Commento su Numeri 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."

ואמרו אל יושב הארץ הזאת, the Egyptians will say concerning the inhabitants of the land of Canaan, as Rashi explained on verse 13 (that the Jewish G’d was unable to cope with the Canaanites)

אשר עין בעין נראה, the entire verse illustrates graphically the visual experiences Israel had enjoyed in its relationship with G’d something that would make their committing the kind of sin on account of which their G’d would wipe them out unthinkable. [I paraphrased here. Ed.]

אשר עין בעין, “who appeared eye to eye.” Nachmanides refers to the commentators who understand this phrase as describing that G’d, when performing the miracles for His people, appeared to them as visible as when one human being sees another human being performing acts which used to be considered as beyond human capacity. The expression would be parallel to the expression פנים בפנים דבר ה' עמכם, “face to face did Hashem speak to you.” He suggests as a possible alternative interpretation of this expression that it describes a great vision, great spectacle, the word being used in a manner similar to when the Torah described the appearance of the manna as being ועינו כעין הבדולח, in Number 11,7, where it meant “its appearance was like the gemstone known as bedolach.”

V. 14. ואמרו וגו׳ (siehe V. 13). — עין בעין: das Menschenauge sieht dein Auge, die Menschen sehen, dass du siehst, gewahren deine schauende Gegenwart auf Erden. — ובעמד ענן אתה הלך לפניהם du gehst vor ihnen her und führst sie den Weg zu dem von dir verheißenen Lande.

ואמרו, “and the Egyptians will say, etc,”אל יושבי הארץ, “to the inhabitants of this land, etc.”What are they going to tell them? Because of G-d’s inability, etc.” (B’chor shor)

'מבלתי יכולת ה “Because the Lord was unable etc. … [he hath slaughtered them in the wilderness]”. — The connection between that verse and what preceeds is as follows: Because they have heard that Thou, O Lord, dwellest in their midst and that Thou appearest to them face to face and all this is in an affectionate manner (i.e. all this is evidence of the affection in which Thou holdest them), and until now they had not realized that Your love for them had been withdrawn.

We therefore must understand the verse as follows: ואמרו, when the Egyptians will hear about the fate of the Jewish people they will attribute this to their G'd's inability to overcome the Canaanites though He had been able to overcome them at that time. The Egyptians could construe two possible reasons for the demise of the Jewish people. 1) They did not qualify for the miracles it would take for their G'd to overcome the Canaanites. There is no comparison between overcoming the single Egyptian nation and overcoming of seven powerful nations such as the Canaanites. The fact that the Jewish G'd had overcome Egypt does not prove that He is omnipotent seeing that the Egyptians were far weaker than the Canaanites. G'd was not fond enough of the Israelites to orchestrate the type of miracles needed to overcome the Canaanites. 2) G'd did love the people sufficiently; however He was not powerful enough to overcome the Canaanites. This is why Moses said: כי אתה ה׳ בקרב העם הזה, "for You O Lord are in the midst of this people." Moses meant that G'd should not allow the Egyptians to conclude that the Canaanites too were beloved of G'd and that is why He did not disinherit them. The Egyptians were well aware of how beloved the Jews were in the eyes of G'd. If G'd did not bring them to the Holy Land and rather killed them, this could only be interpreted by them as proof of His impotence in the matter.

A’YIN B’A'YIN’ (EYE TO EYE). The double use of the word eye [in this phrase] has been explained by commentators¹¹⁷Onkelos, who translated it as: “who saw with their eyes.” as indicating human [behavior], for the eyes [of a speaker] look into the eyes of the listener to whom he is speaking. A similar case is the verse, Face to face did the Eternal speak with you.¹¹⁸Deuteronomy 5:4. And by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], the word a’yin is an expression for “vision,” [“appearance,” as in these verses:] ‘v’eino k’ein’ (and the appearance thereof was as the appearance of) bdellium;¹¹⁹Above, 11:7. and I saw ‘k’ein’ (as the appearance of) electrum.¹²⁰Ezekiel 1:27. The verse here is thus stating: “inasmuch as Thy Great Name is seen through the appearance of an appearance;” and this is also the meaning of the verse with reference to Ezekiel, And the appearance of the vision which I saw was like the vision that I saw when I came to destroy the city; and the visions were like the vision that I saw by the river Chebar.¹²¹Ibid., 43:3.