILIFFS OVER THEM] — i.e. them whom thou knowest to have been appointed officers (שמרים) over them (the Israelites) in Egypt in connection with the rigorous labour imposed on them, but they pitied them and were smitten by the Egyptian taskmasters on their account — as it is said, (Exodus 5:14) “and the officers of (שמד) the children of Israel were smitten”. Now they were to become officers in their greatness (now when the Israelites had become great) just as they had suffered when they (the Israelites) were in distress (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 92). ולקחת אתם AND TAKE THEM [UNTO THE APPOINTED TENT] — win them over with fine words: “Happy are you that you are appointed chiefs over the children of the Omnipresent God” (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 92). והתיצבו שם עמך AND LET THEM PLACE THEMSELVES THERE WITH THEE, in order that the Israelites may see it and do them high esteem and honour, saying, “Beloved indeed must these be since they may enter together with Moses to hear Divine utterance from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He!” (Sifrei Bamidbar 92).
Ramban
AND THE ETERNAL SAID UNTO MOSES: GATHER UNTO ME SEVENTY MEN OF THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL. Our Rabbis have already mentioned that there are seventy nations with seventy languages, each one having a constellation in the heavens with a prince above it, as it is said in the Book of Daniel, and the prince of the kingdom of Persia, and it is [further] written with reference to the kings of Greece, lo, the prince of Greece shall come; and it is about this that Scripture states, And the Eternal will punish the host of the high heaven on high. The Rabbis have also said that the [seventy] bullocks [brought as offerings on the seven days] of the Festival of Tabernacles allude to them. [A similar reference to the seventy princes we find, in connection with the Tower of Babel] in the Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer: “Said the Holy One, blessed be He, to the seventy kings that surround the throne of His Glory: ‘Let us come and confound their language.’” It was for this reason that the number of those who went down to Egypt was seventy, and that He commanded that there should be this number of judges in Israel [as is stated in the verse before us], for this number includes all opinions [that are possible in a given case] since it comprises all powers, and there will not be anything too hard for them. Similarly at the Giving of the Torah [special prominence was given to] seventy elders of Israel, and it is fitting that the Glory of the Divine Presence should rest upon [a group of] this perfect number, since it is [comparable to] the camp on high, for Israel are the hosts of the Eternal on earth, just as the ark and its cover and the Tabernacle were all made in the likeness of those that minister [before Him] on high. So also were the [four] standards made in the image of the Divine Chariot which Ezekiel saw, in order that the Divine Presence should rest upon them on earth as it is present in the heavens. Now Moses was above the seventy elders [in authority], thus alluding to Israel, a nation one in the earth. And our Rabbis have received by tradition that every Sanhedrin (Great Court) that sits in G-d’s House in the place which He shall choose on which to rest His Presence, should consist of this number, seventy, with the head [of the Court] above them [in authority] like Moses our teacher, and thus they comprise [a Court] a seventy-one [judges, and with the Divine Presence in their midst they are seventy-two]. Similarly the letters in the Great Ineffable Divine Name are seventy-two, corresponding to the seventy princes [of the seventy nations, together with Israel, making seventy-one nations], and the One G-d who is the sole Master over all. It is to this that Scripture hints in saying, G-d standeth in the congregation of G-d; in the midst of the judges He judgeth, for the Divine Presence is with them to assent to their judgment. And Scripture further states, How long will ye judge unjustly?, thus admonishing [and saying] that since the Glorious Name is with them in givin...
Ibn Ezra
"Gather to Me" (אֶסְפָה לִּי) — this is an unusual word; it may be so because of the guttural letter [he], similar to עַרְכָהּ לְפָנַי הִתְיַצְּבָה. "And its officers" (וְשֹׁטְרָיו) — for there are elders who are advanced in years but are not fit to serve as officers, and there are officers who are not elders.
Or HaChaim
אספה לי שבעים איש, "gather for Me seventy men, etc." G'd did not say: "gather the seventy elders for Me." This is proof of what Bamidbar Rabbah 15,21 stated that the elders who had accompanied Moses on the way from Egypt had all been killed at the same time as Chur the son of Miriam. This is why G'd instructed Moses to appoint others in their place from amongst the elders of Israel. G'd added the word לי "for Me," to tell Moses that he must have in mind that these elders would perform a task for G'd so that he would not be misled by Satan to appoint someone not qualified. Once Moses had the right intention in appointing them he would be protected by the principle that people in the process of performing a good deed will not be thwarted in their intention. Another meaning of the word לי is that G'd would confirm the appointments and the authority of these elders would be derived directly from G'd rather than merely from Moses. G'd also used this word to encourage people to accept this position as they might have been afraid remembering the fate that had befallen the first set of elders who had been murdered by the mob. By describing the appointment of these elders with the word אסיפה, a term used for death, G'd made clear that He considered the elders who had been killed as having died in the service of the Lord. Compare Psalms 44,23 כי עליך הורגנו כל היום, "for it is for Your sake that we are getting killed all day long." זקני העם ושוטריו, the elders of the people and its officers." They should be people who could command the respect and obedience of the people. All this is implied in the word ושוטריו.
Chizkuni
אספה לי שבעים איש, “gather for me seventy men;” the number 70 is symbolic of the original seventy Israelites that left the land of Canaan to go to Egypt, as well as the seventy elders that were the leaders of the people at the time of the revelation at Mount Sinai. (Exodus 24,1) It also symbolises the seventy families mentioned in the census reported in Numbers chapter 26, as well as the members of the Supreme Court, Sanhedrin, excluding its president, in later Jewish history.
Rabbeinu Bahya
אספה לי שבעים איש מזקני ישראל אשר ידעת כי הם זקני העם ושוטריו, “gather for Me 70 men from among the elders of Israel whom you know to be elders of the people and its officers.” G’d meant that Moses was aware that the people in question had demonstrated empathy for the people in Egypt absorbing physical punishment on their own bodies rather than inflicting it on their charges. The officers were the ones of whom we read in Exodus 5,14 that “they were beaten by their Egyptian counterparts” for having displayed sympathy for the Jews they were in charge of. They had acquired experience in the qualities needed to deal with the people, and they had established a reputation for fair play. Even though the wording “gather for me” suggests that the people who were being selected now were a new phenomenon, this was not so. The number of Israelites who originally descended to Egypt was 70; this was the number of people who could spread blessing on their offspring. The number attained great symbolic significance, became an example of the concept that there were never fewer than 70 people devoted to the study of the Abrahamitic tradition. They were the ones whom Moses was commanded in Exodus 3,16 to take along for his first interview with Pharaoh, although there we are not given a number (compare Yuma 28). These same 70 elders mentioned here were also the ones mentioned in Exodus 24,8 where they are linked with Nadav and Avihu, Moses and Aaron, as the elite of the Jewish people. In spite of these seventy elders who had already practiced their leadership qualities, the ones whom G’d wanted Moses to gather now were not the same as the ones with whom we are familiar. Those 70 elders had died at Taveyrah having been slated to die already from the time at Mount Sinai mentioned in Exodus 24 when they had feasted their eyes on a vision of G’d and had continued to eat and drink as if nothing extraordinary were taking place. G’d had not killed them at the time as it was a time of joy for the people. Although the Torah describes the elders Moses is to gather now as people whom Moses was personally familiar with, this must not mislead us into thinking that they were the same elders who were mentioned in Exodus. From the days the Israelites moved to Egypt throughout the period of even the first and second Temple there were never fewer than 70 such people who possessed all these qualifications for being the senior presidium of the people. These seventy people now selected plus Moses, i.e. a total of 71, corresponded to a similar quorum in the celestial spheres where 70 angels presided over by G’d Himself function as the highest tribunal. At the time when Yaakov descended to Egypt he also was the 71st person who presided over the 70 biological descendants of him who traveled with him. You find a statement in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 24 according to which when G’d said in Genesis 11,7: “come, let us descend and confuse their language,” the reference was to G’d and these seventy angels who form His inner cabinet, also known as His Sanhedrin. We derive this from the verse there starting with the word 'וה', i.e. G’d and some one else. Every time we encounter such a verse it means that G’d together with His Sanhedrin were involved in what follows. Having appreciated this we can also understand the first verse in the Book of Exodus where the Torah writes: “and these are the names of the Children of Israel who came to Egypt with Yaakov, etc.” The words: “with Yaakov” mean that their arrival and continued successful existence in Egypt was due to their patriarch Yaakov. When the Torah there adds the words איש וביתו באו, these words have an additional meaning, i.e. that the Shechinah and its entourage also accompanied the Israelites to Egypt, as I pointed out in my commentary on that verse. There are several occasions when the euphemism for the great name of G’d א-ד-נ-י is spelled with an additional letter ו in the middle to give us the numerical value of 71, i.e. the attribute of Justice with its full complement of the celestial Sanhedrin (compare Amos 7,7 where the word אנך also has the numerical value of 71 to make our point still stronger.) [The prophet described a vision of the attribute of Justice threatening to lay waste Jerusalem Ed.]. When the Torah in our chapter verse 24 instructs Moses to position these seventy elders around the Tent of Meeting, this is to symbolize the seventy angels which surround the throne of the Lord in the celestial regions. The greatness of Moses can be discerned from the fact that G-d asked him to confer some of his Holy Spirit onto these seventy elders, just as G-d himself equips the seventy angels in heaven with His Holy Spirit. This is the meaning of ויעמד אותם סביבות האהל "He stood them around the Tent of Meeting", for the Holy Ark inside the Tent of Meeting represented the throne of G’d in the celestial regions as I have explained in Parashat Terumah (Exodus 25,10). A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Behaalotcha 11: the words אספה לי are reminiscent of 13 different items which G’d has an exclusive claim on as they are all associated directly with the name of the Lord. They are: silver, gold, the priests, the Levites, the Jewish people, the firstborn, the altar, the terumah., (first tithe of the grain harvest for the priests), the oil of anointing, the Tabernacle, the dynasty of David, the sacrificial offerings, the land of Israel, and the elders. The author lists 13 verses in each of which the word לי appears to signify that the phenomenon mentioned is G’d’s. The Midrash interprets Amos 9,6: “Who builds His chambers in heaven, and founded His vault on earth,” as describing a palace built on a number of ships which are tied together. As long as these ships remain closely linked together the walls of the palace remain intact. G’d built the heavens on the assumption that the twelve tribes of the Jewish people remain closely linked to one another. The celestial structure’s integrity is linked inextricably to the fate of the Jewish people, i.e. to their conduct. The Midrash extrapolates further on the appropriateness of the word אספה, “gather, assemble,” by quoting from Deut. 33,5: “then he became king in Israel when the people assembled.” The Midrash goes on to explain the function of these elders by quoting Kohelet 12,11: “the words of the sages are like goads.” Just as it is the function of the goads to prompt the animal to plough straight lines, so the function of the elders is to see to it that the Jewish people “toe the line,” i.e. obey the commandments of the Torah meticulously. They are to reveal different aspects of the Torah to the people. There are three Hebrew words, each of which means “goad;” they are דרבן, מלמד, מרדע. The word דרבן suggests that the sages instill some דר, i.e. בינה, insight, in the cow (people). The word מלמד suggests that the goad teaches the animal to plough properly. Finally, the word מרדע, suggests that the goad imbues the cow with some דעה, knowledge. The Talmud Chagigah 3, in commenting on these words of Solomon, says that the comparison of the words of the sages to a goad is because just as the goad ensures that the cow will contribute to life on earth through ploughing, etc., so the function of the teachings of the sages is to bring life into the world. After all, the whole purpose of Torah is to enrich life, to ensure that life continues, etc. They are to steer its students away from paths which lead to death to paths which lead to life. Just as the goad causes the cow to move forward, so the words of the sages teaching Torah prompt their listeners to move forward spiritually. The word used there, i.e. מיטלטל, also can be understood as משמרות נטועים, “firmly embedded nails,” (continuation of the verse from Kohelet quoted above). Just as a well driven nail is permanent so should be the words of the sages. The word נטועים used by Solomon for the nails can also mean that just as that which is planted will produce new plants, fruit, so the words of the sages when properly planted will produce “offspring” in due course. Another view concludes that Solomon means that one must not study books other than those of the Bible as the word משמרות used here for “nails” is not spelled with the customary letter ס but with the letter ש, an allusion to the different divisions of the priests which were divided into 24 such משמרות parallel to the 24 Books of the Bible. The בעלי אסופות, “masters of collections” mentioned by Solomon in that same verse are the people in charge of arranging these compositions of the groups of priests were the Sanhedrin seeing the Torah used the expression אספה לי here in connection with the selection of the elders. Solomon concludes his verse saying “they have all been given by one shepherd (G’d),” in order to forestall the thought that the different sages will arrive at different meanings of the Torah and would contribute disunity rather than unity. The sages are not to be classified as one group which issues edicts prohibiting things whereas a competing group concentrates on permitting that which is forbidden. If they were perceived as doing so the people would throw up their hands in despair asking how they could possibly study authentic Torah!?
Tur HaArokh
אשר ידעת כי הם זקני העם ושומריו, “whom you know to be the elders of the people and its officers.” Ibn Ezra writes that there are elders who are not qualified to perform both the tasks G’d describes here.
Daat Zkenim
אספה לי שבעים איש, “assemble seventy men for Me.” Why did G–d say: “for Me,” and why did He say: איש, “man,” singular mode, instead of אנשים, “men,”? In both instances the wording implies that the men selected were to be especially outstanding people. G–d Himself is described by Moses in his song of gratitude for the Israelites’ deliverance from the armies of Pharaoh as איש מלחמה, “man of war.” (Exodus 15,3) and when the Torah wishes to compliment his humility, it does so by calling him: והאיש משה עניו מאד, “and the man Moses, was exceedingly humble.” We did not need to be told that Moses was a man; the Torah wished to add this word as a mark of Moses’ outstanding distinction. The Talmud, in tractate Sanhedrin, folio 36, understands Numbers 11,16: והתיצבו שם עמך, “so that they may stand there with you,” as meaning that these men should be of a stature similar to that of Moses. [The word עמך in that verse was not really necessary, as it would have been understood automatically that these men were to stand there alongside Moses. Ed.] An alternate interpretation: the word לי, refers to the fact that the whole universe belongs to Hashem. The function of the seventy men to be selected by Moses is to ensure that the universe and its people created by G–d will endure, i.e. that His rules for it should be observed. We have a verse in Amos 9,6: הבונה בשמים מעלותו ואגודתו על ארץ יסדה, “He Who builds His chambers in the heavens, and founded His vault on the earth.” The prophet means that G–d’s creative work regarding the earth, was conditioned on people helping Him to keep it in shape. If earth were to collapse due to man’s failings, G–d would have no reason to keep the heavens going either. Bamidbar Rabbah, on Numbers 15,24 illustrates this by the following parable. When palaces have been built on the decks of ships, as long as these palaces are connected to their bases, the ships, all is well, once the palaces have been detached from the ships, these ships have no reason for further existence. אשר ידעת כי הם זקני העם, “whom you have known to be the elders of the people;” they allowed themselves to be beaten rather than to impose more hardships on their fellow Jews. Compare Exodus 5,14, regarding this. We have a tradition that anyone who deliberately suffers in order to spare fellow Jews suffering, will eventually be rewarded by being appointed to an important position, and will be granted a measure of Holy Spirit.
And I will come down and speak with you there; and I will extend from the spirit which is upon you, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with you, that you bear it not yourself alone.
verse value 6552
Insights
Verse structure: 17 words, 74 letters. Verse gematria: 6552 is divisible by 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "there" (שָׁם֒, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·I·will·come·down" (וְיָרַדְתִּ֗י, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 130: with·you, is·on·you. 7 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "and·I·will·come·down" (וְיָרַדְתִּ֗י), "and·I·will·speak" (וְדִבַּרְתִּ֣י), "and·I·will·draw·upon" (וְאָצַלְתִּ֗י). The root עם appears 2 times in this verse. 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "that" (root אשר, 223x in Numbers); "and·I·will·speak" (root דבר, 149x in Numbers); "is·on·you" (root על, 128x in Numbers). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'upon·them', dividing the verse into phrases of 10 and 7 words.
Onkelos
And I will be revealed and speak with you there, and I will increase from the spirit that is upon you and place it upon them, and they shall bear with you the burden of the people, so that you need not bear it alone.
Rashi
וירדתי AND I WILL COME DOWN [AND SPEAK WITH THEE THERE] This is one of the ten instances of the use of the term “coming down” written in the Torah to describe a Divine manifestation on earth (Sifrei Bamidbar 93). ודברתי עמך AND I WILL SPEAK WITH THEE but not with them (Sifrei Bamidbar 93). ואצלתי — Understand this as the Targum does: AND I SHALL MAKE GREAT. Similar is (Exodus 24:11) “And upon the great men of (אצילי) the children of Israel [He laid not his hands]”. ושמתי עליהם AND I WILL PUT IT UPON THEM — What was Moses like to at that moment? He was like to a light that is placed in a candlestick at which everybody lights his lamps and yet its illuminating power is not the least diminished (Sifrei Bamidbar 93). ונשאו אתך AND THEY SHALL BEAR [THE BURDEN OF THE PEOPLE] WITH THEE — stipulate with them that they shall join you on the understanding that they take upon themselves the burden of my children — because they are troublesome people and refractory (Sifrei Bamidbar 92). ולא תשא אתה לבדך THAT THOU BEAR IT NOT THYSELF ALONE — Here you have the answer to what you have said, (Numbers 11:14) “I am not able [to bear all this people] alone” (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 93; Rashi on Numbers 11:16).
Ramban
AND I WILL COME DOWN AND SPEAK WITH THEE THERE, ‘V’ATZALTI’ (AND I WILL TAKE OF THE SPIRIT) WHICH IS UPON THEE, AND WILL PUT IT UPON THEM. The intention of the verse is to say that the transmission [of the spirit resting on Moses to the seventy elders] will take place at the time when G-d will speak to Moses; and it will be from that [Divine communication that the prophetic power will be transmitted to them], as is stated at the actual occurrance [of the events], And the Eternal came down in the cloud, and spoke unto him, [and took of the spirit that was upon him, and put it upon the seventy elders]. Now Scripture did not explain here what this communication was about, as is [usually] written in the whole Torah, where after [stating that G-d spoke to Moses] it explains what the Eternal said and what He spoke. [The reason for this is] that what happened here was that the elders, of whom Scripture states that they prophesied, did not hear any communication from the mouth of G-d, nor did He appear to them in a vision or in a dream, but G-d spoke to Moses, and from the atziluth [as is explained further on] of the spirit upon Moses, they understood that Divine communication. This is the sense of the expression, and they prophesied, but they did so no more, meaning that they did not continue receiving Divine communication on their own, for it was only the communication that G-d said to Moses in which they shared. This is also the meaning of v’atzalti [of the root eitzel — “near”], that “I will hold back with Me of the spirit which I put upon you, and I will put it upon them.” This is not the same idea as in the verse, and thou [Moses] shalt put of thy honor upon him [Joshua], for the term atziluth always means “holding something back,” as in the expressions: And whatsoever mine eyes desired ‘lo atzalti’ (I did not keep) from them; ‘Halo atzalta’ (Hast thou not reserved) a blessing for me? Similarly, [Now the upper chambers were shorter, for the galleries took away from these, more than from the lower and the middlemost, in the building. For they were in three stories, and they had not pillars as the pillars of the courts;] therefore ‘ne’etzal’ (room was taken away) from the lowest and the middlemost, in comparison with the ground, meaning that more [room] was left by them [i.e., the upper chambers] relative to the ground, than by the chambers on the bottom and middle [stories], since their galleries did not take away from these upper chambers. Likewise, and to the ‘atzilei’ of the children of Israel means “those who were left and were separated from them, who were withdrawn to themselves from the rest of the ordinary people.” Or it may be that great men are so called [atzilim — from the root eitzel (near)] because everybody comes to them [for counsel and instruction]. And translators of languages use the term atziluth with reference to an emanation of any powers [coming forth] from the Creator and spreading to a created object. Thus they speak of th...
Ibn Ezra
"And I will come down" — the Glory descends in fire within the cloud. "And I will speak with you there" — and when you hear the Voice, they too shall hear it. "And I will take some" (וְאָצַלְתִּי) — the sense is: I will take from what is with you. Know that the spirit is like wisdom: if wisdom is given from Reuben's wisdom to Simeon, Reuben's wisdom is not diminished but remains as it was. The parable is that of a candle [lit from another candle].
Sforno
ונשאו אתך, seeing that they have now also attained the level of prophecy they are able to assist you in assuring the people get justice under your guidance because they see that the elders are with you and approve of what you are doing.
Or HaChaim
ואצלתי מן הרוח, "and I will hold back from the spirit, etc." The manner in which the Torah describes the transfer of part of Moses' Holy Spirit to the elders was meant to emphasise that Moses had possessed sufficient Holy Spirit to cope with the task allocated to Him by G'd. G'd did not need to increase the total amount of Holy Spirit available for that task. He simply reduced the amount of Holy Spirit which Moses had enjoyed up until that time. ולא תשא אתה לבדך, "so that you will not bear it alone." In this verse G'd precluded Moses from retracting on his complaint and expressing willingness to carry on as before. The words לא תשא are equivalent to G'd saying: "you will no longer carry the burden alone under any circumstances." The verse also hints that henceforth Moses' exalted position of authority would no longer be exclusive, and that he would have to share his authority. This is a secondary meaning of the word תשא, i.e. "you will no longer be the only one who has been elevated to high stature." I have come across the following remarks in Bamidbar Rabbah 15: "G'd said to Moses I have equipped you with sufficient insight and knowledge to be a provider for My children and you have been the only one equipped with such stature. From now on they will take from what is yours." According to the scholars who have said in Sanhedrin 17 that the words ולא יספו (11,25) mean that Eldod and Medod did not stop prophesying the words לא תשא may refer to a prophecy such as the word משא in Maleachi 1,1. Accordingly G'd told Moses that henceforth he would no longer be the only prophet in Israel but would have to share that distinction with the elders.
Chizkuni
ואצלתי מן הרוח אשר עליך, “and I will enhance some of the spirit that is part of you;” did G-d not have holy spirit that He could have taken from somewhere else other than Moses? We therefore must understand G-d’s words as follows: He told Moses that that he should judge the Jewish people and that He had given him sufficient wisdom to know how to this. How could Moses therefore complain that he could not do it by himself? (verse 14) If so, it was proof that he, Moses, had to share some of his holy spirit with the elders he would now appoint.
Rabbeinu Bahya
ואצלתי מן הרוח אשר עליך, “and I will increase some of the spirit which is upon you, etc.” Basically G’d is saying that at the very moment He will be speaking with Moses He will transfer some of Moses’ spirit onto these elders so that they will be able to be true partners in carrying the burden of leadership. This was G’d’s answer to Moses’ complaint: “I cannot carry the burden all by myself.” When G’d said: “when I speak with you there,” He meant that these seventy people would hear G’d speak with Moses, something that had not happened before seeing that G’d’s voice used to be audible only to Moses. The whole procedure was a reward for Moses who had said הרגני נא הרוג thereby indicating that he was willing to give his life on behalf of the people. Moses had also said ואל אראה ברעתי, “so that I will not have to see my evil,” when in fact he had meant “I do not want to see the evil which will befall them!” Through this procedure Moses’ stature was greatly enhanced in that he and his quorum of seventy elders from now on could be perceived as parallel to the celestial quorum which we described earlier. Moses’ position relative to the seventy elders compared to G’d’s position relative to the seventy angels who form His Sanhedrin. Any transfer of Holy Spirit from Moses occurred only at times when G’d would speak with Moses. This is clear from the wording of the Torah, i.e. “when I descend to speak with you there (at the tent of Meeting) I will increase from the spirit which is upon you, and place some on them so that they will carry with you the burden of the people and you do not have to carry the burden of the people all by yourself.” This is also exactly what happened. We read in verse 25 that G’d descended in a cloud and spoke to him (Moses) and He increased some of the spirit which was on Moses and transferred it to the seventy elders; when this occurred they began to prophesy but they did not do so again.” This verse was the answer to Moses’ question: “where can so much meat be found for them (in a natural manner, without miracle)?” G’d implied that seeing Moses’ spirit was only that of one man he could not understand what the combined spirits of seventy men could understand. Seeing that G’d was able to increase the perceptions of all these people, supplying them with additional spirit from Moses without depriving Moses of any of his spirit, surely G’d could similarly increase the amount of meat available in a natural way without creating “miracle” meat! At this point the author raises the technical question of how the people constituting Moses’ Sanhedrin were seated, etc., if similar to what the Mishnah describes that there was a נשיא, president, and an אב בית דין, a senior member of the Sanhedrin, sort of a deputy and the other members were seated opposite these two senior members in a semi-circle so that every member could see every other member of that quorum. Apparently, when someone was ordained a similar procedure was followed, all those participating in the procedure having full view of what was going on. (Sanhedrin 36 and Maimonides Hilchot Sanhedrin 1,3) You should know that the principal meaning of the word ואצלתי, is “the drawing forth,” i.e. continuing something by increasing it quantitatively. Clearly, this is the opinion of Onkelos who translates the word ואצלתי as וארבי, “I will increase.” Onkelos again translates the word ויאצל in verse 25 as ורבי, “He increased.” This is the reason that the word appears as denoting something G’d gave, i.e. ויתן על שבעים זקנים וגו'. When the Torah speaks of ועץ השדה יתן פריו, “that the tree(s) of the field will ‘give’ its fruit”- as part of a special blessing- the meaning is that it will give more than its normal amount of fruit (Leviticus 26,4). The word אצל means “an increase of spiritual values,” whereas the word יתן פריו refers to an increased material contribution. This is also the opinion of the philological experts, i.e. that ויאצל refers to המשכה, a continued and therefore increased presence of something. It is well known that the term אצילות and ויאצל is distinct in that increasing, giving, transferring described by this term imply that the original source or owner of what is being given or increased does not suffer a reduction in what he had before. In Sifri Behaalotcha 93 Moses is described as similar to a Menorah at that time from which many people draw light without the light of the Menorah being in any way diminished. Another description quoted by Tanchuma compares what occurred in our passage to the owner of an orchard who had hired a manager to supervise it. After a while, the supervisor told the owner that the task of looking after the entire orchard was too much for him and that he needed assistants The owner told the supervisor: “I have handed the orchard to you and now you tell me to give you assistants! O.K. I agree; however, you should know that the salaries needed to pay the assistants will be deducted from your salary. I am not going to allocate additional funds to supervising the orchard. The remarkable thing in this situation was that although the seventy elders derived their spiritual inspiration from Moses, Moses’ own Holy Spirit was in no way diminished. You should know that when after forty years G’d told Moses to place his hand on Joshua and to transfer to him some of his Holy Spirit (Numbers 27,18), the Torah describes what happened in these words: “Joshua, son of Nun, was filled with a spirit of wisdom because Moses had placed his hands upon him” (Deut. 34,9). G’d said: “in this present imperfect word only select individuals are given the gift of prophecy. There will come a time, however, when all the Israelites will prophesy.” We know this from Yoel 3,1: “it will be after that time I will pour out My spirit on all flesh and your sons and daughters will prophesy, your elders will dream visionary dreams and your young men will experience visions.” You have to realize that there is another dimension to the word and concept of אצילות, i.e. it is a concept which preceded the creation of the physical universe, the three stages of the coming into existence of the physical universe, i.e. בריאה, יצירה and עשיה. The world of אצילות combines within itself all the powers of the three worlds which we just mentioned seeing that it preceded them. The Torah had referred to the seventy elders who had been killed at Taveyra as אצילי בני ישראל, indicating that these people had possessed knowledge of such a world and had seen the full extent of it. The subject of אצילות has been dealt with both in scripture and in the writings of our sages but it appears under different headings. The terms used change according to the general context of where they appear. In Song of Songs 3,9 Solomon speaks about אפריון הנעשה מעצי הלבנון, “a palanquin made from wood of the Lebanon.” He means that something was derived from something else making it into something more valuable. The most important thing to remember when the term אצילות is used is that the one who “gives, provides, endows,” does not himself incur any loss through his conferring whatever it is he confers on someone else. Kabbalists use the term עקירה, “uprooting,” when they speak of something which experiences אצילות. The term “uprooting” is used in the sense of “transplanting” not in the sense of “destroying.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 15,1 speak of the verse in Psalms 104,16 “the trees of the Lord drink their fill, the cedars of Lebanon, His own planting.” According to the Midrash G’d uprooted the cedars and moved them to Gan Eden where He replanted them (i.e. in an even more ideal environment, thus adding to their stature, giving them אצילות) Rabbi Chaninah said that prior to being transplanted to Gan Eden these “cedars of the Lebanon were no taller than the feelers on certain types of grasshoppers. We must remember that vegetation on earth was the result of a directive from G’d to earth: “let the earth bring forth all manner of plants, etc.” (Genesis 1,11-12). When the psalmist speaks about G’d personally having planted these cedars there is obviously a question why G’d had to do this. Furthermore, when G’d is reported as having planted a garden in Eden (Genesis 2,8-9) the Torah does not say from where G’d took the plants for that garden. Solomon provided a partial answer to this question when he said that G’d planted these cedars in a place where G’d had done planting. Rabbi Yehudah describes the “promotion” of these cedars in the Lebanon as occurring in three stages, i.e. first according to the verse in Psalms “they drink their fill;” secondly, seeing that every plant requires irrigation, the trees enjoyed a sufficient amount of life-giving water; thirdly they were transplanted to near the source of life itself. At any rate we deal with a form of אצילות experienced by these trees.
Tur HaArokh
וירדתי ודברתי עמך שם, “I will descend and speak with you there.” Nachmanides writes that the meaning of this verse is that at the time when G’d would speak with Moses the transfer of some of his Holy Spirit to the elders concerned would take place, with these elders experiencing part of the conversation between G’d and Moses. This is not equivalent to what G’d had described in Numbers 27,20 as מהודך, “part of your glory,” when He instructed Moses to appoint Joshua as his successor. Interestingly, when G’d carries out in verse 25 what He had said to Moses here, we do not read a single word about the subject of G’d’s conversation with Moses. This was a departure from all other occasions when G’d was described as speaking to Moses. The reason is that here the whole purpose was for G’d to address these elders via Moses. The latter neither heard G’d’s voice, nor did they have any visual communication such as a dream in which G’d appeared to them. G’d spoke to Moses, and the elders, thanks to the transfer of some of Moses’ Holy Spirit, became instantly aware of a conversation between G’d and Moses being in progress. This is also the meaning of what we read in verse 25: ויתנבאו ולא יספו, “they prophesied but did not continue to do so.” In other words, they were not able to call on their prophetic spirit themselves but had been given such inspiration only with Moses as the vehicle. The meaning of the words ואצלתי מן הרוח אשר עליך, “I will deposit some of the spirit that is upon you placing it on them.” The meaning of the word אצל wherever it occurs is that that which is described as being נאצל is being arrested in a certain static condition, forever remaining dependent on its source. A well known example of the use and meaning of that word is found in Kohelet 2,10, “וכל אשר שאלו עיני לא אצלתי מהם, “and I did not deny, hold back from granting, anything which my eyes desired of the joys available in this world.” Similarly, when we read in Exodus chapter 24 about the אצילי בני ישראל, the reference is to the aristocracy of the Israelites, the ones who considered themselves apart from the multitude. When the word נבואה is used, however, the Torah speaks about a divine inspiration which comes from G’d directly, is not dependent on the input by another human being. Ibn Ezra understands the word ואצלתי as meaning something similar to אקח מאשר אצלך, “I will take something which is beside you, i.e. I will not thereby diminish what is yours.” Some commentators understand the meaning of אצילות as being similar to המשכה, “drawing something away.” Personally, I tend to believe that as long as the elders were being indirectly inspired via Moses that they could divine what it was that G’d expected of them and would command the people in any matters relating to the welfare of the people in all the happenings that the Torah reports as having occurred in the desert. This is the meaning of the words: ונשאו אתך במשא העם, “they will assist you in carrying the burden of the people.” They were informed of all that Moses would instruct the people to do; everyone would share this knowledge with his tribe. As a result, Moses would no longer carry the weight of their complaints all by himself.
Daat Zkenim
וירדתי, “and I (the Lord) will descend, etc.” from this we learn that this day was as important for G–d as the day when He gave the Jewish people the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai. We know this as it is the only day that has also been described as G–d descending. Compare Exodus 19,11, where the Lord has been described as descending to Mount Sinai on the third day of the people preparing for that event. (Bamidbar Rabbah 15,25) ואצלתי מן הרוח אשר עליך, “I will draw on the spirit that is on you, etc.;” what transpired now could be compared to a King who owned a beautiful orchard and had hired an expert to look after it all by himself. After a while this expert said to the owner that he could no longer fulfill this task all by himself, but that he wanted other guardians to share the burden with him The owner agreed with the condition that this expert would share the wages that had been paid to him thus far with his helpers as the King was not prepared to budget for additional expense for this orchard. G–d made it clear that he had equipped Moses with sufficient Holy Spirit for the task at hand, but that if he were prepared to distribute this mount of Holy Spirit also among the elders this was acceptable to Him. G–d had resented Moses’ implication that he had not been equipped with the tools necessary to lead this people successfully without additional helpers. Proof that this had been G–d’s attitude can be found by the fact that 40 years later when Moses appointed a successor, Joshua, G–d told him to appoint only one single successor, not a team of leaders. (Numbers 27,18) When Moses transferred his authority to Joshua after forty years to Joshua, as described in Numbers 27,18, this did not result in Moses “losing” any of the Holy Spirit residing within him. According to Bamidbar Rabbah,15,25, we must simply understand this as if a candle imparted its light to another candle, without thereby becoming even one iota less capable of giving of its light to its surroundings.
And say to the people: Sanctify yourselves against tomorrow, and you shall eat flesh; for you have wept in the ears of Hashem, saying: Would that we were given flesh to eat! for it was well with us in Egypt; therefore Hashem will give you flesh, and you shall eat.
verse value 6559 — יְהֹוָ֜ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 22 words, 94 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֜ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "for" (כִּ֡י, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·to·the·people" (וְאֶל־הָעָ֨ם, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 502: meat, meat, meat. 6 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "and·to·the·people" (וְאֶל־הָעָ֨ם), "you·shall·say" (תֹּאמַ֜ר), "purify·yourselves" (הִתְקַדְּשׁ֣וּ). The root אכל appears 3 times in this verse. 16 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 389x in Numbers); "you·shall·say" (root אמר, 246x in Numbers); "will·give" (root נתן, 119x in Numbers). First appearance of the root מחר ("tomorrow") in Numbers. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'in·Egypt', dividing the verse into phrases of 17 and 5 words.
Onkelos
And to the people you shall say: Prepare yourselves for tomorrow, and you shall eat meat; for you have wept before Hashem, saying: Who will feed us meat? For it was good for us in Egypt — and Hashem will give you meat, and you shall eat.
Rashi
התקדשו means, prepare yourselves to receive punishment. Similarly it states, (Jeremiah 12:3) “and prepare them (והקדשם) for the day of slaughter” (Sifrei Bamidbar 94; cf. Rashi on Exodus 19:10).
Ibn Ezra
"Sanctify yourselves" (הִתְקַדְּשׁוּ) — the form הִתְקַדֵּשׁ is found both in a praiseworthy sense and in a derogatory one, as in הֵיקָּדֵשׁ, which denotes impurity.
Or HaChaim
התקדשו למחר, "sanctify yourselves against to-morrow, etc." According to Sifri on our verse the reason why G'd did not provide the meat until the following day was that they saw in the word התקדשו a warning of approaching disaster. This is how the Sifri words this. G'd said: "prepare yourselves for disaster." G'd wanted to issue a warning that the very fact that He granted their request for meat was some kind of disaster. He gave them a period of time to desist from their urge to eat meat. If they would repent G'd would relent from His intention to bring disaster upon them. ואכלתם בשר, "and you will eat meat." The additional letter ו at the beginning of the word ואכלתם refers to the period of preparation which had preceded the Israelites' eating of the meat (Sifri.) The verse would then have two messages, 1) prepare yourselves for disaster, 2) you will eat (meat). כי בכיתם, "for you have wept." This reveals that G'd pays (angry) attention to weeping. We need to understand why G'd considers the very act of weeping as something ugly, detestable. Weeping may be perceived as a manifestation of someone having totally abandoned any hope of achieving a certain important objective. Were this not so they should have at least asked G'd, much as a son asks his father for his heart's desire. When one weeps instead of asking G'd to grant one's wish, this reflects one's belief in G'd's inability to grant one's wish. The very words מי יאכילנו בשר, "who could possibly give us meat to eat?" indicate the lack of faith of Israel at that time. Sifri on our verse says that Israel said: "G'd is unable to provide our request." באזני השם. "in the ears of G'd." The Torah emphasises that the Israelites spoke thus (verse 5) although they must have been aware that G'd heard everything they said to Moses seeing He dwelt amongst them. It is a special חוצפה, effrontery, to utter such words when one knows G'd hears them. What they said in verse 6 was even worse, especially since G'd quotes them in our verse as having said that they were better off in Egypt than at present. כי טוב לנו במצרים, "for we were better off in Egypt." We have to analyse why the Torah uses the word כי in כי בכיתם in our verse. Was the fact that they cried a reason to provide meat? It appears exaggerated to polarize one's craving for meat to the point where one prefers slavery under sub-human conditions in Egypt. Perhaps, at that moment, their desire to eat meat was really so great that they were willing to return to Egypt [not necessarily as slaves, Ed.] in order to indulge their craving. Alternatively, we may understand that G'd understood the deeper meaning of the weeping as only superficially connected with their craving for meat. The truth of the matter was that G'd understood that they craved to return to Egypt, and that the non-availability of meat was only an excuse to hide the people's real complaint. In essence the Israelites preferred a sojourn in Egypt to having G'd in their midst. This is w...
Chizkuni
התקדשו למחר, “sanctify yourselves in preparation for tomorrow, (the 23rd of lyar) (see our author’s commentary on verse 4 in this chapter)
Rabbeinu Bahya
ואל העם תאמר התקדשו למחר, “and tell the people: ‘sanctify yourselves for tomorrow.’” According to Nachmanides, from the fact that G’d told Moses to tell the people to sanctify themselves without telling them what this sanctification was for (as he had done at Mount Sinai, or when the manna was about to descend), Moses understood that G’d was not going to provide meat by means of a miracle but by natural means.
You shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days, nor twenty days;
verse value 2665 — אֶחָ֛ד = 13 (echad/ahavah)
Insights
Verse structure: 15 words, 55 letters. Notable word values: "one" (אֶחָ֛ד) = 13, the value of echad ('one') and ahavah ('love'). Verse gematria: 2665 is divisible by 13, the value of echad ('one') and ahavah ('love'). The shortest word is "not" (לֹ֣א, 2 letters) and the longest is "you·shall·eat" (תֹּאכְל֖וּן, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 100: days, days. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "you·shall·eat" (תֹּאכְל֖וּן), "two·days" (יוֹמָ֑יִם). The root לא appears 5 times in this verse. 7 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "one" (root אחד, 165x in Numbers); "not" (root לא, 129x in Numbers); "day" (root יום, 122x in Numbers). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'two·days', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 9 words.
Onkelos
Not one day shall you eat, nor two days, nor five days, nor ten days, nor twenty days —
Ramban
YE SHALL NOT EAT ONE DAY. The meaning thereof is: “you shall not eat for only one day, nor only two days [but even a whole month]. Similarly, the phrase not once nor twice means “not only once nor twice.” And in my opinion it cannot be said of a person who eats or does something for many consecutive days that he ate or did [that action] for one day. Similarly it cannot be said of one who eats [something] for thirty consecutive days that he ate it for twenty days. Or it may be that the word “one” [Ye shall not eat ‘one’ day] is connected [with the following phrases]: “Ye shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor ten or twenty single [non-consecutive] days, but a full month.” Thus He gave them the meat which they craved for, but not the fish or the vegetables, for their main demand for which they wept was give us flesh. And the meaning of the expression, But even a whole month, until it come out of your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you is that He will give them a lot of meat, and they will eat it for a whole month to such a great extent that they will become sick of it, and they will consider it detestable and like a strange inedible food. According to the plain meaning of Scripture the following is what happened: On the first day [of their eating the meat] they were smitten with a very great plague and the people that were the first to lust died, these being the mixed multitude that was among them, also the children of Israel mentioned at the beginning who said, Who shall give us flesh to eat? But the rest of the people who wept afterwards family by family, every man at the door of his tent ate of it for a whole month until it became loathsome to them and they threw away any heaps they had left of it. And so does the psalm state: He caused flesh also to rain upon them as the dust; So they did eat, and were well-filled, and He gave them that which they craved. They were not estranged from their craving, their food was still in their mouths, when the anger of G-d went up against them etc. For some of them ate and were well-filled, but those who lusted did not satisfy their lust at all, for while their food was still in their mouths … the anger of G-d went up against them. Now the [Midrashic] interpretations of Rabbi Shimon and of Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi do not fit in properly with the language of Scripture, because He said, Now shalt thou see whether My word shall come to pass unto thee or not. And the interpretation of Rabbi Akiba who says that the words [of Moses] are to be taken literally, namely “Will it be enough for them?” is the true sense of Scripture, and this is the opinion of Onkelos [who translated umatza lahem — “will it suffice them?”]. But the event itself is amazing, as Rabbi Shimon said [commenting on Rabbi Akiba’s interpretation]: “The person of whom Scripture writes, he is trusted in all My house, would he say that G-d cannot supply enough for them!” Moreover, all of them had already seen far greater wonders than this! And Ra...
Ibn Ezra
"Not two days" — a doubling [of the negative, for emphasis]. "Five days" — corresponding to the fingers of one hand of the eaters. "Ten" — doubled with both hands; and even twenty — as in the proverb of those who say a person eats as much as the fingers of his hands and feet can count.
Or HaChaim
לא יום אחד, "not one day, etc." We must understand the reason why the Torah describes the time the Israelites would eat meat in such detail when the gist of it could have been written in far fewer words. I believe the key to understanding this lies in our previous commentary on the second ואכלתם being a command rather than a promise. Some people can satisfy their craving for meat after having eaten meat one day, whereas others may require a far longer period on a meat diet before they have satisfied their craving. The Torah warns that even people who normally can satisfy their craving after a single day will not be allowed to do so; similarly, people who would normally require say ten days to satisfy their craving would not be allowed to do so. The respective introduction: "not one day," "not two days," etc., are to tell us that the normal manner in which these people satisfy their cravings would not apply in this instance. The limit the Torah prescribes is 30 days, at which time the meat would become repulsive. This teaches that if someone stopped eating meat before these thirty days were complete he would have violated the positive commandment of ואכלתם.
Rabbeinu Bahya
לא יום אחד תאכלון ולא יומים, “You will not only eat it for a single day or two days, etc.” The numbers here are usually doubled up, i.e. not one but two, not five but ten, not ten but twenty. It is as if G’d were saying they will eat as much as they could, employing all the fingers on hands and feet in the process. The final statement “until a full month of days,” suggests that until the moon has come full circle the people will still be busy wolfing down the meat. The words: “until it will come out of your nose,” suggests that until the smell of the meat evaporates seeing that the smell is concentrated in the nose. The words: “it will become nauseating for you,” refer to the fact that that which had previously been the object of your irrepressible desire will instead become something nauseating for you. We find a similar phenomenon after Amnon had raped his half-sister Tamar when his erstwhile love for her turned into an abiding hatred (Samuel II 13,15). The reason the word לזרא is spelled with the letter א at the end instead of the letter ה, is to describe the intense repugnance the people felt for the very meat they had craved so much only a month ago. Every time a word which is normally spelled with the letter ה is spelled with the letter א instead, the idea is to show the intensified measure of what the word represents. Examples are: when Naomi says she should be called the “bitter” one, meaning מרה, the author of the Book of Ruth spelled the word with the letter א at the end to demonstrate the depth of Naomi’s embitteredness. She spelled it out saying המר שדי לי מאד, “G’d has caused me much to be bitter about.” A similar example is found in Daniel 11,44 where the word חמא, for anger or alarm, normally spelled חמה, is spelled with the letter א at the end to describe the profound alarm caused by the news described in that verse. What happened to the Israelites in this instance is only typical of what happens to people who overindulge their lust and craving for physical pleasures. They start out by complaining about physical pleasures denied them and neglect spiritual values in their headlong pursuit of these “apparent” pleasures only to find in the end that their very pleasures are the reason that they die prematurely. Solomon defined such supposedly sweet pleasure as נפת, saying of the seductress נפת תטופנה שפתי זרה וחלק משמן חכה, “her lips drip honey; her mouth is smoother than oil” (Proverbs 5,3). In the verse following Solomon describes the conclusion of that seduction as “in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword.”
Tur HaArokh
לא יום אחד, “not for one day, etc.” The meaning is “not for one day only are you going to eat meat;” Nachmanides holds that if someone eats, אוכל something for a number of consecutive days, or performs other tasks עושה, for a number of consecutive days, this is not described by the word אוכל or עושה respectively, and if someone eats something for 30 days consecutively it would be inappropriate to say that he has eaten for 20 days. [According to Rabbi Chavell, Nachmanides’ problem is why the Torah wasted time writing “not one day, not two days, not five days, not ten days, not twenty days, but a whole month of days.” He concludes that unless the Torah had added the words עד חודש ימים, “until a whole month of days,” I might have understood the days mentioned previous to that as not being consecutive days. In that event, eating meat at intervals for, say, twenty days would not have resulted in one’s becoming revolted at the mere sight of meat. It follows that the meaning of the words לא יום אחד, ולא חמשה ימים is not to be understood as we might think at first glance, but that they mean that if someone eats meat for a day, or he eats meat five days out of seven days in the week, his reaction to such a diet is completely different to someone who eats meat for 30 days consecutively. Alternatively, the Torah emphasized that the people would learn that when their craving would be indulged by G’d in accordance with their wishes, they would find out to their distress that what they thought would be a blessing could turn into a curse. Indulging a craving for meat without restraint has negative consequences that are not experienced when one eats vegetables or fish for the same number of days consecutively. G’d did not provide the people with a corresponding amount of fish and vegetables, although they had yearned for this also, as what had caused them to break out in weeping had been their unsatisfied craving for meat. Ibn Ezra writes that the choice of the Torah of the numbers 2,5,10,20 is not arbitrary but “two” is double of “one.” “Five” represents the number of fingers on one hand, “ten” is double that number, i.e. the fingers on two hands, twenty” is double that number again, i.e the number of fingers plus the number of toes.
Daat Zkenim
לא יום אחד ....ולא עשרים יום, “not one day or even not twenty days, etc.” Why did the Torah have to give us all these details, instead of simply writing that the people got quails lasting for thirty days? The days listed by the Torah here have to be viewed cumulatively, so that the quail episode extended for a period of 67 days. In the Jewish calendar year there are a total of 67 days which are holidays, i.e. the Sabbath days and the festivals. [This applies when the year has 354 days, seeing that it does not always have the same number of days. Ed.] The message is that on each of these days the consumption of meat is a mitzvah; on other days meat consumed on these days may have negative effects, as opposed to meat consumed in honour of the Sabbath or a festival. Personally, I prefer to understand the expression: לא יום אחד, “not one day, that there is one of those days, i.e. the Day of Atonement on which consumption of meat is forbidden. [The author continues in a somewhat forced manner to find justifications for each individual number listed. Since he has to resort to numbers which are appropriate only for the additional days for a festival observed in the Diaspora, and since at the same time he does not consider Purim as a day deserving be honoured by the eating of meat, I decided to skip this. Ed.]
but a whole month, until it come out at your nostrils, and it be loathsome to you; because that you have rejected Hashem who is among you, and have troubled Him with weeping, saying: Why, now, came we forth out of Egypt?"
verse value 5235 — וְהָיָ֥ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 21 words, 88 letters. Notable word values: "and·it·becomes" (וְהָיָ֥ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "until" (עַ֣ד, 2 letters) and the longest is "that·you·have·rejected" (כִּֽי־מְאַסְתֶּ֤ם, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 74: until, until. 5 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "from·your·nostrils" (מֵֽאַפְּכֶ֔ם), "loathsome" (לְזָרָ֑א), "that·you·have·rejected" (כִּֽי־מְאַסְתֶּ֤ם). The root עד appears 2 times in this verse. 19 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 389x in Numbers); "saying" (root אמר, 246x in Numbers); "who" (root אשר, 223x in Numbers). First appearance of the root מצרים ("from·Egypt") in Numbers. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'loathsome', dividing the verse into phrases of 9 and 12 words.
Onkelos
but for a full month of days, until you are surfeited with it, and it becomes a stumbling to you; in return for the fact that you despised the Word of Hashem whose Shechinah dwells among you, and you wept before Him, saying: Why ever did we leave Egypt?
Rashi
עד חדש ימים BUT EVEN A WHOLE MONTH [SHALL YE EAT] — This was said in reference to the comparatively virtuous, who languish on their beds and only afterwards their soul departs from them; in reference to the wicked, however, it states, (v. 33) “and while the flesh was yet between their teeth [the wrath of the Lord glowed against the people]”. Thus is it taught in the Sifrei Bamidbar 94. But in the Mechilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 16:13:1 (on Exodus 16:13) just the opposite is taught: the wicked ate the flesh and were in agony thirty days, while as for the comparatively virtuous, “the flesh was yet between their teeth, etc.” (they suffered no prolonged agony, but died immediately). עד אשר יצא מאפכם UNTIL IT COME OUT AT YOUR NOSTRILS — Understand this as the Targum does: until that you feel a loathing for it; i.e. it will seem to you that you have eaten more than enough of it, so that it will come out and be ejected by way of the nose. והיה לכם לזרא AND BECOME SOMETHING STRANGE UNTO YOU — This means, that you will cast it away from you even more readily than you previously welcomed it (Sifrei Bamidbar 94). But in the work of Rabbi Moses the Preacher, I have seen it stated that there exists a language in which they call a sword "זרא". את ה’ אשר בקרבכם [BECAUSE THAT YE HAVE SCORNED] THE LORD WHO IS AMONG YOU — The latter words appear superfluous, but they are taken to suggest: Unless I had planted my Shechinah among you your heart would not have become so arrogant as to engage in all these matters (Sifrei Bamidbar 94).
Ibn Ezra
"A full month" (חֹדֶשׁ יָמִים) — I interpret this as meaning until the moon's measure of light returns to what it was [i.e., a full lunar cycle]; similarly שְׁנָתַיִם יָמִים means a full two years. The meaning of "from your nostrils" (מֵאַפְּכֶם) is that the scent is in the nostril and the scent issues from it and is found no more. "Loathsome" (לְזָרָא) — with alef in place of heh, like קְרָאן לִי מָרָא (Ruth 1:20), for the letters alef, heh, vav, and yod are interchangeable. The meaning of לְזָרָא is: something strange and repugnant by nature, which a person has not been accustomed to.
Sforno
והיה לכם לזרא, they will eat so much of it that that it will cause an excess which in turn will produce sickness. This is what Assaph in Psalms 78,31 spoke about. למה זה יצאנו ממצרים?; we had such a variety of food there, not only manna.
Chizkuni
עד חדש ימים, “as long as a whole month.” The last day of that month was not included in the period that G-d is speaking of. According to the Talmud in tractate Taanit folio 29, the last day of that period would be the 23rd of Sivan. והיה לכם לזרא, “it will become loathsome for you.” The Torah substituted the letter א at the end of this word, where we would have expected the letter ה. There are other examples of this in the Bible, such as Ruth 1,20 קראן לי מרא, “call me the embittered one,” where we also would have expected the author to have written: מרה. The meaning of the word לזרא, is: להסיג, to remove, to vomit. Isaiah uses that expression in Isaiah 1,4 נזורו אחור, when describing the Jewish people’s moral turpitude by having turned their back on G-d and His commandments. We find it also in Numbers 17,2: as an imperative: זרה הלאה, “scatter it! (the destructive glowing coals on his pan containing incense). G-d commands the people to gorge themselves on the meat so much so that in the end it will become repugnant to them, no longer an object of their desire. Eventually, they will vomit it in disgust. לאמור למה זה יצאנו ממצרים, because you had the nerve to say: “why did we ever agree to leave Egypt?” G-d refers to the people having yearned for the fish they ate in Egypt without having to work or pay for. (verse 5)
Tur HaArokh
עד אשר יצא מאפכם, “until it comes out of your nose, etc.” They would gorge themselves on such large quantities of meat for an entire month that they would finally become revolted by it, and would vomit it. Eventually, they would view meat as something not fit to eat.
Rashbam
עד אשר יצא מאפכם, as per Onkelos, i.e. until you will vomit it. למה זה יצאנו ממצרים?, so that you could say “we remember the fish that we ate in Egypt” (verse 8). Seeing that you are so ungrateful you will be punished. If you had just felt a desire to eat meat, and had not at the same time used the opportunity to complain about your having left Egypt, you would not have been punished so severely. There had been many complaints of the Israelites that did not result in their being punished on account of them.
And Moses said: "The people, among whom I am, are six hundred thousand men on foot; and yet You have said: I will give them flesh, that they may eat a whole month!
verse value 5566
Insights
Verse structure: 17 words, 65 letters. The shortest word is "Moses" (מֹשֶׁה֒, 3 letters) and the longest is "six·hundred" (שֵׁשׁ־מֵא֥וֹת, 6 letters). 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "foot·soldiers" (רַגְלִ֔י), "you·said" (אָמַ֗רְתָּ), "and·they·shall·eat" (וְאָכְל֖וּ). The root אמר appears 2 times in this verse. 16 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·he·said" (root אמר, 246x in Numbers); "that" (root אשר, 223x in Numbers); "Moses" (root משה, 217x in Numbers). First appearance of the root רגל ("foot·soldiers") in Numbers. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'in·its·midst', dividing the verse into phrases of 9 and 8 words.
Onkelos
And Moses said: Six hundred thousand men on foot are the people among whom I stand, yet You say: I will give them meat, and they shall eat for a full month of days.
Rashi
שש מאות אלף רגלי [THE PEOPLE AMONGST WHOM I AM ARE] SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND FOOTMEN — He was not particular to mention also the odd number — the remaining three thousand. But Rabbi Moses the Preacher explained that the number 600,000 is exact because only those who went forth from Egypt wept (since only they could have said, (v. 5) “We remember the fish which we did eat in Egypt”, and they who left Egypt are described, as here, by the term רגלי added to the number 600,000; cf. Exodus 12:37).
Ibn Ezra
"Six hundred thousand on foot" — and there is no need to mention those of lesser [standing]. Many have interpreted this passage with various explanations. Some say that Moses uttered what the Israelites would say at the time they asked, 'What is this meat?' — and that the answer he was to give them was: 'You need not ask; is the hand of Hashem too short?' But I do not know why this difficulty [arises] at all, for the matter is straightforward: Moses did not know that Hashem would create a sign or wonder except in order to vindicate His prophet, as I will explain.
Sforno
שש מאות אלף רגלי, this will require a tremendous quantity of meat to satiate them. ואתה אמרת בשר אתן להם ואכלו חודש ימים, if so, this will amount to a huge amount, as also described in Psalms 78,27 וימטר עליהם כעפר שאר וכחול ימים עוף כנף, “He rained meat on the like dust, winged birds like the sand of the sea.”
Or HaChaim
ויאמר משה….הצאן ובקר ישחט, Moses said:…."Will flocks and herds be slaughtered, etc?" I find it incredible that Moses could have questioned G'd in such a manner, something that even a person of far lesser stature than Moses would not have dared. Some of our sages quoted in Sifri consider Moses' question as sinful, others understand Moses' question as querying why 600.000 Israelites should die eating meat. There are all kinds of homiletical answers. We must address the plain meaning of the words. Moreover, we must also understand why Moses repeated the words ואתה אמרת בשר אתן, "and You have said 'I will give meat;'" Besides, what did Moses mean about the flocks and herds? Surely the Israelites had sufficient flocks and herds with them to provide meat for thirty days! Did the Torah not make a point of saying in Exodus 12,38 that they took with them a large number of flocks and herds? Furthermore, why did Moses exaggerate so much when referring to: "all the fish in the ocean?" How could he speak about all the fish in the ocean being required to feed 600,000 people for thirty days when the entire population of the world is in the habit of eating fish all year round and the supply of fish is not exhausted? There may be two different approaches to explaining our verses according to the פשט, the plain meaning of the text. When G'd told Moses first that He would give the children of Israel meat to eat without specifying how much and for how long, Moses assumed that G'd spoke about one single category of meat. This is why he pointed out that there were 600,000 and that it was likely that in order to satisfy the people's craving there had to be more than one species of meat seeing each one of the Israelites craved for something different such as fowl, venison, fish, etc. Moses therefore queried: "and You have said: 'I will give meat,' i.e. only one category of meat?" He queried what kind of meat G'd planned to provide, if flocks, herds or fish? When Moses referred to fish, he did not refer to the total number of fish in the ocean but to all the varieties of fish in the ocean. The words ומצא להם, mean "could enough varieties be found to satisfy all the different tastes the Israelites craved to experience. He suggested that if G'd were to provide flocks and herds, they would claim they wanted gazelles and deer. If G'd were to provide those, they would claim that they wanted fowl. Moses mentioned only the two extremes, i.e. flocks and herds, and he spoke of fish to symbolise the various kinds of meat between herds and flocks. The words "all the fish in the sea" refer to the total number of varieties of fish. Basically, Moses certainly did not question G'd's ability but he mentioned the enormous effort G'd would have to make to satisfy these people's cravings. Had G'd been more specific saying He would provide the various kinds of meat there are, Moses would not have wondered about anything at all. We may assume that Moses' main purpose in raising objections...
Chizkuni
ויאמר משה: שש מאות אלף רגלי וגו, “Moses said: there are six hundred adult infantry soldiers, etc.” Moses is overwhelmed by the intended undertaking of G-d to supply such a vast number of human beings suddenly with meat to which they had absolutely no claim, by his appointing seventy elders to help him govern such a nation. He cannot understand why, on the one hand, G-d had told him to appoint for himself 70 people to help him govern such a stiffnecked people, and on the other hand, reward them by performing such a miracle for them at the same time. He is under the mistaken impression that these seventy men should act as the slaughterers for such a large number of people. How could even seventy slaughterers supply meat for about three million people?
Rabbeinu Bahya
שש מאות אלף רגלי העם אשר אנכי בקרבו, “six hundred thousand footmen are the people in whose midst I am, etc.” Moses did not bother to include the 3550 people who were in excess of the round number 600,000. When he mentioned that the task of finding meat for all these people was truly phenomenal, he did not mean to suggest that it was something beyond G’d’s ability to provide. He meant that such a large number of people deficient in faith in the Lord surely do not qualify for a miracle which G’d would have to perform to satisfy their request. He did not think that the required amount of meat could be found and served up by natural means. He did not think that all the livestock which the people had taken out of Egypt plus all the fish that could be hunted in the neighboring rivers where they were marching would supply a sufficiently adequate meat diet for them. All of these comments were phrased as a question. Moses’ whole approach to the subject was that he considered the demands of the people totally unjustified; this was not asking for bread or water but for luxuries! Asaph echoes these sentiments in Psalms 78,18 where he writes of the Israelites at that time: “to test G’d was in their mind when they demanded food for themselves.” They had demanded something which they thought was impossible to provide by natural means. When G’d replied to Moses: “is then the power of the Lord inadequate?” He meant not only am I able to provide all this for them by means of a miracle, but I am able to provide it even by natural means. He told Moses that he would witness that this was the case. He quoted the very fact that Moses would imbue seventy additional men with Holy Spirit without his own spirit being diminished thereby as proof that what did not appear to be available could become available without even depleting the source where the meat came from. As soon as Moses heard this he went and told the people what G’d had said; he gathered the seventy mean and positioned them around the Tabernacle as he had been instructed to do in verse 16 already. The next thing that happened was that G’d descended in a cloud and provided the seventy men with prophetic powers. The Torah then deals with Eldad and Meidad at length. The lesson to Moses was that although his spirit (רוח) was only one and yet it was sufficient to supply from it to seventy elders so G’d can provide sufficient meat for the people from a single natural source. This is the meaning of the verse that “a רוח went forth from Hashem and blew, etc.” The quails which flew in from the direction of the sea appeared to be a totally natural phenomenon. They had previously been congregating on the beaches at the sea and now were carried by the wind in the direction of the camp of the Jewish people. The expression ויגז שלוים מן הים, “it blew quail from the sea,” is related to the expression in Psalms 90,10 כי גז חיש ונעופה, “for it is soon cut off and we fly away.” This whole paragraph is a demonstration that G’d’s “hand,” (power) is unlimited, that He is able to provide such large quantities of meat not only by natural means but practically immediately, (so explains Maimonides). Regarding the expression היד ה' תקצר, “is the hand of G’d too short?” Why did G’d speak of His hand in the third person instead of saying: “is My hand too short?” Actually, the construction is not so unusual; we have already encountered it in Exodus 24,1 where the Torah wrote ואל משה אמר עלה אל ה', “and to Moses He had said: ‘ascend toward the Lord.’” There too the question would have been in place, why did G’d not say: “ascend to Me?” Rashi explains the words הצאן ובקר ישחט להם, “are sheep and cattle to be slaughtered for them?” (verse 22) as Moses asking: “why do the beasts have to die if instead of feeding the people and the food keeping them alive, the meat will actually cause their death!?” Moses based his question on G’d having told him previously that the meat would come out of the people’s noses (verse 20). He understood the words ומצא להם as “it will be their final meal!” Moses suggested it would not enhance G’d’s stature amongst mankind if He killed the people in the process of demonstrating His ability to provide them with meat. It is like saying to a horse: “eat a large measure of excellent barley and then we will cut off your head.” G’d answered him: “Do you think it is better for the people to think that I am unable to meet their demands? It is better that some of them die and not all of them think that I am unable to provide their requests.” G’d added: “now you will see whether My word comes to pass or not!” Rabban Gamliel, son of Rabbi Yehudah the prince (editor of the Mishnah), interpreted Moses’ question to mean that it is impossible to grant the people’s demands as they were not legitimate demands but attempts to discredit G’d. If G’d were to provide fowl, they would say that they wanted lamb; if He were to provide lamb, they would say they wanted beef. Seeing it was impossible to satisfy their demands, what was the point in even trying. They would anyway conclude that G’d was unable to meet their desires. Rabbi David Kimchi, quoting his father, has this to say on the subject: at the time when the Israelites uttered their demand for meat they possessed substantial herds of beef and large flocks of sheep. They could not eat any of these animals until they had been brought to the Tabernacle as sacrificial offerings (peace-offerings) first. After the slaughter the blood had to be sprinkled on the Altar and certain fat parts of the animals had to be burned there. A further restriction was the fact that anyone suffering from ritual impurity could not eat of such sacrificial meat until he had purified himself, a procedure which could take as long as seven days in the case of ritual impurity incurred through contact with the dead. Sacrificial meat must be consumed no later than 2 days after slaughter. This meant that many people would not be able to eat even the meat of their own animals. When Moses asked: “shall sheep and cattle be slaughtered for them?” He meant: “will the restriction that the people can consume only sacrificial meat be rescinded on account of their request?” When he added ומצא להם, “and be found for them,” he implied that in such an event there could indeed be an adequate supply of meat for the people by natural means. Moses implied that unless these restrictions were to be rescinded there could hardly be sufficient meat for all the people by natural means. G’d answered him that he would see that He was able to comply with the people’s request in a natural way without rescinding Torah legislation. There would not be a need to either provide sheep or beef or fish, and still the needs of the people would be met in full. The author accepts the part of the interpretation applicable to צאן ובקר, but does not think that it answers Moses’ question “if all the fish in the sea would be adequate?”
Rashbam
'ויאמר משה: שש מאות אלף וגו, we need to understand Moses’ words in the same way as when he had told G’d that the people “could not ascend the mountain” in Exodus 19,23. Of course they could have, but it was forbidden which to Moses meant that “they could not.” ואכלו חודש ימים, and he was also concerned about G’d’s threat that the meat would become repulsive to the people. (verse 20) He asked that seeing that there were over 600.000 adult males plus numerous children and women, the livestock of the people could hardly be sufficient to sustain such an ambitious program? He was afraid that possibly G’d had in mind to kill many of the people so that it would be possible to feed the survivors on the meat of their herds and flocks so that G’d’s prediction would come true. Alternatively, G’d would have to perform miracles for these people to supply them with meat, something Moses felt that they had hardly deserved. [at any rate, Moses did not mean to imply doubt about G’d’s ability to make good on what He had said. Ed.]
Daat Zkenim
'ויאמר משה שש מאות אלף וגו, “Moses said: six hundred thousand (men plus their families You will provide with meat?)” Many people are appalled at how Moses apparently questioned G–d’s ability to provide the people with such an amount of meat. This is why hagaon ha-rav Nissim suggests the following interpretation of this verse. Moses asked that while he was well aware of G–d’s ability to provide a quantity of meat to last the people for 30 days, but that seeing this meat was not provided by G–d as a gift but in order to make the meat something that revolted them, what was the point in letting so much meat rot, after a day or two, seeing they had no means to keep it edible? Not only that, but how could they collect all that meat in the single day that it materialized for them? Moses drew a comparison when he spoke about the fish in the ocean, saying that even if all of them could be trapped in a single net, no one could remove sufficient fish from that net in a single day to last the nation for thirty days.
If flocks and herds be slain for them, will they suffice them? or if all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, will they suffice them?"
verse value 2070
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 48 letters. Verse gematria: 2070 is divisible by 18, the value of chai ('life'). The shortest word is "or" (אִ֣ם, 2 letters) and the longest is "all·the·fish·of" (אֶֽת־כׇּל־דְּגֵ֥י, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 137: and·shall·suffice, and·shall·suffice. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "be·slaughtered" (יִשָּׁחֵ֥ט), "all·the·fish·of" (אֶֽת־כׇּל־דְּגֵ֥י). The root מצא appears 2 times in this verse. 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·herds" (root בקר, 43x in Numbers). First appearance of the root צאן ("flocks?") in Numbers. First appearance of the root שחט ("be·slaughtered") in Numbers. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'for·them', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 7 words. Full calculation: הֲצֹ֧אן [flocks?] (146) + וּבָקָ֛ר [and·herds] (308) + יִשָּׁחֵ֥ט [be·slaughtered] (327) + לָהֶ֖ם [for·them] (75) + וּמָצָ֣א [and·shall·suffice] (137) + לָהֶ֑ם [for·them] (75) + אִ֣ם [or] (41) + אֶֽת־כׇּל־דְּגֵ֥י [all·the·fish·of] (468) + הַיָּ֛ם [the·sea] (55) + יֵאָסֵ֥ף [be·gathered] (151) + לָהֶ֖ם [for·them] (75) + וּמָצָ֥א [and·shall·suffice] (137) + לָהֶֽם [for·them] (75) = 2070.
Onkelos
Can flocks and herds be slaughtered for them and suffice them? Or if all the fish of the sea were gathered for them, would they suffice them?
Rashi
הצאן והבקר ישחט SHALL THE FLOCKS AND HERDS BE SLAUGHTERED [FOR THEM TO SUFFICE THEM?] — This is one of those four things (Biblical passages) which R. Akiba interpreted in a certain way but R. Simeon did not interpret them similarly. Rabbi Akiba says: שש מאות אלף רגלי ... ואתה אמרת בשר אתן להם ואכלו חדש ימים הצאן ובקר — all this is to be taken literally and the words ומצא להם should be rendered by “would it suffice for them?”, in the same sense as we find this word used in (Leviticus 25:26) “and he have sufficient (ומצא כדי) for redeeming it" (ומצא להם is taken as the equivalent of ומצא כדי להם). Now — R. Akiba continued — which case was worse? This or that when Moses exclaimed, (Numbers 20:10) Hear now, ye rebels!?” Obviously this case here was worse, only because he did not utter his doubt in public, Scripture (God) showed some regard for him and did not punish him, whilst that sin at Meriba took place in public, therefore Scripture does not show any regard for him. Rabbi Simeon, however, says: “God forbid!” — “Such an idea never entered the mind of that righteous man! He of whom Scripture writes, (Numbers 12:7) ‘He is faithful in all my house’ — would he have said, ‘The Omnipresent cannot supply sufficient for us!’ But what he said was this: ‘[the people, amongst whom I am, are] six hundred thousand footmen; and Thou hast said, I will give them flesh, for a whole month — and then You want to kill a nation so great as this is?! Shall the flocks and the herds be slaughtered for them that they (the people) should immediately be killed, and this eating should be their last (lit., should satisfy them for ever: ומצא להם)?! Is this Your praise? Do people say to an ass, take (eat) this Kor of barley and then we will cut off thy head!’? The Holy One, blessed be He, thereupon said to him, ‘But if I do not give them flesh, they will say that My hand has waxed short; would it be pleasing to you that the hand of the Lord should appear in their eyes to have waxed short? — Let them and a hundred like them perish but let not My hand appear to them to have waxed short even for a single moment’!” (Tosefta Sotah 6:4)
Ibn Ezra
"And it will suffice them" (וּמָצָא לָהֶם) — according to the Aramaic translator's rendering. And how precious is the teaching of our early masters on the word יִשָּׁחֵט with regard to cattle, and יֵאָסֵף with regard to fish.
Sforno
At any rate, הצאן ובקר ישחט להם ומצא להם? how will that suffice to assuage their complaints, seeing that what they are really asking for is only in order to provoke, as pointed out in Psalms 78,18 וינסו א-ל בלבבם, “they provoked G’d in their hearts.” No doubt, just as they provoked, tested Your patience with this, they will do this with other foods, for no valid reason. The problem is that You will not deprive them of their freedom of will, as we know from the axiom “all is within the power of heaven except control of who will possess reverence for G’d.” (B’rachot 33).
Chizkuni
הצאן ובקר shall sheep and cattle be slaughtered? (seeing that they had asked for meat) ואם כל דגי הים, “or shall all the fish in the ocean (be caught)? (seeing they had recalled the fish they had eaten in Egypt with such nostalgia) ישחט להם...יאסף להם, “be either slaughtered for them, or caught for them?” Shall all of this be done by a mere seventy people? ומצא להם, “where could all this even be found, never mind slaughtered, in order to feed them for a whole month?!
Kli Yakar
Should sheep and cattle be slaughtered for them? The understanding from Rashi’s commentary is as if Moses doubted God’s ability, heaven forbid. And because this was said in private, the Holy One, blessed be He, spared him. But all commentators disagree with this interpretation and tried to justify Moses’s words, each according to his understanding. The most correct interpretation of all is derived from the phrase and it would suffice for them, because the meaning implies that slaughtering and gathering for them is possible in itself, but “sufficing them” is not possible. Since they are only seeking a pretext, even if you give them all the sheep and cattle and all the fish in the sea in the world, it would not suffice for them — it would not be enough for them because they would continue to rebel and seek pretexts. This seems to be the meaning from the statement if all the fish in the sea were gathered for them and suffice for them. Why repeat for them twice? He could have combined them and said “if all the fish in the sea were gathered and suffice for them.” But he made two distinct parts because one of them is possible and the other is impossible, since they are seeking a pretext. It’s possible that Rashi also believed that Moses never doubted God’s ability at all, and understood from his words the aforementioned interpretation or some other interpretation offered by the commentators. However, Rashi criticized him for saying his words in a manner that could give mistaken people room to err and say that he doubted God’s ability, heaven forbid, which would lead to desecration of God’s name. But since it was said in private, and he wasn’t concerned that the blind ones in the Hebrew camp might hear, he wasn’t careful with his language, as he was speaking with God, who understands his intentions, and not with those who err. But Listen, you rebels was said in public and all Israel heard it, as is known, therefore he was punished. Another explanation is that Moses spoke according to the natural order. For according to the natural order, they certainly would not find in the wilderness a sufficient supply of meat and fish unless through a miracle. And based on the magnitude of the miracle, they would deserve a greater punishment for burdening their Creator with their complaints. Therefore he said, Six hundred thousand foot soldiers, etc. and for this large population, providing sustenance would be a great miracle, and for a month of days is a long time, and You want to magnify the miracle in order to magnify their punishment — this is not appropriate. The Lord answered him: “If so, they will say that the Lord’s hand is shortened [unable to provide]. Better that they should perish than for them to say the Lord’s hand is shortened.” Regarding the allegorical interpretation, this verse calls for explanation, as one must question why the terms slaughtered and gathered are necessary. Is this verse now coming to teach us the laws of slaughtering animals and gathering fish? Furthermore, in their complaints they mentioned meat and fish, yet the Holy One, blessed be He, gave them a third species, as birds are not called “meat.” In a more distant interpretation, it can be said that there is an allusion here to what the ancients said: that the wicked are compared to cattle that require two simanim [signs] for kosher slaughter, just as the wicked are banished from both this world and the World to Come. The average people are compared to birds that are permitted with just one sign, just as they, after receiving their punishment in this world, have a portion in the World to Come. And the righteous are compared to fish, for which mere gathering suffices, and thus it is said of the righteous, “he was gathered to his people” (for example, Genesis 25:8), for their death is by divine kiss. And here, the fire of God had already burned among the chiefs and the outcasts, and they did not return to their folly. The craving ones were the average people, as understood from the phrase who were in their midst, meaning the middle or the center. They asked for meat and fish that were not of their kind, for meat of animals is fitting for the wicked and fish for the righteous. Therefore, the verse specifies slaughtered and gathered, and adds the word for them to say that cattle, which require slaughter, and fish, which only require gathering, will not be found sufficient for them — these do not correspond to them because they are not of their kind at all. And God answered him, Now you will see whether My word happens to you, for it is in My power to match them with what is of their kind, as understood from the term happens to you, for God caused the quail to come to them, and like found like. And all this is by way of homiletical interpretation and far from the plain meaning.
Tur HaArokh
הצאן ובקר ישחט להם, “are sheep and cattle going to be slaughtered for them?” Nachmanides writes that there can be no question but that the plain meaning of the verse corresponds to the opinion voiced by Rabbi Akiva in Chulin 16-17 where he stated that the emphasis in our verse is on the word ישחט, as he holds that in the desert it had been permitted to kill animals by stabbing instead of slaughtering. The Torah now draws attention to the fact that after the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai this was no longer the case. He also holds that the eating of meat that had not first bee consecrated as an offering on the Altar had never been forbidden. Moses, in this instance queried if the herds of the Israelites were sufficient for their needs for a whole month even if all their livestock were to be slaughtered. The idea that they deserved a miracle did not even cross his mind. Onkelos also thinks that way. However, the subject is problematic as pointed out by Rabbi Shimon who said: “how can we even suspect that a person such as Moses whom G’d Himself had described as trustworthy in His entire house, should harbour any suspicions of G’d’s inadequacy in any domain? The very question Moses voiced creates the impression that he queried G’d’s ability to provide what He had said He would provide, no matter how He would go about it?” Ibn Ezra answers the problem by saying that Moses’ premise had been that surely the problem faced by the people was not the kind that would cause G’d to employ supernatural means in order to solve it. He thought that G’d reserves resorting to miracles only in order to demonstrate that predictions of His prophets will come true, and the prophet will be legitimized when that happens. This explanation also does not satisfy me, seeing that G’d had already performed miracles to prove the authenticity of Moses as a prophet when He provided the people with the quail in Exodus 16,11-13 as well as when He responded to the people’s complaints that they did not have what to eat, by supplying them with the heavenly bread, the manna, starting in Exodus The same was true when G’d had told Moses to strike the rock at Massa um’rivah and produce a constant flow of drinking water for the people. (Exodus 17,7) I believe that the correct approach is that whenever G’d takes the trouble to perform miracles for the Children of Israel the purpose is for their benefit, i.e. they can recognize the miracle as being for their benefit. The only times G’d employed miracles as an act of the מדת הדין, the Attribute of Justice, is when He punished Israel’s enemies or oppressors by intervening in their fate by miracles, such as the ten plagues, or the drowning of the Egyptians in the Sea of Reeds. Therefore, when G’d predicted that the people will ultimately be revolted by the very meat they were craving, Moses had no reason to believe that G’d planned to perform a miracle for them by providing them with a liberal meat diet. As soon as G’d told Moses that the meat He would provide would become revolting to the people, he realized that G’d did not plan to intervene by miraculous means. This is what evoked Moses’ wondering how this gigantic undertaking could possibly be performed by natural means. G’d informed Moses that he had been mistaken, that G’d was able to meet the demands of the people even without invoking supernatural means. This is why He asked the rhetorical question: היד ה' תקצר, “Is Hashem’s power inadequate then?” You will note that here the Torah does not phrase G’d’s answer as had the angels who promised Avraham that he would be the father of a baby boy a year hence. (Genesis 18,14) At that time, this was the answer to an unspoken question by Sarah that she had first denied thinking. The angels employed the phrase היפלא מה' דבר, “Is anything too wonderful for Hashem to do?” This referred to G’d performing miracles, as the Torah had been on record repeatedly that Sarah was not only barren but did not even possess a womb. (Genesis 11,30, Yevamot 64) In the event, G’d did not even have to divert the wind so that the quails touched down around the area where the Israelites were encamped, as opposed to when He brought on the plague of locusts, (Exodus 10,13) or when He dried out the bottom of the Sea of Reeds. (Exodus 14,21) The only new element in what occurred here was the inordinately large number of quails that landed around the camp of the Israelites.
And Hashem said to Moses: "Is Hashem's hand grown short? now you shall see whether My word shall come to pass to you or not."
verse value 3198 — יְהֹוָה֙ = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 11 words, 45 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָה֙) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. Verse gematria: 3198 is divisible by 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "is·the·hand·of" (הֲיַ֥ד, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·he·answered" (וַיֹּ֤אמֶר, 5 letters). Words sharing gematria 26: Hashem, Hashem. 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "is·the·hand·of" (הֲיַ֥ד), "too·short?" (תִּקְצָ֑ר), "whether·it·befalls·you" (הֲיִקְרְךָ֥). The root יהוה appears 2 times in this verse. 10 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 389x in Numbers); "and·he·answered" (root אמר, 246x in Numbers); "to·Moses" (root משה, 217x in Numbers). First appearance of the root קרה ("whether·it·befalls·you") in Numbers. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'too·short?', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 5 words. Full calculation: וַיֹּ֤אמֶר [and·he·answered] (257) + יְהֹוָה֙ [Hashem] (26) + אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה [to·Moses] (376) + הֲיַ֥ד [is·the·hand·of] (19) + יְהֹוָ֖ה [Hashem] (26) + תִּקְצָ֑ר [too·short?] (790) + עַתָּ֥ה [now] (475) + תִרְאֶ֛ה [you·shall·see] (606) + הֲיִקְרְךָ֥ [whether·it·befalls·you] (335) + דְבָרִ֖י [my·word] (216) + אִם־לֹֽא [or·not] (72) = 3198.
Onkelos
And Hashem said to Moses: Is the Word of Hashem withheld? Now you shall see whether My word comes upon you or not.
Rashi
עתה תראה היקרך דברי THOU SHALT SEE NOW WHETHER MY WORD SHALL COME TO PASS UNTO THEE [OR NOT]. — R. Gamliel, the son of R. Judah ha-Nasi said, “The dialogue took the following course: Moses said, “One can never understand a babbler! (One can never fathom his meaning.) Since they are merely seeking a pretext You will never satisfy them (the meaning of the text is: If all the cattle in the world were slaughtered for them, ומצא להם, would this suffice them, i. e., would they be satisfied with that?), in the end they will always argue against You. If You give them flesh of large cattle (oxen) they will say ‘We wanted that of small cattle (sheep)’; if You will give them flesh of sheep, they will say We wanted that of oxen’, or, ‘we wanted wild beasts (venison) and fowls’, ‘we wanted fish and locusts!’ Thereupon He said to him, ‘If that be so and I give them nothing at all, they will say that My hand has waxed short!’ “Moses thereupon said, “I will go and appease them”. He answered him: “Thou shalt see now whether My word shall come to pass unto thee — for they will not listen to thee”. Moses went to appease them and said to them, “Is the hand of the Lord waxed short? Behold, he continued with the words used later by the Psalmist, (Psalms 78:20): “He smote the rock that the waters gushed out, etc. Surely then he can give bread also [and can provide flesh for His people!]”. But they (the Israelites) said: “This what you have said is only a compromise (a way of satisfying us). He has really no power to grant our request!” This is what Scripture means by: “and Moses went out and spake to the people [the words of the Lord]” (i.e. he told them the words used by the Lord only with a different implication). Since, however, they would not listen to him, he gathered the seventy men of the elders [of the people] etc.” (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 95:1; Tosefta Sota 6:4).
Ibn Ezra
"Will it happen to you" (הֲיִקְרְךָ) — like וַיִּקֶר מִקְרֶה.
Sforno
היד ה' תקצר?, from finding a way which will cause them to be revolted at every food which is not for their health but for their gratification only. This is what was meant in verse 20, that “it will come out of your noses.” עתה תראה היקרך דברי, you will see with your own eyes that what I said will occur, that they will eat so much of this meat which they chose for reasons of gratification that it will come out of their noses so that they will despise it. I will not have to interfere with their free choice in order to achieve this result. By not interfering with their freedom of choice they will be able to repent not only because they are afraid of punishment, but because they have discovered that whatever I have done was out of love for them so that they in turn will relate to Me with love.
Or HaChaim
היד ה׳ תקצר,….היקרך דברי, "Is the hand of G'd inadequate?….if My word is precious, etc." This verse also lends itself to interpretations in line with the two approaches we have described. According to our first approach any category of meat would not be sufficient to satisfy the various tastes of the Israelites. As a result they would still continue to complain. G'd answered that He was able to supply a category of meat which would satisfy the cravings of all the Israelites. This is what G'd meant when He said היד ה׳ תקצר. G'd added that Moses was about to see that G'd would perform a single act, i.e. issue a directive which would meet all the demands of the Jewish people. He would provide a kind of meat which comprised the combined advantages of all the other existing categories. The meaning of the word יקרך is that Moses was going to experience how precious such a command of G'd would be. He would appreciate the value of G'd's directive. Another meaning of that word could be that G'd told Moses that his own stature as a prophet would be enhanced among the people when they experienced what G'd would provide. According to the second approach we suggested, Moses' surprise was based on his assumption that when G'd was talking about the meat the Israelites would eat, He meant that this meat would be supplied from the existing flocks and herds of the Israelites; he was quite unwilling to believe that G'd would perform a miracle to satisfy an unjustified craving by the Israelites to eat meat. This is why He, G'd, stressed that Moses would see if G'd's hand would be inadequate, i.e. He would perform a miracle. G'd meant that He had to perform the miracle so that He would not be perceived amongst the Israelites as unable to perform such a miracle. In other words, though the Israelites did not deserve a miracle, He, G'd must not be the cause of His name being desecrated by their belief that He was powerless to meet their cravings. When G'd said עתה תראה, "now you will see," He told Moses that he would now receive a lesson in G'd's preparedness to perform miracles לשקר, to prevent the Israelites to lie about His abilities. This caused our sages in Kidushin 40 to say that when it comes to desecration of His Holy Name, i.e. His image, G'd is extremely punctilious. [The story in the Talmud there illustrates how G'd performed miracles to save great scholars from having to either martyr themselves or engage in sexual relations with prominent Gentiles to save themselves from death. Ed.]
Chizkuni
ויאמר ה' אל משה: היד ה' תקצר, The Lord said to Moses: “is the Lord’s power inadequate?” G-d implied that it had not been His intention for one moment to use the seventy helpers Moses would appoint as slaughterers or fishermen. Neither would He have to resort to overt miracles. All He had to do was to direct the flight of a swarm of birds in their direction. He was fully capable to do this within the boundaries of existing laws of nature. עתה תראה היקרך דברי אם לא, “now you will see if My word will come true or not.” “I will provide, but not as you had thought by employing these seventy men.”
Daat Zkenim
?ויאמר ה' אל משה: היד ה' תקצר, Hashem said to Moses: “is there then a limit to the Lord’s power? You will see presently if My power is inadequate!” G–d implied that just as it was within His power to provide what He had said He would provide, so it was in His power to see to it that they collect it until His word has become fulfilled. This is the meaning of 11,31: ויטש על המחנה בדרך יום כה ובדרך יום כה סביבות המחנה וכאמתים על פני כל הארץ , “and He strewed them over the camp, a distance of a day’s walk in each direction and to the height of two cubits above the face of the earth.” The people did not even need to stretch out their hands and bow down in order to take hold of the quails. An alternate interpretation of Moses’ question if sheep and cattle were to be slaughtered for them, how could there be sufficient for their needs. Moses knew that at that time any meat which was not the result of having been slaughtered as a sacrifice for the Lord was forbidden for the people to eat. There were only a total of three priests available to slaughter the animals required on sacred soil, i.e. Aaron and his two surviving sons. How could they slaughter enough animals in one day to satisfy the craving of all the people? And, even supposing this could be done, seeing there was a strict time limit, maximum two days and a night, during which sacrificial meat was allowed to be eaten, how could they eat meat for thirty days? (verse 21) Moses’ statement regarding fish as an alternative to supplying meat was not meant as a question, but as a comment that such an alternative, not involving ritual killing of the fish which would not require priests, would also have presented great difficulties albeit miracles of a different kind. The people could never have collected enough fish in a day to last them for a month. G–d’s answer to Moses was simply that He would provide birds which did not require ritual slaughter by priests, as did cattle or flocks.
And Moses went out, and told the people the words of Hashem; and he gathered seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the Tent.
verse value 3761 — יְהֹוָ֑ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 15 words, 65 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֑ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "Moses" (מֹשֶׁ֔ה, 3 letters) and the longest is "the·words·of" (אֵ֖ת דִּבְרֵ֣י, 6 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "the·words·of" (אֵ֖ת דִּבְרֵ֣י), "around" (סְבִיבֹ֥ת). The root דבר appears 2 times in this verse. 13 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 389x in Numbers); "Moses" (root משה, 217x in Numbers); "and·he·spoke" (root דבר, 149x in Numbers). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'Hashem', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 9 words.
Onkelos
And Moses went out and spoke to the people the words of Hashem, and he gathered seventy men from the elders of the people and stationed them all around the Tabernacle.
Ibn Ezra
"And Moses went out" — from the Tent of Meeting.
Or HaChaim
ויצא משה וידבר אל העם, Moses went out and spoke to the people, etc. He first spoke to the people alone, and then he summoned the newly appointed elders. This did not correspond to the order G'd had commanded him in verse 16. There he was told to first assemble the prospective elders at the entrance of the Tabernacle and to speak to the people only after these elders had been granted a measure of Holy Spirit from G'd (compare verses 17-18). Moses assumed that it was G'd's intention that he should inform the people about what was to take place. If G'd had intended to appoint the elders first, why would He have told him in verse 18 to address the people? The reason G'd wanted the people informed before the prospective elders were assembled was that this formed G'd's answer to Moses' complaint that he could not carry the burden of leadership of the people single-handedly. First G'd replied to Moses' complaint; afterwards he told him to address the people. G'd knew that Moses was intelligent enough to read His mind concerning the sequence, as indeed he did. It is also possible that the words: "Moses spoke to the people the words of G'd," referred only to the instruction to gather the elders. Moses thought he would deal with that subject first. He would then speak to the people again telling them to prepare for the morrow when G'd would provide meat. The latter explanation appears to be in line with Midrash Tanchuma.
And Hashem came down in the cloud, and spoke to him, and extended from the spirit that was upon him, and put it upon the seventy elders; and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease.
verse value 4418 — יְהֹוָ֥ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 20 words, 90 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֥ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "that" (אֲשֶׁ֣ר, 3 letters) and the longest is "upon·seventy" (עַל־שִׁבְעִ֥ים, 7 letters). 6 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "in·the·cloud" (בֶּעָנָן֮), "and·he·drew·upon" (וַיָּ֗אצֶל), "upon·seventy" (עַל־שִׁבְעִ֥ים). The root רוח appears 2 times in this verse. 18 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 389x in Numbers); "that" (root אשר, 223x in Numbers); "and·it·was" (root היה, 180x in Numbers). First appearance of the root נבא ("and·they·prophesied") in Numbers. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'the·elders', dividing the verse into phrases of 13 and 7 words.
Onkelos
And Hashem was revealed in the cloud and spoke with him, and He increased from the spirit that was upon him and gave it upon the seventy elder men; and when the spirit of prophecy rested upon them, they prophesied and did not cease.
Rashi
ולא יספו [AND THEY PROPHESIED] BUT DID NOT CONTINUE (to prophesy) — i. e. they prophesied only that day alone. Thus is the phrase explained in Siphre. Onkelos, however, rendered renders it ולא פסקין “and they did not cease”, meaning that the gift of prophecy never again departed from them (cf. Sanhedrin 17a and Rashi on Deuteronomy 5:19).
Ibn Ezra
"And He took" (וַיָּאצֶל) — in my view this is from the augmented heavy binyan. The vav of וַיִּתְנַבְּאוּ is [like] a peh rafe in the Arabic tongue. "And they did not continue" (וְלֹא יָסָפוּ) — a second time; similarly "a great voice and it did not continue" (Deut. 5:19) and "he did not know her again" (וְלֹא יָסַף עוֹד לְדַעְתָּהּ, Gen. 38:26). And it is not grammatically [correct] to derive it from פֶּן תֹּסִפוּ (lest you add) in all their sin. The Sages of blessed memory said that Moses took six men from each tribe, making seventy-two; but because Hashem had told him seventy men, he set aside the two — and this is correct.
Or HaChaim
וירד ה׳ בענן וידבר אליו, G'd descended within the cloud and spoke to him, etc. What did G'd say to Moses? Besides, what was the neeed for this whole procedure? Why did G'd not simply let these people prophesy? We may understand what happened when we consider a statement of the Zohar on Pinchas 220 on Numbers 25,12: "Behold I give unto him My covenant, peace." G'd commanded Moses to bestow this covenant of peace on Pinchas. The reason was that Moses had already acquired that gift so that it was considered his possession. Seeing that G'd does not take away a gift He had given to someone in order to give it to someone else, Moses had to be the one to bestow it on Pinchas. Similarly, here. Moses had been given the gift of prophecy, exclusively. When G'd wanted to give the elders the gift of prophecy He had to do so via Moses. This is why Moses is known as אדון הנביאים, the "master" of the prophets. When Moses assembled the elders he remained with them and G'd descended within the cloud. The word vayedaber may be read as vayadber, "He made subordinate" (compare Psalms 47,4). G'd took permission from Moses to transfer some of his Holy Spirit. ויאצל מן הרוח, He took from the spirit, etc. The word ויאצל may have been intended as a clue to the source of this prophetic spirit, i.e. the עולם האצילות, a domain very close to the throne of G'd. מן הרוח אשר עליו, "from the spirit which was upon him;" this may describe the quality of that spirit. The source of the spirit which was bestowed on the elders emanated not from Moses but from higher regions. Alternatively, it may mean that after the spirit which imbued Moses was given to the elders, עליו, Moses' own spirit remained fully intact. Bamidbar Rabbah 15 states that when Moses evaluated the level of prophecy the elders attained, it turned out that the 2 elders Eldod and Medod (numbers 71 and 72 respectively) had received a higher degree of prophetic spirit because their portion came from G'd directly, whereas the other seventy elders received their prophetic spirit only from Moses. This was why the seventy elders prophesied only briefly. ויהי כנוח עליהם הרוח, it was when the spirit rested upon them, etc. We know that the word ויהי usually introduces a paragraph containing a regrettable event. Our sages in Bamidbar Rabbah 19 claim that the elders prophesied the message in verse 18, i.e. that there would be quail on the following day. How can there be something more painful than to commence a career as a prophet by predicting that one's peers should prepare for disaster? The reason the Torah wrote the word ויתנבאו, "they prophesied" with the letter ו at the beginning is to tell us that not only were these 70 people worthy of receiving the gift of Holy Spirit, they were even worthy of attaining prophetic insights. The Torah informs us that they prophesied immediately after having been granted some of Moses' Holy Spirit. Another saddening experience which justifies the word ויהי is that the seventy elders prop...
Chizkuni
ויאצל מן הרוח, “He diverted from the holy spirit” (of Moses) the letter א in the word ויאצל, though written in the Torah, is not heard when read. ויתנבאו ולא יספו, “they prophesied;” but they did not continue to do so with the help of Moses. The word: יספו is to be understand as if the Torah had written “they added,” the word is used in this sense also Leviticus 5,16 ויסף חמישתו עליו “ “he will have to add a fifth of it in addition
Rabbeinu Bahya
וירד ה' בענן וידבר אליו ויאצל מן הרוח אשר עליו ויתן על שבעים איש הזקנים, “G’d descended in a cloud and spoke to him, and He increased some of the spirit that was upon him and gave it to the seventy men, the elders.” Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra writes that Moses took six men from each tribe, a total of 72. Since G’d had told him to take 70 men, two of them were left out. This is correct. Thus far the wording of Ibn Ezra. According to Tanchuma Behaalotcha 12 Moses took 72 pieces of paper. On seventy of them he wrote the word “elder,” whereas two pieces of paper he left blank. Every man drawing a slip of paper with the word “elder” knew he had been appointed. The two men who would draw blanks would have to conclude that they had not been found worthy. Seeing Eldod and Meydod were aware of this and were very humble, they remained in the camp without either returning to their private tents nor assembling around the Tabernacle before the drawing of these slips of paper to ensure that none of the participants would be embarrassed by drawing a blank (seeing now Moses only had to prepare 70 such slips). They knew that if they had participated they would have been chosen as the Torah had testified והמה בכתובים, “they had been among the recorded ones” (verse 26). Seeing that they were so modest and humble they were rewarded with a measure of Holy Spirit. Concerning this the Torah wrote (verse 26) “they did not go to the ‘Tent,’ but prophesied in the camp (the general encampment of the Israelites).” The ability to prophesy in an area of a lesser degree of sanctity than the proximity of the Tabernacle was remarkable. There is an explicit verse in Isaiah 61,1 indicating that the virtue of modesty and humility leads to its owner being imbued with prophetic spirit. The prophet writes: “The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me; He has sent me as a herald of joy to the humble.” The merit of their humility resulted in these two people Eldod and Meydod enjoying a higher degree of Holy Spirit than the seventy elders. Whereas the elders were able to prophesy only concerning events on the following day, i.e. telling the people to sanctify themselves in anticipation of events which would occur on the morrow (verse 18), Eldad and Meidad enjoyed prophetic visions extending to the time when the Messiah would arrive. They made statements regarding the downfall of Gog and Magog. as is written in Ezekiel 38,17: “Thus said the Lord G’d: ‘why, you are the one I spoke of in ancient days through My servants, the prophets of Israel, who prophesied for years (שנים) in those days that I would bring you against them.’” Our sages in Sanhedrin 17 suggest that the word שנים, ”years” in that verse be read as שנים, “two,” the reference being to the two people Eldad and Meidad in our verse here. [There is good reason for this as throughout the verse the word the prophet uses for “years” is ימים, not שנים. Ed.] Additional proof that Eldad and Meidad possessed superior Holy Spirit is the fact that whereas the Torah does not mention the names of the seventy elders, the names of these two men are recorded for all posterity. Furthermore, whereas the elders received their Holy Spirit via a human being, i.e. Moses, Eldad and Meidad had received it from G’d directly seeing Moses had not placed his hand on either of them. In addition to this, the 70 elders all died in the desert whereas Eldad and Meidad entered the Holy Land (Eldad was referred to as אלידד בן כסלון , and Meidad as קמואל בן שפטן, in Numbers 34,21 and 24). These men are described as having been appointed to help in allocating the land of Canaan to the Israelites. All this teaches you that they were richly rewarded for their humility. ויהי כנח עליהם הרוח, “it was when the spirit rested upon them, etc.” This refers to the spirit of Moses which they received. Concerning the Holy Spirit received by Eldad and Meidad the Torah writes ותנח עליהם הרוח (verse 26), meaning this spirit came directly from G’d.
But there remained two men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad; and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were recorded, but had not gone out to the Tent; and they prophesied in the camp.
verse value 4683 — הָאֶחָ֣ד = 18 (chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 19 words, 86 letters. Notable word values: "the·one" (הָאֶחָ֣ד) = 18, chai, 'life'. The shortest word is "name·of" (שֵׁ֣ם, 2 letters) and the longest is "two·men" (שְׁנֵֽי־אֲנָשִׁ֣ים, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 105: in·the·camp, in·the·camp. 6 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "and·they·remained" (וַיִּשָּׁאֲר֣וּ), "two·men" (שְׁנֵֽי־אֲנָשִׁ֣ים), "Medad" (מֵידָ֜ד). The root מחנה appears 2 times in this verse. 17 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·one" (root אחד, 165x in Numbers); "and·not" (root לא, 129x in Numbers); "upon·them" (root על, 128x in Numbers). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·the·Tent', dividing the verse into phrases of 17 and 2 words.
Onkelos
And two men remained in the camp — the name of the one was Eldad and the name of the second was Medad — and the spirit of prophecy rested upon them; they were among those registered, yet they had not gone out to the Tabernacle, and they prophesied in the camp.
Rashi
וישארו שני אנשים BUT THERE REMAINED TWO MEN [IN THE CAMP] — i. e. two of them that had been selected. They remained, in the camp because they said, “We are not worthy of this distinction” (Sifrei Bamidbar 95:2). והמה בכתובים [BUT THERE REMAINED TWO MEN IN THE CAMP] … AND THEY WERE AMONGST THEM THAT WERE WRITTEN — i.e. they were amongst those of them (of the people) who had been selected to constitute the Sanhedrion. For all these were written down, mentioned expressly by their names, but the requisite number was chosen by lot, because the calculation gives for twelve tribes, six elders for each tribe, with the exception of two tribes to each of which there would belong only five elders. Moses said, “No tribe will listen to me to have one elder less for his tribe!” What did he do? He took seventy-two tablets and wrote on seventy of them the word “Elder” and on two he left the surface blank. He then selected six men of each tribe so that there were altogether 72. He said to them, “Draw your tablets from the urn”. He in whose hand there came up a tablet bearing the inscription “Elder” was set apart as a member of the Sanhedrion, whilst to him in whose hand there came up a blank tablet, he said, “The Omnipresent does not require you” (Sifrei Bamidbar 95:2; Sanhedrin 17a).
Ibn Ezra
"And they were among those written" — in the original [list]. "And they did not go out" — from the camp of Israel to the Tent of Meeting.
Or HaChaim
וישארו שני אנשים במחנה, Two men remained within the camp, etc. Firstly, what is the meaning of "they remained?" Relative to whom and to what did they remain? Secondly, why did the Torah have to mention the names of these two men when none of the seventy elders have been named though they were selected and these men were not? Why does the Torah say that the spirit rested on them? If the men were part of the seventy elders selected, what did the Torah add that we did not know before? If they were not part of the seventy elders the Torah had spoken about, why would they be granted Holy Spirit seeing G'd told Moses to select only seventy men? Besides, what is the meaning of the words והמה בכתובים? Why did the Torah say ולא יצאו, they did not go out? If they have been reported as "remaining," they obviously had not "gone out to the Tabernacle?" Why did the Torah write at the end of the verse: "they prophesied inside the camp?" The Torah should have written the verse in the following order: "Two men who were amongst those whose names had been suggested as prospective elders did not go out to the Tabernacle; the spirit came to rest on them and they prophesied." Why did the Torah see fit to completely jumble this verse? Our sages in the Sifri were of two minds as to who these men were who were "left behind." Some say they were left behind out of the total of 72 (12 times 6 from each tribe) whom Moses had invited (in writing) to take part in the draw for the selection of a total of 70 elders. Moses prepared 72 slips of paper (invitations); afterwards he drew lots 70 of which had the name "elder" inscribed on them. The other two slips of paper were blank. Our verse speaks about the two men who had drawn blanks and thus had not been appointed as elders. Rabbi Shimon, on the other hand, claims two of the seventy men selected were so humble that they did not want to enter the Tabernacle and preferred to stay behind in the general camp of the Israelites. If we accept the latter explanation we must explain the verse as follows: "Two men remained behind in the camp as they considered themselves superfluous. The Torah gives their names to tell us that these people were renowned for their modesty. Had they not been renowned for their modesty the people would have upraided them for refusing Moses' invitation to high office which included G'd granting them Holy Spirit. Their refusal would have been a public desecration of the name of G'd. However, their very names protected them against their conduct being interpreted negatively. As a result they were granted Holy Spirit even though they had remained in the general camp as confirmation that their motives in remaining within the camp had been above-board. The Torah chose the expession ותנח to indicate that whereas the other seventy elders experienced only a brief elevation to prophetic insights, these two men retained the spirit of prophecy granted to them. Before mentioning the substance of their prophetic insigh...
Chizkuni
.וישארו שני אנשים, there were two men in addition to the seventy men. (Moses had put 72 pieces of parchment in an urn, 6 for each tribe, of which two bore no inscription so that the men drawing those would know they were not part of the seventy elders). In other words: “they were redundant.” שם האחד אלדד ושם השני מידד, “one of these two men was called Eldod, and the other was called Meydod.” The seventy elders were never mentioned by name whereas these two men who at first glance appeared as rejects, were named. The reason is that the prophetic spirit bestowed on the seventy elders ceased when Moses died, whereas the prophetic powers granted to these men survived Moses, as their prophetic powers was not a branch of Moses’ holy spirit. G-d Himself had said that He would give some of Moses’ spirit to these 70 elders (verse 17) The two named men received their prophetic spirit from G-d directly, as stated in our verse with the words: ותנח עליהם הרוח, “and the spirit rested upon them.” ותנח עליהם הרוח, although these men had not been chosen to become part of the seventy elders, seeing that they were fit to have been elders and they did not feel humbled or rejected by not being chosen, they were rewarded by being given greater and longer lasting prophetic insights that the seventy whose parchment had read: “elder.” והמה בכתובים, “they were amongst the seventy who had not drawn blanks.” According to Rashi this means that they had been included in the seventy two parchments on 70 of which Moses had written the word: “elder” and two of which he had left blank. If you were to ask that this method would have resulted in a great deal of jealousy by the ones who had not drawn a parchment with the word “elder,” it is therefore more reasonable to suppose that those who took parchments out of the urn early on would argue that they had a better chance not to draw a blank as 70 out of 72 were not blanks. Each one pushed in order not to be one of the last two whose chance of drawing a blank was so much greater. This was faulty reasoning, as the chance that the blanks would be drawn by the “early birds” was just as great as the reverse, and in fact, as soon as the blanks had been drawn the remaining candidates already knew for certain that they could not draw a blank. [It is therefore more likely that the Torah wishes us to know that in order to avoid jealousy, these two men decided to withdraw out of humility, so that the other 70 could all become elders. Ed.] They accomplished this by not showing up at the entrance to the Tabernacle as the men who drew parchments with the word: “elder” had been told to do. ולא יצאו האהלה, “but they had not gone out to the Tabernacle’s entrance;” they had not left the general camp to follow the other elders to the Tabernacle with their colleagues. ויתנבאו במחנה, ‘they prophesied inside the camp of the Israelites. Concerning what subject did these two men make prophetic announcements? They prophesied concerning the eventual war against Gog, and concerning the prophet Ezekiel. We find a hint of the subject of their prophecies in Ezekiel 38,17: כה אמר ה' האתה הוא אשר דברתי בימים קדמונים ביד הנביאים שנים, “you are the one I spoke of in ancient times through My servants the prophets of Israel, who prophesied in those years about you and about Gog;” instead of reading the word שנים to mean: ”years,” understand it to mean: “שניים, two.”
Rashbam
בכתובים, of the ones who had been invited in writing to come to the entrance of the Tabernacle. We are told in Sanhedrin 17 that the reason these two men did not come to the entrance of the Tabernacle was because they were too humble to want to be treated as special.
And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said: "Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp."
verse value 2037
Insights
Verse structure: 9 words, 42 letters. The shortest word is "and·he·ran" (וַיָּ֣רׇץ, 4 letters) and the longest is "are·prophesying" (מִֽתְנַבְּאִ֖ים, 7 letters). 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "the·lad" (הַנַּ֔עַר), "and·he·told" (וַיַּגֵּ֥ד), "and·Medad" (וּמֵידָ֔ד). 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·he·said" (root אמר, 246x in Numbers); "to·Moses" (root משה, 217x in Numbers); "in·the·camp" (root מחנה, 49x in Numbers). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'and·he·said', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 4 words. Full calculation: וַיָּ֣רׇץ [and·he·ran] (306) + הַנַּ֔עַר [the·lad] (325) + וַיַּגֵּ֥ד [and·he·told] (23) + לְמֹשֶׁ֖ה [to·Moses] (375) + וַיֹּאמַ֑ר [and·he·said] (257) + אֶלְדָּ֣ד [Eldad] (39) + וּמֵידָ֔ד [and·Medad] (64) + מִֽתְנַבְּאִ֖ים [are·prophesying] (543) + בַּֽמַּחֲנֶֽה [in·the·camp] (105) = 2037.
Onkelos
And a young man ran and told Moses, saying: Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.
Rashi
וירץ הנער THERE RAN THE LAD — There are some who say that it was Gershom, the son of Moses (Midrash Tanchuma, Beha'alotcha 12).
Ibn Ezra
"And a young man ran" — with the definite article [הַנַּעַר]: this is the well-known attendant who served Moses, other than Joshua — for Joshua's attendance was not like the attendance of any [ordinary] attendant.
Or HaChaim
וירץ הנער ויגד למשה, The lad ran and told Moses; Why was the lad so upset that he told Moses that Eldod and Medod prophesied? Even allowing for the fact that he had adequate reason to tell Moses about it, why did he demand that they be locked up? Since when had prophecy become a punishable crime? According to those who believe that these two men were those who had been rejected out of the original 72 candidates we can understand Joshua very well. Moses had told the Israelites that seventy people would be endowed with prophetic spirit by G'd. All of a sudden Joshua saw that seventy-two people had become prophets. This could have one of two possible reasons. 1) Moses had not spoken the truth; 2) these people prophesied falsely. According to the opinion that these two prophets had indeed been part of the seventy elders who had been chosen, Joshua told Moses of the misdemeanour of people who had been bidden to come to the Tabernacle and who had failed to do so now prophesying inside the regular camp. According to Joshua these two, i.e. Eldod and Medod, committed two wrongs. 1) They ignored Moses' order. 2) They refused to become recipients of Moses' Holy Spirit but wanted to receive their Holy Spirit from a still higher source as a result of which they practiced their prophecy within the general camp.
Rabbeinu Bahya
וירץ הנער, “The disciple ran.” The lad in question was Gershon, son of Moses. The reason the Torah adds the words “the servant of Moses since his youth” in verse 28 is that he was one of the choicest among a number of men who acted as Moses’ disciples.
Daat Zkenim
וירץ הנער, “the lad ran;” the lad was Moses’ son Gershom. ויגד למשה אלדוד ומידד מתנבאים במחנה “he told Moses: “Eldod and Meydod are prophesying within the boundaries of the camp.” These two men were (half) brothers of Moses. When the Torah was given, and certain types of family members were no longer allowed to live in married union together, such couples separated in accordance with the law. This caused sorrow among such families as we know from verse 10 in our chapter where Moses is portrayed as listening to the weeping of families which had been broken up as a result of the new laws. (Compare Talmud, tractate Shabbat folio 130.) Amram, Moses’ father, was also affected by these new laws, as when Pharaoh had decreed that all male Jewish babies were to be downed, he had divorced his wife Yocheved, who was his aunt. He had remarried and Eldod and Meydod were sons sired by him from this marriage. Their named reflected that they were compensations for a marriage broken up as a result of the prohibition to marry one’s aunt. [I find this hard to understand as the new laws came into existence after Moses, son of Yocheved, was at least 81 years old, and any children his father could have sired from another wife subsequently could not have been more than babies at the time when the demand aired by the Israelites for meat could have happened. How could such babies have prophesied, much less have been taken seriously if they did? Besides we have no reason to assume that Amram had left Egypt at the Exodus as his son Moses by Yocheved, who had married him at the age of 130, so how old must he have been at the time of the Exodus? Ed.] Our author claims to have found a manuscript of a certain Rabbi Amram, son of a Rabbi Hillel, who had lived in the land of Israel, in which the author writes as follows: “I have personally seen the graves of Eldod and Meydod brother of Aaron through his father’s side but not from the same mother.”’ Some scholars claim that Eldod is identical with a certain Elidod son of Kisslon, mentioned in Numbers 34,21. Meydod is supposed to be identical with Kemuel son of Shifton in verse 24 in that chapter. According to Midrash Tanchuma, section 12 on our portion both these men had humbled themselves in five different ways. Whereas the other seventy men who had drawn lots making them elders, practiced prophecy only on that day, (as indicated in verse 25 when the prophecy concerned the imminent arrival of the quails). Eldod and Meydad prophesied what would happen at the end of the forty years, i.e. Moses’ death and Joshua becoming his successor. They were rewarded by enjoying prophetic status for an indefinite period. According to some opinions they predicted details of the last war before the coming of the messiah, the war involving Gog and Magog. Whereas the other seventy elders did not enter the Holy Land, these two men did. We know that Kisslon and Kemuel entered the Holy Land (Numbers 34). The names of the other seventy elders were not mentioned by the Torah, whereas the names of these men were mentioned. The reason why the prophetic powers of the seventy elders ceased, was that they had been a “’branch” of Moses’ prophetic powers, whereas these two men received their prophetic power directly from G–d. The Holy Spirit is described as functioning when they were not in the vicinity of Moses. This is why the Torah describes their prophesying “inside the camp” not only while on sacred ground next to the Tabernacle. This is the conclusion arrived at in the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin folio 17. The author finds it difficult to believe that these two men had been half-brothers of Moses seeing that according to the Torah in Numbers chapter 34, Elidod and Kisslon were members of the tribe of Binyamin. Kemuel is described there as a member of the tribe of Ephrayim.
And Joshua the son of Nun, the minister of Moses from his youth up, answered and said: "My lord Moses, restrain them!"
verse value 2994
Insights
Verse structure: 10 words, 43 letters. The shortest word is "Moses" (מֹשֶׁ֛ה, 3 letters) and the longest is "from·his·youth" (מִבְּחֻרָ֖יו, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 345: Moses, Moses. 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "attendant·of" (מְשָׁרֵ֥ת), "from·his·youth" (מִבְּחֻרָ֖יו), "restrain·them!" (כְּלָאֵֽם). The root משה appears 2 times in this verse. 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "son·of·Nun" (root בן, 499x in Numbers); "and·he·said" (root אמר, 246x in Numbers); "Moses" (root משה, 217x in Numbers). First appearance of the root ענה ("and·he·spoke·up") in Numbers. First appearance of the root יהושע ("Joshua") in Numbers. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'and·he·said', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 3 words. Full calculation: וַיַּ֜עַן [and·he·spoke·up] (136) + יְהוֹשֻׁ֣עַ [Joshua] (391) + בִּן־נ֗וּן [son·of·Nun] (158) + מְשָׁרֵ֥ת [attendant·of] (940) + מֹשֶׁ֛ה [Moses] (345) + מִבְּחֻרָ֖יו [from·his·youth] (266) + וַיֹּאמַ֑ר [and·he·said] (257) + אֲדֹנִ֥י [my·lord] (65) + מֹשֶׁ֖ה [Moses] (345) + כְּלָאֵֽם [restrain·them!] (91) = 2994.
Onkelos
And Joshua son of Nun, the attendant of Moses from his youth, answered and said: My master Moses, restrain them!
Rashi
כלאם — (This is taken as the equivalent of כַּלֵּם, “destroy them”, “make an end of them”; cf. Rashi on Exodus 17:9) — He meant: cast upon them the responsibility for public affairs and they will of themselves soon come to an end (through the worry and anxiety this entails). — Another explanation is: that the word means put them into prison (כלא). He said this because they were prophesying, “Moses will die and Joshua will bring Israel into the Land” (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 96; Sanhedrin 17a).
Ramban
MY LORD MOSES, ‘K’LA’EIM’ (SHUT THEM IN). The meaning of this is that Moses had told the people the words of G-d, that He would take of the spirit which was upon him and put it upon those that will stand with him in the Tent of Meeting. Now those that did not go to the Tent [i.e., Eldad and Medad who had also been designated for that honor], and yet held themselves to be among those upon whom Moses’ spirit had been put [by prophesying in the camp, as Eldad and Medad did], were as rebels against Moses’ words. Therefore Joshua said to Moses, “Shut them in, for perhaps it is a lying spirit in their mouths, or it is an evil spirit that terrifies them, and thus they must be put in a prison like a man that is mad, and maketh himself like a prophet.” But Moses in his humility answered: “Would that all the people of the Eternal were prophets, that the Eternal would give His spirit upon them! — for G-d put His spirit directly upon them without taking of the spirit which was upon me, and would that this would happen to all the people.”However, from the words of our Rabbis it appears that the custom in Israel was that no one would prophesy about future events in the presence of a prophet who is greater than him, but they would follow him as his disciples, and these were the sons of the prophets. Thus the Rabbis have said in Tractate Sanhedrin [with reference to the prophecy of Eldad and Medad]: “We can well understand according to that Sage who said that [Eldad and Medad prophesied that] ‘Moses will die [before entering the Land],’ that Joshua therefore said, My lord Moses, shut them in [since he wished to save Moses from grief]. But according to the Sage who said that [they prophesied] about the quails [that they would come from the sea], why should they be shut in [and not prophesy]? It is because the case resembled that of a pupil who renders a decision in the presence of his master.” Similarly [this was the reason why they were forbidden to prophesy] according to the Sage who says that they prophesied about Gog and Magog. And the Rabbis have mentioned a similar case in Tractate Megillah in the matter of Deborah. But Moses said that he, being the master, foregoes the honor due to him [and the law is that a Rabbi is able to renounce the honor due to him], and he desires and is happy [that they prophesy]. And I have seen that the Targum Yerushalmi rendered: “k’la’eim — withhold from them the Holy Spirit.” The Targum thus understood the word k’la’eim to be like the expressions: Behold, ‘lo echla’ (I did not refrain) my lips; ‘lo thichla’ (Thou wilt not withhold) Thy compassions from me. Now the reason for this matter is that Joshua thought that [Eldad and Medad] were prophesying because they were of them that were recorded [among the prescribed number of seventy men that were to join Moses], because the spirit of Moses was transmitted to all that were recorded, for he intended that all [seventy of them should become prophets]. Therefore Joshua said to Mo...
Ibn Ezra
"From his youth" (מִבְּחֻרָיו) — some say its meaning is 'from his youth' (מִבַּחֲרוּתוֹ), the sense being that [Joshua] did not speak as an elder would. Some attach מִבְּחֻרָיו to [the phrase] 'servant of Moses,' meaning that he had served him since the day he was young — but this is not correct, for this event occurred in the second year [of the Exodus]. In my view, the correct interpretation is that מִבְּחֻרָיו means 'of his chosen men': he is one of the select attendants of Moses, for there are others with him. Know that the word בָּחוּר in the plural sometimes changes [its form] and sometimes does not, as with the word סָרִיס — they may be two different paradigms. "Restrain them" (כְּלָאֵם) — the lamed is opened [i.e., takes a patah] on account of the guttural letter that follows it.
Sforno
אדוני משה כלאם!, he thought that the reason why these two men had not come to the tent of Meeting was because they wanted to demonstrate that they could prophesy without being within the spiritual sphere and physical presence of Moses.
Or HaChaim
ויען יהושע ויאמר…אדני משה כלאם, Joshua reacted and said: "my lord Moses arrest them!" What gave Joshua the right to make a halachic decision in the presence of his teacher? Our sages in Eyruvin 63 have said that anyone who makes a halachic pronouncement in the presence of his teacher will die without leaving behind children. The Talmud quotes our verse as its source. Perhaps we can explain what Joshua did with the help of the Sifri on verse 26 where the Sifri claims that Eldod and Medod kept prophesying that Moses would die and Joshua would lead the Israelites into the Holy Land. When Joshua heard these words he resolved to take a stand in the presence of his teacher in order to demonstrate his displeasure with this prophecy. He believed that Eldod and Medod were not fit to prophesy and indeed spoke falsely. By taking a stand he showed that he was not interested in assuming the leadership role prophesied by Eldod and Medod. He may have meant either one of two things with his suggestion that Moses lock these people up. The confinement could be temporary until the matter came to trial, or he meant that they be banished from this world. Either possibility is in accord with the two views we have quoted as to whether Eldod and Medod belonged to the 70 elders who had been chosen or whether they were the two men who had drawn blanks. The wording אדני משה, "my lord Moses," suggests that Joshua expressed his desire for Moses to remain his lord, i.e. that he harboured no secret desire to supplant Moses. The apparently unnecessary word ויען means that he replied to the words (the content) that Eldod and Medod had prophesied. At any rate, Joshua was punished for having spoken out in this manner at that time, as, after all is said and done he violated the rule of giving a halachic opinion in the presence of his teacher. [There is no evidence in the Bible that Joshua left children behind when he died; compare Chronicles I 7,27. Ed.]
Chizkuni
מבחוריו, “from his early youth.” We find this word having this meaning also in Kohelet 12,1: בימי בחורתיך, “in the days of your youth.”An alternate interpretation of this word: “from amongst the choicest to serve Moses,” for there were others with him. (Ibn Ezra) אדוני משה כלאם, “my lord Moses lock them up!” Joshua wanted these two men put under house arrest so that their prophecies would not become public. The other seventy men who had also displayed prophetic insights had done so only in the relative privacy of the sacred precincts of the Tabernacle which was out of bounds to the people at large. They had done so only in the presence of Moses. (verse 16) Eldod and Meydod had not asked for permission to prophesy publicly, and had prophesied outside the sacred precincts.
Rabbeinu Bahya
אדני משה כלאם, “My lord Moses, lock them up!” The reason Joshua said this was because Eldad and Meidad had prophesied that Moses would die (in the desert). Joshua would lead the people into the land of Canaan. Nachmanides feels that the reason Joshua wanted these men locked up was because they had refused Moses’ instructions to present themselves at the Tabernacle together with the other seventy men. They had failed to obey an order. He considered it possible that what they prophesied was a lie and that they were irrational, and had to be put under guard. Moses, in a typical display of humility, said that he wished that G’d would bestow prophetic spirit on the entire nation directly not merely using him as an intermediary. Another nuance in the exclamation by Joshua “lock them up” is that it was against accepted practice to prophesy in the presence of Moses. It had become an accepted norm that no prophet would prophesy about something in the future when there were prophets of greater stature alive among the people. The minor prophets would deport themselves as disciples of the leading prophet of that generation. They were the people often referred to in the Book of Kings as בני הנביאים, “the sons of the prophets” (Kings I 2,35). The Talmud Sanhedrin 17 also says that according to the opinion that what these two men prophesied, i.e. that Moses would die and that Joshua would lead the people to the Holy Land, we can understand why Joshua felt compelled to call for the incarceration of these two men. However, according to the opinion that Eldad and Meidad prophesied concerning matters related to the quails, why would Joshua be so concerned? His demand that these men be locked up would be tantamount to giving a ruling in the presence of a higher authority, something strictly forbidden (maybe even on pain of the death penalty). The Talmud in Megillah 14 raises the same question when it asks by what right the prophetess Hulda prophesied at a time when Jeremiah was the leading prophet? The answer given there is that Hulda was biologically related to Jeremiah so that he did not mind.
Tur HaArokh
משרת משה מבחוריו, “the servant of Moses from his youth.” Ibn Ezra writes that some commentators understand the word מבחוריו to mean that Joshua was one of Moses’ most devoted servants, whereas others view the word מבחוריו as if it were glued to the words משרת משה, meaning that he had been a servant of Moses from his earliest youth. This latter explanation cannot be correct as what is described here occurred only in the second year of the people’s being in the desert, and we have no evidence that Joshua who was only about 24 years younger than Moses already served in that function in Egypt. I believe that the proper explanation is that Joshua was one of several men who attended to Moses’ needs. אדוני משה כלאם, ”my lord Moses, lock them up!” Nachmanides writes that the reason why Joshua said this was that Moses was in the habit of communicating G’d’s words to the people and he thereby also caused some of his spirit to devolve on the elders who stood around him at the Tent of Meeting. By prophesying in a location far removed from the Tabernacle, the two men, Eldod and Meydod, had presumed to arrogate to themselves a status similar to that of the elders. He therefore wanted them confined, as they behaved as if challenging Moses’ authority. Alternately, Joshua suspected these two men to be false prophets or that they were out of their minds and deserved to be locked up to prevent them causing further harm. Moses, in his characteristic modesty, replied:
Rashbam
מבחוריו, as if the Torah had written: מנעוריו, ever since his youth. We find the expression בחור for a young person also in Kohelet 11,9 בימי בחורותיך, “in the days of your youth.” On the other hand, in Isaiah 9,16 the line על כן על בחוריו לא ישמח ה', the word is not used in a complimentary way as here, but G’d is portrayed as scorning the follies of the young and immature in spirit. כלאם, “arrest them!” in the same sense as Genesis 8,2 ויכלא הגשם, “the rain stopped, was arrested.” Some grammarians consider the construction as parallel to שמעני when Avraham implores Efron saying “listen to me!” (Genesis 23,6) and as parallel to Deuteronomy 32,10 ימצאהו, “it has been found.”
Daat Zkenim
!ויאמר: אדוני משה כלאם, he said: “my lord Moses”. lock them up!” according to the plain meaning of the text, that only seventy elders were to be chosen according to G–d, the man described here as הנער, assumed that these two men must be false prophets, as there were already seventy such men apart from Eldod and Meydod. As a result, they deserved to be locked up pending judgment by the court.
And Moses said to him: "Are you jealous for my sake? would that all Hashem's people were prophets, that Hashem would put His spirit upon them!"
verse value 3387 — לוֹ֙ = 36 (double-Chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 15 words, 60 letters. Notable word values: "to·him" (לוֹ֙) = 36, double chai. The shortest word is "to·him" (לוֹ֙, 2 letters) and the longest is "prophets" (נְבִיאִ֔ים, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 26: Hashem, Hashem. 6 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "are·you·zealous?" (הַֽמְקַנֵּ֥א), "and·who" (וּמִ֨י), "all·the·people·of" (כׇּל־עַ֤ם). The root נתן appears 2 times in this verse. 13 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 389x in Numbers); "and·he·said" (root אמר, 246x in Numbers); "Moses" (root משה, 217x in Numbers). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'on·my·account', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 9 words.
Onkelos
And Moses said to him: Are you zealous on my behalf? Would that all the people of Hashem were prophets, that Hashem would place the spirit of His prophecy upon them!
Rashi
המקנא אתה לי means, “art thou envying where I should envy”. לי — the word לי meaning the same as בשבילי, “for my sake”. Wherever an expression of the root קנא is used it implies that a person sets his heart on the matter, whether it be to take vengeance or to help; — emportement in O. F. (English = zeal) — he holds the thickest (heaviest) part of the load (i.e. he takes the responsibility for carrying out a matter).
Ibn Ezra
"The heh of הַמְקַנֵּא is opened" [i.e., takes a patah] — properly it should take a sheva and a patah, but since it comes under the mem [which has] a mobile sheva, and two mobile shevas cannot ever be joined together, [the vowel changes]. The expression מִי יִתֵּן (would that) — [is used] as one who asks and desires a thing, as if to say: 'Who will grant me this request and desire?'
Sforno
כי יתן ה' את רוחו עליהם, without any spiritual radiation emanating from me.
Or HaChaim
המקנא אתה לי? "are you jealous on my behalf?" According to the view that Eldod and Medod belonged to the 70 elders chosen, we must explain the verse as follows: "Is your jealousy based on the fact that these men were unwilling to receive their share of prophetic insights from me rather than from G'd directly? I wish all the Jewish people had been endowed directly by G'd with prophetic insights instead of having to receive it from me as their intermediary." This is shown clearly by Moses using the words מי יתן כי יתן ה׳ את רוחו עליהם. In this manner Moses demonstrated his utter humility and total lack of a desire for personal honour. According to the view that Eldod and Medod were the two men who had drawn blanks during the lottery among the 72 prospective candidates, Moses asked Joshua whether it bothered him that instead of 70 people having been endowed with Holy Spirit he now found that actually 72 people had received prophetic insights. Moses told Joshua that he, personally, wished that G'd would grant every Israelite prophetic insights. The reason Moses said: "may G'd grant His spirit, etc," is that Moses viewed the 70 people who had received prophetic insights with him as the intermediary as being only the beginning. Now that G'd had shown that He had granted prophetic insights directly to two more Israelites, he could only hope that G'd would grant such prophetic insights to everybody. None of such additional prophetic insights would be a denial or diminution of Moses' own stature as a prophet.
Chizkuni
וכי יתן כל עם ה׳ נביאים, “would that all the Lord’s people were prophets!” Moses did not care if they would prophesy in the camp or only in the sacred precincts around the Tabernacle, as long as they would make his task easier to accomplish. כי יתן ה׳ את רוחו עליהם, “as long as G-d directly would bestow His holy spirit upon them!” He wanted them to receive holy spirit from G-d directly, not only as a part of the holy spirit that had been bestowed upon him. He realised that the seventy men had received only part of the Holy spirit that he had been endowed with, and that this Holy spirit would vanish as soon as he would die. He therefore prayed that they would receive permanent Holy spirit.
Rabbeinu Bahya
ומי יתן כל עם ה' נביאים, “would that the entire people of G’d be prophets!” It is possible that Moses alluded to the time of the Messiah when his wish would be realised. He wished for that time to occur soon so that the status of the people would be raised to the level of prophets. At such a time, the evil urge would disappear and jealousy would be unknown. In the words of Yoel 3,1: “at that time I will pour My spirit over all flesh.” It is also the time of which Isaiah 11,9 spoke when he said: “and the whole earth will be filled with a measure of the knowledge of the Lord like the waters which cover the oceans.” Even though these prophecies have not yet been fulfilled in our terrestrial universe, they will be fulfilled in due course in a world which will be more perfect. I have found a hint of this in Psalms 14,7 where the psalmist writes: “O that the deliverance of Israel might come from Zion! When the Lord restores the fortunes of His people, Jacob will exalt, Israel will rejoice.” Why did this same verse occur twice in the Book of Psalms, once here in the first Book, and then again in 53,7 in the second Book? You will have to answer that the first time the verse was spoken by the “teacher,” i.e. G’d, whereas the second time it was repeated by the student, i.e. by Moses.
Kli Yakar
“Are you jealous for my sake, etc.” Joshua, because he was young in days, held onto the trait of jealousy, as it is written, And Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ assistant from his youth, answered. Due to being one of his young men, he said this, whereas if he had been an elder, advanced in days, he would not have been concerned about two companions having authority together. And therefore they said (Bava Batra 75a): “The face of Moses was like the face of the sun, and Joshua like the moon.” For just as the moon complained and said, “It is impossible for two kings to use one crown,” so too Joshua complained and said, Eldad and Medad are prophesying. But Moses was like the sun that did not complain at all; thus Moses said, Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets. And he said, “Would that the Lord might place His spirit upon them.” The Akeidah [commentary] explained: It’s obvious that if they were to receive from the spirit that is upon me, I would not be jealous of them, because a person is jealous of everyone except his son and his student (Sanhedrin 105b). Rather, even if the Lord were to place His spirit upon them directly and they would not be my students, nonetheless I would not be jealous of them. And some say that he [Moses] was being precise, because specifically when the Lord places His spirit upon them, it is possible that all the people of the Lord would be prophets, but if He were to emanate upon them from the spirit that is upon me, it would be impossible for all of them to be prophets. Because that which is emanated must resemble the emanator in every way, and our Sages said (Nedarim 38a) that the Divine Presence rests only upon one who is strong, wise, wealthy, and humble, and all these were in Moses. They meant by this that since all these qualities were in Moses, therefore it is necessary that whoever receives emanation from him must resemble him in every way, and this is impossible for all of Israel to be equal in all these four attributes. For if so, what makes one person greater than another? But if the Lord places His spirit upon them without an intermediary, then there is no need for all of them to be equal in these four attributes, and one cannot say that they must resemble Him, as it were, for how can anyone be compared to Him? Therefore it is said, if the Lord places His spirit upon them.
Tur HaArokh
ומי יתן כל עם ה' נביאים כי יתן ה' את רוחו עליהם", “Would that the entire people of Hashem were prophets! If Hashem would only place His spirit upon them!” Moses wished that G’d were to inspire the people with prophetic spirit without having recourse to his own spirit from which such Holy Spirit would be diverted “second hand,” so to speak. He expressed the wish that the entire people be so endowed. Judging from the writings on the subject by our sages, it was an old established custom in Israel that no one would make prophetic announcements regarding future events while there was a prophet of greater stature alive. The reason for this custom was that anyone failing to abide by this custom would appear as if he were handing down halachic decisions in the presence of his teachers, something absolutely forbidden, possibly on pain of death at the hands of Heaven. [Compare Berachot 31. Ed.] People endowed with such spirit would form part of the entourage of their spiritual mentor, and they are generally referred to in the Books of the Prophets as בני הנביאים, disciples of the prophets. Moses apparently held that when a Rabbi or prophet does not stand on ceremony and does not feel insulted when someone junior to him makes such pronouncements, then his personal attitude governs the matter and the disciple is not held culpable although other Rabbis or prophets would have taken exception to what they considered a lack of respect towards people known as more learned or endowed with greater prophetic spirit. In the Jerusalem Targum the words כלאם are translated as “deny them holy spirit,” based on Psalms 40,12 לא תכלא רחמיך ממני, “do not withhold Your Mercy from me.” The deeper significance of the incident is that Joshua thought that seeing that both Eldod and Meydod were amongst the people whose names had been submitted as candidates for membership in the council of the 70 elders that their ability to prophesy was of the same category as that of the other 70 elders who had received their “holy spirit” via Moses and not directly from Hashem. Seeing that only 70 people were meant to form this illustrious council, Joshua thought that these men had to be stopped from walking around the camp prophesying, as the other elders could do so only while next to Moses and the Tabernacle. Moses responded that it was wrong to assume that it was in Moses’ interest that the seventy men should be able to prophesy only while next to him and next to the Tabernacle; on the contrary, if he had his way the entire people would be endowed with a far more comprehensive layer of Holy Spirit, and there was no need to assume that Moses was interested in keeping the monopoly of Holy Spirit for himself. He was most certainly not jealous of anyone so endowed by G’d.
Daat Zkenim
'ויאמר לו משה וגו'...ומי יתן כל עם ה' נביאים וגו, “and Moses said to him (the (נער, “I wish that all of the Lord’s people were prophets, etc.” Moses meant that possibly what these two men had prophesied was true. The reason that he felt that way was that the prophetic insights granted to the seventy men were part of what had been his portion of Holy Spirit, whereas the two men had received Holy Spirit directly from the source. In the first chapter of tractate Sanhedrin folio 17, the conclusion of the sages after a lengthy discussion of this episode is that if Eldod and Meydod had only predicted that Moses would die, the demand to lock up such a person would make sense, but if they also predicted that Joshua would lead the people into the Holy land, this would have violated the rule that no one is allowed to make new rules in the presence of his Mentor, i.e. to give Moses instructions whom to punish and whom not to punish. If Eldod and Meydod had predicted only that there would be a war involving Gog and Magog, what was wrong with that? Why should they have been locked up? The answer to this rhetorical question given is that such a prediction violates the rules of good manners. They would have given the impression that their prophetic insights extended way beyond those of Moses, their teacher and King. Perhaps, as suggested there in the Talmud, the meaning of the word כלאם, is: “impose upon them to become servants of the community,” and you will find that they will break down and die under that burden without any external assistance.
And Moses withdrew into the camp, he and the elders of Israel.
verse value 1367
Insights
Verse structure: 6 words, 28 letters. The shortest word is "Moses" (מֹשֶׁ֖ה, 3 letters) and the longest is "to·the·camp" (אֶל־הַֽמַּחֲנֶ֑ה, 7 letters). 6 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Moses" (root משה, 217x in Numbers); "Israel" (root ישראל, 183x in Numbers); "he" (root הוא, 70x in Numbers). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·the·camp', dividing the verse into phrases of 3 and 3 words. Full calculation: וַיֵּאָסֵ֥ף [and·he·withdrew] (157) + מֹשֶׁ֖ה [Moses] (345) + אֶל־הַֽמַּחֲנֶ֑ה [to·the·camp] (139) + ה֖וּא [he] (12) + וְזִקְנֵ֥י [and·the·elders·of] (173) + יִשְׂרָאֵֽל [Israel] (541) = 1367.
Onkelos
And Moses gathered himself to the camp, he and the elders of Israel.
Rashi
ויאסף משה AND MOSES [AND THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL] RETIRED from the entrance of the appointed tent. אל המחנה INTO THE CAMP — i.e. they each went into his tent in the camp. ... אסף — ויאסף is a term for “bringing into the house”, as, (Deuteronomy 22:2) “thou shalt bring it (ואספתו) into thine house”, The passage that proves that this is so in all cases (lit., the father of all) is, (Psalms 39:7) “he heapeth up riches, and knoweth not who shall gather them in (אוספם)” (from which it is evident that אסף must denote not “gathering together” for this is implied in יצבר, but bringing it into one’s house, taking possession of a thing). The fact that Scripture first relates that Moses and the elders entered their tents and afterwards that punishment fell upon the people teaches us that He (God) did not bring the punishment upon them before these righteous men had retired each into his tent (Sifrei Bamidbar 96).
Ibn Ezra
"And Moses gathered himself" (וַיֵּאָסֵף מֹשֶׁה) — he went [back] escorted by the elders, in order to show them honor.
Chizkuni
ויאסף משה אל המחנה, Moses withdrew to the camp;” he accompanied the seventy elders now as he wished to show them honour in public.
Rabbeinu Bahya
ויאסף משה אל המחנה הוא וזקני ישראל, “Moses then reentered the camp, he and the elders of Israel.” He went with the elders to accord them honour. The disaster did not strike until each one had returned to his tent.
And there went forth a wind from Hashem, and brought across quails from the sea, and let them fall by the camp, about a day's journey on this side, and a day's journey on the other side, round about the camp, and about two cubits above the face of the earth.
verse value 4254 — יְהֹוָ֗ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 20 words, 85 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָ֗ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "this·side" (כֹּ֗ה, 2 letters) and the longest is "upon·the·camp" (עַל־הַֽמַּחֲנֶ֜ה, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 56: day, day. 7 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "and·a·wind" (וְר֜וּחַ), "and·swept" (וַיָּ֣גׇז), "quail" (שַׂלְוִים֮). The root מחנה appears 2 times in this verse. 16 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 389x in Numbers); "day" (root יום, 122x in Numbers); "upon·the·face·of" (root פנים, 119x in Numbers). First appearance of the root אמה ("and·about·two·cubits") in Numbers. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'encampment', dividing the verse into phrases of 17 and 3 words.
Onkelos
And a wind moved from before Hashem and drove quail from the sea and cast them upon the camp, about a day's journey on this side and about a day's journey on the other side, all around the camp, and about two cubits above the face of the ground.
Rashi
ויגז means “and he caused to fly”; similar is, (Psalms 90:10) “for it flies away (גז)”; so, also, (Nahum 1:12) “they shall fly off (נגוזו) and it shall pass away”. ויטש means “and he spread them abroad” (while flying), as (I Samuel 30:16) “and behold, they were spread abroad (נטושים) upon all the earth”; (Ezekiel 29:5) “and I have spread thee about (ונטשתיך) the wilderness”. וכאמתים AND ABOUT TWO CUBITS [HIGH UPON THE FACE OF THE EARTH] — This means that they were flying at a height (of two cubits from the ground) so that they reached just up to a man’s breast, in order that there should be no trouble in gathering them, either to stretch upwards or to bend down to pick them up (Sifrei Bamidbar 97).
Ibn Ezra
"And a wind set out" (וְרוּחַ נָסַע) — on the second day. "And it drove off" (וַיָּגָז) — cut off, as in "shear your hair" (גָּזִּי נִזְרֵךְ, Jer. 7:29) and from the root of וְגֵז צֹאנְךָ (the shearings of your flock, Deut. 18:4). The meaning of וַיָּגָז is that the quails were on the shore of the sea in numbers like sand, and [the wind] sheared them off from there. And וַיָּגָז is of the class of doubled-root verbs, like וַיֵּחַם (and it became hot). "And it spread them" (וַיִּטֹּשׁ) — like וַיִּפְרֹשׂ (he spread), and the sense is: like a thing cast aside that has no strength to move; similarly "and they are cast" (וְהִנָּם נְטוּשִׁים עַל פְּנֵי כָל הָאָרֶץ, 1 Sam. 30:16). "Around the camp" — only [around the camp]; and the sense is also that [the quails lay] about two cubits [deep] everywhere, whether on high ground or low.
Sforno
מן הים, from the Sea of Reeds which was to the south of them, so that the quail crossed over that sea from the south.
Chizkuni
ורוח נסע, “a wind went forth, etc.;” this occurred on the twenty third of lyar. ויגז שלוים מן הים, “it brought across quails from the sea;” this was how G-d fulfilled His promise to provide meat for all the people, enough for them to gorge themselves on for a whole month, in response to their longing for the fish they had eaten in Egypt without having had to pay for them.(verse 5) על המחנה, next to the camp; the word על here is used as in Exodus 40,3;וסכות על הארון ,”you will spread it next to the Holy Ark, or as in Leviticus 24,7: ונתת על המערכת, “you shall place it next to the row.” וכאמתים על פני הארץ, “and to a height of approximately two cubits above the ground.” The quails had been flying in formations over each other above the earth.
Tur HaArokh
ויגז שלוים מן הים, “it blew the quail from the sea.” The quail had not now been created for the benefit of the Jewish people, in fact nothing new had been created. The only extraordinary aspect of the whole phenomenon was the unusually large number of quail.
And the people rose up all that day, and all the night, and all the next day, and gathered the quails; he that gathered least gathered ten heaps; and they spread them all abroad for themselves round about the camp.
verse value 4718
Insights
Verse structure: 19 words, 90 letters. The shortest word is "the·people" (הָעָ֡ם, 3 letters) and the longest is "all·night" (וְכׇל־הַלַּ֜יְלָה, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 56: all, day. 9 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "all·day" (כׇּל־הַיּוֹם֩), "all·night" (וְכׇל־הַלַּ֜יְלָה), "the·next·day" (הַֽמׇּחֳרָ֗ת). The root יום appears 2 times in this verse. 16 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "all·day" (root יום, 122x in Numbers); "all" (root כל, 98x in Numbers); "the·people" (root עם, 85x in Numbers). First appearance of the root מחרת ("the·next·day") in Numbers. First appearance of the root מעט ("the·one·gathering·least") in Numbers. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'homers', dividing the verse into phrases of 14 and 5 words.
Onkelos
And the people arose all that day and all that night and all the next day, and they gathered the quail — the least amount gathered was ten heaps — and they spread them out as a spreading all around the camp.
Rashi
הממעיט means, HE THAT GATHERED LEAST of all — the indolent and the lame. אסף עשרה חמרים GATHERED TEN HOMERS (Numbers 11:32) (Sifrei Bamidbar 98). וישטחו means, they spread them out in numerous layers (Sifrei Bamidbar 98; Yoma 75b).
Ibn Ezra
"And they spread them out" (וַיִּשְׁטְחוּ) — like וַיִּפְרְשׂוּ (they spread out); similarly שִׁטַּחְתִּי אֵלֶיךָ כַּפַּי (Ps. 143:6) — though they may be two different conjugations.
Sforno
הממעיט אסף עשרה חמרים, all the people intended to consume large quantities of these birds.
Chizkuni
ויאספו את השלו, “they gathered up the quails.” The letter י is missing in the word השלו. עשרה חמרים, “ten heaps;” a “heap” is equivalent to thirty saah, the latter being approximately 13000 ccm., so that the ones who collected the least amount would have collected ten saah per day during the thirty day period involved in this episode.
Targum Yonatan
And they who had been wanting in faith arose: and all that day, and all the night, and all the day that followed, they gathered the quails; even he who was lame and infirm gathered ten korin, and they spread them abroad round about the camps.
While the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was consumed, the anger of Hashem was kindled against the people, and Hashem smote the people with a very great plague.
verse value 2918 — יְהֹוָה֙ = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 16 words, 56 letters. Notable word values: "Hashem" (יְהֹוָה֙) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "between" (בֵּ֣ין, 3 letters) and the longest is "was·still" (עוֹדֶ֙נּוּ֙, 5 letters). Words sharing gematria 112: against·the·people, against·the·people. 8 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "the·meat" (הַבָּשָׂ֗ר), "was·still" (עוֹדֶ֙נּוּ֙), "before" (טֶ֖רֶם). The root יהוה appears 2 times in this verse. 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "Hashem" (root יהוה, 389x in Numbers); "against·the·people" (root עם, 85x in Numbers); "and·struck" (root נכה, 30x in Numbers). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'is·cut·off', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 10 words.
Onkelos
The meat was still between their teeth, not yet gone, when the anger of Hashem grew strong against the people, and Hashem struck the people with a very great blow.
Rashi
טרם יכרת Translate this as the Targum does: עד דלא פסק whilst it (the flesh, the supply of flesh) had not yet ceased. Another explanation is: one had not yet time to bite it through with his teeth before his soul departed (Sifrei Bamidbar 98).
Ibn Ezra
"A very great plague" (מַכָּה רַבָּה) — it was a pestilence.
Sforno
הבשר עודנו בין שניהם, it had not yet even come to the stage when they would despise it and be revolted by it. טרם יכרת, the period of one month of which G’d had spoken had not yet elapsed; ויך ה' בעם, the ones who had been in the forefront of expressing their lust in order to provoke G’d so that they were punished for their provocation. When G’d had said “they will eat from it for a month,” He had referred only to those members of the people who had cried (crocodile’s tears) without actually having experienced a craving for meat at all. The ones who had said: “why did we leave Egypt?” were the ones who were the first to be punished, even before the meat got into their gullets. The words of verse 20 והיה לכם לזרא were fulfilled by what happened to these people who had pretended by their crying that they felt an overpowering desire for meat.
Chizkuni
הבשר עודנו בין שניהם, “while the meat was still between their teeth etc.;” the negative effect was delayed until the whole people had been provided with sufficient meat, so none would be able to say that they were only stricken because G-d was not able to provide sufficient meat for all of them.
Rabbeinu Bahya
מכה רבה מאד, “a very great blow.” It was pestilence. We must ask why Moses did not pray to G’d to stop the plague as he had done at Taveyrah when G’d had sent fire? Perhaps he was ashamed seeing the sin was so great and the people’s faith so small, their guilt being their ingratitude. They had kept piling guilt upon guilt ever since they had moved from Sinai into the desert and had tried to induce physical desires in themselves. They had failed to learn the lesson from what had happened at Taveyrah where many of them had been burned to death. Moses was also ashamed so that he had been provoked into saying to G’d: “why have You done evil with Your servant?” (verse 11) He was afraid that if he started to pray he would give the attribute of Justice an opening against the people, seeing he had already noticed ויחר אף ה' מאד, “that G’d had become very angry” (verse 10).
Daat Zkenim
הבשר עודנו בין שניהם, “while the meat was still between their teeth, before it had been chewed, etc.;” to the question of why G–d waited this long before displaying His anger, the answer is that if He had reacted angrily sooner, the people would have interpreted His anger as proof that He was unable to meet their requests. Once He had proved that He could provide not only what they had asked for but more, He reacted with the anger that He had withheld up to then. We find an interesting verse in Psalms 78.31:ויהרוג במשמניהם, “He killed the healthy, fat ones among them.” The psalmist considers that the healthy young men amongst the people at that time, were more guilty than any other section of the people as they had lacked absolutely nothing, as testified to by their continued health and vitality even in the desert. The Torah describes some people dying while not even having swallowed the meat yet, others are described as eating from it for a whole month. How do we understand this? The moral level of different Israelites varied. The ones on the lowest level did not even get to swallow it, whereas those on higher levels died at a time appropriate to their respective moral standing.
And the name of that place was called Kibroth-hattaavah, because there they buried the people that lusted.
verse value 4087
Insights
Verse structure: 9 words, 48 letters. The shortest word is "that" (הַה֖וּא, 4 letters) and the longest is "the·name·of·the·place" (אֶת־שֵֽׁם־הַמָּק֥וֹם, 9 letters). 5 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "the·name·of·the·place" (אֶת־שֵֽׁם־הַמָּק֥וֹם), "Kibroth" (קִבְר֣וֹת), "because·there" (כִּי־שָׁם֙). The root קבר appears 2 times in this verse. 7 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "because·there" (root כי, 79x in Numbers); "that" (root הוא, 70x in Numbers); "and·named" (root קרא, 24x in Numbers). First appearance of the root קבר ("Kibroth") in Numbers. The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'hattaavah', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 4 words. Full calculation: וַיִּקְרָ֛א [and·named] (317) + אֶת־שֵֽׁם־הַמָּק֥וֹם [the·name·of·the·place] (932) + הַה֖וּא [that] (17) + קִבְר֣וֹת [Kibroth] (708) + הַֽתַּאֲוָ֑ה [hattaavah] (417) + כִּי־שָׁם֙ [because·there] (370) + קָֽבְר֔וּ [they·buried] (308) + אֶת־הָעָ֖ם [the·people] (516) + הַמִּתְאַוִּֽים [who·craved] (502) = 4087.
Onkelos
And he called the name of that place Kibroth-hattaavah, because there they buried the people who had craved.
Ibn Ezra
"And he called" (וַיִּקְרָא) — the one who named it, or Moses. "They buried" (קָבְרוּ) — the buriers [acted], as in "and he said to Joseph" (וַיֹּאמֶר לְיוֹסֵף, Gen. 47:29, where the subject is inferred).
Chizkuni
ויקרא את שם המקום קברות התאוה, “he called the name of this place: graves of lust.” The Torah did not identify who it was who bestowed this name on these graves, just as we find that in Genesis 48,1 we do not know who told Joseph that his father had been taken sick, i.e. ויאמר ליוסף, “someone called Joseph.”
From Kibroth-hattaavah the people journeyed to Hazeroth; and they remained at Hazeroth.
verse value 2913
Insights
Verse structure: 7 words, 34 letters. The shortest word is "the·people" (הָעָ֖ם, 3 letters) and the longest is "from·Kibroth" (מִקִּבְר֧וֹת, 6 letters). 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Numbers. Unique to this verse in Numbers (hapax): "from·Kibroth" (מִקִּבְר֧וֹת), "Hazeroth" (חֲצֵר֑וֹת), "in·Hazeroth" (בַּחֲצֵרֽוֹת). 5 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·they·were" (root היה, 180x in Numbers); "set·out" (root נסע, 89x in Numbers); "the·people" (root עם, 85x in Numbers). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'Hazeroth', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 2 words. Full calculation: מִקִּבְר֧וֹת [from·Kibroth] (748) + הַֽתַּאֲוָ֛ה [hattaavah] (417) + נָסְע֥וּ [set·out] (186) + הָעָ֖ם [the·people] (115) + חֲצֵר֑וֹת [Hazeroth] (704) + וַיִּהְי֖וּ [and·they·were] (37) + בַּחֲצֵרֽוֹת [in·Hazeroth] (706) = 2913.
Onkelos
From Kibroth-hattaavah the people journeyed to Hazeroth, and they remained at Hazeroth.
Ibn Ezra
"The people traveled to Hazeroth" — to Hazeroth by a short route. The meaning of "and they were at Hazeroth" — is connected to the next [passage] "and Miriam spoke," for on her account they remained there, as it is written.
Sforno
ויהיו בחצרות. They remained there for a period the length of which has not been revealed. We find this expression, for instance in Ruth 1,4 where the period is defined as about 10 years. In Deuteronomy 10,5 when Moses speaks about the Tablets remaining in the ark in which he deposited them, the period was considerably longer. In our situation it is reasonable to assume that the length of time meant is the period during which Miriam had to remain in isolation. Seeing that the Tabernacle had already been erected by that time, G’d invited all three of them to leave their tents and to come to the entrance of the Tabernacle.
Chizkuni
מקברות התאוה נסעו, “from that place they continued journeying, etc.” this was on the twenty second day of the month of Sivan ויהיו החצרות, “they remained at Chatzerot for some time.” We would have expected the Torah to have written: ויחנו בחצרות, “they made camp at Chatzerot,” as it did when reporting on all the other places where the people made camp. The reason why there was a change here was that the Torah wished us to know that their departure from Chatzerot had been delayed because Miriam had spoken critically of her brother Moses, and when having been punished with skin eczema, the people waited until she had been healed. This is another example of the Torah not having reported events in their chronological order. Part of the people had already moved on during that episode, but they turned back after finding out what had occurred.
Rabbeinu Bahya
ויהיו בחצרות, “And they remained at Chatzerot.” These words belong to the next paragraph, as the people remained in Chatzerot until Miriam had been cured.
Rashbam
'מקברות התאוה נסעו העם חצרות וגו; according to the plain meaning the verse tells us that the people journeyed from this location now called קברות התאוה to a place called Chatzerot, and that they remained there until after Miriam had been cured. This is the reason why the Torah added the words: ויהיו בחצרות, they remained in Chatzerot. There is an allegorical Midrash in Sifrey at the end of this portion which is worth reading. Further on in 12,7 we are told that after the people had left Chatzerot they came to the desert of Paran and made camp there. This seems strange unless we assume that there had been two locations both with the name Chatzerot, a most unlikely scenario. My teachers were not clear how to answer my question, so that when I was once asked about this in Paris, I explained the apparent contradiction as follows: When the verse here tells us that the Israelites journeyed from Kivrot Hataavah to Chatzerot, adding that they remained there for a while, this is what the Sifrey meant when writing that they waited until Miriam was cured. [The thread of this story is taken up again in 12,16 with the Torah writing: “and after the isolation period of Miriam was over the people resumed their journey from Chatzerot, making their next stop in the desert of Paran.” The unusual feature of this story is that whereas normally the Torah writes ויסעו ויחנו, “they journeyed and they subsequently made camp,” it being understood that the whole people journeyed, here the words העם, “the people” have been added for no apparent reason. When the first “flag” journeyed, the Tabernacle had not yet been dismantled, so that G’d calling to Aaron and Miriam suddenly to come to the Tabernacle, as reported in chapter 12,4 is not all that surprising. Seeing that Miriam subsequently was struck with tzoraat and the people had to wait with journeying (or volunteered to wait) until she had been cured, the first “flag” (three tribes) presumably turned back to join the mainstream and to wait there. After these seven days passed, this time around the whole people left Chatzerot again, so that the words “the people journeyed” are eminently justified. I have found this whole Midrash in the Mechilta on Parshat Beshalach relating it to the first verse I have quoted above. Furthermore, I have found in the responsa of Rabbi Klonimaus from Rome that he writes exactly as I have done. I have also explained the first verse in Beshalach in which the Israelites are portrayed as having moved from Raamses to Sukkot, as if this had been a few kilometers although its over 120 kilometers as understandable in terms of G’d saying in Exodus 19,4 “I carried you on eagles’ wings.” The first stage of the Israelites’ journey from Raamses was indeed as if G’d had transported them on a magic carpet.
Onkelos
Rashi
Ramban
Ibn Ezra
Sforno
Chizkuni
Rabbeinu Bahya
Kli Yakar
Tur HaArokh
Rashbam
Daat Zkenim