Comentario sobre Números 16:14

ותתן לנו (lit., thou hast given us) — The statement must he referred to the word לא, “not”, mentioned before, the meaning being: Thou hast not brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey, and thou hast not given us inheritance of fields and vineyards. — You told us, (Exodus 3:7) “I will bring you up from the affliction of Egypt” into a good land: from there (from such a land; cf. v. 13), indeed, you have brought us forth, but you have not brought us instead into a land flowing with milk and honey; on the contrary — you have passed a decree upon us to kill us in the wilderness, for you have said, (Numbers 14:29) “Your carcasses shall fall in this desert."

אף לא אל ארץ...ותתן לנו, not only did you worsen our lot by taking us out of Egypt, and bringing us to a desert leaving behind a land which was flowing with milk and honey, but you have mocked us by not even bringing us to another country, even though it might have been inferior to Egypt. To listen to you speak one might think that you had led us to a land of good fields and vineyards and allocated these to us as our inheritance. Anyone listening to your expounding on the Divine commandments linked to possession of such fields and orchards has been totally misled. (reference to Leviticus 19,9-10) When presenting this legislation to us one could think that the fields and orchards under discussion were already ours.

אף לא אל ארץ זבת חלב ודבש הביאותנו, "Moreover, you have not brought us to a land flowing with milk and honey, etc." Since they had already accused Moses of bringing them to a place where all one could do was to die, what was the point of accusing him that he had not brought them to a land flowing with milk and honey? Rashi gives a rather forced explanation to this question. Perhaps we can say that Datan and Aviram did not want to justify their refusal to go and see Moses merely because he had brought them to a place where all one could do was die. They implied that even if all he had done was not to bring them to a land flowing with milk and honey this would be sufficient reason for them to decline his invitation as Moses had failed to deliver on his promise. The words אף לא אל mean that this latter detail is already enough reason to decline his invitation. They were working up to their next argument: "will you put out the eyes of these men?" They implied that the fact that Moses had caused the people actual damage by marooning them in the desert was an additional reason for not coming to see him."

?העיני האנשים ההם תנקר, “do you think that these people who have risen up against you do not have eyes with which they can see this trap that you led us into when you took us out of Egypt, a good land, to bring us to this miserable desert to die here? You certainly did not fulfill your promise to bring us to a land flowing with milk and honey which was the reason that we followed you from Egypt. All that awaits them now are 40 years in this desert in which to await their death.

העיני האנשים ההם תנקר, “even if you were to gouge out the eyes of these men, etc.,” Datan and Aviram referred to the men who had come out of Egypt. The phrase is a sarcastic remark suggesting that even if all are as blind as if their eyes had been gouged out, they, Datan and Aviram, could not be blinded by Moses’ pretensions. If we were to accept Moses’ summons or invitation it would appear as if we too were unable to “see” how he had bamboozled the whole nation.

אף לא אל ארץ זבת חלב ודבש הביאותנו, “nor did you bring us to a land flowing with milk and honey.” They meant: “not only did you take us out of a good place, but if you had brought us instead to another good place and each one of us would have had a field and a vineyard such as we had in Egypt we could have put up with your autocratic ways. But instead you took us out of a good place and have not offered us compensation by providing us with a similarly good place; why then should you claim the right to lord it over us?”

You told us “I will bring you up.” Meaning: If Moshe had not promised to bring them up they would not have said this to him, for he would not have been obliged to do so. Rashi reverses the sequence of the verses to indicate that it would have been appropriate to say: “Is it but a pittance that you have brought us up from a land flowing with milk and honey, and into a land flowing with milk and honey you have not brought us, [rather] to kill us [in the desert], so to exercise your power.” Accordingly, the Torah would not have had to use the word אף ("even") and thus Rashi omits it. However, according to the sequence of the verses the word אף ("even") was necessary in order to explain “Is it not sufficient that you did us the evil of causing us to die in the desert, but even the good that you promised us you did not do.” This implies that “If you had [at least] done the good, then we would have also accepted the bad.” If one explains this way, there would be a difficulty: What was the point of their complaint over the lack of good? Since they were about to die, why would why care about the land flowing with milk and honey? Consequently, Rashi reverses the sequence of the verses. According to his explanation two matters are being addressed here, “not only [did you not fulfill the good]…but you even decreed against us that we die.”

V. 14. אף לא וגו׳ kann sich nicht wie das להמיתנו במדבר des vorigen Verses darauf beziehen, dass nun das ganze aus Ägypten gezogene Geschlecht nach der jüngsten Bestimmung in der Wüste ihr Leben beschließen solle, ohne das verheißene Land zu betreten; denn das ist ja schon gesagt und kann am allerwenigsten mit dem steigenden אף eingeleitet werden, da es ja nur dasselbe sagen würde. Wir glauben, dies vielmehr also verstehen zu dürfen: uns, die Älteren, die wir aus Ägypten gezogen, uns hast du schon wortbrüchig ins Unglück gebracht. Wir haben das schöne Land verlassen und sollen nun in der Wüste sterben. Aber auch an dein weiteres Versprechen, dass, wenn wir auch nicht selbst, wir doch in unseren Kindern zum Besitz des verheißenen Landes kommen sollen, glauben wir noch gar nicht, dessen Erfüllung steht noch gar nicht so fest, wenn du auch so positiv mit uns von dem Besitz an Feld und Weinberg sprichst und uns in bezug darauf (z. B. gleich nach dem ausgesprochenen Verhängnis des Aussterbens in der Wüste: Kap. 15, 2 u. 18) Gesetze erteilst. Wie positiv du uns auch נחלת שדה וכרם zusagst, mit Worten "gibst", — (vergl. Bereschit 1, 15 u. 18, sowie Bamidbar 20, 12 und sonst) — so hast du damit uns doch noch keineswegs wirklich ins Land gebracht. Dein Versprechen in bezug auf die Kinder wird ebenso mit Täuschung enden, wie dein Versprechen an die Väter — העיני וגו׳: meinst du uns blind machen zu können, dass wir die Dinge nicht sehen sollten, wie sie sind?! — Das: ותתן לנו וגו׳ wird in ähnlicher Weise von Siporno in seinem Kommentar erklärt.

העיני האנשים ההם תנקר, “will you gouge out the eyes of these men?” The verse is to be understood as a question, not as a statement, the authors expressing their astonishment that Moses hoped to get away with misleading the people with such trick. They themselves could certainly not be fooled by him, someone who had so utterly failed in his socalled mission up to now. They expressed wonder that the eyes of the Jewish people should have been fooled thus far, it looked to them as if these people had been blind all the time. [They were clearly the greatest demagogues up to that time! Ed.] Now, instead of making good on their promises, they had decreed that a whole generation of Israelites were to perish in this desert! They would not appear in front of him to be judged by him, he had lost all credence as a leader.

העיני האנשים ההם תנקר WILT THOU PUT OUT THE EYES OF THESE MEN etc. — This means: even if you were to send to put out our eyes if we would not come up to you we would not come up!

העיני האנשים ההם תנקר, do you really think that you can fool all these people into not recognising your machinations which are of such a deceptive nature?

לא נעלה. This is the reason why we refuse to come up and be judged by you and your court. This is a typical construction known as כלל ופרט וכלל, stating a general principle, illustrating it with examples, and then reaffirming the general principle having supplied the reasons supporting the theory stated as a general principle.

Even if you send agents to put out. Rashi is answering the question: It is obvious that if you were to put out their eyes, they would not be able to go up.

העיני האנשים ההם תנקר, "should you gouge out the eyes of those men? we will not go up." They meant that they would rather have their eyes gouged out than to pay Moses the compliment of accepting his invitation. This comment revealed the very depth of their hatred. They preferred to have their eyes gouged out rather than to be granted a favour by the righteous Moses. No wonder Moses anger was greatly aroused!

האנשים ההם THESE MEN — [They meant themselves, but spoke of other people’s eyes being put out], like a man who attaches to his fellow the curse which should come upon himself (cf. Rashi on Exodus 1:10).