Abarbanel on Torah

Sefaria · Tanakh > Rishonim on Tanakh > Abarbanel · 134 sections

Genesis.Introduction.1
[Introduction of the Printer]
Genesis.Introduction.2
In the beginning, God created Man in His image on Earth, and He breathed into his nostrils a soul hewn from the bundles of life. He devised a plan to fasten upon man’s arm a link to the upper and lower realms. Perhaps man would, by his own choice, turn toward his Maker; conducting his weekday life with the sanctity of Shabbat, to understand and perceive the greatness of the Holy King. When the seekers among the generations proved unworthy in His eyes, He cast them away from Him and refined them like a smelter purifying dross — little by little, for correction — until, like the first rays of dawn, the first of His harvest appeared, truly clinging to her Beloved and delighting in the radiance of her glory, adorned with the crown she placed upon Him on His wedding day. There He gave her a precious reserved treasure, the first of its kind, together with adornments, embellishments, and ornaments, to prepare her, nourish her, according to His desire.
Genesis._.1.1.1
..."In the beginning G-d created" until "The first day" I see in these verses the following questions to raise
Genesis._.1.1.2
The first question is on the verse of "In the beginning G-d created" etc. And that is, if the verse comes to relay the order of the creation...
Genesis._.1.1.3
...The first question is in the verse "in the beginning God created" etc. It is that if the text was coming to tell the order of the creation and what came before, why would it say that the First created heaven and earth. For in them you will find that which physically exists above and below. If all this was created in the beginning, what was it that was created afterward? And the commentators ... this in the saying that the text did not come to tell us the order of creation ... You should say: in the beginning of God's creation of Heaven and Earth, the Land was Void and Nothing. This is the way of Rashi and Ibn Ezra. Ralbag is close to them if not that he makes ... with the saying "let there be light." The text speaks according to its thought "In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth and the Earth was Void and Nothingness ... God said let there be light." This explanation does not appear entirely correct with me because it would it would obligate that the text ... On the first intention creation to Heaven and Earth that is the essence ... and its faith.
Genesis._.9.1.1
...And since they would learn the trait of cruelty from their killing animals in order to eat them, it forbade them [eating] a limb from a live animal, which is an even greater cruelty. And this is its statement, "But you may not eat meat in its soul (benafsho), its blood." And the [letter] bet, of benafsho is used in the place of "with," as in (Exodus 14:18), berikhvo oveparashav (with his chariot and with his riders)"; and (Exodus 15:20), "betupim ouvimacholot (with drums and with dances)." [Hence] the verse is saying, when the soul - its blood - is in it, do not eat from the meat. And this is a truly straight and true explanation...
Genesis._.12.1.1
I already recalled in the order of Genesis and the order of Noah as well that the Torah of God recalls three beginnings for the Israelite nation. The first ... was the first Adam.
Genesis._.12.1.7
The 5th question: Why did the Lord Blessed be He not reveal the essential intention of this. ...
Genesis._.12.1.8
...The 6th question: What is the meaning of "you will be a blessing."
Genesis._.12.1.9
...7th question:
Genesis._.12.2.1
...Though having said 'and there will be blessing through you all of the families of the land and in your seed'. I will say that in this way God explained to hi the purpose of the leaving which He commanded him. And that is that because of him they will be blessed and influenced and many nations will come to learn about God for as he calls out in God's name they will recognize the truth through him... but the purpose of the journey was hinted to him in the words 'and there will be a blessing' that God commanded him that when he goes there will be a blessing among the nations in their learning (about God) and in his informing them (the nations) of the true faith in a way that the world will be perfected through him. And God informed him that his special care for the world will be contagious as others will take his Torah and learn of his faith. And on this the Torah states 'I will bless those who bless you', meaning those who bless and praise you--those who are inclined to your discipline of God and those who accept your faith, I will bless them and make their lives better.
Genesis._.21.1.2
The first question is about the repetition, "And the Lord took account of Sarah as He had said, and the Lord did to Sarah as He had spoken" (Genesis 21:1). And Rashi explained (Rashi on Genesis 21:1) [that] "He took account of Sarah as He had said," is about the conception; and "the Lord did to Sarah," is about the birth. But this is not correct; as once He informed her, it is [already] known that she would give birth. And the Ramban wrote that the content of, "take account (pakad)," is remembered, and that it is an expression that is common with barren women - as it is written (Genesis 30:22), "And God remembered Rachel"; and, with Channah, "and the Lord remembered her" (I Samuel 1:19). And this too is not correct. For Sarah was not forgotten, that it should be required to say about her that He remembered her. As behold, the angel had made knows that she would give birth and specified a time limit when she would give birth. And as a result, there was no forgetting about her. Moreover, the content of the expression, (pakad), is not, remembered. And the testimony [about this] is, "I have surely taken account of (pekod pakadati) you and that which is being done to you in Egypt" (Exodus 3:16). But they had not been forgotten there; and all the more so is forgetting not relevant to that which was done to them everyday!
Genesis._.21.1.3
The second question is about its stating (Genesis 21:2), "and Sarah bore Avraham a son in his old age." And is it not [the case] that we would have known that she bore him in his old age? As it will be stated after this (Genesis 21:5), "Avraham was a hundred years old when Yitzchak his son was born to him." And, as a result, its stating, "in his old age," is superfluous here and there is no need for it at all.
Genesis._.21.1.4
The third question is that which the Ran asked: Why did Avraham not call his son with the name, Yitzchak, on the day of his circumcision, but rather called him so on the day of his birth. As behold, the name is given and conferred with the people, and this was always done in Israel previously. So why did he hurry to call him his name on the day of his birth?
Genesis._.21.1.5
The fourth question is about its stating (Genesis 21:5), "And Avraham was a hundred years old when Yitzchak his son was born to him." And this is difficult, since we know his elderly age! As he was circumcised when he was 99 years old, and it was said to him then that Sarah will give birth in the next year at that time. All the more so [is it difficult] since this verse comes out of its place, after the mention of the name and the circumcision, whereas it would have been appropriate to mention it adjacent to the birth.
Genesis._.21.1.6
The fifth question is about the statement (Genesis 21:6), "God has made laughter for me, all who hear of it will laugh for me," whereas it did not mention a word from Avraham, given that the strangeness and the laughter is also on his part. It is as it is written (Genesis 17:17), "To a hundred-year-old man shall there be [children] born, or shall ninety-year-old Sarah give birth?" As there, the impediment [to having children] is from both of them.
Genesis._.21.1.7
The sixth question is about that which she said (Genesis 21:7), "Who declared to Avraham." And that is because this statement comes out of its place; and also because she should not have wondered who declared [it] to Avraham - since the Holy One, blessed be He, as well as the angel, declared this to Avraham. And Rashi wrote (Rashi on Genesis 21:7) that, "Who declared," is as a praise, hinting to the Holy One, blessed be He. But the Ramban objected to this, since he only found the word, "who," as disparagement: "Who is Avimelekh and who is Shekhem" (Judges 9:28); "who is David and who is the son of Jesse" (I Samuel 25:10). But I wondered about his words, as it appears that he forgot, "Raise your eyes and see Who created these" (Isaiah 40:26); "Who bore these for me [...] and who has brought these up" (Isaiah 49:21); "Who is the One coming from Edom" (Isaiah 63:1); "Who is she that shines through like the dawn" (Song of Songs 6:10), and many like these.
Genesis._.21.1.8
The seventh question: Why did Avraham make a great banquet on the day of Yitzchak's weaning, and not on the day of the birth or on the day of the circumcision, as is our custom today? And the Ran wrote that it then looked as if the youth was healthy and strong and had passed the dangers of infancy. But this is not correct. As Avraham had known that Yitzchak would become healthy and become strong; and he believed God, that 'for it is through Yitzchak that his seed will be called.'
Genesis._.21.1.9
The eighth question: Why did the righteous Sarah seek to expel Yishmael from the house of his father, when she knew that Avraham loved him like a father who desires [his] son.
Genesis._.21.1.10
The ninth question: Why did Sarah request that Avraham also expel the maidservant, [together] with her son? For if Yishmael sinned in that he laughed, what was Hagar's sin? And the reason that Sarah gave concerning the inheritance relates to Yishmael, not to his mother, Hagar. All the more so [is it difficult], since the Holy One, blessed be He, agreed with this in His saying (Genesis 29:12) "all that Sarah says to you, listen to her voice."
Genesis._.21.1.11
The tenth question: What is this, that the angel of God called to Hagar and spoke with her, when she was not suited for prophecy? And behold the first time that the angel spoke with her (Genesis 16:7-8), it was for the sake of Avraham, to return her to his house; since she had fled from there. But here it would have been enough for God to open her eyes, as He did, and she would have seen the well and given the youth to drink from it. And if the speech was on account of the youth, who was a son of Avraham, why did the angel not speak to the youth himself - as he was already seventeen years old or more - but rather speak to Hagar the Egyptian? And behold I will explain the verses of this section in such a way that all of these questions will be solved.
Genesis._.21.1.12
And the Lord took account of Sarah, etc. [until] and Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian (Genesis 21:1-9): Since it stated above (Genesis 20:18) that, "The Lord surely sealed every womb in the house of Avimelekh for the matter of Sarah, the wife of Avraham," it juxtaposed it to, "And the Lord took account of Sarah" - meaning to say that the Lord sealed up her enemies, but took account of her, that she should give birth when she was barren. And [the Sages,] may their memory be blessed, said that one who prays for the sake of his fellow is first answered himself. And so it was that since Avraham prayed for Avimelekh, the Lord took account of Sarah his wife. And the expression, taking account (pekidah) is truthfully, visiting and paying attention, as in "I have surely taken account of (pekod pakadati) you and that which is being done to you in Egypt" (Exodus 3:16). For it is since they thought that He, may He be blessed, was not paying attention to them that He said this. And this is like, "and Shimshon took account of his wife with goat clothing" (Judges 15:1); "Lord, in distress did they take account of You." Until on account of this did [people] call those counted, pekudim, and those counting them, pokedim. And the explanation of this verse is that the angel of God had said in God's name, "I will surely return to you next year" (Genesis 18:10). And the content of this returning and this coming is the benefit that He will give him a son from Sarah. For the action indicates the presence of the actor; and since the action was here, the Actor was [also] here. And that is why it is stated (Joshua 6:27), "And the Lord was with Yehoshua"; "And the Lord was with Yosef" (Genesis 39:2) - in that His goodness and His attention was with him. And that is the meaning of, "And the Lord took account of Sarah" - that He payed attention to her matter and that which He had forecast for her. But since there is a taking account for the good and a taking account for the bad - as He stated (Exodus 32:24), "but on the day of My taking account, I will take account" - it was necessary to explain here that the taking account of Sarah was when "the Lord did to her like He had spoken," when He gave her the son that He had forecast to her. And He did not mention that He took account of Avraham for [the following reason]: Because the retention and the pregnancy is with the woman; also because the thing was stranger and more difficult from the perspective of Sarah than it was from the perspective of Avraham. And it is [also] possible to explain, "And the Lord took account of Sarah as He had said," by giving her seed, "and the Lord did to Sarah as He had spoken" - that He gave her a male child, and not a daughter. And his name was called Yitzchak, because that is what He said to her. However, from the perspective of Avraham, it said, "And Sarah conceived and bore Avraham a son in his old age" - meaning to say that she gave birth to the son mentioned from him even with all of his age. And that is the reason for its stating, "in his old age." As it did not say it to denote the time at which she gave birth, but rather to say that also this kindness and this taking account - from the perspective of his being elderly - was done for him. And it is also possible that this is to say that Yitzchak would be the child of his old age, and that is a child that helps his father and serves him; so he would need him for his old age. And with this explanation, it is indicated that its stating, "At the set-time of which God had spoken" - that this is the mention of the time at which he was born; not that which it says, "in his old age." And two questions are solved with this, the first and the second.
Genesis._.21.1.13
And Scripture recounted with this that Avraham did two things: The first is that he called the name of his son that was born to him, Yitzchak. And note its saying, "that was born to him, to which Sarah had borne to him, Yitzchak" - as behold two messages come to inform us that he called his name Yitzchak, from two perspectives: Whether from the perspective of his being elderly, such that he would laugh and rejoice with him - and about this, it stated, "that was born to him." Or whether from the perspective of Sarah, for her being elderly - and about that, it stated, "to which Sarah had borne to him." And if we don't explain it like this, there would be great superfluity in this verse. As there is no doubt that it would be appropriate that it [otherwise] only say, "And he called his name Yitzchak." And the second thing that he did is that Avraham circumcised his son, Yitzchak. And its saying, "eight days old," appears to me to refer to both things together - to the calling of the name and to his entering the covenant (his circumcision). As he did both of these things when the child was eight days old. And it gave the reason for all of this by saying, "like that which (keasher) God had commanded him." For behold, the kaf used for comparison in the word, keasher, is not coming to make known how he did this, but rather that he did it because God commanded him. And it stated this to say that even with Yitzchak being very beloved to his father, since he did not come to him according to the natural fashion - such that because of this, it would have been appropriate for him to be afraid to give him over to the danger of circumcision, given that he was tender and the only one to his mother - behold that Avraham did not consider this to be anything in comparison to the fulfillment of God's commandment that He commanded him regarding the calling of his name and the commandment of circumcision. And that is the meaning of its saying, "like that which (keasher) God had commanded him." And the Ramban wrote that he called his name Yitzchak on the day he was born, since he was commanded about it and the time of the commandment came with his birth, whereas the time of the circumcision was eight days; and that is what he did. But that which I wrote is what is more correct. And with this, the third question is solved.
Genesis._.21.1.14
And behold it juxtaposed this to, "And Avraham was a hundred years old when Yitzchak his son was born to him." This may have been to connect it to what was above it - that even though he was a hundred years old, he circumcised this child of his old age at eight days in order to fulfill the commandment of his Creator. And in these verse, it always has the word, "his son," adjacent to "Yitzchak," to teach that he was the main son in his eyes, not Yishmael, as will be explained. But it is also possible to explain that this verse is coming as an introduction to recount the praise of Sarah and her comprehension: For even though Avraham called the name of his son Yitzchak from his own perspective and the perspective of his wife, as I explained, and that Avraham was a hundred years old when Yitzchak was born for him, such that it was very strange concerning him that she gave birth - behold she did not relate this strangeness to Avraham at all, but rather [only] to herself, in saying, "God has made laughter for me, all who hear of it will laugh for me." Meaning to say, that there was no laughter from his perspective but only from her perspective. And it is possible that it repeats, "all who hear of it will laugh for me," to say that they will laugh about me - because she laughed at the announcement of the angel. And with this, the fourth and fifth questions are solved.
Genesis._.21.1.15
However, for me, the matter of it stating, "Who declared to Avraham," is that when Sarah saw that besides the birth, God also acted magnificently to do kindness with her in that which He gave her milk in her breasts to nurse her son - as this is not frequently found in nature that old women are sufficiently supplied with blood that is suitable for the fetus and that this blood should come to the breasts, such that nourishment be formed from it for the newborn - hence when they saw that she did not have withered breasts but full breasts to nurse him, she said this other statement, "Who declared to Avraham that Sarah would nurse children." Meaning to say, behold the Holy One, blessed be He, announced the birth to Avraham, but He did not say [anything about] the nursing and He did not inform them [of it]. That is the meaning of, "Who declared to Avraham" - as neither God, nor an angel nor anyone in the world told Avraham that it would be possible for Sarah to nurse children now that she gave birth to a son in his old age. And there is no doubt that God, may He be blessed, did this kindness for the honor of Yitzchak, such that he not nurse from the breasts of foreign women, daughters of Canaan. Alternatively, its explanation could be that I know "Who declared to Avraham that Sarah would nurse children" - given that He declared to him that I would give birth to a son in his old age. And to mark this miracle, Scripture stated, "The child grew and was weaned" - meaning to say, that [even] with Sarah's milk being thin and little, in the way of old women, behold the child grew and was weaned. For her milk did not stop until she weaned him. And because of that great miracle, Avraham made a banquet on the day of Yitzchak's weaning, to give thanks to his God for this miracle. And that is why he did not make a banquet for the birth or for the circumcision - since he was already informed about it - but he rather [made it] for the weaning and the growth and the nursing which was not told to him. And with this, the sixth and seventh questions have been solved. And the Ran wrote that Avraham did not make a banquet until the day that [Yitzchak] was weaned because an infant continues to face dangers while he is nursing from his mother's breasts. But that which I wrote myself is more correct.
Genesis._.21.9.1
And Sarah saw [until] And it was at that time (Genesis 21:9-22) Scripture mentioned that Sarah saw Yishmael laugh and that it was bad in her eyes. Maybe he was laughing because of the banquet that they were making on the day that Yitzchak was weaned. So that [would be] the connection of the verses and that is why no section [break] came between them; and [the reason] that Sarah said that since the son of the maidservant would not inherit with her son, what is the need for him to dwell in her home, mocking her good deeds? It would be better for Avraham to drive him out from his home and that he go to grow up in a different land. But since he was a youth, she said that his mother should go with him. Not to drive her out personally or for a sin that she had sinned, but rather that she go with her son to guide him in what he should do. And this explanation is according to the commentators. However what is correct in my eyes is that when Yitzchak was nursing from his mother's breasts [and he was] in borderline neonatal danger, Sarah did not request that he drive out the maidservant and her son. As there is no doubt that Avraham would have difficulty abandoning his definite son, Yishmael - a grown man of full stature - for the question mark that Yitzchak was while he was nursing from curdled milk. But after Yitzchak grew in his years and in his stature and was like everyone [else], it was appropriate for Avraham to grab hold of him as the son who would inherit him; to abandon the shell and cling to the fruit. And because of this, when Sarah saw that the son of Hagar - meaning the son of the maidservant, since that is why it did not call him the son of Avraham, but rather the son of Hagar, to his disgrace - playing at home like an only son in the home that he will inherit, like he was before the birth of Yitzchak; that he was very beloved in the eyes of his father; and that all the members of the household would serve him and gladden him as it was when she adopted him, she was concerned about this. For she thought that it would be fitting that Yitzchak should laugh and that Yishmael should serve him. But since Yishmael was already established in the home for many years and she could not remove him from his established position, it was right in her eyes that he should not continue to dwell in the home. And behold she insisted on this, since Hagar had given birth to him for Avraham, so it was possible that Yishmael would in the end say that he was also the son of Avraham and that it was fitting that both of them would be equal in the inheritance. For the property was Avraham's and, from his perspective, both of them were sons and equal. And that is the reason for its saying, "whom she had borne to Avraham, laughing." Since from that perspective - that Hagar had borne him to Avraham - there was a doubt about the inheritance.
Genesis._.21.9.2
And the Ramban (Ramban on Genesis 21:10) wrote that the expulsion of Hagar was not intended for itself. And the testimony is [Sarah saying], "for the son of this maidservant shall not inherit." However it mentioned Hagar in the expulsion, because the youth could not leave his mother - 'if he left his mother, he would die.' But it appears that the matter is not like this. Since Sarah intended to drive out Hagar as well from the home, just as she intended to drive out Yishmael. And that was because if Hagar was Avraham's concubine, it was not appropriate that she should sit in his home with his wife, the lady [of the house], but rather that she should dwell alone in a different house and the man should go to her secretly. And so if she always dwells in the house and dies there, or if Avraham dies in her lifetime, behold she is assumed to be a full-fledged wife and her sons inherit his properties. And because of this, Sarah said, "Drive out this maidservant and her son, for the son of this maidservant shall not inherit with my son, with Yitzchak." She meant to say, it is not appropriate that the son of the maidservant, the concubine, inherit like the son of the wife, the lady, equally. And if it was like the words of the Ramban, it would have been fitting for her to say, "Drive out the son of this maidservant and his mother." In truth, however, the more intended expulsion at that time was the expulsion of the maidservant. And its saying, "for the son of this maidservant shall not inherit," is the reason for the expulsion of the maidservant, and that is from the reason I mentioned: That a woman who gives birth for a man and she is with him in the home in which he establishes his residence is assumed to be his full-fledged wife, and her sons also inherit the properties of the husband at his death. But a maidservant, who is a concubine, does not dwell in his home and her sons only inherit what their father wants to give them as presents while he is still alive. And that is what Avraham did, as it is stated (Genesis 25:6), "To the sons of the concubines that Avraham had, Avraham gave gifts, and he sent them away, etc." And for me, there is no doubt that Yishmael was included among them, that he gave gifts also to him in his lifetime. And that is why it states, concubines in the plural, as they were Hagar and Keturah, since they were [his] wives. Whereas Yishmael returned to his home and he was at [Avraham's] burial. If so, behold that the expulsion of the maidservant was more necessary; and if he had expelled the son, and the mother would have stayed at home, why would this take away from the assumption of the son? As they will nevertheless say that his mother was a full-fledged wife to his father, and the proof is her always residing at home. But the son's leaving from there is not a proof, since the sons of the lady also leave the home of their father many times and go to the far places of the earth. And behold, Sarah was not insistent about this until now because she thought she would not give birth; so it [had been] her desire and will that Yishmael should inherit all of the house. And that is why she wanted Hagar and Yishmael, her son, to dwell in her home. But after Yitzchak's birth, she was concerned about what could possibly be after Avraham's death concerning the inheritance of his properties. And that is why Sarah, with her great comprehension, said, "Drive out this maidservant and her son, for the son of this maidservant shall not inherit with my son, with Yitzchak" - meaning to say, "with my son," since I am the lady and she is my maidservant; and "with Yitzchak," because of his own perfection and virtue and his fineness in replacing Yishmael.
Genesis._.21.9.3
And Scripture mentions that, "This thing was very bad in the eyes of Avraham, on account of his son." And through this, it reveals that the expulsion of the maidservant was also bad in his eyes, even if it was only very bad in his eyes on account of his son, from the perspective that he was his son - 'like the pity of a father for his children.' However God, may He be blessed, examines the inner chambers and the heart, such that he saw that Sarah's question and request was proper and appropriate. [So] He said to Avraham, "Do not let it be bad in your eyes concerning the youth and concerning your maidservant." Because he was saddened about both of them - first and essentially about the youth, and secondarily about the maidservant - He had to console him about both of them. And He mentioned the youth first since he is the main [concern]. And about the matter of the maidservant, He said to him, "all that Sarah says to you, listen to her voice" - meaning to say, Hagar is the maidservant of Sarah; and so if she wants to drive her out, listen to her voice. But about the matter of the youth, He said to him, "for it is through Yitzchak that your seed will be called" - so he is the true son, not Yishmael. And the Ralbag wrote that the cause of expelling Yishmael was from God, may He be blessed - so as to separate him from Yitzchak, in order that Yitzchak not learn from his bad deeds. But He informed him that He would would also make the son of the maidservant a great nation - meaning to say, [even] with his being the son of an Egyptian maidservant, behold the eyes of His providence will be upon him for [Avraham]'s sake and in his merit. And he will grow and be very very numerous. And He said this to him so that his going away not be bad to [Avraham], since wherever he goes, God [will be] with him. So behold these verses have been explained and the ninth and tenth questions have been solved.
Genesis._.21.9.4
And Scripture recounted Avraham's perfection - that he did not challenge the utterance of his Maker, but got up early in the morning to send them away. He also did not give them silver and gold - such that he thought that this would be in the category of inheritance - but rather bread and water, as is given to slaves. And the content of its saying, "[and] the child," is not that he also placed the child on her shoulder, with the bread and the water. For he was sixteen or seventeen years old; so how could he place him on her shoulder together with the bread and water? Rather its explanation is that he gave them bread and water and he placed the bread and the water on Hagar's shoulder and also on the child, such that both of them were carrying the bread and the water on their shoulders. But the Ran wrote that since Yishmael was a wild man who would not listen to the voice of his father, they needed to tie him up with ropes and place him on Hagars's shoulder. He [then] commanded that he should be taken to the wilderness. For behold, since he was wild and accustomed to the wilderness, it would be comfortable for him there and he would not come back to his home. And that is why he gave him water; and if it were not to bring him to the wilderness, there would not have been a need for water - as it is found (in inns) on every paved road. And Scripture recounted that Hagar strayed in the wilderness. And because she strayed, the water came to an end in the skin before their coming to the wilderness to which they were going. And when the water came to an end in the skin - being the vessel that held the water - the youth was seized by thirst. For, as the philosopher mentioned, thirst is harder to suffer than hunger. And when Hagar saw the distress of the youth from thirst, she thought he would die from it. And that is why she cast the child under one of the bushes - and those were the trees that were there - so that he would not get heat stroke from the sun. And behold, she distanced herself from him like [the measure of] a bowshot. As she said, "Let me not see the death of the child," and she cried for him. But since she was an Egyptian, God did not lister to her voice - meaning to say, that He was not aroused to have mercy on her, but rather on the youth. And even though the youth did not call out nor yell out, behold it said, "And God heard the voice of the youth" - in the sense of, "the voice of the blood of your brother yells out from the ground" (Genesis 4:10). As it was the death of Hevel that was calling out [there]. Likewise, it was the difficulty and the pain of Yishmael which was the voice that God heard. And that is why she heard the Godly speech, "What is the matter, Hagar; do not fear - God has heard the voice of the youth where he is." That is to say, "What is the matter, Hagar - that you are crying; did you think that the youth will die of thirst? The matter is not like this. Rather, even as God did not hear your voice to have mercy upon him in your merit, behold God heard the voice of the youth where he is - from the pain and the difficulty."
Genesis._.21.9.5
But it is [also] possible to explain, "where he is," as his not having heard his voice to bring him back to the house of his father, but rather to protect him and have mercy on him where he is - in that wilderness. And the Ramban wrote (Ramban on Genesis 21:17) that He informed them that she would not need to go from there to seek water, since this place would [have water] to quench his thirst. And behold the prophecy came to Hagar for the sake of Avraham, so that she not give up hope on the youth and abandon him. As when Hagar saw that her son was expelled from the house of Avraham with disgrace and defamation, she almost became cruel to him and gave up hope. So perhaps she cast him in anger under one of the bushes, saying that if his father left him, why should she concern herself with him more than [Avraham did]? And that is why she was crying and yelling out - about the poorness of her fate, like someone with a grievance against Avraham. And the Blessed One was concerned lest she leave Yishmael, and that she would also marry someone else - and Yishmael would return to the house of his father; or that Avraham would need to pay attention to him. For he would not leave him cast away and abandoned in the wilderness. That is why the angel came to endear Yishmael in the eyes of Hagar and to command her [to help him]. And for this [reason], he said, "Get up and lift the youth, and grasp him with your hand, for I will make him a great nation." And all of this was to fulfill that which was said to Avraham about his son, Yishmael - that He would watch over his affairs. Behold, it follows that it was in the merit of Avraham and because of him that Hagar saw the angel the first time (Genesis 16:7-8), in order to bring her back to his home; and prophecy came to Avimelekh because of him; and prophecy also came to Hagar now because of him, to save his son. And with this, the tenth question is solved.
Genesis._.21.9.6
However [regarding] its saying, "And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water" - it is not appropriate that we think that this well was created at this time. For her merit and the merit of Yishmael are not sufficient that He should do a miracle for them like the miracle that was done for Israel in the wilderness. Rather this well was in this land, but Hagar did not see it. So God, may He be blessed, awakened her and guided her to seek it and find it. And this is the meaning of, "And God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water" - that she saw the well that was there. And you see that the teacher of the Guide (Guide for the Perplexed) in Part II, Chapter 1 brought down that the expression, open [eyes] that is stated in this verse is about revealing knowledge, not about seeing with the eye. And his intention was that which I mentioned - that God awakened Hagar until she investigated it on her own and sought it and found the well. And Scripture recounted that God was with that youth to fulfill what was said about him to Avraham; and that he dwelled in that wilderness and was an archer - as he sustained himself by hunting after he left his father's home without anything. And that is why his descendants - the children of Kedar - dwell to this day in wildernesses [and] are desert peoples. [It further recounted] that his mother took a wife for him from Egypt, since he tended towards their nature and not towards the nature of his honored father. And behold this whole story comes with the name, God (Elohim), about the matter of Yishmael - even though regarding the taking account of Sarah, it is stated, "And the Lord took account of Sarah as, etc. - because the teaching of Yishmael and his matter is all according to the trait of [strict] justice (associated with that name of God).
Genesis._.25.28.1
Isaac was simply blind to Esau's faults. Affection ruins judgment.
Genesis._.26.1.8
However to fulfill that which was further said to him (Genesis 26:3), "as I will give to you and your seed, all of these lands," Scripture recounted the matter of the wells, his leaving Gerar, and that which Abimelech came to seek his friendship - as if he was the master of the land. And observe this story, and see how it indicates this concept: For behold, Scripture mentioned [that] the reason of, "And the Philistines stopped up all the wells which his father’s servants had dug in the days of his father Abraham," was in order that Issac's shepherds should not benefit from them, and go away from there from lack of water; and besides that, Abimelech told Issac, "Go away from us, for you have become far too big for us," meaning [that] due to the large quantity of his livestock, there was no room for the livestock of the land; [such that] behold, Issac left the land - but he did not distance himself from the city [of Gerar]. As he dwelt in Nachal Gerar, close to the city - and not like Rashi wrote - as since it shares the name Gerar, it appears that it was close to it. [Hence] he dwelt there against their will. Moreover, he returned and dug the wells that Abraham had dug and the Philistines had filled. And in order to govern over them more, he called them by the name his father had called them - to indicate that they were not new. Rather he would open the wells that they had already filled and call them by their names - as he did this by the power of his hand. And they also dug and found a spring of living water... and even though the shepherds of Gerar fought about this well... behold, this well nevertheless stayed with the shepherds of Issac... And they also dug another well - and even though they also fought about it, it stayed with him; and he called it Sitnah, to [mark] their hatred (sinah) towards him. Until, when they dug the third well, they did not fight about it; and he therefore called its name, Rechovot - as Issac said, "the Lord has widened (hirchiv) and made us fruitful in the land." [This] means to say, "Even though they sent me away from them, the Lord widened it for us in this land, against their will." And this is the reason for all of this story - about which Ramban did not find any purpose or glory to Issac - being written here. [However, Ramban] maneuvered to explain it by way of [its] shell [to be] about our holy and glorious Temple. But in my opinion, there is great glory to Issac [in this story], and that is why it is written here. And since Issac did all of these things with a bold heart - as if he was the master of the land - hence in his coming to Beersheba, the Lord appeared to him and promised him, "I am the Lord of Abraham, your father, do not fear." [This] means to say, "I am the One who gave Abraham your father the power to defeat the kings, and I am the One who gave you the power to act with strength; hence do not fear the men of Gerar, nor about the matter of the wells that you made - as I am with you in all that you do"... "We did not touch you and we sent you away in peace" - meaning to say that we did not take anything from all that is yours, but we rather sent you away in peace. As there is no doubt that you are now more blessed of the Lord than when you came to our land. And that proves that you received benefit and goodness in this land, even as it was from God. And therefore, it is not fit that you do harm to the land in which you lived and were blessed.
Genesis._.31.1.1
1- and Yaakov heard the words of Laban... until here is the order and in the next Pasukim are twenty three questions.
Genesis._.31.1.2
2- Question 1- why did Yaakov send for Rachel and Leah in the field to speak with them about the issues of their father and he did not come to talk to them in the city of their home. And why did he not tell them what he heard from the sons of Laban, but only what he saw from their father, because both of the incidents helped to change his mind to leave the land.
Genesis._.33.18.17
From " And Yaakov came complete to the town of Shechem etc." until "And Chamor, the father of Shechem came out" - Shechem is apparently the city that is close to Mamre Kiriat Arba, since behold when Yaakov was dwelling in Hevron that is Kiriat Arba his sons were sheparding the sheep in Shechem. And it is logical that there was between them a distance of a day maximum, and that is why Yaakov sends [Yosef] to see how the brothers are faring, and the sheep too, and this was when he is close to where his father was. Despite this, the place where Dina was subjugated was far away from Hevron, where Yitzchak was, and this is a question that remains, since Chazal said that Shechem was a place ready for punishment, since there they subjugated Dina and the tribes were damaged. And from this it appears to me that Shechem was the name of the entire place, and Chamor was the prince of all that land [Abarbanel goes to show where he thinks the connection between Shalem, Shechem and Hevron is]... and the issue with Dina happened in a town named Shalem at the beginning, and it is in a corner of the place called Shechem, and the sons of Yaakov were pasturing the sheep in a different corner, farther away from that area... And it is said that "Yaakov put his tent in front of the city" to explain that there were other reasons for this issue [of Dina] to happen: the first one is that Yaakov pitched [his encampment] close to the city, and because of this Dina went out to see the daughters of the land, and if he had pitched in a place farther away, closer to the place of pasturing and farther from the city, Dina would not have come out and what happened would not have happened. Second reason, Yaakov had bought the piece of land where her tent was pitched from Chamor the father of Shechem, and the scripture teaches this by saying that at first he set his tent on the field, and then after the owners complained, he bought that piece of the field, since he did not want to rent it. And since he purchased it from the hand of Chamor, the prince of the land, it makes sense that he paid good money for it, since a prince of the land will not sell parts of his estate to a stranger unless he gave a princely sum. And he did not buy it from the hand of the sons of Chamor, his advanced age prevented him himself to go, but his sons went to make the sale, and this is why they went to the tents of Yaakov, and saw Dina there, and there is no doubt that they spoke with her and the soul of Shechem desired her, and this too was the reason of the continuation [of what happened] when she went out to see the daughters of the land. And this answers the second question. And Ibn Ezra already explained that Yaakov stayed in this city for many years, since Dina was seven years old when she arrived there, and Shimon and Levi were lads. Since Yaakov had entered the holy land, it was for this reason that he bought a piece of the field and became property owner of holy land, and he acquired an altar to praise G-d, that in His great compassion and love brought him to His land and saved him from Lavan... [Abarbanel goes into a discussion on the nature of Judaism, the name E-l and more] And maybe even this altar was a reason for what happened, since once it was ready all his children came to eat from the sacrifices and Shechem and all the town came to see the inauguration of the altar, and saw Dina there, and desired her, and what happened happened once she went out to see the daughters of the land - and this explains the third question. The Torah does not bring the phrase "and Dina came out" to criticize Dina as a "self-exposing daughter of a self-exposer; like mother, like daughter" as Rashi z"l has. Leah was a modest woman, to the point that Yaakov did not see anything until the moment he came to her. And the "Leah went out" really means that she went out just to the door of her tent and she went out joyfully and with holy intent to greet her husband Yaakov and from that came the birth of Yissachar, the tribe of modest Torah teachers. Also, one cannot say that she is called "daughter of Leah" as a criticism of her nature being of "self-exposing", since Leah was taught to stay in the tents, and Rachel was the one out with the sheep. And from Yaakov himself was known to be a modest person, hiding in the tents of scholars, and if he was modest like this, all the more his daughter. The intent wasnot for anything bad, as the text says "daughters of the town" and not sons of the town. Dina had no sisters, being the only maiden in the house and so she went out to see how the girls of the town dressed and used jewelry, and this explains our fourth question. And there is no doubt that she did not went out by herself, without the company of a man or a woman, and this is implied, just as the scripture has regarding Moses, that he went out to meet his father-in-law, and obviously he did not go alone. The text describes that Shechem was "the son of Chamor the Hivite, the prince of the land" to make sure that we understand that being the prince of the land he used force, and had no fear of those who were with Dinah or of the sons of Yaakov. And the text goes on to say, like Rashi explains, that he lay with her in the usual fashion and afflicted her in the unusual fashion, and how can one describe his doing such a disgrace. And Ibn Ezra explains that her being a virgin, and he doing three things - seizing her by force while she was passing through the market, forcing her in the natural way and in the unnatural way.And even if you know about the second thing, why is the text bringing the first? Isn't it already included? This is to teach that even if he wanted to have relations with her due to his wanting her as a wife, one cannot do this by force. The second comes to teach that he destroyed her virginity. And why is it explaining that he afflicted her? To explain that she did not go by her own will, but he hoped that it would being by her being forced and end by her wanting it.[...]
Genesis._.41.1.11
(On verses 37-38:) What did Pharaoh see to say to his servants, "Could we find another like him, a man in whom is the spirit of God," and that he said to him, "there is no one wise and understanding like you," and that he made him the master over his entire household and ruler over the entire land of Egypt - before he knew whether his words would be substantiated and whether the thing would come to effect as he had interpreted or not?! As behold, the chief wine steward did not do a thing [for just this reason], when he interpreted his dream positively. As maybe the thing would not be as he had interpreted it to Pharaoh. And if so, why did he raise him before the thing was tested? And he also [prematurely] gave him a wife from the notables of the land.
Genesis._.41.1.19
...(On verse 8:) And this is difficult; as why did their interpretations not sit with his heart, and why did Jospeh's interpretation sit with his heart - as Pharaoh did not know the discipline of interpretation. So with what was it nevertheless known to him that they were not interpreting properly and that Joseph's interpretation was true?...
Genesis._.41.41.1
"And Pharaoh said to Yosef, 'Behold I have placed you, etc.'" until, "The seven years of famine started" (Genesis 41:54). Pharaoh spoke three speeches or statements to Yosef about this thing here. The first was, "Since God has made all this known to you [...] You shall be over my house, etc.," the content of which is as I have explained: Even though you only advised me about the matter of the grain, behold I am appointing you over my house and the administration of the kingdom. And the second is concerning the matter of the plenty and the famine, which was hinted in his dream and about which he advised him. And about this he said, "Behold, I have placed you in charge over the entire land of Egypt, etc." Such that the intention in it is concerning the produce, to separate a fifth, to gather and to sell it at the proper time and to do all that is required for it. And this is [the meaning of], "over the entire land of Egypt." For the matter of the plenty and the famine included all of the land, to gather the produce and to put it together. It is as if he said, "Since you advised me that I should select a discerning and wise man to do this, so that I would do it myself - behold what I will decree about this. And it is that I do not want to do this myself, as you said, nor to appoint officers. Rather, you are the wise and discerning one due to the power of God. I have placed you over the entire land of Egypt, to do it." And for this matter, he was required to give him his signet ring with which all of the writings that were written in the name of the king were signed, so that he could write whatever he wished and then sign it. And he commanded to have him dressed with linen garments, which are garments designated for ministers. "And he put a gold chain around his neck." Meaning that Pharaoh himself, with his hands, placed a gold chain around Yosef's neck, which indicated his greatness, as is the custom today with knights elevated by the king. "He had him ride" - by his commandment - "in the second chariot." Meaning in the chariot designated for the man that is second to the king. For the king had a chariot that was designated for him, the second, who is the second to the king in greatness and status. And it is in it that he commanded that they seat Yosef. And it is known what a chariot is, that it a seat [led] by four horses. And since Scripture stated, "in the second chariot that was his," and it did not state, "in his second chariot," it appears to be explained that the king had two designated chariots for himself; he would ride in one of them and his second would ride in the second. And that is why it stated, "in the second chariot that was his." However its stating, "and they called before him, avrech" - the idea is since bowing which is specifically to the king is with the bending of the knee (berekh), this indicates the status of his mastery over all of the land. Because of this, it was forbidden to bow with the downward movement of the knee to anyone besides the king, except by his commandment. And the practice was like this also in the time of Achashverosh, as it is written (Esther 3:2), "for so did the king command him." And the call and proclamation before him was, "bow down and give (venaton) him." Meaning that everyone should bow to him with the bending of the knee and that the king was giving him to be leader, vizier and commander over all the land of Egypt. And avrekh is the infinitive of the paul verb construction, and likewise, venaton to him, is an infinitive (to give). This is permission to everyone to bow down with the knee, and also that he is given rulership over all the land of Egypt. And hence no one can challenge him. Behold Pharaoh made all this effort so that Yosef's rulership would prosper for him, and no one would challenge him, given that he was a hated Hebrew among them. But lest Yosef fear and fret that the Egyptians would be jealous of his rulership and his appointment over the house and the field, just like his brothers were jealous of him for something thousands of times less significant - therefore Pharaoh had to say the third statement to him. And that is, "Pharaoh said to Joseph, 'I am Pharaoh; yet without you' - meaning to say, do not fear and do not worry about the ministers of the kingdom and the people of the land, for I am Pharaoh and the word of the king has gone out before me that, 'without you, no one shall lift up hand or foot.' That is to say, not to do anything and not to go anywhere with his feet without your permission and command, 'in all the land of Egypt.'" Behold it has been explained why these three statements came from Pharaoh to Yosef. So the twelfth question is resolved. And since it was difficult for the Egyptians that a Hebrew should rule over them, Pharaoh schemed to change his name and call him Tzafnat-Paneach, which means the Revealer of Hidden Things in Egyptian. And he did not suffice with this, but gave him as a wife, Osnat daughter of Poti-fera, who was a minister and important man in Egypt, so that he would have relatives on his wife's side who would help him. For there is no question that this would elevate his status. And that is what he relied on, "so Yosef went out over the land of Egypt": From the connection that he made with that minister, he went out over the land of Egypt, his greatness and leadership [now] famous. For his relatives, and his relatives' relatives befriended him and elevated him. But behold the Scripture tells of the difficulty of Yosef's rulership, for "Yosef was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh, king of Egypt." For since he was the king of Egypt, it was not fit that a Hebrew youth should be seen before him. As he was a youth, according to the years of that generation. Nevertheless God helped him and ingratiated him to Pharaoh. Moreover, when the ministers of Egypt were jealous of him - so long as he was before Pharaoh, no one could say anything in front of him; but when he left from before him to go out all over the land of Egypt, he was in great danger. Yet with God's compassion for him, he "left Pharaoh’s presence, and traversed throughout all the land of Egypt," far from the king's base in order to increase and strengthen his rulership and the power that was given to him, even when not before Pharaoh. And no one challenged him, as this was from God. And this is the explanation of his leaving Pharaoh's presence. However its stating, "In the seven years of plenty the land produced in handfuls" - for me, the idea is like, "so that it yields produce for three years" (Leviticus 25:21): That the land of Egypt yielded bountiful produce during the years of plenty, such that the produce would come out in handfuls, not in stalks. And this is said by way of exaggeration. And with this, all the peoples of the land saw that Yosef's words materialized, that which he said to Pharaoh, "a great plenty." For the land yielded very much produce, as if it were in handfuls, which is not the natural way. And then Yosef gathered the food, meaning to say all of the food that was sold at the market price. And this is besides the fifth (that was taxed), since Scriptures relies upon that which was already mentioned. And it mentions his wisdom, that he did not leave it in the field in pits, as is the practice in most countries, so that they not steal it from there. Rather he placed it in the cities. However he nevertheless acted fairly and did not alter the rights of each city. For he placed the food of each city inside it, and not in another city. And understand its stating, "he put in each city the food of the fields around it." As the intention with this is that the food of the field of the city which is near the city - meaning that which was close to the city - that was what he placed in it to be guarded there as food for the city during the time of the famine. But the food that was far from the city he would not put in it. Rather he would take it to [the center of] Egypt, to the storehouses of the king. For Yosef would sell grain there to the foreign nations who were not from Egypt. And it is, as we will see from the story, that Yosef would provide the grain to foreigners, and that is where his brother came to buy food. And the Scripture mentioned that they originally recorded the grain and the food that Yosef gathered - whether from the fifth and all the more so from the purchase - so that it all be counted; however with its proliferation, it stopped being counted, since it was gathered without a count. And, if so, it was all left to his expertise, without any calculation. So the thirteenth question is resolved. And behold Scripture mentioned the birth of Yosef's sons, their names and the reasons for those names to tell us that he was so refined that even with his being a minister and master over all of the land of Egypt and being busy with the gathering of produce and its concerns, behold 'on the day of his heart's joy,' when they were born, he placed the memory of his father's home and the desire for his land 'over the pinnacle of his joy.' And hence he called the first son Menashe and said, "God has made me leave behind (nashani)" and forget "all my hardships," from my slavery: but also from my father's house, since I have been separated from it, so now I am forgotten there. And it is as if he gave praise [to God] for the good, that God made him leave all of his hardship behind; but [also] for all the bad, with his saying, "and all my father's house." And he called the second Ephriam, "because God has made me fruitful (hiphrani) in the land of my affliction." As, in spite of all of his status there, he called Egypt the land of his affliction, since he was separated from his father and from the holy land. And that is why this story is mentioned after the story of the produce - to say that his father's house and the land of his birth had not become forgotten, in spite of all the greatness, power and splendor that he had in Egypt and in spite of the wealth and produce that he held. So the fourteenth question is resolved.
Exodus._.18.15.1
Moses filled four roles: prophet, king, teacher and judge, the first three of which no one else could help him with.
Exodus._.20.13.1
You shall not murder; you shall not commit adultery, etc. All the people witnessed the sounds: They said in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 20:14) - How were the Ten Commandments given? Five on one tablet and five on the other. It is written, "I am the Lord your God," and opposite it, "You shall not murder" - since spilling blood is tantamount to diminishing the likeness [of God]. It is written, "There shall not be unto you [any other gods]," and opposite it, "You shall not commit adultery," saying that anyone worshipping idolatry is tantamount to adultery against the Omnipresent. It is written, "You shall not take [the name of the Lord your God in vain]," and opposite it, "You shall not steal," saying that anyone who steals - in the end - comes to swear in vain, as it is written (Jeremiah 7:9), "Shall one steal, murder, commit adultery, [swear falsely]." And it is written (Hosea 4:2), "swearing, lying, [murdering, stealing]." It is written, "Remember the Sabbath day," and opposite it, "You shall not testify falsely against your fellow" - Scripture is saying that anyone who desecrates the Sabbath testifies before Him who spoke and brought the world into being that He did not rest on the seventh day; and anyone who keeps the Sabbath thereby testifies about [God's] creation of the world, as it is written (Isaiah 43:10), "You are My witnesses, says the Lord." It is written, "Honor your father [and your mother]," and opposite it, "You shall not covet," saying that anyone who covets - in the end - comes to beget a son who curses his father, and honors one who is not his father. This is why the Ten Commandments were given, five on one tablet and five on the other, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 5:19), "The Lord spoke those words, etc. and He wrote them [on two tablets of stone]." These are the words of Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel. But the sages say: Ten were on one tablet and ten on the other, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 5:19) "The Lord spoke those words, etc. and He wrote them [on two tablets of stone]." To here [are the words of the Mekhilta]. This is the approach of the Sages, may their memory be blessed, about the organization of these Commandments and their need. However, according to what I explained in the verses, the first five were on one tablet due to their relating to matters of divinity; and the last five on [another] tablet due to their relating to [that which] is between a man and his fellow - according to the opinion of Rabbi Chanina, which is the more logical. And the tablets were therefore two. For if all of the Commandments were on each one of the tablets, there would not have been a need for two tablets, but rather [only] one. And because of this, the name, Lord, and the name, God, is mentioned in each of the five first Commandments that were on one tablet, to indicate that they were commandments about divinity. However, in that the last fives ones are all about humanity - between a man and his fellow - none of the holy names [of God] are mentioned in any of them. And this is that which the Sages, may their memory be blessed, intended in their saying (Shemot Rabbah 80:47): The two tablets correspond to the heavens and the earth, to a groom and a bride, to two friends and to two worlds. As through this, they wanted to distinguish between the two tablets, according to what I have explained. And behold, there is no doubt that there are other commandments included in the Commandment, "You shall not murder" - as I mentioned. For murder is stated about the killing of a soul - like (Numbers 35:2) "and the blood-avenger [murders] the murderer"; but it is also stated about blows and wounds - like (Psalms 42:11), "Murdering my bones"; (Hosea 6:9), "murdering on the way to Shekhem"; (Psalms 62:4), "all of you murder him like a leaning wall." For it compared someone hit and "murdered" to a leaning wall, that is ready to fall but has not yet fallen. And the word, murderer, is also stated about one who causes death, even though he does not kill with his hands (actively) - like (Judges 20:4) "the husband of the murdered woman." And they slept with her and did not kill her, but she was murdered as a result of [their actions]. And according to all of these usages, it is fit to understand, "You shall not murder," about one who kills a soul and one who strikes his fellow [with] 'bruises and wounds, that are repayment for evil.' And that one not go talebearing is also included in this Commandment, for he causes the [potential] murder. And also included in this Commandment is that one not refrain from charity to the poor, and [from] the commandment of "and your brother shall live with you" (Leviticus 25:36) - as it is written (Deuteronomy 15:9), "so that you are mean to your needy brother and give him nothing, and he will cry out to the Lord against you, and you will incur sin." For one who withholds charity is killing the souls of the poor and the destitute. And also included in this negative commandment is the release of Hebrew slaves on the seventh year, and of the Hebrew maidservant, as is coming up. For if he detains them more than is the law; it is like killing and negating them from the world. And also included in this Commandment - according to the opinion of the Sages, may their memory be blessed - is one who whitens the face of (embarrasses) his fellow about a blemish that he or his ancestors had; and also one who infringes upon his fellow's trade, one who prevents his sustenance from him and one who competes (unfairly); and the one who slanders and the one who hands over his fellow - all of these are included in "You shall not murder." And all forbidden sexual relations and all types of adulterers are included in the Commandment, "You shall not commit adultery" - as was mentioned by Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra. For even though adultery (niuf) is said specifically about one who sleeps with a married woman, see that it is also stated generally about all other sexual prohibitions - and as it stated (Job 24:15), "The eyes of the adulterer watch for twilight, saying, 'No eye will see me.'" And there are also many commandments included in the Commandment, "You shall not steal.” For the word, thief, is sometimes stated about one who kidnaps one of his brothers - like the words [of the Sages,] may their memory be blessed - and it also stated about one who takes his fellow's money without his knowledge, as it is written (Exodus 22:1), "If the thief is seized while tunneling"; and it is stated about withholding a pledge and exploitation, since it is taking a person's property against his will. Hence it is stated (Leviticus 5:21), "or by holding a pledge, or through robbery, or by defrauding his kinsman" - as it all called holding a pledge, which is theft. And the word, theft, is also stated about fraud and deceit - like (Genesis 31:20), "And Jacob stole Lavan's heart"; (Job 4:12) "A stolen word came to me." And from this angle and aspect, even oppressive words are called theft. And according to these usages, the Commandment of "Do not steal" includes kidnapping, stealing money or vessels, robbery and exploitation; the commandment of "a man shall not oppress his brother" (Leviticus 25:14), and "Stay away from a false thing (Exodus 23:7); all matters of theft and fooling people; the commandment of "You shall not render an unfair decision" (Leviticus 19:15) with size, weight and length; and all of the other commandments I mentioned above. And as for why the Commandment of "You shall not commit adultery," came between "You shall not murder" and "You shall not steal," it is surely because a wife is, from one aspect, like a man's body - bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh - but from another aspect, she is like his acquisitions and his money. Hence this Commandment is stated between "You shall not murder" and "You shall not steal." And once it warned a man not to injure his fellow with bad deeds - not towards his wife, his body or his money - it warned him also not to injure him with the words of his lips. And that is its stating, "You shall not testify falsely against your fellow." And besides this prohibition that a person not testify falsely; also included in it is one who mocks his fellow, one who speaks evil speech, one who talebears, one who whitens the face of his fellow in public and that which is similar to them from the commandments that I mentioned. And after this, it warned that a man not injure his fellow with his thoughts. And that is, "You shall not covet." And Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra explained that this Commandment is not only in thought, since coveting is also stated about robbing something desirable, as it is stated (Micah 2:2), "They covet fields, and rob." And, if so, it is warning with this about robbing that is a continuation of the act of coveting, and also about the internal coveting itself. And the great rabbi, Maimonides, agreed with this in the Book of Damages, Laws of Robbery and Lost Property 5 - that one does not transgress the negative commandment of "You shall not covet" until he takes an object that he coveted - which is coveting with an action. But desire (Deuteronomy 5:18) is only in the heart. And there are some of the decisors that disagree with him about this. And Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra put effort into explaining that a person has the power to accustom himself to uphold this prohibition of "You shall not covet," even in the heart. And that is when a person accustoms himself to be satisfied with what he has, like he accustoms himself to the prohibition of forbidden sexual relations and that which is similar to it. And it mentioned the desired things according to [the order of] a man's need for them and that which it is fit for a man to expend efforts to acquire in his world. And that is why it first mentioned the coveting of a house; and then a wife; and then a slave and maidservant; and then an ox and donkey, that are animals that do not speak. And Scripture grouped the other things that are not so necessary when it stated, "and anything that is your fellow's." But in Mishneh Torah (Deuteronomy), it mentioned them according to the severity of the sin and the evil. For the most evil coveting is the coveting of a man for his fellow's wife, like the desire of David for Bathsheba. And after it in evil is the coveting of a man for his fellow's house, and afterwards the field. For even if a man does not live in it - like he lives in his house - it is surely the place of his nourishment and the inheritance of his ancestors, as it was in the matter of Ahab with the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite. And after the field, it mentioned the slave and the maidservant that are not as esteemed as the field; and afterwards, the ox and donkey, which do not speak; and after them, it wanted to group all of the movable property that is not living - "and everything that is your fellow's." And I have already mentioned that these last five Commandments came with extreme terseness, because they are things that the human intellect understands, and because the first three of them were from the commandments that the Children of Noah were [already] commanded. Hence it does not say the word, "your fellow" here - meaning to say, "You shall not murder your fellow, you shall not commit adultery with your fellow's wife; you shall not steal from that which is your fellow's." As the whole world was already prohibited about [these things], whereas the Israelites were [deemed] fellows from the angle of the Torah which they received and by which they were united. However, with the commandment, "You shall not testify," it stated, "Your fellow" - and likewise with "You shall not covet." For the Holy One, blessed be He, added these two commandments to command them now to the Israelites, given that they were beloved fellows from once they received the Torah. And from that angle, and since they were the Children of Jacob - the seed of the blessed one of the Lord, it was fit that they not perpetrate injustice and that there not be expressions of deceit and bad desires in their mouths and hearts. And I also say that a double prohibition come upon coveting - in that it states, "You shall not covet your fellow's house; you shall not covet your fellow's wife" - because, as mentioned by the Medini (Aristotle), love and desire [of something] can be [because it is] useful or [because it is] enjoyable. And since they are different things, the negative commandment mentions [coveting] twice, as if it were saying, do not covet something wrong from that which is useful like a house or a field, and do not covet something wrong from that which is enjoyable like a woman. And with this, the second question is resolved. And Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra already mentioned a different opinion about these Ten Commandments - that they are corresponding to the heavenly spheres, and he related each one to its sphere; and he felt that it was about this that it stated (Exodus 20:19), "you saw that I spoke to you from the heavens." But because these are tangible things, 'my soul is bewildered by them.' Hence I did not mention them here.
Exodus._.27.20.6
"And you shall speak to all of the wise-hearted, etc. And they shall take the gold, etc." - what was the need to have this precede the command for the priestly garments? And note that it did not mention [something] like this with the ark and the cherubs or with the table and the menorah; and it is understood that the craftsmen would make them and take the necessary things to make them.
Exodus._.30.22.4
The second principle is that this anointing that is mentioned should be with oil and not with wine or other liquids. The Torah stated: oil of sacred anointment (Exodus 30:25). And with the anointment of kings, it is stated, if with Saul: Samuel took a flask of oil and poured some on Saul’s head (I Samuel 10:1). And with David, it was said to Samuel: Fill your horn with oil (I Samuel 16:1), because all anointments were with oil. And for me, that is for two reasons. The first is that oil, among the other liquids, is the one that indicates the most honor and stature. Do you not see in the words of Yotam, the son of Jerubbaal, when he took up his parable:Once the trees went to anoint a king over themselves (Judges 9:8), he mentioned the olive tree first. Then he said about it: Have I, through whom God and humans are honored, stopped yielding my rich oil, etc.(Judges 9:9) since he ascribed honor to oil. And that is why he mentioned the olive tree first. As the olive tree, among all the other trees, was the one most fitting for monarchy since it was more honorable than all of them. And that is why [olive] oil is elevated above all the other liquids. And due to its stature, the psalmist said: It is like fine oil on the head (Psalms 133:2). And Solomon said: and let your head never lack oil (Ecclesiastes 9:8). And since the vessels of the Temple, and the priests from among the rest of the people, and the kings among the Jewish people were unique in their honor and stature, the sign for their being chosen and unique was the oil, which indicated this. And the second reason is that [olive] oil is what is the most constant over a long time above all the other liquids, without being finished, since the holiness of the Temple vessels and the priests was forever, never to depart. And likewise, the monarchy of the kings was constant for them and their descendants after them if they walked in the ways of the Lord. And it is like it was stated: in order that he may prolong days over his kingdom, he and his sons, in the midst of Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:20). That is why their anointment was with oil, to indicate the eternity of that stature and holiness.
Exodus._.34.1.1
"And God said to Moses, carve for yourself" ... until "protect for yourself that which I teach you this day. Here I banish ..." And there is reason to question on these verses as follows:
Exodus._.34.1.2
1. The first question: why did God command Moses to carve two tablets of stone akin to the first [set of tablets], upon which God would inscribe the Ten Commandments that were on the first set of tablets. For if the second set of tablets were to replace the first set, it would be appropriate for them to be identical in all respects; however, the first set were both carved and inscribed by God, while the second set were carved by Moses, who did not inscribe them, and inscribed by God, who did not carve them.
Exodus._.34.1.3
The second question: why did the second set of tablets have greater holiness than the first set, as indicated by the verse, "and no man shall ascend [the mountain] with you." And for the first tablets, the verse said "ascend to God, you and Aharon and Nadav and Avihu ..." Also, here the verse warned "the sheep and the cattle shall not graze adjacent to the mountain," while no such restriction appears with respect to the first tablets. It appears that the second tablets that Moses carved were holier than the first set that were carved by God.
Exodus._.34.1.4
The third question: the verse states "and he called," as if to say he witnessed, " and I called in the name of God before you." We might ask, what is this testimony, for after this the verse states "and God passed before him and he called 'Hashem Hashem ...'" and if so, there are two separate testimonies, where for one it says "he called in the name of God" and in the other it simply says "and God called." And if the caller is Moses, we must ask if God stood beside him (as specified in the verse) why did Moses call out to him.
Exodus._.34.1.5
The fourth question: why weren't all of God's promises to Moses enacted, as there were things He promised that were absent and other things that were added on. For God promised "I will allow all of My goodness to pass before you ... and I will remove My hand and you will see Me from behind." Yet we do not seen this enacted [in the verses]; neither God's passing His goodness before Moses, nor Moses seeing Him from behind. God also said, "I will proclaim the Name of the Lord before you, and the grace that I grant and the compassion that I show," which are the three attributes (God, Compassion, Grace) and no others. Yet, at the moment of action, He proclaimed thirteen attributes. And so He added upon his promise. And note that in His promise, Grace preceded Compassion, but in the recital of the thirteen attributes, Compassion came before Grace.
Exodus._.34.1.6
The fifth question: the verse states, "God descended in a cloud and stood with Moses there." Why specify that He descended in a cloud? And what is the meaning of "H/he stood with H/him there" - who was standing with whom? Was God standing with Moses or was Moses standing with God? And note that at the revelation at Mt. Sinai, the verse states, "And God descended onto Mt. Sinai," but did not reference a descent in a cloud. For if one were to say that there was a cloud there, the verse does not reference one when God descended to speak to the Israelite nation.
Exodus._.34.1.7
The sixth question: the verse, "And the Lord passed before him," should have appeared at the be ginning of the story, and not in the middle after the prior verse stated, "And the Lord descended in a cloud and stood with him there and proclaimed the name of the Lord," for He was already speaking with him. So why specify, "the Lord passed before him," for after He proclaimed the name of the Lord there was no break in the attributes. And there was no separation between them. Note that in reference to the "standing" the verse did not say "before him", only that He stood there. Indeed, in reference to His passing the verse says "before him." And pay no mind to the teaching that explains that the phrase "the Lord passed before him" means that, in response to Moses' desire to see the Lord's face, the Lord changed the subject by enumerating the attributes, for this is not supportable from the grammar or the context.
Exodus._.34.1.8
The seventh question: when enumerating the thirteen attributes, why did God repeat the attribute "The Lord" twice. For no other attribute is repeated in this manner. And one cannot say that once was for the "Koreh" and one is for the "Kriyah" as the Gaon proposes: he wishes to say that the verse should be read, "and the Lord called out, 'the Lord, a God compassionate and gracious." Yet the cantillation dissuades us from this reading, as the Ibn Ezra responds, and one also should not say that the repeated name is similar to God calling out "Abraham, Abraham" or "Moses, Moses." For no other attribute is repeated here, whereas repeated names can be found in instances where on is speaking down to another, such as from a master to a servant, when required. But calling out the Lord's honored name is not speaking down. And furthermore, after verses stated, "And the Lord passed before him," it is clear that it was God calling out and no other, so why would the verse need to specify that "the Lord passed by" and "the Lord called out?"
Exodus._.34.1.9
The eighth question: why aren't all of theses names and attributes expressed in the same conjugation (i.e., an active verb)? Three of them are expressed in Pa'ul (Compassionate, Gracious and Slow to Anger). And it would have been more appropriate to say "Bestower of Compassion and Grace, who Curbs His Anger" as with the attributes that follow "Abounding in Kindness, Extending Kindness to the thousandth generation, Forgiving Iniquity, and Visiting Iniquity. And the Ramban writes that Compassionate, Gracious and Slow to Anger are all advjectives describing the Lord's elevated stature, therefore there was no need to say "Bestower of Compassion and Grace, who Curbs His Anger" because the name/attributes of "The Lord, The Lord, a God ..." is the subject of these attributes. But I do not understand his ways, and his writings are insufficient to answer this question.
Exodus._.34.1.10
The ninth question: when the verse states "forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin" why does it not reference other acts such as mutiny, malice and guilt and the like. And why does Moses in his prayer after hearing the attributes in their entirety say, "Let the Lord please walk in our midst ... and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and erase the crimes." And the Prophet Micah says, "Who is like you, God, who pardons iniquity and passes over sin." And erases crimes. And the Psalmist said, "the iniquities of my youth and my sins do not remember." And erase the crime. Why did each one of these complete Sages independently invoke the erasure of crimes? And none of them recall the three attributes ("forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin") together that are referenced in attributes here.
Exodus._.34.1.11
The tenth question: [raises apparent contradictions within the 13 attributes]
Exodus._.34.1.12
The eleventh question: visits the sins of the fathers upon the sons. How can one think that this is just or righteous, as the one who sins is worthy of death. And why punish the sons for sings of their fathers, for the verse says, "Sons shall not die for their fathers." And I have already raised this issue in Parshat Yitro with respect to the Ten Commandments.
Exodus._.34.1.13
The twelfth question: why did the Blessed One see fit to enumerate these attributes and names but not others which were recounted elsewhere, such as "The Almighty, the Great, the Powerful and the Awesome," or the name "God Almighty, "God of Hosts," "Righteous and Just," "Good and Beneficent," "Creator of Universes," "Living and Everlasting," "Giver of Pardon and Forgiveness," "Jealous and Avenging," "Lord of the Sun," and all of the other descriptions that the prophets permitted as expressions of God.
Exodus._.34.1.14
The thirteenth question: in the order of the attributes, you will find that "The Lord, the Lord" are considered attributes of mercy and "Almighty" is an attribute of justice, other than Rashi who says it is an attribute of mercy based on a verse from Psalsm (22) "My Almighty, My Almighty, why have you forsaken me." But there is no merit to Rashi's argument that Almighty is an attribute of mercy, for it was out of a sense of justice that King David complained, why did you leave, God - it would be appropriate for you to punish [Israel] and not to forsake her. "Merciful and Gracious" are attributes of mercy and "Long Suffering" is an attribute of justice. "Abundant in Goodness and Truth" are completely merciful, and after them come the attributes of justice. Why were all of the attributes of mercy clustered together and all of the attributes of justice clustered together, instead of being mixed amongt each other?
Exodus._.34.1.15
The fourteenth question: [How are the 13 attributes counted]
Exodus._.34.1.16
The fifteenth question: The Blessed Lord said, "Before all your people I will do marvels, such as have not been brought in all the land, nor in any nation; and all the people amongst you shall see the work of the Lord, for it is awesome that which I am about to do with you." But the subsequent verses do not recount any miracles or wonders that were done after this Moses, "such as have not been brought in all the land, nor in any nation; and all the people amongst you shall see the work of the Lord," as the Lord said. What was the purposes of this covenant and for what purpose was it made. And I have parsed the verses in a permissible manner and these are all my questions.
Exodus._.34.1.17
Response: "And the Lord said to Moses, 'Carve for yourself' ... and Moses carved two tablets of stone." The opinion of all authentic scholars is that Moses stood upon the mountain three times, forty days and forty night each time, for a total of four months and two days, with two additional days of descent in the interim. For on the day that Moses initially descended, he destroyed the tablets, and the verse (Exodus 32) then states, "On the following day, Moses said to the nation, 'You have sinned" ... and now I will ascend to the Lord and will stand and pray there forty more days until your sins are forgiven." On his second descent, the verse states, "Moses awoke in the morning," it was four months and four days from the sixth day of Sivan (the date of Moses' first ascent) to Yom Kippur, which was on the tenth day of Tishrei. And the order of the verses here supports this timeline. Additionally, we have the verse from Deuteronomy (5:15) where Moses recounts three times that he stood upon Mt. Sinai, forty days each time, as it states, "As I ascended to the mountain ... and I stayed upon the mountain forty days and forty nights." And the Lord gave me the two tablets of stone, and this is the first stay upon the mountain. Afterwards, the verse states, "I prostrated before the Lord as I did the first time, forty days and forty nights ... for all of your sins," and this is the second stay upon the mountain (and with respect to this, Moses also said, "I prostrated myself before the Lord forty days and forty nights that I prostrated ..." which are the days of the second ascent, which is recounted again so that Moses could share the prayer that he prayed at that time. Afterwards he said, "At that time, the Lord said to me, 'Carve for yourself two tablets of stone similar to the first ones' ... and I stood upon the mountain as I did the first time, for forty days and forty nights. And this was the third stay upon the mountain. "And He answered," and with this answer the forgiveness was completed... And God said to Moses, "Carve for yourself," to inform him that he would not merit the complete vision of the testimony except through the Torah which was given by his hands, for without this Moses would not have achieved this level of spiritual greatness. And the reason for the word "yourself" was to warn Moses that he himself, and no other, should carve the tablets. For the word "yourself" connotes isolation, as it was written [with respect to Abraham], "Go yourself from your land ..." that Abraham should go without his father or relatives (as explained there). Similarly [with respect to the spies sent to Canaan], "Send for yourself men ..." that Moses should send them alone, apart from the rest of the nation. And here, God saw that the tablets encompassed two miraculous qualities. The first was that the workmanship was divine work, done in a miraculous fashion, and the second was the inscription, which was divinely written. When Moses shattered the tablets, the workmanship and form was lost, but the words inscribed were not destroyed or lost. Therefore, God commanded Moses to carve the stone to make new tablets, ready to be inscribed, for it was Moses' obligation since he destroyed the first set of tablets. However, He said the inscription would not be written by Moses, because he did not destroy
Leviticus._.9.1.8
The seventh question: We see that the sanctification of the Sanctuary and Altar was effected by the descent of fire from Heaven upon the Altar, which consumed the offerings. The people saw and shouted and fell on their faces (cf. Leviticus 9:24). A similar passage appears in connection with Solomon's Temple: "When Solomon finished praying, fire descended from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices... All the Israelites witnessed the descent of the fire and the glory of the Lord on the House; they knelt with their faces to the ground and prostrated themselves, praising the Lord, 'For He is good, for His steadfast love is eternal.'" (2 Chronicles 7:1-3). So in the days of Elijah the sanctification of God was effected by fire: "...the god who responds with fire, that one is God." (1 Kings 18:24). Therefore, it is appropriate to ask, why was the divine sanctification effected by fire and not by water or something else?
Leviticus._.9.1.17
...The Holy One Blessed be He desired to sanctify His Altar and His Tabernacle through the descent of the divine fire there for four reasons: 1) The divine Camp and the collective of his angels is always likened to fire, as it is written, "the appearance of the Presence of the Lord was like a consuming fire" (Exodus 24:17). Ezekiel beheld his prophecy with fire, as it is written, "flashing fire...and in the center of it, in the center of the fire, a gleam as of amber" (Ezekiel 1:4). And Daniel said, "His throne was tongues of flame; its wheels were blazing fire. A river of fire..." (Daniel 7:9-10). Since the divine camp is called 'fire' in the words of the prophets, fire came to the Tabernacle and to the Temple to indicate that the Divine Presence and Glory of the Lord were there with the holy myriads. ... 2) The human intellect doubts the divine Providence due to the exalted nature of the Provider and the lowliness mortal individuals. He, may He be blessed, is non-corporeal and does not have accidents that would allow humans to perceive Him. Therefore, in order to ingrain the truth of his Providence in the minds of His servants, together with His exalted status, God brought fire down from heaven onto the altar... 3) The divine Torah is likened to fire, as it is written, "Lightning [אש] flashing from His right" (Deuteronomy 33:2). The prophet said, "Behold, My word is like fire" (Jeremiah 23:29). Once the Tabernacle was completed and Israel [had brought] their offerings, fire descended from Heaven to express that the true perfection consists in keeping the Torah that is likened to fire, as it was granted from Heaven. 4) Israel were in deep doubt about how the offerings could be of 'pleasant odor' to the Name, since He is distinct from all physicality. Therefore, He needed to bring down fire from Heaven to consume the burnt offering and the fats so that all the people could see with their own eyes that God was pleased with their actions...
Leviticus._.10.1.1
...His heart became like an inanimate (domem) rock, and he did not raise his voice in crying or eulogy, as would a father for [his] children; he also did not accept condolences from Moses. For he had no breath left in him, nor did he have any speech...
Leviticus._.11.1.9
The 8th question is: why does the Torah specifically prohibit these foods mentioned in this section, is it because they are healthier for the body and good? Our eyes see the nations of the world and some are fat and healthy and not tired and noth failing and they are also foods that are worse for you and can kill you and the Torah does not warn us about eating those foods.
Leviticus._.11.1.14
The intent of these criteria is not that by virtue of them the animal will be pure, for they do not make for purity by themselves. Rather, the intent of this is that they are signs that indicate that this animal is pure, and their absence indicates that it is impure. And the reason is that animals that possess these signs generally have flesh that is pleasant for human consumption, because the cause for bringing up the cud is that the animal does not have molars in its upper jaw to grind its food, and on this account, it cannot eat bones, but only grasses, which it swallows whole, and when they are softened in the belly by the natural heat, it brings them up through its throat and grinds them with its jaws and swallows them a second time. And these species of animals are fat and good for human consumption, because they find own food everywhere, and their temperamental mixture is more even, because they feed on grasses, both moist and dry, and because of this, these animals are not cruel, carnivorous, or wicked.
Leviticus._.11.13.2
Regarding the Torah's prohibition of foods, many of the commentators have thought that it is because of the body's health and medical care, those foods being bad, and generating a harmful moistness. This is the view of the Ramban, on the verse, "these you shall abhor among the birds" (Lev. 11:13). But God forbid that I should believe this, because if that were the case, the divine Sefer Torah would be on the level of a minor book among the books of medicine -- short in both words and reasoning. And this is not the way of the divine Torah, or the depth of its purpose. Further, we can see with our own eyes that the nations that eat the flesh of the pig, the creepers, the mouse, and the other impure birds, beasts, and fish are all alive to this day, "firm as a mirror of cast metal" (Job 37:18), and there is none tired or weak among them. Also, there are other animals that are well known to be harmful, like the viper, snake, serpent, and scorpion, that are not mentioned here among the category of prohibitions. And there are also grasses and plants that are very injurious and deadly poisonous, like the alisor and its like, among those mentioned by the medical experts, and the Torah does not prohibit their consumption. And all of this shows that the divine Torah does not come to heal the bodies, or to seek their health, but rather to promote the health of the soul and to heal its ailments, and therefore, it forbade foods that sully and abominate the pure and sublime soul, and that engender in the human temperamental mixture an impenetrability and a distortion of desires, by creating a bad mixture that gives rise to a spirit of pollution that defiles the mind and the deeds, and that expels the spirit of purity and holiness for which David prayed: "Do not take Your holy spirit away from me" (Ps. 51:13). And he said "Fashion a pure heart for me, O God; create in me a steadfast spirit" (id. 12). And it was because of this that He, may He be blessed, said, "You shall not draw abomination upon yourselves through anything that swarms; you shall not make yourselves impure therewith" (Lev. 11:43). For in this consists the idea of impenetrability and impurity. And Scripture does not call them "injurious" or "disease-causing," but "impure" and "abominable," showing that the rationale for the prohibition is on account of the soul and not on account of the body and its health. It was necessary for the wholeness, clarity, and purity of the soul that the bodily temperament would be right, and that its food would create blood that was pure and refined, and not gross and thick and not right, as would be created by the forbidden foods. And also the forbidden foods were related to the idolaters. And even today in the land of India, it is forbidden to eat from the herd or from the flock, as the Master [Rambam] says in his Guide. And in other countries, they eat forbidden foods because of their religion, and that is why these foods are called "abominations," as idolatry is called "abomination."
Leviticus._.12.1.7
Question 6: Why did the Torah not command that some medical treatment be administered for the metzora` ('leper') such as an emetic, bloodletting, or some other therapy or, alternatively, a wondrous cure as the prophet Elisha did for Naaman the Aramean general, in order to amend the imbalance [of humors] he had caused? Instead, [God] commands that the metzora` be quarantined.
Leviticus._.21.1.2
Question 1: Why does the Torah command the priests to become impure for some deceased people, and forbid becoming impure for others. The laws of ritual impurity are identical whether the corpse is a close relative or a stranger, all corpses transmit ritual impurity. Therefore, priests should either be forbidden from becoming impure for any deceased person, or permitted to become impure for all.
Leviticus._.21.1.3
Question 2: Why is it permitted to become impure for the six relatives mentioned in the Torah and not for other relatives. For example, why do uncles and grandfathers not have the same law as parents? Regarding sisters, why is it permitted to become impure for one's virgin sister but not for one's married sister. Is the married one not his sister just as the virgin? The laws of forbidden relationships are identical whether one's sister is married or a virgin. And if it is permitted to become impure for a brother why did Moshe forbid Aharon to involve himself with the burial of Nadav and Avihu — instead commanding Misha'el and Elzafan to bury them.
Leviticus._.26.3.1
If you walk in my statutes (Lev. 26:3) - Many questions can be asked.
Leviticus._.26.3.2
The first one is: Why is the reward for keeping Torah and mitzvot all physical things, as written in this covenant, and not soul perfection, and spiritual reward in the afterlife, given that death is the end of all humans, and the true measure of their success and essential goodness? Also, the enemies have gone out of their gates and lied, pointing out to this verse as the proof that there is no spiritual reward for Israel after death because of this. And also this is difficult: how would the produce given according to the observance of mitzvot, since the reward to the one who observes the mitzvah is rain on the land, in its time, but for the sinner that the sky would close, and rain would not fall? And I will after this recall the opinions of the sages in this matter.
Numbers._.1.1.1
Here is the first book of the Torah of G-d and it is Breisheit, which explicates the family line of the Children of Israel and their families, from the beginning of Creation until the Egyptian Exile. The second book explicates their exile and physical redemption from Egyptian slavery and spiritual redemption from
Numbers._.1.1.5
And is this not the opposite of what the Torah commanded (Exodus 30:12), "When you take a census of the Israelite people according to their enrollment, each shall pay the Lord a ransom for himself on being enrolled?" And over there Rashi explains, "When you wish to obtain the sum total of their number, do not take their census by their heads but each of them shall give half a shekel, and you shall count these, and so ascertain their number." And if so, how did it command here to count according to their heads?
Numbers._.1.1.14
... And I have already explained in the Order of Kit Tissa that this commandment of the half shekel - that they should give it at the time of the counting - was not a commandment for [the future] generations, that they should always do this. Rather it was proper advice that when [they] would want to count the people from [their] own thoughts and will, they should do it like this. And they benefited by this - by the giving of silver of the coins by each head from all the people - here for the work of the Tabernacle, for the purpose of the sockets... [As opposed to] if God had commanded to count, since 'the one who keeps a commandment does not know bad' (according to Ecclesiastes 8). Hence now when the count of the people was necessary, He, may He be blessed, commanded that they do it without the coin, [that comes] from fear of the plague - as 'the agents of a commandment are not hurt'. And let him 'not be scared and not tremble' 'from the plague that stalks in the darkness, or the scourge that ravages at noon' (according to Psalms 91:6). And that which Rashi explained that they they counted this time as well (in Numbers 1) with the shekels - with all due respect - is not true in the understanding of the verses. For they testify and tell that that Israel was not counted by shekels, but by their heads...
Numbers._.6.1.1
...But if someone die upon the nazirite suddenly - meaning to say, in a sudden incident, such as if he was killed or choked in front of him, or if the nazirite entered a tent with a dead body in it, and he did not know - and defiled his head from being a nazirite; then he shall sit in his impurity seven days, and shave the hair of his head on the seventh day when he has already been purified... And on the eighth day, he brings his sacrifice, "and makes atonement for him, for that he sinned by reason of a soul" - meaning to say, for that he sinned by reason of a dead soul. Or its understanding is by reason of his own soul of the nazirite, since he had been ascetic and devoted, and he [now] sinned against it when he interrupted [this state] - as "No harm comes to the righteous" (Proverbs 12:21). And this is the correct understanding on the simple level, and not like the words of R. Yishmael (it appears that this is a mistake and it is supposed to be R. Elazar HaKappar) who expounded, "for that he sinned by reason of a soul," [to mean], that he distressed himself from [drinking] wine, by his being a nazirite. As behold, according to his explanation, it would have been fitting to say...
Numbers._.11.1.1
And the people became like those who complain of hardship in the hearing of the Lord; and when the Lord heard it, His anger was kindled, and the fire of the Lord burned among them and consumed some outlying parts of the camp
Numbers._.11.1.2
The first question arises from the phrase, 'And the people became like those who complain of hardship.' It is unclear what sin they committed and why it is stated 'like those who complain of hardship' using the letter 'כ' (like) in a comparative sense, and not simply 'complain of hardship.' Additionally, why did their punishment come in the form of the fire of the Lord burning at the outskirts of the camp? Were all the people sinners?
Numbers._.11.1.3
The second question arises from the phrase, 'And the mixed multitude among them had a strong craving, and the people of Israel also wept again and said, "Oh, that we had meat to eat!"' (Numbers 11:4) What was this craving, and why does it say 'they wept again and said' as if they had already wept and then wept again? And if the mixed multitude incited the Israelites, why were only the Israelites punished?
Numbers._.11.1.4
The third question arises from the phrase, 'Who will give us meat to eat? We remember the fish we ate in Egypt that cost nothing, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic. But now our strength is dried up, and there is nothing at all but this manna to look at.' (Numbers 11:4-6) The question is, why did they mention fish when their craving was for meat? Indeed, their craving for meat was mentioned later in an organized manner, as it says, 'Who will give us meat to eat? We remember the fish... but now there is nothing but this manna to look at.' However, this sequence is not logical, as they started with the request for meat and then diverted immediately to fish and other things that are neither fish nor meat.
Numbers._.11.1.5
The fourth question arises from the phrase, 'Now the manna was like coriander seed, and its appearance like that of bdellium. The people went about and gathered it and ground it in handmills or beat it in mortars and boiled it in pots and made cakes of it. And the taste of it was like the taste of cakes baked with oil.' (Numbers 11:7-8) What caused them to suddenly remember the perfection of the manna, even though it had already been explained in an organized manner in the sequence of events in Parashat Beshalach? Additionally, they did not mention any negative aspect of the manna. Rather, they expressed that besides the fact that it was good food, they had nothing else. What was the perfection that the Torah mentions when it says that the manna descended upon the camp at night?
Numbers._.11.1.6
The fifth question arises from the phrase, 'And Moses heard the people weeping, each clan apart, because of their families.' (Numbers 11:10) The question is that Rashi's explanation is not sufficient, as it suggests that they were crying over forbidden relationships. This is unlikely because when one desires to satisfy his hunger, he does not cry over the lack of delicacies. These are changing desires, and the Torah does not respond to this.
Numbers._.11.1.7
The eighth question arises from the phrase, 'And the anger of the Lord was kindled greatly, and Moses was displeased.' (Numbers 11:10) If the sin was so severe that it caused such great anger from God, it is well known that it would also be displeasing to Moses. So why do we need to be informed of Moses' displeasure?
Numbers._.11.1.8
The seventh question arises from the phrase, 'Why have you dealt ill with your servant, and why have I not found favor in your sight?' (Numbers 11:11) These two statements are unrelated. If the evil is known to be with him, it is obvious that he has not found favor in His sight. Furthermore, the explanation that he said it to put the burden of all these people upon Him is without a doubt the meaning of 'Why have you dealt ill with your servant.' However, the question of 'Why have I not found favor in your sight' is not answered at all, and the Scripture does not explain its meaning.
Numbers._.11.1.9
The eighth question is why Moses compared his situation to that of a woman giving birth, rather than to the man who begets the child. The father is the one who exerts greater effort to provide for his children, as the verse says, 'As a father pities his children.' (Psalms 103:13) The father gives the form, while the woman provides the material, and the one who gives form is more attached to the object than the one who provides the material.
Numbers._.11.1.10
The ninth question is why Moses further compared his situation to that of a nursing mother. When he initially compared his situation to that of a woman giving birth, why did he then go on to compare himself to a man? Moreover, it is the nursing mother who carries the infant in her bosom, not the man. So how can the infant be attributed to the man? What is the relevance of the statement, 'I will not see my evil' as if he were not concerned about the impending evil, but rather that he would not witness it ?
Numbers._.11.1.11
The tenth question pertains to the correction that the Almighty made in response to Moses' complaint about appointing seventy men to assist him in leading the people. For Moses alone was sufficient to lead them, so why was there a need for seventy additional prophets? It would have been enough for Moses to select them from among the people and impose communal responsibilities upon them. This is especially true if the purpose was for matters of judgment, as they had already been appointed in Horeb (Sinai) as judges over thousands and rulers over hundreds. And if the purpose was to address complaints, what good would the seventy men do? For when the people were in need, they would come to Moses to cry out.
Numbers._.11.1.12
The eleventh question is regarding the necessity for the seventy elders to come to the Tent of Meeting and stand there with Moses. If this was done so that they would know that they were all disciples of Moses, the prophetic experience that came upon them should have made them aware of it. And if it was done to ensure their agreement and to prevent them from sinning, it would have been of no avail, as all of them had sinned with the spies and had perished in the wilderness.
Numbers._.11.1.13
The twelfth question is: Why were the Israelites punished now for their request for meat, but they were not punished the first time when they left Egypt and asked for meat? And if their request was evil in the eyes of the Lord, it would have been more appropriate for Him to withhold their request before granting it, and bitterness would come in the end. And why were there thirty days, when it would have been sufficient for just one day or up to five days after their request, since the intention was only to fulfill their desires?
Numbers._.11.1.14
The thirteenth question pertains to the following statement: 'But Moses said, 'The people among whom I am number six hundred thousand on foot, and you have said, 'I will give them meat, that they may eat for a whole month.' Shall flocks and herds be slaughtered for them, and be enough for them? Or shall all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, and be enough for them?' How could the master of prophets not believe in the word of God and the power of the Creator of the world? He who struck the rock, and water gushed out; He who brought down manna and quails on another occasion. So now, why would the hand of the Lord be too short to provide? Our Sages were already troubled by this, and some of their greats said that because this matter occurred in secret, it was atoned for. But the incident of the waters of Meribah, which happened openly, was not atoned for. The difficulty for me is not how it was atoned for, but rather how such a heretical thought could emerge from the mouth of the Holy Name, questioning the divine ability. Some answered that it was not due to a lack of capability on God's part, Heaven forbid, but rather from their perspective, they were not satisfied with anything, as their request was boundless. And it was challenging for them that if there was no limit to their desires, there would be no limit to God's divine power either. The Ramban wrote that Moses believed that God would not perform a miracle for an evil purpose, namely, to kill them. However, this demonstrates that all these explanations are not straightforward. As for the response that the hand of the Lord is too short, it indicates that Moses' words were intended as a rhetorical question. Therefore, it says, 'the hand of the Lord is too short,' using the letter 'hei' as a sign on the 'hei' of the question.
Numbers._.11.1.15
The fourteenth question pertains to the statement, 'Shall flocks and herds be slaughtered for them to suffice?' This question is separate from the earlier objection, as it is evident that on this day, there are more than three hundred thousand people in the world who consume livestock, and it is sufficient for them. In the Book of Chronicles, it is written that during the wars of Jeroboam and Abijah, there were one million and two hundred thousand men in Israel, and there is no doubt that they were all consuming meat and it was sufficient for them. Therefore, the statement 'If all the fish of the sea were gathered,' is clearly not a valid argument in itself.
Numbers._.11.1.16
The fifteenth question pertains to the statement, 'Would that all the people of the Lord were prophets.' Onkelos interprets this as a strong rebuke, indicating that they did not cease sinning, for we do not find any other prophecy among them, even though if they were prophets, how could they have sinned with the spies, and all of them perished in the wilderness due to that sin? And if we interpret 'and they did not add' according to Rashi's explanation (Numbers 11:26), the question still remains: why did the Lord withhold prophecy from them? And He, may He be blessed, does not withhold good from His followers. Furthermore, what was the purpose of their prophecy, given that it was only for one day, and even then, they did not require it for the matter of meat, as there is no mention in the Scripture of any action or utterance they made regarding that matter.
Numbers._.11.1.17
The sixteenth question is regarding why Eldad and Medad remained in the camp, and how they prophesied after the Lord had declared that they would come to the camp. If the Lord had bestowed His spirit upon them, what was their transgression and sin? As Joshua said, 'My lord Moses, restrain them!' And how could Moses say, 'Would that all the people of the Lord were prophets,' when this would imply their unpreparedness? It would be a vain prayer for the entire nation to be prophets.
Numbers._.11.1.18
The seventeenth question is regarding the statement, 'The meat was still between their teeth, before it was chewed, when the Lord's anger was kindled against them.' After the Divine will had agreed to give them fresh meat for several days, how did His statement not come true while the meat was still between their teeth, before it was fully consumed, and they had not yet reached the graves in Tav'eirah? As it says, 'They had not satisfied their craving, while the meat was still in their mouths, and the anger of the Lord flared against them
Numbers._.11.1.19
And behold, I will explain this passage in a comprehensive manner, addressing all these questions together.
Numbers._.11.1.20
And the people were complaining, and it displeased the Lord, and the Lord said to Moses, 'Gather for Me seventy men. The Scripture states that even though the children of Israel stood at Sinai for one year and received there the Torah and commandments, along with divine teachings, rebukes, and admonitions, they did not completely separate from their previous false and deceitful beliefs that they had acquired in Egypt among the wicked Egyptians. They also did not refrain from the corrupt and impure practices regarding food and drink that they had in Egypt. Despite the divine Torah coming to rectify their true beliefs and elevate their moral character, they did not fully accept discipline, and they constantly sank into the loss of their beliefs and indulged in the immorality and corruption of their wicked leaders whom they had acquired there. And because of this, when they journeyed from Mount Sinai and the Ark of the Covenant went before them and the cloud of the Lord was upon them, they reverted to their deficiencies, both in their beliefs and in their character traits. This is the underlying reason connecting these two narratives. The term "מתאוננים" (complainers) is used to indicate the evil of their beliefs, and the term "מתאוים" (cravers) is used to indicate their lowliness, indulgence, and corruption in their food. In the first instance, it states, "And it came to pass, when the people complained (מתאוננים) in the ears of the Lord," and the word "מתאוננים" does not imply sin, according to the opinion of Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam, nor does it denote distress, according to the opinion of Ramban. Rather, in my understanding, it comes from the term "תואנה" (desire), signifying that they sought complaints and accusations, attempting to prove that evil was in the ears of the Lord, meaning that He did not listen to the words of human beings. This is in line with the verse that states, "And they say, 'The Lord does not see us, nor does the God of Jacob understand.'" These are mocking words, suggesting that He was ignorant and did not comprehend the affairs of the lowly world and its particulars. And now, this was in their mouths because they saw that Moses, may he rest in peace, would say, "Arise, O Lord, and let Your enemies be scattered," and when he would say, "Return, O Lord, to the multitude of thousands of Israel," they would mock his words and say, "Evil is in the ears of the Lord, and He does not have attentive ears for this."And the meaning is that they did not listen to these words. And because their words were in a mocking and scoffing manner, the scripture therefore describes them as 'm'ta'onanim' (complainers) using a metaphorical expression. It means that they did not deny the providence and power of God openly, but rather sought excuses and arguments to claim that He does not hear their lowly concerns. Their sin was hidden and not publicly proclaimed. Therefore, the Torah did not elaborate further on it, and Moses did not rebuke them for it. "But it is stated, 'And the LORD heard' that even though they said evil in His ears and He appeared not to listen, the reality was the opposite. He did hear their complaints and words, and His anger was kindled. For He, who plants the ear, does He not hear? And when He saw that, instead of their love for Him, they deceived Him with their mouths, and they, out of His kindness, did not recognize Him, He desired that they recognize Him through His punishments. Therefore, the fire of the LORD burned among them, and perhaps it was a literal fire that came upon the camp and consumed them. And because this fire did not come by human will or accident but through a miraculous event, they recognized that it was the fire of the LORD, which consumed the outskirts of the camp, to demonstrate that His providence did not extend to all sides like the spreading fire. In this way, those wicked men did not cry out to the LORD and did not say to Moses, 'We have sinned because we spoke against the LORD and against you.' Instead, they cried out to Moses to extinguish the fire, and he prayed for them, and the anger of the LORD subsided, and the fire was quenched." So that they may know that the fire was a result of divine providence sinking into the ground below, even though the nature of fire is to rise upward. And in order to leave them a lasting memorial, the faithful poet called that place 'Tab'erah' and explained that it was not called by that name due to the cause of the fire that you found, but to signify that it was the fire of the LORD. It appears that the burning occurred as they journeyed from the Wilderness of Sinai to the Graves of Craving. And during their journey, this incident occurred. And as it is stated, 'And in the burning, and in the journey, and in the graves of desire, you provoked the Lord.' And in my view, it is proper to understand that the mentioned 'fire of the Lord' refers to sharp, sudden, and deadly burnings. Since there was no flammable material to ignite these fires, they were caused by the providence of the Lord in the form of punishment. It is called the 'fire of the Lord' either because it signifies divine judgment, as in the case of Nadab and Abihu who died by the fire of the Lord, or because it is a consuming fire. And it is said, 'And it consumed the outskirts of the camp.' This means that those who died from it were from the lower ranks and the common people. The opinion of our Sages is that they were nobles among the children of Israel who, during the incident at Mount Sinai, sinned with their deliberations and deserved annihilation. Moses interceded on their behalf, and the Holy One, blessed be He, prolonged His anger until they were consumed by the fire of punishment. And it is not the case that they died there for that very sin, for the scripture says that they were complaining evilly in the ears of the Lord. Rather, when this happened, those officers among the people were punished, because they had sinned at Sinai. And now they added to their sin by saying evil in the ears of the Lord. Therefore, their measure was full, and they died. And Ibn Kaspi explained that they were complaining and getting angry about the toil and hardship that befell them during their journey in the wilderness. They were complaining. "In other words, they were crying out about their misfortune in the ears of the Lord, hoping that He would hear their voice and rectify their situation. But it was for naught, and it was not appropriate." Indeed, it was clarified in my previous response regarding the first question that their beliefs were criticized in this initial narrative. And after the book of their division, with their evil traits and their indulgence in food, they expressed their desire for the mixed multitude that was among them. It means that the Erev Rav, a mixed multitude that joined the Israelites, had cravings within their camp, desiring pleasure without any real need or necessity. And that Erev Rav, even though they were not from the children of Israel, did not speak unfairly, but they had insatiable desires and did not restrain themselves from speaking out and crying out against it, lest Moses would rebuke them. But they raised the issue, and the children of Israel also raised it, and this is the meaning of 'And the people returned and wept, and the children of Israel also wept.' For this verse came to recount the disgrace of Israel, that the Erev Rav, despite their insatiable desires, did not weep and did not utter words of denial. However, the children of Israel erred because they turned and wept, meaning that apart from the initial weeping when the fire of the Lord burned among them. Furthermore, even now, due to their continued pursuit of the desires of the Erev Rav, not only did they desire lustfully, but they also turned to weep once again. And as a result of this, the expression 'also' can be understood that the children of Israel increased their weeping upon the weeping of their turning and weeping once again, while they were the children of Israel. And to amplify their transgression, they said, 'Who will give us meat to eat after all the abundance we had in Egypt? And they denied the ability of the Almighty in this, and therefore they did not say to Moses, 'Give us meat to eat,' for they believed that the divine power would not be sufficient for this. That is why they were weeping, for a person only weeps over something that is impossible to rectify. And they said, 'We remember the fish that we ate freely in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic. But now our whole being is dried up; there is nothing at all except this manna before our eyes!' And when they said this, it was a response to what was possible, as if the listener would say to them, 'Why are you angry so as not to eat meat? Were you not eating meat in Egypt?' There is no doubt that they did not eat meat there. This is because they were poor and destitute, and meat in Egypt was very expensive. Therefore, they would say, 'Look, if we had not been eating meat in Egypt, we would have been eating fish, for it is abundant in the waters of the Nile. And we did not need money to buy them because we would take them for free, without silver or price. This was because the Nile River would overflow and spread, and each of the Egyptians would dig clay pits that would fill with water from the river. When the river returned to its place, the fish would remain in those pits, and in this way, they would eat them for free. And besides the fish that they would eat there, they also used to eat vegetables that were abundant in Egypt, such as cucumbers and watermelons. But now we do not eat meat, fish, or vegetables because our soul is dried up. We have nothing except for the manna before our eyes, constantly saying, 'When will it come?' And through this, their inferiority was revealed from several aspects. The first thing is that they added more sin than the gathering and the mixed multitude, for they desired a desire on their own and did not speak disgraceful words. However, the Israelites cried and denied His providence and the power of the Lord, and they spoke things that were not true. The second thing is that their words revealed their inherent inferiority and their flawed character traits. They were so greedy that despite having the superior sustenance of manna, they asked for fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic, which were the foods of the laborers and unclean. The esteemed teacher has already written that the laborers of the land choose for themselves inferior food and prefer it over the excellent food of the distinguished individuals. The third thing is their foolishness, as despite the burning fire of the Lord that consumed them, they were seeking to eat moist fruits and vegetables. Their desire was for fruits and vegetables that were moist, which would increase the intensity of the burning fire. The cucumbers, in particular, were extremely cold and harsh on the body, like swords. The melons were highly conducive to combustion. The grass they were familiar with, as well as the onions and garlic, were sharp and heating in nature. And they were harmful to warm bodies, especially during the summer when they would inflame the blood. Even more so in the hot desert, at that time when they desired what would harm and kill them, following the instinctual desire without reason, like wild animals. It is also possible to interpret that their complaint was that they did not desire fish in the desert, as there was no sea from which they could gather them. But they desired meat, for just as in places close to the sea, meat becomes scarce and fish abound, so in distant places far from the sea, meat becomes plentiful and fish become scarce. That's why they said, 'We remember the fish that we ate in Egypt for free, the fish that we used to cook together with cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic, to remove the unpleasantness of the fish.' There, they did not desire meat. And what I initially explained is the most accurate. Therefore, the two remaining questions, the second and the third, are resolved. To further prove that their desire was irrational and not based on reason, the Scripture attests in the account of the manna by stating, 'And the manna was like coriander seed, and its appearance like that of bdellium.' This means, 'See and behold how repulsive their murmuring was, despite having honorable and beneficial food, which is the manna.' The Scripture describes four qualities of the manna: The first quality was that it was a beautiful and pleasant food, not repulsive or detestable. Regarding this, it says, 'And the manna was like coriander seed,' which is a small round-shaped spice, similar to the images. And its appearance was delightful, for it was pleasing to the eye, resembling the coriander seed. The second quality was that it was a good food given freely. Regarding this, it says, 'The people went about and gathered it, ground it in mills or beat it in mortars, cooked it in pots, and made cakes of it.' This means that they did not quarrel with one another over its acquisition, nor did they incur many expenses for it. Rather, each person would go out from their tent and gather an amount according to their own needs. The third quality was that it was a savory and refined food. Concerning this, it says, 'And its taste was like the taste of cakes baked with oil.' This means that if they desired fatty meat with a sweet flavor, then the manna would taste accordingly. There is no contradiction here to what is stated in the order of events in the book of Exodus, where it is described as tasting like wafers made with honey. This is because the Scripture there speaks of the taste of the manna as it descended to the ground, resembling wafers made with honey. However, here the Scripture describes the taste of the manna after it had been prepared and cooked, as it says, 'They ground it in mills or beat it in mortars, cooked it in pots, and made cakes of it.' After these preparations and cookings, its taste was like the taste of cakes baked with oil. The fourth quality of the manna was that, as it says, 'When the dew fell on the camp at night, the manna would descend upon it.' This means that the food itself was pure and clean, free from any impurity or contamination. When the dew would fall on the field at night, the manna would descend upon it in such a way that it did not touch the earth's surface. Rather, it would rest on the dew in great purity. This explains the statement, 'There is nothing besides the manna before our eyes,' as they would find the bread ready for them when they woke up from their sleep on their beds at night. (Note: The term "אל המן עינינו" (besides the manna before our eyes) is left untranslated as it appears to be a specific phrase or idiom referring to the manna as the sole sustenance of the Israelites in the desert.) They did not place their hope in Him, but He placed His hope in them. Therefore, if the manna had been a beautiful and appealing food in its appearance and form, distinguishing itself without any expense, mixture, or impurity, it would have been clear that their complaint stemmed from base desire rather than rational judgment. The request for meat, fish, and lesser vegetables that they remembered and the fourth question were permitted. Now, Moses saw the people weeping by their families, each one at the entrance of his tent. This means that he saw that this rebellion was not initiated by one or two individuals from a specific family. Also, these matters were not whispered secretly, for everyone connected with their respective families to weep and cry out together, like a woman mourning over a deceased person. The weeping was not as if they were weeping for a single deceased person, but as if every individual was weeping for their own families, as if all the members of their families had died before them. Moses stood there and the families mourned. Remember that even that weeping they did for their families and ancestral houses was not done in secret. Rather, each person of the family, who resided on the opposite side, would go out to the entrance of his tent and weep openly. They did not feel ashamed or embarrassed about their blasphemous words and contemptible behavior. And besides what this matter itself appeared to be repugnant in the eyes of Moses, he also perceived and understood the dawn of its evil. Even God was greatly angered because they denied His providence and power. Yet, they still clung to their previous blasphemy. However, when they said, 'And it is evil in the eyes of Moses,' it means that Moses did not recognize the hidden reason behind their behavior. But it was evil and repugnant in his eyes that they were weeping for the consumption of meat like an infant who cries for something he doesn't need and is not appropriate. However, it seems that Moses, upon witnessing the people's rebellion and the wickedness of their words, understood their transgression. And with this, Moses saw through the power of his prophecy that God was greatly angered against them. The impending evil was openly revealed and known to Moses, for the severe punishment that the Almighty would inflict upon them was revealed before his understanding. Concerning this, it is stated, 'And it is evil in the eyes of Moses,' indicating that the punishment that would befall them was openly revealed and known to Moses. Upon witnessing this, the Master of the prophets considered devising a plan to appease God's wrath, hoping that in His mercy, He would forgive their sin, which preceded the decree and the punishment that God would inflict upon them. Moses himself was deeply pained by the transgressions of the Israelites, and he declared that he did not wish to continue leading them, so that the Almighty would pardon them and not forsake them. This would be the cause for their forgiveness. Therefore, Moses quickly said before the Almighty, 'Why have You done evil to Your servants,' etc. Here the question of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) and the Lord (Adonai) remains unanswered. However, some say that the intention in this was, 'Why have You done evil to Your servants by sending me to take them out of Egypt?' And because I said, 'Please send by the hand that You will send,' Your anger was kindled against Moses. But if I had found favor in Your eyes, I would not have been sent to this people.' However, this interpretation is not correct, as these are two distinct matters, not one. Rather, the more accurate understanding of this is that the intention of these words was to indicate that Moses was torn between two conflicting matters. The first is that the entire burden of the people was upon him, and they would become angry with him when they needed to fulfill their desires. The second is that he did not have the ability to fulfill their request, and if he had the power to satisfy their demands, he would not have been distressed by their leadership. Concerning the first matter, he said, 'Why have You done evil to Your servant,' indicating that he was burdened with the complaints of the entire people, and this argument is strengthened by his statement, 'Did I conceive all of this people?' which means, 'Why have You done evil to Your servant by placing the burden of the entire people upon me.' Am I like a mother who bears great burden in giving birth to her children? If I am their birth mother and I am to this people like a father who begets children, then why have You burdened me with the entire weight of this people? And in response to the second matter, where his ability to fulfill their desires was limited, he said, 'Should I carry them in my bosom as a nurse carries a suckling child?' This means, 'Why should I carry this people in my embrace?' which implies leading them to the land that You swore to their fathers. For if the promise of the land was fulfilled to me, and it was intended for me to undertake its realization because it was my gift, then why have I labored for it? The difficulty lies in the fact that You should treat me like the craftsman and not like the nurse. For the nurse, when she carries the suckling child and he cries, she soothes him with her comforting words and breastfeeding. But the craftsman, being a man, cannot appease the infant because he lacks breasts and milk. Therefore, the infant will continue to cry and cannot be soothed. Similarly, I liken myself to the craftsman when You have laid the burden of all these people upon me, and I have not found favor in Your eyes to grant me the strength to fulfill their request and demand. For I have no meat to give to all these people, as they weep and say to me, 'Give us meat to eat.' And they are like the infant who seeks milk from the nurse's breasts, but there is nothing for me to give them to appease them. And because of this, I alone am unable to bear the burden of all these people, meaning to say, do not think that it is possible for me alone to provide meat for all of them in this instance, for their craving is insatiable. Each day they will add to their sins and seek other things. Especially now, as their elders and leaders have died, as it is stated, 'And she ate at the edge of the camp.' They were assisting in their reprimands and guidance. Therefore, I said, 'I alone am unable to bear the burden of all these people,' meaning to lead them in their ways, guide them, and carry them to the land that You promised, for it is too heavy a responsibility for me. This goes against the natural order, for it is fitting that the burden be carried by the bearer. How then can I, who am heavier than them, bear them? And if this is how You treat me, meaning that I should bear them and not fulfill their desires, then it would be better for me to die rather than to see their evil and be left alive. Please, kill me now if You intend to treat me this way, for in doing so, I will consider it as finding favor in Your eyes. Because in my death, I will not witness their calamity, and they will be left as I have explained in questions 7, 8, and 9. It is also possible to interpret it as follows: If this is how You treat me, kill me now as You did to the other distinguished leaders of the Israelites who were consumed by fire. Let me be killed in the same manner, so that You may avert Your face from me and kill me before I witness their calamity. This way, I will not be ashamed before their eyes, and I will be unable to guide them or fulfill their needs as they have requested. And another interpretation is that You treat me in a way that I am not allowed to appoint others to assist me in their leadership.
Numbers._.12.1.13
... "And Miriam spoke... against Moses because (al odot) of the Cushite woman whom he had married" - meaning to say because of the insult to his wife committed by Moses in his separating from her. And they said, "If he did this because Zipporah was black like a Cushite, behold when he married her, she was already a Cushite - can a Cushite change his skin? And nevertheless, he took her [as a wife] and had children from her. So, if so, what did he see now to separate from her." And they also said, "If it was on account of the needs of prophecy that he separated from her, 'was it only with Moses that the Lord spoke; did He not also speak with us?' And [yet] we did not separate from [our spouses], from when we became prophets. So, if so, why did Moses separate from his wife on account of his prophecy? Did the Lord not also speak with us, and the Lord heard our words. And since we speak to Him and the Lord hears our voices without this separating, why did Moses separate from his wife?...
Numbers._.13.17.1
Behold, if so, from these six questions which Moshe, our teacher - peace be upon him - commanded to the scouts that they know and return the word to him, there was not one that the people asked, when they said (Deuteronomy 1:22), "and they will return to us the word: the path that we shall go up upon, and the cities that we shall come unto" - as Moshe did not command that they should know anything about the paths nor what cities were more fitting to conquer first. And also the scouts in their answers did not respond to this at all. But [rather], Moshe in his knowing the evil of the people, [understood] that there was to know whether the land was good and broad, plentiful of food and plentiful of settlement, in [such] a way that they would eat and be satiated and greatly delight upon it. And [so] he commanded them the two questions about the inhabited land and the two last questions about the land that is worked and sown. However, the other two questions Moshe invented himself, to ask about them. And this was in order that they know that the enemies were a large and strong nation and that the cities were fortified into the skies; and with this, they would recognize and know that their Savior is strong, and that it would not be with their [own] strength that they would inherit the land, and that their forearms would not deliver them. And hence they would increase their clinging to God, may He be blessed, and call to Him, 'since it is a time of trouble for Yaakov and from it he shall be delivered.' Behold, it has become clear from this that Moshe did not ask about the land, "whether it is good or bad," because of his being in doubt about the divine designs - God forbid - but rather to answer their questions, in his thinking that for this did they request to send scouts, as I elucidated; and that he only asked them, "are they strong or weak, are they few or are they many," in order to sway their hearts to return to God and to supplicate in front of Him, 'since to God is deliverance,' and that they should say, "Let us go and return to God, so that He should do with us all of His wonders," and like he did at the [Reed] Sea. And it appears to me in truth that our master, Moshe, sinned in these first two questions that he asked about the people and the cities, as Israel did not ask them and also God, may He be blessed, did not command about them, but [rather] he asked them on his own. And there is no doubt that his intention was good, but there came out from it what came out - 'like an error that goes out in front of the ruler.' And since 'an error in study is considered an intentional transgression,' the master of the prophets was punished.
Numbers._.15.40.1
The Verse says, "Be holy to your God; I am God your Lord" to instruct us that we should be distinguished in our dress like a king's or master's servants, who wear an insignia on their clothes, so that we will be recognizable as servants and messengers of God
Numbers._.17.1.9
...I have given you all of these gifts, because you will not inherit with Israel in their land. And you will not have a portion within it - not even the booty and spoils of the enemies, so that you will not be burdened by the thoughts of working the land. For "I am your portion and your inheritance," so you need not put forth effort outside of My service - which is your portion and your inheritance. And these gifts will suffice for your essential needs without [your] effort...
Numbers._.19.1.1
And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, 'This is the statute of the Torah...' until '...when the entire congregation of Israel comes to the Wilderness of Zin.' And there are questions to be asked here:

Sefaria Community Translation. Via Sefaria (sefaria.org), Sefaria-Export. Version source: https://www.sefaria.org Licence: CC0. Source.