וַיִּסְעוּ֙ מִמָּרָ֔ה וַיָּבֹ֖אוּ אֵילִ֑מָה וּ֠בְאֵילִם שְׁתֵּ֣ים עֶשְׂרֵ֞ה עֵינֹ֥ת מַ֛יִם וְשִׁבְעִ֥ים תְּמָרִ֖ים וַיַּחֲנוּ־שָֽׁם׃
Mereka berangkat dari Mara, lalu tiba di Elim. Di Elim ada dua belas mata air dan tujuh puluh pohon kurma, lalu mereka berkemah di sana.
Ramban
IN THE THIRD MONTH. Scripture should have said, “And they journeyed from Rephidim and they encamped in the wilderness of Sinai, in the third month after their going forth from the land of Egypt,” just as it said above concerning the wilderness of Sin.131Above, 17:1: And all the congregation of the children of Israel journeyed from the wilderness of Sin… and encamped in Rephidim. But [Scripture’s manner of expression here is] due to the fact that their coming into the wilderness of Sinai was an occasion for joy and a festival to them, and that since they left Egypt they had been yearning for it. They knew that they would receive the Torah there, for Moses had told them what was said to him, Ye shall serve G-d upon the mountain.132Above, 3:12. And to Pharaoh also he said, Let us go, we pray thee, three days’ journey, into the wilderness and sacrifice unto the Eternal our G-d.133Ibid., 5:3. For this reason, Scripture begins the section with the statement that in the third month… the same day that the month began,134Mechilta on the verse here, and mentioned in Rashi. they came there [as they had eagerly anticipated]. Following this opening, Scripture reverts [to the usual style] as in the other journeys: And they journeyed from Rephidim.135Verse 2.
Now here too Scripture should have said “and they journeyed from Rephidim and encamped in the wilderness of Sinai.” Instead it writes, and they came to the wilderness of Sinai. This is because Scripture’s intent is to state that as soon as they came to the wilderness of Sinai and saw the mountain in front of them, they encamped in the wilderness and did not wait until they would enter a spot better for encampment. Instead, they camped in the wilderness or in Horeb,136Deuteronomy 4:10. which was a waste land before the mountain. This is the purport of the verse; and they encamped in the wilderness, and there Israel encamped before the mount.135Verse 2.
It is possible that they separated from their midst all the mixed multitude that was among them,137Numbers 11:4. See also above, 12:38. and the children of Israel alone camped before the mountain while the mixed multitude was behind them. For the Torah was given to Israel, as He said, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel,138Verse 3. and this is the meaning of the expression, and there Israel encamped.135Verse 2. It may be that [the name “Israel”] is mentioned as a mark of honor at the time of their acceptance of the Torah.
Now Rashi wrote: “And they journeyed from Rephidim. What need was there for Scripture to state again expressly from where they set forth on the journey? Is it not already stated that they were encamped in Rephidim131Above, 17:1: And all the congregation of the children of Israel journeyed from the wilderness of Sin… and encamped in Rephidim. and it is thus evident that they journeyed from there? It [i.e., the intent of the verse] is to declare that their departure from Rephidim was like their encampment139“Encampment.” In our Rashi: “coming.” in the wilderness of Sinai. Just as their encampment139“Encampment.” In our Rashi: “coming.” [in the wilderness of Sinai] was with repentance,140The repentance is indicated by the word vayichan, which is in the singular, thus indicating that Israel encamped before the mountain as one man and with one mind, “while all other encampments were with murmerings and with dissension” (Rashi, quoting Mechilta). so also was their departure [from Rephidim] with repentance.”141See above, 17:7, for their sin in Rephidim. The present analogy between their coming into the wilderness of Sinai, which was surely in a spirit of repentance, as explained above, and their departure from Rephidim, thus teaches us that their departure was also with repentance. Thus Rashi’s language. But I have not understood this. It says in connection with all journeys: and they pitched [camp] in Elim;142See Numbers 33:9. And they took their journey from Elim… and they came unto the wilderness of Sin;143Above, 16:1. And they journeyed from the wilderness of Sin… and encamped in Rephidim;144Ibid., 17:1. and so the entire section of Mas’ei145Numbers 33:1-49. is written [with the name of the place whence they set forth on the journey repeated after it had already been mentioned that they had encamped there]. The intent of the repetition by Scripture is that there were no other encampments between them.
In the Mechilta, we find the following text146Mechilta on the verse here. [on the same theme that Rashi mentioned, but presented in such a form that the above difficulties are eliminated]: “And they departed from Rephidim and came to the desert of Sinai.135Verse 2. Has it not already been stated in the section of the Torah dealing with all stages of the journey [from Egypt to the Jordan]: And they journeyed from Rephidim, and pitched in the wilderness of Sinai?147Numbers 33:15. And what need is there for Scripture to state here, and they came to the desert of Sinai? It [i.e., the intent of the verse] is to declare that their departure from Rephidim [was like their encampment in the wilderness of Sinai], etc.” The purport of this text of the Mechilta is to explain why, on account of certain new details mentioned there,148Ibid., Verses 9 and 14. Scripture repeated in the section of Eileh Mas’ei145Numbers 33:1-49. all stages of the journey from Elim and Rephidim mentioned here, although this journey [from Rephidim to the wilderness of Sinai] is mentioned in identical language both here and there. It was for this reason that [the Mechilta] was compelled to interpret that [the Scriptural restatement] was on account of the above analogy: [Just as their encampment at Sinai was with repentance, so also etc.].
Now here too Scripture should have said “and they journeyed from Rephidim and encamped in the wilderness of Sinai.” Instead it writes, and they came to the wilderness of Sinai. This is because Scripture’s intent is to state that as soon as they came to the wilderness of Sinai and saw the mountain in front of them, they encamped in the wilderness and did not wait until they would enter a spot better for encampment. Instead, they camped in the wilderness or in Horeb,136Deuteronomy 4:10. which was a waste land before the mountain. This is the purport of the verse; and they encamped in the wilderness, and there Israel encamped before the mount.135Verse 2.
It is possible that they separated from their midst all the mixed multitude that was among them,137Numbers 11:4. See also above, 12:38. and the children of Israel alone camped before the mountain while the mixed multitude was behind them. For the Torah was given to Israel, as He said, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel,138Verse 3. and this is the meaning of the expression, and there Israel encamped.135Verse 2. It may be that [the name “Israel”] is mentioned as a mark of honor at the time of their acceptance of the Torah.
Now Rashi wrote: “And they journeyed from Rephidim. What need was there for Scripture to state again expressly from where they set forth on the journey? Is it not already stated that they were encamped in Rephidim131Above, 17:1: And all the congregation of the children of Israel journeyed from the wilderness of Sin… and encamped in Rephidim. and it is thus evident that they journeyed from there? It [i.e., the intent of the verse] is to declare that their departure from Rephidim was like their encampment139“Encampment.” In our Rashi: “coming.” in the wilderness of Sinai. Just as their encampment139“Encampment.” In our Rashi: “coming.” [in the wilderness of Sinai] was with repentance,140The repentance is indicated by the word vayichan, which is in the singular, thus indicating that Israel encamped before the mountain as one man and with one mind, “while all other encampments were with murmerings and with dissension” (Rashi, quoting Mechilta). so also was their departure [from Rephidim] with repentance.”141See above, 17:7, for their sin in Rephidim. The present analogy between their coming into the wilderness of Sinai, which was surely in a spirit of repentance, as explained above, and their departure from Rephidim, thus teaches us that their departure was also with repentance. Thus Rashi’s language. But I have not understood this. It says in connection with all journeys: and they pitched [camp] in Elim;142See Numbers 33:9. And they took their journey from Elim… and they came unto the wilderness of Sin;143Above, 16:1. And they journeyed from the wilderness of Sin… and encamped in Rephidim;144Ibid., 17:1. and so the entire section of Mas’ei145Numbers 33:1-49. is written [with the name of the place whence they set forth on the journey repeated after it had already been mentioned that they had encamped there]. The intent of the repetition by Scripture is that there were no other encampments between them.
In the Mechilta, we find the following text146Mechilta on the verse here. [on the same theme that Rashi mentioned, but presented in such a form that the above difficulties are eliminated]: “And they departed from Rephidim and came to the desert of Sinai.135Verse 2. Has it not already been stated in the section of the Torah dealing with all stages of the journey [from Egypt to the Jordan]: And they journeyed from Rephidim, and pitched in the wilderness of Sinai?147Numbers 33:15. And what need is there for Scripture to state here, and they came to the desert of Sinai? It [i.e., the intent of the verse] is to declare that their departure from Rephidim [was like their encampment in the wilderness of Sinai], etc.” The purport of this text of the Mechilta is to explain why, on account of certain new details mentioned there,148Ibid., Verses 9 and 14. Scripture repeated in the section of Eileh Mas’ei145Numbers 33:1-49. all stages of the journey from Elim and Rephidim mentioned here, although this journey [from Rephidim to the wilderness of Sinai] is mentioned in identical language both here and there. It was for this reason that [the Mechilta] was compelled to interpret that [the Scriptural restatement] was on account of the above analogy: [Just as their encampment at Sinai was with repentance, so also etc.].
Ramban
AND THERE WERE TWELVE SPRINGS OF WATER, AND THREE SCORE AND TEN PALM TREES. It is not such a significant matter that seventy palm trees are found in a certain place. In the lowlands, a thousand and more palm trees can be found in one location, and springs of abundant water are springing forth in valleys and hills,272Deuteronomy 8:7. and Scripture does not mention them at all! [Why then are these springs and palm trees singled out here?]
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained that Scripture narrates that they came to a good place which was unlike Marah. In Elim, there were many springs, and the waters were sweet and good, since palm trees cannot thrive in soil where the waters are bitter. It is for this reason that Scripture says here and they encamped there, because on account of it, they stayed there for more days than in the other places they passed through. In the section of Eileh Mas’ei,273Numbers 33:1-49. A detailed listing is given there of all the places through which Israel passed on the way from Egypt to the Promised Land. however, Scripture does not relate anything about Marah, and yet it states, And they journeyed from Marah, and came unto Elim; and in Elim were twelve springs of water, and three score and ten palm trees, and they encamped there,274Ibid., Verse 9. Accordingly Ibn Ezra’s explanation that the springs and palm trees of Elim were mentioned here in order to contrast with Marah, where the waters were bitter, cannot be correct, because there in Eileh Mas’ei, Scripture states nothing about Marah and yet mentions the same about Elim as here. and a description of a place at such length is not found there about any of the places they traversed!
Now Rashi wrote: “Twelve springs of water, a number corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel, were ready for them. And seventy palm trees — these corresponded to the seventy elders.” But I do not know the nature of this preparation, i.e., whether it was done for them by a miracle just for that time. I have however, seen here in the Mechilta: “Rabbi Eleazar of Modaim said: ‘On the very day that the Holy One, blessed be He, created His world, He created twelve springs corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel, and seventy palm trees corresponding to the seventy elders.’” Scripture thus tells that each tribe encamped beside his spring and the elders sat in their shade praising G-d for them, because He had prepared for them [such a restful place] in a land of drought. Our Rabbis have yet another explanation in the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah275Sefer Habahir, 161. Another name for this Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah is Sefer Habahir (Book of the Bright Light). It is one of the oldest books of the Cabala. See I. Weinstock, B’maglei Haniglah V’hanistar, pp. 15-20, on the origin of the names. on this verse, which is wonderful in our eyes.276See my Hebrew commentary, pp. 361-2, for further elucidation on this mystic matter.
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained that Scripture narrates that they came to a good place which was unlike Marah. In Elim, there were many springs, and the waters were sweet and good, since palm trees cannot thrive in soil where the waters are bitter. It is for this reason that Scripture says here and they encamped there, because on account of it, they stayed there for more days than in the other places they passed through. In the section of Eileh Mas’ei,273Numbers 33:1-49. A detailed listing is given there of all the places through which Israel passed on the way from Egypt to the Promised Land. however, Scripture does not relate anything about Marah, and yet it states, And they journeyed from Marah, and came unto Elim; and in Elim were twelve springs of water, and three score and ten palm trees, and they encamped there,274Ibid., Verse 9. Accordingly Ibn Ezra’s explanation that the springs and palm trees of Elim were mentioned here in order to contrast with Marah, where the waters were bitter, cannot be correct, because there in Eileh Mas’ei, Scripture states nothing about Marah and yet mentions the same about Elim as here. and a description of a place at such length is not found there about any of the places they traversed!
Now Rashi wrote: “Twelve springs of water, a number corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel, were ready for them. And seventy palm trees — these corresponded to the seventy elders.” But I do not know the nature of this preparation, i.e., whether it was done for them by a miracle just for that time. I have however, seen here in the Mechilta: “Rabbi Eleazar of Modaim said: ‘On the very day that the Holy One, blessed be He, created His world, He created twelve springs corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel, and seventy palm trees corresponding to the seventy elders.’” Scripture thus tells that each tribe encamped beside his spring and the elders sat in their shade praising G-d for them, because He had prepared for them [such a restful place] in a land of drought. Our Rabbis have yet another explanation in the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah275Sefer Habahir, 161. Another name for this Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah is Sefer Habahir (Book of the Bright Light). It is one of the oldest books of the Cabala. See I. Weinstock, B’maglei Haniglah V’hanistar, pp. 15-20, on the origin of the names. on this verse, which is wonderful in our eyes.276See my Hebrew commentary, pp. 361-2, for further elucidation on this mystic matter.