Comentario sobre Números 12:17

ותדבר AND [MIRIAM AND AARON] SPAKE — The term דבר in every passage where it is used implies harsh language, for so it stales, (Genesis 42:30) “The man, the lord of the land spake (דבר) roughly to us”. The term אמר, however, is always an expression denoting supplication, for so it states, (Genesis 19:7) “And he said (ויאמר) ‘I beg of you (נא), my brethren, do not so wickedly” ; (verse 6 of this chapter) “And He said (ויאמר), Hear, I pray you (נא), My words’ — for the word נא always expresses supplication (Sifrei Bamidbar 99).

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

הכושית, from one of the tribes going back to Cham.

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

ותדבר מרים, “Miriam spoke out.” She spoke and that is why she was punished; Aaron remained silent or agreed with her and we find that he was punished also. This is the meaning of verse 9 ויחר אף ה' בם, “G’d was angry at them.” Wherever the Torah reports that G’d became angry at someone this is followed by a noticeable phenomenon. Seeing that Miriam had commen-ced speaking לשון הרע, “unseemly comments,” the Torah spelled out her punishment. In Aaron’s case the Torah did not spell out his punishment out of regard for him.

How did [Miriam] know. Meaning: It is not the behavior of modest women to complain to their neighbors about their husbands concerning intimate relations.

Kap. 12. VV. 1 u. 2. ותדבר מרים. Diese Verse bieten dem Verständnis erhebliche Schwierigkeiten. Sie berichten, dass Mirjam und Aharon Nachteiliges über Mosche geredet und zwar in Veranlassung האשה הכשית אשר לקח, welches ohne weiteres heißen würde: in Veranlassung der äthiopischen Frau, die er geheiratet hatte, כי denn, wurde hinzugefügt, das Faktum an sich wäre wahr, er hatte eine äthiopische Frau geheiratet, אשה כושית לקח. So weit wäre das Verständnis klar, und wäre dann nur nicht sowohl auffallend, dass Mirjam und Aharon sich über dieses Faktum aufgehalten, als dass in der Tat Mosche eine Äthiopierin geheiratet haben sollte! Wollte man aber in dieser Äthiopierin oder Abessynierin keine andere als die Midjanitin Zipora erblicken, so wäre, abgesehen davon, dass כוש doch nicht identisch mit מדין ist, ein Zweifaches nicht abzusehen, einmal, was in dieser Heirat Tadelnswertes gewesen, und ferner ist uns das Faktum längst ja bekannt und braucht wahrlich nicht erst noch als ein Novum bestätigt zu werden: כי אשה usw. Allein sofort die uns V. 2 mitgeteilten Worte Mirjams und Aharons lassen ja überhaupt es gar nicht zu, dass die Heirat mit der אשה כשית an sich, möge sie nun gewesen sein, wer sie wolle, Gegenstand der tadelnden Äußerung der Geschwister gewesen sein könne. Offenbar setzen nämlich die Worte: הרק אך במשה דבר ד, das Faktum כי אשה כשית לקח im engen Zusammenhang zu Mosche Prophetie und zwar ebenso unzweideutig dargestellt, dass Mosche אשה כשית לקח, weil דבר ד׳ בו die Geschwister aber in diesem דבר ד׳ במשה keine Rechtfertigung für לקיחת אשה כשית fanden, indem Mosche nicht der einzige war, mit welchem Gott geredet, und alle die andern, Mirjam und Aharon selbst, obgleich auch sie der Prophetie gewürdigt worden, doch darum sich nicht veranlasst gesehen לקחת אשה כושית! Nun liegt es aber völlig außer dem Bereiche denkbarer Möglichkeit, dass Mosche, dass überhaupt irgend jemand, weil er der Prophetie von Gott gewürdigt worden "deshalb" eine Äthiopierin geheiratet haben solle! Ist daher, wie der ganze Zusammenhang nicht anders zulässt, das Faktum, כי אשה כשית לקח, durch Mosches prophetischen Beruf motiviert, so muss damit etwas anderes ausgedrückt sein, als dass er eine Äthiopierin geheiratet habe! Sehen wir uns im ganzen Bereiche des Gotteswortes nach einer Beziehung ehelicher Verhältnisse zur Prophetie um, so finden wir nur die einzige Stelle Schmot 19, 15, wo das Volk, das der unvermittelten Vernehmung des göttlichen Wortes gewürdigt werden sollte, als Vorbereitung dazu des ehelichen Umganges mit den Frauen sich zu enthalten hatte, und zwar muss diese Vorbedingung eine so wesentlich von dem Momente geforderte sein, dass sie stillschweigend in der allgemeinen Anordnung וקדשתם וגו׳ והיו נכונים וגו׳ (Verse 10 und 11 daselbst) enthalten war. In der Tat erklärt auch die Überlieferung (ספרי) als Gegenstand der tadelnden Äußerung der Geschwister die Entfernung, in welcher sich Mosche von seiner Frau gehalten, פירש מן האשה, ein Umstand, der ihnen erst bei Gelegenheit der Prophetie der berufenen Ältesten bekannt geworden, den sie lediglich im Interesse der Frau für unrecht, weil eben durch Mosche Prophetenberuf nicht geboten hielten, da sie selber und so ja auch die Väter vor ihnen des göttlichen Wortes gewürdigt worden waren, ohne dass dadurch das eheliche Zusammenleben hätte Störung erleiden müssen. Sie übersahen den Abstand zwischen Mosche Stufe und der ihrigen und wussten nicht, dass als nach Schluss der Sinaioffenbarung an das Volk (Dewarim 5, 27) diesem mit den Worten: שובו לכם לאהליכם die Rückkehr ins Familienleben und in die eheliche Gemeinsamkeit gestattet und geboten wurde, Mosche das Verharren in der Entfernung mit den Worten: ואתה פה עמד עמדי ואדברה אליך וגו׳, zur Pflicht gemacht war (daselbst 28). Dass dies der Sinn unserer Stelle ist, ist nach dem ganzen Zusammenhange ganz unzweifelhaft. Unterstützt dürfte sich diese Erklärung noch durch die Erwägung finden, dass in allen Stellen, in welchen der Ausdruck על אודות in ähnlichem Zusammenhange in der תורה vorkommt, er stets den leidenden Gegenstand bezeichnet, dessen Interesse zur Sprache kommt. So Bereschit 21, 11: וירע וגו׳ על אודות בנו, daselbst 25: והכיח וגו׳ על אדות באר. Schmot 18, 8: אשר עשה ד׳ לפרעה וגו׳ על אודת ישראל. So ist auch hier die אשה כושית nicht der Gegenstand, über welchen, sondern in dessen Interesse die Klage geführt wurde. Es bleibt nur noch die Bedeutung des האשה הכשית אשר לקח aus dem Zusammenhange mit dem unzweifelhaften Sinne der Stelle zu erörtern übrig, und da möchten wir zu glauben wagen, es sei nicht unmöglich, dass לקוח אשה כושית eben nichts anderes als ein umschreibender Ausdruck für: "in getrennter Ehe leben" sein möge. Der Ausdruck כושי findet sich noch einigemal in typischer Bedeutung. In היהפוך כושי עורו (Jirmija 13, 23) bezeichnet es den Schwarzen, den Mohren überhaupt. In הלא כבני כושיים אתם לי (Amos 9,7) bezeichnet es die allerletzten und tiefstehenden Menschengeschlechter unter den Völkern. "Und wäret ihr die Kinder der Negervölker, wäret ihr nicht gleichwohl mein?!" In שגיון לדוד אשר שר לד׳ על דברי כוש בן ימיני (Ps. 7, 1). bezeichnet es die ganze Tiefe des Gegensatzes, welchen Sauls Handlungsweise zu dem an den Tag legte, was von einem בן ימיני von dem Sohne eines jüdischen Stammes zu erwarten gewesen wäre. Es war dies eine solche moralische Entartung, wie es eine physiologische wäre, wenn von einem jüdischen Stamme ein Neger geboren worden wäre. Sollte die geschlechtliche Verbindung mit einer Mohrin nicht als etwas also Widerstehendes und Unvereinbares betrachtet worden sein, dass eine Ehe eingegangen sein, in welcher doch die Gatten ein getrenntes Leben führen, "eine Mohrin geheiratet haben" genannt werden konnte? Wir können dies allerdings nur als Vermutung geben, glauben aber damit nichts Unwahrscheinliches angenommen zu haben, und hätte, wenn wir das Richtige getroffen, damit unsere Stelle ihre natürlichste Deutung gefunden.

ותדבר מרים ואהרן במשה, “Miriam and Aaron spoke critically about Moses.” Seeing that it is a fact that women indulge more in loose talk, Miriam is mentioned here first, seeing that she was a woman.

According to the simple meaning of the text, a gentile black woman. But who had converted. And Aaron and Miriam thought that this was why Moshe separated himself from her. That his wife was not of Israelite lineage. And they were saying that under no circumstances is this proper. After he had taken her and knew she was a non-Israelite and she didn't deceive him. Therefore it's not fair to make her sad and separate himself from her. [Afterwards I saw this commentary in the book "Paanekh Razei" who as his custom explains כושית as being black.

ותדבר מרים ואהרן במשה, “Miriam and Aaron spoke out critically against Moses;” how did either of them know that Moses had separated from his wife? They had both noted that Tzipporah no longer wore the jewelry she had been in the habit of wearing. Miriam asked Tzipporah why she no longer wore that jewelry. Tzipporah replied that it was because Miriam’s brother (Moses) did not pay any attention to her jewelry. This was a hint that he had separated from her. She told Aaron about this and they talked about that situation criticizing him.

ותדבר מרים ואהרן AND MIRIAM AND AARON SPAKE — She opened the conversation, therefore Scripture mentions her first. And whence did Miriam know that Moses had separated himself from his wife (for this was the statement she made; cf. Rashi below)? R. Nathan answered: “Miriam was beside Zipporah When it was told to Moses, ‘Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp’ (Numbers 11:27). When Zipporah heard this, she exclaimed, Woe to the wives of these if they have anything to do with prophecy, for they will separate from their wives just has my husband has separated from me!” It was from this that Miriam knew about it, and she told it to Aaron. Now what was the case with Miriam who had no intention to disparage him? She was punished thus severely! How much the more will this be so in the case of one who intentionally speaks in disparagement of this fellow”! (Sifrei Bamidbar 99).

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

Just as everyone. For if this were not so, why is the Torah calling her a Cushite? Was she a Cushite? — surely she was a Midianite! Rather, just as a Cushite’s skin is unique, so too her skin was unique in its beauty. (Gur Aryeh) Because it is somewhat incongruous for the Torah to speak in this cryptic manner, Rashi therefore says that כושית is the numerical equivalent of יפת תואר “beautiful appearance.”

הרק אך וגו׳. Diese Verdoppelung der beschränkenden Partikeln spricht das völlig Ausschließliche aus, in welchem, wie sie meinten, Mosche seine Stellung begriffen haben musste, dass er sich zu einem solchen Verfahren gegen seine Frau hatte veranlaßt glauben können. "Hat denn so ganz und gar Gott nur mit Mosche geredet?" Auch Abraham, Isaak und Jakob sind des göttlichen Wortes gewürdigt worden, und haben doch nicht die eheliche Gemeinschaft mit ihren Frauen aufgegeben! הלא גם בנו דבר, sind doch wir selbst des göttlichen Wortes gewürdigt worden, ohne dass wir unser eheliches Zusammenleben hätten aufgeben müssen! וישמע ד׳. Sie taten die Äußerung nur unter einander, aber Gott hörte sie.

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

Because of the Cushite woman whom he had married: According to the simple meaning, they were saying, "And did Moses not find a woman from the Children of Israel to take as a wife, that he went to take [one] from the daughters of Cush, who are uncircumcised? And was it because the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke with him, that he became haughty; such that he not want to marry a woman from the daughters of Israel and sought a woman from far away? 'Did he not also speak with us,' and we married from [within] Israel, and did not become haughty about this."

על אודות האשה הכושית, they wondered why Moses had chosen this point in time to separate from Tzipporah and concluded that it was because she was a Negress (ugly), and they could not understand that he had married her in the first place seeing that she had always been a Negress. A different interpretation of this line: She had been a queen in her land, the land of Kush. This would fit with what we have read in Chronicles that Moses had been a King in that land. At the time, he had to marry a local woman. Now there was no need for him to remain married to a Kushite woman. If this were correct, our verse would not refer to Tzipporah, for the line: “for he had married a Kushite woman,” would not make any sense as Tzipporah was a Midianite woman as we know from Exodus 2,21. The Kushites were descended from Cham, the third son of Noach, and as such were a cursed people, and a Jew would not have married a woman from a cursed nation [although, Keturah, Avraham’s second and last wife, was an Egyptian and therefore also from a cursed nation, as Mitzrayim was the second son of Cham, Kush having been his firstborn (Genesis 10,6) Midian himself was a son of Keturah an Egyptian (Genesis 25,2), and therefore descendant of a cursed nation. Ed.]

האשה הכשית THE CUSHITE WOMAN — This tells us that all agreed as to her beauty just as all agree as to the blackness of an Aethopian (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 99).

Concerning her divorce. Meaning concerning her husband’s separation from her; this is an abbreviated verse. Why did Rashi reverse the order and explain first the words “the Cushite woman”? It appears that one may have thought that they spoke about him because he in fact married a Cushite woman, as the Midrash says; therefore Rashi first explains that the woman with a hei refers to Tziporah, while the word “Cushite” means that “just as…” Afterwards he explains that “concerning the woman” means concerning her divorce. Subsequently he again explains the word “Cushite” — “What does the Torah teach? — You find…” And then he explains the word “the Cushite” — meaning the hei (indicating the definite article) — teaching “because of her beauty…” This teaches that she appeared this way to everyone and was known for this, consequently the Torah writes “האשה הכושית” (lit. the Cushite the woman). Finally Rashi explains “for [he married a Cushite] woman” teaching why the Torah provided a reason. He explains that this means that he should have either not married or he should have remained with her and not have separated from her. R. Yaakov Triosh.

For he had married a Cushite woman: Since we did not find in another place that Moses took a Cushite woman, the verse tells you [here] that he definitely married a Cushite woman. But they did not speak about Zipporah not being from Israel, because that had then been out of his control; since he had been a fugitive and could not go go to Egypt among the Children of Israel.

כושית — The numerical value of this word (736) is the same as that of יפת מראה, a woman of beautiful appearance.

על אדות האשה BECAUSE OF THE [CUSHITE] WOMAN — because of her having been divorced by Moses (cf. Note on previous passage).

כי אשה כשית לקח FOR HE HAD MARRIED A CUSHITE WOMAN — What is the force of this statement? (It appears superfluous; since על אדות וכו has been explained to refer to Moses having divorced his Cushite wife, it is unnecessary to state afterwards that he had married her)! But it is made to suggest the following: You may find a woman who is pleasant an account of her beauty but who is not pleasant by reason of her deeds (conduct); or one pleasant because of her conduct but not because of her beauty. This woman, however, was pleasant in every respect (Sifrei Bamidbar 99).

האשה הכשית THE CUSHITE WOMAN — Because of her beauty-she was called, “the Aethiopian” just as a man calls his handsome son “Moor”, in order that the evil eye should have no power over him (Midrash Tanchuma, Tzav 13).

כי אשה כשית לקח THAT HE HAD MARRIED A CUSHITE (a beautiful) WOMAN, and had now divorced her.

הרק אך FOR HAS INDEED THE LORD SPOKEN with him alone.

'הרק אך במשה דבר ה?, has Moses been the only one who experienced the distinction that G’d spoke to him in addition to the whole people experiencing that G’d spoke to them when He gave the Ten Commandments?

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

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

With him alone. (Nachalas Yaakov) Rashi was answering the question: The two words רק and אך are terms that indicate a limitation, thus the Torah should have said “הרק (was it only) with Moshe that He has spoken… Did He not also [speak] with us?” Rashi answers that “with him alone” [teaches], but not with others at all, whether they were as righteous as him, or whether they were less righteous than him. “Did He not also speak with us,” even though we are on a lower level of prophecy than Moshe? Therefore the Torah required two terms that indicate both facets of the limitation of speech. The Sifri suggests a similar answer.

ויאמרו הרק אך במשה דבר, “did G-d then speak exclusively to Moses?” We have a rule in the Hebrew language that when restrictive clauses such as “only,” or “exclusively,” follow one another consecutively, they are meant to add something instead of to subtract something. In this instance we have two such clauses following one another, i.e. רק and אך. The addition follows promptly by Miriam adding that G-d had spoken to them, i.e. herself and to her brother Aaron also, so that they too were prophets. (The Talmud, tractate Megillah folio 14, and tractate Sotah folio 12 claims that Miriam had prophesied even before Moses had been born.) Concerning Aaron prophesying, the reader is referred to Samuel I 2,27, as interpreted by Sh’ ’mot Rabbah 3,21.)

הלא גם בנו HAS HE NOT ALSO [SPOKEN] WITH US, and we have not separated from our spouses! (Sifrei Bamidbar 100).

'וישמע ה, as our sages have said junior Torah scholars are in a class by themselves in that G’d is extremely stern in reacting to their slightest misdemeanours. (B’rachot 19)

בנו, using us as His medium.

וישמע השם. G'd heard. The Torah had to write these words [although we know that G'd hears every word spoken by anyone Ed.] to tell us that Miriam and Aaron did not say what they said within earshot of any other creature [a third party which was not involved. Ed.]. Another reason the Torah wrote these words is to tell us that G'd heard this directly from Miriam and Aaron and not as a complaint from Moses. Moses did not complain to G'd about having been slighted.

'וישמע ה “the Lord heard;” even though Miriam and Aaron had this conversation completely privately, and no one overheard them, G-d was privy to it, and He would demand that Moses’ integrity be defended. (Ibn Ezra)

ענו means, humble and patient.

NOW THE MAN MOSES WAS VERY MEEK. This [is stated] to tell us that G-d Himself was zealous for Moses’ sake on account of his [great] humility, since he would never pay attention to injustice [meted out to him] even if he were to consider it such [and therefore G-d vindicated his innocence]. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained [the meaning of this phrase] by saying that Moses never sought superiority over any person, nor did he ever pride himself at all about his high position, and certainly not in relation to his brother, thus they [Miriam and Aaron] sinned by speaking against him for no reason.²⁷⁰The slander was in connection with Moses’ separating himself from his wife, which Miriam and Aaron attributed to his pride, as if to show that he was a holy man. “We also receive Divine revelations,” they said, “and yet continue our conjugal life.” But in the Sifre [it is said]:²⁷¹Sifre Beha’alothcha 100. “Rabbi Nathan says: They spoke against Moses even in his presence, as it is said, And the Eternal heard it. Now the man Moses was very meek,²⁷²Verses 2-3. and he restrained himself about the matter.” [According to the Sifre, therefore, Scripture] mentions Moses’ meekness in that he endured [their insult] and did not answer them back, and that G-d was [therefore] zealous for his sake.

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

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

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

V. 3. ענה .והאיש משה ענו, im Gebiete geistiger Tätigkeit: das durch ein Wort oder eine Tatsache Veranlasste äußern, mit Worten einer Rede oder einer Tatsache "entsprechen", antworten, eine entsprechende Rede beginnen, aussagen (siehe zu Schmot 20, 14), daher יען und למען die Partikeln des Grundes und der Folge, — im sozialen Gebiete: Bezeichnung gänzlicher Abhängigkeit der Existenz von dem Willen anderer, — wird ענו und ענוה Charakterausdruck vollständigster Selbstlosigkeit, bei welcher ein Gedanke eigenen Wertes, eigener Größe keine Stätte hat, und welche Gott zugewandt mit Sein und Wollen ganz aufgeht in den göttlichen Willen. Sie ist die negative Vorbedingung des positiven חסירות-Charakters, der vollendeten Aufopferung in praktischer Erfüllung des göttlichen Willens. Beide zusammen bilden den Höhepunkt der sittlichen Charakter- und Tatengröße, also dass Aboda Sara 20 b man nur noch schwanken konnte, welchem von beiden, dem חסידות oder der ענוה, die Palme zuzuerkennen sei. Hier dürfte aus doppeltem Grunde auf diese Charaktergröße Mosche hingewiesen sein. Eben diese ihnen sicherlich bekannte Charakterseite ihres Bruders hätte die Geschwister wohl vor falscher Beurteilung seiner Handlungsweise, die nach ihrer Auffassung nur in einer Selbstüberhebung wurzeln sollte, schützen müssen. War doch von einer solchen Selbstüberhebung kein Mensch ferner, als eben Mosche! Und ferner würde Mosche seiner Charakterweise gemäss sich selbst nicht verteidigt haben und tritt daher Gott für ihn ein. Endlich dürfte aber in dem והאיש משה die Ursache angedeutet sein, weshalb sie zu einem solchen Urteil über Mosche gelangen konnten. Mosche unbegrenzte ענוה war schuld, dass sie von seiner besonderen, ja einzigen Beziehung zu Gott gar keine Ahnung hatten. Er hatte sich stets nur als ihres Gleichen betrachten lassen, hatte über das spezifisch Höhere seiner Prophetie nie etwas geäußert, ja vielleicht war er in seiner vollendeten ענוה sich selbst gar nicht des Besonderen bewußt und setzte Gleiches auch bei andern der Prophetie Gewürdigten voraus. —

והאיש משה ענו מאד, “and the man called Moses was an extremely humble person.” The Torah testifies that Moses had not married the Cushite queen from a sense of pride, but that circumstances had led to that marriage. [It might have been decreed by heaven before he had been born, i.e. mazzal.] Even at this point, he remained humble by not responding to unwarranted criticism of him, until G–d acted as his advocate.

The man, Moshe [was] most humble. The meaning of humble is that Moshe paid no attention to his honor or pains. This was not because he felt lowly and did not realize that such a lack of respect and pain was not worthy of him. Rather, it was because he conducted himself without concern for honor.

ענו, the combined numerical value of the letters in this word is 248, a hint that there was not a bone in his body that was conceited. [We are supposed to have 248 limbs in our bodies. Ed.]

פתאם SUDDENLY — He revealed himself to them suddenly just when they were unclean as a result of marital intercourse, so that they cried; “Water, water!” (for purification). He did this to give them to understand that Moses had acted rightly in that he had separated from his wife, since the Shechinah used to reveal Itself to him at all times and there was no definite time fixed for the Divine communication (Midrash Tanchuma, Tzav 13).

AND THE ETERNAL SPOKE ‘PITH’OM’ (SUDDENLY) UNTO MOSES, AND UNTO AARON, AND UNTO MIRIAM. Now Moses was not with them, but [they are mentioned together because] the Divine communication came to the three of them simultaneously. The sense of the word “suddenly” is that they did not direct their minds towards or intend to receive a Divine communication at that time, it being in honor of Moses that it came to them without any preparation for it; for the word pith’om (suddenly) in the opinion of the commentators [as explained in Ibn Ezra] applies to something which one did not think of, from the root pethi (simple-minded). Therefore Scripture uses the term pith’om [only] on account of Aaron and Miriam, for Moses our teacher was fit for a Divine communication at any time, and his mind was prepared to cleave to the Glorious Name at every moment, as our Rabbis have explained in connection with the reason why he [Moses] separated himself from his wife.²⁷³Shabbath 87 a: Since the Divine Glory reveals itself to me at all times [and there is no definite time fixed for the Divine communication] …” Onkelos, however, rendered [the word pith’om] as bithkeiph (in a hurry), the sense being that whilst Miriam and Aaron were still speaking about Moses, and the words were still in their mouths, they were told: Come out ye three unto the Tent of Meeting, and He did not delay [the rebuke] to them at all. The word pith’om is thus a term indicating hurry. Similarly, And I beheld his habitation cursed ‘pith’om’ (suddenly);²⁷⁴Job 5:3. whose breaking cometh ‘pith’om ‘l’pheta’ (suddenly at an instant);²⁷⁵Isaiah 30:13. ‘b’pheta’ pith’om’ (very suddenly),²⁷⁶Above, 6:9. the double expressions being for emphasis, just like: ‘kim’at kot’ (a very little while);²⁷⁷Ezekiel 16:47. ‘harbei m’od’ (exceedingly great).²⁷⁸Genesis 15:1. So also: ‘bi’m'od m’od’ (very much),²⁷⁹Ibid., 17:2. and similar cases. And pethaim (simple-minded ones) are those who are very impetuous, who do not have any deep grasp of a matter and do not reflect on it at all, the usage being similar to the expression and the counsel of the wily is hurried.²⁸⁰Job 5:13. For any plan which is decided upon in a hurry is folly (Rashi). So also: ‘petha’ (on a sudden) shall he be broken;²⁸¹Proverbs 6:15. and if ‘b’phetha’ (suddenly) without enmity,²⁸²Further, 35:22. [which Onkelos renders] bithkeiph, which is like pethi (simple), of the expression pith’om (hurriedly).
The reason [why He said at first] Come out ye three and [then in the following verse it says] and He called Aaron and Miriam [excluding Moses] is that G-d wanted him to be present [in the Tent of Meeting] and to see how He is zealous for Moses’ honor; and so that he would be available [to forgive them], for G-d would not forgive them unless he did, after they would beg him and he agrees to [forgive] them. And He called Aaron and Miriam, in order to tell Moses’ praise when he was not present.

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

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

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

Suddenly when they were ritually unclean. For if not so, why does Scripture write “suddenly”? Re’m

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

V. 4. פתאם (siehe zu Kap. 6, 9). Da die Gottesrede V. 6 als Erwiderung der V. 2 entaltenen Äußerung sich dieser anschließt und das Subjekt, Mosche, aus ihr voraussetzt, so dürfte dieser Hinausruf sogleich auf die Äußerung gefolgt sein.

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

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

צאו שלשתכם GO OUT YOU THREE [UNTO THE APPOINTED TENT] — This tells us that the names of all three of them were mentioned as one utterance, something that is impossible for a human mouth to articulate and a human ear to catch (Sifrei Bamidbar 102).

צאו שלשתכם, “go out all three of you, to the Tabernacle.” G’d wanted that Moses should be there and should become aware that G’d Himself defended Moses’ virtue and his reputation. They would also become aware that G’d did not pardon Miriam and Aaron their slander unless Moses himself did so by pleading on their behalf.

Water! Water! Because it is written here, “suddenly” and also concerning Nazirite it is written, “suddenly or unexpectedly” (Bamidbar 6:9). We make a comparison — just as a Nazirite needs to immerse in water, so too [the sudden call for water] was for immersion in water by day (following marital relations).

בעמוד ענן [AND THE LORD CAME DOWN] IN THE COLUMN OF THE CLOUD — He came alone to punish them, not as is the manner of human beings: when a human king goes to war, he goes with numerous troops, but when he goes forth peaceably, he goes forth with only a few. But the manner of the Holy One, blessed be He, is that He goes to war alone — as it is said, (Exodus 15:3) “The Lord alone is the man of war, but He goes forth for peace accompanied by His hosts, as it is said, (Psalms 68:18) “The chariots of God are twenty thousands, even thousands of angels of peace (שנאן)” (Sifrei Bamidbar 102).

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

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

He went alone. For if not so, why does the Torah write “Hashem descended in a [pillar of] cloud”? Surely it had already stated “Hashem said: Come out, all three of you,” thus it should have merely said “and He stood at the entrance of the Tent…” However in Parshas Ki Sisa where it is written “Hashem descended in a cloud” (Shemos 34:5), at the beginning of the revelation of the Divine Presence to Moshe in the morning, there one may say that it comes to inform of the revelation of the Divine Presence to Moshe, but not to teach that He descended alone with the pillar of Cloud as Rashi expounds here.

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

ויקרא אהרן ומרים AND HE CALLED: “AARON AND MIRIAM!” — that they should proceed further, and go forth from the court towards God (more lit., the Divine Speech) (Sifrei Bamidbar 102).

So that they would be drawn away. (Nachalas Yaakov) According to this, there is a difficulty: Since He did not speak to them in the presence of Moshe, why then did He call to Moshe and say “come out all three of you”? One must answer that it was in order that he would pray for Miriam immediately. (Kitzur Mizrochi) answers in the name of the Ramban that it was in order that Moshe would see Hashem’s zealousness on behalf of his honor. In the name of the Baal HaIkarim he answers that since they were not then ready for prophecy, for they had been somewhat ostracized, they would not have been able to receive the spirit of prophecy without Moshe.

ויצאו שניהם AND THEY BOTH WENT FORTH — And why did He bid them go further and so separate them from Moses? Because there is a rule that one should utter only a part of a man’s good qualities in his presence, but that the whole of them should be told only in his absence. Similarly we find in the case of Noah, that in his absence (i.e. when Scripture speaks about him) it says of him: “a righteous and whole-hearted man” (Genesis 6:9), whilst in his presence (i.e. where God is speaking to Noah) it states, (Genesis 7:1) “for thee I have seen righteous before me”, (and it does not add: whole-hearted) (Sifrei Bamidbar 102). — Another explanation is: God bid only Aaron and Miriam to draw near in order that he (Moses) should not hear the reprimand administered to Aaron.

שמעו נא דברי HEAR, I PRAY YOU, MY WORDS — The word נא is always an expression of entreaty (Sifrei Bamidbar 103).

IF THERE BE ‘NEVI’ACHEM’ [literally “your prophet”] - if there be a prophet “among you,” as Onkelos rendered it [“if there be prophets among you”]. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that the meaning thereof is: “if there be among you a prophet, a prophet of the Eternal,²⁸³The Hebrew text reads: Im yih’yeh nevi’achem Hashem. Ibn Ezra explains it by adding the word navi (prophet), which is in construct with Hashem — “the prophet of the Eternal.” The reason why Ibn Ezra is forced to do so is because when a noun is in construct it cannot have a pronoun as a suffix, and here it says nevi’achem Hashem, the word nevi’achem having such a pronoun as a suffix. Hence Ibn Ezra adds the word navi (the prophet of), to be in construct with the noun Hashem. The sense of the verse is thus: Im yih’yeh nevi’achem ‘nevi’ Hashem. as in [the expression] and the prophecy of Oded the prophet.”²⁸⁴II Chronicles 15:8. The meaning thereof is: “and the prophecy, a prophecy of Oded the prophet.” The point here is that a noun which is in the construct cannot have the prefix hei, which indicates the definite article. Here it is stated: v’hanevua Oded. Hence Ibn Ezra explains it by adding the word nevuath (a prophecy of), making the sense of the phrase: “and the prophecy, a prophecy of Oded the prophet.” He has explained it well. Thus the meaning of the verse is that “even if there is a prophet among you who is a [true] prophet of the Eternal, he can only prophesy by My Great Name through a vision or in riddles.” He mentions this [“if he be a true prophet of the Eternal”] because many prophets did not attain even this [stage], but were prophets by virtue of the Holy Spirit, as it is said, The spirit of the Eternal spoke by me,²⁸⁵II Samuel 23:2. this being the “hand” mentioned in connection with Ezekiel,²⁸⁶Ezekiel 1:3. [and the hand of the Eternal was there upon him] etc. as is explained in the words of Zechariah.²⁸⁷“Most of his messages were in riddles and parables and through an angel; but he was nonetheless a prophet as he attained to Divine vision” (Abusaula).

אם יהיה נביאכם, if Moses were a prophet on the same spiritual level as you presumed when you said: “G’d spoke to us also,”

שמעו נא דברי, "please listen to My word, etc." Why did G'd have to preface His words with this introduction? Was it not a foregone conclusion that the people addressed would listen carefully to what G'd had to say? Furthermore, why did G'd have to add the word נא, "please?" Since when does the master address the servant by imploring him to listen to what he has to say?

נביאכם, same as נבואתכם, “your prophecy.”

אם יהיה נביאכם, “if there will be a prophet amongst you, etc.” According to Nachmanides these words mean: ‘if you will have a prophet amongst you.” (Just as Onkelos translates the words) Ibn Ezra reads the words אם יהיה נביאכם ה' as a single sequence, i.e. “if among you there is a prophet of Hashem, etc.”

אם יהיה נביאכם ה', The meaning is similar to Chronicles II 15,8: והנבואה עודד הנביא, “the prophecy was that of Oded the prophet.” The meaning of our verse is: “even if someone amongst you is a prophet of the Lord he does not prophesy using My Ineffable Name, but through mediums such as mirrors, riddles, etc.” Your prophetic inspirations are transmitted by what is known as רוח הקדש, “Holy Spirit.” We find a reference to this level of prophecy in Samuel II 23,2 רוח ה' דבר בי, “the spirit of the Lord spoke through me” (David speaking). This was also the same as the יד ה' which the prophet Ezekiel describes as speaking to him (on occasion). [We know that Ezekiel had also attained a higher level of prophecy when he had visions. Ed.]
The fact that the Torah writes במראה אליו אתודע, “I will be known to him by means of a mirror,” instead of writing במראה אליו אראה, “I will be visible to him by means of a mirror,” may be compared to Exodus 63, where the Torah did not write as we could have expected ואתודע אל אברהם ואל יצחק, but wrote וארא אל אברהם ואל יצחק instead. The emphasis in both verses is on the fact that neither category of prophet experienced that בשמי הגדול אתודע, “that I revealed Myself to him directly my means of My Ineffable Name.”
When G’d said that communications with prophets on a lower level than Moses took place in a dream, He meant that seeing Moses was familiar with all of G’d’s attributes, he did not need to be addressed in a dream in order to lower the impact of such a revelation on his psychological equilibrium as he was already נאמן בכל ביתי, “fully trusted i.e. “at home,” in “My entire House.” Basically, G’d taught Miriam and Aaron a lesson in the difference between the prophetic stature of Moses and that of other prophets including themselves.

נא is interpreted strictly as a request. Meaning that even though Hashem’s anger flared against them and left, נא is nonetheless interpreted strictly as a request, and Hashem spoke to them gently. For if Hashem had spoken to them angrily, His words would not have been accepted. Thus one may learn a kal vachomer (a fortiori argument) to mortals; that they also should speak gently.

V. 6. אם יהיה נביאכם: wäre er, Mosche, euer Prophet, d. h. der Prophet, wie ihr ihn eben euch dachtet. Oder: wäre er ein Prophet euresgleichen, gehörte er als Prophet zu euch. — בַמַרְאָה, unterschieden von מראה (V. 8) מראה-ist das direkt, unvermittelt Gesehene, עץ נחמד למראה. (Bereschit 2, 9). שה יפת מראה Bereschit 12. 11 u. f.). מראָה ist das im Reflex, im Wiederschein Gesehene, daher der Spiegel (Schmot 38. 8). In zweifacher Beziehung ist dessen Prophetie nicht unmittelbar, sondern vermittelt: objektiv und subjektiv. Objektiv: das Göttliche, das ihm kund wird, erblickt er nicht direkt, sondern reflektiert, wie im Spiegel. Er hat auf den sich ihm Kundgebenden aus einer Erscheinung zu schließen, in welcher er sich ihm offenbart. Subjektiv: nicht in dem gewöhnlichen wachen Zustand, in welchem seine wahrnehmenden Sinne unter der Herrschaft seiner bewussten Aktion stehen, sondern בחלום אדבר בו, ein Zustand traumartiger Aktivität ist es, in welchem er fähig wird, das an ihn gerichtete Gotteswort zu vernehmen, um es sich nachher wach reflektierend zu vergegenwärtigen. Das Göttliche lässt sich in Vermittlung zu ihm hinab und hebt ihn aus seinem gewöhnlichen Zustand hinaus, wann Sein Wort an ihn gelangen soll. Beides Gründe, weshalb sein sonstiges Leben das sittlich-sinnlich normale bleiben kann und keiner Beschränkung bedarf.

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

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

אם יהיה נביאכם means, IF THERE WOULD BE PROPHETS TO YOU (i.e. if you had a prophet — if you could show one to me).

IN A VISION I DO MAKE MYSELF KNOWN TO HIM. Scripture does not say: “I will appear to him in a vision,” but it says ‘I will make Myself known.’ This verse is then similar to the one which states, And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as G-d Almighty,²⁸⁸Exodus 6:3. [the verse here] stating that the Great Name appears in a vision and through it He becomes known to the prophet, but [the prophet does not know Him]²⁸⁹Abusaula. by His Great Name, just as He said, but by My Name the Eternal I made Me not known to them.²⁸⁸Exodus 6:3. And Scripture stated [further] that the communication is in a vision, but My servant Moses is not so, for in all My house in which the prophets see dreams, he is trusted,²⁹⁰Verse 7. knowing of his own accord all the [Divine] attributes, and from mouth to mouth²⁹¹Verse 8. the communication comes to him from Me, and he beholds the similitude,²⁹¹Verse 8. not in a dream. In the words of the Sifre:²⁹²Sifre Beha’alothcha 103. “And the similitude of the Eternal doth he behold.²⁹¹Verse 8. This refers to the vision of ‘the back.’”²⁹³See Exodus 33:23.
Thus Scripture here teaches us the difference between the Divine communication received by Moses and that of the other prophets of his generation, in the same way that it mentioned this [difference between him and] those who preceded him [as it says in the verse], And I appeared unto Abraham, etc.,²⁸⁸Exodus 6:3. as I have explained; and likewise it mentions at the end of the Torah in relation to those who came after him, And there hath not arisen a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Eternal knew face to face,²⁹⁴Deuteronomy 34:10. the intention being the same in all these places. Do not be disquieted by the statement of the Rabbis²⁹⁵Rosh Hashanah 25b. See my Hebrew commentary p. 240, Note 72, concerning the source of the statement. concerning Samuel, that he was equal to Moses, as it is written, Though Moses and Samuel stood before Me, yet My mind could not be toward this people,²⁹⁶Jeremiah 15:1. since it is because G-d mentioned Samuel together with Moses that our Rabbis considered it an indication of his [Samuel’s] greatness, but not that they were comparing the prophecies [of Moses and Samuel] to each other — far it be for them [to say so]! And the intention of this verse [which mentions Moses and Samuel together is as follows]: He mentioned Moses because he stood before Him in the breach, to turn back His wrath, lest He should destroy them,²⁹⁷Psalms 106:23. both at the [incident of the] golden calf and that of the spies, when the people were in danger of destruction; and so Scripture also mentioned Samuel, because this verse is in connection with the drought²⁹⁸Jeremiah 14:1. when they needed rain, and He said, Are there any among the vanities of the nations that can cause rain? etc.²⁹⁹Ibid., Verse 22. Thus G-d said that even if Samuel — the prophet who brought rain when it was not due, in the days of the wheat-harvest³⁰⁰I Samuel 12:17. — were to stand [in prayer] before Him, He would not listen to him to bring it for these people in their time of trouble. Thus Scripture mentioned the great men of the tribe whom G-d chose to minister unto Him, and to bless in His Name,³⁰¹Deuteronomy 10: 8. — Both Moses and Samuel were of the tribe of Levi. who prayed for Israel. This is also the sense of the verse which says, Moses and Aaron among His priests, and Samuel among them that call upon His Name.³⁰²Psalms 99:6.

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

במראה אליו אתודע, “even though he may be endowed by My attribute Hashem, he will not be able to reveal matters pertaining to this attribute of Mine, but will refer to emanations of Mine of a lower order.” This will become clear, as I will not speak to him when he is awake but I will communicate with him as a dream, in a manner that is indirect. The Torah was careful not to write במראה אליו אראה, “I will become visible to him in a vision,” but במראה אליו אתודע, “I will make Myself known to Him as some sort of vision.” This relegates any audible revelation to one that occurs in a dream. [Whatever the prophet thinks he hears, he only hears in his dream. Ed]

You will have. The verse implies that the prophets will be Hashem, therefore Rashi explains “if you will have prophets” and that the word “Hashem” is read together with “I will make Myself known to him in a vision.”

G'd wanted to make clear that when He had spoken to them in very friendly tones, i.e. ויאמר, previously, they had not been worthy to be addressed at all seeing they were still ritually impure. It was only now, after they had purified themselves, that they had become fit to be spoken to by G'd. The whole episode is a lesson to a servant to hold himself in readiness at times when his master is apt to require his services. All of this taught them why Moses had been duty bound to separate from his wife. How else was he able to keep himself in constant readiness when G'd would want to speak to him? This also provides us with an answer to the basic question why G'd did not spell out to Aaron and Miriam the reason why Moses had separated from his wife.

ה׳ במראה אליו אתודע This means: the Shechinah (the Divine Glory) of my Name does not reveal Itself unto him in a “transparent glass” (i.e. a direct revelation), but in dreams and visions (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 103).

The Divine Presence of My Name. In saying “the Divine Presence of My Name” Rashi teaches that the meaning of “Hashem” is as if the Torah had said “I am Hashem.” For if not so, it should have said “He will make Himself known.”

We may also explain the words שמעו נא to mean that G'd announced that now they were about to be castigated and to be disciplined. In this instance G'd addressed them personally rather than that He gave them the message through Moses for two reasons. 1) Since Moses was personally involved in the matter under discussion. 2) It was in the nature of things that G'd wanted to discuss the matter with Aaron and Miriam privately, not in the presence of Moses who would have found it embarassing. G'd also wanted to make clear that Aaron and Miriam qualified for only this part of what G'd had to say, as G'd had no other way of telling them. Anything else that G'd had to say He would say only to Moses. This would show that they had been wrong in claiming that G'd spoke to them also. Our sages in Bamidbar Rabbah 14,19 state that whenever the Torah writes: "G'd spoke to Moses and to Aaron," the meaning is not that G'd addressed both Moses and Aaron simultaneously, but that Moses was to communicate to Aaron what He had said to him. This is what is hinted at here when the Torah wrote the word נא.

The reason the Torah added the word דברי, "My words," something that appears totally superfluous, is to impress upon Miriam and Aaron that though they had prophesied on previous occasions the communication they were about to receive from G'd now was on a different level from anything they had experienced previously. G'd stresses this immediately when He refers to the nature of their prophetic insights with the words אם יהיה נביאכם השם.

It is also possible that G'd hinted to them that this would be the last time He would communicate with them directly. The fact that they were about to receive a communication on a more direct level than ever before did not mean that they had suddenly qualified for a higher level of prophecy and that they would continue to receive communications from G'd directly.

Still another meaning implied by the word נא is that it refers to their impurity. Normally, when one has suffered ritual impurity through contact with semen and has purified oneself, one is not fit to eat Terumah until nightfall (Leviticus 22,6). A prophet who is the recipient of Holy Spirit most certainly is not fit to receive same until after he has waited until sunset after his ritual immersion. The reason is that G'd's Holy Spirit should not be perceived as on a lower level of sanctity than the Terumah which the priest may eat. G'd said: שמעו נא דברי, "listen to My words nonetheless already now," i.e. this is an exception, an emergency; this is why I have decided to let you hear My words even though the sun has not set yet since your immersion in a ritual bath. G'd hinted that His loving concern for Moses was such that He would not wait until the morrow to rectify the mistaken impression Miriam and Aaron had of their level as prophets compared to Moses. When we find in Bereshit Rabbah 55,11 that אהבה מקלקלת השורה, this means that a loving relationship between two people is apt to interfere with accepted rules. G'd applied this principle here. He addressed Miriam and Aaron "prematurely."

אם יהיה נביאכם, "if there be a prophet amongst you, etc;" G'd refrained from addressing Miriam and Aaron directly by saying אם תהיו נביאים, "if indeed you are prophets, etc." Seeing that Miriam and Aaron themselves had implied that there were other prophets apart from themselves (as we mentioned earlier they referred to the patriarchs) G'd was careful to include also those prophets in His remarks. Perhaps the reason G'd used the singular יהיה instead of the plural יהיו was to emphasise still further the uniqueness of Moses as a prophet.

השם במראה אליו אתודע, "I, the Lord, make Myself known to him through a vision." G'd spells out to us the difference between other prophets' perceptive powers and the perceptive powers of Moses. There are three elements to prophecy. 1) the attainment of a vision. 2) The time when the prophet is granted any vision, i.e. is he able to receive transmission of G'd's word by means of a vision at any time, i.e. whenever the prophet feels the need to communicate with G'd, or is he dependent on certain times, i.e. only when G'd takes the initiative in communicating with the prophet. 3) Can the prophet attain a verbal communication from G'd at his request? (I will explain this in detail).

G'd first speaks about the kind of communications which certain prophets receive by describing them as מראה, vision. There are three levels of recognising G'd. The highest level is one that does not require prophetic insight. It is that which Moses requested in Exodus 33,18 when He asked: "please show me Your ways." At that time the word נא meant that Moses wanted to become privy to the kind of information about G'd that is normally only granted to the soul after it has departed from the body. Moses was quite familiar with the insights which the righteous would be granted after death. G'd denied this request saying that it is impossible for a living human being to gain those insights. That level of insight is equivalent to the recipient experiencing Divine light directly. Moses' level of prophecy was restricted to aural perception, i.e. G'd spoke to him and his ears heard. His (physical) eyes did not see a communication. A second (next lower) level of communication from G'd is one in which G'd radiates some light resulting in the recipient "receiving" a picture, תמונה. This "picture" has nothing in common with the way we normally understand the term "picture." It is the kind of "picture" which no living being other than Moses can perceive with his mind's eye. This is why Moses is described as ותמונת השם יביט, "he can view a picture from G'd." A third level is one in which the recipient perceives a light which emanates from G'd and the source of which seems to be very distant. It appears to a person like a candle which seems able to provide light over a great distance. This is what the Torah referred to here as the מראה. It is this which prophets other than Moses perceived. The Torah calls this "מאמר ה׳ במראה" "a word of G'd by means of a vision seen with the eye." By contrast, Moses is described as "looking at a picture from G'd."

Concerning the time when G'd would manifest Himself to different kinds of prophets, the Torah says אליו אתודע, that these "minor" prophets are not able to attain a vision whenever they want; they have to wait patiently until G'd is ready to reveal a communication to them." Moses, on the other hand, could receive communications at all times as described in Numbers 9,8 where he told the people that he would receive instructions from G'd as soon as he asked. Moses did not display the slightest doubt that G'd would respond to him as soon as he asked. Other prophets with whom G'd communicated on a lower level, could not even be certain that G'd would respond to them when they wanted on that lower level. Moses, on the other hand, though he expected a communication on a higher level, could be certain of receiving same whenever he desired. This is what G'd meant when He said בכל ביתי נאמן הוא, "he is trusted in all My house." Moses was at home in the celestial domain and had the run of that "house."

Concerning the matter of a verbal communication from G'd to a prophet, G'd told Miriam and Aaron that whereas all prophets other than Moses received such communications only in a dream, not so Moses. He was fully awake, his mind was clear when he received such verbal communications from G'd. He did not have to reassure himself if he had correctly understood what he heard while dreaming. Secondly, whatever G'd relates to a prophet in a dream is not to be understood literally, but is in the nature of a parable, or image. The Torah has told us of numerous dreams which were prophetic communications to the person dreaming them and all of which required an expert to interpret them. [Jacob needed G'd to tell him over 20 years after the event that what he had dreamt about the ladder had been a prophecy and not merely a dream (compare Rabbi Yitzchak Arama on the subject). Ed.] The prophets other than Moses were mentally overwhelmed when they experienced such prophetic dreams. When G'd speaks about appearing to prophets בחלום, this does not mean that they actually dream; rather, it describes the impact of G'd's communications to such prophets being similar to that of people who experience a dream while asleep. G'd always communicated with His prophets while the latter were awake. Only Moses was able to maintain his regular posture when G'd communicated with him; he did not prostrate himself or go into convulsions as did other prophets. Neither did he receive such communications in the form of a riddle or parable. Every communication Moses received from G'd was crystal clear, requiring no further elaboration. This is what the Torah means when it describes such communication as פה אל פה אדבר בו, "I speak with him mouth to mouth." All the Israelites saw that all the 53 times the Torah reports G'd as speaking to Moses (and to communicate what He said to them) the message was crystal clear and could be understood by anyone with a command of the Hebrew language. The same applies to all the wealth of wisdom contained in the written Torah. Anyone who immerses himself in that part of the Torah will find that he can understand it. This contrasts with the writings of Isaiah and Jeremiah many of which are extremely obscure, full of parables and enigmas. What did Ezekiel mean by the "great eagle" in chapter 17, for instance? The prophecies of the so-called minor prophets such as Zachariah are even harder to unravel so that none of us can be certain of the events to which these prophecies relate.

We need to examine why the prophecies given to Moses were all so clear whereas those granted to the afore-mentioned prophets appear so confused. Kabbalists explain that the phenomenon of man being a composite of body and spirit is bound to prevent him from being able to receive undiluted spiritual input. Any attempt to subject man to such additional spiritual input upsets the fragile equilibrium between the forces of body and spirit which constitute a human being. After all, we observe in nature that such opposites as fire and water cannot coexist peacefully except in heaven seeing that the Creator Himself has arranged it so in His domain. It is only natural, therefore, that when a human being is called upon by G'd his body will tremble, be subject to convulsions, etc. The only human being able to retain his composure when thus addressed by G'd is one who has succeeded in transforming the material part of himself into a צורה, into the perfect state G'd has created it in, as we have described on numerous occasions. Once man has achieved this, his body is no longer a hindrance to his receiving communications from G'd and he will be able to do so as a matter of course. When there are no people around who meet these specifications and G'd has found Israel worthy to receive prophetic communications, He has no choice but to choose someone to whom He transmits His word in a manner which upsets the body and mind of the recipient. As a result the world abounded with prophets who had to receive their messages in the form of parables and riddles so that the equilibrium of their bodies and minds would not be permanently upset. The reason that we find that Zachariah's prophecies were even more enigmatic than those of his predecessors is that he was the last of the prophets. Subsequent generations did not create an environment in which G'd saw fit to communicate His word to prophets anymore.

When G'd spoke about His communications to Moses being "mouth to mouth," He meant that His word did not have to travel through the airwaves or some other part of the atmosphere which diluted it (and therefore made it unclear) in order to make it accessible to less than perfect man. When G'd emphasises that His word did appear to Moses as a מראה, a clear vision, this means that Moses did not have to go into convulsions, etc., when he received communications from G'd. He, G'd, could show Moses a clear vision and Moses could behold it and understand it without it being distorted.

When the Torah adds: ולא בחידות, "not by means of riddles," this is an elaboration of how G'd's word reached Moses. The Torah is careful not to say פה אל אזן, that G'd's word travelled from G'd's mouth to Moses' ear, but פה אל פה, "mouth to mouth." Solomon (Kings I 3,9) asked G'd to grant him לב שומע, "a listening heart" to enable him to divine the truth behind the claims of litigants, etc. He aspired to the highest level of prophecy. The Torah speaks of G'd communicating with Moses as אדבר בו, "I speak within him" instead of the customary אדבר אתו, "I speak with him." This formulation also means that no one else was privy to the fact that G'd spoke to Moses. [This is in contrast to our tradition that all prophets who lived at a particular time received the same communication at the same time as the prophet whom G'd commanded to transmit the prophecy to the people or to the king. Ed.]

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

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

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

V. 7. לא כן עבדי משה, nicht so mein Diener, nicht so Mosche. Nicht so mein "Diener", er ist mehr als Prophet, er steht permanent in meinem Dienste, und ist "Mosche", ist dies in der ganzen Einzigkeit seiner Persönlichkeit, die ihn menschlich über alle anderen Menschen erhebt. בכל ביתי נאמן הוא. Haben wir eine Ahnung dessen, was mit dieser Aussage gesagt sei, so wäre es: er hat zu allem unverhüllt und unverschlossen Zutritt. Was überhaupt im Gottes Welthaushalt dem Sterblichen erkennbar ist, dessen unverhüllte und unverschlossene, somit unmittelbare und volle Erkenntnis ist ihm gewährt. Dem Diener eines Hauses, der nicht "in dem ganzen, mit dem ganzen Hause betraut" ist, ist manches örtlich und sachlich unzugänglich. Von manchem hat er vielleicht nicht einmal eine Ahnung, dass es da sei. Von manchem weiß er, dass es da sei, vielleicht auch wo es sei, er hat es aber nie selbst gesehen, oder nur verhüllt gesehen. Es erfüllt ihn eine Ahnung dessen, was das Haus enthält, er kann seine Ahnung auch in Worte gestalten und sein Wort kann auch andere zu gleich ahnender Erkenntnis bringen, und in gehobenen Momenten enthüllt ihm der Hausherr manches, was ihm sonst verschlossen blieb, auf dass er auch den Brüdern draußen von des Herrn Herrlichkeit im Hause Kunde bringe. Nicht so der, der בכל ביתו נאמן ist. Er wandelt immer im Lichte des Hauses. Sein ist die stete, unverkürzte, unverhüllte Erkenntnis. —

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

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

פה אל פה MOUTH TO MOUTH [I HAVE SPOKEN WITH HIM] — I have Myself told him to separate from his wife. And where did I tell him this? On Sinai, when I said to him, (Deuteronomy 5:27 Deuteronomy 5:28) “Go, say to them (to the people), ‘Get you into your tents (rejoin your wives). But as for thee, remain thou here by Me, [and I will speak unto thee]’” (Shabbat 87a; cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 103).

This is the meaning of the expression פה אל פה אדבר בו, “I speak to him as if one mouth to another mouth.” When he experiences prophetic insights he does not have to take leave of his senses and be put to sleep so that his senses have first become neutralised.

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

פה אל פה אדבר בו, “I speak to him mouth to mouth, etc.” The meaning of these words is that G’d communicates with Moses without an angel as an intermediary. The word ומראה means: “I show him matters as they are in reality.” Just as G’d had shown Moses an illustration of the Tabernacle and it served as his blueprint, so whenever G’d speaks to Moses He illustrates matters for him in an unmistakable manner. Of the illustration (in the sky) of the Tabernacle the Torah had told us in Exodus 25,40: וראה ועשה בתבניתם, “see and make according to their form.”

I told him to separate. You might ask: We say (Shabbos 87a) that Moshe did three things on his own accord and Hashem agreed with him. One of these was that he separated from his wife, implying that Hashem did not command him to do so. See Tosafos Yevamos 82.

V. 8. פה אל פה .פה אל פה אדבר בו bezeichnet, im Gegensatz zu der V. 6 angedeuteten objektiven (במראָה) und subjektiven (בחלום) Vermittlung, die objektive und subjektive Unmittelbarkeit der Offenbarung. פה spricht mit ihm, und spricht mit ihm in einem Zustande, in welchem er selber פה, sprachfähig ist, also nicht במראה und nicht ומראה .כחלום: wessen er bewusst werden soll, das wird ihm in unverhüllter Unmittelbarkeit zur Anschauung gebracht, ולא בחירות, er hat es sich nicht erst aus einer vermittelnden Erscheinung, aus einem Symbol zu erschließen. חידה, Wurzel אחודה נא לכם חידה) חוד Richter 14, 12; חוד חידה ומשל משל Ezech. 17, 2) lautverwandt mit אות ,אוד, den Begriffen mechanischer und geistiger Vermittlung (siehe Bereschit 1, 1). ותמונת ד׳ יביט, nicht ד׳ במראה אליו אתודע (siehe Bereschit 1, 11).

This example shows that God can see all of the world just as Moshe sees. And if he knows, he knew what they said about him. They did not find it in their hearts to tell him [directly] to his face. And because of this God rebuked that also now, it was as if they had spoken to his face.

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

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

ומראה ולא בחידת AND IN A מראה AND NOT IN RIDDLES — When it says מראה, this refers to the clearness of the Divine communication, i.e. that I express My communication unto him in the clearest form in which it can be put and do not obscure it in riddles, as e.g. was the manner in which it was said to Ezekiel: (Ezekiel 17:2), “Put forth a riddle etc.” — One might, however, think that it refers to the “appearance of the Shechinah” (i.e. that he saw God)! It, however, states, (Exodus 33:20) “Thou cannot see My face” (Sifrei Bamidbar 103).

ומראה, a clear vision (masculine mode of the word), something our sages refer to as “a clear picture, visual image.” (compare Yevamot 49).

בעבדי במשה, “against My servant, against Moses.” Our sages in Tanchuma Tzav 13 comment on the emphasis on both these words that even if My servant were not Moses you have no right to speak against him. Seeing that he is of the stature of Moses you have even less right to speak against him.

I am not aware. You might ask: How did it occur to Hashem that Aharon and Miriam would speak in this way? The answer is that it was because they said “Is it only to Moshe that Hashem has spoken? Did He not also speak with us?” yet we have not abstained from marital relations. Why did Rashi add “… from marital relations”? — because it was a product of their haughtiness. They said “the Divine Presence rests upon him, but since Scripture writes “I will rest upon the contrite and the humble” (Yeshayahu 57:15), given that Moshe is haughty, why then does the Divine Presence rest upon him? It is as if Hashem is not aware that he is haughty.” Consequently Rashi says that this statement is worse than the first, and this is also why it is written here “the man Moshe was exceedingly modest” (v. 3) – in response to what Aharon and Miriam said that Moshe was haughty. This is in contrast to the explanation of Re’m who expounds this from the extra beis of בעבדי (about my servant). However, this presents a difficulty: Why not expound the extra lamed in לעבדך ליעקב “to your servant, to Yaakov” (Bereishis 32:19) and also לאדוני לעשו “to my master, to Eisav” (ibid. v. 5)? He brings a different [version of Rashi’s] text there in order to answer the difficulty, but according to our explanation it is not necessary to modify our version of Rashi.

ומדוע לא יראתם וגו׳, wie habt ihr es gewagt, euch mit עבדי, mit Mosche in Parallele zu stellen, von euch auf עבדי, auf משה zu schließen, habt ihr beurteilen zu können vermeint, was עבדי, was משה gezieme!

ותמנת ה' יביט AND THE SIMILITUDE OF THE LORD DID HE BEHOLD — This refers to beholding the after-effects of God’s Providence, just as it is stated, (Exodus 33:22 Exodus 33:23) “[And it shall be when My glory passeth by] thou shalt see what is behind Me” (Sifrei Bamidbar 103).

ולא בחידות, neither in riddles, such as parables, sometimes even having to be helped to understand the meaning of the parables. (Zecharyah 4,5) Other prophets understood such parables without an angel being needed to help them, such as Jeremiah 1,12 who was told that he had correctly understood the vision which had been granted him in the form of a parable. Bileam also sometimes revealed the parable he himself had been shown as the Divine message (Numbers 23,7) he was revealing.

בעבדי במשה [WHY WERE YE NOT AFRAID TO SPEAK] AGAINST MY SERVANT, AGAINST MOSES — It does not state “against My servant Moses”, but “against My servant, against Moses”, which suggests: why were ye not afraid to speak against My servant, even though he were not a Moses; and why were ye not afraid to speak against a Moses — even though he were not My servant — in either of these cases you ought to have feared him! How much the more ought you to be afraid to speak against him (Moses) he being also My servant — and the servant of a king is a king (a noble person) himself! You should have said: The King does not love him without reason! — But if you reply that I am not cognizant of his doings (i. e. that I love him though he does not deserve it, since I am not aware of his treatment of his wife) — then this statement is even worse than your previous one (Midrash Tanchuma, Tzav 13; cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 103).

ותמונת ה' יביט, all of the aforementioned Moses experiences as a direct communication from G’d in His capacity as “hashem, i.e. the Essence.” He was distinct from Bileam who received the message not clearly formulated but only expressed in the guise of a parable.

ומדוע לא יראתם, if you have not been afraid to speak as you did this could only be due to something evil in your heart. For, if you thought that I am certainly aware of Moses’ deeds you must have mistakenly concluded that I find pleasure in the wicked. This is exactly the reverse of what you should have been thinking. You should have thought that in view of Moses’ position and the miracles he performed in My name that I would not have allowed him to do this unless I had thought that he was worthy of such a lofty position. If, perchance, you thought that I am unaware of Moses’ past deeds and that you know more about this than I do, and that is why I considered him fit for his lofty position whereas in fact he is not, you would be far more guilty of an error than the error you kept accusing Moses of.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V. 10. והענן וגו׳ והנה מרים מצרעת כשלג ויפן אהרן אל מרים והנה מצרעת. In dem Momente, in welchem die Wolke vom Zelte gewichen war, והנה, sah man, dass Mirjam schneeweiß aussätzig war. Als Aharon sich hinwandte und den Aussatz näher ansah, והנה, erkannte er, dass der Aussatz jene נגע-Art des im Gesetze besprochenen צרעת war, die den davon Betroffenen, als von dem göttlichen Unwillen betroffen, kennzeichnet (siehe Wajikra Ende Kapitel 13).

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

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

בי אדני אל נא תשת עלינו תטאת, "please my lord, do not lay a sin upon us, etc." It is clear from Aaron's words that he believed Moses had felt slighted by their comments. This is why he pleaded with him to forgive them their sin. It appears that Aaron reasoned that Moses would view himself as a חכם, merely a wise man who is legally entitled to waive his honour so that those who slighted it could be forgiven. Aaron presumed that forgiveness by Moses would result in the Tzoraat being cured. Accordingly, Aaron said: "though you have been offended by our words so much that we have been punished on their account, now that we have suffered the punishment please forgive us so that we will no longer be guilty of this sin." The truth of the matter was that Moses had not felt offended at all. The Torah demonstrated this by writing how humble a person Moses was specifically at this juncture. This was to show that Aaron had been wrong in his whole assumption.

V. 11. אל נא תשת עלינו חטאת וגו׳. Der Sinn dieser Bitte ist nicht ganz klar; da er gesteht, dass sie gesündigt haben, so ist schwer einzusehen, was mit der Bitte אל נא וגו׳ gemeint sei. Haben sie gesündigt, so ruht die Sünde auf ihnen. Vielleicht liegt die Bitte im Ausdrucke אל נא תשת שוב ähnlich wie אם כפר יושת עליו (Schmot 21, 30) und hieße es: lasse nicht Sünde auf uns lasten, lege das, was wir gesündigt haben, nicht als zu büßende Sünde auf uns. Möglich auch, dass es im Zusammenhange mit dem vorhergehenden ויפן אהרן וגו׳ והנה מצרעת also zu fassen sei: lasse uns nicht als Sünde aufgeprägt sein (durch das kennzeichnende נגע), was wir unüberlegt getan. (נאלנו: siehe zu Schmot 2, 21.)

The reason why Miriam and Aaron were punished is twofold. 1) Moses could not be treated merely as a חכם, a sage, but had to be accorded the status of a king. (This is based on Deut. 33,5 that Moses was king amongst the people called Yeshurun). A king is not allowed to waive the honour due him; therefore Moses could not have forgiven the insult even if he had felt like doing so. Moreover, this may even have been what G'd alluded to when He described Moses as His servant in verse 8. According to the Talmud in Shavuot 47 the king's servant is to be accorded a status similar to that of the king himself. Seeing that Moses was the servant of the King of Kings, he too was to be accorded Royal status.

2) I have already explained that G'd was very concerned at the fact that Miriam and Aaron had suspected their brother of serious wrongdoing. If G'd had not rebuked and disciplined them it would have given them the impression that G'd Himself condoned and agreed with their criticism of Moses. This is why G'd had to punish them even though Moses had not even felt offended. Moses was justified in not praying immediately that the Tzoraat be removed seeing he had not been its cause, as he had not even felt slighted by Miriam and Aaron's remarks. Had the matter been up to Moses he would not have had to pray. All he would have had to do would be to forgive (if he had felt insulted) and the Tzoraat would have disappeared. Under the circumstances, his prayer would not become effective until after seven days had elapsed. Clearly the punishment was due to either or both of the reasons we have mentioned. We cannot imagine how much more severe the punishment would have been if Moses had indeed felt offended by Miriam and Aaron's criticism of his conduct vis-a-vis Tzipporah.

אשר נואלנו ואשר חטאנו, "for we have acted foolishly and have sinned." Both expressions refer to their error when comparing their level of prophecy to that of Moses. G'd's reaction had made it plain to them that the comparison of their prophetic powers to those of Moses had been foolish; the fact that they accused Moses of not having marital relations with his wife had been sinful.

אל נא תהי LET NOT our sister BE —

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

אל נא תהי כמת, for reasons of your own honour and dignity do not allow yourself to become as if dead, for when someone who has been born from the same womb as your mother would be dead it is as if half of your own flesh is already dead.

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

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

Just as the dead cause ritual defilement when entering. For it is written, “anything that comes into the tent and anything that is in the tent shall be defiled” (Bamidbar 19:14) and concerning the leper it is written, “that which comes into the house for all of the days of its confinement shall be defiled” (Vayikra 14:46).

V. 12. מצורע חשוב כמת .אל נא תהי כמת (siehe Wajikra 13, 46). מה (ספרי) המת מטמא באהל אף מצורע מטמא בביאה, durch das נגע trägt sie das Zeichen des Ausschlusses aus aller sozialen Gemeinsamkeit, und da wie im ספרי bemerkt wird, außer Aharon und seinen Söhnen, kein כהן da war, der sie der gesetzlichen Behandlung לסוגרה לטמאה ולטהרה unterziehen und sie so der טהרה wieder entgegenbringen konnte, weil קרובים פסולים לראות נגעים, eben darum aber auch, wie man glauben sollte, ihre טומאה und in deren Folge ihre Absonderung gar nicht hätte eintreten können, die ja ebenfalls nur in Folge des Ausspruchs eines כהן in Wirksamkeit tritt (siehe Wajikra 13, 3): so dürfte hier in dem gegebenen Falle der טמא-Charakter des נגע schon durch Gott bekundet gewesen sein, ohne dass es noch des Ausspruchs des כהן bedurft hätte, und konnte ihre wieder zu erlangende טהרה ebenfalls nur unmittelbar durch Gottesausspruch geschehen, da ein כהן המטהר nicht vorhanden war. So auch הב׳׳ה :ספרי הב׳׳ה הסגירה והב׳׳ה טימאה והב׳׳ה טיהרה (siehe Sebachim 102a). — אשר בצאתו מרחם אמו. Das Pronomen in בצאתו bezieht sich auf מת, das in אמו und בשרו auf אדני, und spricht in der dritten Person von dem Angeredeten im Ausdruck ehrerbietiger Unterwürfigkeit, יעבר נא אדני ,אדני ידע (Bereschit 33, 14 u.f.) und wechselt in solchen Anreden die dritte und zweite Person häufig (vergl. Sam. 11. 14, 11). יזכר נא המלך את ד׳ אלדיך ebenso im weitere n Verfolg daselbst ויאכל חצי בשרו, wie אחינו בשרנו הוא (Bereschit 37, 27. ספרי). Der Deutlichkeit willen haben wir אמו und בשרו in der zweiten Person übersetzt. Aharon appelliert an Mosche Brudergefühl, sie sei ja seine leibliche Schwester. Verbliebe sie in diesem leichenhaften Zustand der Abgestorbenheit, so wäre ja sein eigen Fleisch verwest!

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

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

כמת AS ONE WHO IS DEAD — Aaron said this because a leper may be regarded as dead. How is it in the case of a corpse? It makes one unclean through entering a room in which it lies, So too, does the leper make a person unclean through his entering the place where he is (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 105).

אל נא תהי, do not become like a dead person The meaning of the words אל נא תהי as reflecting on the person addressed and not as the person who is the object of the conversation is also found in Proverbs 22,26, i.e.אל תהי בתוקעי כף, “do not be one of those who gives their hand, etc.” We also find this meaning in Proverbs 24,28 אל תהי עד חמס , “do not become a false witness.” [the author’s principal point is not to understand the word תהי as third person future feminine, but as second person, direct speech masculine. Ed.]

It is unconscionable for a brother. Meaning that even from its plain implication one can explain the verse without the need to say that the Torah uses euphemisms, by saying “his mother” instead of “our mother” and “his flesh” instead of “our flesh.” Thus their words were not directed towards their sister; rather he meant that generally any normal brother would not allow his sister to remain as if dead…

אשר בצאתו מרחם אמו It ought to have stated “אמנו” “of our mother’s womb”, only that Scripture modified the expression. Similarly חצי בשרו — it ought to have said חצי בשרנו “the half of our flesh is consumed”, only that Scripture modified the expression (Scripture uses these expressions with the suffix of the third person singular instead of the first person plural, because it wishes to avoid an ominous expression referring to Aaron and Moses). — The meaning is: Since she came forth from the womb of our own mother she in her present state is to us as though the half of our flesh were consumed. It is the same idea as is expressed in the words, (Genesis 37:27) “for he is our brother, our own flesh” (Sifrei Bamidbar 105). — And even according to what the text literally implies (without assuming any modification) it appears to have that meaning: "It is not right for a brother to allow his sister to remain as a dead person".

Who will confine her. Thus the explanation of “let her not be like the dead” is that she has no hope. Given that she came from our mother’s womb, who will be able to confine her? Consequently it will emerge that half of our flesh will be consumed, since her flesh which is one with our flesh is being consumed and there is no remedy for her ailment.

אשר בצאתו — since he (the dead person) also come out of the womb of the mother of this man who possessed the power to help him and does not help him, — then, indeed, the half of his own flesh becomes consumed if the other perishes, since one’s brother is one’s own flesh. — Another explanation of אל נא תהי כמת in the sense of “Do not let her remain a leper” is: If you (Moses) do not heal her by your prayer, who will put her in quarantine as a leper (cf. Leviticus 13:4) who will ultimately declare her clean? It is impossible for me to examine her as to the character of her leprosy, since I am a near relative and a near relative may not examine the leprous plagues of his kin, (Sifrei Bamidbar 105; cf. Mishnah Negaim 2:5) and there is no other priest in The world who is not her relative. This is alluded to in the words אשר כצאתו מרחם אמו — “since he (the only person who could declare her clean) has come out of the same womb".

אל נא רפא נא לה HEAL HER NOW, O GOD, I BESEECH THEE — Scripture intends to teach you by this form of prayer the correct altitude in social life — that if one is asking a favour of his fellow man he should first say two or three words of supplication and then solicit the favour (Sifrei Bamidbar 105).

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

ויצעק משה אל השם, Moses cried out to G'd, etc. The reason the Torah added the word לאמור, was to tell G'd that he had not felt offended at all and that such an assumption should not result in Miriam and Aaron assuming that he harboured some enmity against them although he wanted Miriam to be cured. It had been Aaron's words in verse 12 which had made Moses feel that he had to indicate that he never harboured any resentment against them.

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

ויצעק משה אל ה', “Moses cried out to the Lord:” he expressed his pain over Miriam’s fate and prayed for her. The reason the Torah continues with the word לאמור, was to tell us that this prayer by Moses was not merely in his heart but that he verbalized it. This is the meaning of Berachot 31 “if someone prays he must move his lips and enunciate the words of his prayer.” The reason is that by moving one’s lips the letters one says assume a certain shape (in the atmosphere) through the use of voice, breath, and verbalising them. When such a prayer has assumed a certain shape it ascends to the celestial regions and arrives in the presence of the Lord.

Answer me. Because the word “saying” is superfluous and the Torah should have said “Moshe cried out to Hashem: Please God [please] heal…!” Rather Moshe said to Him “answer me,” similar to “Moshe spoke…”

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

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

לאמר SAYING (more lit., to say, i.e. that he should say) — What is the force of this word? It means “to say” i.e. that God should say, viz., he (Moses) said to Him, “Answer me whether you are going to heal her or not”, — until at length He replied: “If her father had but spit in her face etc.” Rabbi Eleazer, the son of Azariah, said: In four instances Moses asked the Holy One, blessed be He, to tell him whether He would fulfil his request or not. Similar to the case here is, (Exodus 6:12): “And Moses spoke before the Lord, saying, “[Behold, the children of Israel have not hearkened unto me; how then shall Pharaoh hearken to me]”. What is the force of the word לאמר? — “Answer me whether you will redeem them or not”. Until at length the Lord said unto him, (Exodus 6:1) “Now shalt thou see [What I will do to Pharaoh]”. Similar to this is: (Numbers 27:15—18) “and Moses spake unto the Lord, saying, ‘Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh set a man [over the congregation]’”. He answered him, “Take thee [Joshua the son of Nun, etc.]”. Similar to this is: (Deuteronomy 3:23—26) “And I besought the Lord at that time, saying, [O Lord, God, thou hast begun to show thy servant thy greatness]’ , the Lord replied: “Let it suffice” (Sifrei Bamidbar 105).

אל נא רפא נא לה, “O Lord, please heal her.” The attribute El which Moses prayed to is the one with the power to heal; it is part of the attribute of Justice “wrapped” in Mercy. In most instances when this attribute is mentioned it represents חסד, “G’d’s loving kindness." Examples are: Psalms 22,2 אלי אלי למה עזבתני, “My G’d, My G’d why did You forsake me?” or Psalms 50,1 אל אלוהים דבר וירא ארץ, “G’d the Lord G’d spoke, and summoned forth the earth.” The sequence of these attributes is חסד-דין-רחמים, the attributes which were employed by G’d when He created the universe. We also have a verse in Psalms 99,8 where G’d is described as relating to the Jewish people as אל נושא היית להם “You related to them as a G’d who forgives.” If, in apparent contradiction to the aforementioned, we find a verse in Psalms 7,12 which describes ואל זועם בכל יום, “a G’d who pronounces doom each day,” the meaning is that only on such days as the attribute of Justice is manifest does G’d pronounce doom. There are many days when that attribute is not in evidence seeing that the attribute of חסד has displaced it as we know from Genesis 18,23. (where Avraham prayed for the good people in Sodom).

The word לאמור may also mean that before Moses commenced his prayer he told G'd that as far as he, personally, was concerned he had waived any honour due him so that he did not feel slighted.

רפא נא לה HEAL HER, I PRAY THEE — Why did Moses not pray at length? In order that Israel should not say: His sister is in trouble, and he stands and offers long prayers! (Sifrei Bamidbar 105). — [Another explanation is: He did not pray at length so that Israel should not say: On behalf of his sister he prays long, but on our behalf he would offer no long prayer].

א-ל נא רפא נא לה. "Please O Lord, heal her." Moses addressed the attribute of חסד, similar to Psalms 52,3 where David speaks of חסד קל. [According to Rabbi Moshe Alshich the חסד, "kindness" of G'd's anger, is its very brevity. It lasts a second, no more. Ed.] The words רפא נא are a plea to grant the cure immediately.

ואביה ירק ירק בפניה IF HER FATHER HAD BUT SPIT IN HER FACE — i.e. if he had shown her an angry face (if he was offended with her), הלא תכלם שבעת ימים SHOULD SHE NOT BE PUT TO SHAME FOR SEVEN DAYS? — It follows therefore à fortiori with respect to the Shechinah (i.e. in the case where God rebukes her in such a stern way) that she ought to be put to shame for fourteen days!) But since there is a rule דין לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון “It is sufficient for a law that is derived by a conclusion a fortiori (הבא מן הדין) to be only as strict as the law from which it is derived (נדון), and not go beyond it, therefore even as a consequence of My reprimand, תסגר שבעת ימים LET HER BE SHUT OUT [FROM THE CAMP] SEVEN DAYS only (Sifrei Bamidbar 106; Bava Kamma 25a).

הלא תכלם, she deserves to experience this shameful embarrassment.

ואביה ירוק ירק, "if HER father had spit in her face, etc." The Torah emphasises Miriam's experience as that of a daughter of G'd, i.e. a צדקת, rather than that of any father spitting at any daughter.

If her father. Rashi adds the word “if” as if the Torah had said “if her father” because we do not find that her father ever spat in her face or that he rebuked her at any time. Rather the Torah means to say that “if her father were to spit…” He adds “to display to her an angry face” to indicate that “spit” is not to be taken literally, only as reference to rebuke that would be a consequence of spitting.

V. 14. ואביה ירק וגו׳ (siehe Wajikra Kap. 13, Ende). בפניה, wie לא יתיצב איש בפניך (Dewarim 7, 24)

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

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

ואחר תאסף AND AFTER THAT LET HE BE GATHERED IN AGAIN — I say that all the different forms of the root אסף which are employed in reference to lepers (cf. e. g. 2 Kings 5:6, 11) are used because he (the leper) is sent forth from the camp and when he becomes healed he is taken again into the camp; — on this account it uses of him the term אסיפה, which has the meaning of “taking in” something that was outside.

Certainly, then, in the case of the Divine Presence — for fourteen days. You might ask: Surely the kal vachomer can be applied for any number of days, so why did Rashi specifically mention fourteen days? (Niddah 31a) The answer is that the Rabbis say that there are three partners in [the formation of] a person — Hashem, his father and his mother — for the father and mother each give five things to the fetus and Hashem alone gives ten things. Thus we see that Hashem ‘creates’ half of the fetus. Another answer is that when a leper is closed off for seven days, if the affliction does not spread rather it remains stable, we close him off for another seven days. Then if it spreads he is definitely impure. Therefore Rashi mentioned fourteen days, which refers to definite impurity, meaning that it is fitting for her to be a metzora permanently.

The repetition of ירוק ירק indicates that had Moses prayed sooner on her behalf, her Father (G'd) would not have spat at her at all, i.e. she would not have been punished at all. The words ואביה ירוק describe a situation which already existed, meaning that Moses had allowed her father to punish her before intervening. All Moses could do now was to prevent further punishment or extension of the punishment, i.e. "spitting" a second time.

תסגר שבעת ימים, she must remain quarantined for seven days. It appears that as a result of Moses' prayer the Tzoraat disappeared at once. G'd decreed that she had to remain as an outcast. Had this not been so the Torah would have had to add "until she has been cured from her Tzoraat." It is obvious, therefore, that she had already been cured. This is also the reason the Torah did not mention the fact that she had been healed at the time it reports that she rejoined the camp of the Israelites. Acording to Zevachim 102 the reason that Aaron did not inspect Miriam's affliction either at the beginning or at the end [as is the duty of the priest who has to certify such healing having taken place Ed.] is because as her brother he was disqualified from doing so. According to our interpretation we need not even raise the question of who declared Miriam afflicted or healed seeing she had been healed before Aaron or any other priest had a chance to examine her. As a result, the only restriction Miriam would have had to undergo was quarantine, pending an inspection. Alternatively, G'd Himself performed the function of the priest and declared her as liable to quarantine. Her purification also occurred at G'd's inspection and that is the meaning of the words ואחר תאסף, "afterwards she may be brought in."

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

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

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

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

The one hour. One may explain that this is because the attribute of goodness is five hundred times greater than the attribute of punishment. Thus Miriam, who waited for Moshe for a third of an hour was repaid with five hundred thirds of an hour — equaling seven days. They waited with her day and night for twenty four hours — and seven days and nights equal one hundred and sixty eight hours. This divided into thirds equals five hundred thirds. Though there are an extra four thirds in excess of the five hundred — the seven days — nonetheless, since it was not a complete day, only one and a third hours, this is insignificant. Furthermore it is also possible that in reward for going to call Moshe’s mother, another four thirds of an hour were added on for her. When Rashi says “one hour” he did not literally mean a whole hour, one out of the twenty-four hours in the day, rather “a period of time” meaning a third of an hour.

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

AND AFTERWARD THE PEOPLE JOURNEYED FROM HATZEROTH, AND PITCHED IN THE WILDERNESS OF PARAN. The reason [why Scripture mentions the wilderness] is to say that when they travelled from Hatzeroth they did not go from one wilderness to another, as they did on their first journey when they set forth from the wilderness of Sinai and pitched in the wilderness of Paran,³⁰³Above, 10:12. for [now] they set forth from Hatzeroth which is in the wilderness of Paran, and pitched in another place in that very same wilderness. This [place was called] Kadesh-barnea, for [although its name is not given here], it is from there that the spies [mentioned in the next section of the Torah] were sent, as is said in another place, unto the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh,³⁰⁴Further, 13:26. and so also it is written, and we came to Kadesh-barnea;³⁰⁵Deuteronomy 1:20. And ye came unto me every one of you, and said: Let us send men before us.³⁰⁶Ibid., Verse 22. Now Scripture does not say here: “and they journeyed from Hatzeroth, and pitched in Kadesh-barnea,” for perhaps there were many [stages in their] journey between them [i.e., these two places], and this is not now the place to mention them. However, it mentioned [that they pitched] in the wilderness of Paran,³⁰³Above, 10:12. in order to inform us that this Kadesh [from where the spies were sent] is the Kadesh-barnea which is in the wilderness of Paran, not the Kadesh which is in the wilderness of Sin³⁰⁷Further, 20:1. where the affair of the waters of Meribah³⁰⁸Ibid., Verse 13. took place in the fortieth year [of the Israelites’ stay in the wilderness].
Shelach

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

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

V. 16. ויחנו במדבר פארן. Auch הצרות war, wie רמב׳׳ן bemerkt, in der Wüste פארן. Schon mit קברות התאוה hatten sie dieselbe betreten, wie aus Kap. 10, 12 erhellt. ויחנו וגו׳ kann daher nur heißen: und lagerten weiter, d. h. an einer anderen Stelle in der Wüste Paran.

ואחר, “and afterwards;” after Miriam returned to the camp on the twenty ninth day of Sivan

Blicken wir auf die in diesem Abschnitte besonders hervortretenden Ereignisse zurück, so stellen sie sich vorzugsweise unter dem Gesamtbegriff der mannigfachsten Abstufung geistiger Begabung und Stellung zum Göttlichen dar: Wir haben Mosche und die Gesamtnation im allgemeinen (Kap. 10, 35 u. 36), Mosche, die Ältesten, Eldad und Medad, (11, 24 ff.). Mosche, Aharon und Mirjam und die übrigen Propheten (12, 4 ff.). Sollte nicht vielleicht auch zu diesem Inhalt dieses Abschnittes der an die Spitze desselben gestellte "Lichtbaum" der jüdisch-geistigen Entwicklung, die מנורה, in tiefinnerem Zusammenhange stehen?

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