Commento su Numeri 11:19

YE SHALL NOT EAT ONE DAY. The meaning thereof is: “you shall not eat for only one day, nor only two days [but even a whole month].²²⁶Verse 20. Similarly, the phrase not once nor twice²²⁷II Kings 6:10. means “not only once nor twice.” And in my opinion it cannot be said of a person who eats or does something for many consecutive days that he ate or did [that action] for one day.²²⁸Hence the statement ye shall not eat one day is to be understood literally, for since they will eat for a consecutive period of thirty days, it cannot be said of them that they ate for one day. Likewise the phrase nor twenty days is to be understood in its plain sense: “you will not eat of it twenty days, but thirty days.” Similarly it cannot be said of one who eats [something] for thirty consecutive days that he ate it for twenty days.²²⁸Hence the statement ye shall not eat one day is to be understood literally, for since they will eat for a consecutive period of thirty days, it cannot be said of them that they ate for one day. Likewise the phrase nor twenty days is to be understood in its plain sense: “you will not eat of it twenty days, but thirty days.” Or it may be that the word “one” [Ye shall not eat ‘one’ day] is connected [with the following phrases]: “Ye shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor ten or twenty single [non-consecutive] days, but a full month.” Thus He gave them the meat which they craved for, but not the fish or the vegetables, for their main demand for which they wept was give us flesh.²²⁹Verse 13. And the meaning of the expression, But even a whole month, until it come out of your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you²²⁶Verse 20. is that He will give them a lot of meat, and they will eat it for a whole month to such a great extent that they will become sick of it, and they will consider it detestable and like a strange inedible food.
According to the plain meaning of Scripture the following is what happened: On the first day [of their eating the meat] they were smitten with a very great plague²³⁰Further, Verse 33. and the people that were the first to lust died,²³¹Ibid., Verse 34. these being the mixed multitude that was among them,²³²Above, Verse 4. also the children of Israel mentioned at the beginning who said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?²³²Above, Verse 4. But the rest of the people who wept afterwards family by family, every man at the door of his tent²³³Ibid., Verse 10. ate of it for a whole month until it became loathsome to them²²⁶Verse 20. and they threw away any heaps they had left of it. And so does the psalm state: He caused flesh also to rain upon them as the dust;²³⁴Psalms 78:27. So they did eat, and were well-filled, and He gave them that which they craved. They were not estranged from their craving, their food was still in their mouths, when the anger of G-d went up against them etc.²³⁵Ibid., Verses 29-31. For some of them ate and were well-filled, but those who lusted did not satisfy their lust at all, for while their food was still in their mouths … the anger of G-d went up against them.²³⁵Ibid., Verses 29-31.
Now the [Midrashic] interpretations of Rabbi Shimon²³⁶The Verses 22-23 state: 22. And Moses said: “The people, among whom I am, are six hundred thousand men on foot; and yet Thou hast said: I will give them flesh, that they may eat a whole month! 23. If flocks and herds be slain for them, will they suffice them? or if all the flesh be gathered together for them ‘umatza lahem’ (will they suffice them)?” Since it is inconceivable that Moses actually doubted G-d’s powers, Rashi [in Verse 22] quotes the interpretation of Rabbi Shimon in the Sifre, that Moses’ intent was as follows: “The people are so many, and Thou hast said ‘I will give them flesh, for a whole month’ — and then you will kill them! Shall the flock and herds be slaughtered for them so that they [the people] will be killed immediately, and this eating should be their last, satisfying them forever!” Then G-d said to Moses: Now shalt thou see etc. (see note that follows). and of Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi²³⁷In our Rashi: “Rabban Gamaliel the son of Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi.” This Sage explains that Moses said: “Since they are merely seeking a pretext, Thou wilt never be able to satisfy them, for they will always beg for something else.” — Then G-d said to Moses: “Now shalt thou see whether My word shall come to pass unto thee or not (Verse 23) — for they will not listen unto thee.” Moses then went to appease them and told them what G-d said to him: Is the hand of the Eternal waxed short? (ibid.) But the people answered that He indeed has no power to grant their request. This is what the following verse [24] means: And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the Eternal. Since, however, they refused to listen to him, the verse continues, and he gathered seventy men etc. do not fit in properly with the language of Scripture, because He said, Now shalt thou see whether My word shall come to pass unto thee or not.²³⁸Ramban’s intent is as follows: Had Verse 23 stated: “And the Eternal said unto Moses: ‘Is the hand of the Eternal waxed short?’ And Moses said: ‘I will go to appease them.’ And G-d said to him: ‘They will not listen unto thee. Now shalt thou see whether My word shall come to pass unto thee [that they will not listen unto thee] or not …’” the interpretations of Rabbi Shimon and of Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi would have fitted in with the text of Scripture. But all which is written after the phrase, Is the hand of the Eternal waxed short? is: Now shalt thou see etc. which implies that Moses, as it were, doubted that G-d would satisfy them. Hence we must offer another interpretation, as set forth in the text that follows. And the interpretation of Rabbi Akiba who says that the words [of Moses] are to be taken literally, namely “Will it be enough for them?” is the true sense of Scripture, and this is the opinion of Onkelos [who translated umatza lahem²³⁹See Note 236, quoting Verse 23. — “will it suffice them?”]. But the event itself is amazing, as Rabbi Shimon said [commenting on Rabbi Akiba’s interpretation]: “The person of whom Scripture writes, he is trusted in all My house,²⁴⁰Further, 12:7. would he say that G-d cannot supply enough for them!” Moreover, all of them had already seen far greater wonders than this! And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra answered this [by saying] that Moses thought that G-d would not create a new wonder except to vindicate His prophet [as happened in the affair of Korach, further, Chapter 16; and since the truth of his prophecy was not now in question, Moses thought that no miracle would happen merely to satisfy the people’s requests]. But this too, does not appear correct to me, for He had already done for them [a miracle] of this sort with the first quail,²⁴¹Exodus 16:13. and also with the water²⁴²Ibid., 17:6. and the manna,²⁴³Ibid., Chapter 16. for all of these things were given to them to satisfy their complaints.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that when G-d does signs and wonders for Israel, they are deeds of kindness from Him, and they are all for their good, for The Eternal is good to all; and His tender mercies are over all His works,²⁴⁴Psalms 145:9. except when there is wrath gone out²⁴⁵Further, 17:11. against those who transgress His Will, when He acts towards them with anger and the attribute of judgment to their complete punishment. Thus miracles can only be [manifestations of] complete and perfect goodness in mercy, or retribution by the attribute of judgment. But now when G-d told Moses that He would fulfill their request and they would eat meat until it cometh out at your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you,²⁴⁶Verse 19. Moses our teacher knew that there would not be a wonder from G-d to supply them with flesh as He gave them the corn of heaven,²⁴⁷Psalms 78:24. similar to which the Sages say:²⁴⁸Bereshith Rabbah 51:5. “No evil thing comes down from heaven.” Moreover, all miracles He told Moses about beforehand: Behold, I will cause to rain bread from heaven for you;²⁴⁹Exodus 16:4. Behold, I will stand before thee there on the rock in Horeb; [and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it].²⁵⁰Ibid., 17:6. But here since He told him, And say unto the people: Sanctify yourselves against tomorrow,²⁵¹Verse 18. and He did not inform him [that he would then give them meat, as He informed about the other miracles], Moses understood that there would be no miracle from Him, blessed be He. Therefore he asked in astonishment: “What can He do [to satisfy] them by natural means? If all the flocks and herds around them be slaughtered for them they will still not be satisfied, and if all the fish of the sea in the place nearest to them be gathered in for them it would still not be sufficient for them.” Therefore G-d answered that His hand is not too short to fulfill their request even by ordinary events, this being the meaning of the expression ‘ha’yikrecha’ [of the root mikreh — “chance”] My word or not, [i.e., Now shalt thou see whether My word ‘shall suffice for thee even by chance’]. And He said, Is the Eternal’s ‘yad’ (hand) waxed short, similar to the expression, and royal wine in abundance, according to the ‘yad’ (bounty) of the king,²⁵²Esther 1:7. but He did not say, Is there anything too hard for me?²⁵³Jeremiah 32:27. since this was not done by a wonder. And so indeed it came to pass, that there went forth a wind from the Eternal²⁵⁴Verse 31. This wind was not an exceptionally powerful wind of a miraculous nature, as e.g., in Exodus 14:21 [at the splitting of the Red Sea]. in accordance with natural events, neither a very strong west wind nor a strong east wind, as Scripture mentions in speaking of the miracles, but a normal wind as is usual, and it brought across quails from the sea,²⁵⁴Verse 31. This wind was not an exceptionally powerful wind of a miraculous nature, as e.g., in Exodus 14:21 [at the splitting of the Red Sea]. not that they were now created for their sake, and so there was nothing different in this from the natural events of the world. Besides, this had already happened to them before,²⁴¹Exodus 16:13. and the only new element in it now was that the quails were in great abundance.

לא יום אחד, "not one day, etc." We must understand the reason why the Torah describes the time the Israelites would eat meat in such detail when the gist of it could have been written in far fewer words. I believe the key to understanding this lies in our previous commentary on the second ואכלתם being a command rather than a promise. Some people can satisfy their craving for meat after having eaten meat one day, whereas others may require a far longer period on a meat diet before they have satisfied their craving. The Torah warns that even people who normally can satisfy their craving after a single day will not be allowed to do so; similarly, people who would normally require say ten days to satisfy their craving would not be allowed to do so. The respective introduction: "not one day," "not two days," etc., are to tell us that the normal manner in which these people satisfy their cravings would not apply in this instance. The limit the Torah prescribes is 30 days, at which time the meat would become repulsive. This teaches that if someone stopped eating meat before these thirty days were complete he would have violated the positive commandment of ואכלתם.

לא יום אחד, “not for one day, etc.” The meaning is “not for one day only are you going to eat meat;” Nachmanides holds that if someone eats, אוכל something for a number of consecutive days, or performs other tasks עושה, for a number of consecutive days, this is not described by the word אוכל or עושה respectively, and if someone eats something for 30 days consecutively it would be inappropriate to say that he has eaten for 20 days. [According to Rabbi Chavell, Nachmanides’ problem is why the Torah wasted time writing “not one day, not two days, not five days, not ten days, not twenty days, but a whole month of days.” He concludes that unless the Torah had added the words עד חודש ימים, “until a whole month of days,” I might have understood the days mentioned previous to that as not being consecutive days. In that event, eating meat at intervals for, say, twenty days would not have resulted in one’s becoming revolted at the mere sight of meat. It follows that the meaning of the words לא יום אחד, ולא חמשה ימים is not to be understood as we might think at first glance, but that they mean that if someone eats meat for a day, or he eats meat five days out of seven days in the week, his reaction to such a diet is completely different to someone who eats meat for 30 days consecutively. Alternatively, the Torah emphasized that the people would learn that when their craving would be indulged by G’d in accordance with their wishes, they would find out to their distress that what they thought would be a blessing could turn into a curse. Indulging a craving for meat without restraint has negative consequences that are not experienced when one eats vegetables or fish for the same number of days consecutively. G’d did not provide the people with a corresponding amount of fish and vegetables, although they had yearned for this also, as what had caused them to break out in weeping had been their unsatisfied craving for meat. Ibn Ezra writes that the choice of the Torah of the numbers 2,5,10,20 is not arbitrary but “two” is double of “one.” “Five” represents the number of fingers on one hand, “ten” is double that number, i.e. the fingers on two hands, twenty” is double that number again, i.e the number of fingers plus the number of toes.

לא יום אחד תאכלון ולא יומים, “You will not only eat it for a single day or two days, etc.” The numbers here are usually doubled up, i.e. not one but two, not five but ten, not ten but twenty. It is as if G’d were saying they will eat as much as they could, employing all the fingers on hands and feet in the process. The final statement “until a full month of days,” suggests that until the moon has come full circle the people will still be busy wolfing down the meat. The words: “until it will come out of your nose,” suggests that until the smell of the meat evaporates seeing that the smell is concentrated in the nose. The words: “it will become nauseating for you,” refer to the fact that that which had previously been the object of your irrepressible desire will instead become something nauseating for you. We find a similar phenomenon after Amnon had raped his half-sister Tamar when his erstwhile love for her turned into an abiding hatred (Samuel II 13,15). The reason the word לזרא is spelled with the letter א at the end instead of the letter ה, is to describe the intense repugnance the people felt for the very meat they had craved so much only a month ago. Every time a word which is normally spelled with the letter ה is spelled with the letter א instead, the idea is to show the intensified measure of what the word represents. Examples are: when Naomi says she should be called the “bitter” one, meaning מרה, the author of the Book of Ruth spelled the word with the letter א at the end to demonstrate the depth of Naomi’s embitteredness. She spelled it out saying המר שדי לי מאד, “G’d has caused me much to be bitter about.” A similar example is found in Daniel 11,44 where the word חמא, for anger or alarm, normally spelled חמה, is spelled with the letter א at the end to describe the profound alarm caused by the news described in that verse. What happened to the Israelites in this instance is only typical of what happens to people who overindulge their lust and craving for physical pleasures. They start out by complaining about physical pleasures denied them and neglect spiritual values in their headlong pursuit of these “apparent” pleasures only to find in the end that their very pleasures are the reason that they die prematurely. Solomon defined such supposedly sweet pleasure as נפת, saying of the seductress נפת תטופנה שפתי זרה וחלק משמן חכה, “her lips drip honey; her mouth is smoother than oil” (Proverbs 5,3). In the verse following Solomon describes the conclusion of that seduction as “in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword.”

VV. 19 u. 20. לא יום וגו׳. Es wird euch in solcher Fülle werden, dass ihr daran nicht nur euer augenblickliches lüsternes Verlangen stillen, sondern einen ganzen Monat bis zum Überdrusse essen könnt. יצא מאפכם hyperbolischer Ausdruck der Überfülle. Ihr werdet dessen so voll sein, dass es sich alle möglichen Ausgänge sucht. ורא, da זרה fortwerfen bedeutet, vergl. תורם כמו דוה צא תאמר לו (Jes.30, 22), so liegt es nicht fern, dass זרא das Erbrechen bedeute. — יען כי מאסתם את ד׳ אשר בקרבכם die geistige, innige Beziehung zu Gott, die euch in eurer Abgeschlossenheit zu Teil wird und euch eure Entbehrungen, wenn deren welche da sind, mehr als ersetzen sollte, hatte für euch allen Wert verloren, und לפניו, im Anblick Seiner Gegenwart, die euch wohl eure Errungenschaft in die Seele rufen durfte, fragtet ihr weinend: למה זה וגו׳ .למה זה יצאנו וגו׳: wir sehen in der Gegenwart nichts, das unseren Weggang aus Mizrajim motivieren könnte.

לא יום אחד ....ולא עשרים יום, “not one day or even not twenty days, etc.” Why did the Torah have to give us all these details, instead of simply writing that the people got quails lasting for thirty days? The days listed by the Torah here have to be viewed cumulatively, so that the quail episode extended for a period of 67 days. In the Jewish calendar year there are a total of 67 days which are holidays, i.e. the Sabbath days and the festivals. [This applies when the year has 354 days, seeing that it does not always have the same number of days. Ed.] The message is that on each of these days the consumption of meat is a mitzvah; on other days meat consumed on these days may have negative effects, as opposed to meat consumed in honour of the Sabbath or a festival. Personally, I prefer to understand the expression: לא יום אחד, “not one day, that there is one of those days, i.e. the Day of Atonement on which consumption of meat is forbidden. [The author continues in a somewhat forced manner to find justifications for each individual number listed. Since he has to resort to numbers which are appropriate only for the additional days for a festival observed in the Diaspora, and since at the same time he does not consider Purim as a day deserving be honoured by the eating of meat, I decided to skip this. Ed.]