עַ֣ד ׀ חֹ֣דֶשׁ יָמִ֗ים עַ֤ד אֲשֶׁר־יֵצֵא֙ מֵֽאַפְּכֶ֔ם וְהָיָ֥ה לָכֶ֖ם לְזָרָ֑א יַ֗עַן כִּֽי־מְאַסְתֶּ֤ם אֶת־יְהוָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בְּקִרְבְּכֶ֔ם וַתִּבְכּ֤וּ לְפָנָיו֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר לָ֥מָּה זֶּ֖ה יָצָ֥אנוּ מִמִּצְרָֽיִם׃
kundi hanggang isang buong buwan, hanggang sa lumabas ito sa inyong mga ilong at maging kasuklam-suklam ito sa inyo; sapagkat itinakwil ninyo ang Walang-Hanggan na nasa gitna ninyo, at umiyak kayo sa harap Niya, na nagsasabi, “Bakit pa kami lumabas sa Egipto?”’
Rabbeinu Bahya
ותשא כל העדה ויתנו את קולם, “The entire assembly raised its voice,“ According to the plain meaning of these words the people commenced crying in the evening and kept crying all night long. We know that the spies had returned close to nightfall bringing with them a special kind of darkness, similar to the one we experience on the night of the ninth of Av when we mourn the destruction of the Temple. The prophet Jeremiah (Lamentations 1,2) refers to the repeated crying of the Jewish people on that night. Midrash Eicha Rabbati (1,28) points out that the dates when the people cried mentioned by Jeremiah coincided with the date they cried on this occasion.
How is the date of this occurrence arrived at? According to Taanit 29 Moses constructed the Tabernacle during the first year of the Exodus and put it together during the second year when he also sent out the spies. The cloud lifted off the Tabernacle on the twentieth of the second month in that year. The month of Iyar is always only 29 days long. The Torah testifies (10,11) that the people commenced their journey away from Mount Sinai on the twentieth of that month and that they traveled for three days in the first instance. The first of these three days does not count in the calendar as it was identical with the day on which the cloud had lifted. According to Rabbi Chama in the name of Rabbi Chanina this (the third) was the day on which the people already departed from their obedience to G’d, as the Torah mentions in Numbers 11,4 that the rabble among them lusted after various cravings, which in turn caused even the elite (בני ישראל) to commence crying from discontent. This occurred on the 22nd day of Iyar. The meat provided by G’d as a result of this rebellion lasted for 30 days (11,20) which brings us to the 22nd day of Sivan. The Torah then mentions that further travel was delayed while Miriam was isolated for seven days (12,15) which brings us to the 29th day of Sivan. This is the day when Moses dispatched the spies who returned after 40 days, i.e. the 9th day of the month of Av. The month of Sivan had thirty days whereas the month of Tammuz had 29 days. This would mean that the spies actually stayed away only thirty nine days if they returned on the ninth of Av. The Talmud raises this point. The answer given is that during that particular year the month of Tammuz had thirty days so that the ninth of Av occurred on the fortieth day of the spies’ departure. The scriptural reference to this unusual length of the month of Tammuz is provided by Lamentations 1,15: “He proclaimed a set time against me to crush my young men.” This “time” was the thirtieth day of Tammuz which caused the spies’ return to occur on the fateful ninth of Av.
When the Torah wrote in our verse that the entire congregation raised their collective voice in weeping, the reference is to the calendar date, the ninth day of Av. Rabbi Yochanan quotes G’d as saying that seeing that on the occasion of the spies’ report the people spent the night weeping without cause, He would give them cause to weep on a future occasion on that same date, i.e. the night of the destruction of the Temple. Starting from that night, the people would have many occasions to weep; this accounts for the repetition of the words בכה תבכה,“you will weep repeatedly, in Lamentations 1,2.
Our sages in that connection also understand the repetition of these two words as referring to the weeping for the destruction of the first Temple as well as the weeping for the destruction of the second Temple. Midrash Eicha Rabbati 1,24 also comments that the repetition refers to weeping for the destruction of the Northern Kingdom (10 tribes which preceded the destruction of the Kingdom of Yehudah) and that for the destruction of the latter kingdom. Similarly, the words refer to separate weeping for Jerusalem and Zion respectively, i.e. the loss of our physical and our spiritual capital respectively. We have evidence that the destruction of the first Temple occurred at night as this is mentioned explicitly in Jeremiah 39,4: “When King Tzidkiyahu of Yehudah saw them, he and all the soldiers fled. They left the city at night through the gate between the double walls.” Jeremiah had already prophesied (Jeremiah 6,5) “up, let us attack by night, and wreck her fortress!” The destruction of the second Temple also occurred at night as the Talmud Taanit 29 interprets Jeremiah 6,4: “alas for us! For the day is declining, the shadows of the evening grow long,” as a reference to the destruction of the second Temple. When the wicked Titus destroyed Jerusalem and set it ablaze the Jews fled to the camp of Titus’ army and were exiled from their city. There were a number of Arabs in that army and they kidnapped 400 Jewish children and carried them to the sea at night and shipped them to their homeland as prisoners. (Gittin 57). The children debated among themselves if to commit suicide by jumping ship. They were afraid to lose their share in the world to come if they would commit suicide. To this argument other boys replied that there is a verse (Psalms 68,23):”The Lord said: ‘I will retrieve from Bashan, I will retrieve from the depth of the sea.’” [They meant that their share in the world to come would not be forfeited. Ed.] When the girls heard this they immediately jumped overboard drowning themselves. When the boys observed this they said to themselves that if even the girls who are no strangers to being sexually abused prefer death to being violated, they, the boys, who are not usually exposed to sodomy [an Arab specialty, Ed.] must certainly prefer death to such indignities being perpetrated upon them.
All these tragic events occurred at night as a punishment for the weeping of the children of Israel on the night after the return of the spies. Even the eventual destruction of the Temples and the dispersion of the Jewish people was decreed on the night mentioned in our verse. This is the meaning of Psalms 106,25-27: “they grumbled in their tents and disobeyed the Lord. So He raised His hand in oath to make them fall in the wilderness. To disperse their offspring among the nations and scatter them through the lands.” The prophet Ezekiel also refers to this when he says in Ezekiel 20,23: “However, I swore to them in the wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them through the lands.” So you have clear proof from all three parts of the Bible that this night was predetermined to become a night of weeping for the Jewish people throughout the generations.
How is the date of this occurrence arrived at? According to Taanit 29 Moses constructed the Tabernacle during the first year of the Exodus and put it together during the second year when he also sent out the spies. The cloud lifted off the Tabernacle on the twentieth of the second month in that year. The month of Iyar is always only 29 days long. The Torah testifies (10,11) that the people commenced their journey away from Mount Sinai on the twentieth of that month and that they traveled for three days in the first instance. The first of these three days does not count in the calendar as it was identical with the day on which the cloud had lifted. According to Rabbi Chama in the name of Rabbi Chanina this (the third) was the day on which the people already departed from their obedience to G’d, as the Torah mentions in Numbers 11,4 that the rabble among them lusted after various cravings, which in turn caused even the elite (בני ישראל) to commence crying from discontent. This occurred on the 22nd day of Iyar. The meat provided by G’d as a result of this rebellion lasted for 30 days (11,20) which brings us to the 22nd day of Sivan. The Torah then mentions that further travel was delayed while Miriam was isolated for seven days (12,15) which brings us to the 29th day of Sivan. This is the day when Moses dispatched the spies who returned after 40 days, i.e. the 9th day of the month of Av. The month of Sivan had thirty days whereas the month of Tammuz had 29 days. This would mean that the spies actually stayed away only thirty nine days if they returned on the ninth of Av. The Talmud raises this point. The answer given is that during that particular year the month of Tammuz had thirty days so that the ninth of Av occurred on the fortieth day of the spies’ departure. The scriptural reference to this unusual length of the month of Tammuz is provided by Lamentations 1,15: “He proclaimed a set time against me to crush my young men.” This “time” was the thirtieth day of Tammuz which caused the spies’ return to occur on the fateful ninth of Av.
When the Torah wrote in our verse that the entire congregation raised their collective voice in weeping, the reference is to the calendar date, the ninth day of Av. Rabbi Yochanan quotes G’d as saying that seeing that on the occasion of the spies’ report the people spent the night weeping without cause, He would give them cause to weep on a future occasion on that same date, i.e. the night of the destruction of the Temple. Starting from that night, the people would have many occasions to weep; this accounts for the repetition of the words בכה תבכה,“you will weep repeatedly, in Lamentations 1,2.
Our sages in that connection also understand the repetition of these two words as referring to the weeping for the destruction of the first Temple as well as the weeping for the destruction of the second Temple. Midrash Eicha Rabbati 1,24 also comments that the repetition refers to weeping for the destruction of the Northern Kingdom (10 tribes which preceded the destruction of the Kingdom of Yehudah) and that for the destruction of the latter kingdom. Similarly, the words refer to separate weeping for Jerusalem and Zion respectively, i.e. the loss of our physical and our spiritual capital respectively. We have evidence that the destruction of the first Temple occurred at night as this is mentioned explicitly in Jeremiah 39,4: “When King Tzidkiyahu of Yehudah saw them, he and all the soldiers fled. They left the city at night through the gate between the double walls.” Jeremiah had already prophesied (Jeremiah 6,5) “up, let us attack by night, and wreck her fortress!” The destruction of the second Temple also occurred at night as the Talmud Taanit 29 interprets Jeremiah 6,4: “alas for us! For the day is declining, the shadows of the evening grow long,” as a reference to the destruction of the second Temple. When the wicked Titus destroyed Jerusalem and set it ablaze the Jews fled to the camp of Titus’ army and were exiled from their city. There were a number of Arabs in that army and they kidnapped 400 Jewish children and carried them to the sea at night and shipped them to their homeland as prisoners. (Gittin 57). The children debated among themselves if to commit suicide by jumping ship. They were afraid to lose their share in the world to come if they would commit suicide. To this argument other boys replied that there is a verse (Psalms 68,23):”The Lord said: ‘I will retrieve from Bashan, I will retrieve from the depth of the sea.’” [They meant that their share in the world to come would not be forfeited. Ed.] When the girls heard this they immediately jumped overboard drowning themselves. When the boys observed this they said to themselves that if even the girls who are no strangers to being sexually abused prefer death to being violated, they, the boys, who are not usually exposed to sodomy [an Arab specialty, Ed.] must certainly prefer death to such indignities being perpetrated upon them.
All these tragic events occurred at night as a punishment for the weeping of the children of Israel on the night after the return of the spies. Even the eventual destruction of the Temples and the dispersion of the Jewish people was decreed on the night mentioned in our verse. This is the meaning of Psalms 106,25-27: “they grumbled in their tents and disobeyed the Lord. So He raised His hand in oath to make them fall in the wilderness. To disperse their offspring among the nations and scatter them through the lands.” The prophet Ezekiel also refers to this when he says in Ezekiel 20,23: “However, I swore to them in the wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them through the lands.” So you have clear proof from all three parts of the Bible that this night was predetermined to become a night of weeping for the Jewish people throughout the generations.
Sforno
וישובו ויבכו, they again pretended to have justified complaints, testing G’d’s patience. This time they cried that they had agreed to leave Egypt. This was equivalent to insulting the Presence of the Shechinah that had honoured them with its presence amongst them. Moses tells them this explicitly in verse 20 when he said: יען מאסתם את ה' אשר ,בקרבכם ותבכו לפניו לאמור למה זה יצאנו ממצרים?, “because you despised the Lord Who is in your midst and you cried, saying: “why is this that we left Egypt?”
Tosafot Yom Tov
OUR ANCESTORS TRIED G-D WITH TEN TRIALS IN THE DESERT. Even though the Golden Calf was a sin it is called a “trial” because the notion of a “trial” of G-d is doubt and lack of faith in Him, and the sin of the calf was that they did not believe and trust in Him that they would go securely on their way in the desert through which He had guided them from Egypt until that point.
Rav does not list them chronologically, putting them in pairs instead. But there is difficulty with Rav saying that the trial at their “ascent from the sea” was that of “and they came to Marah” (Exodus 15:23)—how can this be called “ascent from the sea” when it happened three days after they had crossed? And Rambam, whose commentary Rav is quoting here, does not say that the trial at Marah had anything to do with the ascent from the sea.
The Talmud in Arachin 15a, when it says that one of the ten trials was at the ascent from the sea, explains that this trial occurred immediately upon their ascending from the sea: “They said: just as we have ascended at this point, so have the Egyptians ascended at some other point!” And the Talmud quotes the verse “And they rebelled at the sea, at the Red Sea”202We have translated yam suf as “Red Sea” in deference to convention. It is actually uncertain which sea yam suf was. (Psalms 106:7) in support of this. The Talmud’s count, despite this addition, is balanced by the omission of the trial of the “complainers”.
But why, indeed, does the Talmud not count the complainers? It seems that the Talmud understood the “complainers” (Numbers 11:1) and the “rabble” (Number 11:4) to have been one thing—even though G-d sent fire upon them they were not quieted, “and the rabble in [the nation’s] midst etc.” This is why the verse says that they “went back and wept,” for they returned to the initial complaint of the “complainers”. This accords with the Talmud in Shabbat 116a: R. Shimon ben Gamliel says: in the future, this section [“And when the ark traveled” (Numbers 10:35), which the Talmud is discussing there] will be removed from here and written in its proper place. Why was it written here? To provide a pause between the first story of punishment and the second. What is the second story of punishment? “And the people were like complainers” (Numbers 11:1). The first story of punishment is “And they travelled from the mountain of G-d [Heb. vayis`u mehar Hashem]” (Numbers 10:33), as R. Chama bar Chanina said, for they turned away from G-d [Heb. saru me'acharei Hashem]. Tosafot raise the question that the text still ends up putting two stories of punishment adjacent to one another, and offer a very forced answer.203It is unclear which Tosafot is being referred to, as our editions of the Talmud do not have Tosafot raising this question. But according to what I wrote earlier, this is precisely the point the Talmud is making: that the “complainers” and the “rabble” are just parts of one story of punishment.
We can show this as follows. For the Talmud there asks “what is the second story of punishment” but does not first ask “what is the first story”, from which we can infer that the Talmud had an idea of what the first story was. And when the line “the first story of punishment is ‘And they travelled from the mountain of G-d’” following that was subsequently put into the text it was not phrased as a question, “what is the first story of punishment”, for it was the redactor of the text who was clarifying for us what the first story was, but the question as it was originally asked in the study hall was only concerning the second story. For the original assumption in the question was that the “complainers” were complaining about the amount of Torah they had learnt at the mountain of G-d—see below—and there is no break in the text [between the punishment of the “complainers” and the punishment of the “rabble”]. The Talmud answers by saying that the second punishment is actually that of the “complainers”, and the entire succeeding text, including the story of the “rabble”, is one long story of punishment.204And the first story is the separate story of their travelling away from the mountain of G-d.
This is unlike Rashi’s approach, that the Talmud answers that the story of the “rabble” is the first story of punishment, which had started after they turned away from G-d. Tosafot there already take issue with his approach and quote the Midrash Vayechulu saying that the first punishment is that they turned away from G-d because they had learned much Torah at Sinai, like a child running out of school.
[*I found support for this in Midrash Rabbah on parashat Metzora (Vayikra Rabbah 18:4), which asks why Israel was punished with the afflictions of emissions and leprosy and quotes several amoraic opinions. One of them is that of R. Yehudah berabbi Shimon who says that they come from the “complainers”, for the verse there says “until it comes out of your noses and becomes nauseating [Heb. lezara] to you” (Numbers 11:20): “What is zara? It will be zorna and bisna for you.” Matnot Kehuna there explains in the name of Aruch that these are types of swelling and boils. And numerous other amoraim there explain lezara as somehow referring to such things. Now if the “complainers” and the “rabble” were not both part of the same story, how could the midrash say that the source is from the “complainers” and proceed to bring a proof from “it will become nauseating to you”, a verse that was said in the story of the “rabble”? It must be that the whole thing is one story, and this is a strong proof of my position.
Also, I say that the plain meaning of the verses indicates as much, for the text says “and the rabble… went back and wept”, and the meaning of “went back” is that they went back to what they had already been doing. And otherwise, what is the purpose of writing that they “went back” altogether? This is also a clear proof.]
For Rambam and Rav, who see the “complainers” and “rabble” as two separate trials, one might say that they hold like Rabbi in that passage in Shabbat 116a who says that the section “and when the ark travelled” is in its proper place and does not see it as a break between two stories of punishment,205He must hold, in general, that there is no need for a break between two stories of punishment. The stories of the “complainers” and the “rabble” can then also be seen as two stories, even though there is no break between them. and the mishna in Yadayim 3:5 goes according to Rabbi. In any case, I feel that the Golden Calf should not be included in this count at all,206If we follow Rav and Rambam’s position of counting the “complainers” and the “rabble” as two, we cannot also include the trials at the ascent from the sea and at Marah as two separate trials—as Tosafot Yom Tov has shown they are—for then the count comes to eleven. Tosafot Yom Tov proposes deleting the sin of the Golden Calf from the list of trials and preserving the trials at the ascent from the sea and Marah as separate ones. for it is a sin, not a trial. In its stead I would count what the Talmud says in Arachin based on the verse “and they rebelled at the sea, at the Red Sea”. And the Torah has seventy facets.207I.e., there are many different ways to count the ten trials throughout the midrashic and medieval literature, and Tosafot Yom Tov is merely adding another.
Rav does not list them chronologically, putting them in pairs instead. But there is difficulty with Rav saying that the trial at their “ascent from the sea” was that of “and they came to Marah” (Exodus 15:23)—how can this be called “ascent from the sea” when it happened three days after they had crossed? And Rambam, whose commentary Rav is quoting here, does not say that the trial at Marah had anything to do with the ascent from the sea.
The Talmud in Arachin 15a, when it says that one of the ten trials was at the ascent from the sea, explains that this trial occurred immediately upon their ascending from the sea: “They said: just as we have ascended at this point, so have the Egyptians ascended at some other point!” And the Talmud quotes the verse “And they rebelled at the sea, at the Red Sea”202We have translated yam suf as “Red Sea” in deference to convention. It is actually uncertain which sea yam suf was. (Psalms 106:7) in support of this. The Talmud’s count, despite this addition, is balanced by the omission of the trial of the “complainers”.
But why, indeed, does the Talmud not count the complainers? It seems that the Talmud understood the “complainers” (Numbers 11:1) and the “rabble” (Number 11:4) to have been one thing—even though G-d sent fire upon them they were not quieted, “and the rabble in [the nation’s] midst etc.” This is why the verse says that they “went back and wept,” for they returned to the initial complaint of the “complainers”. This accords with the Talmud in Shabbat 116a: R. Shimon ben Gamliel says: in the future, this section [“And when the ark traveled” (Numbers 10:35), which the Talmud is discussing there] will be removed from here and written in its proper place. Why was it written here? To provide a pause between the first story of punishment and the second. What is the second story of punishment? “And the people were like complainers” (Numbers 11:1). The first story of punishment is “And they travelled from the mountain of G-d [Heb. vayis`u mehar Hashem]” (Numbers 10:33), as R. Chama bar Chanina said, for they turned away from G-d [Heb. saru me'acharei Hashem]. Tosafot raise the question that the text still ends up putting two stories of punishment adjacent to one another, and offer a very forced answer.203It is unclear which Tosafot is being referred to, as our editions of the Talmud do not have Tosafot raising this question. But according to what I wrote earlier, this is precisely the point the Talmud is making: that the “complainers” and the “rabble” are just parts of one story of punishment.
We can show this as follows. For the Talmud there asks “what is the second story of punishment” but does not first ask “what is the first story”, from which we can infer that the Talmud had an idea of what the first story was. And when the line “the first story of punishment is ‘And they travelled from the mountain of G-d’” following that was subsequently put into the text it was not phrased as a question, “what is the first story of punishment”, for it was the redactor of the text who was clarifying for us what the first story was, but the question as it was originally asked in the study hall was only concerning the second story. For the original assumption in the question was that the “complainers” were complaining about the amount of Torah they had learnt at the mountain of G-d—see below—and there is no break in the text [between the punishment of the “complainers” and the punishment of the “rabble”]. The Talmud answers by saying that the second punishment is actually that of the “complainers”, and the entire succeeding text, including the story of the “rabble”, is one long story of punishment.204And the first story is the separate story of their travelling away from the mountain of G-d.
This is unlike Rashi’s approach, that the Talmud answers that the story of the “rabble” is the first story of punishment, which had started after they turned away from G-d. Tosafot there already take issue with his approach and quote the Midrash Vayechulu saying that the first punishment is that they turned away from G-d because they had learned much Torah at Sinai, like a child running out of school.
[*I found support for this in Midrash Rabbah on parashat Metzora (Vayikra Rabbah 18:4), which asks why Israel was punished with the afflictions of emissions and leprosy and quotes several amoraic opinions. One of them is that of R. Yehudah berabbi Shimon who says that they come from the “complainers”, for the verse there says “until it comes out of your noses and becomes nauseating [Heb. lezara] to you” (Numbers 11:20): “What is zara? It will be zorna and bisna for you.” Matnot Kehuna there explains in the name of Aruch that these are types of swelling and boils. And numerous other amoraim there explain lezara as somehow referring to such things. Now if the “complainers” and the “rabble” were not both part of the same story, how could the midrash say that the source is from the “complainers” and proceed to bring a proof from “it will become nauseating to you”, a verse that was said in the story of the “rabble”? It must be that the whole thing is one story, and this is a strong proof of my position.
Also, I say that the plain meaning of the verses indicates as much, for the text says “and the rabble… went back and wept”, and the meaning of “went back” is that they went back to what they had already been doing. And otherwise, what is the purpose of writing that they “went back” altogether? This is also a clear proof.]
For Rambam and Rav, who see the “complainers” and “rabble” as two separate trials, one might say that they hold like Rabbi in that passage in Shabbat 116a who says that the section “and when the ark travelled” is in its proper place and does not see it as a break between two stories of punishment,205He must hold, in general, that there is no need for a break between two stories of punishment. The stories of the “complainers” and the “rabble” can then also be seen as two stories, even though there is no break between them. and the mishna in Yadayim 3:5 goes according to Rabbi. In any case, I feel that the Golden Calf should not be included in this count at all,206If we follow Rav and Rambam’s position of counting the “complainers” and the “rabble” as two, we cannot also include the trials at the ascent from the sea and at Marah as two separate trials—as Tosafot Yom Tov has shown they are—for then the count comes to eleven. Tosafot Yom Tov proposes deleting the sin of the Golden Calf from the list of trials and preserving the trials at the ascent from the sea and Marah as separate ones. for it is a sin, not a trial. In its stead I would count what the Talmud says in Arachin based on the verse “and they rebelled at the sea, at the Red Sea”. And the Torah has seventy facets.207I.e., there are many different ways to count the ten trials throughout the midrashic and medieval literature, and Tosafot Yom Tov is merely adding another.