Kommentar zu Bamidbar 11:36

ויהי העם כמתאננים AND THE PEOPLE WERE COMPLAINING — The term העם “the people” always denotes wicked men. Similarly it states, (Exodus 17:4) “what shall I do unto this people (לעם הזה)? [yet a little and they will stone me]”, and it further states, ( 13:10) “This evil people [which refuses to hear my words]”. But when they are worthy men who are spoken of they are called עמי “My people”, as it is said, (Exodus 5:1) “Let My people go”; (Micah 6:3) “O My people, what have I done unto thee” (Sifrei Bamidbar 85).

AND THE PEOPLE WERE ‘K’MITHON’NIM.’ Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that [the word k’mithon’nim is] “of the root aven (wickedness); similarly, the thoughts of ‘oneich’ (thy evil thoughts),¹⁴⁹Jeremiah 4:14. for they spoke words of wickedness.” But this is not correct, for why would Scripture have concealed their sin, and not stated [clearly what it was], as it does in all other places! The correct interpretation appears to me to be that as they got further away from Mount Sinai, which was near an inhabitable settlement, and entered the great and dreadful wilderness¹⁵⁰Deuteronomy 1:19. in their first journey, they became upset and said: “What shall we do? How shall we live in this wilderness? What shall we eat and what shall we drink? How shall we endure the trouble and the suffering, and when shall we come out of here?” The word k’mithon’nim is thus related to the expression, Wherefore doth a living man ‘yithonein’ (complain), a strong man because of his sins?¹⁵¹Lamentations 3:39. which is an expression indicating pain, and feeling sorry for oneself. Similarly, ben oni¹⁵²Genesis 35:18. means “the son of my sorrow; “‘v’anu hadayagim’ (and the fishers shall lament) and all they that cast angle into the Nile shall mourn.¹⁵³Isaiah 19:8. Thus when Scripture states that they felt anxious and upset, it has thereby already mentioned and told [the nature of] their sin. It states that they were k’mithon’nim (‘as’ murmurers), meaning that they spoke in the bitterness of their soul as do people who suffer pain, and this was evil in the sight of the Eternal, since they should have followed Him with joyfnlness, and with gladness of heart by reason of the abundance of all good things¹⁵⁴Deuteronomy 28:47. which He gave them, but they behaved like people acting under duress and compulsion, murmuring and complaining about their condition. It is for this reason that He states with regard to the second [sin, or punishment], and the children of Israel also wept ‘again,’¹⁵⁵Verse 4. meaning that their first sin consisted of complaining about their lack of comforts in the wilderness, and now they again did a similar thing, and they did not receive correction¹⁵⁶Jeremiah 7:28. from the fire of G-d which devoured them.¹⁵⁷As stated in the verse before us.

כמתאוננים, on account of the difficulties of the journey. They did not actually complain in their hearts as they had nothing to complain about. They only voiced complaints as a form of testing G’d.

כמתאוננים, experiencing the frustrations connected with the tedious journey.

ויהי העם כמתאוננים, “It happened when the people were in a frustrated mood looking for things to complain about;” Nachmanides, quoting Ibn Ezra who considers that the root of the word מתאוננים is און, (as in Job 15,35) does not agree, saying that there is no reason why the Torah should gloss over the people’s sinful behaviour by being so oblique. We have no other instance where the Torah downplays the people’s errant conduct. Nachmanides therefore believes that the correct interpretation is that when the people now faced the terrible desert, they became full of misgivings and fear as to how they would fare on the journey ahead of them. He therefore understands the word מתאוננים as in Lamentations 3,39 מה יתאונן אדם חי גבר על חטאיו?, “Of what shall a living man complain? Each one of his own sins.” Such a negative attitude by a nation that should have looked forward with joyful anticipation to coming ever closer to the promised land, was considered as sinful by Hashem. He had shown them ample proof of making their lives tolerable even in the desert, and they had no reason to be despondent. When we view matters from this perspective we can understand why the Torah writes in verse 4 וישובו ויבכו גם בני ישראל, that the Children of Israel wept a second time, etc.” The first time had been what we read about in verse 1. The people had not learned a lesson from the heavenly fire that had claimed many lives among the people.

ויהי העם כמתאוננים, “The people were as if looking for a pretext to complain.” The word מתאונן occurs in Lamentations 3,39 where it means “complain.” As the people entered the desert they experienced a variety of uncomfortable sensations. These complaints were very displeasing in the ears of the Lord, seeing they were caused by the fact that instead of marching joyfully towards their destiny and the Holy Land, the people marched only grudgingly. The reason the word מתאוננים is spelled with the prefix כ i.e. a preposition describing something in relative terms, i.e. “as if,” is because at that stage they did not yet dare verbalize their feelings of discontent. They did not want Moses to hear their complaint. This is why the Torah describes G’d as “hearing” unspoken complaints by the people. Moses had not heard these complaints.

“The People” refers only to the wicked. You might ask: Do we not [also] find “the people” referring to the righteous, as it says “all of the people together answered and said: All that Hashem says we shall do and we shall hear” (Shemos 19:8). The answer is that when they are wicked the only name that they are given is “the people.”

Kap. 11. V. 1. Während Mosche die Führungen Gottes, selbst durch Wüsten und Einöden, jetzt und in alle Zukunft in völlig selbstloser Hingebung, in heiterem Aufgehen in den göttlichen Willen freudig begrüßte und damit nichts anderes, als die gotterfüllte Lebensanschanung und Gesinnung bekundete, die Gemeingut des ganzen Volkes in allen seinen Gliedern sein sollte, war das Volk noch weit entfernt von solcher geistig sittlichen Vollendung. Das "Volk" — im Gegensatz zu Mosche — war כמתאננים! (siehe zu Bereschit 35, 18). Das Volk war, als ob sie über sich selbst trauerten, sie sahen sich wie bereits gestorben an und hielten gleichsam Trauer über sich. Gottes Wolke über ihnen, Gottes Bundeslade vor ihnen her, ließ sie nichts als ihre völlige Abgeschiedenheit von der ganzen übrigen Welt und deren Lebensbedingungen und Äußerungen fühlen, und die ganz einzige Verbindung mit Gott, die sie dafür erhielten, die Gottesnähe, das Gottesheiligtum in ihrer Mitte, der Gottesberuf, die Gottesbestimmung, der sie entgegenzogen, bot ihnen keinen Ersatz, war ihnen wert- und bedeutungslos geblieben, war ihnen noch nicht zu einem weit höheren, seligeren Leben geworden — sie fühlten sich eingesargt und trauerten über sich selber. Sie waren רע, sie waren "schlecht", sie waren in gegensätzlicher Ferne zu der ihrer Gottesbestimmung entsprechenden Gesinnung, und sie waren nicht רע בעיני ד, sie waren רע באזני ד, sie hatten das Bewusstsein, dass Gott die Stimme ihrer Herzen vernehme, und sie richteten sie gegen Ihn, sie klagten Ihn an, dass Er sie ihres Lebenswertes und ihrer Lebensbedeutung verlustig sein lasse. — ותבער בם וגו׳: die drohende Vernichtung machte sie doch ihres Daseins und des Wertes ihres Daseins inne. Sie hatten noch kein Recht über sich zu trauern. — בקצה המחנה es brach nicht in der Mitte, auch nicht an verschiedenen Stellen aus, sondern es begann an einem Ende des Lagers und drohte so fortschreitend das ganze Lager zu verzehren.

ויהי העם כמתאוננים, “the people were like murmurers;” the people were already mourning the potential casualties they would incur when going into battle against the Canaanites in order to conquer their land. They were lacking in faith and dreading warfare.

כמתאוננים, “as murmurers;” the word is related to און and עמל, “as in Jeremiah 4,14: מחשבות אונך, “your evil designs.”

כמתאננים — The term מתאננים denotes [people who seek] “a pretext” — they seek a pretext how to separate themselves from following the Omnipresent. Similarly is stated in the narrative of Samson, (Judges 14:4) “for he sought a pretext (תואנה) [against the Philistines]” (Sifrei Bamidbar 85).

Righteous, they are called “My people.” You might ask: Do we not find “my people” referring to them when they are wicked, as it says “my people do not consider” (Yeshayah 1:3). The answer is that the verse means that beforehand they were my people, but now “they do not consider.”

'וישמע ה, “the Lord heard;” He heard that they uttered complaints and dissatisfaction., “your evil designs.”

רע באזני ה׳ means a pretext that was evil in the ears of the Lord, i.e., that they intended that it should reach His ears and that He might show annoyance. They said: “Woe unto us! How weary we have become on this journey: it is now three days that we have had no rest from the wearisomeness of the march!”

How we have toiled. לבטנו means “we have toiled.”

ותבער בהם אש, “and the Lord’s fire raged among them;” this was a punishment fitting the crime, as they had dared to look at the glory of the Lord which is also known as fire, i.e. אש אוכלת, Exodus 24,17. They had already been warned not to do this in Exodus chapter 24. Rashi explained this in connection with Exodus 24,10.

ויחר אפו AND HIS WRATH GLOWED — He said in anger: How ungrateful you are, “I meant it for your good — that you might immediately come into the land”.

The distinguished among them. You might ask: Rashi explained above that “the people” refers only to the wicked, while here he explains that it refers to the distinguished and the great ones. One cannot say that when he says “the distinguished … the great ones” he is referring to the wealthy ones among the wicked, who are thus termed “great,” because further on Rashi asks (v.16) “where were the original elders…?” He answers that they died at the fire of Taveirah, implying that those [who died] were the elders who were in Egypt — but these elders were righteous and leaders of the generation. The answer is that when the Torah writes “the people were … and the fire of Hashem burned among them” it refers to the wicked, “the people” written above. However, when the fire burned among them, it also burned among those who were not complaining. Thus when it writes “consumed some of the outcasts (lit. edge) of the camp” it refers to the distinguished and the great ones among them. Rashi is referring to these righteous ones when he comments later “in the fire of Taveirah they died.”

ותאכל בקצה המחנה, “and it devoured at the outer edges of the camp.

בקצה המחנה [AND THE FIRE … DESTROYED THEM THAT WERE] IN THE EXTREMITY OF THE CAMP — i.e. those amongst them who were extreme in baseness — these were “the mixed multitude”. But R. Simeon the son of Manassia said: it means that the fire consumed the most distinguished and prominent ones among them (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 85 and Rashi’s two explanations of ומקצה אחיו on Genesis 47:2).

ויצעק העם אל משה AND THE PEOPLE CRIED UNTO MOSES — A parable! This may be compared to the case of an earthly king who was angry with his son, and the son went to a friend of his father and said to him, “Go and ask forgiveness for me from father!” (Sifrei Bamidbar 86).

ותשקע האש. This was something supernatural, not compatible with the normal behaviour of fire. Fire rises, does not sink into the earth.

Compared to a mortal king. For if not so, the Torah should have said “they cried out to Hashem.”

V. 2. ותשקע האש: es versank da, wo es brannte, und schritt nicht weiter fort.

ותשקע האש THEN THE FIRE SANK — it sank on the very spot; because if it had turned along one of the sides of the camp it would gradually have rolled along the whole of that side (Sifrei Bamidbar 86).

Into its place. (Kitzur Mizrochi) You might ask: If so, why did it not go upwards as is natural for fire. The answer is that Hashem showed them this in order that the fear of Heaven would always be upon them, lest they sin and the fire return to its previous form, to rise up and burn among them.

AND HE [Moses] CALLED THE NAME OF THAT PLACE TABERAH (Burning). [The meaning thereof is that] he called the place on which the fire came down in the uttermost part of the camp¹⁴⁵Further, 11:1. by that name, and they did not journey from that place, for whilst still encamped there they fell a lusting¹⁴⁶Ibid., Verse 4. [for flesh], and called the name of the city or place Kibroth-hattaavah (the graves of lust).¹⁵⁸Further, Verse 34. — This explains why it is nowhere stated that they set forth from Taberah. According to Ramban, there were two reasons for this. Firstly, the name Taberah was only given to that part of the camp where the fire struck. Secondly, whilst still encamped there, the events occurred for which the place came to be called Kibroth-hattaavah, and hence that was the name the Torah subsequently used.

ויקרא שם המקום ההוא תבערה, “He called the name of that place Taveyrah.” According to Nachmanides theמקום ההוא refers to the edge of the camp where the heavenly fire had descended the people called Taveyrah, and they did not move on from that place, as it was at that very same location that they cultivated their craving for meat. Subsequently, they called that whole town or that place קברות התאווה, “graves where the victims of inordinate desire were buried.”

תבערה, “punitive fire by the Lord.”

והאספסף AND THE THRONG — This was the mixed multitude that had gathered themselves unto them when they left Egypt (the word is from the root אסף, “to gather”) (Sifrei Bamidbar 86). — The next words of the Biblical text must be inverted to read as follows:

וישובו ויבכו, they again pretended to have justified complaints, testing G’d’s patience. This time they cried that they had agreed to leave Egypt. This was equivalent to insulting the Presence of the Shechinah that had honoured them with its presence amongst them. Moses tells them this explicitly in verse 20 when he said: יען מאסתם את ה' אשר ,בקרבכם ותבכו לפניו לאמור למה זה יצאנו ממצרים?, “because you despised the Lord Who is in your midst and you cried, saying: “why is this that we left Egypt?”

התאוו תאוה, “they induced a craving in themselves.” Nachmanides writes that actually they did not lack anything at all as they had enough manna to satisfy each one of them, and they were able to satisfy their palates by wishing how that manna should taste each time they ate it. However, they abused these powers of imagination and wished the manna to taste revoltingly in order to have an excuse to complain about not getting proper food.

והאספסף, “and the rabble,” these people were the fellow travelers, they were not natural born Israelites. They were described elsewhere as ערב רב, “a mixed multitude.” The word אספסף, is a doubling of certain letters just as we find in the word סחרחר, or חמרמרו מעי in Psalms 38,11 (reeling) or in Lamentations 1,20 (my entrails are distressed).

And wept with them. Rashi is answering the question: “Bnei Yisroel also began to weep” implies that the mixed multitude also wept, however it is not written that they cried. Therefore Rashi explains “Bnei Yisroel turned, also, and wept with them” meaning that the word “also” refers to “began to have strong cravings” — that the mixed multitude turned away from Hashem and craved meat. Then the Bnei Yisroel also turned and craved meat and afterwards wept with them, meaning that both wept together.

AND THE MIXED MULTITUDE THAT WAS AMONG THEM ‘HITHAVU TA’AVAH’ (FELL A LUSTING). The meaning of this [double expression, which translates literally as “lusted a lust,” is] that they had nothing lacking in the wilderness, for they had plenty of manna and they could make of it all different kinds of delicacies with distinguished flavors, as Scripture relates further on, but they goaded themselves to a great desire, as if they wanted to eat [even] charcoal or earth and other bad foods.

V. 4. וְהָאסְפסוף, wieוְהָאסַפְסוף , das ערב רב, das sie aus Ägypten mit sich in ihre Mitte äufgenommen hatten. Die Verdoppelung bezeichnet die häufige Wiederholung der Aufnahme, somit die Menge der Aufgenommenen. Indem das א dabei quiesziert, ist damit die Nuance der Bedeutung gegeben, dass die Aufnahme eine mehr äußerliche geblieben, die Aufgenommenen eben nicht in, das Wesen und die Einheit der sie aufnehmenden nationalen Individualität eingegangen. Es war mehr ein ספף als ein אסף. Israel war ihnen mehr סף, das "Gefäß" und die "Schwelle", sie waren äußerlich von ihm umfangen, gingen aber nicht auf und nicht ein in sein innerstes Wesen. התאוו תאוה: es war nicht eine durch die äußeren Umstände willenlos bei ihnen geweckte, sondern gerne und willkürlich von ihnen genährte Lüsternheit. וישבו ויבכו וגו׳: das התאונן (V. 1) war ja auch ein inneres Weinen, und ist daher das וישבו ויבכו ganz entsprechend. Ist unsere Auffassung des רבבות אלפי ישראל (Kap. 10, 36) nicht irrig, so stände auch diese Verleitung des Volkes durch das האספסוף אשר בקרבו im schroffen Kontraste zu der dort ausgesprochenen idealen und ihrer Verwirklichung entgegenreifenden Bestimmung Israels. Israel in seiner numerischen Winzigkeit sollte und wird einst den geistigen und sittlichen Kern bilden, an welchen sich die Myriaden zu Gott zurückkehrender Völker anschließen werden — und hier verfällt es noch selber dem entsittlichenden Einflusse einer unter ihm weilenden unveredelten fremden Minorität! —

'והאספסוף אשר בקרבו התאוו תאוה וגו, “and the mixed multitude that were amongst the people, etc.” everything written here until the beginning of verse 30 when Moses selects the elders who are to assist him, occurred during the first three days after the people had moved away from Mount Sinai.

וישבו גם בני ישראל ויבכו AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL ALSO AGAIN WEPT together with them.

AND THEY SAID: WHO SHALL GIVE US FLESH TO EAT. [They used this expression who shall give us] because there was not enough meat for the whole people to have every day, although they did eat it many times, for some of them had herds, but [only] the important people ate it [every day], as happens in camps and places where prices are high. But about fish they said, We remember the fish,¹⁵⁹Verse 5. like one who remembers forgotten things, since they had not eaten any fish from the day that they left Egypt until now.

מי יאכלנו בשר?, They said this in order to test if He would permit incestuous relations to His people (compare Psalms 78,18 where Assaph says וינסו א-ל בלבבם לשאל אוכל לנפשם, they asked openly for meat, and in their hearts for sexual gratification other than by their wives).

ויאמרו מי יאכילנו בשר, “they said: ‘who is going to feed us meat?’” Nachmanides explains this request by saying that not all the people had meat to eat on a daily basis, even though most of them had access to meat on frequent occasions, as a good part of the people owned livestock and they would slaughter them regularly. The adults would eat of these animals, whereas the younger people were not so lucky. The fact is that, seeing that they spoke of “remembering we used to eat fish in Egypt without needing to pay for them,” (verse 5) indicates that as far as even fish were concerned they could do no more than ”remember” it

את הקשאים usw. Wir folgen in der Übersetzung der herkömmlichen Auffassung dieser Pflanzennamen, ohne dafür eine etymologische Begründung geben zu können.

And the reason they begun with meat and ended with fish is that fish points to promiscuity in sexual relations more than the expression "meat", since fish reproduce more than any animal alive, and they were using the word "flesh" as a compromise: "if only we ate meat" actually means "we want to be uninhibited in sexual relations as the other animals, even though we won't be like the fish - at least they did not ask all of it. But in any instance they did say "we remember the fish that we used to eat free in Egypt" (Numbers 11:5): when we were in Egypt all was permitted to us, even as to live like the fish, and now, let us at least be like the other animals, and this is what they mean by "if only we ate meat". And if one listens closely [one can see that] all this is very much like the simple meaning of the text, their intent was to ask for meat, which is the food that most warms a person up, and expands the sexual desires, and this is expressed in the language of "gluttonous craving" [the Hebrew expression is doubled 'they craved a craving'], meaning, they craved for a food that would enhance their sexual cravings. ...

The letter א (though silent anyways) is not read.

מי יאכלנו בשר WHO SHALL GIVE US FLESH TO EAT? — But did they not have flesh? Has it not been already stated, (Exodus 12:38) “and a mixed multitude went up with them and flocks and herds, [even very much cattle]”?! If you say, “They had already eaten them”, then I reply, “But is it not stated at a later period, when they were about to enter the Land, (Numbers 32:1), “Now the children of Reuben had cattle in a very great multitude”? But the truth is that they were only seeking a pretext (Sifrei Bamidbar 86).

וישובו ויבכו גם בני ישראל, “and in due course even the elite of the people, the בני ישראל, also joined the weeping of discontent that had been started by the mixed multitude. This is when they expressed their urge to be given meat to eat.

מי יאכילנו בשר, “if only someone would feed us meat!” The quails which had materialized on the evening before the manna started its daily appearance (Exodus 16,13) had come to an end some time ago. From this verse we understand the substance of the people’s complaint.

אשר נאכל במצרים חנם [WE REMEMBER THE FISH] WHICH WE DID EAT IN EGYPT FOR NOTHING — If you say that they meant that the Egyptians gave them fish for nothing (without payment), then I ask, “But does it not state, (Exodus 5:18): [Go, therefore, now, and work], for there shall no straw be given you”? Now, if they did not give them straw for nothing, would they have given them fish for nothing! — What then is the force of the word חנם? It means: free from (i.e. without us having been burdened with) heavenly commands (Sifrei Bamidbar 87).

WE REMEMBER THE FISH WHICH WE WERE WONT TO EAT IN EGYPT FOR NOUGHT. According to the plain meaning of Scripture [the explanation of the verse is that] the Egyptian fishermen used to put them to work to bring in the fish that they caught in their trawls and nets, and they would give them some fish [to eat], as is the custom of those that spread nets [upon the waters].¹⁶⁰Isaiah 19:8. And cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic¹⁵⁹Verse 5. are very abundant in Egypt, for it is as a garden of herbs,¹⁶¹Deuteronomy 11:10. and when they dug for the Egyptians in gardens and in all manner of service in the field¹⁶²Exodus 1:14. they would eat the vegetables. Or perhaps the Israelites who were the king’s slaves doing his work would be supported by him with sparing bread and scant water,¹⁶³Isaiah 30:20. and they would be dispersed throughout the city and would enter the gardens and fields, and eat of the vegetables without leaving anything over, as the king’s servants do. And [in addition it is possible that] they would give them at the edge of the river [Nile] small fish from the king’s portion which have no market-price in Egypt, as I have explained in Seder V’eileh Shemoth.¹⁶⁴Exodus 1:1. The verse referred to is ibid., 11. This was the complaint of the children of Israel,¹⁵⁵Verse 4. not the complaint of the mixed multitude¹⁵⁵Verse 4. [who were originally not of the stock of Israel and were not enslaved in Egypt, therefore they could not say, We remember the fish, which we were wont to eat in Egypt for nought; but after the mixed multitude fell a lusting¹⁵⁵Verse 4. they all] complained to Moses and demanded of him, Give us flesh, that we may eat,¹⁶⁵Further, Verse 13. as Scripture mentions further on.

זכרנו את הדגה אשר נאכל, “we remember the fish we used to eat, etc.” Nachmanides understands these words literally, pointing out that the Egyptian fishermen would employ the Jews and would let them eat the fish they did not think they could sell at the local fish market. The various vegetables mentioned in our verse were so plentiful in Egypt that even Hebrew slaves could afford them, or that they dug them out of the ground and no one would protest this. We have the Torah on record as comparing the whole of the land of Egypt to a garden full of greens. (Genesis 13,10) [The author paints one or two additional scenarios that would explain the words in our text. They are of speculative character. Ed.] Some commentators do not understand the word דגה as fish at all, but view it as a simile describing abundance, as in Genesis 48,16 וידגו לרוב בקרב הארץ, “may they proliferate abundantly.” Accordingly, the people would have been complaining about the abundant sources of food they had enjoyed in Egypt and the variety, compared to what they condescendingly described as the monotonous diet of manna.

Gave them fish. It is commonly asked: What proof is this, perhaps the reason that they did not give them straw was because they said “they are lax…” [Perhaps] they would have given them fish to eat. It appears to me that this is Rashi’s proof: How would Pharaoh’s decree to not give them any straw help to increase the burden of their work — perhaps they would buy straw from the Egyptians? Rather it is certain that Pharaoh knew that the Egyptians hated Yisroel and would not even sell them straw for money. Therefore, they certainly would not have given them [fish] for free. We need not ask: Does it not say in Maseches Sotah that when the women of Yisroel would go to draw water from the river Hashem would arrange for fish to be in their buckets? The answer is that were only complaining about large fish, in reference to this Rashi comments “perhaps you will say that the Egyptians gave them…” referring to large fish.

זכרנו את הדגה, “we remember the fish, etc.” the word דגה for fish, we have found already in Yaakov’s blessing for Joseph and his children in Genesis 48,13: וידגו לרוב בקרב הארץ, “may they multiply as fish on the face of the earth.” The Torah then lists details of the food the Israelites claimed to have had in abundance in Egypt, all for free.

זכרנו את הדגה, “we remember now the fish, etc.” when the Nile overflows its banks and irrigates the fields of the Egyptians who had dug narrow canals to absorb these waters, and the water eventually retreats again, it leaves behind little fish in the indentations in the soil, and the wives of the Israelites would scoop these up and use as food. This could be done without effort, and the women who had come equipped with bowls or flasks could keep these fish alive for quite some time. Our sages have explained this to us. (No source quoted)

את הקשאים THE CUCUMBERS — R. Simeon said, “Why did the manna change its flavor into that of anything one wished (as the Midrash states) except into these vegetables here mentioned, the taste of which it appears not to have assumed since the people lusted for them? Because they are injurious to nursing mothers. So indeed people say to a woman: Do not eat garlic and onions on account of the baby. A parable! This may be compared to a king, etc. as it is related in the Sifrei Bamidbar 87.

Free of mitzvos. Meaning that then our sustenance was not dependant upon [our] fulfillment of the mitzvos as it is now that our sustenance is the reward for our deeds. If we perform the mitzvos then the Land will bring forth its produce but if not then it will not bring forth its produce. However in Egypt our sustenance was provided for without any need for the fulfillment of the mitzvos.

אשר נאכל במצרים חנם, “which we used to eat in Egypt without having to pay for it.” (Ibn Ezra)

הקשאים These are concombres in O. F., (English = cucumbers).

את הקשואים ואת האבטיחים, “the cucumbers and the melons;” these would be eaten as dessert.

אבטיחים are boudekes in O. F. (English = melons).

ואת החציר ואת הבצלים, “as well as the leeks and the onions;” these would be used in the cooking pots to provide seasoning for the food to be boiled.

החציר are leeks, porels in O. F. [The Targum renders the names of the vegetables by בוציניא etc.].

ואת השומים, “and the garlic,” for making the food tasty.

אל המן עינינו OUR EYES ARE ON THIS MANNA (i. e. we see nothing but this manna) — “manna in the morning, manna in the evening!” (Sifrei Bamidbar 87)

נפשנו יבשה, “our life is parched;” Nachmanides describes the emotional state of the Israelites as having “died out,” due to the many different cravings they had been experiencing. Alternately, he writes, the meaning of the phrase could be that whereas natural foods provide the body with moisture, lubricating it, they did not experience such feelings when eating manna, but felt parched instead.

BUT NOW OUR SOUL IS DRIED AWAY. This means that because of their many desires their temperaments had become heated and then dried up, as Onkelos translates it [“but now our soul is lusting”]. Or it may be that [they meant that] our soul is dried away because there is nothing with which to moisten it, since food produces [essential] liquids in the body which satisfy the soul. And they said, we have nought save this manna ‘to look to,’ meaning that even the food [i.e., the manna] on which we live is not in our possession so that our soul can be nourished and satisfied with it; but we desire it and look to it [i.e., we are dependent upon it] at all times, in anticipation that it will come to us; thus we have nothing at all save our hope for the manna. They thus gave expression to the known proverb:¹⁶⁶Yoma 74 b. “One cannot compare a person who has bread in his basket with one who does not have bread in his basket.”¹⁶⁷For since the manna only came down in the quantity required for that day. and none was to be left for the following day (Exodus 16:19), and if it was left it rotted (ibid., Verse 20), they were therefore in constant worry for their next day’s food. Therefore Scripture tells how many qualities the manna had, stating that its taste was as the taste of a cake baked with oil,¹⁶⁸Verse 8. thus declaring that the souls of those who ate it did not dry up, for it [the manna] supplied the body with the [essential] liquids and kept it satisfied, and the souls of those who ate it were like a watered garden and like a spring of water.¹⁶⁹Isaiah 58:11.

V. 6. נפשנו יבשה; vergl. יבש כחרש כחי (Ps. 22, 16). Es fehlt uns nicht die Nahrung. — Alle im vorigen Verse genannten Pflanzenarten sind nicht gerade nährende Stoffe. Es fehlt uns das Erquickende und Stärkende der Nahrung. Es fehlt uns die zur Gesundheit so notwendige Abwechselung in den Nahrungsmitteln: בלתי אל המן עינינו, das völlige Einerlei des uns zur Nahrung gewährten Stoffes macht ihn unerträglich.

ועתה נפשנו יבשה, “and now our soul is dried up;” they were afraid that seeing that the manna was absorbed by their bodies entirely, none of it being waste to be excreted, that this would so interfere with their intestinal organs that it would kill them internally. They did not understand how a human being born from the womb of a woman can survive on food such as the manna alone. They challenged Rabbi Shimon by asking: “what is it that keeps you alive?” Is it not the excrement which is described in the Torah inDeuteronomy 23,14: ויתד תהיה לך על אזנך, “and have a paddle with you to cover your excrement!” (Torah addressing the Jewish soldier) The Rabbi answered the questioners that what is excreted are only the contributions to food provided by the gentiles. None of the manna needs to be excreted as it originated in the heavenly spheres where there is no useless or harmful substance. Scriptural proof for this is to be found in when David said in Psalms 78,25: לחם אבירים אכל איש, “each man ate a hero’s meal.” The type of man who can thrive on manna is the one who deserves the title אבירים. A different interpretation: if the people had become spiritually flawed, they would find that some of the manna turned into excrement within them.

בלתי אל המן עינינו, “we have nothing to look forward to but manna.” Even the food that we live on now, i.e. the manna, we must always hopefully and expectantly look for it if it will materialise, and we have no stored surplus enabling us to experience peace of mind; rather we need to crave for it, never knowing if it will materialise. In response to these spurious complaints the Torah gives us details in verse 7-9 of the multifaceted uses the manna could be put to. Even its external appearance was extremely pleasing to the eye.

והמן כזרע נד AND THE MANNA WAS AS CORIANDER SEED — He who said that (the previous verse) did not say this: Israel said, “our eyes are only on this manna”, but the Holy One, blessed be He had it written in the Torah, and the manna was like coriander seed” — as much as to say “See, ye people of the world, about what My sons were complaining, whilst as a matter of fact the manna is excellent in so many different ways!” (Sifrei Bamidbar 88).

והמן כזרע גד הוא, whereas its appearance was like that of crystals. In other words, whereas in fact it was soft inside, it appeared hard from the outside. When looking at it the people said ונפשנו יבשה, “we are completely dried out, like someone who has to eat hard and dry kernels of wheat. If so, why did G’d become angry as we are told in verse 10?
Now the Torah explains the reason for G’d’s anger. When the people would grind the manna crystals in their mortars or mills, its taste was like something creamy, oily. This taste which originally had been described as similar to crackers smeared with honey (Exodus 15,31) changed to be like nuts after they are ground. After undergoing grinding it now became moist and like an oily substance. Seeing that it did not taste dry at all, the people’s complaint was unfounded, and this is why G’d became angry at the unjustified accusation that the manna was the reason that their whole system dried out. In Beshalach, where the taste is described as a wafer smeared with honey, the Torah spoke about what the manna tasted like raw, in its original state, prior to assuming the taste of rich cream.

Round. Rashi is answering the question: The manna was white, while coriander is black, therefore why did the Torah say that it was like coriander seed? Rather [it was shaped like coriander].

VV. 7 u. 8. והמן וגו׳. Dieser scheinbar berechtigten Klage gegenüber berichtet der Text Eigentümlichkeiten des Manna, die den Ungrund dieser Klage darzutun geeignet sein mögen. Er war כזרע גד וגו׳, dem Auge schön, כורע גד (siehe Schmot 16, 31) nach Joma 75a עגול כגידא ולבן כמרגלית, rund und perlweiß. Vergleichen wir die Stellen, in welchen sonst noch עין den Eindruck bezeichnet, den die Farbe eines Gegenstandes auf das Auge macht, so scheint dies durchweg bei glänzenden Gegenständen vorzukommen. כעין הקדח הנורא ,כעין תרשיש ,בעין נחשת קלל (Ezech. 1 u. 10), und wenn בדלה nach Raschi Krystall ist, so dürfte damit seine Durchsichtigkeit bezeichnet sein (siehe zu Schmot 16, 14). — שטו העם: nicht ganz mühelos, als Frucht einer Tätigkeit und zwar, wie das שטו, nach verschiedenen Richtungen hin streifend, andeutet, einer Abwechselung bietenden Tätigkeit, erlangten sie das Manna. Dies gehört zur geistigen Würze. וטחנו ברחים usw. fein zermahlen, grob gestoßen, gekocht oder gebacken, gewährte das Manna durch Verschiedenheit der Bereitung hinreichende Abwechselung. — לשד kommt nur noch Ps. 32, 4 נהפך לשדי vor, wo es die Feuchtigkeit, die Säfte des Körpers bedeutet. Demgemäss scheint es auch hier die Fettigkeit des Öls, die Ölschmelze zu bezeichnen. Schmot 16, 31 wird der Geschmack des Manna beschrieben: כצפיחית בדבש (siehe daselbst). Hier heißt es nicht: ,וטעמו וגו׳ sondern: והיה ,טעמו וגו׳ und wäre dies nach רשב׳׳ם Erläuterung daher der Geschmack, den es durch Kochen und Backen erlangte, während jenes seinen Geschmack in rohem Zustande vergegenwärtigt.

והמן כזרע גד, “and the manna was like coriander seed;” the letter כ has the vowel chirik, and the letter ז has the semi vowel sh”va.

כזרע גד i.e. it was round like גד, coriander-seed in O. F.

הבדלח is the name of a precious stone. BEDELLIUM. (Some editions add the O. F. קרישטל crystal).

שטו [AND THE PEOPLE] WENT ABOUT — The term שיוט (i. e. any form of the root שוט) denotes strolling about; esbanoyer in O. F., English to walk about leisurely — they got the manna without exertion (cf. however, Yoma 75a and thereon s. v. ירד המן עליו).

לשד, all of it the substance, no part of it refuse, waste. The expression occurs in Psalms 32,4 נהפך לשדי בחרבוני קיץ סלה, “my vigor waned as in a summer drought.” On this verse, Rashi describes this as “my moisture dried up as when figs become dry.”

טעמו כטעם לשד השמן, “it tasted like a dough kneaded with oil.” The Torah testifies that this answers the accusation that the manna was completely dry-tasting, saying that, on the contrary, it contained elements which made it taste moist without requiring the people to even have to add an additive in order to make it moist tasting. After eating it the person having eaten it would feel very refreshed.

Rather [its taste] changed. Since it is written that it was similar to crystal. For what advantage would there be if it were similar to crystal but then it was crushed in mortars and cooked in pots, it which case its consistency would change. Rather it never descended into the millstone…

שטו העם ולקטו, “the people would leave the camp and collect;” the word שטו is familiar to us from Job 1,7 שוט, “roaming.” According to a midrash found in the Talmud, tractate Yuma folio 75, the line: שטו העם ולקטו, refers to the righteous Israelites who were eating the manna while it was descending through the atmosphere. They did not even have to bother to leave their homes and to collect it.

וטחנו ברחים וגו׳ AND THE PEOPLE GROUND IT WITH MILL STONES [OR POUNDED IT IN THE MORTAR, AND BAKED IT IN PANS] — As a matter of fact it (the manna) never went into a mill, nor a pot, nor a mortar, but its taste changed, according to one’s desire, into that of ground or pounded or cooked grain (Sifrei Bamidbar 89).

שטו, the expression occurs also in Job 1,7 and in Jeremiah 5,1 and in both instances refers to “roaming over an area.”

The lamed is part of the root. And the meaning of נהפך לשדי is [my moisture was overturned]…

וטחנו בריחים או דכו במדוכה, “they ground it in a mill, or pounded it in mortars;” this refers to the average Israelite.

בפרור — means [IN] A POT.

Kneaded, oil, honey. Meaning a mixture of oil and honey. This is what is meant by the words written afterwards “like a loaf kneaded with oil and coated with honey.”

ובשלו בפרוד, “or they boiled in pots.” According to that midrash, this refers to the relatively wicked Israelites, who had to spend more time and effort to make the manna palatable for themselves. This is also why the Torah reports in Numbers 15,32, that the Israelites found a man gathering kindling on the Sabbath. He was a sinner and wanted to boil the manna on the Sabbath.

לשד השמן [AND ITS TASTE WAS AS THE TASTE OF] — לשד השמן i. e. moisture of oil. Thus did Dunash ibn Labrat explain it. Similar to it is, (Psalms 32:4) נהפך לשדי בחרבוני קיץ, where the ל in the word לשד is a root-letter, the meaning being: “my sap (לשדי) is turned by the drought of summer”. Our Rabbis (Sifrei Bamidbar 89) explained it as meaning “breasts’ (i. e. just as the suckling imbibes, so to speak, every possible flavor with the mother-milk. so the Israelites found all flavors in the manna; cf. Sifrei), but really the subject of “breasts” has nothing to do with oil. One cannot, however, in order to justify the explanation of our Rabbis say that השמן in לשד השמן has a meaning similar to (Deuteronomy 32:15) וישמן ישורון, “But Jeshurun waxed fat (וישמן)” (when the meaning would be: “And the taste of it was similar to that of a fat breast”), for then the מ ought to be punctuated with Kametz (our Tséré: הַשָּׁמֵן) and the accent ought to be on the last syllable, beneath the מ. Now, however, that the מ is punctuated with Patach Katon (our Segol) and the accent is on the ש, it can only have a sense connected with שמן “oil”. As to the ש which is punctuated with Kametz Gadol (שָׁמן) and not with Segol (since the noun “oil” is שֶׁמן,) this is so because the word is at the end of the verse (and in the pausal form שֶׁמֶן becomes שָׁמֶן). — Another explanation is that לשד is an acrostic of ליש, “kneading”, שמן “oil”, דבש “honey”, i. e. that the manna was like “dough kneaded with oil, and smeared with honey” (קטף literally means “to tear”, and when used of dough it means “to tear a lump of dough into pieces for which purpose the kneader moistens his hands with some liquid; here with honey) (Sifrei Bamidbar 89). The rendering of Onkelos who translates the phrase by דליש במשחא, “[as the taste] of dough with oil”, inclines to the meaning given by Dunash, because dough which is kneaded with oil has in it some moisture of oil.

Leans towards Donash’s interpretation. You might ask: Does it not lean more towards the interpretation that it is an acronym? The answer is that the acronym mentions honey but the Targum does not. Re’m writes: Meaning that this is not like the interpretation of the Rabbis who explain it as a term meaning “breasts.” However, it is not to the exclusion of the interpretation that it is an acronym, which also leans towards the interpretation of Donash.

V. 9. וברדת הטל וגו׳ (siehe zu Schmot 16, 13 u. 14). Zu diesem allen kam noch hinzu, dass die Art und Weise, in welcher das Manna fiel, die ganz besondere Fürsorge bekundete, in welcher es ihnen gespendet wurde, es somit jeden Tag als מן, als die besonders gewährte Gottesspende dalag — eine Tatsache, die auch nur wenig geistig gehobenen Menschengemütern es hätte über alles andere süß und wert machen müssen.

בכה למשפחתיו [THEN MOSES HEARD THE PEOPLE] WEEP THROUGHOUT THEIR FAMILIES — i.e. the members of each family gathered together and wept in order to display their discontent in public. Our Rabbis, however, said that למשפחתיו means “the people wept because of family affairs” — because of the intermarriage of blood-relaltives that had been forbidden to them (Sifrei Bamidbar 90; Yoma 75a).

ויחר אף ה׳ מאד. G'd's anger was kindled very much. The reason why the Torah describes G'd's anger as מאד, "very much," is that people who fall victim to seduction by Satan have been victimised, in a sense. The same could not be said of the people described in our paragraph who had actually provoked the evil urge within themselves. There is no category of sin which is greater than that.

The intimate relations forbidden. You might ask: Surely the intimate relations had already been forbidden to them, so why did they not weep before? The answer is that before the division into the camps, everyone was intermingled and therefore the intimate relations went unnoticed. However once they were divided into camps, each and every tribe was alone and the women from one tribe were not found among another, rather everyone was from the same tribe. Alternatively, before the division into the camps, all of the tribes were intermingled and people could commonly find other women who were not forbidden relations, thus they did not pay attention to the forbidden relations. However, once they divided and each tribe was left alone together with the forbidden relations, therefore they wept. This is not in accordance with the explanation of Re’m who says that even though the entire Torah had been handed over to Moshe, it is possible that the passage of forbidden relations has not been told over to Yisroel until just before their departure from Mount Sinai. (Kitzur Mizrochi) explains in the name of the Minchah Belulah that they combined the complaint about the forbidden relations with their complaint about the manna. For it says in the Midrash that the Omer-portion would disclose who’s son was a mamzer (a child born from illicit relations), since his Omer-portion would be found in the tent of his father. Thus they complained about the manna, but their main complaint was over forbidden relations.

V. 10. למשפחתיו: es war kein offener Aufstand, sie sammelten sich nicht zu Hauf, sie weinten und klagten familienweise. Jeder blieb zu Haus. Aber sie standen in ihren Zelttüren und jammerten, und das Jammern und Klagen war allgemein.

Moses heard the people weeping, every family apart, each person at the entrance of his tent - one cannot say that they gathered by their families, and cried [together] because it says "each person at the entrance of his tent", so it's obvious that [they were crying] due to each families worries, "and the anger of Ad-nai flared and in Moses' eyes it was bad." Precisely now, but before this it was "bad in the ears of Ad-nai" alone, since Moses did not comprehend their intent. And what is written "we remember" has a meaning connected to the past; and "that we used to eat" has a meaning connected to the future, as they said all the time "let's turn our head and return to Egypt" (Numbers 14:4), in that exact moment "we recall the fish" that we will eat when we get there. And what it says "free" it means free from the mitzvot, as I will explain, with God's help, in the portion of Pinchas: it has to do with the gifts [to the Tabernacle] and the ten percents.

Because of family matters - you must wonder, how could they be complaining now about the relations that had already been forbidden to them, and what pertinence does the issue have here? The answer is, it is not really difficult. Now, they are complaining about physical desires that the Holy One, Blessed be He separated from them, as the verse says, "We remember the fish that we ate in Egypt for free" (Numbers 11:5) - "from [the strain of] mitzvot" (cf. Rashi). They were not concerned about the mitzvot [in Egypt], and we were eating and drinking without this concern, and on top of all of this they had desires for forbidden relations, and the Holy One, Blessed be He separated them from the people. Therefore, they were now stirring up about them. This is a simple explanation.

ובעיני משה רע, and it was wicked in the eyes of Moses. Man is upset if something he considers his own creation does not live up to his expectations. You may find an illustration of this when the prophet Samuel is reported as having aged prematurely and died as a result of the anguish of seeing King Saul whom he had crowned not having met the challenge of wiping out Amalek. In order to save Samuel from experiencing Saul's death at the hands of the Philistines (compare Taanit 5) G'd had him die prematurely. Moses too was upset at Israel acting in a manner not befitting them. Alternatively, we may understand the words ובעיני משה רע as referring to G'd's anger. It displeased Moses that G'd had become so angry at the Israelites on this account. According to Sifri 1,95 G'd gave Moses a preview of the punishment He was going to exact from Israel on account of this misdemeanour. Moses reacted by asking G'd whether He really considered it fair to feed the Israelites meat only to let them die as a result of their eating the meat.

למה הרעות לעבדך? “Why did you appoint me against my will to lead this people out of Egypt?

למה הרעת לעבדך…ולמה לא מצאתי חן, "Why have You dealt ill with Your servant,…and why have I not found grace?" It is somewhat difficult to understand why Moses first complained about the damage he felt that he had suffered and only afterwards about the lack of some positive achievement, i.e. not finding grace? Logic would have dictated that these two elements be cited in an ascending order! We must understand what Moses said in light of what our sages said in connection with Exodus 32,34 where G'd told Moses: "go and lead the people, etc." Sifri 1,91 there describes G'd telling Moses that the Israelites were obstinate pestering people who cursed their leaders and threatened to stone them, etc. Thus far the Sifri on the subject. We may understand Moses' reaction here in light of what G'd had told him at the time when the sin had been the golden calf. When he used the expression הרעת, Moses meant: "why did You G'd make me experience this misconduct of Your children?" After I have accepted that burden at least You should have helped me to carry this great burden which You have imposed upon me. When Moses asked: "why have l not found grace," the word מצתי, "I have found," is spelled without the customary letter א. Moses hinted that he had not even found a minimal amount of grace.

V. 11. למה הרעת. Meine Mission, der ich mich von vornherein nicht gewachsen fühlte, ist mein Unglück. Ich würde es gerne ertragen, wenn ich daraus irgend ein Heil für andere erwachsen sähe. Allein durch mein Ungeschick geht das Volk zu Grunde und mein Leid ist zwecklos. ולמה לא מצתי וגו׳. Indem מצתי ohne א geschrieben ist, dürfte darin ein Anklang an מצה Saugen, mit heftigem Verlangen bis auf den letzten Tropfen trinken, liegen (vergl. Ps.63, 10 und 75, 9 usw.). Ich habe so dringend um Gewährung der Gunst gebeten, mich nicht mit dieser so hohen Sendung zu betrauen, weil ich eben mich nicht dazu fähig fühlte. Wäre nicht schon dieser Zweifel an der eigenen Befähigung Grund genug gewesen, mir meine Bitte zu gewähren? Gehört nicht zu der Mission einer Volksleitung zu allererst die Zuversicht in sich selber, und war nicht mein Misstrauen in meine Fähigkeit der Beweis meiner wirklichen Unfähigkeit? Warum hast du mir diese Bitte versagt? — Das ולמה לא מצתי חן בעיניך ist entweder Parenthese, und לשום וגו׳ schließt sich dem Sinne nach dem למה הרעת וגו׳ an, oder das למה לא מצתי וגו׳ ist so aufzufassen: warum hast du mich so wenig gewährungswürdig befunden, dass du die Last usw. Vielleicht ist auch לשום וגו׳ ein besonderer elliptischer Satz: die Last dieses ganzen Volkes auf mich zu legen! d. h. wer könnte das begreifen!

ולמה לא מצתי חן, “and why have I not found favour, etc.?” The word מצתי is one which on occasion is spelled without the letter א when that letter is the last root letter.

ולמה לא מצאתי חן בעיניך?, When I asked You to send whomever You are in the habit of sending, (Exodus 4,13) why did You not accept my request?

An alternate way of looking at our verse assumes that Moses did not want G'd to give the Israelites meat so as to prevent their death after eating the meat. Moses asked G'd why He had placed such a heavy burden upon him instead of granting him grace. The letter ל in the word לשום את משא כל העם הזה עלי, is to be understood as giving a reason. Moses complained that if G'd refused to accede to his request not to grant the Israelites' wish to eat meat, why would he have to watch the debacle that would occur as a result of G'd granting the Israelites' request to be fed meat? He also foresaw that the improper behaviour of the Israelites would eventually lead to his own death in the desert. He felt that these results were not the proper reward he could have expected for all his toil on behalf of the Jewish people. Moses' second complaint then may be seen as even greater than his original request. This disposes of the question we raised regarding the sequence of Moses' complaints.

לשום את משא כל העם הזה עלי, You could only have done this in order to burden me with the load of this whole nation, as if You could not have found another more suitable leader, or at least You could have provided me with someone else who would be suitable to share this burden and who would be good for them.

כי תאמר אלי means, [HAVE I CONCEIVED ALL THIS PEOPLE] THAT THOU SHOULDST always SAY UNTO ME, “Carry them in thy bosom!?” And where did He speak thus to him? When He said to him, (Exodus 32:34) “Go, lead the people”; and it further states, (Exodus 6:13) “[And the Lord spoke unto Moses and unto Aaron] and gave them a charge concerning the children of Israel” saying unto them: “Take charge of them even under the risk (lit., under the condition) that they may stone you or at least insult you” (Sifrei Bamidbar 91; cf. Rashi on that verse).

DID I ‘HARITHI’ ALL THIS PEOPLE? In the opinion of Onkelos [who rendered it: “Am I ‘the father’ of all this people?” the word harithi] is like [the expression] beyond the blessing of ‘horai’ (my progenitors),¹⁷⁰Genesis 49:26. for a father is called horeh [of the root haroh, “to conceive” or “become pregnant”] because it is he who causes conception and brings about the pregnancy [of the mother]. Thus Moses is saying: “Am I their father [who has caused their conception], or am I their mother who has given birth to them?”¹⁷¹The double question in the verse — Did I ‘harithi’ all this people? … Have I born them? — is thus explained as referring to the separate functions of father and mother. But the masters of the plain meaning of Scripture¹⁷²Ibn Ezra here. See also in Sefer Hashorashim of the R’dak, under the root haroh. interpreted the verse in the opposite manner: “Am I their mother who was pregnant with them and gave birth to them?” Similarly, ‘Vatahar’ eth Miriam v’eth Shammai¹⁷³I Chronicles 4:17. means “she was pregnant with them and gave birth to them.” “Or am I their father who begot them?” [the word y’lidetihu being] like: ‘vayoled Noach’ (and Noah begot);¹⁷⁴Genesis 6:10. thy father that ‘y’ladecha’ (begot thee),¹⁷⁵Proverbs 23:22. and other similar expressions. And Moses said, as ‘ha’omein’ carrieth the sucking child, [the word ha’omein] being a reference to the [nursing-] father or mother. In my opinion the whole verse is a figurative reference to the mother, and the meaning thereof is as follows: “Have I conceived all this people and have I given birth to them?”¹⁷⁶Ramban thus interprets the two questions (see above Note 171) as one, both referring to the mother. Moses mentioned it in this way [speaking as the mother] because it is the woman who suffers the pain of raising children, remembering what she suffered for them from birth, pregnancy, and conception.¹⁷⁷See Hosea 9:11. But Moses said omein [in the masculine] since he is speaking of himself as a nursing-father, since he is not an omeneth (a nursing-mother).

האנוכי הריתי, true, a natural father knows how to guide his children even if they have differences of opinions among them. The reason such a father can be successful is that all his children know that he loves them all and has their best interests at heart. But these people do not put their trust in me at all; they suspect me and constantly provoke me to see what I would do for them.

האנכי הריתי את כל העם הזה, "Did I conceive this whole people?" The reason that Moses made such an apparently inappropriate comparison is based on Sanhedrin 19 where we are told that whoever teaches the son of his friend Torah is considered as if he had given birth to him. There is also a comment in Tikkuney Hazohar 70 that all the souls of the people who marched through the desert were "branches" of Moses' own soul and that he was considered the father of all those souls.

ילידתיהו, as in Genesis 10,26 ויקטן ילד את אלמודד, where the Torah does not mean that the man Yoktan gave birth to Elmoded, but that he raised Elmoded as if he had given birth to him, or simply that his sperm begat him. Such an indirect “birthing” is no less significant, as G’d in Deuteronomy 11,31 describes the Israelites as “inheriting” the Canaanites. They had certainly not been direct descendants so that the term “inheriting” would seem appropriate. Nonetheless, seeing that Noach was the progenitor of mankind after the deluge, in an extended, sense the Israelites could view themselves as the “heirs” of the Canaanites. [I have elaborated on the author’s words. Ed.]

האנכי הריתי, “did I conceive this people?” Nachmanides writes that Onkelos’ opinion that the words mean “am I their father,” which is based on the phrase ברכות הורי, “the blessings of my fathers” (Genesis 49,26) is an expanded version of the role of fathers who are viewed as if they had conceived, as without the insertion of their semen in the mother’s womb the mother could not have conceived.

That You say to me. The future tense is used in place of the present tense. But its meaning is not in the future tense as is implied, because if so, how did he know this. The word כי here is used in the sense of דהא (“that” in Aramaic) which has the sense of אשר (that).

V. 12. האנכי הריתי: bin ich seine Mutter? אם אנכי ילדתיהו oder sein Vater, wie Bereschit 4, 18 u. 10, 8 ff. Sind Vater und Mutter der Erziehungsaufgabe nicht gewachsen, so ist das allerdings auch ein Unglück für die Eltern, wie für die Kinder. Allein es ist dann das natürliche, mit der Geburt der Kinder Gegebene, gehört, wie so vieles andere, zu den verschiedenen Lebensstellungen, in welchen und für welche Menschen geboren werden, und die eben die ganze Mannigfaltigkeit der zu lösenden einheitlichen Menschenbestimmung bilden, und, was hier nicht wenig in die Waagschale fällt, es sind dann ebenso von vornherein natürliche Beziehungen der Liebe, der Achtung, des Vertrauens der Kinder zu den Eltern gegeben, die das Geschäft der Erziehung wesentlich erleichtern. Allein ich bin nicht ihr natürlicher Erzieher. Du hast mich zu ihrem Erzieher gewählt und hast dir gerade einen Menschen gewählt, dem an der Macht des Wortes, an dem Imponierenden der Persönlichkeit alles fehlt, was zu einem Achtung und Einfluss gewinnenden Auftreten und Wirken in einem Volke gehört.

כי תאמר אלי שאהו בחיקך, that You should say to me: “carry them in your bosom;” Moses implies that if he had not been commanded to carry on in his position, he would by now have quit.

האנכי הריתי, “was it I who has conceived these people?” Am I their mother who had conceived them?

על האדמה אשר נשבעת לאבתיו UNTO THE LAND WHICH THOU SWAREST UNTO THEIR FATHERS hast Thou bidden me to carry them in my bosom.

ילידתיהו, there are two vowels chirik here, seeing that the active mode מפעל, miphal, of this type of verb is like the causative mode מפעיל, maphil, and the Torah had to make sure we understood what mode Moses is using. On the other hand, with roots such as ישב, which describe a direct activity of the body, we do not find this pattern of two chiriks, but a patach instead. The same applies to roots such as ישן or ירד.

אם אנכי ילידיתיהו, “did I perhaps give birth to them?” Am I their mother the one who has given birth to them? The scholars who concentrate primarily on the plain meaning, פשט, take the opposite approach, saying that the word הריתי should be understood as referring to a mother, Moses asking if he, a man, should really be expected to relate to the Jewish people as a mother is expected to relate to them, i.e. to carry them in his bosom as a mother carries her baby, etc. The verb ילד is used by Moses to describe a father’s part in producing a child, as in ויולד את נח, (Genesis 5,28) whereas the verb הרה is used by Moses to describe the mother’s input, as in ותהר את מרים “she became pregnant with Miriam.” (Chronicles I 4,17) This is why Moses illustrates further כאשר ישא האומן את היונק, “as the nurse carries a suckling.” I believe that Moses spoke in terms of what mothers have to go through before they have a baby, followed by the possibly far greater difficulties in raising their children. A mother is constantly reminded of her pre-natal pains, etc. whenever the children do not act in a manner that compensates her for the pains endured before they came into this world.

That they stone you. Meaning that you will suffer through them.

Moses may have alluded to two periods in the life of a son when the father is responsible for his deeds. The first period is an obligation of a biblical nature such as before the son reaches the age of five or six when he commences to study Torah. The second period is a rabbinic decree. According to the rabbis the father is responsible for misdemeanours committed by his son until the son reaches the age of 13 (compare Ketuvot 49 and 68 respectively). Although at the time Moses asked this question the Talmud had not yet added the additional years that a father is responsible for his son, it is something most people will accept readily, especially Moses who was a prophet. In view of the fact that Abraham is reputed to have observed all the rabbinic ordinances already in his time (Yuma 28) although they had not yet been instituted, Moses, with his prophetic insight certainly was aware of all these ordinances. Concerning the period during which a father is responsible for the deeds of his son by biblical injunction Moses asked האנכי הריתי, "did I conceive them?" Concerning the period during which a father is responsible for the deeds of his son by rabbinic ordinance he asked אם אנכי ילדתיהו "did I give birth to them?"

אם אנכי ילידתיהו, “did I sire them?” Was I their father? The root ילד has been used in this sense in Genesis 10,24. (Ibn Ezra)

To carry them in my lap. Rashi is answering the question: The verse implies “as a nurse carries an infant to the land,” but does a nurse carry an infant to the Land that You swore? He answers that “to the land” refers back to “carry it in your lap.”

The meaning of the letter ה in the word האנכי is one that expresses confirmation, i.e. willingness to accept the premise implied in both G'd's legislation and rabbinic ordinances. Had the children of Israel been minors, Moses would gladly have shouldered the responsibility that Jewish law imposes upon him. He complained that he should not be expected to shoulder that responsibility for people who had long since become adults and were responsible for their own actions. Even if the Israelites had been his own biological children he would long since have been free of the burden of being saddled with their mistakes. He added -by inference- that if he would have been asked to provide something minor for the Israelites, he would gladly have provided it providing it would be in his power to do so; however, how could he be expected to supply a whole nation with meat in the middle of the desert? By asking מאין לי בשר, Moses also implied that the request did not even constitute something necessary for the wellbeing of the people, it was merely a luxury!

על האדמה, not “on the earth,” but as in אל האדמה “on to the earth.” Compare Genesis 38,12, על גוזזי צאן, “to the shearing of the sheep.” Compare also Exodus 10,21: נטה ידך על השמים, not “incline your hand over the heaven,” but “incline your hand in the direction of the heaven.”

מאין לי בשר?, Clearly, they know very well that I do not have any meat to give them; if so when they cry and demand “give us meat,” they as much accuse me of being able to provide them with meat but denying them their desire! This is only a crude attempt to find out if my actions as their leader have indeed been prompted by my carrying out Your command! What can I attain from You on their behalf?

V. 13. מאין לי בשר וגו׳: Sie wissen sehr wohl, dass sie damit etwas von mir fordern, dessen Befriedigung völlig außer dem Bereiche meiner Macht liegt. Und da bei der völlig zureichenden und Befriedigung, gewährenden Nahrung, die sie im Manna genießen, es etwas auch Entbehrliches und Überflüssiges ist, was sie fordern, heißt diese Forderung nichts als schikanierendes Quälen des Mannes, in welchem sie den Leiter ihres Geschickes erblicken, und der, wenn er der rechte gewesen wäre, längst diejenige Achtung und Liebe bei ihnen erworben hätte, welche solche schikanöse Gelüste nicht hätten aufkommen lassen.

!תנו לנו בשר, “give us meat!” Their request was inappropriate, seeing that one of the qualities of the manna was that it assumed the taste of whatever the person consuming it wished it to taste like. We know this from Psalms 106,15: ויתן להם שאלתם, בשר., “He gave them whatever they had asked for.” The people had meat from sheep and oxen, as they had taken herds with them from Egypt, as stated Exodus 12,38: “and a mixed multitude went up with them, as well as very much livestock, both flocks and herds.” If you were to say that they had consumed all these herds and flocks in the desert, we have a verse in Numbers 32,1 according to which the tribes of Reuven and Gad had a surfeit of flocks and cattle. Seeing that this was so prompted Rabbi Shmuel to state that what they really lusted for were the women that had now become forbidden for them as wives, (sexual partners) since these laws had been promulgated. If they were described as lusting for “meat,” this shows how they saw in marital unions primarily the element of sexual unions. (Compare Talmud, tractate Yuma folio 75, as well as Bamidbar Rabbah 15, section 24). The Midrash there quotes Psalms 78,27: וימטר עליהם כעפר שאר, וכחול ימים עוף כנף, “He made it rain upon them meat like dust, winged birds like the sands of the sea. Whenever the word שאר appears in the Torah, it is a euphemism for the sexual aspect of marriage, as we know from Leviticus 18,6: איש איש אל כך שאר בשרו לא תקרבו לגלות ערוה, “none of you must approach sexually any kin of his,” The Midrash reinforces its interpretation by pointing out that the Torah, apparently gratuitously, added that the people cried למשפחותם, “on account of their families,” i.e. family members now out of bounds for them for the purpose of sexual union. (Compare Talmud, tractate Shabbat folio 130). It was this that caused Hashem’s anger in verse 10, and Moses” displeasure. At that time Moses said to Hashem that up until that time he had the seventy elders who had been appointed already when he made ready to ascend Mount Sinai for the first time, as we know from Exodus 24,9, where Nadav and Avihu had been named as his assistants as well as seventy unnamed elders. Now, he said, there was no one left that he could call on to assist him. This is why he exclaimed: “I alone am unable to continue to carry this burden!” Nonetheless we are bound to ask what had happened to the seventy elders mentioned in Exodus chapter 24. We must conclude that they had been amongst the people who had been described as murmurers in verse one of our chapter where many people had died by heavenly fire as stated. We had read there in verse four that not only the mixed multitude of Egyptians who had joined the bandwagon of the Jewish people at the Exodus, but also בני ישראל, always an expression describing the elite of the Jewish people, had been included amongst those who had died then. There is a dispute amongst the sages if the people there described as אספסף, had been part of the mixed multitude or had been these seventy elders. According to one view the expression בקצה המחנה, normally translated as “at the outer edge of the camp,” had in fact been the elders whom at this point the Torah referred to euphemistically. Actually, they had been guilty of death by heavenly fire already from the event described in Exodus chapter 24. They too had been guilty of disrespect when experiencing a vision of the Divine glory, not only Nadav and Avihu, who had been named there. (Exodus 24,11) At the time, i.e. the revelation at Mount Sinai and the joyful atmosphere prevailing then, G–d did not wish to disturb these festivities by killing them. We find an allusion to this episode in Psalms 106,18: ותבער אש בעדתם, “fire consumed their congregation.” The expression עדה, “congregation,” is always reserved for describing the highest court of seventy. Compare Numbers15,24: ואם מעיני העדה נעשתה לשגגה, “and if an error was committed because the true situation had been hidden from the eyes of the עדה, i.e. the highest court, Sanhedrin. (Compare Bamidbar Rabbah 15,24)

Eben weil die Forderung etwas ganz Entbehrliches und Überflüssiges betraf, konnte auch weder das Volk noch Mosche erwarten, dass Gott sie auf wundervolle Weise gewähren würde.

לא אוכל אנכי לבד, You will have to provide me with assistants to enable me to carry this burden.

לא אוכל אנכי לבדי לשאת, I cannot carry (this burden) all by myself." Here Moses revealed his own wishes in the matter. He told G'd that his refusal to carry the load all by himself was not due to lack of good will to carry out G'd's assignment but to his conviction that it was beyond his ability to do so.

לא אוכל לבדי שאת, “I cannot carry this burden all by myself.” Nachmanides writes that Moses did not request that the elders become his assistants in his supplying meat for the people, for where would they take it from? Moreover, he was quite aware that even if a large number of providers would be appointed, whenever they would find reason to complain these complaints would continue to be addressed to him, seeing that it had been he who had taken them out of Egypt, and the source of all their complaints were always traced to that event. What Moses hoped to accomplish by having the elders appointed was that if the people had a number of leaders, by the time the complaints would be transmitted to him if they proved beyond the competence of the elders to deal with, the people’s anger and fury would have at least partially spent itself seeing that the elders would have tried to blunt their anger and frustration. It is also possible that Moses thought that once the people found out that the elders possessed holy spirit and were able to prophesy, they would show loyalty to these prophets and not gang up on Moses as they had been in the habit of doing. They would therefore demand from these divinely inspired elders to satisfy their various cravings.

I AM NOT ABLE TO BEAR ALL THIS PEOPLE MYSELF ALONE. The meaning thereof is not that the elders should help him to give the people flesh, for where should they get it from? Moreover, even if they would have many leaders they would still only complain against Moses our teacher who took them out of Egypt, as they used to say to him, And wherefore have ye made us to come up out of Egypt?¹⁷⁸Further, 20:5. [asking him] that he should give them through his prayers all that they asked for, and grant them their desires¹⁷⁹See Psalms 78:29. [and so they would still continue to complain to him rather than to the elders]! But Moses thought that if they would have many leaders they would appease their wrath by speaking to their hearts when they would start complaining. Or it is possible that when the elders prophesied, and the spirit [which was upon Moses] was put upon them,¹⁸⁰Further, Verse 17. the people would know that these elders are established as prophets,¹⁸¹See I Samuel 3:20. and would not all gather against Moses but would ask for their desires from them as well [by means of their prayers].

V. 14. לא אוכל וגו׳: ich kann die mir gegebene Aufgabe allein nicht erfüllen. Mir fehlt der erforderliche Einfluss und die Fähigkeit, ihn zu gewinnen. Ich bin nur ein halber Mensch für diese Aufgabe. Ich kann dein Gesetz empfangen, kann dein Gesetz lehren; allein ich kann dir kein Volk für dieses Gesetz heranbilden, kann nicht die erziehende und bildende Herrschaft über die Gemüter des Volkes üben, die zu einem solchen Ziele führen würde (vergl. Schmot 3, 11).

לא אוכל אנכי לבדי, “I cannot all by myself, etc.” Moses had said all this after the fire of G-d had burned against all the officers in the camp, seeing that as long as these had still been alive, they had shared the burden of leading the people with him.

ואם ככה את עשה לי AND IF THOU DO THUS WITH ME [KILL ME, I PRAY THEE …] — The Hebrew word for “Thou” appears in the feminine form את instead of the masculine אתה to intimate that Moses’ strength grew weak as that of a woman when the Holy one, blessed be He, showed him the punishment which He was to bring in future upon them for this (for their sin). He, (Moses) therefore, said before Him, “If so, kill me first” (Sifrei Bamidbar 91).

AND IF ‘AT’ (THOU) DO THUS WITH ME. “[The Hebrew word for Thou appears here in the feminine form at, instead of atah in the masculine, because] Moses’ strength grew weak, like that of a woman, because the Holy One, blessed be He, showed him the punishment He was to bring upon them for this [sin of theirs]. Moses then said to Him, ‘If so, kill me, I pray Thee.’” This is Rashi’s language. But I do not understand this. For the pronoun at refers here to Him on high, [for since it is Moses who is speaking in the verse, his use of the second-person pronoun must be referring to G-d; so how can Rashi explain that the feminine form is used to indicate that Moses’ strength weakened like that of a woman]! But according to the plain meaning of Scripture, the custom of the [Hebrew] language is [to use the form at] even when referring to a man, such as, ‘at’ (thou) the far-covering cherub.¹⁸²Ezekiel 28:14. Here the word at refers to k’ruv (cherub), which is a masculine noun. And by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], And if ‘at’ do thus with me refers to the attribute of justice [“attribute” in Hebrew being feminine, and the meaning of the verse is: “if it be decreed that the attribute of justice encounter me, then kill me, I pray Thee], just as it is said, and the anger of the Eternal was kindled greatly.¹⁸³Above, Verse 10. Similarly, ‘v’at’ shalt speak unto us¹⁸⁴Deuteronomy 5:24. is a reference to the great fire,¹⁸⁵Ibid., Verse 22. “Fire” can be feminine or masculine in Hebrew. from which you shall speak the words of G-d unto us, and we will hear it¹⁸⁴Deuteronomy 5:24. from your mouth, and do it.¹⁸⁴Deuteronomy 5:24. Similarly, ‘at’ the far-covering cherub¹⁸²Ezekiel 28:14. Here the word at refers to k’ruv (cherub), which is a masculine noun. alludes to the second cherub.¹⁸⁶Reference is to the Glory of G-d (Abusaula). The student versed [in the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand.

ואם ככה את עושה לי, If You in Your perfection decided not to provide me with assistants in order not to belittle me in the eyes of the people, and You want to continue to lead the people in the manner which You have done so far, הרגני נא הרוג אם מצאתי חן בעיניך, so that You will be free to appoint someone else, someone, or several, who are able to lead the people more perfectly. This is reminiscent of what the sages have said about the prophet Samuel who died before his time in order to enable the Kingdom of David to become reality sooner. (compare Tossaphot on Taanit 5)

ואם ככה את עשה לי, "but if You will deal thus with me, etc." Moses was afraid that G'd would say to him that he must continue to carry this burden even against his will as it is the fate of a servant of G'd that he continue to serve his G'd until he dies, as we know from Deut 6,5 where we are commanded to love G'd with our entire soul, i.e. even if we have to die in the process. This is why Moses said: "if that is my fate then please let me die now." He added that the reason he asked to die now was so that he would not be a witness to his own failure as a leader. Moses was afraid that if instead of G'd letting him die the people would kill him for not providing meat, he would become the cause of their becoming guilty of murder. Their punishment would be that they would be wiped out by G'd. He, Moses, would much rather die now than for Israel to become guilty of such a crime. Solomon expressed such a thought in Proverbs 17,27 when he said: "it is not good for the righteous to become the cause of retribution."

ואם ככה את עושה לי, “and if this is how You deal with me, etc.” Rashi says that the feminine mode in the word את instead of אתה when addressing Hashem, is an allusion to the fact that Moses’ spiritual reserves were close to being exhausted. Nachmanides writes that he did not understand Rashi’s conclusions about the use of the word את, seeing that Moses employed this pronoun of G’d while addressing Him. According to the plain meaning of the text the pronoun את is indeed found being used when addressing a male as in Ezekiel 28,14: את כרוב ממשח הסוכך, “You-who have been anointed to act as protector, etc.” [According to this Moses would accuse G’d of treating him as no longer deserving to be regarded as possessing the strength expected of a male. Of course, Moses would have brought this upon himself by his self-admitted inability to deal with the people’s challenges. Ed. Rabbi Chavel cites an interesting commentary on our verse by Rabbi Wolf Heidenheim.]

ואם ככה את עושה לי, ”And if this is how You will deal with me, etc.” The word את in this verse is a reference to the attribute of Justice. Moses refers to the reaction of G’d described in verse 10 where the Torah wrote ויחר אף ה' מאד, that “G’d had become exceedingly angry.” The word את as describing the attribute of Justice is also found in Deut. 5,24 when the people expressed their inability to endure the sound of the voice of G’d. It is also found in Ezekiel 28,14 את כרוב ממשח הסוכך, “You are a great protective cherub.” This is a pseudonym for the second highest ranking angel known as כבוד, his partner being the angel known as תפארת. [compare author’s comment on Exodus 25,18 on the subject of the cherubs. Ed.]
I have already explained that seeing the written text of the Torah does not contain vowels, it is possible to supply the vowel kametz when reading the word עושה with the vowel kametz under the letter ש, so that it sounds as “ossah.” The reason we have been forbidden to write the vowels in the written text of the Torah scroll is to enable a person to understand a variety of meanings in the text which he could not find if he were bound to a specific vowel pattern under or over the consonants.
For instance, in Genesis 22,12 the word ידעתי in the sequence עתה ידעתי כי ירא אלוהים אתה, normally translated as “now I know that you are truly G’d-fearing,” would have a different meaning if the letter ד in ידעתי had a dagesh in it. It would become transitive in meaning, i.e. “Avraham made known (to the world) who and what he was in relation to G’d.” Another example where a minor change in vocalization makes a substantial difference in meaning is found in Exodus 2,5 in connection with how the daughter of Pharaoh saved Moses. The conventional reading of the words is ותשלח את אמתה ותקחה, “she dispatched her maid and took it (the basket).” The word אמה then would have the same meaning as the word שפחה. However, one can understand the word אמתה as meaning “her arm” indicating a miraculous lengthening of her arm; this is the way the sages in Sotah 12 understood it as if the letter מ had a dagesh in it. There are numerous such examples throughout the Torah.

Like a female. The verse is explained as follows: “If this is the way” meaning that if You ultimately do this to Yisroel, then “You make me את” meaning that You would have made me like a female — because את (“you”) is used to address females, just as one says אתה (“you”) to males. The notation proves this, because there is a break between the words “the way” and “You.” It is impossible to say that it refers back to “I cannot…” (v.14) because the distress caused by the complaint would not have been so bad for him to say “please kill me.” Rather it was because of the punishment that Hashem would ultimately bring upon Yisroel that Moshe said this.

V. 15. ואם ככה את וגו׳. Offenbar bezeichnet hier die weibliche Form את ein Zurückbleiben der Kraft, und dürfte damit gesagt sein: wenn du so mich meiner, mir sehr wohl bewussten, Schwäche überlassen und ihr nicht durch deine, mich umwandelnd zu rüsten wohl vermögende Kraft zu Hülfe kommen wolltest — es ist dies wohl das אנכי לבדי des vorigen Verses — so bitte ich lieber, mich vorzeitig sterben zu lassen, damit ich nicht mein Unglück, d. i. das ganz Verfehlte meiner Sendung in der gänzlichen Entartung des Volkes erlebe. So hatte Mosche gleich beim Anfang seiner Sendung (Schmot 4, 10) erwartet, es würde Gott, sobald Er ihn sendet, ihn auch mit der nötigen Kraft und Macht der Rede rüsten, und glaubte in dem Ausbleiben rüstenden Gottesbeistandes — גם מאז דברך אל עבדך — umsomehr seine Unfähigkeit und Unwürdigkeit für seine Sendung zu erkennen. Er ahnte freilich nicht, wie eben dieser bleibende Kraftmangel, verbunden mit der ענוה-Größe seines Charakters, das ewige Kreditiv des Göttlichen seiner Sendung bleiben werde. Dies auch vielleicht der Sinn der Erläuterung der Weisen z. St. (siehe Raschi) תשש בחו של משה כנקבה, Mosche drückte das Gefühl seiner Schwäche durch das Ausbleiben des männlich rüstenden Gottesbeistandes aus.

ואל אראה ברעתי, “so that I do not have to look at my wretchedness.” Moses prefers to die immediately instead of his fate remaining tied to theirs.

ואם ככה את עושה לי, “and if You will deal with me in this fashion;” according to Rashi, Moses had felt that he had become weak like a woman, so that he was not even able to complete the last word, (which should have been: אתה in the masculine mode). He was full of psychological pain and anger, so that he addressed G-d as if he were addressing a human being and runs out of breath before being able to complete a sentence. Other commentators understand the word: את here as if vocalised with a segol, similar to בך, or לך, which can be used both in the masculine and in the feminine mode.

ואל אראה ברעתי AND LET ME NOT SEE MY EVIL — It ought to have written (according to the Midrashic explanation above) “and let me not see their evil”, only that Scripture modified the expression (i.e. it used a euphemistic expression referring the evil to himself instead of to the whole people). This is one of the variations occurring in the Torah such as writers make for the purpose of modifying and improving the phrase (cf. Rashi on Genesis 18:22 and Midrash Tanchuma, Beshalach 16).

HORGEINI NA HAROG’ (KILL ME, I PRAY THEE). This means that Thou should send upon me those that kill by the sword, for it is better for me to die¹⁸⁷Jonah 4:4. even by the sword of man than to live¹⁸⁷Jonah 4:4. with this grief. It is possible that the sense [of the term horgeini] is “take my life” [and not, as explained before, that it means death by human agency]. A similar [usage of the term is found in these verses]: and let their men be ‘harugei maveth’ (slain of death), and their young men smitten of the sword in battle;¹⁸⁸Jeremiah 18:21. and breathe ‘baharugim ha’eileh’ (upon these slain).¹⁸⁹Ezekiel 37:9. The reference there [according to the plain meaning of Scripture] is to those who died a natural death in the exile (see in R’dak’s commentary there). According to the tradition of the Sages, that the dry bones were those of the tribe of Ephraim who left Egypt thirty years before the exodus and were killed on the way by the men of Gath (see Ramban Vol. II, p. 157), the term baharugim is to be understood literally: “upon those that were killed [by the sword]” (R’dak).

ואל אראה ברעתי, the result of my inadequacy as a leader. If I had to witness this, this would be worse for me than dying at this time.

הרגני נא הרוג, “”then kill me now!” Moses requested that G’d dispatch one of His agents to kill him even by the sword used by a human being, as he considered it preferable to die at the hands of a human being to continuing to live a life full of frustration. Alternately, he asked for a different mode of death, and he used the word הרג, as one would say המיתני, “arrange for my death forthwith.”

One of the “scribes’ adjustments.” [Rashi] means to say that just as scribes emend their books when they write, Hashem also commanded Moshe to adjust the language when he wrote the Torah.

The reason Moses repeated the words הרגני נא הרוג, was that he was certain he would meet with death either at the hands of G'd or at the hands of Israel. If G'd were to kill him now, therefore, He would only be taking the life of a person who was already dead for all practical purposes. In order to interpret the verse in this way the word harog must be read as harug. Yalkut Shimoni item 735 on our verse expresses it thus: "If I do not give them meat they will kill me; on the other hand, if I oppose You (by speaking against You) You will be forced to kill me." The wording of our verse can tolerate all these various interpretations.

ואל אראה ברעתי, “so that I will no longer have to deal with the evil that has befallen me.”

ואל אראה ברעתי, “so that I will not have to watch my wretchedness.” The words call to mind when Jonah said to G’d repeatedly טוב מותי מ.., It is better that I die (now) than…” (Jonah)

אספה לי GATHER UNTO ME [SEVENTY MEN OF THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL] — "This" — the Lord said — “is the reply to your complaint which you uttered (v. 14) I am not able to bear all this people alone”’ (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 92). But where were the first elders, that God commanded him to gather elders anew? Had they not sat as judges together with them (with Moses and Aaron) in Egypt, as it is stated, (Exodus 3:16) “Go and gather the elders of Israel together”? But these had died by the consuming fire of Taberah (v. 3). They really had deserved this for their conduct at Sinai, as it is said, (Exodus 24:11) "And they beheld God” which means, that they comported themselves irreverently towards God — like a person who nibbles his bread and at the same time addresses the king — for this is the meaning of the words, “[And they saw God] and ate and drank”. The Holy One, blessed be He, however, did not wish to give any cause for mourning at the joyous event of the Lawgiving, and therefore punished them here (at Taberah) (Midrash Tanchuma, Beha'alotcha 16).

AND THE ETERNAL SAID UNTO MOSES: GATHER UNTO ME SEVENTY MEN OF THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL. Our Rabbis have already mentioned that there are seventy nations¹⁹⁰Bereshith Rabbah 66:8. with seventy languages,¹⁹¹Sanhedrin 17 a. each one having a constellation in the heavens with a prince above it, as it is said in the Book of Daniel, and the prince of the kingdom of Persia,¹⁹²Daniel 10:13. See Ramban in Leviticus 18:25, and also Vol. I, pp. 349-350. and it is [further] written with reference to the kings of Greece, lo, the prince of Greece shall come;¹⁹³Daniel 10:20. and it is about this that Scripture states, And the Eternal will punish the host of the high heaven on high.¹⁹⁴Isaiah 24:21. The Rabbis have also said¹⁹⁵Succah 58 b. that the [seventy] bullocks [brought as offerings on the seven days] of the Festival of Tabernacles allude to them. [A similar reference to the seventy princes we find, in connection with the Tower of Babel] in the Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer:¹⁹⁶Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer. Chapter 24. “Said the Holy One, blessed be He, to the seventy kings that surround the throne of His Glory: ‘Let us come and confound their language.’”¹⁹⁷Genesis 11:7. It was for this reason that the number of those who went down to Egypt was seventy,¹⁹⁸Ibid., 46:27. and that He commanded that there should be this number of judges in Israel [as is stated in the verse before us], for this number includes all opinions [that are possible in a given case] since it comprises all powers, and there will not be anything too hard for them.¹⁹⁹Deuteronomy 17:8-9: If there arise a matter ‘too hard for thee’ in judgment … then shalt thou arise etc. — and go to the judges of the Great Sanhedrin and they will answer you. The point is thus clear: there will not be anything “too hard” for them. Similarly at the Giving of the Torah [special prominence was given to] seventy elders of Israel,²⁰⁰Exodus 24:1. and it is fitting that the Glory of the Divine Presence should rest upon [a group of] this perfect number, since it is [comparable to] the camp on high, for Israel are the hosts of the Eternal²⁰¹Ibid., 12:41. See also Vol. I, p. 393. on earth, just as the ark and its cover and the Tabernacle were all made in the likeness of those that minister [before Him] on high. So also were the [four] standards made in the image of the Divine Chariot which Ezekiel saw,²⁰²Ezekiel, Chapter I. in order that the Divine Presence should rest upon them on earth as it is present in the heavens.
Now Moses was above the seventy elders [in authority], thus alluding to Israel, a nation one in the earth.²⁰³II Samuel 7:23. And our Rabbis have received by tradition that every Sanhedrin (Great Court) that sits in G-d’s House in the place which He shall choose on which to rest His Presence, should consist of this number, seventy, with the head [of the Court] above them [in authority] like Moses our teacher, and thus they comprise [a Court] a seventy-one [judges, and with the Divine Presence in their midst they are seventy-two]. Similarly the letters in the Great Ineffable Divine Name are seventy-two, corresponding to the seventy princes [of the seventy nations, together with Israel, making seventy-one nations],²⁰⁴Abusaula, and so also in Beiur Ha’lvush to Ricanti. and the One G-d who is the sole Master over all. It is to this that Scripture hints in saying, G-d standeth in the congregation of G-d; in the midst of the judges He judgeth,²⁰⁵Psalms 82:1. for the Divine Presence is with them to assent to their judgment. And Scripture further states, How long will ye judge unjustly?,²⁰⁶Ibid., Verse 2. thus admonishing [and saying] that since the Glorious Name²⁰⁷Deuteronomy 28:58. is with them in giving judgment,²⁰⁸II Chronicles 19:6. how can you not be fearful of Him when you pervert justice, as in the expression, the people that provoke Me to My face continually.²⁰⁹Isaiah 65:3. And it states furthermore [in that psalm], “I said: Ye are godlike beings, and all of you sons of the Most High,²¹⁰Psalms 82:6. for your number is the same as the number of the princes above and the One Master, and so I said that you will sit in the seat of G-d²¹¹Ezekiel 28:2. on earth. But ‘k’adam’ ye shall die²¹²Psalms 82:7. — like the first man [Adam] who was driven from his glorious place [in the Garden of Eden] and died, so will you [who judge unjustly] be driven out of the House of G-d and die. And like one of the princes²¹²Psalms 82:7. on high you were, but you fell from that high position.” I have already mentioned something of this matter in Seder V’eileh Hamishpatim.²¹³And these are the ordinances — Exodus 21:1. The verse referred to is ibid., 6.

אספה לי שבעים איש, "gather for Me seventy men, etc." G'd did not say: "gather the seventy elders for Me." This is proof of what Bamidbar Rabbah 15,21 stated that the elders who had accompanied Moses on the way from Egypt had all been killed at the same time as Chur the son of Miriam. This is why G'd instructed Moses to appoint others in their place from amongst the elders of Israel. G'd added the word לי "for Me," to tell Moses that he must have in mind that these elders would perform a task for G'd so that he would not be misled by Satan to appoint someone not qualified. Once Moses had the right intention in appointing them he would be protected by the principle that people in the process of performing a good deed will not be thwarted in their intention.

אשר ידעת כי הם זקני העם ושומריו, “whom you know to be the elders of the people and its officers.” Ibn Ezra writes that there are elders who are not qualified to perform both the tasks G’d describes here.

The reply to your complaint. For if not so, what is the relevance of this passage here being juxtaposed to the passage of the complaints.

V. 16. אספה לי שבעים איש. Wie in den späteren Jahrhunderten des Verfalls das Erscheinen einer so glänzenden Reihe von Männern der Prophetie und der heiligen Begeisterung bekundet, wie denn doch mitten im Volke sich ein großer geistig und sittlich reiner Kreis von Familien erhalten haben müsse, aus deren Schoß solche Männer hervorgehen konnten, so ist diese Aufgabe, aus Israels Ältesten siebzig Männer auszuwählen, die der Begeistigung Gottes und des Mitwirkens an der Gottesarbeit im Volke gewürdigt werden sollen, in einem Momente, der uns soeben "העם" das Volk, in so wenig gehobenem Lichte erblicken lässt, eine Tatsache, die uns doch bekundet, welche tiefe Wurzel die Erkenntnis und die Hingebung an Gott und an seine Absichten mit Israel denn doch bereits in einem großen edlen Kreis mitten in der erst noch zu gleicher Höhe heranzuerziehenden Menge geschlagen haben müsse.

אספה לי שבעים איש, “assemble seventy men for Me.” Why did G–d say: “for Me,” and why did He say: איש, “man,” singular mode, instead of אנשים, “men,”? In both instances the wording implies that the men selected were to be especially outstanding people. G–d Himself is described by Moses in his song of gratitude for the Israelites’ deliverance from the armies of Pharaoh as איש מלחמה, “man of war.” (Exodus 15,3) and when the Torah wishes to compliment his humility, it does so by calling him: והאיש משה עניו מאד, “and the man Moses, was exceedingly humble.” We did not need to be told that Moses was a man; the Torah wished to add this word as a mark of Moses’ outstanding distinction. The Talmud, in tractate Sanhedrin, folio 36, understands Numbers 11,16: והתיצבו שם עמך, “so that they may stand there with you,” as meaning that these men should be of a stature similar to that of Moses. [The word עמך in that verse was not really necessary, as it would have been understood automatically that these men were to stand there alongside Moses. Ed.] An alternate interpretation: the word לי, refers to the fact that the whole universe belongs to Hashem. The function of the seventy men to be selected by Moses is to ensure that the universe and its people created by G–d will endure, i.e. that His rules for it should be observed. We have a verse in Amos 9,6: הבונה בשמים מעלותו ואגודתו על ארץ יסדה, “He Who builds His chambers in the heavens, and founded His vault on the earth.” The prophet means that G–d’s creative work regarding the earth, was conditioned on people helping Him to keep it in shape. If earth were to collapse due to man’s failings, G–d would have no reason to keep the heavens going either. Bamidbar Rabbah, on Numbers 15,24 illustrates this by the following parable. When palaces have been built on the decks of ships, as long as these palaces are connected to their bases, the ships, all is well, once the palaces have been detached from the ships, these ships have no reason for further existence.

אספה לי שבעים איש, “gather for me seventy men;” the number 70 is symbolic of the original seventy Israelites that left the land of Canaan to go to Egypt, as well as the seventy elders that were the leaders of the people at the time of the revelation at Mount Sinai. (Exodus 24,1) It also symbolises the seventy families mentioned in the census reported in Numbers chapter 26, as well as the members of the Supreme Court, Sanhedrin, excluding its president, in later Jewish history.

אשר ידעת כי הם וגו׳ WHOM THOU KNOWEST TO BE [THE ELDERS OF THE PEOPLE, AND BAILIFFS OVER THEM] — i.e. them whom thou knowest to have been appointed officers (שמרים) over them (the Israelites) in Egypt in connection with the rigorous labour imposed on them, but they pitied them and were smitten by the Egyptian taskmasters on their account — as it is said, (Exodus 5:14) “and the officers of (שמד) the children of Israel were smitten”. Now they were to become officers in their greatness (now when the Israelites had become great) just as they had suffered when they (the Israelites) were in distress (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 92).

Like someone munching on his loaf while speaking. Likewise they were eating and drinking while gazing at the Divine Presence.

Another meaning of the word לי is that G'd would confirm the appointments and the authority of these elders would be derived directly from G'd rather than merely from Moses. G'd also used this word to encourage people to accept this position as they might have been afraid remembering the fate that had befallen the first set of elders who had been murdered by the mob. By describing the appointment of these elders with the word אסיפה, a term used for death, G'd made clear that He considered the elders who had been killed as having died in the service of the Lord. Compare Psalms 44,23 כי עליך הורגנו כל היום, "for it is for Your sake that we are getting killed all day long."

מזקני ישראל. Es waren auch bis jetzt schon und von den geschichtlichen Anfängen des Volkes Israel her "זקנים", "Älteste", in ihm vorhanden und nahmen eine hervorragende, maßgebende Stellung im Volke ein, (siehe Schmot 3, 16 und folgendes Kapitel sowie Wajikra 9, 1); ja, wie wir sogleich hören, hatten sie bereits eine amtliche Wirksamkeit, waren שוטריו, das Pflichtleben des Volkes überwachende Aufseher. Aus diesen Ältesten, die bereits einen aus freiem, natürlichem Vertrauen hervorgegangenen Einfluss im Volke besaßen, somit eine solche Vater und Mutter gleiche Stellung zum Volke hatten, deren Mangel Mosche V. 12 für sich beklagte, sollten siebzig zur Mitarbeit an Mosche Erziehungswerk am Volke berufen und dieser Beruf ihnen öffentlich von Gott erteilt werden.

אשר ידעת כי הם זקני העם, “whom you have known to be the elders of the people;” they allowed themselves to be beaten rather than to impose more hardships on their fellow Jews. Compare Exodus 5,14, regarding this. We have a tradition that anyone who deliberately suffers in order to spare fellow Jews suffering, will eventually be rewarded by being appointed to an important position, and will be granted a measure of Holy Spirit.

ולקחת אתם AND TAKE THEM [UNTO THE APPOINTED TENT] — win them over with fine words: “Happy are you that you are appointed chiefs over the children of the Omnipresent God” (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 92).

Officers over them in Egypt. For if this were not so, since they were already officers over the people why would he have to appoint them now?

זקני העם ושוטריו, the elders of the people and its officers." They should be people who could command the respect and obedience of the people. All this is implied in the word ושוטריו.

אספה לי, nicht אספה allgemein, nicht אספה לך zur Befriedigung deines dir persönlich fühlbar gewordenen Bedürfnisses, sondern: אספה לי, es soll damit eine bleibende, für die Verwirklichung meines ewigen Zweckes im Volke für immer bestimmte Institution begründet werden. Es war dies die Begründung des großen Volksrates, der aus siebzig mit deren Präses, wie hier die siebzig Ältesten mit Mosche, bestehenden Sanhedrin, die für alle Folgezeit sich nur als die Mosche unter- und beigeordneten Gehilfen zur Ausführung und Vollendung der durch Mosche überbrachten Aufgabe des Volkes zu betrachten haben.

והתיצבו שם עמך AND LET THEM PLACE THEMSELVES THERE WITH THEE, in order that the Israelites may see it and do them high esteem and honour, saying, “Beloved indeed must these be since they may enter together with Moses to hear Divine utterance from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He!” (Sifrei Bamidbar 92).

וירדתי AND I WILL COME DOWN [AND SPEAK WITH THEE THERE] This is one of the ten instances of the use of the term “coming down” written in the Torah to describe a Divine manifestation on earth (Sifrei Bamidbar 93).

AND I WILL COME DOWN AND SPEAK WITH THEE THERE, ‘V’ATZALTI’ (AND I WILL TAKE OF THE SPIRIT) WHICH IS UPON THEE, AND WILL PUT IT UPON THEM. The intention of the verse is to say that the transmission [of the spirit resting on Moses to the seventy elders] will take place at the time when G-d will speak to Moses; and it will be from that [Divine communication that the prophetic power will be transmitted to them],²¹⁴So clearly explained in the Tur. See my Hebrew commentary p. 234. as is stated at the actual occurrance [of the events], And the Eternal came down in the cloud, and spoke unto him, [and took of the spirit that was upon him, and put it upon the seventy elders].²¹⁵Further, Verse 25. Now Scripture did not explain here what this communication was about, as is [usually] written in the whole Torah, where after [stating that G-d spoke to Moses] it explains what the Eternal said and what He spoke. [The reason for this is] that what happened here was that the elders, of whom Scripture states that they prophesied,²¹⁵Further, Verse 25. did not hear any communication from the mouth of G-d, nor did He appear to them in a vision or in a dream,²¹⁶See further, 12:6. but G-d spoke to Moses, and from the atziluth [as is explained further on] of the spirit upon Moses, they understood that Divine communication. This is the sense of the expression, and they prophesied, but they did so no more,²¹⁵Further, Verse 25. meaning that they did not continue receiving Divine communication on their own, for it was only the communication that G-d said to Moses in which they shared. This is also the meaning of v’atzalti [of the root eitzel — “near”], that “I will hold back with Me of the spirit which I put upon you, and I will put it upon them.” This is not the same idea as in the verse, and thou [Moses] shalt put of thy honor upon him [Joshua],²¹⁷Ibid., 27:20. for the term atziluth always means “holding something back,” as in the expressions: And whatsoever mine eyes desired ‘lo atzalti’ (I did not keep) from them;²¹⁸Ecclesiastes 2:10. ‘Halo atzalta’ (Hast thou not reserved) a blessing for me?²¹⁹Genesis 27:36. Similarly, [Now the upper chambers were shorter, for the galleries took away from these, more than from the lower and the middlemost, in the building. For they were in three stories, and they had not pillars as the pillars of the courts;] therefore ‘ne’etzal’ (room was taken away) from the lowest and the middlemost, in comparison with the ground,²²⁰Ezekiel 42:5-6. meaning that more [room] was left by them [i.e., the upper chambers] relative to the ground, than by the chambers on the bottom and middle [stories], since their galleries did not take away from these upper chambers.²²¹The meaning is as follows: It is clear from the verses that there were three stories, and that they were not supported on pillars. Thus each floor had to be set in somewhat in relation to the floor below it, leaving “galleries” around it. The top floor was the shortest, since the lower ones protruded and covered more of the ground-area than the highest story; thus more room was left relative to the ground by the top floor than by the other two. This shows that the root ‘atzal’ used in the verse signifies “holding back.” Likewise, and to the ‘atzilei’ of the children of Israel²²²Exodus 24:11. means “those who were left and were separated from them, who were withdrawn to themselves from the rest of the ordinary people.” Or it may be that great men are so called [atzilim — from the root eitzel (near)] because everybody comes to them [for counsel and instruction]. And translators of languages²²³Ramban is obviously referring to translators from Arabic into Hebrew. See e.g., in Yehudah Halevi’s philosophic work Al Khazari, written in Arabic, which Ibn Tibbon rendered into Hebrew, where he writes of atziluth ne’etzeleth mimenah sibah shenith (an Emanation from which emanated a second) etc. (Hirschfeld’s translation, I, 1, p. 36). use the term atziluth with reference to an emanation of any powers [coming forth] from the Creator and spreading to a created object. Thus they speak of the soul as atzulah (emanating) from Ruach Hakodesh (the Holy Spirit), since they understand atziluth as an expression of “drawing forth.” But it does not appear to me to be correct that atziluth should mean “drawing forth” or²²⁴“Or placing upon etc.” — In Kur Zahav it is suggested that the reading in Ramban should be [instead of: o hanachah — “or placing upon”]: ela hanachah — “but placing upon.” That is to say, Ramban differs with the translators who understood atziluth as an act of both, coming forth from one subject and spreading to another, while Ramban holds it is primarily a concept of “placing upon” a subject, part of something which the bestower has set aside for it. — See further my Hebrew commentary p. 235. “placing upon” [the receiver], something which the bestower has set aside [for him]. Onkelos, however, explained that the term atziluth has two meanings. Thus he translated here [v’atzalti] — “and I shall make great” [thus indicating that the term atziluth is to be understood as a “drawing forth” by the giver for the benefit of the receiver, that he will be made great], and similarly and to the ‘atzilei’²²²Exodus 24:11. [he translated], “and to the great men;” but he rendered ‘Halo atzalta’ a blessing for me²¹⁹Genesis 27:36. — “Have you not ‘left’ for me a blessing?” Thus it appears that his opinion about the meaning of atziluth is that it [sometimes] refers to a drawing forth or bestowing by a giver on a receiver; thus [according to this interpretation] the verse here is saying: “I will draw forth from that which is upon you [Moses] of the spirit of prophecy, and I will put it upon them.” But we may [also use the term atziluth in speaking of] a “drawing forth” which a giver does to himself from that which is given, so that it remains with him, this being the meaning of the verse, ‘Halo atzalta’ a blessing for me²¹⁹Genesis 27:36. — “Have you not kept to yourself for me one of the blessings with which to bless me?”
The general principle about the elders is that their Divine communication came only from [G-d’s] spirit which spoke to Moses, and from him it came to them. Therefore the Rabbis have said in Bamidbar Sinai Rabbah:²²⁵Bamidbar Rabbah, at the end of Seder Beha’alothcha. “This can be compared to a master who gave an orchard to a guardian, and paid him a wage for his service. After a while the guardian said to him: ‘I cannot guard the whole orchard alone; bring in some more people to guard it with me.’ Thereupon the master said to him: ‘I gave you my orchard to guard, and all the fruits for guarding it I gave you [i.e., I gave you a reward for it], and now you tell me to bring in others to guard it with you! I will bring in others to help you guard it, but you should know that I will not give them wages for watching it out of my resources; rather it is from the wages that I have given you that they will take their payment.’ So did the Holy One, blessed be He, say to Moses: ‘I have given you spirit and knowledge to lead My children, and I did not want anyone else [to help you], in order that you alone should be singled out for this guardianship, and now you want someone else! Know then that from Me they will not take anything, but I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them.’ Yet nonetheless Moses did not lose anything [of his spirit].” Thus far is in the Midrash.
It appears likely to me that this [bestowing of the Divine spirit that was upon Moses] happened to the elders throughout their lives, so that they knew whatever G-d commanded Israel by the hand of Moses in connection with the temporary needs of the people and the events which happened to them in the wilderness. This is the meaning of the expression [in the verse before us] and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that whatever Moses told the people they knew, and each one would pass the Divine communication about it to the people of his tribe, and thus Moses no longer had to bear their complaints alone.

ונשאו אתך, seeing that they have now also attained the level of prophecy they are able to assist you in assuring the people get justice under your guidance because they see that the elders are with you and approve of what you are doing.

ואצלתי מן הרוח, "and I will hold back from the spirit, etc." The manner in which the Torah describes the transfer of part of Moses' Holy Spirit to the elders was meant to emphasise that Moses had possessed sufficient Holy Spirit to cope with the task allocated to Him by G'd. G'd did not need to increase the total amount of Holy Spirit available for that task. He simply reduced the amount of Holy Spirit which Moses had enjoyed up until that time.

וירדתי ודברתי עמך שם, “I will descend and speak with you there.” Nachmanides writes that the meaning of this verse is that at the time when G’d would speak with Moses the transfer of some of his Holy Spirit to the elders concerned would take place, with these elders experiencing part of the conversation between G’d and Moses. This is not equivalent to what G’d had described in Numbers 27,20 as מהודך, “part of your glory,” when He instructed Moses to appoint Joshua as his successor. Interestingly, when G’d carries out in verse 25 what He had said to Moses here, we do not read a single word about the subject of G’d’s conversation with Moses. This was a departure from all other occasions when G’d was described as speaking to Moses. The reason is that here the whole purpose was for G’d to address these elders via Moses. The latter neither heard G’d’s voice, nor did they have any visual communication such as a dream in which G’d appeared to them. G’d spoke to Moses, and the elders, thanks to the transfer of some of Moses’ Holy Spirit, became instantly aware of a conversation between G’d and Moses being in progress. This is also the meaning of what we read in verse 25: ויתנבאו ולא יספו, “they prophesied but did not continue to do so.” In other words, they were not able to call on their prophetic spirit themselves but had been given such inspiration only with Moses as the vehicle. The meaning of the words

One of the ten descents. You might ask: Why did Rashi explain this case more than all of the others. The answer is that the term “standing” was not written here like in the other cases.

V. 17. ואצלתי .וירדתי ודברתי עמך ואצלתי: seiner Grundbedeutung nach bezeichnet אצל das von einem Gegenstande Freigelassene, von ihm nicht Eingenommene, daher räumlich: neben, den Punkt, wo der von einem Gegenstande eingenommene Raum aufhört. Daher auch אצילי ידים, die Stelle, wo der Arm an den Körper grenzt: die Achsel. Dann: die außerhalb eines Kreises bleibenden Räume (Jes.41, 9) und Personen (Schmot 24, 11; siehe daselbst). Vergleichen wir die Stellen: Bereschit 27, 36 הלא אצלת לי ברכה und Pred. 2, 10 לא אצלתי מהם, in welchen אצל als Zeitwort vorkommt, so bedeutet es offenbar in beiden Stellen nicht: aus dem Bereiche eines Menschen etwas nehmen, das derselbe bereits besessen, sondern: etwas nicht in sein Bereich kommen lassen, etwas von dem zurückhalten (neben ihm, außerhalb seiner lassen), was ihm wohl hätte zukommen können. Und so dürfte es auch hier wohl nicht heißen: ich werde von dem Geiste, der auf dir ist, nehmen und auf sie legen, sondern: ich werde von dem Geiste, der auf dich (indem ich mit dir rede) kommt, zurückhalten und auf sie legen. Indem ich mit dir rede, werde ich von dem Geiste, der sonst auf dich allein kommt, auch auf sie kommen lassen. Damit werden sie geistig Teilhaber deiner Persönlichkeit, gehören in innigster Weise geistig zu dir.

וירדתי, “and I (the Lord) will descend, etc.” from this we learn that this day was as important for G–d as the day when He gave the Jewish people the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai. We know this as it is the only day that has also been described as G–d descending. Compare Exodus 19,11, where the Lord has been described as descending to Mount Sinai on the third day of the people preparing for that event. (Bamidbar Rabbah 15,25)

ואצלתי מן הרוח אשר עליך, “and I will enhance some of the spirit that is part of you;” did G-d not have holy spirit that He could have taken from somewhere else other than Moses? We therefore must understand G-d’s words as follows: He told Moses that that he should judge the Jewish people and that He had given him sufficient wisdom to know how to this. How could Moses therefore complain that he could not do it by himself? (verse 14) If so, it was proof that he, Moses, had to share some of his holy spirit with the elders he would now appoint.

ודברתי עמך AND I WILL SPEAK WITH THEE but not with them (Sifrei Bamidbar 93).

ואצלתי מן הרוח אשר עליך, “I will deposit some of the spirit that is upon you placing it on them.” The meaning of the word אצל wherever it occurs is that that which is described as being נאצל is being arrested in a certain static condition, forever remaining dependent on its source. A well known example of the use and meaning of that word is found in Kohelet 2,10, “וכל אשר שאלו עיני לא אצלתי מהם, “and I did not deny, hold back from granting, anything which my eyes desired of the joys available in this world.” Similarly, when we read in Exodus chapter 24 about the אצילי בני ישראל, the reference is to the aristocracy of the Israelites, the ones who considered themselves apart from the multitude. When the word נבואה is used, however, the Torah speaks about a divine inspiration which comes from G’d directly, is not dependent on the input by another human being. Ibn Ezra understands the word ואצלתי as meaning something similar to אקח מאשר אצלך, “I will take something which is beside you, i.e. I will not thereby diminish what is yours.” Some commentators understand the meaning of אצילות as being similar to המשכה, “drawing something away.” Personally, I tend to believe that as long as the elders were being indirectly inspired via Moses that they could divine what it was that G’d expected of them and would command the people in any matters relating to the welfare of the people in all the happenings that the Torah reports as having occurred in the desert. This is the meaning of the words: ונשאו אתך במשא העם, “they will assist you in carrying the burden of the people.” They were informed of all that Moses would instruct the people to do; everyone would share this knowledge with his tribe. As a result, Moses would no longer carry the weight of their complaints all by himself.

I will make greater. וארבי is an expression that denotes greatness.

ולא תשא אתה לבדך, "so that you will not bear it alone." In this verse G'd precluded Moses from retracting on his complaint and expressing willingness to carry on as before. The words לא תשא are equivalent to G'd saying: "you will no longer carry the burden alone under any circumstances." The verse also hints that henceforth Moses' exalted position of authority would no longer be exclusive, and that he would have to share his authority. This is a secondary meaning of the word תשא, i.e. "you will no longer be the only one who has been elevated to high stature." I have come across the following remarks in Bamidbar Rabbah 15: "G'd said to Moses I have equipped you with sufficient insight and knowledge to be a provider for My children and you have been the only one equipped with such stature. From now on they will take from what is yours." According to the scholars who have said in Sanhedrin 17 that the words ולא יספו (11,25) mean that Eldod and Medod did not stop prophesying the words לא תשא may refer to a prophecy such as the word משא in Maleachi 1,1. Accordingly G'd told Moses that henceforth he would no longer be the only prophet in Israel but would have to share that distinction with the elders.

מן הרוח אשר עליו. Das Erteilen des Geistes der Prophetie ist im Ausdruck scharf von jeder anderen von Gott ausgehenden Ausstattung mit Geist unterschieden. In Josef ist Gottes Geist (Bereschit 41, 38), Bezalel hat Gott mit Geist Gottes erfüllt (Schmot 31, 3 und 35, 31), Josua war voll des Geistes der Weisheit (Dewarim 34, 9), Gott pflanzte durch Mosche seinen heiligen Geist ins Volk (Jes. 63, 11). Der Geist, der Ezechiel auf seine Füße aufrichtet, kommt in ihn (Ezech. 2, 2 und 3, 24), der Geist Gottes, der Gideon mit Mut rüstete (Richter 6, 34), selbst der, der Secharja den Mut gab, dem Volke mit Vorwürfen wegen seines Abfalls entgegen zu treten (Chron. II. 24, 20), sowie der Geist, der Amasai zum Huldigungsgruss an David trieb (daselbst I. 12. 18), war ein Geist, der sich in sie hüllte (לבש). Jede solche Geistesspende war eine Vermehrung, eine Erhöhung des geistigen Innern. Was in Folge solcher besonderen geistigen Begabung und Erregung geschah, ging nicht über das normale Maß menschlicher Fähigkeit hinaus. Es blieb Menschenwort und Menschentat, getragen und gehoben von besonderer, gottgespendeter, geistiger Begabung und Erregung. Allein der Geist der Prophetie ist kein innerer Vorgang, er kommt auf den Menschen, über den Menschen, ruht auf ihm, so der Geist der Prophetie, der über Saul kam (Sam. l. 10. 6 u. 10), über seine Boten (daselbst 19, 20), über Asarja (Chron. II. 15, 1), über Ezechiel (Ezech. 11, 5), auf Jesaias (Jes.61. 1), auf den Diener Gottes, auf Israel, auf alle Menschen (Jes.42, 1; 44, 3 und 59, 21, sowie Joel 3, 1), er ist eine Gottesmacht, eine "Hand" Gottes, יד ד, die über den Menschen kommt (Ezech. 1, 3; 3, 21 und 37, 1 daselbst), es ist Göttliches, dessen Träger, Bringer und Herold der Mensch wird, das von außen, aus der Höhe, an ihn, auf ihn kommt, das ihn über das Niveau des normalen Menschlichen hinaushebt und sein Menschliches zur Staffel des Göttlichen auf Erden macht. Was von ihm gesprochen und vollbracht wird, ist Gottes Wort und Gottes Tat, und der Mensch ist nur sein Bringer und Vollbringer. So werden auch die Krafttaten Simsons durch den über ihn kommenden Gottesgeist (Richter 14, 6 u. 19 und 15, 14) eben damit als übermenschliche gezeichnet.

ואצלתי מן הרוח אשר עליך, “I will draw on the spirit that is on you, etc.;” what transpired now could be compared to a King who owned a beautiful orchard and had hired an expert to look after it all by himself. After a while this expert said to the owner that he could no longer fulfill this task all by himself, but that he wanted other guardians to share the burden with him The owner agreed with the condition that this expert would share the wages that had been paid to him thus far with his helpers as the King was not prepared to budget for additional expense for this orchard. G–d made it clear that he had equipped Moses with sufficient Holy Spirit for the task at hand, but that if he were prepared to distribute this mount of Holy Spirit also among the elders this was acceptable to Him. G–d had resented Moses’ implication that he had not been equipped with the tools necessary to lead this people successfully without additional helpers. Proof that this had been G–d’s attitude can be found by the fact that 40 years later when Moses appointed a successor, Joshua, G–d told him to appoint only one single successor, not a team of leaders. (Numbers 27,18) When Moses transferred his authority to Joshua after forty years to Joshua, as described in Numbers 27,18, this did not result in Moses “losing” any of the Holy Spirit residing within him. According to Bamidbar Rabbah,15,25, we must simply understand this as if a candle imparted its light to another candle, without thereby becoming even one iota less capable of giving of its light to its surroundings.

ואצלתי — Understand this as the Targum does: AND I SHALL MAKE GREAT. Similar is (Exodus 24:11) “And upon the great men of (אצילי) the children of Israel [He laid not his hands]”.

ושמתי עליהם AND I WILL PUT IT UPON THEM — What was Moses like to at that moment? He was like to a light that is placed in a candlestick at which everybody lights his lamps and yet its illuminating power is not the least diminished (Sifrei Bamidbar 93).

ונשאו אתך AND THEY SHALL BEAR [THE BURDEN OF THE PEOPLE] WITH THEE — stipulate with them that they shall join you on the understanding that they take upon themselves the burden of my children — because they are troublesome people and refractory (Sifrei Bamidbar 92).

ולא תשא אתה לבדך THAT THOU BEAR IT NOT THYSELF ALONE — Here you have the answer to what you have said, (Numbers 11:14) “I am not able [to bear all this people] alone” (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 93; Rashi on Numbers 11:16).

התקדשו means, prepare yourselves to receive punishment. Similarly it states, (Jeremiah 12:3) “and prepare them (והקדשם) for the day of slaughter” (Sifrei Bamidbar 94; cf. Rashi on Exodus 19:10).

התקדשו למחר, "sanctify yourselves against to-morrow, etc." According to Sifri on our verse the reason why G'd did not provide the meat until the following day was that they saw in the word התקדשו a warning of approaching disaster. This is how the Sifri words this. G'd said: "prepare yourselves for disaster." G'd wanted to issue a warning that the very fact that He granted their request for meat was some kind of disaster. He gave them a period of time to desist from their urge to eat meat. If they would repent G'd would relent from His intention to bring disaster upon them.

ואל העם תאמר התקדשו למחר, “and tell the people: ‘sanctify yourselves for tomorrow.’” According to Nachmanides, from the fact that G’d told Moses to tell the people to sanctify themselves without telling them what this sanctification was for (as he had done at Mount Sinai, or when the manna was about to descend), Moses understood that G’d was not going to provide meat by means of a miracle but by natural means.

Prepare yourselves for punishment. For if not so, one could ask: Why did the Torah say “prepare yourselves” when it should merely have said “you shall say to the people: On the morrow you shall eat meat.” Furthermore what preparation is needed for eating? Rather it was [to prepare] for the punishment that is written later, which would come upon them through the eating of the meat.

V. 18. התקדשו וגו׳. Wir haben bereits wiederholt zu der Bemerkung Gelegenheit gehabt, dass קדש in seiner Grundbedeutung ein völliges Bereitsein für einen Zweck ganz allgemein bedeutet, so, dassקָדֵשׁ selbst die völlige Hingebung an die gröbste sittliche Entartung bezeichnet. Es kann daher hier התקדשו auch nur ganz allgemein: haltet euch bereit, bedeuten. Da jedoch immerhin התקדש sonst immer das sich Bereithalten für einen ernsten Moment bedeutet, so dürfte auch hier diesem Ausdruck die Tatsache zu Grunde liegen, dass der endliche Genuss eines uns lange versagten und nur auf unser ungestümes Verlangen von Gott gewährten Gutes, immer ein ernster, bedenklicher Moment ist. Nie liegt bei Gott das Versagen an dem Mangel seiner Macht oder seines guten Willens. Was Er uns versagt, versagt Er uns zu unserem Heile, und wird es uns dennoch endlich auf unser ungebührliches Drängen gewährt, so mögen wir uns wohl bedenken, ob dieses Gewähren heilvoller als das frühere Versagen sich uns erweisen werde. So auch Raschi: הזמינו עצמכם לפורענות.

התקדשו למחר, “sanctify yourselves in preparation for tomorrow, (the 23rd of lyar) (see our author’s commentary on verse 4 in this chapter)

ואכלתם בשר, "and you will eat meat." The additional letter ו at the beginning of the word ואכלתם refers to the period of preparation which had preceded the Israelites' eating of the meat (Sifri.) The verse would then have two messages, 1) prepare yourselves for disaster, 2) you will eat (meat).

כי בכיתם, "for you have wept." This reveals that G'd pays (angry) attention to weeping. We need to understand why G'd considers the very act of weeping as something ugly, detestable. Weeping may be perceived as a manifestation of someone having totally abandoned any hope of achieving a certain important objective. Were this not so they should have at least asked G'd, much as a son asks his father for his heart's desire. When one weeps instead of asking G'd to grant one's wish, this reflects one's belief in G'd's inability to grant one's wish. The very words מי יאכילנו בשר, "who could possibly give us meat to eat?" indicate the lack of faith of Israel at that time. Sifri on our verse says that Israel said: "G'd is unable to provide our request."

באזני השם. "in the ears of G'd." The Torah emphasises that the Israelites spoke thus (verse 5) although they must have been aware that G'd heard everything they said to Moses seeing He dwelt amongst them. It is a special חוצפה, effrontery, to utter such words when one knows G'd hears them. What they said in verse 6 was even worse, especially since G'd quotes them in our verse as having said that they were better off in Egypt than at present.

כי טוב לנו במצרים, "for we were better off in Egypt." We have to analyse why the Torah uses the word כי in כי בכיתם in our verse. Was the fact that they cried a reason to provide meat? It appears exaggerated to polarize one's craving for meat to the point where one prefers slavery under sub-human conditions in Egypt. Perhaps, at that moment, their desire to eat meat was really so great that they were willing to return to Egypt [not necessarily as slaves, Ed.] in order to indulge their craving. Alternatively, we may understand that G'd understood the deeper meaning of the weeping as only superficially connected with their craving for meat. The truth of the matter was that G'd understood that they craved to return to Egypt, and that the non-availability of meat was only an excuse to hide the people's real complaint. In essence the Israelites preferred a sojourn in Egypt to having G'd in their midst. This is why G'd told them to prepare themselves for disaster. The Torah expresses this explicitly in verse 20: "because you have despised the Lord Who is in your midst, etc." The use by the Torah of the word את underlines the odious comparison of the people choosing between dwelling את השם, "with G'd" or in Egypt.

ונתן ה׳ לכם בשר ואכלתם, "and the Lord will give you meat and you will eat." Why did the Torah repeat this for a second time in the same verse? Besides, the word "you will eat" is basically superfluous; why would G'd give them the meat if not to eat? I believe that although G'd had told them to sanctify themselves only in anticipation of the following day, so as to give them time to do Teshuvah, the Torah says that the repentance had to occur before they actually received the meat. Once they received the meat, ואכלתם, "you have to eat it." The second expression ונתן ה׳ לכם בשר ואכלתם is an order then, whereas the first time it could be understood as a promise or as a threat. On a moral/ethical plane one may even understand that if their attitude would undergo a change then, although they would eat the meat given to them, it would not prove harmful. Of course, the people either did not understand this hint, or they understood it but did not take it to heart.

YE SHALL NOT EAT ONE DAY. The meaning thereof is: “you shall not eat for only one day, nor only two days [but even a whole month].²²⁶Verse 20. Similarly, the phrase not once nor twice²²⁷II Kings 6:10. means “not only once nor twice.” And in my opinion it cannot be said of a person who eats or does something for many consecutive days that he ate or did [that action] for one day.²²⁸Hence the statement ye shall not eat one day is to be understood literally, for since they will eat for a consecutive period of thirty days, it cannot be said of them that they ate for one day. Likewise the phrase nor twenty days is to be understood in its plain sense: “you will not eat of it twenty days, but thirty days.” Similarly it cannot be said of one who eats [something] for thirty consecutive days that he ate it for twenty days.²²⁸Hence the statement ye shall not eat one day is to be understood literally, for since they will eat for a consecutive period of thirty days, it cannot be said of them that they ate for one day. Likewise the phrase nor twenty days is to be understood in its plain sense: “you will not eat of it twenty days, but thirty days.” Or it may be that the word “one” [Ye shall not eat ‘one’ day] is connected [with the following phrases]: “Ye shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor ten or twenty single [non-consecutive] days, but a full month.” Thus He gave them the meat which they craved for, but not the fish or the vegetables, for their main demand for which they wept was give us flesh.²²⁹Verse 13. And the meaning of the expression, But even a whole month, until it come out of your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you²²⁶Verse 20. is that He will give them a lot of meat, and they will eat it for a whole month to such a great extent that they will become sick of it, and they will consider it detestable and like a strange inedible food.
According to the plain meaning of Scripture the following is what happened: On the first day [of their eating the meat] they were smitten with a very great plague²³⁰Further, Verse 33. and the people that were the first to lust died,²³¹Ibid., Verse 34. these being the mixed multitude that was among them,²³²Above, Verse 4. also the children of Israel mentioned at the beginning who said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?²³²Above, Verse 4. But the rest of the people who wept afterwards family by family, every man at the door of his tent²³³Ibid., Verse 10. ate of it for a whole month until it became loathsome to them²²⁶Verse 20. and they threw away any heaps they had left of it. And so does the psalm state: He caused flesh also to rain upon them as the dust;²³⁴Psalms 78:27. So they did eat, and were well-filled, and He gave them that which they craved. They were not estranged from their craving, their food was still in their mouths, when the anger of G-d went up against them etc.²³⁵Ibid., Verses 29-31. For some of them ate and were well-filled, but those who lusted did not satisfy their lust at all, for while their food was still in their mouths … the anger of G-d went up against them.²³⁵Ibid., Verses 29-31.
Now the [Midrashic] interpretations of Rabbi Shimon²³⁶The Verses 22-23 state: 22. And Moses said: “The people, among whom I am, are six hundred thousand men on foot; and yet Thou hast said: I will give them flesh, that they may eat a whole month! 23. If flocks and herds be slain for them, will they suffice them? or if all the flesh be gathered together for them ‘umatza lahem’ (will they suffice them)?” Since it is inconceivable that Moses actually doubted G-d’s powers, Rashi [in Verse 22] quotes the interpretation of Rabbi Shimon in the Sifre, that Moses’ intent was as follows: “The people are so many, and Thou hast said ‘I will give them flesh, for a whole month’ — and then you will kill them! Shall the flock and herds be slaughtered for them so that they [the people] will be killed immediately, and this eating should be their last, satisfying them forever!” Then G-d said to Moses: Now shalt thou see etc. (see note that follows). and of Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi²³⁷In our Rashi: “Rabban Gamaliel the son of Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi.” This Sage explains that Moses said: “Since they are merely seeking a pretext, Thou wilt never be able to satisfy them, for they will always beg for something else.” — Then G-d said to Moses: “Now shalt thou see whether My word shall come to pass unto thee or not (Verse 23) — for they will not listen unto thee.” Moses then went to appease them and told them what G-d said to him: Is the hand of the Eternal waxed short? (ibid.) But the people answered that He indeed has no power to grant their request. This is what the following verse [24] means: And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the Eternal. Since, however, they refused to listen to him, the verse continues, and he gathered seventy men etc. do not fit in properly with the language of Scripture, because He said, Now shalt thou see whether My word shall come to pass unto thee or not.²³⁸Ramban’s intent is as follows: Had Verse 23 stated: “And the Eternal said unto Moses: ‘Is the hand of the Eternal waxed short?’ And Moses said: ‘I will go to appease them.’ And G-d said to him: ‘They will not listen unto thee. Now shalt thou see whether My word shall come to pass unto thee [that they will not listen unto thee] or not …’” the interpretations of Rabbi Shimon and of Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi would have fitted in with the text of Scripture. But all which is written after the phrase, Is the hand of the Eternal waxed short? is: Now shalt thou see etc. which implies that Moses, as it were, doubted that G-d would satisfy them. Hence we must offer another interpretation, as set forth in the text that follows. And the interpretation of Rabbi Akiba who says that the words [of Moses] are to be taken literally, namely “Will it be enough for them?” is the true sense of Scripture, and this is the opinion of Onkelos [who translated umatza lahem²³⁹See Note 236, quoting Verse 23. — “will it suffice them?”]. But the event itself is amazing, as Rabbi Shimon said [commenting on Rabbi Akiba’s interpretation]: “The person of whom Scripture writes, he is trusted in all My house,²⁴⁰Further, 12:7. would he say that G-d cannot supply enough for them!” Moreover, all of them had already seen far greater wonders than this! And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra answered this [by saying] that Moses thought that G-d would not create a new wonder except to vindicate His prophet [as happened in the affair of Korach, further, Chapter 16; and since the truth of his prophecy was not now in question, Moses thought that no miracle would happen merely to satisfy the people’s requests]. But this too, does not appear correct to me, for He had already done for them [a miracle] of this sort with the first quail,²⁴¹Exodus 16:13. and also with the water²⁴²Ibid., 17:6. and the manna,²⁴³Ibid., Chapter 16. for all of these things were given to them to satisfy their complaints.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that when G-d does signs and wonders for Israel, they are deeds of kindness from Him, and they are all for their good, for The Eternal is good to all; and His tender mercies are over all His works,²⁴⁴Psalms 145:9. except when there is wrath gone out²⁴⁵Further, 17:11. against those who transgress His Will, when He acts towards them with anger and the attribute of judgment to their complete punishment. Thus miracles can only be [manifestations of] complete and perfect goodness in mercy, or retribution by the attribute of judgment. But now when G-d told Moses that He would fulfill their request and they would eat meat until it cometh out at your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you,²⁴⁶Verse 19. Moses our teacher knew that there would not be a wonder from G-d to supply them with flesh as He gave them the corn of heaven,²⁴⁷Psalms 78:24. similar to which the Sages say:²⁴⁸Bereshith Rabbah 51:5. “No evil thing comes down from heaven.” Moreover, all miracles He told Moses about beforehand: Behold, I will cause to rain bread from heaven for you;²⁴⁹Exodus 16:4. Behold, I will stand before thee there on the rock in Horeb; [and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it].²⁵⁰Ibid., 17:6. But here since He told him, And say unto the people: Sanctify yourselves against tomorrow,²⁵¹Verse 18. and He did not inform him [that he would then give them meat, as He informed about the other miracles], Moses understood that there would be no miracle from Him, blessed be He. Therefore he asked in astonishment: “What can He do [to satisfy] them by natural means? If all the flocks and herds around them be slaughtered for them they will still not be satisfied, and if all the fish of the sea in the place nearest to them be gathered in for them it would still not be sufficient for them.” Therefore G-d answered that His hand is not too short to fulfill their request even by ordinary events, this being the meaning of the expression ‘ha’yikrecha’ [of the root mikreh — “chance”] My word or not, [i.e., Now shalt thou see whether My word ‘shall suffice for thee even by chance’]. And He said, Is the Eternal’s ‘yad’ (hand) waxed short, similar to the expression, and royal wine in abundance, according to the ‘yad’ (bounty) of the king,²⁵²Esther 1:7. but He did not say, Is there anything too hard for me?²⁵³Jeremiah 32:27. since this was not done by a wonder. And so indeed it came to pass, that there went forth a wind from the Eternal²⁵⁴Verse 31. This wind was not an exceptionally powerful wind of a miraculous nature, as e.g., in Exodus 14:21 [at the splitting of the Red Sea]. in accordance with natural events, neither a very strong west wind nor a strong east wind, as Scripture mentions in speaking of the miracles, but a normal wind as is usual, and it brought across quails from the sea,²⁵⁴Verse 31. This wind was not an exceptionally powerful wind of a miraculous nature, as e.g., in Exodus 14:21 [at the splitting of the Red Sea]. not that they were now created for their sake, and so there was nothing different in this from the natural events of the world. Besides, this had already happened to them before,²⁴¹Exodus 16:13. and the only new element in it now was that the quails were in great abundance.

לא יום אחד, "not one day, etc." We must understand the reason why the Torah describes the time the Israelites would eat meat in such detail when the gist of it could have been written in far fewer words. I believe the key to understanding this lies in our previous commentary on the second ואכלתם being a command rather than a promise. Some people can satisfy their craving for meat after having eaten meat one day, whereas others may require a far longer period on a meat diet before they have satisfied their craving. The Torah warns that even people who normally can satisfy their craving after a single day will not be allowed to do so; similarly, people who would normally require say ten days to satisfy their craving would not be allowed to do so. The respective introduction: "not one day," "not two days," etc., are to tell us that the normal manner in which these people satisfy their cravings would not apply in this instance. The limit the Torah prescribes is 30 days, at which time the meat would become repulsive. This teaches that if someone stopped eating meat before these thirty days were complete he would have violated the positive commandment of ואכלתם.

לא יום אחד, “not for one day, etc.” The meaning is “not for one day only are you going to eat meat;” Nachmanides holds that if someone eats, אוכל something for a number of consecutive days, or performs other tasks עושה, for a number of consecutive days, this is not described by the word אוכל or עושה respectively, and if someone eats something for 30 days consecutively it would be inappropriate to say that he has eaten for 20 days. [According to Rabbi Chavell, Nachmanides’ problem is why the Torah wasted time writing “not one day, not two days, not five days, not ten days, not twenty days, but a whole month of days.” He concludes that unless the Torah had added the words עד חודש ימים, “until a whole month of days,” I might have understood the days mentioned previous to that as not being consecutive days. In that event, eating meat at intervals for, say, twenty days would not have resulted in one’s becoming revolted at the mere sight of meat. It follows that the meaning of the words לא יום אחד, ולא חמשה ימים is not to be understood as we might think at first glance, but that they mean that if someone eats meat for a day, or he eats meat five days out of seven days in the week, his reaction to such a diet is completely different to someone who eats meat for 30 days consecutively. Alternatively, the Torah emphasized that the people would learn that when their craving would be indulged by G’d in accordance with their wishes, they would find out to their distress that what they thought would be a blessing could turn into a curse. Indulging a craving for meat without restraint has negative consequences that are not experienced when one eats vegetables or fish for the same number of days consecutively. G’d did not provide the people with a corresponding amount of fish and vegetables, although they had yearned for this also, as what had caused them to break out in weeping had been their unsatisfied craving for meat. Ibn Ezra writes that the choice of the Torah of the numbers 2,5,10,20 is not arbitrary but “two” is double of “one.” “Five” represents the number of fingers on one hand, “ten” is double that number, i.e. the fingers on two hands, twenty” is double that number again, i.e the number of fingers plus the number of toes.

לא יום אחד תאכלון ולא יומים, “You will not only eat it for a single day or two days, etc.” The numbers here are usually doubled up, i.e. not one but two, not five but ten, not ten but twenty. It is as if G’d were saying they will eat as much as they could, employing all the fingers on hands and feet in the process. The final statement “until a full month of days,” suggests that until the moon has come full circle the people will still be busy wolfing down the meat. The words: “until it will come out of your nose,” suggests that until the smell of the meat evaporates seeing that the smell is concentrated in the nose. The words: “it will become nauseating for you,” refer to the fact that that which had previously been the object of your irrepressible desire will instead become something nauseating for you. We find a similar phenomenon after Amnon had raped his half-sister Tamar when his erstwhile love for her turned into an abiding hatred (Samuel II 13,15). The reason the word לזרא is spelled with the letter א at the end instead of the letter ה, is to describe the intense repugnance the people felt for the very meat they had craved so much only a month ago. Every time a word which is normally spelled with the letter ה is spelled with the letter א instead, the idea is to show the intensified measure of what the word represents. Examples are: when Naomi says she should be called the “bitter” one, meaning מרה, the author of the Book of Ruth spelled the word with the letter א at the end to demonstrate the depth of Naomi’s embitteredness. She spelled it out saying המר שדי לי מאד, “G’d has caused me much to be bitter about.” A similar example is found in Daniel 11,44 where the word חמא, for anger or alarm, normally spelled חמה, is spelled with the letter א at the end to describe the profound alarm caused by the news described in that verse. What happened to the Israelites in this instance is only typical of what happens to people who overindulge their lust and craving for physical pleasures. They start out by complaining about physical pleasures denied them and neglect spiritual values in their headlong pursuit of these “apparent” pleasures only to find in the end that their very pleasures are the reason that they die prematurely. Solomon defined such supposedly sweet pleasure as נפת, saying of the seductress נפת תטופנה שפתי זרה וחלק משמן חכה, “her lips drip honey; her mouth is smoother than oil” (Proverbs 5,3). In the verse following Solomon describes the conclusion of that seduction as “in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword.”

VV. 19 u. 20. לא יום וגו׳. Es wird euch in solcher Fülle werden, dass ihr daran nicht nur euer augenblickliches lüsternes Verlangen stillen, sondern einen ganzen Monat bis zum Überdrusse essen könnt. יצא מאפכם hyperbolischer Ausdruck der Überfülle. Ihr werdet dessen so voll sein, dass es sich alle möglichen Ausgänge sucht. ורא, da זרה fortwerfen bedeutet, vergl. תורם כמו דוה צא תאמר לו (Jes.30, 22), so liegt es nicht fern, dass זרא das Erbrechen bedeute. — יען כי מאסתם את ד׳ אשר בקרבכם die geistige, innige Beziehung zu Gott, die euch in eurer Abgeschlossenheit zu Teil wird und euch eure Entbehrungen, wenn deren welche da sind, mehr als ersetzen sollte, hatte für euch allen Wert verloren, und לפניו, im Anblick Seiner Gegenwart, die euch wohl eure Errungenschaft in die Seele rufen durfte, fragtet ihr weinend: למה זה וגו׳ .למה זה יצאנו וגו׳: wir sehen in der Gegenwart nichts, das unseren Weggang aus Mizrajim motivieren könnte.

לא יום אחד ....ולא עשרים יום, “not one day or even not twenty days, etc.” Why did the Torah have to give us all these details, instead of simply writing that the people got quails lasting for thirty days? The days listed by the Torah here have to be viewed cumulatively, so that the quail episode extended for a period of 67 days. In the Jewish calendar year there are a total of 67 days which are holidays, i.e. the Sabbath days and the festivals. [This applies when the year has 354 days, seeing that it does not always have the same number of days. Ed.] The message is that on each of these days the consumption of meat is a mitzvah; on other days meat consumed on these days may have negative effects, as opposed to meat consumed in honour of the Sabbath or a festival. Personally, I prefer to understand the expression: לא יום אחד, “not one day, that there is one of those days, i.e. the Day of Atonement on which consumption of meat is forbidden. [The author continues in a somewhat forced manner to find justifications for each individual number listed. Since he has to resort to numbers which are appropriate only for the additional days for a festival observed in the Diaspora, and since at the same time he does not consider Purim as a day deserving be honoured by the eating of meat, I decided to skip this. Ed.]

עד חדש ימים BUT EVEN A WHOLE MONTH [SHALL YE EAT] — This was said in reference to the comparatively virtuous, who languish on their beds and only afterwards their soul departs from them; in reference to the wicked, however, it states, (v. 33) “and while the flesh was yet between their teeth [the wrath of the Lord glowed against the people]”. Thus is it taught in the Sifrei Bamidbar 94. But in the Mechilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 16:13:1 (on Exodus 16:13) just the opposite is taught: the wicked ate the flesh and were in agony thirty days, while as for the comparatively virtuous, “the flesh was yet between their teeth, etc.” (they suffered no prolonged agony, but died immediately).

והיה לכם לזרא, they will eat so much of it that that it will cause an excess which in turn will produce sickness. This is what Assaph in Psalms 78,31 spoke about.

עד אשר יצא מאפכם, as per Onkelos, i.e. until you will vomit it.

עד אשר יצא מאפכם, “until it comes out of your nose, etc.” They would gorge themselves on such large quantities of meat for an entire month that they would finally become revolted by it, and would vomit it. Eventually, they would view meat as something not fit to eat.

This was the virtuous ones. שמתמצין means “who fell ill.”

עד חדש ימים, “as long as a whole month.” The last day of that month was not included in the period that G-d is speaking of. According to the Talmud in tractate Taanit folio 29, the last day of that period would be the 23rd of Sivan.

עד אשר יצא מאפכם UNTIL IT COME OUT AT YOUR NOSTRILS — Understand this as the Targum does: until that you feel a loathing for it; i.e. it will seem to you that you have eaten more than enough of it, so that it will come out and be ejected by way of the nose.

למה זה יצאנו ממצרים?; we had such a variety of food there, not only manna.

למה זה יצאנו ממצרים?, so that you could say “we remember the fish that we ate in Egypt” (verse 8). Seeing that you are so ungrateful you will be punished. If you had just felt a desire to eat meat, and had not at the same time used the opportunity to complain about your having left Egypt, you would not have been punished so severely. There had been many complaints of the Israelites that did not result in their being punished on account of them.

You are disgusted. That you will be disgusted by it such that it will seem to you…

והיה לכם לזרא, “it will become loathsome for you.” The Torah substituted the letter א at the end of this word, where we would have expected the letter ה. There are other examples of this in the Bible, such as Ruth 1,20 קראן לי מרא, “call me the embittered one,” where we also would have expected the author to have written: מרה. The meaning of the word לזרא, is: להסיג, to remove, to vomit. Isaiah uses that expression in Isaiah 1,4 נזורו אחור, when describing the Jewish people’s moral turpitude by having turned their back on G-d and His commandments. We find it also in Numbers 17,2: as an imperative: זרה הלאה, “scatter it! (the destructive glowing coals on his pan containing incense). G-d commands the people to gorge themselves on the meat so much so that in the end it will become repugnant to them, no longer an object of their desire. Eventually, they will vomit it in disgust.

והיה לכם לזרא AND BECOME SOMETHING STRANGE UNTO YOU — This means, that you will cast it away from you even more readily than you previously welcomed it (Sifrei Bamidbar 94). But in the work of Rabbi Moses the Preacher, I have seen it stated that there exists a language in which they call a sword "זרא".

More readily than you welcomed. The word זרא (repulsive) is used in the sense of “scattered” as in “behold he is winnowing” (Rus 3:2), but here the aleph is interchanged with a hei. The meaning is that you will expel it from your mouths and nostrils, i.e., you will not even want to look at it, for you will cast it away entirely, more than you welcomed it originally. You might ask: How did Rashi know to explain “more than you welcomed it”? It appears that the word והיה (it will be) is superfluous, for the Torah should have stated “comes out of your nostrils, repulsive to you.” What is the meaning of “it will be”? It is obvious that if it comes out of your nostrils it will be repulsive to you. Therefore the word “it will be” alludes to another development, in addition to casting it away. Since it will come out from your nostrils, you will cast it away even further. If so this certainly indicates that you will cast it off further that you welcomed it, thus Rashi notes “it will be…” R. Yaakov Triosh.

לאמור למה זה יצאנו ממצרים, because you had the nerve to say: “why did we ever agree to leave Egypt?” G-d refers to the people having yearned for the fish they ate in Egypt without having to work or pay for. (verse 5)

את ה’ אשר בקרבכם [BECAUSE THAT YE HAVE SCORNED] THE LORD WHO IS AMONG YOU — The latter words appear superfluous, but they are taken to suggest: Unless I had planted my Shechinah among you your heart would not have become so arrogant as to engage in all these matters (Sifrei Bamidbar 94).

You would not have had the arrogance. For if this were not so, why would the Torah have said “among you.”

שש מאות אלף רגלי [THE PEOPLE AMONGST WHOM I AM ARE] SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND FOOTMEN — He was not particular to mention also the odd number — the remaining three thousand. But Rabbi Moses the Preacher explained that the number 600,000 is exact because only those who went forth from Egypt wept (since only they could have said, (v. 5) “We remember the fish which we did eat in Egypt”, and they who left Egypt are described, as here, by the term רגלי added to the number 600,000; cf. Exodus 12:37).

שש מאות אלף רגלי, this will require a tremendous quantity of meat to satiate them.

ויאמר משה….הצאן ובקר ישחט, Moses said:…."Will flocks and herds be slaughtered, etc?" I find it incredible that Moses could have questioned G'd in such a manner, something that even a person of far lesser stature than Moses would not have dared. Some of our sages quoted in Sifri consider Moses' question as sinful, others understand Moses' question as querying why 600.000 Israelites should die eating meat. There are all kinds of homiletical answers. We must address the plain meaning of the words. Moreover, we must also understand why Moses repeated the words ואתה אמרת בשר אתן, "and You have said 'I will give meat;'" Besides, what did Moses mean about the flocks and herds? Surely the Israelites had sufficient flocks and herds with them to provide meat for thirty days! Did the Torah not make a point of saying in Exodus 12,38 that they took with them a large number of flocks and herds? Furthermore, why did Moses exaggerate so much when referring to: "all the fish in the ocean?" How could he speak about all the fish in the ocean being required to feed 600,000 people for thirty days when the entire population of the world is in the habit of eating fish all year round and the supply of fish is not exhausted?

'ויאמר משה: שש מאות אלף וגו, we need to understand Moses’ words in the same way as when he had told G’d that the people “could not ascend the mountain” in Exodus 19,23. Of course they could have, but it was forbidden which to Moses meant that “they could not.” ואכלו חודש ימים, and he was also concerned about G’d’s threat that the meat would become repulsive to the people. (verse 20) He asked that seeing that there were over 600.000 adult males plus numerous children and women, the livestock of the people could hardly be sufficient to sustain such an ambitious program? He was afraid that possibly G’d had in mind to kill many of the people so that it would be possible to feed the survivors on the meat of their herds and flocks so that G’d’s prediction would come true. Alternatively, G’d would have to perform miracles for these people to supply them with meat, something Moses felt that they had hardly deserved. [at any rate, Moses did not mean to imply doubt about G’d’s ability to make good on what He had said. Ed.]

Those who went out. (Nachalas Yaakov) However those born in the desert did not weep, because they could not say “we remember the fish which we ate in Egypt.” Even though it is written “Bnei Yisroel also wept” [which seemingly implies they all wept, nonetheless] Rashi still holds that those who were born in the desert did not weep.

VV. 21 u. 22. ויאמר משה וגו׳. Indem Gott Mosche Klage in der Dringlichkeit des Momentes nur mit dem Auftrage der Ältestenwahl begegnete und daran die Weisung knüpfte, dem Volke zu sagen, es solle morgen Befriedigung finden, durfte er wohl glauben, es solle die Bestellung der Ältesten selbst das Mittel zu dieser Befriedigung sein und ihm mit Beihülfe dieser neuen Kollegen die Speisung des Volkes obliegen; er durfte glauben, die Speisung des Volkes sollte das erste Geschäft sein, zu welchem die Siebzigmänner ihre Mitwirkung leihen sollten. Das Dringlichste des Momentes war ja die Befriedigung des Volkes, die von Mosche vermisste Mithilfe gehörte der Zukunft an, und wenn sie nicht selbst mit zur Befriedigung des Momentes gehörte, so wäre zuerst die Speisung und dann die Ältestenwahl zu erwarten gewesen. Es musste daher Mosche voraussetzen, dass die Speisung des Volkes ihm und den Ältesten in dem Bereiche der ihnen natürlich sich darbietenden Möglichkeit liegen solle, und daher seine staunende Frage: ואתה אמרת בשר אתן — !שש מאות וגו׳ ist nicht die direkte Anführung der Gottesrede, ל sondern die indirekte Angabe ihres Inhaltes. Du sagtest, ich solle usw. So: אלקים דבר בקדשו אעלזה אחלקה שכם Gott sprach in Seinem Heiligtum, ich solle fröhlich werden, solle Sichem verteilen (Ps.60, 8). — צאן — הצאן וגו׳ und בקר erfordern שחיטה, dem gegenüber für Fische die bloße אסיפה genügt (Chulin 27b).

'ויאמר משה שש מאות אלף וגו, “Moses said: six hundred thousand (men plus their families You will provide with meat?)” Many people are appalled at how Moses apparently questioned G–d’s ability to provide the people with such an amount of meat. This is why hagaon ha-rav Nissim suggests the following interpretation of this verse. Moses asked that while he was well aware of G–d’s ability to provide a quantity of meat to last the people for 30 days, but that seeing this meat was not provided by G–d as a gift but in order to make the meat something that revolted them, what was the point in letting so much meat rot, after a day or two, seeing they had no means to keep it edible? Not only that, but how could they collect all that meat in the single day that it materialized for them? Moses drew a comparison when he spoke about the fish in the ocean, saying that even if all of them could be trapped in a single net, no one could remove sufficient fish from that net in a single day to last the nation for thirty days.

'ויאמר משה: שש מאות אלף רגלי וגו, “Moses said: there are six hundred adult infantry soldiers, etc.” Moses is overwhelmed by the intended undertaking of G-d to supply such a vast number of human beings suddenly with meat to which they had absolutely no claim, by his appointing seventy elders to help him govern such a nation. He cannot understand why, on the one hand, G-d had told him to appoint for himself 70 people to help him govern such a stiffnecked people, and on the other hand, reward them by performing such a miracle for them at the same time. He is under the mistaken impression that these seventy men should act as the slaughterers for such a large number of people. How could even seventy slaughterers supply meat for about three million people?

ואתה אמרת בשר אתן להם ואכלו חודש ימים, if so, this will amount to a huge amount, as also described in Psalms 78,27 וימטר עליהם כעפר שאר וכחול ימים עוף כנף, “He rained meat on the like dust, winged birds like the sand of the sea.”

There may be two different approaches to explaining our verses according to the פשט, the plain meaning of the text. When G'd told Moses first that He would give the children of Israel meat to eat without specifying how much and for how long, Moses assumed that G'd spoke about one single category of meat. This is why he pointed out that there were 600,000 and that it was likely that in order to satisfy the people's craving there had to be more than one species of meat seeing each one of the Israelites craved for something different such as fowl, venison, fish, etc. Moses therefore queried: "and You have said: 'I will give meat,' i.e. only one category of meat?" He queried what kind of meat G'd planned to provide, if flocks, herds or fish? When Moses referred to fish, he did not refer to the total number of fish in the ocean but to all the varieties of fish in the ocean. The words ומצא להם, mean "could enough varieties be found to satisfy all the different tastes the Israelites craved to experience. He suggested that if G'd were to provide flocks and herds, they would claim they wanted gazelles and deer. If G'd were to provide those, they would claim that they wanted fowl. Moses mentioned only the two extremes, i.e. flocks and herds, and he spoke of fish to symbolise the various kinds of meat between herds and flocks. The words "all the fish in the sea" refer to the total number of varieties of fish. Basically, Moses certainly did not question G'd's ability but he mentioned the enormous effort G'd would have to make to satisfy these people's cravings. Had G'd been more specific saying He would provide the various kinds of meat there are, Moses would not have wondered about anything at all. We may assume that Moses' main purpose in raising objections was to prevent the Israelites' wish being granted so that they would not die as a result of having their wish granted.

The second approach is based on Berachot 58 where we are told that G'd does not perform a miracle in order to deceive the "beneficiaries" of that miracle. [I have my doubt that this is a correct interpretation of that statement in the Talmud. Ed.] Seeing that G'd had said that the meat would become זרא, loathsome to the Israelites, Rashi explains that the word means also חרב, sword, in some language, i.e. that the reference is not to the meat that G'd would provide but to meat the Israelites had in their possession at that time. In that event we can understand Moses wondering if the Israelites had a sufficient supply of animals to provide a continuous meat diet for thirty days. G'd replied that בשר אתן להם, that He Himself would give them permission to eat the herds they had brought out of Egypt. Apparently, up until that moment the Israelites had not been allowed to slaughter their animals for anything other than sacrificial meat. When Moses spoke about the fish of the ocean, he referred to the fish in the brook which was the באר של מרים, the well which travelled with the people. Moses calculated that the amount of fish in that brook was not even sufficient to provide the nation with fish for a single day, much less for thirty days. We have already mentioned that Moses did not think that G'd would perform a miracle in order to deceive people and to have them perish as a result of that miracle, so that he did not think G'd would miraculously increase the number of fish. Considering all this, Moses' surprise was certainly legitimate and does not constitute a lack of faith in G'd's ability to provide.

הצאן והבקר ישחט SHALL THE FLOCKS AND HERDS BE SLAUGHTERED [FOR THEM TO SUFFICE THEM?] — This is one of those four things (Biblical passages) which R. Akiba interpreted in a certain way but R. Simeon did not interpret them similarly. Rabbi Akiba says: שש מאות אלף רגלי ... ואתה אמרת בשר אתן להם ואכלו חדש ימים הצאן ובקר — all this is to be taken literally and the words ומצא להם should be rendered by “would it suffice for them?”, in the same sense as we find this word used in (Leviticus 25:26) “and he have sufficient (ומצא כדי) for redeeming it" (ומצא להם is taken as the equivalent of ומצא כדי להם). Now — R. Akiba continued — which case was worse? This or that when Moses exclaimed, (Numbers 20:10) Hear now, ye rebels!?” Obviously this case here was worse, only because he did not utter his doubt in public, Scripture (God) showed some regard for him and did not punish him, whilst that sin at Meriba took place in public, therefore Scripture does not show any regard for him. Rabbi Simeon, however, says: “God forbid!” — “Such an idea never entered the mind of that righteous man! He of whom Scripture writes, (Numbers 12:7) ‘He is faithful in all my house’ — would he have said, ‘The Omnipresent cannot supply sufficient for us!’ But what he said was this: ‘[the people, amongst whom I am, are] six hundred thousand footmen; and Thou hast said, I will give them flesh, for a whole month — and then You want to kill a nation so great as this is?! Shall the flocks and the herds be slaughtered for them that they (the people) should immediately be killed, and this eating should be their last (lit., should satisfy them for ever: ומצא להם)?! Is this Your praise? Do people say to an ass, take (eat) this Kor of barley and then we will cut off thy head!’? The Holy One, blessed be He, thereupon said to him, ‘But if I do not give them flesh, they will say that My hand has waxed short; would it be pleasing to you that the hand of the Lord should appear in their eyes to have waxed short? — Let them and a hundred like them perish but let not My hand appear to them to have waxed short even for a single moment’!” (Tosefta Sotah 6:4)

At any rate, הצאן ובקר ישחט להם ומצא להם? how will that suffice to assuage their complaints, seeing that what they are really asking for is only in order to provoke, as pointed out in Psalms 78,18 וינסו א-ל בלבבם, “they provoked G’d in their hearts.” No doubt, just as they provoked, tested Your patience with this, they will do this with other foods, for no valid reason. The problem is that You will not deprive them of their freedom of will, as we know from the axiom “all is within the power of heaven except control of who will possess reverence for G’d.” (B’rachot 33).

הצאן ובקר ישחט להם, “are sheep and cattle going to be slaughtered for them?” Nachmanides writes that there can be no question but that the plain meaning of the verse corresponds to the opinion voiced by Rabbi Akiva in Chulin 16-17 where he stated that the emphasis in our verse is on the word ישחט, as he holds that in the desert it had been permitted to kill animals by stabbing instead of slaughtering. The Torah now draws attention to the fact that after the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai this was no longer the case. He also holds that the eating of meat that had not first bee consecrated as an offering on the Altar had never been forbidden. Moses, in this instance queried if the herds of the Israelites were sufficient for their needs for a whole month even if all their livestock were to be slaughtered. The idea that they deserved a miracle did not even cross his mind. Onkelos also thinks that way. However, the subject is problematic as pointed out by Rabbi Shimon who said: “how can we even suspect that a person such as Moses whom G’d Himself had described as trustworthy in His entire house, should harbour any suspicions of G’d’s inadequacy in any domain? The very question Moses voiced creates the impression that he queried G’d’s ability to provide what He had said He would provide, no matter how He would go about it?” Ibn Ezra answers the problem by saying that Moses’ premise had been that surely the problem faced by the people was not the kind that would cause G’d to employ supernatural means in order to solve it. He thought that G’d reserves resorting to miracles only in order to demonstrate that predictions of His prophets will come true, and the prophet will be legitimized when that happens. This explanation also does not satisfy me, seeing that G’d had already performed miracles to prove the authenticity of Moses as a prophet when He provided the people with the quail in Exodus 16,11-13 as well as when He responded to the people’s complaints that they did not have what to eat, by supplying them with the heavenly bread, the manna, starting in Exodus The same was true when G’d had told Moses to strike the rock at Massa um’rivah and produce a constant flow of drinking water for the people. (Exodus 17,7) I believe that the correct approach is that whenever G’d takes the trouble to perform miracles for the Children of Israel the purpose is for their benefit, i.e. they can recognize the miracle as being for their benefit. The only times G’d employed miracles as an act of the מדת הדין, the Attribute of Justice, is when He punished Israel’s enemies or oppressors by intervening in their fate by miracles, such as the ten plagues, or the drowning of the Egyptians in the Sea of Reeds. Therefore, when G’d predicted that the people will ultimately be revolted by the very meat they were craving, Moses had no reason to believe that G’d planned to perform a miracle for them by providing them with a liberal meat diet. As soon as G’d told Moses that the meat He would provide would become revolting to the people, he realized that G’d did not plan to intervene by miraculous means. This is what evoked Moses’ wondering how this gigantic undertaking could possibly be performed by natural means. G’d informed Moses that he had been mistaken, that G’d was able to meet the demands of the people even without invoking supernatural means. This is why He asked the rhetorical question: היד ה' תקצר, “Is Hashem’s power inadequate then?” You will note that here the Torah does not phrase G’d’s answer as had the angels who promised Avraham that he would be the father of a baby boy a year hence. (Genesis 18,14) At that time, this was the answer to an unspoken question by Sarah that she had first denied thinking. The angels employed the phrase היפלא מה' דבר, “Is anything too wonderful for Hashem to do?” This referred to G’d performing miracles, as the Torah had been on record repeatedly that Sarah was not only barren but did not even possess a womb. (Genesis 11,30, Yevamot 64) In the event, G’d did not even have to divert the wind so that the quails touched down around the area where the Israelites were encamped, as opposed to when He brought on the plague of locusts, (Exodus 10,13) or when He dried out the bottom of the Sea of Reeds. (Exodus 14,21) The only new element in what occurred here was the inordinately large number of quails that landed around the camp of the Israelites.

Now, which is worse? One would have said that “will sheep and cattle” was worse than “listen here rebels,” meaning that if he was punished for that speech then all the more so he should have been punished for this. But why was he not punished? — since…

הצאן ובקר shall sheep and cattle be slaughtered? (seeing that they had asked for meat)

ואם כל דגי הים, “or shall all the fish in the ocean (be caught)? (seeing they had recalled the fish they had eaten in Egypt with such nostalgia)

ישחט להם...יאסף להם, “be either slaughtered for them, or caught for them?” Shall all of this be done by a mere seventy people?

ומצא להם, “where could all this even be found, never mind slaughtered, in order to feed them for a whole month?!

עתה תראה היקרך דברי THOU SHALT SEE NOW WHETHER MY WORD SHALL COME TO PASS UNTO THEE [OR NOT]. — R. Gamliel, the son of R. Judah ha-Nasi said, “The dialogue took the following course: Moses said, “One can never understand a babbler! (One can never fathom his meaning.) Since they are merely seeking a pretext You will never satisfy them (the meaning of the text is: If all the cattle in the world were slaughtered for them, ומצא להם, would this suffice them, i. e., would they be satisfied with that?), in the end they will always argue against You. If You give them flesh of large cattle (oxen) they will say ‘We wanted that of small cattle (sheep)’; if You will give them flesh of sheep, they will say We wanted that of oxen’, or, ‘we wanted wild beasts (venison) and fowls’, ‘we wanted fish and locusts!’ Thereupon He said to him, ‘If that be so and I give them nothing at all, they will say that My hand has waxed short!’ “Moses thereupon said, “I will go and appease them”. He answered him: “Thou shalt see now whether My word shall come to pass unto thee — for they will not listen to thee”. Moses went to appease them and said to them, “Is the hand of the Lord waxed short? Behold, he continued with the words used later by the Psalmist, (Psalms 78:20): “He smote the rock that the waters gushed out, etc. Surely then he can give bread also [and can provide flesh for His people!]”. But they (the Israelites) said: “This what you have said is only a compromise (a way of satisfying us). He has really no power to grant our request!” This is what Scripture means by: “and Moses went out and spake to the people [the words of the Lord]” (i.e. he told them the words used by the Lord only with a different implication). Since, however, they would not listen to him, he gathered the seventy men of the elders [of the people] etc.” (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 95:1; Tosefta Sota 6:4).

היד ה' תקצר?, from finding a way which will cause them to be revolted at every food which is not for their health but for their gratification only. This is what was meant in verse 20, that “it will come out of your noses.”

היד ה׳ תקצר,….היקרך דברי, "Is the hand of G'd inadequate?….if My word is precious, etc." This verse also lends itself to interpretations in line with the two approaches we have described. According to our first approach any category of meat would not be sufficient to satisfy the various tastes of the Israelites. As a result they would still continue to complain. G'd answered that He was able to supply a category of meat which would satisfy the cravings of all the Israelites. This is what G'd meant when He said היד ה׳ תקצר. G'd added that Moses was about to see that G'd would perform a single act, i.e. issue a directive which would meet all the demands of the Jewish people. He would provide a kind of meat which comprised the combined advantages of all the other existing categories. The meaning of the word יקרך is that Moses was going to experience how precious such a command of G'd would be. He would appreciate the value of G'd's directive. Another meaning of that word could be that G'd told Moses that his own stature as a prophet would be enhanced among the people when they experienced what G'd would provide.

In a dispute. הטפל means dispute.

V. 23. היד ד׳ תקצר, es heißt hier nicht, wie Bereschit 18, 14 היפלא מד׳ דבר, denn Mosche hatte richtig erkannt, dass hier keine Wundertat göttlicher Allmacht bevorstehe, an deren Erfolg er gewiss nicht gezweifelt hätte. Vielmehr hatte er geglaubt auf den Bereich des natürlich Vorhandenen hingewiesen zu sein, und daher um Aufschluss gebeten. Dem wird entgegnet, dass Gottes Macht ausreicht, selbst aus dem Bereiche des natürlich Vorhandenen das zur Erfüllung seines Wortes Erforderliche herbeizuschaffen. היקרך (siehe zu Bereschit 24, 12): ob dir mein Wort, obgleich es so gänzlich außer deiner Berechnung liegt, nicht dennoch entgegen kommen werde. Dieses יקרך bezeichnet ganz das bevorstehende Ereignis als ein freilich ganz außer menschlicher Berechnung liegendes, sich gleichwohl durch natürlich vorhandene, nur von Gott zu dem beabsichtigten Zwecke geleitete Ursachen vollziehendes.

?ויאמר ה' אל משה: היד ה' תקצר, Hashem said to Moses: “is there then a limit to the Lord’s power? You will see presently if My power is inadequate!” G–d implied that just as it was within His power to provide what He had said He would provide, so it was in His power to see to it that they collect it until His word has become fulfilled. This is the meaning of 11,31: ויטש על המחנה בדרך יום כה ובדרך יום כה סביבות המחנה וכאמתים על פני כל הארץ , “and He strewed them over the camp, a distance of a day’s walk in each direction and to the height of two cubits above the face of the earth.” The people did not even need to stretch out their hands and bow down in order to take hold of the quails. An alternate interpretation of Moses’ question if sheep and cattle were to be slaughtered for them, how could there be sufficient for their needs. Moses knew that at that time any meat which was not the result of having been slaughtered as a sacrifice for the Lord was forbidden for the people to eat. There were only a total of three priests available to slaughter the animals required on sacred soil, i.e. Aaron and his two surviving sons. How could they slaughter enough animals in one day to satisfy the craving of all the people? And, even supposing this could be done, seeing there was a strict time limit, maximum two days and a night, during which sacrificial meat was allowed to be eaten, how could they eat meat for thirty days? (verse 21) Moses’ statement regarding fish as an alternative to supplying meat was not meant as a question, but as a comment that such an alternative, not involving ritual killing of the fish which would not require priests, would also have presented great difficulties albeit miracles of a different kind. The people could never have collected enough fish in a day to last them for a month. G–d’s answer to Moses was simply that He would provide birds which did not require ritual slaughter by priests, as did cattle or flocks.

ויאמר ה' אל משה: היד ה' תקצר, The Lord said to Moses: “is the Lord’s power inadequate?” G-d implied that it had not been His intention for one moment to use the seventy helpers Moses would appoint as slaughterers or fishermen. Neither would He have to resort to overt miracles. All He had to do was to direct the flight of a swarm of birds in their direction. He was fully capable to do this within the boundaries of existing laws of nature.

עתה תראה היקרך דברי, you will see with your own eyes that what I said will occur, that they will eat so much of this meat which they chose for reasons of gratification that it will come out of their noses so that they will despise it. I will not have to interfere with their free choice in order to achieve this result. By not interfering with their freedom of choice they will be able to repent not only because they are afraid of punishment, but because they have discovered that whatever I have done was out of love for them so that they in turn will relate to Me with love.

This is a compromise. Meaning “you have come to make a compromise.” Perhaps He sent you because “He does not have…”

According to the second approach we suggested, Moses' surprise was based on his assumption that when G'd was talking about the meat the Israelites would eat, He meant that this meat would be supplied from the existing flocks and herds of the Israelites; he was quite unwilling to believe that G'd would perform a miracle to satisfy an unjustified craving by the Israelites to eat meat. This is why He, G'd, stressed that Moses would see if G'd's hand would be inadequate, i.e. He would perform a miracle. G'd meant that He had to perform the miracle so that He would not be perceived amongst the Israelites as unable to perform such a miracle. In other words, though the Israelites did not deserve a miracle, He, G'd must not be the cause of His name being desecrated by their belief that He was powerless to meet their cravings. When G'd said עתה תראה, "now you will see," He told Moses that he would now receive a lesson in G'd's preparedness to perform miracles לשקר, to prevent the Israelites to lie about His abilities. This caused our sages in Kidushin 40 to say that when it comes to desecration of His Holy Name, i.e. His image, G'd is extremely punctilious. [The story in the Talmud there illustrates how G'd performed miracles to save great scholars from having to either martyr themselves or engage in sexual relations with prominent Gentiles to save themselves from death. Ed.]

Erwägen wir, dass mit der Berufung der siebzig Ältesten zu Mosche Beistand in Leitung der Nation die Institution der Sanhedrin begründet wurde (Sanhedrin 2 a und 16 b), die durch alle kommenden Jahrhunderte der verschiedensten Gottesleitungen ihr Volk führen und in ihm und durch dasselbe das Wort Gottes zur Erfüllung bringen sollten, die somit die Boten des Gotteswortes selbst in Zeiten werden sollten, in welchen Mosche längst heimgegangen sein und keine offenbare Wundermacht der Gottesleitung der Verwirklichung seines Wortes zur Seite treten werde: so dürfte der ganze Charakter dieses Ereignisses, seine Unberechenbarkeit selbst für Mosche in dem Augenblicke des von ihm an das Volk zu richtenden Wortes, seine Erfüllung im Bereiche natürlich vorhandener, nur von Gottes Leitung zu seinem Zwecke gefügter Wirkungen, in tiefem Zusammenhange mit dieser Ältestenwahl sich begreifen lassen, und sich daraus auch der Umstand erklären, dass sie dem Ereignis voranzugehen hatte, das doch die Befriedigung eines augenblicklichen Bedürfnisses zum Zwecke hatte. Wohl konnten und können alle künftigen זקנים des jüdischen Volkes, so oft sie für das Gotteswort in Zeiten aufzutreten hatten und haben, deren Verhältnisse nach aller menschlichen Berechnung der Verwirklichung des von ihnen zu vertretenden Wortes keinen Vorschub zu leisten scheinen, wohl konnten und können sie immer auf diesen ersten Moment der Berufung der ersten jüdischen זקנים zurückschauen und daraus die Zuversicht schöpfen, dass, wenn nur das Wort, das sie vertreten und bringen, wahrhaft Gottes Wort ist, auch ohne dass der Himmel auf Erden niederstiege, sie der unsichtbaren Gottesleitung ruhig vertrauen können, die auch ganz im Bereiche natürlicher Ursächlichkeit, wenngleich der Vorausberechnung menschlicher Kurzsichtigkeit entzogen, die Umstände der Verwirklichung ihres Wortes günstig entsprechend herbeizuführen weiß. Das erste Ereignis, dem sie zu assistieren hatten, gab unseren זקנים den Boden der Zuversicht für ihr ganzes zukünftiges Wirken.

עתה תראה היקרך דברי אם לא, “now you will see if My word will come true or not.” “I will provide, but not as you had thought by employing these seventy men.”

ויצא משה וידבר אל העם, Moses went out and spoke to the people, etc. He first spoke to the people alone, and then he summoned the newly appointed elders. This did not correspond to the order G'd had commanded him in verse 16. There he was told to first assemble the prospective elders at the entrance of the Tabernacle and to speak to the people only after these elders had been granted a measure of Holy Spirit from G'd (compare verses 17-18). Moses assumed that it was G'd's intention that he should inform the people about what was to take place. If G'd had intended to appoint the elders first, why would He have told him in verse 18 to address the people?

V. 24. ויצא משה וגו׳ Mosche ging hinaus, aus der Umschlossenheit der Örtlichkeit, in welcher Gott zu ihm gesprochen hatte, vielleicht des אהל משה, in den öffentlichen Kreis des Volkes. Er trat mitten unter das Volk hin und überbrachte ihm die Verse 18 — 20 ihm aufgetragenen Worte Gottes, die wohl den denkenden Teil des Volkes hätten zur Besinnung bringen können.

The reason G'd wanted the people informed before the prospective elders were assembled was that this formed G'd's answer to Moses' complaint that he could not carry the burden of leadership of the people single-handedly. First G'd replied to Moses' complaint; afterwards he told him to address the people. G'd knew that Moses was intelligent enough to read His mind concerning the sequence, as indeed he did.

It is also possible that the words: "Moses spoke to the people the words of G'd," referred only to the instruction to gather the elders. Moses thought he would deal with that subject first. He would then speak to the people again telling them to prepare for the morrow when G'd would provide meat. The latter explanation appears to be in line with Midrash Tanchuma.

ולא יספו [AND THEY PROPHESIED] BUT DID NOT CONTINUE (to prophesy) — i. e. they prophesied only that day alone. Thus is the phrase explained in Siphre. Onkelos, however, rendered renders it ולא פסקין “and they did not cease”, meaning that the gift of prophecy never again departed from them (cf. Sanhedrin 17a and Rashi on Deuteronomy 5:19).

וירד ה׳ בענן וידבר אליו, G'd descended within the cloud and spoke to him, etc. What did G'd say to Moses? Besides, what was the neeed for this whole procedure? Why did G'd not simply let these people prophesy? We may understand what happened when we consider a statement of the Zohar on Pinchas 220 on Numbers 25,12: "Behold I give unto him My covenant, peace." G'd commanded Moses to bestow this covenant of peace on Pinchas. The reason was that Moses had already acquired that gift so that it was considered his possession. Seeing that G'd does not take away a gift He had given to someone in order to give it to someone else, Moses had to be the one to bestow it on Pinchas. Similarly, here. Moses had been given the gift of prophecy, exclusively. When G'd wanted to give the elders the gift of prophecy He had to do so via Moses. This is why Moses is known as אדון הנביאים, the "master" of the prophets. When Moses assembled the elders he remained with them and G'd descended within the cloud. The word vayedaber may be read as vayadber, "He made subordinate" (compare Psalms 47,4). G'd took permission from Moses to transfer some of his Holy Spirit.

V. 25. וירד וגו׳ וידבר אליו, es ist der Inhalt dieses Gotteswortes an Mosche in der Schrift nicht mitgeteilt. Sollte es allen künftigen, von diesem Momente datierenden Sanhedrin die Tatsache vergegenwärtigen, dass nicht alles, was Gott zu Mosche gesprochen, in der Schrift niedergelegt sei? Sollte ihnen damit das mündlich verbliebene Gotteswort, die תשב׳׳פ, als Boden der Wirksamkeit bezeichnet sein, für welche sie in dem Momente berufen wurden? —וַיָאצֶל ungewöhnliche Form, als קל von אצל würde es ויאצל heißen. Die Formוַיַצֶל , die in dem Worte hervortritt, würde auf einen הפעיל von צול, der Wurzel von מצולה, verwandt mit צלל, dem Begriff der dunkeln Tiefe, hinweisen. Sollte in dieser Form vielleicht die Absicht liegen, den Abstand des den זקנים gewordenen Geistesanteils von dem Mosche zu erteilenden Geiste zu vergegenwärtigen? Es war nur eine tiefe Abschattung von seinem Geiste. — נבא ,ויתנבאו (siehe zu Bereschit 20. 7). Wenn נבא, verwandt mit נבע, das Hervorquillen des göttlichen Wortes und daherהִנָבֵא passivisch: zum Gefäß gebraucht werden, durch welches das Gotteswort an die Menschen quillt, bedeutet, Organ des Gotteswortes werden, so heißt: הִתנַבֵא sich zum Quellgefäß, d. i. sich dem Gottesworte als Organ darbieten. Überwiegend bezeichnet die Hitpaelform eine geringe Stufe des prophetischen Wortes, eine Vorstufe, ein Einmaliges (vergl. die Stellen Sam. I. 10, 5. 6. 10 und 19, 23 u. 24). Daher auch: sich zum Organ eines andern, als des Gottesgeistes, zum Organ eigener Erdichtung und Erregung machen, den Geist des Trübsinns aus sich reden lassen (vergl. Jeremias 14. 14; Kön. I. 22. 10 u. 18, 29; Sam. I. 18, 10). Der ernste Ausdruck für die Prophetenrede ist immer die Nifalform: ולא יספו — .הנבא und nie wieder. Nur in diesem Momente ihrer Erwählung wurden sie als Mitanteil an dem auf Mosche kommenden Gottesgeiste dessen gewürdigt, als Dokumentierung ihrer Berufung fortan eins zu sein mit Mosche und jedes an Mosche gerichtete Gotteswort als auch an sie zur Ausführung gerichtet zu betrachten.

ויאצל מן הרוח, “He diverted from the holy spirit” (of Moses) the letter א in the word ויאצל, though written in the Torah, is not heard when read.

ויאצל מן הרוח, He took from the spirit, etc. The word ויאצל may have been intended as a clue to the source of this prophetic spirit, i.e. the עולם האצילות, a domain very close to the throne of G'd. מן הרוח אשר עליו, "from the spirit which was upon him;" this may describe the quality of that spirit. The source of the spirit which was bestowed on the elders emanated not from Moses but from higher regions. Alternatively, it may mean that after the spirit which imbued Moses was given to the elders, עליו, Moses' own spirit remained fully intact. Bamidbar Rabbah 15 states that when Moses evaluated the level of prophecy the elders attained, it turned out that the 2 elders Eldod and Medod (numbers 71 and 72 respectively) had received a higher degree of prophetic spirit because their portion came from G'd directly, whereas the other seventy elders received their prophetic spirit only from Moses. This was why the seventy elders prophesied only briefly.

ויתנבאו ולא יספו, “they prophesied;” but they did not continue to do so with the help of Moses. The word: יספו is to be understand as if the Torah had written “they added,” the word is used in this sense also Leviticus 5,7 ויסף חמישתו עליו “ “he will have to add a fifth of it in addition

ויהי כנוח עליהם הרוח, it was when the spirit rested upon them, etc. We know that the word ויהי usually introduces a paragraph containing a regrettable event. Our sages in Bamidbar Rabbah 19 claim that the elders prophesied the message in verse 18, i.e. that there would be quail on the following day. How can there be something more painful than to commence a career as a prophet by predicting that one's peers should prepare for disaster?

The reason the Torah wrote the word ויתנבאו, "they prophesied" with the letter ו at the beginning is to tell us that not only were these 70 people worthy of receiving the gift of Holy Spirit, they were even worthy of attaining prophetic insights. The Torah informs us that they prophesied immediately after having been granted some of Moses' Holy Spirit. Another saddening experience which justifies the word ויהי is that the seventy elders prophesied only so briefly and did not retain their prophetic spirit [presumably because they joined the people who wept when the spies returned, something which occurred shortly thereafter. Ed.]

וישארו שני אנשים BUT THERE REMAINED TWO MEN [IN THE CAMP] — i. e. two of them that had been selected. They remained, in the camp because they said, “We are not worthy of this distinction” (Sifrei Bamidbar 25:2).

וישארו שני אנשים במחנה, Two men remained within the camp, etc. Firstly, what is the meaning of "they remained?" Relative to whom and to what did they remain? Secondly, why did the Torah have to mention the names of these two men when none of the seventy elders have been named though they were selected and these men were not? Why does the Torah say that the spirit rested on them? If the men were part of the seventy elders selected, what did the Torah add that we did not know before? If they were not part of the seventy elders the Torah had spoken about, why would they be granted Holy Spirit seeing G'd told Moses to select only seventy men? Besides, what is the meaning of the words והמה בכתובים? Why did the Torah say ולא יצאו, they did not go out? If they have been reported as "remaining," they obviously had not "gone out to the Tabernacle?" Why did the Torah write at the end of the verse: "they prophesied inside the camp?" The Torah should have written the verse in the following order: "Two men who were amongst those whose names had been suggested as prospective elders did not go out to the Tabernacle; the spirit came to rest on them and they prophesied." Why did the Torah see fit to completely jumble this verse?

בכתובים, of the ones who had been invited in writing to come to the entrance of the Tabernacle. We are told in Sanhedrin 17 that the reason these two men did not come to the entrance of the Tabernacle was because they were too humble to want to be treated as special.

And [left] two blank. The text should read “He wrote ‘elder’ on seventy and left two of them blank,” meaning that afterwards he placed them in the container and mixed them together. You might ask: He should have merely taken twelve and written on ten “six elders” and on two “five elders. Then whoever chose the note saying “six” would chooses six elders from that tribe… (Gur Aryeh) The answer may be that if so, the tribe that chose the note saying “five” would be entirely disgraced, as if Hashem had not found favor with the entire tribe. However now, only those elders [picking the blank notes] would be disgraced. See Kitzur Mizrochi who asks further on this. See also the passage of the leaders (Bamidbar 3:50) and what I wrote concerning the redemption of the firstborn by the Levites.

V. 26. וישארו וגו׳. Es waren siebzig Älteste um das Zelt bei Mosche versammelt; wie aus diesem Verse ersichtlich, hätten auch Eldad und Medad mit zum Zelte hinaustreten sollen, sie waren mit unter den hierfür von Mosche Aufgezeichneten, בכתובים. Da im Ganzen jedoch nur siebzig berufen werden sollten, so darf man annehmen, Mosche habe zweiundsiebzig, der Parität wegen, sechs aus jedem Stamme hinausbeschieden, um es der Gotteswahl zu überlassen, welche zwei als nichtgewählt, nicht des Gottesgeistes gewürdigt werden würden. Aus Bescheidenheit blieben Eldad und Medad von selbst zurück, indem sie von der Meinung erfüllt waren, unter allen wären sie die am wenigsten der Berufung Würdigen, und eben um dieser Bescheidenheit willen wurden sie, obgleich unterm Volke im Lager verblieben, von dem göttlichen Prophetengeiste ergriffen. So nach einer Auffassung Sanhedrin 17 a. Nach einer andern (daselbst) habe Mosche unter den zweiundsiebzig durchs Los zwei ausgeschieden, und sie wären die durchs Los von der Berufung Ausgeschlossenen gewesen.

.וישארו שני אנשים, there were two men in addition to the seventy men. (Moses had put 72 pieces of parchment in an urn, 6 for each tribe, of which two bore no inscription so that the men drawing those would know they were not part of the seventy elders). In other words: “they were redundant.”

והמה בכתובים [BUT THERE REMAINED TWO MEN IN THE CAMP] … AND THEY WERE AMONGST THEM THAT WERE WRITTEN — i.e. they were amongst those of them (of the people) who had been selected to constitute the Sanhedrion. For all these were written down, mentioned expressly by their names, but the requisite number was chosen by lot, because the calculation gives for twelve tribes, six elders for each tribe, with the exception of two tribes to each of which there would belong only five elders. Moses said, “No tribe will listen to me to have one elder less for his tribe!” What did he do? He took seventy-two tablets and wrote on seventy of them the word “Elder” and on two he left the surface blank. He then selected six men of each tribe so that there were altogether 72. He said to them, “Draw your tablets from the urn”. He in whose hand there came up a tablet bearing the inscription “Elder” was set apart as a member of the Sanhedrion, whilst to him in whose hand there came up a blank tablet, he said, “The Omnipresent does not require you” (Sifrei Bamidbar 95:2; Sanhedrin 11a).

Our sages in the Sifri were of two minds as to who these men were who were "left behind." Some say they were left behind out of the total of 72 (12 times 6 from each tribe) whom Moses had invited (in writing) to take part in the draw for the selection of a total of 70 elders. Moses prepared 72 slips of paper (invitations); afterwards he drew lots 70 of which had the name "elder" inscribed on them. The other two slips of paper were blank. Our verse speaks about the two men who had drawn blanks and thus had not been appointed as elders. Rabbi Shimon, on the other hand, claims two of the seventy men selected were so humble that they did not want to enter the Tabernacle and preferred to stay behind in the general camp of the Israelites. If we accept the latter explanation we must explain the verse as follows: "Two men remained behind in the camp as they considered themselves superfluous. The Torah gives their names to tell us that these people were renowned for their modesty. Had they not been renowned for their modesty the people would have upraided them for refusing Moses' invitation to high office which included G'd granting them Holy Spirit. Their refusal would have been a public desecration of the name of G'd. However, their very names protected them against their conduct being interpreted negatively. As a result they were granted Holy Spirit even though they had remained in the general camp as confirmation that their motives in remaining within the camp had been above-board. The Torah chose the expession ותנח to indicate that whereas the other seventy elders experienced only a brief elevation to prophetic insights, these two men retained the spirit of prophecy granted to them. Before mentioning the substance of their prophetic insights, the Torah mentions matters which caused the people to judge these men's behaviour in a favourable light, i.e. that their prophecy proved true. In order that we should not think that the words והמה בכתובים refer to the slips of paper making up the lottery, the Torah says that לא יצאו האוהלה, they did not leave their abode to go to the Tabernacle, i.e. although they had been entitled to do so. When they were nonetheless able to prophesy all of a sudden, this convinced their peers that they had been found worthy and had not insulted G'd by declining Moses' invitation.

שם האחד אלדד ושם השני מידד, “one of these two men was called Eldod, and the other was called Meydod.” The seventy elders were never mentioned by name whereas these two men who at first glance appeared as rejects, were named. The reason is that the prophetic spirit bestowed on the seventy elders ceased when Moses died, whereas the prophetic powers granted to these men survived Moses, as their prophetic powers was not a branch of Moses’ holy spirit. G-d Himself had said that He would give some of Moses’ spirit to these 70 elders (verse 17) The two named men received their prophetic spirit from G-d directly, as stated in our verse with the words: ותנח עליהם הרוח, “and the spirit rested upon them.”

According to the view that Eldod and Medod were part of the 72 elders concerning whom no decision had as yet been made which two would not be chosen, the word וישארו means that although two people whose names were Eldod and Medod were surplus and had to remain in the מחנה, the general camp, the spirit of prophecy came to rest on them although they had not been allowed to proceed to the Tabernacle. This was in addition to the 70 people who had had Holy Spirit bestowed upon them as described in verse 25. Seeing that these people had not been mentioned in the previous verse as amongst the 70 men Moses had assembled at the Tabernacle, they did have to be mentioned separately. The words והמה בכתובים serve to provide the justification why these two were granted Holy Spirit. Their names had appeared amongst the list of the original 72 names Moses had made as possible candidates to become elders. This fact had made them fit to receive prophetic spirit no less than the other 70. In order that we should not think that the words והמה בכתובים meant that they were part of the 70 out of the original 72, the Torah added that they never left their respective tents to go to the Tabernacle to receive some of Moses' spirit.

ותנח עליהם הרוח, although these men had not been chosen to become part of the seventy elders, seeing that they were fit to have been elders and they did not feel humbled or rejected by not being chosen, they were rewarded by being given greater and longer lasting prophetic insights that the seventy whose parchment had read: “elder.”

A homiletical approach to this paragraph is that the two candidates who drew blank pieces of paper in the lottery were initially upset about not having been chosen. As a result of their rejection they had to return to the general camp after having first assembled at the Tabernacle. They were so embarassed that they went into hiding. When G'd saw that they were terribly ashamed at having been rejected, He granted them prophetic powers. The words והמה בכתובים mean that the reason they would not come out of hiding was that their names had originally appeared on the list of candidates. G'd compensated them for their disappointing experience.

והמה בכתובים, “they were amongst the seventy who had not drawn blanks.” According to Rashi this means that they had been included in the seventy two parchments on 70 of which Moses had written the word: “elder” and two of which he had left blank. If you were to ask that this method would have resulted in a great deal of jealousy by the ones who had not drawn a parchment with the word “elder,” it is therefore more reasonable to suppose that those who took parchments out of the urn early on would argue that they had a better chance not to draw a blank as 70 out of 72 were not blanks. Each one pushed in order not to be one of the last two whose chance of drawing a blank was so much greater. This was faulty reasoning, as the chance that the blanks would be drawn by the “early birds” was just as great as the reverse, and in fact, as soon as the blanks had been drawn the remaining candidates already knew for certain that they could not draw a blank. [It is therefore more likely that the Torah wishes us to know that in order to avoid jealousy, these two men decided to withdraw out of humility, so that the other 70 could all become elders. Ed.] They accomplished this by not showing up at the entrance to the Tabernacle as the men who drew parchments with the word: “elder” had been told to do.

ולא יצאו האהלה, “but they had not gone out to the Tabernacle’s entrance;” they had not left the general camp to follow the other elders to the Tabernacle with their colleagues.

ויתנבאו במחנה, ‘they prophesied inside the camp of the Israelites. Concerning what subject did these two men make prophetic announcements? They prophesied concerning the eventual war against Gog, and concerning the prophet Ezekiel. We find a hint of the subject of their prophecies in Ezekiel 38,17: כה אמר ה' האתה הוא אשר דברתי בימים קדמונים ביד הנביאים שנים, “you are the one I spoke of in ancient times through My servants the prophets of Israel, who prophesied in those years about you and about Gog;” instead of reading the word שנים to mean: ”years,” understand it to mean: “שניים, two.”

וירץ הנער THERE RAN THE LAD — There are some who say that it was Gershom, the son of Moses (Midrash Tanchuma, Beha'alotcha 12).

וירץ הנער ויגד למשה, The lad ran and told Moses; Why was the lad so upset that he told Moses that Eldod and Medod prophesied? Even allowing for the fact that he had adequate reason to tell Moses about it, why did he demand that they be locked up? Since when had prophecy become a punishable crime? According to those who believe that these two men were those who had been rejected out of the original 72 candidates we can understand Joshua very well. Moses had told the Israelites that seventy people would be endowed with prophetic spirit by G'd. All of a sudden Joshua saw that seventy-two people had become prophets. This could have one of two possible reasons. 1) Moses had not spoken the truth; 2) these people prophesied falsely. According to the opinion that these two prophets had indeed been part of the seventy elders who had been chosen, Joshua told Moses of the misdemeanour of people who had been bidden to come to the Tabernacle and who had failed to do so now prophesying inside the regular camp. According to Joshua these two, i.e. Eldod and Medod, committed two wrongs. 1) They ignored Moses' order. 2) They refused to become recipients of Moses' Holy Spirit but wanted to receive their Holy Spirit from a still higher source as a result of which they practiced their prophecy within the general camp.

וירץ הנער, “The disciple ran.” The lad in question was Gershon, son of Moses. The reason the Torah adds the words “the servant of Moses since his youth” in verse 28 is that he was one of the choicest among a number of men who acted as Moses’ disciples.

Some say that this was Gershom son of Moshe. Since it is written “the youth,” which implies someone obvious, and there was no one more obvious than Gershom who was the firstborn son of Moshe.

וירץ הנער, “the lad ran;” the lad was Moses’ son Gershom.

ויגד למשה אלדוד ומידד מתנבאים במחנה “he told Moses: “Eldod and Meydod are prophesying within the boundaries of the camp.” These two men were (half) brothers of Moses. When the Torah was given, and certain types of family members were no longer allowed to live in married union together, such couples separated in accordance with the law. This caused sorrow among such families as we know from verse 10 in our chapter where Moses is portrayed as listening to the weeping of families which had been broken up as a result of the new laws. (Compare Talmud, tractate Shabbat folio 130.) Amram, Moses’ father, was also affected by these new laws, as when Pharaoh had decreed that all male Jewish babies were to be downed, he had divorced his wife Yocheved, who was his aunt. He had remarried and Eldod and Meydod were sons sired by him from this marriage. Their named reflected that they were compensations for a marriage broken up as a result of the prohibition to marry one’s aunt. [I find this hard to understand as the new laws came into existence after Moses, son of Yocheved, was at least 81 years old, and any children his father could have sired from another wife subsequently could not have been more than babies at the time when the demand aired by the Israelites for meat could have happened. How could such babies have prophesied, much less have been taken seriously if they did? Besides we have no reason to assume that Amram had left Egypt at the Exodus as his son Moses by Yocheved, who had married him at the age of 130, so how old must he have been at the time of the Exodus? Ed.] Our author claims to have found a manuscript of a certain Rabbi Amram, son of a Rabbi Hillel, who had lived in the land of Israel, in which the author writes as follows: “I have personally seen the graves of Eldod and Meydod brother of Aaron through his father’s side but not from the same mother.”’ Some scholars claim that Eldod is identical with a certain Elidod son of Kisslon, mentioned in Numbers 34,21. Meydod is supposed to be identical with Kemuel son of Shifton in verse 24 in that chapter. According to Midrash Tanchuma, section 12 on our portion both these men had humbled themselves in five different ways. Whereas the other seventy men who had drawn lots making them elders, practiced prophecy only on that day, (as indicated in verse 25 when the prophecy concerned the imminent arrival of the quails). Eldod and Meydad prophesied what would happen at the end of the forty years, i.e. Moses’ death and Joshua becoming his successor. They were rewarded by enjoying prophetic status for an indefinite period. According to some opinions they predicted details of the last war before the coming of the messiah, the war involving Gog and Magog. Whereas the other seventy elders did not enter the Holy Land, these two men did. We know that Kisslon and Kemuel entered the Holy Land (Numbers 34). The names of the other seventy elders were not mentioned by the Torah, whereas the names of these men were mentioned. The reason why the prophetic powers of the seventy elders ceased, was that they had been a “’branch” of Moses’ prophetic powers, whereas these two men received their prophetic power directly from G–d. The Holy Spirit is described as functioning when they were not in the vicinity of Moses. This is why the Torah describes their prophesying “inside the camp” not only while on sacred ground next to the Tabernacle. This is the conclusion arrived at in the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin folio 17. The author finds it difficult to believe that these two men had been half-brothers of Moses seeing that according to the Torah in Numbers chapter 34, Elidod and Kisslon were members of the tribe of Binyamin. Kemuel is described there as a member of the tribe of Ephrayim.

כלאם — (This is taken as the equivalent of כַּלֵּם, “destroy them”, “make an end of them”; cf. Rashi on Exodus 17:9) — He meant: cast upon them the responsibility for public affairs and they will of themselves soon come to an end (through the worry and anxiety this entails). — Another explanation is: that the word means put them into prison (כלא). He said this because they were prophesying, “Moses will die and Joshua will bring Israel into the Land” (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 96; Sanhedrin 17a).

MY LORD MOSES, ‘K’LA’EIM’ (SHUT THEM IN). The meaning of this is that Moses had told the people the words of G-d, that He would take of the spirit which was upon him and put it upon those that will stand with him in the Tent of Meeting. Now those that did not go to the Tent [i.e., Eldad and Medad who had also been designated for that honor], and yet held themselves to be among those upon whom Moses’ spirit had been put [by prophesying in the camp,²⁵⁵Verse 27. as Eldad and Medad did], were as rebels against Moses’ words. Therefore Joshua said to Moses, “Shut them in, for perhaps it is a lying spirit²⁵⁶I Kings 22:22. in their mouths, or it is an evil spirit that terrifies them,²⁵⁷See I Samuel 16:14. and thus they must be put in a prison like a man that is mad, and maketh himself like a prophet.”²⁵⁸Jeremiah 29:26. But Moses in his humility answered: “Would that all the people of the Eternal were prophets, that the Eternal would give His spirit upon them!²⁵⁹Verse 29. — for G-d put His spirit directly upon them without taking of the spirit which was upon me, and would that this would happen to all the people.”
However, from the words of our Rabbis it appears that the custom in Israel was that no one would prophesy about future events in the presence of a prophet who is greater than him, but they would follow him as his disciples, and these were the sons of the prophets.²⁶⁰I Kings 20:35. Rambam defines the sons of the prophets as “those who sought the prophetic gift. And although they directed their minds towards it, the Divine Spirit might or might not rest upon them” (Hilchoth Yesodei Hatorah 7:5). Thus the Rabbis have said in Tractate Sanhedrin [with reference to the prophecy of Eldad and Medad]:²⁶¹Sanhedrin 17 a. “We can well understand according to that Sage who said that [Eldad and Medad prophesied that] ‘Moses will die [before entering the Land],’ that Joshua therefore said, My lord Moses, shut them in [since he wished to save Moses from grief]. But according to the Sage who said that [they prophesied] about the quails [that they would come from the sea], why should they be shut in [and not prophesy]? It is because the case resembled that of a pupil who renders a decision in the presence of his master.” Similarly [this was the reason why they were forbidden to prophesy] according to the Sage who says that they prophesied about Gog and Magog.²⁶²Ezekiel 38:17. And the Rabbis have mentioned a similar case in Tractate Megillah in the matter of Deborah.²⁶³In Megillah 14 b the Talmud lists the seven prophetesses that prophesied in Israel, mentioning among them Deborah, Huldah, etc. It is related in the Book of Kings that King Josiah of Judah sent to Huldah a delegation to inquire about a certain matter (II Kings 22:14). On this the Gemara asked: “But how could Huldah prophesy whilst Jeremiah [[illegible]] the leading prophet in Jerusalem — was present?” To this question the answer is given that “Huldah was a relative of Jeremiah and therefore he did not mind her prophesying.” Thus it is clear from this text that there was a rule in Israel that no one should prophesy in the presence of a greater prophet. Ramban’s mentioning “Deborah” is merely a reference to the text in the Gemara which begins this discussion, but the actual reference is to Huldah, as explained above. But Moses said that he, being the master, foregoes the honor due to him [and the law is that a Rabbi is able to renounce the honor due to him],²⁶⁴Kiddushin 32 a. and he desires and is happy [that they prophesy]. And I have seen that the Targum Yerushalmi²⁶⁵This is found in our Targum Yonathan ben Uziel. rendered: “k’la’eim — withhold from them the Holy Spirit.” The Targum thus understood the word k’la’eim to be like the expressions: Behold, ‘lo echla’ (I did not refrain) my lips;²⁶⁶Psalms 40:10. ‘lo thichla’ (Thou wilt not withhold) Thy compassions from me.²⁶⁷Ibid., Verse 12.
Now the reason for this matter is that Joshua thought that [Eldad and Medad] were prophesying because they were of them that were recorded²⁶⁸Verse 26. [among the prescribed number of seventy men that were to join Moses], because the spirit of Moses was transmitted to all that were recorded, for he intended that all [seventy of them should become prophets]. Therefore Joshua said to Moses: “It is not fitting that they [Eldad and Medad] should prophesy in the camp, since they did not fulfill the word of G-d who commanded: and thou [Moses] shalt bring them unto the Tent of Meeting, that they may stand there with thee,²⁶⁹Verse 16. and thus it might appear that not all of them prophesied through His putting of the spirit which was upon you [on them]. It is therefore fitting for my lord to direct your mind towards the spirit of G-d [which is upon you] and to bring it [completely] back to you, so that it should not be taken from you except for those who stand before you in accordance with the word of G-d. For it was because you intended at first that all who were recorded [should be prophets] that some of your glory came upon them, and if you will now intend to withdraw it from them, it will come to rest only upon those who stand before you in accordance with the word of G-d.” But Moses answered [Joshua by saying] that he should not be zealous for his sake, for he wishes that they prophesy whether in his presence or outside it, since G-d had put His spirit upon them — either by transmission from Moses or [directly from G-d] without such a transmission.

אדוני משה כלאם!, he thought that the reason why these two men had not come to the tent of Meeting was because they wanted to demonstrate that they could prophesy without being within the spiritual sphere and physical presence of Moses.

ויען יהושע ויאמר…אדני משה כלאם, Joshua reacted and said: "my lord Moses arrest them!" What gave Joshua the right to make a halachic decision in the presence of his teacher? Our sages in Eyruvin 63 have said that anyone who makes a halachic pronouncement in the presence of his teacher will die without leaving behind children. The Talmud quotes our verse as its source. Perhaps we can explain what Joshua did with the help of the Sifri on verse 26 where the Sifri claims that Eldod and Medod kept prophesying that Moses would die and Joshua would lead the Israelites into the Holy Land. When Joshua heard these words he resolved to take a stand in the presence of his teacher in order to demonstrate his displeasure with this prophecy. He believed that Eldod and Medod were not fit to prophesy and indeed spoke falsely. By taking a stand he showed that he was not interested in assuming the leadership role prophesied by Eldod and Medod. He may have meant either one of two things with his suggestion that Moses lock these people up. The confinement could be temporary until the matter came to trial, or he meant that they be banished from this world. Either possibility is in accord with the two views we have quoted as to whether Eldod and Medod belonged to the 70 elders who had been chosen or whether they were the two men who had drawn blanks.

מבחוריו, as if the Torah had written: מנעוריו, ever since his youth. We find the expression בחור for a young person also in Kohelet 11,9 בימי בחורותיך, “in the days of your youth.” On the other hand, in Isaiah 9,16 the line על כן על בחוריו לא ישמח ה', the word is not used in a complimentary way as here, but G’d is portrayed as scorning the follies of the young and immature in spirit.

משרת משה מבחוריו, “the servant of Moses from his youth.” Ibn Ezra writes that some commentators understand the word מבחוריו to mean that Joshua was one of Moses’ most devoted servants, whereas others view the word מבחוריו as if it were glued to the words משרת משה, meaning that he had been a servant of Moses from his earliest youth. This latter explanation cannot be correct as what is described here occurred only in the second year of the people’s being in the desert, and we have no evidence that Joshua who was only about 24 years younger than Moses already served in that function in Egypt. I believe that the proper explanation is that Joshua was one of several men who attended to Moses’ needs.

And they will destroy themselves. [Rashi] means to say that prophecy will automatically leave them, because the Divine Presence does not rest upon a person in the midst of mourning and burden. Similarly we find with Yaakov that “the spirit of Yaakov their father was revived” (Bereishis 45:28), and there Rashi explains that the Divine Presence rested upon him.

V. 28. בחורים ,מבחוריו, ebenso gebildet wie נְעוּרִים, in Prediger 11, 9 u. 12, 1. בְחוּרוֹת: die Jugendzeit. אדני משה כלאם, Josua erkannte in dem Auftreten Eldads und Medads einen Eingriff in Mosche Autorität, eine Verletzung seiner Prärogative, den berufenen Ältesten war ein Anteil am Prophetengeiste nur als Mitteilung von Mosche Geist geworden, Eldad und Medad aber traten in eigener, selbständiger Erwählung auf!

!ויאמר: אדוני משה כלאם, he said: “my lord Moses”. lock them up!” according to the plain meaning of the text, that only seventy elders were to be chosen according to G–d, the man described here as הנער, assumed that these two men must be false prophets, as there were already seventy such men apart from Eldod and Meydod. As a result, they deserved to be locked up pending judgment by the court.

מבחוריו, “from his early youth.” We find this word having this meaning also in Kohelet 12,1: בימי בחורתיך, “in the days of your youth.”An alternate interpretation of this word: “from amongst the choicest to serve Moses,” for there were others with him. (Ibn Ezra)

כלאם, “arrest them!” in the same sense as Genesis 8,2 ויכלא הגשם, “the rain stopped, was arrested.” Some grammarians consider the construction as parallel to שמעני when Avraham implores Efron saying “listen to me!” (Genesis 23,6) and as parallel to Deuteronomy 32,10 ימצאהו, “it has been found.”

אדוני משה כלאם, ”my lord Moses, lock them up!” Nachmanides writes that the reason why Joshua said this was that Moses was in the habit of communicating G’d’s words to the people and he thereby also caused some of his spirit to devolve on the elders who stood around him at the Tent of Meeting. By prophesying in a location far removed from the Tabernacle, the two men, Eldod and Meydod, had presumed to arrogate to themselves a status similar to that of the elders. He therefore wanted them confined, as they behaved as if challenging Moses’ authority. Alternately, Joshua suspected these two men to be false prophets or that they were out of their minds and deserved to be locked up to prevent them causing further harm. Moses, in his characteristic modesty, replied:

In prison. Rashi explains in Parshas Beshalach on the verse “Choose men for us…” (Shemos 17:9) that “destroy them” means, destroy them from the world [for] they are liable to be destroyed. One must say that this is according to the other interpretation here, which explains [to “detain them” means] “detain them in prison…” This is termed destruction because they would be incarcerated in a vault.

The wording אדני משה, "my lord Moses," suggests that Joshua expressed his desire for Moses to remain his lord, i.e. that he harboured no secret desire to supplant Moses. The apparently unnecessary word ויען means that he replied to the words (the content) that Eldod and Medod had prophesied. At any rate, Joshua was punished for having spoken out in this manner at that time, as, after all is said and done he violated the rule of giving a halachic opinion in the presence of his teacher. [There is no evidence in the Bible that Joshua left children behind when he died; compare Chronicles I 7,27. Ed.]

אדוני משה כלאם, “my lord Moses lock them up!” Joshua wanted these two men put under house arrest so that their prophecies would not become public. The other seventy men who had also displayed prophetic insights had done so only in the relative privacy of the sacred precincts of the Tabernacle which was out of bounds to the people at large. They had done so only in the presence of Moses. (verse 16) Eldod and Meydod had not asked for permission to prophesy publicly, and had prophesied outside the sacred precincts.

המקנא אתה לי means, “art thou envying where I should envy”.

כי יתן ה' את רוחו עליהם, without any spiritual radiation emanating from me.

המקנא אתה לי? "are you jealous on my behalf?" According to the view that Eldod and Medod belonged to the 70 elders chosen, we must explain the verse as follows: "Is your jealousy based on the fact that these men were unwilling to receive their share of prophetic insights from me rather than from G'd directly? I wish all the Jewish people had been endowed directly by G'd with prophetic insights instead of having to receive it from me as their intermediary." This is shown clearly by Moses using the words מי יתן כי יתן ה׳ את רוחו עליהם. In this manner Moses demonstrated his utter humility and total lack of a desire for personal honour. According to the view that Eldod and Medod were the two men who had drawn blanks during the lottery among the 72 prospective candidates, Moses asked Joshua whether it bothered him that instead of 70 people having been endowed with Holy Spirit he now found that actually 72 people had received prophetic insights. Moses told Joshua that he, personally, wished that G'd would grant every Israelite prophetic insights. The reason Moses said: "may G'd grant His spirit, etc," is that Moses viewed the 70 people who had received prophetic insights with him as the intermediary as being only the beginning. Now that G'd had shown that He had granted prophetic insights directly to two more Israelites, he could only hope that G'd would grant such prophetic insights to everybody. None of such additional prophetic insights would be a denial or diminution of Moses' own stature as a prophet.

ומי יתן כל עם ה' נביאים כי יתן ה' את רוחו עליהם", “Would that the entire people of Hashem were prophets! If Hashem would only place His spirit upon them!” Moses wished that G’d were to inspire the people with prophetic spirit without having recourse to his own spirit from which such Holy Spirit would be diverted “second hand,” so to speak. He expressed the wish that the entire people be so endowed. Judging from the writings on the subject by our sages, it was an old established custom in Israel that no one would make prophetic announcements regarding future events while there was a prophet of greater stature alive. The reason for this custom was that anyone failing to abide by this custom would appear as if he were handing down halachic decisions in the presence of his teachers, something absolutely forbidden, possibly on pain of death at the hands of Heaven. [Compare Berachot 31. Ed.] People endowed with such spirit would form part of the entourage of their spiritual mentor, and they are generally referred to in the Books of the Prophets as בני הנביאים, disciples of the prophets. Moses apparently held that when a Rabbi or prophet does not stand on ceremony and does not feel insulted when someone junior to him makes such pronouncements, then his personal attitude governs the matter and the disciple is not held culpable although other Rabbis or prophets would have taken exception to what they considered a lack of respect towards people known as more learned or endowed with greater prophetic spirit. In the Jerusalem Targum the words כלאם are translated as “deny them holy spirit,” based on Psalms 40,12 לא תכלא רחמיך ממני, “do not withhold Your Mercy from me.” The deeper significance of the incident is that Joshua thought that seeing that both Eldod and Meydod were amongst the people whose names had been submitted as candidates for membership in the council of the 70 elders that their ability to prophesy was of the same category as that of the other 70 elders who had received their “holy spirit” via Moses and not directly from Hashem. Seeing that only 70 people were meant to form this illustrious council, Joshua thought that these men had to be stopped from walking around the camp prophesying, as the other elders could do so only while next to Moses and the Tabernacle. Moses responded that it was wrong to assume that it was in Moses’ interest that the seventy men should be able to prophesy only while next to him and next to the Tabernacle; on the contrary, if he had his way the entire people would be endowed with a far more comprehensive layer of Holy Spirit, and there was no need to assume that Moses was interested in keeping the monopoly of Holy Spirit for himself. He was most certainly not jealous of anyone so endowed by G’d.

One who grasps the bulk. One who grasps the bulk of the burden and makes himself appear as if he is alone in carrying it. Similarly he has taken the matter to heart in order to avenge.

V. 29. המקנא אתה לי, nimmst du dich meines Rechtes an? Hältst du in Eldads und Medads Auftreten mein Recht verletzt, und glaubst mein Recht vertreten zu müssen? (siehe zu Kap. 5, 14).

'ויאמר לו משה וגו'...ומי יתן כל עם ה' נביאים וגו, “and Moses said to him (the (נער, “I wish that all of the Lord’s people were prophets, etc.” Moses meant that possibly what these two men had prophesied was true. The reason that he felt that way was that the prophetic insights granted to the seventy men were part of what had been his portion of Holy Spirit, whereas the two men had received Holy Spirit directly from the source. In the first chapter of tractate Sanhedrin folio 17, the conclusion of the sages after a lengthy discussion of this episode is that if Eldod and Meydod had only predicted that Moses would die, the demand to lock up such a person would make sense, but if they also predicted that Joshua would lead the people into the Holy land, this would have violated the rule that no one is allowed to make new rules in the presence of his Mentor, i.e. to give Moses instructions whom to punish and whom not to punish. If Eldod and Meydod had predicted only that there would be a war involving Gog and Magog, what was wrong with that? Why should they have been locked up? The answer to this rhetorical question given is that such a prediction violates the rules of good manners. They would have given the impression that their prophetic insights extended way beyond those of Moses, their teacher and King. Perhaps, as suggested there in the Talmud, the meaning of the word כלאם, is: “impose upon them to become servants of the community,” and you will find that they will break down and die under that burden without any external assistance.

וכי יתן כל עם ה׳ נביאים, “would that all the Lord’s people were prophets!” Moses did not care if they would prophesy in the camp or only in the sacred precincts around the Tabernacle, as long as they would make his task easier to accomplish.

לי — the word לי meaning the same as בשבילי, “for my sake”. Wherever an expression of the root קנא is used it implies that a person sets his heart on the matter, whether it be to take vengeance or to help; — emportement in O. F. (English = zeal) — he holds the thickest (heaviest) part of the load (i.e. he takes the responsibility for carrying out a matter).

Dieses Auftreten Eldads und Medads im Momente der Berufung der Ältesten zum ersten Sanhedrin und Mosche Äußerungen sind von höchster Bedeutsamkeit für alle Nachfolger dieses jüdischen "Ältestenkollegiums" für alle Zeit. Es ist damit bekundet, dass mit der Einsetzung der höchsten geistigen Behörde in Israel kein Monopol des Geistes gestiftet werden sollte, dass die geistige Begabung von Gott durch keinerlei Amt und Beruf bedingt sei und der letzte im Volke ebenso des Anteils am Gottesgeiste gewürdigt werden könne, wie der erste im höchsten Amte. Mosche Äußerung bleibt aber für alle zur Lehre und Leitung Berufenen in Israel das ewig vorleuchtende Muster, dass sie als höchstes Ideal ihrer Wirksamkeit das Ziel vor Augen haben sollen: sich überflüssig im Volke zu machen, dass das Volk zu einer solchen geistigen Höhe in allen seinen Schichten gelange, dass es der Lehrer und Leiter nicht mehr bedürfe! Und wohl haben die Nachfolger dieser "Ältesten" den Geist ihres Mosche geerbt, haben es als ihre höchste Aufgabe erkannt: להרביץ תורה בישראל, der Erkenntnis des göttlichen Gesetzes die breiteste Basis im Volke zu bereiten, und haben ihr: והעמידו תלמידים הרבה, als erste Maxime für alle geistigen Führer ihres Volkes hinausgegeben. Mit dem "המקנא אתה לי!?" hat unser Mosche der Scheidewand zwischen "Geistlichkeit" und "Laien" im wahren Israel für immer den Boden entzogen. — Sanhedrin 17a werden verschiedene Meinungen über den Inhalt der von Eldad und Medad gesprochenen Prophetie geäußert. Nach der einen habe sie das bevorstehende Wachtelereignis betroffen. Eine andere gibt deren Inhalt also an: משה מת יהושע מכניס ישראל לארץ und endlich eine dritte spricht sich dahin aus: על עסקי גוג ומגוג היו מתנבאין, sie hätten von den letzten Gog- und Magogkämpfen prophezeit, die nach Ezechiel und Secharja die Schlussentwicklung der Geschichte der Zeiten bilden und von denen es Ezechiel 38, 17 heißt: האתה הוא אשר דברתי בימים קדמונים ביד עבדי נביאי ישראל הנבאים בימים ההם שנים להביא אותך עליהם, bist du der, vom dem ich bereits in Tagen der Vorzeit durch meine Diener, die Propheten Israels, gesprochen, welche in jenen Tagen auf Jahre hinaus prophezeiten? In diesen gleichzeitig auf Jahre hinaus prophezeienden Männern wurden Eldad und Medad erblickt. Wir haben an einer anderen Stelle den Gedanken entwickelt, wie in גוג ומגוג das גג-Prinzip, das "Giebelprinzip", das Prinzip der Konzentrierung aller Leitung in der gipfelnden Spitze in seiner äußersten Konsequenz zum Ausdruck gelangt, dem gegenüber daher nach dessen Überwindung die siegreiche Stadt der Menschengestaltung המונה "die Volkstümliche" genannt wird (Ezech. 39, 16). Ist an diesem Gedanken etwas Wahres, so dürfte es nicht wenig bezeichnend sein, wenn der Hinblick auf diesen fernsten Sieg des Volkstümlichen, über dessen Gog- und Magoggegensatz, oder das Näherliegende, die Verkündigung von Mosches Tode und Josuas Führerschaft als Inhalt der Prophetien Eldads und Medads begriffen werden. Es wäre dann der Mund der bescheidensten, aus Bescheidenheit vom zuerkannten einflussreichen Beruf einer Volksleitung zurück, und lieber במחנה, in Mitte des Volkes gebliebenen Männer der Verkündung der idealsten volkstümlichen Zukunft gewürdigt worden, wo nicht im "אהל" sondern im "מחנה", nicht im "גוג מגוג", sondern im "המון" der Schwerpunkt des sozialen Weltheiles liegen wird, oder eines Faktums, das, wie der Tod Mosche und die Vollendung des nationalen Geschickes unter Josua, die Wahrheit veranschaulicht, dass kein Mensch, nicht einmal ein Mosche, sich für unentbehrlich halten oder von seinen Zeitgenossen als unentbehrlich gehalten werden dürfte. Mosche stirbt — und das Geschick der Nation geht doch in Erfüllung. —

כי יתן ה׳ את רוחו עליהם, “as long as G-d directly would bestow His holy spirit upon them!” He wanted them to receive holy spirit from G-d directly, not only as a part of the holy spirit that had been bestowed upon him. He realised that the seventy men had received only part of the Holy spirit that he had been endowed with, and that this Holy spirit would vanish as soon as he would die. He therefore prayed that they would receive permanent Holy spirit.

ויאסף משה AND MOSES [AND THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL] RETIRED from the entrance of the appointed tent.

ויאסף משה אל המחנה הוא וזקני ישראל, “Moses then reentered the camp, he and the elders of Israel.” He went with the elders to accord them honour. The disaster did not strike until each one had returned to his tent.

From the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. Since the implication of ויאסף ([Moshe] entered) implies that he was outside the camp. Therefore Rashi needed to explain “from the entrance to the Tent of Meeting” which was the camp of the Divine Presence and consequently outside Moshe’s camp — the camp of the Levites.

ויאסף משה אל המחנה, Moses withdrew to the camp;” he was accompanied by the seventy elders now as he wished to show them honour in public.

אל המחנה INTO THE CAMP — i.e. they each went into his tent in the camp. ...

Everyone entered his tent. Rashi is answering the question: The verse implies that Moshe and the elders of Yisroel entered the camp, i.e. that everyone went with him into his camp, the camp of the Levites. But were all of the seventy members of the Sanhedrin Levites? — Rather each one entered…

אסף — ויאסף is a term for “bringing into the house”, as, (Deuteronomy 22:2) “thou shalt bring it (ואספתו) into thine house”, The passage that proves that this is so in all cases (lit., the father of all) is, (Psalms 39:7) “he heapeth up riches, and knoweth not who shall gather them in (אוספם)” (from which it is evident that אסף must denote not “gathering together” for this is implied in יצבר, but bringing it into one’s house, taking possession of a thing). The fact that Scripture first relates that Moses and the elders entered their tents and afterwards that punishment fell upon the people teaches us that He (God) did not bring the punishment upon them before these righteous men had retired each into his tent (Sifrei Bamidbar 96).

ויגז means “and he caused to fly”; similar is, (Psalms 90:10) “for it flies away (גז)”; so, also, (Nahum 1:12) “they shall fly off (נגוזו) and it shall pass away”.

מן הים, from the Sea of Reeds which was to the south of them, so that the quail crossed over that sea from the south.

ויגז שלוים מן הים, “it blew the quail from the sea.” The quail had not now been created for the benefit of the Jewish people, in fact nothing new had been created. The only extraordinary aspect of the whole phenomenon was the unusually large number of quail.

Corresponded with his heart. Rashi is answering the question: If they were laying one on top of the other as it is implied, wouldn’t the lower ones would die?

V. 31. ויגז שלוים מן הים. Es scheint, dass Wachteln in einem großen Wanderzuge übers Meer begriffen waren, der Wind, unter ihnen, zwischen ihnen und dem Meere scharf dahin streifend (גזז), hob sie ab und warf sie rings um das Lager nieder.

ורוח נסע, “a wind went forth, etc.;” this occurred on the twenty third of lyar.

ויטש means “and he spread them abroad” (while flying), as (I Samuel 30:16) “and behold, they were spread abroad (נטושים) upon all the earth”; (Ezekiel 29:5) “and I have spread thee about (ונטשתיך) the wilderness”.

Neither to rise (nor to bend). Meaning not to high, so that they not be troubled in collecting them.

ויגז שלוים מן הים, “it brought across quails from the sea;” this was how G-d fulfilled His promise to provide meat for all the people, enough for them to gorge themselves on for a whole month, in response to their longing for the fish they had eaten in Egypt without having had to pay for them.(verse 5)

וכאמתים AND ABOUT TWO CUBITS [HIGH UPON THE FACE OF THE EARTH] — This means that they were flying at a height (of two cubits from the ground) so that they reached just up to a man’s breast, in order that there should be no trouble in gathering them, either to stretch upwards or to bend down to pick them up (Sifrei Bamidbar 97).

על המחנה, next to the camp; the word על here is used as in Exodus 40,3;וסכות על הארון ,”you will spread it next to the Holy Ark, or as in Leviticus 24,7: ונתת על המערכת, “you shall place it next to the row.”

וכאמתים על פני הארץ, “and to a height of approximately two cubits above the ground.” The quails had been flying in formations over each other above the earth.

הממעיט means, HE THAT GATHERED LEAST of all — the indolent and the lame. אסף עשרה חמרים GATHERED TEN HOMERS (Numbers 11:32) (Sifrei Bamidbar 98).

הממעיט אסף עשרה חמרים, all the people intended to consume large quantities of these birds.

V. 32. ויקם וגו׳ וגו׳. Gier und Misstrauen in die von Mosche gebrachte Zusicherung spricht sich in dieser Hast des Sammelns aus. Es war ihnen ja zugesagt, dass sie einen Monat lang den Genuss des Fleisches haben sollten. Daher vielleicht das ואף ד׳ חרה des folgenden Verses.

ויאספו את השלו, “they gathered up the quails.” The letter י is missing in the word השלו.

וישטחו means, they spread them out in numerous layers (Sifrei Bamidbar 98; Yoma 75b).

עשרה חמרים, “ten heaps;” a “heap” is equivalent to thirty saah, the latter being approximately 13000 ccm., so that the ones who collected the least amount would have collected ten saah per day during the thirty day period involved in this episode.

טרם יכרת Translate this as the Targum does: עד דלא פסק whilst it (the flesh, the supply of flesh) had not yet ceased. Another explanation is: one had not yet time to bite it through with his teeth before his soul departed (Sifrei Bamidbar 98).

הבשר עודנו בין שניהם, it had not yet even come to the stage when they would despise it and be revolted by it.

מכה רבה מאד, “a very great blow.” It was pestilence. We must ask why Moses did not pray to G’d to stop the plague as he had done at Taveyrah when G’d had sent fire? Perhaps he was ashamed seeing the sin was so great and the people’s faith so small, their guilt being their ingratitude. They had kept piling guilt upon guilt ever since they had moved from Sinai into the desert and had tried to induce physical desires in themselves. They had failed to learn the lesson from what had happened at Taveyrah where many of them had been burned to death. Moses was also ashamed so that he had been provoked into saying to G’d: “why have You done evil with Your servant?” (verse 11) He was afraid that if he started to pray he would give the attribute of Justice an opening against the people, seeing he had already noticed ויחר אף ה' מאד, “that G’d had become very angry” (verse 10).

Before it was finished. Meaning before it had been digested.

הבשר עודנו בין שניהם, “while the meat was still between their teeth, before it had been chewed, etc.;” to the question of why G–d waited this long before displaying His anger, the answer is that if He had reacted angrily sooner, the people would have interpreted His anger as proof that He was unable to meet their requests. Once He had proved that He could provide not only what they had asked for but more, He reacted with the anger that He had withheld up to then. We find an interesting verse in Psalms 78.31:ויהרוג במשמניהם, “He killed the healthy, fat ones among them.” The psalmist considers that the healthy young men amongst the people at that time, were more guilty than any other section of the people as they had lacked absolutely nothing, as testified to by their continued health and vitality even in the desert. The Torah describes some people dying while not even having swallowed the meat yet, others are described as eating from it for a whole month. How do we understand this? The moral level of different Israelites varied. The ones on the lowest level did not even get to swallow it, whereas those on higher levels died at a time appropriate to their respective moral standing.

הבשר עודנו בין שניהם, “while the meat was still between their teeth etc.;” the negative effect was delayed until the whole people had been provided with sufficient meat, so none would be able to say that they were only stricken because G-d was not able to provide sufficient meat for all of them.

טרם יכרת, the period of one month of which G’d had spoken had not yet elapsed;

ויך ה' בעם, the ones who had been in the forefront of expressing their lust in order to provoke G’d so that they were punished for their provocation. When G’d had said “they will eat from it for a month,” He had referred only to those members of the people who had cried (crocodile’s tears) without actually having experienced a craving for meat at all. The ones who had said: “why did we leave Egypt?” were the ones who were the first to be punished, even before the meat got into their gullets. The words of verse 20 והיה לכם לזרא were fulfilled by what happened to these people who had pretended by their crying that they felt an overpowering desire for meat.

ויקרא את שם המקום קברות התאוה, “he called the name of this place: graves of lust.” The Torah did not identify who it was who bestowed this name on these graves, just as we find that in Genesis 48,1 we do not know who told Joseph that his father had been taken sick, i.e. ויאמר ליוסף, “someone called Joseph.”

ויהיו בחצרות. They remained there for a period the length of which has not been revealed. We find this expression, for instance in Ruth 1,4 where the period is defined as about 10 years. In Deuteronomy 10,5 when Moses speaks about the Tablets remaining in the ark in which he deposited them, the period was considerably longer. In our situation it is reasonable to assume that the length of time meant is the period during which Miriam had to remain in isolation. Seeing that the Tabernacle had already been erected by that time, G’d invited all three of them to leave their tents and to come to the entrance of the Tabernacle.

'מקברות התאוה נסעו העם חצרות וגו; according to the plain meaning the verse tells us that the people journeyed from this location now called קברות התאוה to a place called Chatzerot, and that they remained there until after Miriam had been cured. This is the reason why the Torah added the words: ויהיו בחצרות, they remained in Chatzerot.
There is an allegorical Midrash in Sifrey at the end of this portion which is worth reading. Further on in 12,7 we are told that after the people had left Chatzerot they came to the desert of Paran and made camp there. This seems strange unless we assume that there had been two locations both with the name Chatzerot, a most unlikely scenario. My teachers were not clear how to answer my question, so that when I was once asked about this in Paris, I explained the apparent contradiction as follows: When the verse here tells us that the Israelites journeyed from Kivrot Hataavah to Chatzerot, adding that they remained there for a while, this is what the Sifrey meant when writing that they waited until Miriam was cured. [The thread of this story is taken up again in 12,16 with the Torah writing: “and after the isolation period of Miriam was over the people resumed their journey from Chatzerot, making their next stop in the desert of Paran.” The unusual feature of this story is that whereas normally the Torah writes ויסעו ויחנו, “they journeyed and they subsequently made camp,” it being understood that the whole people journeyed, here the words העם, “the people” have been added for no apparent reason.
When the first “flag” journeyed, the Tabernacle had not yet been dismantled, so that G’d calling to Aaron and Miriam suddenly to come to the Tabernacle, as reported in chapter 12,4 is not all that surprising. Seeing that Miriam subsequently was struck with tzoraat and the people had to wait with journeying (or volunteered to wait) until she had been cured, the first “flag” (three tribes) presumably turned back to join the mainstream and to wait there. After these seven days passed, this time around the whole people left Chatzerot again, so that the words “the people journeyed” are eminently justified. I have found this whole Midrash in the Mechilta on Parshat Beshalach relating it to the first verse I have quoted above.
Furthermore, I have found in the responsa of Rabbi Klonimaus from Rome that he writes exactly as I have done. I have also explained the first verse in Beshalach in which the Israelites are portrayed as having moved from Raamses to Sukkot, as if this had been a few kilometers although its over 120 kilometers as understandable in terms of G’d saying in Exodus 19,4 “I carried you on eagles’ wings.” The first stage of the Israelites’ journey from Raamses was indeed as if G’d had transported them on a magic carpet.

ויהיו בחצרות, “And they remained at Chatzerot.” These words belong to the next paragraph, as the people remained in Chatzerot until Miriam had been cured.

V. 35. ויהיו בחצרות, leitet wohl zu dem folgenden Ereignis über, indem es die Örtlichkeit angibt, wo es geschah.

מקברות התאוה נסעו, “from that place they continued journeying, etc.” this was on the twenty second day of the month of Sivan

ויהיו החצרות, “they remained at Chatzerot for some time.” We would have expected the Torah to have written: ויחנו בחצרות, “they made camp at Chatzerot,” as it did when reporting on all the other places where the people made camp. The reason why there was a change here was that the Torah wished us to know that their departure from Chatzerot had been delayed because Miriam had spoken critically of her brother Moses, and when having been punished with skin eczema, the people waited until she had been healed. This is another example of the Torah not having reported events in their chronological order. Part of the people had already moved on during that episode, but they turned back after finding out what had occurred.