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

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

And behold, I will explain this passage in a comprehensive manner, addressing all these questions together.

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.