Numbers 11:4

Complaints about Food

11:4 ¹ Now the mixed multitude ²  who were among them craved more desirable foods, ³  and so the Israelites wept again ⁴  and said, “If only we had meat to eat! ⁵ 

Numbers 13:27-28

13:27 They told Moses, ⁶  “We went to the land where you sent us. ⁷  It is indeed flowing with milk and honey, ⁸  and this is its fruit. 13:28 But ⁹  the inhabitants ¹⁰  are strong, and the cities are fortified and very large. Moreover we saw the descendants of Anak there.

Numbers 16:13

16:13 Is it a small thing ¹¹  that you have brought us up out of the land that flows with milk and honey, ¹²  to kill us in the wilderness? Now do you want to make yourself a prince ¹³  over us?

Numbers 18:2

18:2 “Bring with you your brothers, the tribe of Levi, the tribe of your father, so that they may join ¹⁴  with you and minister to you while ¹⁵  you and your sons with you are before the tent of the testimony.

Numbers 22:19

22:19 Now therefore, please stay ¹⁶  the night here also, that I may know what more the Lord might say to me.” ¹⁷ 

Numbers 22:33

22:33 The donkey saw me and turned from me these three times. If ¹⁸  she had not turned from me, I would have killed you but saved her alive.”

Numbers 24:12

24:12 Balaam said to Balak, “Did I not also tell your messengers whom you sent to me,

[11:4]  ¹ sn The story of the sending of the quail is a good example of poetic justice, or talionic justice. God had provided for the people, but even in that provision they were not satisfied, for they remembered other foods they had in Egypt. No doubt there was not the variety of foods in the Sinai that might have been available in Egypt, but their life had been bitter bondage there as well. They had cried to the Lord for salvation, but now they forget, as they remember things they used to have. God will give them what they crave, but it will not do for them what they desire. For more information on this story, see B. J. Malina, The Palestinian Manna Tradition. For the attempt to explain manna and the other foods by natural phenomena, see F. W. Bodenheimer, “The Manna of Sinai,” BA 10 (1947): 1-6.

[11:4]  ² tn The mixed multitude (or “rabble,” so NASB, NIV, NRSV; NLT “foreign rabble”) is the translation of an unusual word, הֲָאסַפְסֻף (ha’safsuf). It occurs in the Hebrew Bible only here. It may mean “a gathering of people” from the verb אָסַף (’asaf), yielding the idea of a mixed multitude (in line with Exod 12:38). But the root is different, and so no clear connection can be established. Many commentators therefore think the word is stronger, showing contempt through a word that would be equivalent to “riff-raff.”

[11:4]  ³ tn The Hebrew simply uses the cognate accusative, saying “they craved a craving” (הִתְאַוּוּ תַּאֲוָה, hit’avvu ta’vah), but the context shows that they had this strong craving for food. The verb describes a strong desire, which is not always negative (Ps 132:13-14). But the word is a significant one in the Torah; it was used in the garden story for Eve’s desire for the tree, and it is used in the Decalogue in the warning against coveting (Deut 5:21).

[11:4]  ⁴ tc The Greek and the Latin versions read “and they sat down” for “and they returned,” involving just a change in vocalization (which they did not have). This may reflect the same expression in Judg 20:26. But the change does not improve this verse.

[11:4]  ⁵ tn The Hebrew expresses the strong wish or longing idiomatically: “Who will give us flesh to eat?” It is a rhetorical expression not intended to be taken literally, but merely to give expression to the longing they had. See GKC 476 §151.a.1.

[13:27]  ⁶ tn Heb “told him and said.” The referent (Moses) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[13:27]  ⁷ tn The relative clause modifies “the land.” It is constructed with the relative and the verb: “where you sent us.”

[13:27]  ⁸ sn This is the common expression for the material abundance of the land (see further, F. C. Fensham, “An Ancient Tradition of the Fertility of Palestine,” PEQ 98 [1966]: 166-67).

[13:28]  ¹¹ tn The word (אֶפֶס, ’efes) forms a very strong adversative. The land was indeed rich and fruitful, but….”

[13:28]  ¹² tn Heb “the people who are living in the land.”

[16:13]  ¹⁶ tn The question is rhetorical. It was not a small thing to them – it was a big thing.

[16:13]  ¹⁷ tn The modern scholar who merely sees these words as belonging to an earlier tradition about going up to the land of Canaan that flows with milk and honey misses the irony here. What is happening is that the text is showing how twisted the thinking of the rebels is. They have turned things completely around. Egypt was the land flowing with milk and honey, not Canaan where they will die. The words of rebellion are seldom original, and always twisted.

[16:13]  ¹⁸ tn The verb הִשְׂתָּרֵר (histarer) is the Hitpael infinitive absolute that emphasizes the preceding תִשְׂתָּרֵר (tistarer), the Hitpael imperfect tense (both forms having metathesis). The verb means “to rule; to act like a prince; to make oneself a prince.” This is the only occurrence of the reflexive for this verb. The exact nuance is difficult to translate into English. But they are accusing Moses of seizing princely power for himself, perhaps making a sarcastic reference to his former status in Egypt. The rebels here are telling Moses that they had discerned his scheme, and so he could not “hoodwink” them (cf. NEB).

[18:2]  ²¹ sn The verb forms a wordplay on the name Levi, and makes an allusion to the naming of the tribe Levi by Leah in the book of Genesis. There Leah hoped that with the birth of Levi her husband would be attached to her. Here, with the selection of the tribe to serve in the sanctuary, there is the wordplay again showing that the Levites will be attached to Aaron and the priests. The verb is יִלָּווּ (yillavu), which forms a nice wordplay with Levi (לֵוִי). The tribe will now be attached to the sanctuary. The verb is the imperfect with a vav (ו) that shows volitive sequence after the imperative, here indicating a purpose clause.

[18:2]  ²² tn The clause is a circumstantial clause because the disjunctive vav (ו) is on a nonverb to start the clause.

[22:19]  ²⁶ tn In this case “lodge” is not used, but “remain, reside” (שְׁבוּ, shÿvu).

[22:19]  ²⁷ tn This clause is also a verbal hendiadys: “what the Lord might add to speak,” meaning, “what more the Lord might say.”

[22:33]  ³¹ tc Many commentators consider אוּלַי (’ulay, “perhaps”) to be a misspelling in the MT in place of לוּלֵי (luley, “if not”).