Bilangan 1:2

1:2 “Take a census ¹  of the entire ²  Israelite community ³  by their clans and families, ⁴  counting the name of every individual male. ⁵ 

Bilangan 3:40

The Substitution for the Firstborn

3:40 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Number all the firstborn males of the Israelites from a month old and upward, and take ⁶  the number of their names.

Bilangan 10:29

The Appeal to Hobab

10:29 ⁷ Moses said to Hobab son of Reuel, the Midianite, Moses’ father-in-law, ⁸  “We are journeying to the place about which the Lord said, ‘I will give it to you.’ Come with us and we will treat you well, ⁹  for the Lord has promised good things ¹⁰  for Israel.”

Bilangan 11:18

11:18 “And say to the people, ‘Sanctify yourselves ¹¹  for tomorrow, and you will eat meat, for you have wept in the hearing ¹²  of the Lord, saying, “Who will give us meat to eat, ¹³  for life ¹⁴  was good for us in Egypt?” Therefore the Lord will give you meat, and you will eat.

Bilangan 18:15

18:15 The firstborn of every womb which they present to the Lord, whether human or animal, will be yours. Nevertheless, the firstborn sons you must redeem, ¹⁵  and the firstborn males of unclean animals you must redeem.

Bilangan 18:17

18:17 But you must not redeem the firstborn of a cow or a sheep or a goat; they are holy. You must splash ¹⁶  their blood on the altar and burn their fat for an offering made by fire for a pleasing aroma to the Lord.

Bilangan 22:6

22:6 So ¹⁷  now, please come and curse this nation ¹⁸  for me, for they are too powerful for me. Perhaps I will prevail so that we may conquer them ¹⁹  and drive them out of the land. For I know that whoever you bless is blessed, ²⁰  and whoever you curse is cursed.”

[1:2]  ¹ tn The construction is literally “lift up the head[s],” (שְׂאוּ אֶת־רֹאשׁ, sÿ’u ’et-ro’sh). This idiom for taking a census occurs elsewhere (Exod 30:12; Lev 5:24; Num 1:24; etc.). The idea is simply that of counting heads to arrive at the base for the standing army. This is a different event than the one recorded in Exod 30:11-16, which was taken for a different purpose altogether. The verb is plural, indicating that Moses had help in taking the census.

[1:2]  ² tc Smr lacks the Hebrew word “all” here.

[1:2]  ³ tn Heb “the congregation of Israel.”

[1:2]  ⁴ tn The tribe (מַטֶּה, matteh or שֵׁבֶט, shevet) is the main category. The family groups or clans (מִשְׁפְּחֹת, mishpÿkhot) and the households or families (בֵּית אֲבֹת, bet ’avot) were sub-divisions of the tribe.

[1:2]  ⁵ tn This clause simply has “in/with the number of the names of every male with respect to their skulls [individually].” Counting heads, or every skull, simply meant that each person was to be numbered in the census. Except for the Levites, no male was exempt from the count.

[3:40]  ⁶ tn The verb נָשָׂא (nasa’, “take”) has here the sense of collect, take a census, or register the names.

[10:29]  ⁷ sn For additional bibliography for this short section, see W. F. Albright, “Jethro, Hobab, and Reuel in Early Hebrew Tradition,” CBQ 25 (1963): 1-11; G. W. Coats, “Moses in Midian,” JBL 92 (1973): 3-10; B. Mazar, “The Sanctuary of Arad and the Family of Hobab the Kenite,” JNES 24 (1965): 297-303; and T. C. Mitchell, “The Meaning of the Noun h£tn in the Old Testament,” VT 19 (1969): 93-112.

[10:29]  ⁸ sn There is a problem with the identity of Hobab. The MT says that he is the son of Reuel, making him the brother-in-law of Moses. But Judg 4:11 says he is the father-in-law. In Judg 1:16; 4:11 Hobab is traced to the Kenites, but in Exod 3:1 and 18:1 Jethro (Reuel) is priest of Midian. Jethro is identified with Reuel on the basis of Exod 2:18 and 3:1, and so Hobab becomes Moses’ חֹתֵן (khoten), a relative by marriage and perhaps brother-in-law. There is not enough information to decide on the identity and relationships involved here. Some suggest that there is one person with the three names (G. B. Gray, Numbers [ICC], 93); others suggest Hobab is a family name (R. F. Johnson, IDB 2:615), and some suggest that the expression “the son of Reuel the Midianite” had dropped out of the genealogy of Judges, leading to the conflict (J. Crichton, ISBE 2:1055). If Hobab is the same as Jethro, then Exod 18:27 does not make much sense, for Jethro did go home. On this basis many conclude Hobab is a brother-in-law. This would mean that after Jethro returned home, Moses conversed with Hobab, his brother-in-law. For more discussion, see the articles and the commentaries.

[10:29]  ⁹ tn The verb is the Hiphil of the root “to be good” (יָטַב, yatav); it may be translated “treat well, deal favorably, generously with.” Here it is a perfect tense with vav (ו) following the imperative, showing a sequence in the verbal ideas.

[10:29]  ¹⁰ tn The Hebrew text simply has “has spoken good” for Israel.

[11:18]  ¹¹ tn The Hitpael is used to stress that they are to prepare for a holy appearance. The day was going to be special and so required their being set apart for it. But it is a holy day in the sense of the judgment that was to follow.

[11:18]  ¹² tn Heb “in the ears.”

[11:18]  ¹³ tn Possibly this could be given an optative translation, to reflect the earlier one: “O that someone would give….” But the verb is not the same; here it is the Hiphil of the verb “to eat” – “who will make us eat” (i.e., provide meat for us to eat).

[11:18]  ¹⁴ tn The word “life” is not in the text. The expression is simply “it was for us,” or “we had good,” meaning “we had it good,” or “life was good.”

[18:15]  ¹⁵ tn The construction uses the infinitive absolute and the imperfect tense of the verb “to redeem” in order to stress the point – they were to be redeemed. N. H. Snaith suggests that the verb means to get by payment what was not originally yours, whereas the other root גָאַל (ga’al) means to get back what was originally yours (Leviticus and Numbers [NCB], 268).

[18:17]  ¹⁶ tn Or “throw, toss.”

[22:6]  ¹⁷ tn The two lines before this verse begin with the particle הִנֵּה (hinneh), and so they lay the foundation for these imperatives. In view of those circumstances, this is what should happen.

[22:6]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “people.” So also in vv. 10, 17, 41.

[22:6]  ¹⁹ tn The construction uses the imperfect tense אוּכַל (’ukhal, “I will be able”) followed by the imperfect tense נַכֶּה (nakkeh, “we will smite/attack/defeat”). The second verb is clearly the purpose or the result of the first, even though there is no conjunction or particle.

[22:6]  ²⁰ tn The verb is the Piel imperfect of בָּרַךְ (barakh), with the nuance of possibility: “whomever you may bless.” The Pual participle מְבֹרָךְ (mÿvorakh) serves as the predicate.