¹ tc Heb “As for the rest of the things of Amon which he did, are they not written on the scroll of the events of the days of the kings of Judah?” Many Hebrew mss have וְכָל (v^ekhol), “and all,” before אֲשֶׁר (ʾasher). In this case we can translate, “As for the rest of the events of Amon’s reign, and all his accomplishments,….”

¹ tn Heb “Indeed, what is your servant, a dog, that he could do this great thing?” With his reference to a dog, Hazael is not denying that he is a “dog” and protesting that he would never commit such a dastardly “dog-like” deed. Rather, as Elisha’s response indicates, Hazael is suggesting that he, like a dog, is too insignificant to ever be in a position to lead such conquests.

¹ tn Heb “the sacred thing.” The term הַקֹּדֶשׁ (haqqodesh) likely refers to an offering normally set apart for the Lord but, as a third-year tithe, given on this occasion to people in need. Sometimes this is translated as “the sacred portion” (cf. NASB, NIV, NRSV), but that could sound to a modern reader as if a part of the house were being removed and given away.

² tn Or “put under divine judgment. The Hebrew word (חֵרֶם, kherem) refers to placing persons or things under God’s judgment, usually to the extent of their complete destruction. Though primarily applied against the heathen, this severe judgment could also fall upon unrepentant Israelites (cf. the story of Achan in Josh 7). See also the note on the phrase “divine judgment” in Deut 2:34.

¹ tn The Hebrew word תּוֹעֵבָה (toʿevah, “abhorrent; detestable”) describes anything detestable to the Lord because of its innate evil or inconsistency with his own nature and character. Frequently such things (or even persons) must be condemned to annihilation (חֵרֶם, kherem) lest they become a means of polluting or contaminating others (cf. Deut 13:17; 20:17-18). See M. Grisanti, NIDOTTE 4:315.

¹ tn The sentence uses the infinitive construct לְעַנֹּת (l^eʿannot, “to afflict”), which is the same word used in the instructions for the day of atonement in which people are to afflict themselves (their souls). The case here may be that the woman would take a religious vow on such an occasion to humble herself, to mortify her flesh, to abstain from certain things, perhaps even sexual relations within marriage.

² tn The Hebrew text simply has כִּי־לֹא מִלִּבִּי (ki loʾ millibbi, “for not from my heart”). The heart is the center of the will, the place decisions are made (see H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament). Moses is saying that the things he has done have not come “from the will of man” so to speak—and certainly not from some secret desire on his part to seize power.

² 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.

² tn Heb “all the days of—that the cloud settled over the tabernacle.” “All” is the adverbial accusative of time telling how long they camped in one spot—all. The word is then qualified by the genitive of the thing measured—“all of the days”—and this in turn is qualified by a noun clause functioning as a genitive after “days of.”

¹ sn The verb is simply the Hiphil, “do not cut off.” The context calls for a permissive nuance—“do not let them be cut off.” It was a difficult task to be handling the holy things correctly; Moses and Aaron were to see to it that they did it right and did not handle the objects, that is, Moses and Aaron were to safeguard their lives by making certain that proper procedures were followed.

¹ sn See B. A. Levine, Leviticus (JPSTC), 156, for a full discussion of the issues raised in this verse. The rabbinic tradition places the slaughter of Passover offerings between approximately 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., not precisely at twilight. Moreover, the term פֶּסַח (pesakh) may mean “protective offering” rather than “Passover offering,” although they amount to about the same thing in the historical context of the exodus from Egypt (see Exod 11-12).

² tn Heb “today they presented their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord, and like these things have happened to me, and (if) I had eaten sin offering today would it be good in the eyes of the Lord?” The idiom “would it be good in the eyes of [the Lord]” has been translated “would [the Lord] have been pleased.” Cf. NRSV “would it have been agreeable to the Lord?”; CEV, NLT “Would the Lord have approved?”

² tn Heb “and is guilty to one from these,” probably referring here to any of “these” things about which one might swear a thoughtless oath (J. E. Hartley, Leviticus [WBC], 45), with the word “oath” supplied in the translation for clarity. Another possibility is that “to one from these” is a dittography from v. 5 (cf. the note on v. 5a), and that v. 4 ends with “and is guilty” like vv. 2 and 3 (J. Milgrom, Leviticus [AB], 1:300).

² tn Many English versions have “it” here, referring to the head of the bird, which the priest immediately tossed on the altar fire. However, “it” could be misunderstood to refer to the bird’s body, so “head” is repeated in the present translation for clarity. As the following lines show, certain things needed to be done to the body of the bird before it could be placed on the altar.

¹ tn The word צִּיץ (tsits) seems to mean “a shining thing” and so here a plate of metal. It originally meant “flower,” but they could not write on a flower. So it must have the sense of something worn openly, visible, and shining. The Rabbinic tradition says it was two fingers wide and stretched from ear to ear, but this is an attempt to give details that the Law does not give (see B. Jacob, Exodus, 818).

⁴ tn The thing numbered is found in the singular when the number is plural—“twelve standing-stone.” See GKC 433 §134.f. The “standing-stone” could be a small piece about a foot high, or a huge column higher than men. They served to commemorate treaties (Gen 32), or visions (Gen 28) or boundaries, or graves. Here it will function with the altar as a place of worship.

² sn One of the major interpretive difficulties is the comparison between Exod 16 and Num 11. In Numbers we find that the giving of the manna was about 24 months after the Exod 16 time (assuming there was a distinct time for this chapter), that it was after the erection of the tabernacle, that Taberah (the Burning) preceded it (not in Exod 16), that the people were tired of the manna (not that there was no bread to eat) and so God would send the quail, and that there was a severe tragedy over it. In Exod 16 both the manna and the quail are given on the same day, with no mention of quail on the following days. Contemporary scholarship generally assigns the accounts to two different sources because complete reconciliation seems impossible. Even if we argue that Exodus has a thematic arrangement and “telescopes” some things to make a point, there will still be difficulties in harmonization. Two considerations must be kept in mind: 1) First, they could be separate events entirely. If this is true, then they should be treated separately as valid accounts of things that appeared or occurred during the period of the wanderings. Similar things need not be the same thing. 2) Secondly, strict chronological order is not always maintained in the Bible narratives, especially if it is a didactic section. Perhaps Exod 16 describes the initiation of the giving of manna as God’s provision of bread, and therefore placed in the prologue of the covenant, and Num 11 is an account of a mood which developed over a period of time in response to the manna. Num 11 would then be looking back from a different perspective.

⁴ sn U. Cassuto (Exodus, 109) says there are two ways to understand “the abomination of the Egyptians.” One is that the sacrifice of the sacred animals would appear an abominable thing in the eyes of the Egyptians, and the other is that the word “abomination” could be a derogatory term for idols—we sacrifice what is an Egyptian idol. So that is why he says if they did this the Egyptians would stone them.

² tn The word נִפְלְאֹתַי (nifl^eʾotay) does not specify what the intervention will be. As the text unfolds it will be clear that the plagues are intended. Signs and portents could refer to things people might do, but “wonders” only God could do. The root refers to that which is extraordinary, surpassing, amazing, difficult to comprehend. See Isa 9:6; Gen 18:14; Ps 139:6.

⁶ tn The word has the definite article, “the well.” Gesenius lists this use of the article as that which denotes a thing that is yet unknown to the reader but present in the mind under the circumstances (GKC 407-8 §126.q-r). Where there was a well, people would settle, and as R. A. Cole says it, for people who settled there it was “the well” (Exodus [TOTC], 60).