פירוש על במדבר 14:14

ואמרו אל יושב הארץ which is the same as על יושב הארץ THEY WILL SAY CONCERNING THE INHABITANTS OF THIS LAND — What will they say concerning them? That which is stated at the end of the paragraph, (v. 16):

THAT THOU, ETERNAL, ‘NIR’AH’ (HAST BEEN SEEN) EYE TO EYE. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that “[this verse is to be understood in the light of what it says], And the appearance of the Glory of the Eternal etc. in the eyes of the children of Israel.¹¹³Exodus 24:17. Nir’ah is a verb in the past tense,¹¹⁴The Hebrew form nir’ah is used for both the second person feminine in the present tense [“you, a woman, are seen”], and for the third person masculine or feminine in the past tense [“he or she, a man or woman has been seen”]. The difficulty in our verse is that nir’ah referring to G-d [the Eternal] clearly is used here in the third person past tense, [since it is not a feminine word, and the context clearly refers to G-d having been seen in the past]. Yet the verse continues: [nir’ah] ‘atah’ using the second person pronoun atah (you), with the verbal form nir’ah, meaning He has been seen! Ibn Ezra therefore explains that this is equivalent to the single word nir’etha, (you have been seen), and quotes other examples of such usages. and it means ‘Thou hast been seen.’ Similarly, ‘v’neisha’ar’ ani¹¹⁵Ezekiel 9:8. In this case we have the same third person verbal form as nir’ah, i.e., v’neisha’ar, used in the first person, with the pronoun ani (I), as if it had said v’neisha’arti (and I remained). [is like v’neisha’arti — ‘and I was left’]. So also, for ‘umlal’ ani¹¹⁶Psalms 6:3. Since the word umlal used in that verse is vowelled with a patach it is clearly a third person form in the past tense; for were it to be a first person form in the present tense, it would be vowelled umlol with a kamatz. Thus we have another example of a third person verbal form followed by the first person pronoun ani (I). Hence it must be understood as if it were umlalti (I have languished away). [is like umlalti — ‘I have languished away’] because the letter lamed is vowelled with a long pathach.”¹¹⁶Psalms 6:3. Since the word umlal used in that verse is vowelled with a patach it is clearly a third person form in the past tense; for were it to be a first person form in the present tense, it would be vowelled umlol with a kamatz. Thus we have another example of a third person verbal form followed by the first person pronoun ani (I). Hence it must be understood as if it were umlalti (I have languished away).

ואמרו אל יושבי הארץ הזאת, and they will say to the inhabitants of this land, etc. The Torah fails to mention what precisely the Egyptians would tell the Canaanites. If the Torah meant that they would tell the Canaanites about G'd's inability, etc., these words should have been appended in the following sequence: "they will say to the inhabitants of the land of Canaan that G'd was unable, etc." The word ושמעו should have appeared at the beginning of the verse, not after "the inhabitants of this land."