Numbers · Chapter 12

Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses on account of the beautiful woman he had taken, for the beautiful woman he had taken was from a distant land.

ותדבר AND [MIRIAM AND AARON] SPAKE — The term דבר in every passage where it is used implies harsh language, for so it states, (Genesis 42:30) “The man, the lord of the land spake (דבר) roughly to us”. The term אמר, however, is always an expression denoting supplication, for so it states, (Genesis 19:7) “And he said (ויאמר) ‘I beg of you (נא), my brethren, do not so wickedly” ; (verse 6 of this chapter) “And He said (ויאמר), Hear, I pray you (נא), My words’ — for the word נא always expresses supplication (Sifrei Bamidbar 99). ותדבר מרים ואהרן AND MIRIAM AND AARON SPAKE — She opened the conversation, therefore Scripture mentions her first. And whence did Miriam know that Moses had separated himself from his wife (for this was the statement she made; cf. Rashi below)? R. Nathan answered: “Miriam was beside Zipporah When it was told to Moses, ‘Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp’ (Numbers 11:27). When Zipporah heard this, she exclaimed, Woe to the wives of these if they have anything to do with prophecy, for they will separate from their wives just has my husband has separated from me!” It was from this that Miriam knew about it, and she told it to Aaron. Now what was the case with Miriam who had no intention to disparage him? She was punished thus severely! How much the more will this be so in the case of one who intentionally speaks in disparagement of this fellow”! (Sifrei Bamidbar 99). האשה הכשית THE CUSHITE WOMAN — This tells us that all agreed as to her beauty just as all agree as to the blackness of an Aethopian (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 99). כושית — The numerical value of this word (736) is the same as that of יפת מראה, a woman of beautiful appearance. על אדות האשה BECAUSE OF THE [CUSHITE] WOMAN — because of her having been divorced by Moses (cf. Note on next passage). כי אשה כשית לקח FOR HE HAD MARRIED A CUSHITE WOMAN — What is the force of this statement? (It appears superfluous; since על אדות וכו has been explained to refer to Moses having divorced his Cushite wife, it is unnecessary to state afterwards that he had married her)! But it is made to suggest the following: You may find a woman who is pleasant an account of her beauty but who is not pleasant by reason of her deeds (conduct); or one pleasant because of her conduct but not because of her beauty. This woman, however, was pleasant in every respect (Sifrei Bamidbar 99). האשה הכשית THE CUSHITE WOMAN — Because of her beauty-she was called, “the Aethiopian” just as a man calls his handsome son “Moor”, in order that the evil eye should have no power over him (Midrash Tanchuma, Tzav 13). כי אשה כשית לקח THAT HE HAD MARRIED A CUSHITE (a beautiful) WOMAN, and had now divorced her.

"And Miriam spoke" — she was the one who spoke, while Aaron concurred or remained silent; therefore he too was punished. The sense of "spoke" with the preposition bet denotes a manner of reproach, as in "the people spoke against God" (Num. 21:5); yet it can also be used in praise, and in the context of prophecy as well. Some say that Moses had reigned over Kush and took a Cushite woman; the Targum renders her [the Cushite woman] as shappīrata, meaning "comely," in the sense of honor — just as the Arabs call white pitch by a flattering name, and we likewise call a blind man "one with great light" [sagi nahor]. But it is not fitting that a name of praise be inverted into a term of reproach. Others say that "Kush son of a Benjaminite" (Ps. 7:1) refers to Saul, and so too [the verse] "Are you not like the children of the Cushites?" (Amos 9:7) — and I have already explained this. The straightforward interpretation in my view is that this Cushite woman is Zipporah, for she was a Midianite, and the Midianites are Ishmaelites who dwell in tents, as it is written, "The tent-curtains of the land of Midian tremble" (Hab. 3:7); and because of the heat of the sun they have no whiteness at all — so Zipporah was dark and resembled a Cushite. The import of "for he had married a Cushite woman" is precisely what Miriam said in her complaint. How worthy are the words of our sages who said regarding the elders: "Happy are they, but woe to their wives" — for here they suspected Moses of not having abstained from lying with Zipporah except because she was not beautiful.

ותדבר מרים במשה, Miriam uttered criticism of Moses, etc. It is possible that Miriam and Aaron spoke in Moses' presence. Logic would dictate that this was indeed the case. Had they only been talking amongst each other, what difference would it have made to Moses? We must assume therefore that they said what they did as a rebuke to Moses. I believe Sifri confirms my opinion as the author quotes the words: וישמע ה׳ והאיש משה as belonging together, i.e. Moses too heard what Miriam said.

ותדבר מרים ואהרן במשה, “Miriam and Aaron spoke out critically against Moses;” how did either of them know that Moses had separated from his wife? They had both noted that Tzipporah no longer wore the jewelry she had been in the habit of wearing. Miriam asked Tzipporah why she no longer wore that jewelry. Tzipporah replied that it was because Miriam’s brother (Moses) did not pay any attention to her jewelry. This was a hint that he had separated from her. She told Aaron about this and they talked about that situation criticizing him. על אודות האשה הכושית, they wondered why Moses had chosen this point in time to separate from Tzipporah and concluded that it was because she was a Negress (ugly), and they could not understand that he had married her in the first place seeing that she had always been a Negress. A different interpretation of this line: She had been a queen in her land, the land of Kush. This would fit with what we have read in Chronicles that Moses had been a King in that land. At the time, he had to marry a local woman. Now there was no need for him to remain married to a Kushite woman. If this were correct, our verse would not refer to Tzipporah, for the line: “for he had married a Kushite woman,” would not make any sense as Tzipporah was a Midianite woman as we know from Exodus 2,21. The Kushites were descended from Cham, the third son of Noach, and as such were a cursed people, and a Jew would not have married a woman from a cursed nation [although, Keturah, Avraham’s second and last wife, was an Egyptian and therefore also from a cursed nation, as Mitzrayim was the second son of Cham, Kush having been his firstborn (Genesis 10,6) Midian himself was a son of Keturah an Egyptian (Genesis 25,2), and therefore descendant of a cursed nation. Ed.]

ותדבר מרים, “Miriam spoke out.” She spoke and that is why she was punished; Aaron remained silent or agreed with her and we find that he was punished also. This is the meaning of verse 9 ויחר אף ה' בם, “G’d was angry at them.” Wherever the Torah reports that G’d became angry at someone this is followed by a noticeable phenomenon. Seeing that Miriam had commen-ced speaking לשון הרע, “unseemly comments,” the Torah spelled out her punishment. In Aaron’s case the Torah did not spell out his punishment out of regard for him. על אודות האשה הכושית, “on account of the woman of Cushite origin.” The woman in question was Tzipporah who was a Midianite. Midianites were descendants of the Ishmaelites, nomads, dwelling in tents. We base this on Chabakuk 3,7: “the tents of Cushan, shaken at the pavilions of the land of Midian.” There were no white-skinned people among the Midianites due to the sun being very hot in that country. The reason Miriam spoke out was because Moses had married a “black-skinned woman.” Miriam thought that the reason Moses had separated from Tzipporah was because he did not consider her attractive looking on account of the colour of her skin. If Onkelos translates the word כושית as שפירתא, “beautiful,” this is not to be taken at face value but is meant to save her embarrassment much as we call a blind person “as possessed of a good eyesight,” in order to save that person embarrassment. When the Torah writes immediately that Moses was very humble, this is the answer to Miriam’s suspicion, i.e. that Moses did not even know whether Tzipporah was beautiful or not. It is similar to Avraham who did not become aware of Sarah’s being physically attractive until they were at the boundary of Egypt (Genesis 12,11) [when he had been married to her for decades already. Ed.] Rashi, on the other hand, considers that Tzipporah was indeed beautiful but that the term כושית which implies the opposite was meant to ward off the evil eye, to make sure people would not be jealous of her beauty and want to harm her. Now Moses had divorced her. Incidentally, the numerical value of the word כושית (736) is the same as יפת מראה, “of beautiful appearance.”

ותדבר מרים ואהרן....האשה הכושית, “Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses….on account of the Cushite woman (whom he had married).” Ibn Ezra writes that some people claim that Moses had been king in the land of Cush for many years and had married a Cushite woman in that country. Onkelos, on the other hand, translates the word כושית as describing Tzipporah’s physical beauty. Although generally speaking, the term is derogatory, Miriam is described as referring to Tzipporah as we refer to a blind man by calling him סגי נהור, “endowed with exceptionally good eyesight.” [This makes Miriam’s comment a sarcastic one. Ed.] I consider it most unlikely that Miriam used a term that is used as a complimentary one and turned it into an insulting one. Tzipporah, apparently was dark-skinned, similarly to the Negroes of the land of Cush. Tzipporah’s being a Midianite, people who live like Bedouins in a hot climate, with constant exposure to the sun, was therefore not unlike the Negroes in her skin colour. Miriam and Aaron suspected that Moses had separated from Tzipporah due to the colour of her skin. They could not imagine that Moses’ separation from Tzipporah was connected to his status as a prophet, and that is why they asked the rhetorical question: “does G’d only speak to him, did He not also speak to us?” They implied that the status of being a prophet does not require for the prophet to abandon normal family life, as they had not abandoned it either. Other commentators believe that Miriam and Aaron criticized Moses for not having married a woman of better lineage, of more aristocratic background. They considered themselves as superior to Moses because of their wives or husbands being of superior background. In other words, they used the word Cushite as a derogatory term. Miriam contrasted Aaron’s wife the sister of Nachshon, who was of impeccable heritage with that of Moses, who in her opinion, had married “beneath” him, socially and culturally. She added, if one were to say that nonetheless Moses himself remained of superior statute on account of his prophetic abilities, they themselves had also been found worthy of having communications from Hashem.

הכושית, from one of the tribes going back to Cham. כי אשה כושית לקח, as reported in the biography of Moses (compare Yalkut Shimoni, edition by Heiman-Shiloni on Exodus page 34, glossary 18) According to that version, Moses ruled for 40 years as king over the land of Cush, took himself a woman as his queen but never slept with her, as reported there. Miriam and Aaron were never aware of the fact that Moses had not consummated that union. This is the plain meaning of our verse. If, as some believe, Miriam and Aaron spoke about Moses and Tzipporah, what need was there for the Torah to describe Moses’ wife as אשה כושית when everyone is well aware that Moses married Tzipporah the daughter of Yitro who was a Midianite, not a Cushite. Tzipporah could not have been described as Cushite seeing that the Cushites are descended from Cham, and the Midianites are descendents of the sons of Keturah, Avraham’s concubine, who bore 6 sons for him one of them being Midian. [Rash’bam’s argument is tenuous, for if Keturah was the same person as Hagar, according to most commentators, seeing that Hagar was an Egyptian, a woman descended from her could be described as Cushite, seeing that Mitzrayim, Egypt, was a descendant of Cham, also. Ed.]

ותדבר מרים ואהרן במשה, “Miriam and Aaron spoke critically about Moses.” Seeing that it is a fact that women indulge more in loose talk, Miriam is mentioned here first, seeing that she was a woman. כי אשה כושית לקח, “for he had married a woman from the land of Cush.” (Ethiopia) According to Moses’ biography, Moses had been king in that country and his wife had been a queen in her own right previously. Moses had ruled over that land for a period of forty years (before coming to Midian) This is why the Torah reported Miriam and Aaron as speaking critically only of Moses (“did G–d only speak with Moses?”) They thought that seeing that G–d had spoken with Moses, Moses had felt that no Jewish woman was good enough for him to marry, i.e. that he had given himself airs. They did not criticise Moses for having married Tzipporah, as he had done so in circumstances when he was a refugee from Egyptian justice at the time.

They said, "Has Hashem spoken only through Moses? Has He not also spoken through us?" And it was heard before Hashem.

הרק אך FOR HAS INDEED THE LORD SPOKEN with him alone. הלא גם בנו HAS HE NOT ALSO [SPOKEN] WITH US, and we have not separated from our spouses! (Sifrei Bamidbar 100).

"And they said: Has Hashem spoken only through Moses?" — She adduced a proof that he had not done this [i.e., abstained from Zipporah] for the sake of holiness to Hashem, since they too were prophets, and marital relations are not forbidden to them. "Has He spoken only" — both "has" (ha-) and "only" (akh) each would suffice on its own; the combination is a rhetorical device of intensification, as in "Is it because there are no graves?" (Ex. 14:11). "And Hashem heard" — even though they spoke in private.

'הרק אך במשה דבר ה?, has Moses been the only one who experienced the distinction that G’d spoke to him in addition to the whole people experiencing that G’d spoke to them when He gave the Ten Commandments? 'וישמע ה, as our sages have said junior Torah scholars are in a class by themselves in that G’d is extremely stern in reacting to their slightest misdemeanours. (B’rachot 19)

הרק אך במשה דבר ה׳?? "Did G'd speak to Moses exclusively?" Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 1,14 and Jerusalem Talmud Berachot 9,7 have said that every time the words אך or רק appear they are restrictive in character. In this instance we can also detect that both words are meant as some kind of restrictive clause. Miriam and Aaron felt that the fact that Moses had abandoned normal family relations with his wife was a silent accusation against them who continued to maintain regular marital relations with their respective spouses. Sifri takes the same line expanding Miriam's complaint by accusing Moses of criticising the patriarchs by his refusal to maintain family relations with his wife. Miriam and Aaron felt it also was an act of arrogance vis-a-vis our patriarchs all of whom G'd had communicated with, and who had not stopped living normal married lives with their spouses because G'd had addressed them from time to time. Did Moses pretend to be more pious than the patriarchs? On the other hand, it is possible that Miriam and Aaron alluded to two deficiencies in Moses as a prophet. 1) Moses never began his career as a prophet until he attained the age of 80 as we know from Exodus 7,7, whereas she, Miriam, as well as Aaron had already been given prophetic powers at the age of 3, prior to Moses' birth. 2) Moses' second deficiency conisted in the fact that on the very day he was appointed as a prophet he contracted the dread disease of Tzoraat indicating he had been found wanting in the eyes of G'd (Exodus 4,6). Neither Miriam nor Aaron had ever been afflicted with that disease. The words אך and רק in our verse refer to these two deficiencies Miriam and Aaron perceived in Moses. וישמע השם. G'd heard. The Torah had to write these words [although we know that G'd hears every word spoken by anyone Ed.] to tell us that Miriam and Aaron did not say what they said within earshot of any other creature [a third party which was not involved. Ed.]. Another reason the Torah wrote these words is to tell us that G'd heard this directly from Miriam and Aaron and not as a complaint from Moses. Moses did not complain to G'd about having been slighted.

ויאמרו הרק אך במשה דבר, “did G-d then speak exclusively to Moses?” We have a rule in the Hebrew language that when restrictive clauses such as “only,” or “exclusively,” follow one another consecutively, they are meant to add something instead of to subtract something. In this instance we have two such clauses following one another, i.e. רק and אך. The addition follows promptly by Miriam adding that G-d had spoken to them, i.e. herself and to her brother Aaron also, so that they too were prophets. (The Talmud, tractate Megillah folio 14, and tractate Sotah folio 12 claims that Miriam had prophesied even before Moses had been born.) Concerning Aaron prophesying, the reader is referred to Samuel I 2,27, as interpreted by Sh’ ’mot Rabbah 3,21.) וישמע ה “the Lord heard;” even though Miriam and Aaron had this conversation completely privately, and no one overheard them, G-d was privy to it, and He would demand that Moses’ integrity be defended. (Ibn Ezra)

הרק אך במשה, “was it only to Moses?” Miriam meant that if Moses separated from his wife because of G’d communicating with him, there was no such law pertaining to prophets. The word הרק אך are a double negative, each word meaning a diminution of something. The expression Miriam used was meant sarcastically, just as when the Israelites had said to Moses in Exodus 14,11: “are there not enough graves in Egypt that you had to take us to the desert to die?” The word במשה must be understood as parallel to גם בנו “also with us” (Miriam and Aaron). The preposition ב instead of אל or something similar is in order, seeing that the prophet views himself as G’d’s vessel. The word במשה may therefore more accurately be translated as “within Moses,” and the words גם בנו as “within us.” One of the clearest examples of such a construction is found in Genesis 6,3 לא ידון רוחי באדם לעולם, “My spirit will not rule within man forever.” In that verse G’d made it plain that man’s body is to be perceived as a vessel for his spirituality. The word ידון is related also to the word נדנה which occurs in Daniel 7,15 where it means “sheath.” The body is the sheath of the spirit. וישמע ה', “the Lord heard.” Our sages in Sifri Behaalotcha 100 state that Miriam and Aaron said what they said even in the presence of Moses as we should read the words וישמע ה' והאיש משה, together, i.e. “G’d and the man Moses heard.” Due to Moses’ extreme modesty he remained silent; this is why G’d had to react to such talk.

'ויאמרו הרק אך במשה וגו, in addition to what they had already said concerning the Cushite woman to whom Moses was married, they also had another subject to criticise him for, namely that Moses could not boast about G’d communicating with him, seeing G’d did also speak to them. בנו, using us as His medium.

Now the man Moses was exceedingly humble, more than all the people who are upon the face of the earth.

ענו means, humble and patient.

NOW THE MAN MOSES WAS VERY MEEK. This [is stated] to tell us that G-d Himself was zealous for Moses’ sake on account of his [great] humility, since he would never pay attention to injustice [meted out to him] even if he were to consider it such [and therefore G-d vindicated his innocence]. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained [the meaning of this phrase] by saying that Moses never sought superiority over any person, nor did he ever pride himself at all about his high position, and certainly not in relation to his brother, thus they [Miriam and Aaron] sinned by speaking against him for no reason. But in the Sifre [it is said]: “Rabbi Nathan says: They spoke against Moses even in his presence, as it is said, And the Eternal heard it. Now the man Moses was very meek, and he restrained himself about the matter.” [According to the Sifre, therefore, Scripture] mentions Moses’ meekness in that he endured [their insult] and did not answer them back, and that G-d was [therefore] zealous for his sake.

"Very humble" — in its [standard grammatical] weight; the meaning is that he did not seek pre-eminence over his brother.

והאיש משה ענו, The man Moses was a humble man, etc. The reason the Torah chose this point to inform us about Moses' extreme humility is that it is best demonstrated here where Moses was under extreme provocation and did not even complain to G'd. Had he responded, he would have revealed himself as not quite so humble. This, in spite of the fact that he could have given a convincing explanation for his conduct. The Torah goes out of its way to describe Moses' level of humility as "greater than that of any other human being on earth." The reason is that one could have argued that it is impossible for a person who considers himself as inferior to everybody else to at one and the same time be the greatest prophet. This is why G'd Himself had to answer Miriam and Aaron. פתאם, without prior warning. The sudden appearance of G'd was due to the אונאה, insult, seeing that Miriam's words were an insult to Moses. We find a similar instance of G'd appearing suddenly in Amos 7,6: והנה ה׳ נצב על חומת אנך. [I confess that I have not been able to follow the author in this. Perhaps he considered the last three letters in the word פ־תאם "properly aligned like twins" as similar to the plumb line which properly aligns the stones in a wall and this is the meaning of the comparison with the verse in Amos. Ed.] Our sages in Yalkut? understood the word פתאם to mean that it was "close to a spark." [Maybe the meaning is "as suddenly as a spark of lightning." I have not found that quote. Perhaps "spark-like" in its effect? Ed.].

והאיש משה ענו, “and the man Moses was humble, etc.” The word ענו is written defectively, i.e. the letter י being missing. This seems extraordinary seeing Moses is described as possessing the virtue of humility in its full dimension. The reason that the letter י is missing here is because on a different occasion Moses left out the letter י when it would have given honor to Hashem. In Numbers 20,10, at the rock which Moses was supposed to have spoken to but struck instead, he said to the Jewish people: המן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים, “are we supposed to extract water for you from this rock?” He should have said: המן הסלע הזה יוציא לכם מים, “is HE supposed to extract water for you from this rock?” Seeing Moses had been remiss on that occasion, the Torah omitted the letter י when describing him as the most humble man on earth on this occasion. This is a fine interpretation. We read the word as if it had been spelled with the letter י in its appropriate position. Why did the Torah add the adverb מאד, “very” to the description of Moses’ humility? We have been taught concerning all other virtues, attributes, that we must not practice them excessively but must strive to tread the path called דרך הממוצע, striving not to veer to the right or to the left. The attribute of humility, modesty, by contrast is one which one should practice in the extreme. The Torah alludes to this by complimenting Moses on doing just that (Compare Maimonides Hilchot Deiot 2,3). This consideration prompted the sages in Avot 4,4 to say מאד מאד הוה שפל רוח, “be exceedingly humble in spirit.” The additional words “of any man on earth,” have been added to remind us that only amongst human beings did Moses qualify for this title. Had the Torah written על פני הארץ, instead of על פני האדמה it would have included the creatures in the celestial regions as the word ארץ is often used as a term describing the universe. It is comparable to Genesis 6,6 where the Torah writes וינחם ה' כי עשה את האדם בארץ, “G’d had second thoughts about having made man on ‘earth.’” There was no real need for the word בארץ, but it was introduced as an overall term for the world. When G’d speaks about precisely what He is going to do, the Torah uses the word אדמה in Genesis 6,7 אמחה את האדם אשר בראתי מעל פני האדמה, “I will wipe out man whom I have created from the face of the earth.” I have elaborated on that difference in connection with that verse. האדם, “Man” as a concept will not be wiped out from the universe, only “man” whom G’d placed on terrestrial earth will be wiped out at that time. When David (Psalms 145,12) speaks of להודיע לבני האדם גבורותיו וכבוד הדר מלכותו, “to make His mighty acts known amongst man and the majestic glory of His kingship,” these words which are the only time in the hymn that the author does not use direct speech, i.e. address G’d, we need to understand why the sequence commences with individual acts instead of with G’d’s overall majesty. David means that in order to comprehend the overall majesty of G’d one must first learn to appreciate individual mighty acts He has performed. Before addressing G’d directly one needs to acquire knowledge of Him indirectly.

והאיש משה עניו מאד, “and Moses was an exceedingly humble person.” According to Nachmanides this line has been inserted here to explain why G’d Himself had to defend Moses’ virtue. Moses, was unable, by definition, to defend his conduct without in the process losing his reputation as a truly humble and modest, unassuming person. [Imagine how he would have appeared in the eyes of both Miriam and Aaron if he had used the very arguments on his own behalf that G’d used on his behalf! Ed.]

והאיש משה ענו מאד, “and the man called Moses was an extremely humble person.” The Torah testifies that Moses had not married the Cushite queen from a sense of pride, but that circumstances had led to that marriage. [It might have been decreed by heaven before he had been born, i.e. mazzal.] Even at this point, he remained humble by not responding to unwarranted criticism of him, until G–d acted as his advocate. ענו, the combined numerical value of the letters in this word is 248, a hint that there was not a bone in his body that was conceited. [We are supposed to have 248 limbs in our bodies. Ed.]

Hashem spoke suddenly to Moses, to Aaron, and to Miriam: "Go out, all three of you, to the Tent of Meeting." And all three of them went out.

פתאם SUDDENLY — He revealed himself to them suddenly just when they were unclean as a result of marital intercourse, so that they cried; “Water, water!” (for purification). He did this to give them to understand that Moses had acted rightly in that he had separated from his wife, since the Shechinah used to reveal Itself to him at all times and there was no definite time fixed for the Divine communication (Midrash Tanchuma, Tzav 13). צאו שלשתכם GO OUT YOU THREE [UNTO THE APPOINTED TENT] — This tells us that the names of all three of them were mentioned as one utterance, something that is impossible for a human mouth to articulate and a human ear to catch (Sifrei Bamidbar 102).

AND THE ETERNAL SPOKE ‘PITH’OM’ (SUDDENLY) UNTO MOSES, AND UNTO AARON, AND UNTO MIRIAM. Now Moses was not with them, but [they are mentioned together because] the Divine communication came to the three of them simultaneously. The sense of the word “suddenly” is that they did not direct their minds towards or intend to receive a Divine communication at that time, it being in honor of Moses that it came to them without any preparation for it; for the word pith’om (suddenly) in the opinion of the commentators [as explained in Ibn Ezra] applies to something which one did not think of, from the root pethi (simple-minded). Therefore Scripture uses the term pith’om [only] on account of Aaron and Miriam, for Moses our teacher was fit for a Divine communication at any time, and his mind was prepared to cleave to the Glorious Name at every moment, as our Rabbis have explained in connection with the reason why he [Moses] separated himself from his wife. Onkelos, however, rendered [the word pith’om] as bithkeiph (in a hurry), the sense being that whilst Miriam and Aaron were still speaking about Moses, and the words were still in their mouths, they were told: Come out ye three unto the Tent of Meeting, and He did not delay [the rebuke] to them at all. The word pith’om is thus a term indicating hurry. Similarly, And I beheld his habitation cursed ‘pith’om’ (suddenly); whose breaking cometh ‘pith’om ‘l’pheta’ (suddenly at an instant); ‘b’pheta’ pith’om’ (very suddenly), the double expressions being for emphasis, just like: ‘kim’at kot’ (a very little while); ‘harbei m’od’ (exceedingly great). So also: ‘bi’m'od m’od’ (very much), and similar cases. And pethaim (simple-minded ones) are those who are very impetuous, who do not have any deep grasp of a matter and do not reflect on it at all, the usage being similar to the expression and the counsel of the wily is hurried. So also: ‘petha’ (on a sudden) shall he be broken; and if ‘b’phetha’ (suddenly) without enmity, [which Onkelos renders] bithkeiph, which is like pethi (simple), of the expression pith’om (hurriedly). The reason [why He said at first] Come out ye three and [then in the following verse it says] and He called Aaron and Miriam [excluding Moses] is that G-d wanted him to be present [in the Tent of Meeting] and to see how He is zealous for Moses’ honor; and so that he would be available [to forgive them], for G-d would not forgive them unless he did, after they would beg him and he agrees to [forgive] them. And He called Aaron and Miriam, in order to tell Moses’ praise when he was not present.

"Suddenly" [pith'om] — the mem is an addition, like the mem in shilshom ("three days ago"); it derives from the root peti, denoting something that arises unbidden, that did not enter one's mind. "Go out, the three of you" — and the three of them went out, each from his own tent. This is a general statement, followed by specification: "and Hashem came down in a pillar of cloud and called Aaron and Miriam" — while Moses listened.

צאו שלשתכם. G’d wanted that Moses should become aware of His being concerned immediately when anyone impugned his honour.

אל משה, to Moses, etc. The reason that G'd called to Moses when it was Aaron and Miriam He wanted to speak to is that the latter were ritually impure at the time and first had to purify themselves. He called to Moses in order to give recognition to the fact that Moses kept himself pure at all times by the very fact that he did not indulge in marital relations with his wife. This is why he was able to be called upon by G'd without having to undergo any preparation. This fact contrasted with the state of Miriam and Aaron (compare Yalkut). According to the plain meaning of the verse G'd called Moses so that he would be able to offer a prayer on behalf of Miriam when the latter would be afflicted with Tzoraat. Another reason G'd called Moses also was that G'd wanted to use the opportunity to demonstrate Moses' superiority as a prophet immediately. He did this by calling to Moses before He called to Aaron and Miriam. When they would hear that G'd called Moses first, they would realise immediately that this was in contrast with their perception that they equalled him in prophetic stature.

ויאמר ה' פתאום, “suddenly the Lord spoke up;” He did so in order that Aaron and Miriam would not blame Moses for having complained about him to G-d.

פתאם, “suddenly.” Rashi explains that G’d surprised them in state of ritual impurity occasioned due to their having had marital relations with their respective spouses. They then exclaimed: “water, water,” implying the need to purify themselves as well as recognition that Moses had been correct in separating from his wife so as not to be ritually impure when G’d would choose to address him. Seeing that there were no fixed periods of time when G’d would appear, Moses had to be in constant readiness for such a communication. Some commentators understand the word פתאם as meaning that the suddenness of G’d’s reaction was designed to prevent Miriam and Aaron from repenting on what they had said at that time. Their sin included desecration of the name of the Lord, a sin which is so severe that people guilty of it are not presented with opportunities to repent. Miriam and Aaron had to know that speaking out against G’d’s prophets was considered as on a level with speaking out against the Shechinah. The author appears to attribute this comment to his grandfather a Rabbi Nathan. It reflects the statement in Kidushin 40 that “no credit is extended in matters pertaining to desecration of the Lord’s name.”

פתאום אל משה ואהרן ואל מרים, “suddenly, to both Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.” Nachmanides writes that Moses was not present when G’d spoke to Aaron and Miriam. Nonetheless, the prophetic vision came to all three of them simultaneously. The significance of the word פתאום lies in the fact that at that time neither of them had prepared themselves for receiving a prophetic vision. In fact, Aaron and Miriam were only granted their prophetic vision in honour of Moses, as otherwise they had never received such communications without having first prepared themselves for this in some manner. All the commentators agree that the word פתאום indicates that the recipient of such perceptions had been totally unprepared for them. The word applies only to Aaron and Miriam, since Moses never needed to prepare himself in order to be on G’d’s “wavelength,” in order to be able to immediately assimilate anything that G’d wished to tell him. Onkelos translates the word פתאום as meaning בתכף, as meaning “immediately, without delay.” G’d intervened while Miriam and Aaron were still speaking to one another about this subject. צאו שלשתכם, “go out all three of you, to the Tabernacle.” G’d wanted that Moses should be there and should become aware that G’d Himself defended Moses’ virtue and his reputation. They would also become aware that G’d did not pardon Miriam and Aaron their slander unless Moses himself did so by pleading on their behalf.

פתאום, at the very moment when they were speaking about Moses. This was not a customary hour for G’d to communicate with them, but seeing G’d was upset about them on behalf of Moses, He wanted to pay him the honour of reacting immediately.

פתאום, “suddenly;” G–d reacted so immediately in order that Miriam and Aaron could not say that G–d’s reaction was due to Moses having complained about being slandered.

Hashem was revealed in a pillar of cloud, and stood at the entrance of the Tent, and called Aaron and Miriam; and both of them came forward.

בעמוד ענן [AND THE LORD CAME DOWN] IN THE COLUMN OF THE CLOUD — He came alone to punish them, not as is the manner of human beings: when a human king goes to war, he goes with numerous troops, but when he goes forth peaceably, he goes forth with only a few. But the manner of the Holy One, blessed be He, is that He goes to war alone — as it is said, (Exodus 15:3) “The Lord alone is the man of war, but He goes forth for peace accompanied by His hosts, as it is said, (Psalms 68:18) “The chariots of God are twenty thousands, even thousands of angels of peace (שנאן)” (Sifrei Bamidbar 102). ויקרא אהרן ומרים AND HE CALLED: “AARON AND MIRIAM!” — that they should proceed further, and go forth from the court towards God (more lit., the Divine Speech) (Sifrei Bamidbar 102). ויצאו שניהם AND THEY BOTH WENT FORTH — And why did He bid them go further and so separate them from Moses? Because there is a rule that one should utter only a part of a man’s good qualities in his presence, but that the whole of them should be told only in his absence. Similarly we find in the case of Noah, that in his absence (i.e. when Scripture speaks about him) it says of him: “a righteous and whole-hearted man” (Genesis 6:9), whilst in his presence (i.e. where God is speaking to Noah) it states, (Genesis 7:1) “for thee I have seen righteous before me”, (and it does not add: whole-hearted) (Sifrei Bamidbar 102). — Another explanation is: God bid only Aaron and Miriam to draw near in order that he (Moses) should not hear the reprimand administered to Aaron.

וירד ה׳ בעמוד הענן, G'd descended within a pillar of cloud. We need to know why G'd did not first descend prior to His calling upon Moses, Aaron and Miriam. At least it appears from the order of our text that He waited with descending until after He had called to them. The fact that G'd told the three to leave their tents and come to the Tabernacle also suggests that He had not yet descended, otherwise he would have had to assign a certain place for them as they would have observed the place where the cloud had taken up position. According to the scholars who hold that both Aaron and Miriam were ritually impure at the time, we can well understand why G'd waited before He descended in His cloud. He did not want to descend and then have to wait until Aaron and Miriam had undergone their purification rites. It might also make those who had been called and had not responded promptly subject to posssible punishment. As it is not. G'd's wish to do something which results in people being punished, He decided to wait until both Aaron and Miriam were able to respond to His call. The reason G'd descended at all and did not address them by His voice emanating from higher regions as He had done when He first called out to them was in order to lend publicity to the event. When they would see the cloud take up position at the entrance of the Tabernacle all of Israel would become aware that G'd had been greatly concerned that someone had imputed base motives to His trusted servant Moses and that He had punished that someone.

ויקרא אהרן ומרים, “He called Aaron and Miriam’” He did not invite Moses to become part of this conversation. He did not want the Israelites to say that G-d had been angry at Moses also.

ויקרא אהרן ומרים, “He summoned Aaron and Miriam.” He called them aside so that He would not have to dwell on Moses’ virtues in his presence, [something that would make him feel most uncomfortable. Ed.]

He said, "Hear now My words: if there be prophets among you, I, Hashem, reveal Myself to them in a vision; in dreams do I speak with them.

שמעו נא דברי HEAR, I PRAY YOU, MY WORDS — The word נא is always an expression of entreaty (Sifrei Bamidbar 103). אם יהיה נביאכם means, IF THERE WOULD BE PROPHETS TO YOU (i.e. if you had a prophet — if you could show one to me). ה׳ במראה אליו אתודע This means: the Shechinah (the Divine Glory) of my Name does not reveal Itself unto him in a “transparent glass” (i.e. a direct revelation), but in dreams and visions (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 103).

IF THERE BE ‘NEVI’ACHEM’ [literally “your prophet”] - if there be a prophet “among you,” as Onkelos rendered it [“if there be prophets among you”]. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that the meaning thereof is: “if there be among you a prophet, a prophet of the Eternal, as in [the expression] and the prophecy of Oded the prophet.” He has explained it well. Thus the meaning of the verse is that “even if there is a prophet among you who is a [true] prophet of the Eternal, he can only prophesy by My Great Name through a vision or in riddles.” He mentions this [“if he be a true prophet of the Eternal”] because many prophets did not attain even this [stage], but were prophets by virtue of the Holy Spirit, as it is said, The spirit of the Eternal spoke by me, this being the “hand” mentioned in connection with Ezekiel, as is explained in the words of Zechariah. IN A VISION I DO MAKE MYSELF KNOWN TO HIM. Scripture does not say: “I will appear to him in a vision,” but it says ‘I will make Myself known.’ This verse is then similar to the one which states, And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as G-d Almighty, [the verse here] stating that the Great Name appears in a vision and through it He becomes known to the prophet, but [the prophet does not know Him] by His Great Name, just as He said, but by My Name the Eternal I made Me not known to them. And Scripture stated [further] that the communication is in a vision, but My servant Moses is not so, for in all My house in which the prophets see dreams, he is trusted, knowing of his own accord all the [Divine] attributes, and from mouth to mouth the communication comes to him from Me, and he beholds the similitude, not in a dream. In the words of the Sifre: “And the similitude of the Eternal doth he behold. This refers to the vision of ‘the back.’”Thus Scripture here teaches us the difference between the Divine communication received by Moses and that of the other prophets of his generation, in the same way that it mentioned this [difference between him and] those who preceded him [as it says in the verse], And I appeared unto Abraham, etc., as I have explained; and likewise it mentions at the end of the Torah in relation to those who came after him, And there hath not arisen a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Eternal knew face to face, the intention being the same in all these places. Do not be disquieted by the statement of the Rabbis concerning Samuel, that he was equal to Moses, as it is written, Though Moses and Samuel stood before Me, yet My mind could not be toward this people, since it is because G-d mentioned Samuel together with Moses that our Rabbis considered it an indication of his [Samuel’s] greatness, but not that they were comparing the prophecies [of Moses and Samuel] to each other — far it be for them [to say so]! And the intention of this verse [which mentions Moses and Samuel together is as follows]: He mentioned Moses because he stood before Him in ...

"Hear now" — [the particle na] means "at this moment." "Your prophet" — whoever among you is a prophet of Hashem. "In a vision" — the meaning is: if your prophet is a prophet of Hashem, [he is addressed] as in the cases of: "the prophecy of Oded the prophet" (2 Chr. 15:8); "to the tent, to Sarah his mother" (Gen. 24:67); "Your throne, O God, is forever" (Ps. 45:7). "In a vision" — in nocturnal visions. "In a dream I speak with him" — a doubled expression, as is the way of prophecy.

אם יהיה נביאכם, if Moses were a prophet on the same spiritual level as you presumed when you said: “G’d spoke to us also,” ה' במראה אליו אתודע, G’d would have had to reveal Himself to him in a mirror-like vision, (feminine version of the word mareh). He would not have revealed Himself to Moses while the latter was awake, as for instance in the case of Isaiah of whom it is written in Isaiah 6,1 ואראה את ה' יושב על כסא רם ונשא, or as in the case of Michyahu who claimed to have seen G’d sitting on His throne. (Kings I 29,19) These prophets experienced their prophetic visions while they were asleep, certainly not while they were awake. Also Bileam, even though he was addressed by G’d while awake, was not addressed by the Essence of G’d but by one of His attributes, he himself only hoping that G’d as Hashem would address him (Numbers 23,3). He never attained that level of prophecy, but in response to the wish expressed in above mentioned verse we find ויקר אלוקים אל בלעם, that the attribute Elokim encountered Bileam.

שמעו נא דברי, "please listen to My word, etc." Why did G'd have to preface His words with this introduction? Was it not a foregone conclusion that the people addressed would listen carefully to what G'd had to say? Furthermore, why did G'd have to add the word נא, "please?" Since when does the master address the servant by imploring him to listen to what he has to say? G'd wanted to make clear that when He had spoken to them in very friendly tones, i.e. ויאמר, previously, they had not been worthy to be addressed at all seeing they were still ritually impure. It was only now, after they had purified themselves, that they had become fit to be spoken to by G'd. The whole episode is a lesson to a servant to hold himself in readiness at times when his master is apt to require his services. All of this taught them why Moses had been duty bound to separate from his wife. How else was he able to keep himself in constant readiness when G'd would want to speak to him? This also provides us with an answer to the basic question why G'd did not spell out to Aaron and Miriam the reason why Moses had separated from his wife. We may also explain the words שמעו נא to mean that G'd announced that now they were about to be castigated and to be disciplined. In this instance G'd addressed them personally rather than that He gave them the message through Moses for two reasons. 1) Since Moses was personally involved in the matter under discussion. 2) It was in the nature of things that G'd wanted to discuss the matter with Aaron and Miriam privately, not in the presence of Moses who would have found it embarassing. G'd also wanted to make clear that Aaron and Miriam qualified for only this part of what G'd had to say, as G'd had no other way of telling them. Anything else that G'd had to say He would say only to Moses. This would show that they had been wrong in claiming that G'd spoke to them also. Our sages in Bamidbar Rabbah 14,19 state that whenever the Torah writes: "G'd spoke to Moses and to Aaron," the meaning is not that G'd addressed both Moses and Aaron simultaneously, but that Moses was to communicate to Aaron what He had said to him. This is what is hinted at here when the Torah wrote the word נא. The reason the Torah added the word דברי, "My words," something that appears totally superfluous, is to impress upon Miriam and Aaron that though they had prophesied on previous occasions the communication they were about to receive from G'd now was on a different level from anything they had experienced previously. G'd stresses this immediately when He refers to the nature of their prophetic insights with the words אם יהיה נביאכם השם. It is also possible that G'd hinted to them that this would be the last time He would communicate with them directly. The fact that they were about to receive a communication on a more direct level than ever before did not mean that they had suddenly qualified for a higher level of prophecy and that they would continue to receive...

במראה אליו אתודע, “I make Myself known to him as a prophetic vision. The word מראה here is used in the same sense as in Numbers 23,3; ודבר מה יראני והגדתי לך, “and whatever He will show me I will tell you about.” (Bileam to Balak)

אם יהיה נביאכם ה', The meaning is similar to Chronicles II 15,8: והנבואה עודד הנביא, “the prophecy was that of Oded the prophet.” The meaning of our verse is: “even if someone amongst you is a prophet of the Lord he does not prophesy using My Ineffable Name, but through mediums such as mirrors, riddles, etc.” Your prophetic inspirations are transmitted by what is known as רוח הקדש, “Holy Spirit.” We find a reference to this level of prophecy in Samuel II 23,2 רוח ה' דבר בי, “the spirit of the Lord spoke through me” (David speaking). This was also the same as the יד ה' which the prophet Ezekiel describes as speaking to him (on occasion). [We know that Ezekiel had also attained a higher level of prophecy when he had visions. Ed.] The fact that the Torah writes במראה אליו אתודע, “I will be known to him by means of a mirror,” instead of writing במראה אליו אראה, “I will be visible to him by means of a mirror,” may be compared to Exodus 63, where the Torah did not write as we could have expected ואתודע אל אברהם ואל יצחק, but wrote וארא אל אברהם ואל יצחק instead. The emphasis in both verses is on the fact that neither category of prophet experienced that בשמי הגדול אתודע, “that I revealed Myself to him directly my means of My Ineffable Name.” When G’d said that communications with prophets on a lower level than Moses took place in a dream, He meant that seeing Moses was familiar with all of G’d’s attributes, he did not need to be addressed in a dream in order to lower the impact of such a revelation on his psychological equilibrium as he was already נאמן בכל ביתי, “fully trusted i.e. “at home,” in “My entire House.” Basically, G’d taught Miriam and Aaron a lesson in the difference between the prophetic stature of Moses and that of other prophets including themselves. במראה אליו אתודע, “in a vision do I make Myself known to him.” According to the plain meaning of the text the reference is to a nocturnal vision; this is why G’d elaborated: “in a dream I speak with him.” A kabbalistic approach: the expression במראה refers to the emanations which are known as נצח, הוד or sometimes צבאות. G’d explained the limit of perceptions other prophets could attain in terms of the respective emanations. These prophets are perceived as entering through a “gate” of perceptional ascents assigned to prophets. There is an upper limit where these prophets cannot expand their perceptional powers further. Perhaps we may best describe this limit in terms of במראות הצובאות, “the mirrors which were piling up in heaps” in Exodus 38,8. These mirrors “piled up” at the entrance to the Tabernacle. It is appropriate for you the reader to appreciate that when G’d sums up here the various levels of prophecy from Moses down to “minor” prophets, that He spelled the word מראה, generally translated as “mirror” with the vowel kametz instead of the vowel segol with which it is familiar to us. G’d contrasts His appearances to Moses by spelling the word מראה as a masculine in connection with him, whereas in connection with the other prophets the same word is spelled as if it were a feminine noun. Using the feminine is a hint that visions experienced by other prophets were weaker, i.e. more confused, the message not being totally clear. G’d may have wanted to illustrate the limitations of other prophets by the comparison with seeing things by means of a mirror instead of seeing things directly with one’s eyes without any intermediaries. Perhaps we can understand this better when we recall the halachah that on the Sabbath one must not look in the mirror (Shabbat 149). [If the mirror is made of metal, enabling the viewer to use its sharp edges to trim unwanted hair. Ed.] The author speaks of a mirror (with the vowel kametz) made of glass whose polished surface reflects images which have no substance but appear so real that though they are but reflections they are apt to deceive the viewer into believing that they are alive, real. When Moses looked at such a “mirror” he realised that what he saw was abstract, i.e. that he was shown a concept as opposed to a two-dimensional reflection of something material, “real.” This is the meaning of the words ותמונת ה' יביט, “he looks at a divine image.” in other words, the difference between different levels of prophecy is in the prophet’s perspective. If G’d attributes the “image” of G’d to Himself, this must not be misunderstood anymore than the expression that man was created בצלם אלו-הים in “the image of the divine” (Genesis 1,27). None of these words mean that there is something “physical” or “physical image” in connection with G’d the totally abstract. The prophet Hoseah 12,11 had also spoken about providing His prophets with “images” when he said of G’d וביד הנביאים אדמה, “by means of the prophets I provide images.” [If a “parable” is an abstract image, then a mirror reflection is a quasi material image. Ed.] Our sages in Yevamot 49 phrased it thus: “all the prophets experienced murky visions whereas Moses experienced a clear vision.” They brought proof for their statement from Ezekiel where many different visions of G’d are reported by the prophet. The fact that Ezekiel experienced different levels of images and visions (Ezekiel 1,1 - 1,27, etc.), is proof of the distinction between what a prophet of his caliber (high) experienced and what Moses experienced. This is what G‘d meant when He emphasized looking at a mirror with the vowel segol as opposed to viewing things through a mirror with the vowel kametz.

אם יהיה נביאכם, “if there will be a prophet amongst you, etc.” According to Nachmanides these words mean: ‘if you will have a prophet amongst you.” (Just as Onkelos translates the words) Ibn Ezra reads the words אם יהיה נביאכם ה' as a single sequence, i.e. “if among you there is a prophet of Hashem, etc.” במראה אליו אתודע, “even though he may be endowed by My attribute Hashem, he will not be able to reveal matters pertaining to this attribute of Mine, but will refer to emanations of Mine of a lower order.” This will become clear, as I will not speak to him when he is awake but I will communicate with him as a dream, in a manner that is indirect. The Torah was careful not to write במראה אליו אראה, “I will become visible to him in a vision,” but במראה אליו אתודע, “I will make Myself known to Him as some sort of vision.” This relegates any audible revelation to one that occurs in a dream. [Whatever the prophet thinks he hears, he only hears in his dream. Ed]

נביאכם, same as נבואתכם, “your prophecy.”

'אם יהיה נביאכם ה, “if there be a prophet among you;” these words referred to their having said that they too were prophets, seeing that G–d had spoken to them both. G–d now proceeds to teach them that there are different levels of prophecy, of man’s intimacy with the Lord. G–d’s relationship with Moses, He explains, is of a different dimension altogether than that between Him and any other prophets. Other prophets receive a vision during a dream, and when waking up required the dream to be explained to them. They do not come face to face even with the vision, only with its reflection, mirror-like. In other words, they are told a parable and have to work out how the facts match what has been shown them as a parable. We find examples of this in Ezekiel 4,4, the prophet being instructed to lie on his left side. Or compare Daniel 8,13: “I heard a holy one speaking and the holy one was saying something to an anonymous one.” There are numerous examples in the Bible of such enigmatic communications emanating from the heaven but not clear in meaning. G–d tells Miriam and Aaron that Moses never receives a communication from Him which is not clear and its meaning beyond doubt.

Not so My servant Moses — in all My house he is faithful.

"In all My house he is faithful" — the meaning is [that he is] like a member of the household who may enter without permission, and when he has need he speaks his needs. But you — when I make Myself known to you in a dream, you may know [what I reveal]; if I do not, you have no permission to inquire.

לא כן עבדי משה, who experiences that G’d the Essence (hashem) speaks to him while he is awake.

בכל ביתי נאמן הוא, “he is trusted in all My house.” The world at large knows that Moses has seen things that have not been shown to any other prophets. This is because he is the “father,” i.e. prototype of all prophets past present or future. In Proverbs 11,13, Solomon said of Moses: נאמן רוח מכסה דבר, “a faithful spirit keeps a confidence.” The Jerusalem Targum translates that phrase with the words: “in My whole house, among My whole people.” All of My people young and old simple and learned, are aware that Moses keeps absolute faith with G-d, and does not reveal anything he has not been told to reveal.

בכל ביתי נאמן הוא, “In all My house he is trusted as loyal.” According to the plain meaning of the text this means that just as a member of the family has access to all parts of his father’s house and can speak without asking for permission to do so, so Moses had the right to address G’d at all times without having to make an “appointment.” A kabbalistic approach: when the Torah speaks about “in all My house,” this is a reference to the house known as בית אל, recalling the time G’d had identified Himself to Yaakov (Genesis 31,13) as אנכי האל בית אל, “I am the G’d whom you have encountered when you called the monument you built for Me בית אל.” The word “My house” was also a reference to “all My goodness “ of which G’d had spoken when He had told Moses (on the Mountain) “I will let all My goodness pass before you” (Exodus 33,19). It is also reminiscent of the place where Adam had sinned, i.e. had proven that he was not trustworthy in “My house.” Seeing that there had once been a human being who had been given free rein in “G’d’s house” i.e. Gan Eden, and had to be expelled, G’d contrasts Moses’ stature by saying that he is trusted in all parts of “G’d’s house. We may perceive the word הוא, “he,” in our verse as a contrast to Moses’ “father” Adam who had not proved trustworthy.” Some Kabbalists understand the expression בכל ביתי as a reference to the ב in בראשית, i.e. the house of prayer, such as in ושמחתים בבית תפלתי, “I will make them rejoice in the House of My prayer,” (Isaiah 57,7) The meaning of the word תפלתי in that verse is similar to כי ביתי בית תפלה יקרא, ”for my House is known as a House of prayer” (same verse). This is what Hillel had in mind when he said: “G’d meant that “if you come to My house, I will come to your house.”

לא כן עבדי משה בכל ביתי נאמן הוא , “not so is My servant Moses who is trusted in My entire house.” Hashem describes Moses as a father would describe his own son, or anyone whom he had adopted as part of his family. Just as such children have unrestricted access to any part of their father’s house at any time, so Moses does not need to make appointments if he wants to discuss something with Hashem. You, however, G’d says to Aaron and Miriam, not only do you not always have access to My house, but even when you do enjoy communications from Me, it is on a different level from the way I communicate with Moses.

נאמן הוא, a permanent presence, belonging to the foundation at any time of the day. The word נאמן occurs in this sense of Isaiah 22,23 יתד במקום נאמן, “as a peg in a firm place.” It is something that is not apt to fall down.

לא כן עבדי משה, According to Targum Yonathan, this means that contrary to any other prophet, the entire nation always accepts everything Moses tell them in the name of Hashem, as having been relayed to him and conveyed by him without chance of anything having been added or omitted.

Speech with speech do I speak with him, in clear vision and not in riddles; and the likeness of the Glory of Hashem does he behold. Why then were you not afraid to speak against My servant, against Moses?"

פה אל פה MOUTH TO MOUTH [I HAVE SPOKEN WITH HIM] — I have Myself told him to separate from his wife. And where did I tell him this? On Sinai, when I said to him, (Deuteronomy 5:27 Deuteronomy 5:28) “Go, say to them (to the people), ‘Get you into your tents (rejoin your wives). But as for thee, remain thou here by Me, [and I will speak unto thee]’” (Shabbat 87a; cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 103). ומראה ולא בחידת AND IN A מראה AND NOT IN RIDDLES — When it says מראה, this refers to the clearness of the Divine communication, i.e. that I express My communication unto him in the clearest form in which it can be put and do not obscure it in riddles, as e.g. was the manner in which it was said to Ezekiel: (Ezekiel 17:2), “Put forth a riddle etc.” — One might, however, think that it refers to the “appearance of the Shechinah” (i.e. that he saw God)! It, however, states, (Exodus 33:20) “Thou cannot see My face” (Sifrei Bamidbar 103). ותמנת ה' יביט AND THE SIMILITUDE OF THE LORD DID HE BEHOLD — This refers to beholding the after-effects of God’s Providence, just as it is stated, (Exodus 33:22 Exodus 33:23) “[And it shall be when My glory passeth by] thou shalt see what is behind Me” (Sifrei Bamidbar 103). בעבדי במשה [WHY WERE YE NOT AFRAID TO SPEAK] AGAINST MY SERVANT, AGAINST MOSES — It does not state “against My servant Moses”, but “against My servant, against Moses”, which suggests: why were ye not afraid to speak against My servant, even though he were not a Moses; and why were ye not afraid to speak against a Moses — even though he were not My servant — in either of these cases you ought to have feared him! How much the more ought you to be afraid to speak against him (Moses) he being also My servant — and the servant of a king is a king (a noble person) himself! You should have said: The King does not love him without reason! — But if you reply that I am not cognizant of his doings (i. e. that I love him though he does not deserve it, since I am not aware of his treatment of his wife) — then this statement is even worse than your previous one (Midrash Tanchuma, Tzav 13; cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 103).

"Mouth to mouth I speak with him" — the meaning is: without an intermediary. "In a vision and not in riddles" — the meaning is that I show him the matter as it truly is, as in the form of the Tabernacle. "And not in riddles" — as [the riddle of] "the great eagle" (Ezek. 17:3). "And the form of Hashem he beholds" — as in the sense of "Show me, I pray, Your glory" (Ex. 33:18), or [the meaning is] that it is while awake.

This is the meaning of the expression פה אל פה אדבר בו, “I speak to him as if one mouth to another mouth.” When he experiences prophetic insights he does not have to take leave of his senses and be put to sleep so that his senses have first become neutralised. ומראה, a clear vision (masculine mode of the word), something our sages refer to as “a clear picture, visual image.” (compare Yevamot 49). ולא בחידות, neither in riddles, such as parables, sometimes even having to be helped to understand the meaning of the parables. (Zecharyah 4,5) Other prophets understood such parables without an angel being needed to help them, such as Jeremiah 1,12 who was told that he had correctly understood the vision which had been granted him in the form of a parable. Bileam also sometimes revealed the parable he himself had been shown as the Divine message (Numbers 23,7) he was revealing. ותמונת ה' יביט, all of the aforementioned Moses experiences as a direct communication from G’d in His capacity as “hashem, i.e. the Essence.” He was distinct from Bileam who received the message not clearly formulated but only expressed in the guise of a parable. ומדוע לא יראתם, if you have not been afraid to speak as you did this could only be due to something evil in your heart. For, if you thought that I am certainly aware of Moses’ deeds you must have mistakenly concluded that I find pleasure in the wicked. This is exactly the reverse of what you should have been thinking. You should have thought that in view of Moses’ position and the miracles he performed in My name that I would not have allowed him to do this unless I had thought that he was worthy of such a lofty position. If, perchance, you thought that I am unaware of Moses’ past deeds and that you know more about this than I do, and that is why I considered him fit for his lofty position whereas in fact he is not, you would be far more guilty of an error than the error you kept accusing Moses of.

ומדוע לא יראתם לדבר, "why were you not afraid to speak?, etc" G'd repeats once more that they themselves should have been able to figure out that since Moses was constantly performing commands of G'd and was used by G'd as His instrument, surely He would not have chosen him for such a function if he had been guilty of neglecting such a basic commandment as family life which Miriam and Aaron accused him of. G'd stressed not only the word עבדי, i.e. that He described Moses as His servant, but He added Moses' name to indicate that this man had been destined for greatness. How could they have suspected him! It is also possible that the word במשה indicates that Miriam and Aaron did say what they said in Moses' presence, adding insult to injury. We discussed this in connection with verse 1 in this chapter.

ותמונת ה' יביט “and he is allowed to see a visual image of the Lord.” G-d does not refer to a frontal image, but to a rear view as stated in Exodus 33,23.

פה אל פה אדבר בו, “I speak to him mouth to mouth, etc.” The meaning of these words is that G’d communicates with Moses without an angel as an intermediary. The word ומראה means: “I show him matters as they are in reality.” Just as G’d had shown Moses an illustration of the Tabernacle and it served as his blueprint, so whenever G’d speaks to Moses He illustrates matters for him in an unmistakable manner. Of the illustration (in the sky) of the Tabernacle the Torah had told us in Exodus 25,40: וראה ועשה בתבניתם, “see and make according to their form.” בעבדי במשה, “against My servant, against Moses.” Our sages in Tanchuma Tzav 13 comment on the emphasis on both these words that even if My servant were not Moses you have no right to speak against him. Seeing that he is of the stature of Moses you have even less right to speak against him.

פה אל פה אדבר בו, “I speak to him mouth to mouth;” according to Rashi, G–d told Miriam and Aaron that it was He who had expressly told Moses to divorce his wife. At the revelation as related in Deuteronomy 5,28, G–d had told Moses to send the people home to their wives, whereas He had told him: “you stand here with Me.” If that was what had transpired already then, what did Miriam and Aaron get upset about now that Moses had separated from his wife? What other choice did he have? We may have to understand what transpired as follows. Moses had separated from his wife before being told to do so. Seeing that we have a rule that we are allowed to carry out our desires, i.e. permissible desires, בדרך שאדם רוצה ליליך מוליכין אותו, “G–d lets a person pursue the choice he makes concerning his lifestyle.” [otherwise what is free will all about? Ed.] Having heard that Tzipporah had told Eldod and Meydod that Moses had already separated from her earlier, before being commanded by G–d to so, Miriam and Aaron were upset about that. They were convinced that G–d would not have commanded him to do so, unless he had indicated that he was willing to do so even without being commanded to.

The anger of Hashem was strong against them, and He withdrew.

ויחר אף ה’ בם וילך AND THE WRATH OF THE LORD GLOWED AGAINST THEM; AND HE WENT AWAY — Only after He had informed them of their offence did He decree “excommunication’ against them. All the more so should a human being not display anger against his fellow before he informs him of his offense (Sifrei Bamidbar 104).

"And He departed" — the Glory, the Testimony, and the cloud withdrew.

ויחר אף ה' בם, that they did not immediately humble themselves as did David when the prophet Nathan told him that he had sinned. (Samuel II 12,13) וילך, G’d departed seeing they had not even reacted.

ויחר אף השם, G'd's anger was kindled, etc. He was irritated at them and snorted at them, i.e. a description of a nasal reaction. וילך, "He went;" G'd went away in order to give vent to His irritation. Although we find a different formulation in Exodus 4,14 where the Torah reports ויחר אף ה׳ במשה, "G'd's anger was kindled at Moses," followed by a verbal retort from G'd, the situation was different then. At that time G'd wanted to activate His anger against Moses by depriving him of a spiritual power, i.e. the fitness to become the High Priest; He gave that distinction to Aaron instead as pointed out in Zevachim 102. The Talmud discusses whether mention of G'd becoming angry necessarily has an immediate noticeable consequence. In our instance, G'd imposed a severe penalty as a person afflicted with Tzoraat is considered as no better than dead (verse 11). The Torah writes בם, that G'd was angry at both Miriam and Aaron, to tell us that both were afflicted with Tzoraat. The difference was only that Aaron was cured immediately, whereas Miriam was not cured immediately, so that no one but Miriam and Moses had been aware that Aaron too had been afflicted with Tzoraat if ever so briefly.

ויחר אף ה' בם, “and the anger of Hashem was kindled against them;” according to some commentators Aaron was also smitten with tzoraat;” (to account for the word: בם, “against them”) Another sage holds that G-d contented Himself with being angry at Aaron without taking any action against him. (Compare Talmud in tractate Shabbat folio 97)

The cloud withdrew from above the Tent, and behold, Miriam was white as snow. Aaron turned toward Miriam, and behold, she was stricken with a skin affliction.

והענן סר AND THE CLOUD DEPARTED, and only afterwards, ומרים מצרעת כשלג BEHOLD, MIRIAM BECAME LEPROUS, WHITE AS SNOW. A parable! This may be compared to a king who said to his son’s tutor, “Chastise my son, but do not do so until I go away from you, because I feel pity for him” (Sifrei Bamidbar 105).

"From upon the Tent" — from upon the entrance of the Tent. "And behold, she was leprous" — the word "she" [hi] is absent, as in [the comparable construction] "as it vomited" (Lev. 18:28).

והענן סר, as one needs to keep one’s distance from anyone afflicted with tzoraat, and so that the afflicted person could be removed from the encampment of the people.

והנה מצרעת, and here she was afflicted with Tzoraat. There was no need to repeat this seeing the Torah had already mentioned it in the first half of our verse. According to Sifri who claims that Aaron too had been afflicted the repetition could mean that whereas Aaron had already been cured Miriam continued to be afflicted. According to Sifri Aaron's affliction disappeared as soon as he turned towards Miriam. Accordingly, we would have to assume that Moses had not been looking at Miriam at all. Why else would he have to be informed by Aaron of her affliction before he would pray for her?

והענן סר והנה מרים מצורעת, “when the cloud had cleared, Miriam had been struck with tzoraat”. It is not seemly for the holy cloud of G-d to remains next to a ritually impure person.

והענן סר מעל האהל, “and the cloud departed from above the Tent.” If the Torah referred to the cloud which had descended onto the entrance of the Tabernacle in verse 5, the Torah would now have had to describe it as “the cloud departed from the entrance of the Tent.” Seeing that the word מפתח is missing, we must assume that the cloud the Torah speaks of is the one which always signaled that the people should either move or make camp. Seeing the cloud departed the Israelites thought that they were meant to break camp and start moving. However, G’d commanded them to wait for seven days. This is the meaning of the words תסגר שבעת ימים, “let her be quarantined for seven days” (verse 14). When the Torah reported afterwards that the people did not journey this is equivalent to saying that the cloud had not actually traveled away from the Tabernacle any distance at all. It only departed to show that ordinarily, if not for Miriam’s quarantine, the people would have been on the way already. In other words, the Torah made it clear to everyone that the entire people’s progress toward the Holy Land had been delayed for seven days in honor of Miriam.

Aaron said to Moses, "Please, my lord, do not lay upon us the guilt for the sin in which we acted foolishly and in which we transgressed.

נואלנו — Understand this as the Targum does: (we have acted foolishly); it is associated in meaning with אויל “a fool”.

"Please, my lord" — I have already explained this [phrase]. "Oh, please" [al na] — [na here means] "now." "We have been foolish" [no'alnu] — of the nifal binyan, and it has no parallel except "the shepherds of flocks are made foolish." Some say it is an inversion of "folly is bound up" (Prov. 22:15), and its meaning is well known.

בי אדני אל נא תשת עלינו תטאת, "please my lord, do not lay a sin upon us, etc." It is clear from Aaron's words that he believed Moses had felt slighted by their comments. This is why he pleaded with him to forgive them their sin. It appears that Aaron reasoned that Moses would view himself as a חכם, merely a wise man who is legally entitled to waive his honour so that those who slighted it could be forgiven. Aaron presumed that forgiveness by Moses would result in the Tzoraat being cured. Accordingly, Aaron said: "though you have been offended by our words so much that we have been punished on their account, now that we have suffered the punishment please forgive us so that we will no longer be guilty of this sin." The truth of the matter was that Moses had not felt offended at all. The Torah demonstrated this by writing how humble a person Moses was specifically at this juncture. This was to show that Aaron had been wrong in his whole assumption. The reason why Miriam and Aaron were punished is twofold. 1) Moses could not be treated merely as a חכם, a sage, but had to be accorded the status of a king. (This is based on Deut. 33,5 that Moses was king amongst the people called Yeshurun). A king is not allowed to waive the honour due him; therefore Moses could not have forgiven the insult even if he had felt like doing so. Moreover, this may even have been what G'd alluded to when He described Moses as His servant in verse 8. According to the Talmud in Shavuot 47 the king's servant is to be accorded a status similar to that of the king himself. Seeing that Moses was the servant of the King of Kings, he too was to be accorded Royal status. 2) I have already explained that G'd was very concerned at the fact that Miriam and Aaron had suspected their brother of serious wrongdoing. If G'd had not rebuked and disciplined them it would have given them the impression that G'd Himself condoned and agreed with their criticism of Moses. This is why G'd had to punish them even though Moses had not even felt offended. Moses was justified in not praying immediately that the Tzoraat be removed seeing he had not been its cause, as he had not even felt slighted by Miriam and Aaron's remarks. Had the matter been up to Moses he would not have had to pray. All he would have had to do would be to forgive (if he had felt insulted) and the Tzoraat would have disappeared. Under the circumstances, his prayer would not become effective until after seven days had elapsed. Clearly the punishment was due to either or both of the reasons we have mentioned. We cannot imagine how much more severe the punishment would have been if Moses had indeed felt offended by Miriam and Aaron's criticism of his conduct vis-a-vis Tzipporah. אשר נואלנו ואשר חטאנו, "for we have acted foolishly and have sinned." Both expressions refer to their error when comparing their level of prophecy to that of Moses. G'd's reaction had made it plain to them that the comparison of their prophetic powers to ...

אשר נואלנו, “for we have been foolish” vis-a-vis you (Moses) ואשר חטאנו, “and we have sinned“ (against You G’d). The reason for the unusual expression נואלנו, is that raising this whole subject by speaking about it was an act of foolishness on the part of who spoke about it. Zevachim 101 raises the question of who quarantined Miriam. If you were to say it was Moses, how could he do this seeing he was not a priest? Only priests are allowed to inspect such skin afflictions and pronounce them as purified or not. If you were to say that Aaron quarantined her, how could he do that seeing that he was related to Miriam and therefore biased in his judgment? We have a clear rule that no blood relation is allowed to inspect the status of such skin afflictions and to pronounce them as healed, etc. G’d showed Miriam respect by announcing that seeing that He was a Priest, He could determine the length of her quarantine.

Let her not now be separated from among us, for she is our sister. Pray now over this dead flesh that is upon her, that it be healed.

אל נא תהי LET NOT our sister BE — כמת AS ONE WHO IS DEAD — Aaron said this because a leper may be regarded as dead. How is it in the case of a corpse? It makes one unclean through entering a room in which it lies, So too, does the leper make a person unclean through his entering the place where he is (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 105). אשר בצאתו מרחם אמו It ought to have stated “אמנו” “of our mother’s womb”, only that Scripture modified the expression. Similarly חצי בשרו — it ought to have said חצי בשרנו “the half of our flesh is consumed”, only that Scripture modified the expression (Scripture uses these expressions with the suffix of the third person singular instead of the first person plural, because it wishes to avoid an ominous expression referring to Aaron and Moses). — The meaning is: Since she came forth from the womb of our own mother she in her present state is to us as though the half of our flesh were consumed. It is the same idea as is expressed in the words, (Genesis 37:27) “for he is our brother, our own flesh” (Sifrei Bamidbar 105). — And even according to what the text literally implies (without assuming any modification) it appears to have that meaning: "It is not right for a brother to allow his sister to remain as a dead person". אשר בצאתו — since he (the dead person) also come out of the womb of the mother of this man who possessed the power to help him and does not help him, — then, indeed, the half of his own flesh becomes consumed if the other perishes, since one’s brother is one’s own flesh. — Another explanation of אל נא תהי כמת in the sense of “Do not let her remain a leper” is: If you (Moses) do not heal her by your prayer, who will put her in quarantine as a leper (cf. Leviticus 13:4) who will ultimately declare her clean? It is impossible for me to examine her as to the character of her leprosy, since I am a near relative and a near relative may not examine the leprous plagues of his kin, (Sifrei Bamidbar 105; cf. Mishnah Negaim 2:5) and there is no other priest in The world who is not her relative. This is alluded to in the words אשר כצאתו מרחם אמו — “since he (the only person who could declare her clean) has come out of the same womb".

"Let her not be as one dead" — let our sister not now be like a stillborn child, dead, who comes out from his mother's womb with half his flesh already consumed — for such is the flesh of a person with tzara'at. There is no need here for a scribal emendation [tikkun soferim].

אל נא תהי כמת אשר בצאתו מרחם אמו ויאכל חצי בשרו, when a fetus is dead, having prematurely been aborted so that half its flesh looks as if it had already wasted away by the time it is expelled from its mother’s womb, even though it then appears in better condition than it was while still within its mother’s womb. When such a fetus leaves this world (mother’s womb) and enters the world of real life, perfect life, it still adds a negative dimension by being born, seeing that half of its flesh is consumed. Aaron asks Moses (whom he addresses here) not to leave his sister behind “dead” in the desert, whereas he will go on to the Holy Land, seeing that this would appear in retrospect as if he had left half of his own flesh (and blood) behind him in the desert.

אל נא תהי כמת, “do not let her be like a dead person.” Anyone suffering from this skin disease is considered as if dead. (Talmud, tractate Nedarim folio 64) What Aaron meant was that his sister should not be like a newly born infant that displays signs of tzoraat, and therefore is considered as if stillborn. We have a statement: “when a youngster is born afflicted with the disease of tzoraat he will never attain ritual purity.” (B’chor shor) Seeing that this affliction is attributed to a specific sin, it may be healed as a result of a prayer, as we know from when Pharaoh was healed from this affliction in response to Avraham’s prayer. (Genesis 12,17) Rashi comments here that Moses implied that seeing that Miriam and he emerged from the same womb, how could he be expected to tolerate that his other half be “as dead?”

אל תהי נא כמת, “do not let her be like a dead person!” Aaron told Moses: “I am not qualified to rule on when her affliction is healed seeing that I am her relative. There is no other priest in the world at this time who is qualified to rule on this; therefore, unless you pray on her behalf she will remain thus afflicted indefinitively” (compare Tanchuma Tzav 13). This is why Aaron used the words: “like one who leaves his mother’s womb with half his flesh consumed.” Aaron meant that people born in a state of tzoraat are not subject to being healed ever. Aaron concluded that due to such considerations Moses had to pray on Miriam’s behalf so that his sister would not suffer from the same status as a baby born with this affliction.

אל נא תהי כמת, “please let her not be like a corpse;” Moses drew a comparison with a prematurely aborted fetus, which due to its inadequately developed body is similar in appearance to someone suffering from tzoraat. Rashi offers an alternate interpretation in which he quotes Moses as saying: “if You do not heal her as a result of my prayer, who will be able to declare her as definitely stricken with this disease so that she requires to be isolated; and who would be able to declare her as cured when the time came and the symptoms had disappeared?” The latter words of Rashi “who could declare her as ritually pure,” i.e. as cured, are very difficult! Instead of this being a problem it should be part of the solution seeing that no priest had declared her as ritually impure, for no one had examined her! [The assumption underlying Rashi’s question is that a priest who is related to the person suspected of having been stricken with tzoraat is unable to conduct the examination and to testify as to the result. Seeing that the three priests that were alive at that time were all related to Miriam, either as brother or as nephews, how could she have undergone the procedures necessary? Ed.] If you were to answer that she could have become ritually unclean without the testimony of the priest and that nonetheless her purification would require the services of a priest, why would she not also be able to become purified without the services of a priest? What did Rashi have in mind when he quoted Moses as saying to G’d that He must heal her by means of his prayer? If we were to apply the more stringent halachic yardstick, even if G’d were to heal her (the symptoms) she would still not become ritually pure again so that she could resume living within the camp! Who had had the authority to declare her as purified? I have seen a version of this commentary in the Sifrey according to which Aaron asked Moses: “what did you find wrong with my sister that you neither permitted me to declare her ritually impure for temporary or absolute isolation, nor to declare her as ritually pure?” According to this version the second problem we raised is not a problem, and it is even possible to argue that the first problem we raised with Rashi’s alternate explanation is not problematic either, for granted that she could have been declared ritually unclean only by a priest as far as the tzoraat is concerned, this would not however prevent people from keeping a physical distance from her due to her appearance! As a result she would remain condemned to be visibly afflicted for the rest of her life, all because there was no priest at hand to declare her cured. Moses’ prayer for G’d to heal her so that she had never become definitely impure was justified therefore.

אל נא תהי כמת, for reasons of your own honour and dignity do not allow yourself to become as if dead, for when someone who has been born from the same womb as your mother would be dead it is as if half of your own flesh is already dead. אל נא תהי, do not become like a dead person The meaning of the words אל נא תהי as reflecting on the person addressed and not as the person who is the object of the conversation is also found in Proverbs 22,26, i.e.אל תהי בתוקעי כף, “do not be one of those who gives their hand, etc.” We also find this meaning in Proverbs 24,28 אל תהי עד חמס , “do not become a false witness.” [the author’s principal point is not to understand the word תהי as third person future feminine, but as second person, direct speech masculine. Ed.]

אל נא תהיא כמת, “let her not be like someone dead!” anyone afflicted with the disease known as tzoraat is considered as dead if this affliction is visible already at birth. The reason is that in such instances the affliction will never heal. As opposed to this, when the affliction is due to the person having committed a sin, it can heal as a result of repentance and prayer. We find, for instance that Pharaoh who had been afflicted with that disease for trying to rape Sarah, was healed as soon as he restored her to her husband.

Moses prayed before Hashem, saying, "O God, please heal her now."

אל נא רפא נא לה HEAL HER NOW, O GOD, I BESEECH THEE — Scripture intends to teach you by this form of prayer the correct attitude in social life — that if one is asking a favour of his fellow man he should first say two or three words of supplication and then solicit the favour (Sifrei Bamidbar 105). לאמר SAYING (more lit., to say, i.e. that he should say) — What is the force of this word? It means “to say” i.e. that God should say, viz., he (Moses) said to Him, “Answer me whether you are going to heal her or not”, — until at length He replied: “If her father had but spit in her face etc.” Rabbi Eleazer, the son of Azariah, said: In four instances Moses asked the Holy One, blessed be He, to tell him whether He would fulfil his request or not. Similar to the case here is, (Exodus 6:12): “And Moses spoke before the Lord, saying, “[Behold, the children of Israel have not hearkened unto me; how then shall Pharaoh hearken to me]”. What is the force of the word לאמר? — “Answer me whether you will redeem them or not”. Until at length the Lord said unto him, (Exodus 6:1) “Now shalt thou see [What I will do to Pharaoh]”. Similar to this is: (Numbers 27:15—18) “and Moses spake unto the Lord, saying, ‘Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh set a man [over the congregation]’”. He answered him, “Take thee [Joshua the son of Nun, etc.]”. Similar to this is: (Deuteronomy 3:23—26) “And I besought the Lord at that time, saying, [O Lord, God, thou hast begun to show thy servant thy greatness]’ , the Lord replied: “Let it suffice” (Sifrei Bamidbar 105). רפא נא לה HEAL HER, I PRAY THEE — Why did Moses not pray at length? In order that Israel should not say: His sister is in trouble, and he stands and offers long prayers! (Sifrei Bamidbar 105). — [Another explanation is: He did not pray at length so that Israel should not say: On behalf of his sister he prays long, but on our behalf he would offer no long prayer].

"And Moses cried out" — this shows that he was grieved over his sister. "O God" — You who have the power in Your hand, heal her now. Therefore Hashem answered: "And [were it] her father" — if her father had been angry with her and spat in her face, would she not be humiliated before his presence for seven days?

א-ל נא רפא נא לה, he was pleading that Miriam should be healed forthwith so that she would not be subjected to the embarrassment of having to leave the camp.

ויצעק משה אל השם, Moses cried out to G'd, etc. The reason the Torah added the word לאמור, was to tell G'd that he had not felt offended at all and that such an assumption should not result in Miriam and Aaron assuming that he harboured some enmity against them although he wanted Miriam to be cured. It had been Aaron's words in verse 12 which had made Moses feel that he had to indicate that he never harboured any resentment against them. The word לאמור may also mean that before Moses commenced his prayer he told G'd that as far as he, personally, was concerned he had waived any honour due him so that he did not feel slighted. א-ל נא רפא נא לה. "Please O Lord, heal her." Moses addressed the attribute of חסד, similar to Psalms 52,3 where David speaks of חסד קל. [According to Rabbi Moshe Alshich the חסד, "kindness" of G'd's anger, is its very brevity. It lasts a second, no more. Ed.] The words רפא נא are a plea to grant the cure immediately.

אל נא רפא נא לה, “Heal her now, I beseech you, G-d!” the first word נא is to be understood as a request. The second time it is used, it appeals for immediate action by G-d. Proof of this is the fact that G-d’s reply explains why G-d cannot fulfill Moses’ second request. The minimum period time Miriam has to suffer from this affliction is one whole day.

ויצעק משה אל ה', “Moses cried out to the Lord:” he expressed his pain over Miriam’s fate and prayed for her. The reason the Torah continues with the word לאמור, was to tell us that this prayer by Moses was not merely in his heart but that he verbalized it. This is the meaning of Berachot 31 “if someone prays he must move his lips and enunciate the words of his prayer.” The reason is that by moving one’s lips the letters one says assume a certain shape (in the atmosphere) through the use of voice, breath, and verbalising them. When such a prayer has assumed a certain shape it ascends to the celestial regions and arrives in the presence of the Lord. אל נא רפא נא לה, “O Lord, please heal her.” The attribute El which Moses prayed to is the one with the power to heal; it is part of the attribute of Justice “wrapped” in Mercy. In most instances when this attribute is mentioned it represents חסד, “G’d’s loving kindness." Examples are: Psalms 22,2 אלי אלי למה עזבתני, “My G’d, My G’d why did You forsake me?” or Psalms 50,1 אל אלוהים דבר וירא ארץ, “G’d the Lord G’d spoke, and summoned forth the earth.” The sequence of these attributes is חסד-דין-רחמים, the attributes which were employed by G’d when He created the universe. We also have a verse in Psalms 99,8 where G’d is described as relating to the Jewish people as אל נושא היית להם “You related to them as a G’d who forgives.” If, in apparent contradiction to the aforementioned, we find a verse in Psalms 7,12 which describes ואל זועם בכל יום, “a G’d who pronounces doom each day,” the meaning is that only on such days as the attribute of Justice is manifest does G’d pronounce doom. There are many days when that attribute is not in evidence seeing that the attribute of חסד has displaced it as we know from Genesis 18,23. (where Avraham prayed for the good people in Sodom).

קל, נא, רפא נא לה, “please, o Lord, heal her” In addressing the unspoken question why Moses added the name of the Lord, קל, Ibn Ezra understands Moses as pointing out that G’d, being G’d had the power to heal Miriam immediately, and that Moses was so emotionally upset about the suffering his sister was undergoing that he phrased his appeal so urgently. This is why G’d was obliged to explain to him the nature of Miriam’s sin as deserving at least a minimum period of her being ostracized.

א-ל נא רפא נא לה, “Heal her, please, O G–d, I beseech You!” the first word נא is to be understood as a plea, whereas the second time Moses used the word נא it means: “now!”

Hashem said to Moses, "Were her father to rebuke her harshly, would she not be ashamed for seven days? Let her be shut out for seven days outside the camp, and afterward she shall be gathered back in."

ואביה ירק ירק בפניה IF HER FATHER HAD BUT SPIT IN HER FACE — i.e. if he had shown her an angry face (if he was offended with her), הלא תכלם שבעת ימים SHOULD SHE NOT BE PUT TO SHAME FOR SEVEN DAYS? — It follows therefore à fortiori with respect to the Shechinah (i.e. in the case where God rebukes her in such a stern way) that she ought to be put to shame for fourteen days!) But since there is a rule דין לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון “It is sufficient for a law that is derived by a conclusion a fortiori (הבא מן הדין) to be only as strict as the law from which it is derived (נדון), and not go beyond it, therefore even as a consequence of My reprimand, תסגר שבעת ימים LET HER BE SHUT OUT [FROM THE CAMP] SEVEN DAYS only (Sifrei Bamidbar 106; Bava Kamma 25a). ואחר תאסף AND AFTER THAT LET HE BE GATHERED IN AGAIN — I say that all the different forms of the root אסף which are employed in reference to lepers (cf. e. g. 2 Kings 5:6, 11) are used because he (the leper) is sent forth from the camp and when he becomes healed he is taken again into the camp; — on this account it uses of him the term אסיפה, which has the meaning of “taking in” something that was outside.

"She shall be shut in" — as lepers are shut in so that they not harm others. "And afterward she shall be gathered" — she shall be reckoned as part of the settled community. Likewise [the parallel phrase] ve-asafto mitzara'ato ("and he shall be taken in from his leprosy"). After she re-entered the camp, the people traveled from Hazeroth.

הלא תכלם, she deserves to experience this shameful embarrassment.

ואביה ירוק ירק, "if HER father had spit in her face, etc." The Torah emphasises Miriam's experience as that of a daughter of G'd, i.e. a צדקת, rather than that of any father spitting at any daughter. The repetition of ירוק ירק indicates that had Moses prayed sooner on her behalf, her Father (G'd) would not have spat at her at all, i.e. she would not have been punished at all. The words ואביה ירוק describe a situation which already existed, meaning that Moses had allowed her father to punish her before intervening. All Moses could do now was to prevent further punishment or extension of the punishment, i.e. "spitting" a second time. תסגר שבעת ימים, she must remain quarantined for seven days. It appears that as a result of Moses' prayer the Tzoraat disappeared at once. G'd decreed that she had to remain as an outcast. Had this not been so the Torah would have had to add "until she has been cured from her Tzoraat." It is obvious, therefore, that she had already been cured. This is also the reason the Torah did not mention the fact that she had been healed at the time it reports that she rejoined the camp of the Israelites. Acording to Zevachim 102 the reason that Aaron did not inspect Miriam's affliction either at the beginning or at the end [as is the duty of the priest who has to certify such healing having taken place Ed.] is because as her brother he was disqualified from doing so. According to our interpretation we need not even raise the question of who declared Miriam afflicted or healed seeing she had been healed before Aaron or any other priest had a chance to examine her. As a result, the only restriction Miriam would have had to undergo was quarantine, pending an inspection. Alternatively, G'd Himself performed the function of the priest and declared her as liable to quarantine. Her purification also occurred at G'd's inspection and that is the meaning of the words ואחר תאסף, "afterwards she may be brought in."

הלא תכלם שבעת ימים, “would she not be banned for at least seven days?” G-d refers to such a daughter not being allowed to look at her father’s face as a sign of her shame. We find an example of this in the life of Avshalom, son of David, (Samuel II 13, 37-39) Here we are dealing with two sins Miriam had committed, one against G-d and one against Moses; G-d had spelled it out when He said: בעבדי במשה, “against My servant, against Moses.” Accordingly, if G-d were to apply a strict yardstick, Miriam would have to be ostracised at least for two weeks.

ואביה ירק ירק בפניה, “were her father to spit in her face, etc.” If her father were angry at her so that he would spit in her face, would she not be banned from his presence for at least a week? Is it not only logical that she deserves to be banned from G’d’s presence for at least as long a period seeing she has incurred G’d’s displeasure! She should by rights be quarantined seven days for angering G’d and seven days for speaking out against G’d’s prophet. However, seeing that we do not impose a greater penalty based on mere logic, she will be quarantined only for seven days. This is what the Talmud Baba Kama 25 writes. From the description in the Talmud it seems clear that the “spitting out” does not describe the sin involved but is merely an example of the anger expressed by the party who has been insulted. Were it to refer to the sin committed, the Torah should have written: “if she had spat out in the face of her father, etc.” After all, Miriam was the sinner in this episode. Actually, the sin consisted of unseemly speech, similar to someone spitting out, a form of unseemly use of his mouth. We have encountered the example of spitting out in connection with חליצה when the widow who has been rejected by the brother of her deceased husband spits out in front of him to show her disdain for his conduct (Deut. 25,9). We must understand the fact that G’d punished Miriam with tzoraat as parallel to spitting out in front of her as a response to the insult He had endured. G’d’s reply to Moses therefore was that seeing He had already demonstrated His reaction to her insult by afflicting her with this skin eczema, He could not heal her immediately, but she had to remain quarantined for at least as long as she would have been banned form the presence of her biological father had she insulted him. Our sages (Moed Katan 16) describe the incident with Miriam as one called נזיפה, “rebuke.” There are three degrees of such rebukes. The mildest form of such rebuke results in one’s being an outcast for a single day; a more severe case of such a ”rebuke” involves in one being an outcast for seven days. The most severe case of such a “rebuke” involves that the guilty party is an outcast or 30 days. The Talmud reports that two students who had discussed matters which should have been treated as confidential in public incurred the anger of their teacher and were banned from his presence for a day. When someone has caused grief to a Torah scholar and he knows that the Torah scholar is aware of this he has to impose such a “rebuke” upon himself for a full 24 hour period. Having done so he does not need a “release” from another rabbi or tribunal to readmit him to the presence of that scholar. The self-inflicted rebuke only served to assuage the hurt feelings of the injured party. If someone spoke out against a prophet or a leading personality of his generation he must inflict seven days of such “rebuke” upon himself. This is based on what happened to Miriam. We do not treat the seventh day of this period as we do the seventh day of mourning, i.e. that partial observance of such ostracism is accounted as a whole day. Finally, if someone speaks out against the president or head of the Jewish community he deserves to be ostracized in this manner for 30 days. Again, the last of these 30 days is also to be observed in full. To help remember this the sages used the words האבן האזל in Samuel I 20,19 as a reminder. In the word האזל the letter א symbolizes the Torah scholar, the letter ז represents the prophet, whereas the letter ל represents the head of the community. Insulting such a person results in one’s being ostracized for 30 days. The Jerusalem Talmud Moed Katan 3 does not recognize a “rebuke” of less than seven days. It bases itself on the example of Miriam who was quarantined for seven days and treated very mildly. At the same time the sages there do not allow for someone being outcast, נדוי, for a period of less than 30 days. They base this on what happened with the quails in 11,20 where the Torah describes G’d’s disgust with the people’s reaction to meat as extending for up to thirty days. The reason that G’d’s response to Moses’ prayer commences with the conjunctive letter ו, i.e. ואביה, instead of אביה, is merely an indication that this is the beginning of a verbal communication. It is not an isolated occurrence. The author quotes Numbers 18,8, Genesis 27,28, Number 9,2, Kings II 2,9 as examples of such constructions in the Bible. No doubt in each such instance there is a compelling reason why the author chose to commence a sentence with a conjunctive letter ו. Seeing the principle called קל וחומר, an inference arrived at by means of simple logic, is one of the thirteen methods of valid exegesis and it is the first one mentioned in the famous list by Rabbi Yishmael which we recite in our prayers daily, I have decided to list all thirteen principles at this point. The principle of the קל וחומר is derived from our verse here as well as from Exodus 23,5 where the Torah commands us to assist our enemy whose beast has collapsed under its load in unloading it. If we are to do this for our enemy, the Torah implies that we most certainly have to do this when the animal in question is the property of a friend of ours. The second principle which is a legitimate vehicle for arriving at a valid interpretation of Torah legislation is called גזרה שוה, and is almost the precise opposite of the former, seeing that it is based on similar expressions in matters which have no conceptual relation to each other; the words used for comparison are words which the text could have done without, hence they are perceived as alerting our attention to such legislation. In Leviticus 18,10 the Torah writes ערות בת בנך או בת בתך לא תגלה ערותן כי ערותך הנה; “do not uncover the nakedness of either the daughter of your son or the nakedness of the daughter of your daughter, for they are the same as your own nakedness. There is a pointed absence of mentioning that uncovering the nakedness of your daughter is prohibited. In Leviticus 18,17 the Torah writes: ערות אשה ובתה לא תגלה, את בת בנה ואת בת בתה לא תקח לגלות ערותה שארה הנה זמה היא, “you must not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you must not marry either the daughter of her son or the daughter of her daughter as they are close relatives, it is a depraved plot to do so.” In either instance no mention is made of not sleeping with, i.e. marrying one’s daughter. The words הנה “they are,” are superfluous in each verse. The sages therefore derive the prohibition of marrying or sleeping with one’s daughter from these superfluous identical words. These two words made it unnecessary for the Torah to write a verse prohibiting marrying one’s daughter (or one’s son). The third category of valid exegetical tools is called בנין אב and implies that if the Torah permitted a particular procedure or prohibited it, say on one festival, then, unless there was a verse disallowing such a conclusion the rule applying to the first procedure mentioned also applies to similar procedures on other festivals. If, say, the Torah permitted using fire on the Passover in order to prepare food, then it is presumed that on other festivals where a general work prohibition exists also the preparation of food is excluded from such a prohibition. An example of such an exegetical tool is Exodus 12,16 אך אשר יאכל לכל נפש הוא לבדו יעשה לכם, “except that which must be eaten by any person-- only that may be done for you.” Our sages considered this verse as a precedent, בנין אב, for all the festivals. Another example for something similar is Leviticus 20,9 where the Torah discusses the penalty for cursing father and mother, concluding with the words דמיו בו, “his blood is upon himself.” Our sages in Sanhedrin 54 state that wherever this wording appears either in the singular or in the plural, i.e. דמיהם בם, this means that the applicable death penalty is סקילה, “stoning to death of the guilty party.” They use as the precedent the word in Leviticus 20,27 (where sorcery etc. is discussed) מות ימותו באבן ירגמו אותם דמיהם בם, “they shall die by execution, they shall pelt them with stones, their blood is upon themselves.” This method of exegesis is known as בנין אב מכתוב אחד, “a textural precedent based on a single verse.” There is a similar principle where the same rule is derived by the Torah having employed two verses to teach us the precedent, a sub-category of what we just explained. The example is found in connection with blemishes of human beings which disqualify a priest afflicted by them from functioning in the Temple or Tabernacle. In Leviticus 21,20 the Torah lists או גבן או דק או תלול בעינו או גרב או ילפת או מרוח אשך, “or who has abnormally long eyebrows, or a membrane in his eye, or a blemish in his eye, or a dry skin eruption, or a moist skin eruption, or has crushed testicles.” In that context a blemish known as יבלת (split eyelid) is omitted although that blemish is listed as disqualifying a sacrificial animal from being offered on the altar (compare Leviticus 22,22). Our sages concluded that wherever a blemish is mentioned in the Torah, be it in connection with an animal or a human being, such blemish is disqualifying regardless of whether it is written in connection with animals or humans. This exegetical method is known as a בנין אב משני כתובים, ”precedent based on two verses.” A fourth exegetical method in the list by Rabbi Yishmael is called כלל ופרט, a general rule mentioned in the Torah followed by an example illustrating that rule. The Torah writes in Deut. 22,11: לא תלבש שעטנז, “do not wear a garment made of two different kinds of materials.” It proceeds to give an example, i.e. a mixture of wool and linen. The reason the Torah gave us this example is that this is the only combination of the principle not to wear a mixture which is forbidden, i.e. subject to the principle enunciated in the general rule. Whenever the Torah first writes a general rule followed by such a detailed example, the rule applies only when it also corresponds to what is mentioned in the detailed example which followed the rule. The fifth exegetical rule is the reverse of that which we just described, i.e. the Torah lists a specific item as being either forbidden or permitted, and then follows that example by a general rule. We find this rule illustrated in connection with the legislation to restore lost property (which one has found) to its owner. In that connection the Torah writes in Deut. 22,3: “thus you shall do to all the lost property of your brother.” It is understood, based on the wording of this verse, that only items which correspond to the example mentioned by the Torah first are subject to the general rule of restoring lost property to the owner. The words: “thus you shall do to all” are understood as the general rule, whereas the words: “lost property of your brother,” are the specific detail. In all such instances the general rule determines the application of the legislation contained in the detailed example. A sixth rule is known as כלל ופרט וכלל, “a legislation couched in general terms, followed by an example, followed by a reiteration of the general principle mentioned first. In such instances the general rule is applicable only when it corresponds to the main features present in the detailed example mentioned by the Torah. We read in Exodus 22,8: על כל דבר פשע, “concerning all matters involving misappropriation, etc.” This is a general principle involving any wrongdoing. The Torah follows this by citing examples such as oxen, sheep, etc., which are the subject of theft or other kinds of misappropriation. The Torah concludes by repeating once more ”concerning any lost object, etc.,” that disputes like this must be adjudged before a judge. The examples cited all have the following common denominators: they are portable, are chattels. This excludes a slave and landed property both of which are not considered as chattels from the legislation described in that paragraph. We have a special verse in the Torah comparing the status of slaves to that of landed property (compare Leviticus 25,46) “you may bequeath them to your children” (the slaves) [just like you bequeath property]. Due to such considerations documents which though they declare that something belongs to someone are not comparable to chattels as the documents have no inherent value other than the paper they are written on. Another instance of the principle of כלל ופרט וכלל, occurs in Deut. 14,27 in connection with מעשר שני, the second tithe. Concerning what may be done with the money which was realized in redeeming the produce of the second tithe which was too bulky to transport to Jerusalem, the Torah wrote in verse 26 that “you may spend this money (in Jerusalem) for all that your heart desires.” It proceeds to give examples of what your heart desires such as “beef, sheep, wine, alcoholic drink,” repeating once more “and all that your heart desires.” In such a situation where the general rule is followed by examples only to be followed again by the general rule, the substance of the items cited as the examples is the guideline for what is included in the general rule. In this case, the examples are all edibles, produce of the ground (animals which feed on produce of the ground are considered as in the same class). It follows that any other edibles which are produce of the ground are included in the general rule though they have not been enumerated here in detail. Synthetic foods might not qualify as matters for which money from the proceeds of the second tithe may be spent. The seventh rule is known as כלל שצריך לפרט, “a general rule which is indispensable for understanding the detailed examples.” We find an example of this principle in Numbers 3,40 פקוד כל בכור זכר לבני ישראל, “count every male firstborn of the Children of Israel.” Had the Torah written the word “male” without also writing the word “firstborn” would have assumed that all the males whether firstborn or not have to be included in that census. Had the Torah only written the word “firstborn”, I would have thought that female firstborn are also included in that legislation. Therefore the word בכור in that verse is a general rule which is indispensable for understanding what is included in the detailed example. Rule number eight is described as כל דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא מן הכלל ללמד לא ללמד על עצמו יצא אלא ללמד על הכלל כולו יצא, “any matter which was included in a general rule but is singled out to teach something pertaining to this legislation does not teach only regarding this specific example but teaches something regarding the general rule from which it was singled out.” In connection with the prohibition of sacrificing children to the Moloch cult the Torah writes in Leviticus 20,2 “if any man (person) from among the Children of Israel or from a resident stranger (proselyte) hand over any of his children to that idol, such a man shall be executed. The common people shall pelt him to death with stones.” Up until the appearance of this verse the Moloch cult was just one of many forms of idolatry and the death penalty had already been provided for anyone serving idols. In this verse this particular form of idolatry (abomination) was singled out by the Torah. Why was the penalty spelled out in detail here? [the kind of death penalty]. Rabbi Yishmael teaches that the Torah did not mean that only this particular form of abomination qualifies for the most severe death penalty; rather, it was singled out as an example of the kind of death penalty applicable to people guilty of performing other abominations. Rule number nine: כל דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא לטעון טען אחר שלא כענינו יצא להקל ולהחמיר, “any matter which had already been included in a general rule but was singled out in order to teach something out of the context in which it had appeared, does so in order to either reveal an advantage or a disadvantage as the case may be.” In Exodus 21,2 the Torah writes: כי תקנה עבד עברי שש שנים יעבד ובשביעית יצא לחפשי חנם, “when you purchase the services (labor) of a Jewish servant he will serve with you for six years and will leave in the seventh year free of charge.” It is clear that a female Jewish servant was not included in this legislation as the Torah details rules applicable to the release of female Jewish servants when it writes in verse seven of the same chapter what the rules are when a father sold the labor of his daughter while she was a minor. Why was the word אמה mentioned in verse 7 seeing that a Jewish girl was already included in the general legislation mentioned in Deut. 5,12 when the Torah spoke about a Jewish servant with these words: “if your brother a Jewish man or Jewish woman is sold to you, etc. etc.?” The only reason the Jewish maid servant was singled out from the general rule governing both male and female Jewish servants is to legislate certain advantages she enjoys vis-a-vis her male counterpart. Whereas a male Jewish servant does not leave the service of his master merely by displaying signs of puberty, his counterpart the female Jewish servant does so. A male Jewish servant does not leave the employ of his master when the master dies but only at the end of six years service. In other words, one reason the Torah singled out the female once more was to reveal certain advantages she enjoys as compared to the general rules pertaining to the service of Jews who have been acquired by Jewish masters. At the same time there is also an aspect which is to the disadvantage of such a maid servant in that her master can marry her against her consent while she is in his service, seeing that at the time she was sold this was the understanding with her father. Rule number 10. כל דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא לטעון דבר אחר שהוא כענינו יצא להקל ולא להחמיר, “any legislation which was part of a general rule and has been singled out to describe an example pertaining to the context of that legislation, has been singled out only in order to introduce an ameliorating circumstance, not the reverse.” In Deut. 19,5 where the Torah discusses the law about involuntary manslaughter, we read: “or who will come with his fellow into the forest to chop down trees and his hand swings the ax to cut the tree and the iron slips from the handle, etc.,” such a person has to seek refuge in the city of refuge to protect him from the avenger of the slain party. Nonetheless, the Torah makes it clear that such involuntary manslaughter is under the general heading of “murderer,” seeing the Torah wrote in Leviticus 24,21 (without mentioning an exception) ‘anyone striking dead a human being is to be executed.’” The example cited in Deut. 19 then teaches that there are exceptions to the death penalty, namely when the killing was under the heading of involuntary manslaughter. Both verses speak of the same subject, i.e. killing; however the involuntary killer is exempt from the death penalty seeing his situation was singled out by the Torah which provided cities of refuge. Rule number 11: When a matter which had been subject to legislation of a general rule had been singled out by the Torah to provide a totally new perspective, it will not again become part of the original general rule unless the Torah writes so specifically. An example is Leviticus 22,11: “when a priest acquires a slave who becomes his physical property he may eat (terumah) just as may someone born in his house, etc.” In the verse following the Torah writes that such a priest’s daughter cannot eat such terumah anymore once she marries a husband who is not a priest. Seeing that up until her marriage she had been part of her father’s household, the Torah had to inform us that her status changes drastically upon her marriage. Once she has forfeited the right to eat terumah there is no way she can regain this right unless the Torah legislates so specifically. This is why in verse 13 the Torah writes that if this daughter who had forfeited her right to eat terumah through marriage to a non-priest had become widowed or divorced she may again eat terumah in her father’s house. Rule number 12. דבר הלמד מענינו ודבר הלמד מסופו, “A legislative matter derived through study of its context or from its subsequent passage.” We find an illustration of this principle in connection with the laws of the Sabbath. The Torah writes (Exodus 16,29) שבו איש תחתיו, “let every man remain in his place;” this does not mean that one is not to move for the entire period of the Sabbath but that one must not distance himself from one’s home (starting from the city’s boundary) for a distance of more than 2,000 cubits (1300 yards approx.) in any one direction. This is an example of deriving something from the context in which the passage is written. Seeing that the Israelites had to walk up to that distance to collect the manna during the week days and there was no manna on the Sabbath, it is reasonable to interpret the word ממקומו, “from his place,” as meaning the distance he had to move in a certain direction on days other than the Sabbath. We now have to show an example of deriving legislation by studying a passage in conjunction with the passage following it. In Leviticus 18,6 the Torah writes: איש איש אל כל שאר בשרו לא תקרבו לגלות ערוה, “any man shall not approach his close relative to uncover nakedness;” on the face of it this is a prohibition against sexual contact with any blood relative. Later on, in verses 7-18, the Torah spells out the list of blood-relations which are covered by the general statement in verse 6. This list enables us to derive which blood-relations are permitted as marriage partners, i.e. any not included in the verses 7-18. This is an example of what Rabbi Yishmael means when he says that deriving something from the end of a passage is a legitimate exegetical tool. Rule number 13 deals with two verses in the Torah which appear to contradict each other and which require a third verse for clarification. The Torah writes in Genesis 1,1 that “G’d created heaven and earth.” From this verse it appears as if the creation of the heaven preceded the creation of the earth. On the other hand, we read in Genesis 2,4: “these are the products of ....on the day the Lord G’d created earth and heaven.” This verse creates the impression that earth preceded heaven at the time of creation. We therefore need a third verse in Scripture which resolves this apparent contradiction. This verse is found in Isaiah 48,13: ”My own hand founded the earth, My right hand spread out the skies. I call upon them, let them stand up.” Another example of apparently contradictory statements in the Torah occurs in Exodus 20,22: “You have seen that I spoke to you out of the heaven.” This verse gives the impression that G’d’s voice at that time did not emanate from Mount Sinai but from the celestial regions. On the other hand, in Deut. 5,4 the Torah writes: “face to face the Lord spoke to you at the Mountain out of the fire.” The third verse which resolves the apparent contradiction is found in Deut. 4,36: “From the heaven He let you hear His voice to discipline you; on earth He let you see His great fire; and from amidst that fire you heard His words.” A third example of such a need for a third verse reconciling two apparently contradictory ones is the subject of consumption of fat and blood. In Leviticus 3,17 the Torah writes: “you must not eat any fat or blood.” This verse gives the impression that the prohibition applies equally to free-roaming beasts and to domesticated animals. On the other hand, in Deut 12,22 we read that the free-roaming beasts may be consumed (apparently without restriction). In Leviticus 7,23 the Torah writes that “all the fat of ox sheep or goat you must not eat.” This verse indicates that it is in order to consume the fat of free-roaming animals.

תכלם שבעת ימים, “should she not be locked up for seven days?” According to Rashi, we are dealing here with a lesson in logic. If for insulting a parent the penalty is seven days of being ostracised, is it not logical that for insulting G–d the penalty must be at least ostracism for fourteen days?” G–d shows Moses that He is very considerate of Miriam by decreeing only seven days of such ostracism. Rashi raises the question that the so-called logic here is halachically incorrect, as we have a rule that this type of logic may not be applied to something being in excess of the basis for the comparison. (Compare Talmud, tractate Niddah folio 31) The sages say that man was created by three partners, G–d, his father, and his mother. The father supplies the semen, which later on forms bones and tendons, nails, brain and the eyes. This makes five parts. The mother supplies the blood, and the material forming the flesh. G–d provides the spirit and the soul, as well as the appearance of the face, eyesight, sense of hearing, ability to formulate thoughts into words, the lips, and the ability of the legs to walk. In other words, G–d makes ten contributions, twice as many as the father. This is why the number 14 appears here. It is not appropriate therefore that the punishment for Miriam, only a human being, should symbolise something Divine, but seven days of ostracism suffice, as they represent the part of father and mother in the development of the human being. Rabbi B’chor Shor raises the question that if everything that is serious is derived from something that is less serious, the kal vachomer principle, and that therefore the number 14 would symbolise a type of infinity, [like G–d. Ed] something that has no end, this would mean that a person stricken with tzoraat, who is examined at weekly intervals by the priest to determine the progress of the disease, would be condemned to carry that disease till he dies if it had not healed after the priest’s second inspection. Rabbi Baruch ben Yitzchok disagrees, saying that the two inspections by the priest cover a period of only thirteen days, as the seventh day is considered as belonging both to the first week and the second week. The difficulty with this interpretation is that we have no source for knowing that a father’s curse is limited to seven days, as seems to be taken for granted in our verse. From where did the Torah consider this as axiomatic? Perhaps the number seven as the length for such negative phenomena is based on the length a woman experiences ostracism during her menses. The period of active mourning for close relative is also limited to seven days. Still, this seven day mourning period is only of Rabbinic origin, not decreed by the Torah. Besides, another question, whence do we know that a father will spit in his daughter’s face as an indication of his displeasure with her behaviour, as seems to be taken for granted in our verse? Miriam’s father was not even alive anymore at that time! Upon reflection, I think there is no problem at all. The Torah simply posits that if her father had still been alive, and she had caused him great displeasure this is how he would have reacted. At any rate, there are sages who answer this problem by referring to Miriam’s father’s displeasure at the time of Moses’ birth at which time her father had hit her lightly on the head, asking her what had become of her prophecy, now that she had a brother who had to be drowned in the Nile? (Compare Talmud, tractate Sotah folio 13) That incident resulted in her being ostracised for a period of seven days as we derive Exodus 2,4, from the words: ותתצב מרחוק. “she had to stand at a distance.” Just as a person stricken with tzoraat has to wait for seven days before the priest could declare him as healed, so the minimum period such ostracism lasts is seven days. As a result, even after having been declared healed, the formerly afflicted person has to wait for a period of seven days before he can rejoin the people as we read in Leviticus 14,8. This is also the verse that the Talmud based itself on above, as well as the Talmud in tractate Moed Katan folio 16.

Miriam was shut out outside the camp for seven days, and the people did not journey until Miriam was gathered back in.

והעם לא נסע AND THE PEOPLE JOURNEYED NOT [TILL MIRIAM WAS BROUGHT IN] — This honour the Omnipresent showed her as a reward for the single hour she tarried for Moses’ sake when he was thrown into the river, as it is said, (Exodus 2:4) “And his sister placed herself afar off (i. e. she waited) [to know what would be done to him]” (Sotah 9b).

והעם לא נסע, even though the cloud had lifted off the encampment and the Tabernacle. The Torah writes: ובהעלות הענן מעל המשכן יסעו בני ישראל בכל מסעיהם, “when the cloud would lift from above the Tabernacle the Children of Israel would begin all their respective journeys.” They did not journey on this occasion as they realised that the reason why the cloud had lifted was in order to distance itself from the tzoraat.

והעם לא נסע, And the people had not travelled, etc. The Torah makes the people the principals in this decision. This is why the Torah did not write ולא נסע העם, but mentioned the people first. The people had expressed their willingness to delay their departure. Although, normally, the people's breaking camp was determined by the movement of the cloud, the Torah wanted to inform us that the people were willing to inconvenience themselves on account of Miriam's many merits. Had the people been aware that their entire water supply was due to Miriam's merit (compare Taanit 9) they would most certainly have chosen to remain near their source of water.

מחוץ למחנה שבעת ימים, “seven days outside the camp.” Not seven whole days, but the seventh day would be accounted as a whole day as our author had already explained once on Leviticus 13,5.

והעם לא נסע, ”And the people did not journey.” The reason was that the cloud had not risen. It was a great compliment for Miriam that both the cloud and the people waited for seven days until Miriam was cured. Our sages in Sotah 8 state that a person is “measured,” i.e. treated, in accordance with the way he treats others. Shimshon was in the habit of judging matters based on what his eyes saw, as we know from Judges 9,2 where he told his parents that he insisted that they arrange for his marriage to a Philistine girl seeing “she seems right in my eyes.” As a result of the yardsticks he applied, the Philistines in due course gouged out these very eyes which had misled him (Judges 14,3). Avshalom was very proud of his hair. As a result, when he was punished for rebelling against his father David and sleeping with 10 of his father’s concubines he was hung up by his hair (Samuel II 18,15). The same “measure for measure” principle works also in reverse, i.e. positive character traits displayed by individuals usually are rewarded by G’d in kind. Joseph who had taken a great deal of trouble to bring his father’s bones to burial in the Holy Land, was rewarded in Moses securing his casket and the people taking it with them to the Holy Land during their 40 year trek through the desert (compare Genesis 50,7 and Exodus 13,19). The most illustrious Israelite ever personally looked after keeping the promise made to Joseph by his brothers in this regard. Seeing Moses had taken so much trouble, he was rewarded by G’d Himself burying him (compare Deut. 34,6). We must not be surprised therefore that Miriam experienced the same kind of treatment. When her brother Moses had been lying in a basket in the reeds alongside the river Nile, she had kept watch from a distance in order to see what would develop (Exodus 2,4). Having kept watch for an hour or so at the time, she was now rewarded by the entire Jewish people waiting for seven days with their journey until she could rejoin the main body of the nation. In this connection our sages in Sotah 8 have said that although in practice the four kinds of death penalty in the Torah can no longer be applied seeing we do not have a Temple and our judges do not have that authority while we are in exile, the principle of such kinds of deaths has not been abrogated. When certain people die violent deaths this may reflect the fact that had there been a chance to convict them of the death penalty they would have been executed by a method parallel to that which caused their death. This is an ongoing miracle proving that what we call השגחה פרטית, “G’d’s individual supervision of each of our fates” is still very much in evidence. This is the meaning of Isaiah 30,18: ”for the Lord is a G’d of Justice; happy are all who wait for Him.”

Afterward the people journeyed from Hazeroth and encamped in the wilderness of Paran.

AND AFTERWARD THE PEOPLE JOURNEYED FROM HATZEROTH, AND PITCHED IN THE WILDERNESS OF PARAN. The reason [why Scripture mentions the wilderness] is to say that when they travelled from Hatzeroth they did not go from one wilderness to another, as they did on their first journey when they set forth from the wilderness of Sinai and pitched in the wilderness of Paran, for [now] they set forth from Hatzeroth which is in the wilderness of Paran, and pitched in another place in that very same wilderness. This [place was called] Kadesh-barnea, for [although its name is not given here], it is from there that the spies [mentioned in the next section of the Torah] were sent, as is said in another place, unto the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh, and so also it is written, and we came to Kadesh-barnea; And ye came unto me every one of you, and said: Let us send men before us. Now Scripture does not say here: “and they journeyed from Hatzeroth, and pitched in Kadesh-barnea,” for perhaps there were many [stages in their] journey between them [i.e., these two places], and this is not now the place to mention them. However, it mentioned [that they pitched] in the wilderness of Paran, in order to inform us that this Kadesh [from where the spies were sent] is the Kadesh-barnea which is in the wilderness of Paran, not the Kadesh which is in the wilderness of Sin where the affair of the waters of Meribah took place in the fortieth year [of the Israelites’ stay in the wilderness].Shelach

"And they encamped in the wilderness of Paran" — in the opinion of many, the cloud was there [i.e., remained at Paran] because they found [the verse] "the cloud settled in the wilderness of Paran" (Num. 10:12); and they interpret "the cloud withdrew from upon the Tent" (v. 10) according to its plain sense. In my view, however, this interpretation is not correct.

ויחנו במדבר פארן, in a region of the desert which had not been named at all, but it is clear that it was opposite Kadesh Barnea, not far from it. This was in order for them to make all the necessary preparations to enter the first town of what was going to be their homeland. Moses referred to this specifically in his review in Deuteronomy 1,19-21. Having made camp there the Israelites called the site Ritmah, and it is described as such in the list of the journeys of the Israelites in Parshat Massey.

ואחר, “and afterwards;” after Miriam returned to the camp on the twenty ninth day of Sivan .ויחנו במדבר פארן, “they made camp in the desert around Paran.” This is a reference to Kadesh Barnea, (as we know, the place from which the spies were dispatched) The sequence of events was as follows: on the 20th of Iyar the people arrived at Kivrot hataavah, after having journeyed from Mount Sinai on that day. G-d had not told them to sanctify themselves until the following day, until the 22nd of the month. Concerning this period the Torah had written: “they journeyed from Mount Sinai a distance of three days.” The reason we need to know all this is in order to know that when the spies returned with a devastating report, resulting in a whole generation being condemned to die in the desert, the date was the 9th of Av, a date to become infamous for many tragic events in Jewish history. The episode of the quails lasted exactly a whole month the last day being included, so that it ended on the 22nd of Sivan. On that day the people arrived at Chatzerot. They remained there until Miriam had been healed, on the seventh day, i.e. the 29th day of Sivan. On the following day the first day of Tammuz, the spies were sent of, as stated in the Talmud, tractate Taanit folio 29.

ואחר נסעו העם מחצרות ויחנו במדבר פארן, “and after (the conclusion of that wait) the people journeyed fro Chatzerot and camped in the desert of Paran.” Nachmanides writes that the people’s journey from Chatzerot does not describe the journey from one desert to yet another desert, but that they journeyed from one point in the desert of Paran to another location in that same desert The precise location where they encamped now was known as Kadesh Barnea, the place from which the spies would be dispatched, as described in the following chapter. (13,26) The reason the Torah did not mention that location by name at this stage may have been that the journey from Chatzerot entailed several brief stops before they encamped around Kadesh Barnea. There was another location called Kadesh, and this is the reason why the Torah in 13,26 is precise so that we should not confuse that Kadesh with the Kadesh in the desert of Tzin.