בְּשִׁבְרִ֣י לָכֶם֮ מַטֵּה־לֶחֶם֒ וְ֠אָפוּ עֶ֣שֶׂר נָשִׁ֤ים לַחְמְכֶם֙ בְּתַנּ֣וּר אֶחָ֔ד וְהֵשִׁ֥יבוּ לַחְמְכֶ֖ם בַּמִּשְׁקָ֑ל וַאֲכַלְתֶּ֖ם וְלֹ֥א תִשְׂבָּֽעוּ׃ (ס)
Ketika Aku mematahkan tongkat rotimu, sepuluh perempuan akan memanggang rotimu dalam satu tungku, lalu mereka akan membagikan kembali rotimu dengan timbangan; kamu akan makan, tetapi tidak menjadi kenyang.
Haamek Sheilah
CAN INFERENCES UNRELATED TO THE CONTEXT OF THE VERSE OR PARASHAH BE MADE FROM THE PROPHETS AND HAGIOGRAPHA?
SINCE SCRIPTURE is written in a [deliberately] ambiguous manner, it led our rabbis in many instances to make inferences regarding the intent [of Scripture], some related to the context of the parasha and others unrelated to the context. Derivations related to the context are, for example, those of the sages, of blessed memory, found in the Toras Kohanim, Mechilta, Sifrei and Midrashim1Plural of midrash. that add flavor to the contextual exegesis. On the other hand, [the sages also] expounded [verses] in a manner that was not related to the context of that section of Scripture at all. For example, our sages concluded in Tractate Kiddushin 68a, that we derive a major principle that the marriage of a Jew to a Canaanite slave is ineffective,2Gen. 22:5. Gen. 22 pertains to the Binding of Isaac at Mount Moriah. When Abraham saw the mountain from a distance, he ordered the two young men with him, “Stay here by yourselves with the donkey.” The two superfluous words, im ha-hamor, “with the donkey,” can also be read as am ha-hamor, meaning they are “a nation similar to a donkey” in respect to legal status for marriage. from a verse [in the narrative of the Binding of Isaac], “[And Abraham said to his young men], you stay here with the donkey,” [since, like a donkey, the Canaanite slave is a chattel of his master]. [Another example is the way the sages derived a law pertaining to the halachic definition of bread and matzah from a verse in a passage discussing the punishments God will inflict on the Jewish people if they do not follow His commandments]. The verse states, “Ten women will bake your bread in one oven”3Lev. 26:26. [because people will be so destitute]. Pesahim 37b states that R. Yehuda derives from this verse that only dough baked in one oven is considered bread, meaning that [halachically] it is not considered to be bread if it has [first been fried] and then baked.4The conclusion in Pesahim is that once dough has been fried, it cannot become bread by being baked in an oven. [Since] it is not considered bread, it is exempt from the requirement that hallah5Hallah is a portion that was separated from the dough and given to the kohen. must be taken. Many other examples of derivations of laws not related to the context could also be cited.
SINCE SCRIPTURE is written in a [deliberately] ambiguous manner, it led our rabbis in many instances to make inferences regarding the intent [of Scripture], some related to the context of the parasha and others unrelated to the context. Derivations related to the context are, for example, those of the sages, of blessed memory, found in the Toras Kohanim, Mechilta, Sifrei and Midrashim1Plural of midrash. that add flavor to the contextual exegesis. On the other hand, [the sages also] expounded [verses] in a manner that was not related to the context of that section of Scripture at all. For example, our sages concluded in Tractate Kiddushin 68a, that we derive a major principle that the marriage of a Jew to a Canaanite slave is ineffective,2Gen. 22:5. Gen. 22 pertains to the Binding of Isaac at Mount Moriah. When Abraham saw the mountain from a distance, he ordered the two young men with him, “Stay here by yourselves with the donkey.” The two superfluous words, im ha-hamor, “with the donkey,” can also be read as am ha-hamor, meaning they are “a nation similar to a donkey” in respect to legal status for marriage. from a verse [in the narrative of the Binding of Isaac], “[And Abraham said to his young men], you stay here with the donkey,” [since, like a donkey, the Canaanite slave is a chattel of his master]. [Another example is the way the sages derived a law pertaining to the halachic definition of bread and matzah from a verse in a passage discussing the punishments God will inflict on the Jewish people if they do not follow His commandments]. The verse states, “Ten women will bake your bread in one oven”3Lev. 26:26. [because people will be so destitute]. Pesahim 37b states that R. Yehuda derives from this verse that only dough baked in one oven is considered bread, meaning that [halachically] it is not considered to be bread if it has [first been fried] and then baked.4The conclusion in Pesahim is that once dough has been fried, it cannot become bread by being baked in an oven. [Since] it is not considered bread, it is exempt from the requirement that hallah5Hallah is a portion that was separated from the dough and given to the kohen. must be taken. Many other examples of derivations of laws not related to the context could also be cited.
Rashbam
עשרת, the number is not to be taken literally, just as in Leviticus 26,26 the line עשר נשים לחמכם, ואפוdoes not literally mean that ten women would bake their bread in a single oven; rather, seeing that they have so little flour it is a symbol for “many.” The same word “ten” is used as an exaggeration in Job 19,3.
Radak
עשרת מונים, ten times. The reason the word עשרת is in the construct mode when we would have expected to read עשרה מונים, is because it is the final contact with the single digit numbers. It actually belongs to them, though in our language it is written as a 2 digit number. The fact is that the first 10 numbers are all part of one group, the number “ten” being the last one of that group. Hence it is treated here as if in the construct mode. To prove that this is correct, note that whenever the number ten appears, such as in ואפו עשר נשים, “ten women will bake” (Leviticus 26,26), where the number of women involved bears no relationship to the ninth or eighth woman preceding her, such a number is not in the construct mode. My late father of blessed memory explained the word עשרת as not being meant literally. It is not a figure of speech meaning “numerous times,” Yaakov had spent 6 years working for Lavan’ in order to amass his own flocks. The sheep give birth twice a year, i.e. 12 times in 6 years. Lavan therefore had opportunity to change Yaakov’s wages 8 times in the intermediate 6 years, and once each in the first year and last year respectively.
Rashi
Than ten sons. That Penina has borne to me.13Others interpret that Elkonoh did not mean literally ten sons and with reference to Penina, but rather he was expressing his love to Chana and happened to pick that number , as we find the same number in Vayikra 26:26.—Radak