How did [Miriam] know. Meaning: It is not the behavior of modest women to complain to their neighbors about their husbands concerning intimate relations.

Just as everyone. For if this were not so, why is the Torah calling her a Cushite? Was she a Cushite? — surely she was a Midianite! Rather, just as a Cushite’s skin is unique, so too her skin was unique in its beauty. (Gur Aryeh) Because it is somewhat incongruous for the Torah to speak in this cryptic manner, Rashi therefore says that כושית is the numerical equivalent of יפת תואר “beautiful appearance.”

Concerning her divorce. Meaning concerning her husband’s separation from her; this is an abbreviated verse. Why did Rashi reverse the order and explain first the words “the Cushite woman”? It appears that one may have thought that they spoke about him because he in fact married a Cushite woman, as the Midrash says; therefore Rashi first explains that the woman with a hei refers to Tziporah, while the word “Cushite” means that “just as…” Afterwards he explains that “concerning the woman” means concerning her divorce. Subsequently he again explains the word “Cushite” — “What does the Torah teach? — You find…” And then he explains the word “the Cushite” — meaning the hei (indicating the definite article) — teaching “because of her beauty…” This teaches that she appeared this way to everyone and was known for this, consequently the Torah writes “האשה הכושית” (lit. the Cushite the woman). Finally Rashi explains “for [he married a Cushite] woman” teaching why the Torah provided a reason. He explains that this means that he should have either not married or he should have remained with her and not have separated from her. R. Yaakov Triosh.

With him alone. (Nachalas Yaakov) Rashi was answering the question: The two words רק and אך are terms that indicate a limitation, thus the Torah should have said “הרק (was it only) with Moshe that He has spoken… Did He not also [speak] with us?” Rashi answers that “with him alone” [teaches], but not with others at all, whether they were as righteous as him, or whether they were less righteous than him. “Did He not also speak with us,” even though we are on a lower level of prophecy than Moshe? Therefore the Torah required two terms that indicate both facets of the limitation of speech. The Sifri suggests a similar answer.

Suddenly when they were ritually unclean. For if not so, why does Scripture write “suddenly”? Re’m

Water! Water! Because it is written here, “suddenly” and also concerning Nazirite it is written, “suddenly or unexpectedly” (Bamidbar 6:9). We make a comparison — just as a Nazirite needs to immerse in water, so too [the sudden call for water] was for immersion in water by day (following marital relations).

He went alone. For if not so, why does the Torah write “Hashem descended in a [pillar of] cloud”? Surely it had already stated “Hashem said: Come out, all three of you,” thus it should have merely said “and He stood at the entrance of the Tent…” However in Parshas Ki Sisa where it is written “Hashem descended in a cloud” (Shemos 34:5), at the beginning of the revelation of the Divine Presence to Moshe in the morning, there one may say that it comes to inform of the revelation of the Divine Presence to Moshe, but not to teach that He descended alone with the pillar of Cloud as Rashi expounds here.

So that they would be drawn away. (Nachalas Yaakov) According to this, there is a difficulty: Since He did not speak to them in the presence of Moshe, why then did He call to Moshe and say “come out all three of you”? One must answer that it was in order that he would pray for Miriam immediately. (Kitzur Mizrochi) answers in the name of the Ramban that it was in order that Moshe would see Hashem’s zealousness on behalf of his honor. In the name of the Baal HaIkarim he answers that since they were not then ready for prophecy, for they had been somewhat ostracized, they would not have been able to receive the spirit of prophecy without Moshe.

נא is interpreted strictly as a request. Meaning that even though Hashem’s anger flared against them and left, נא is nonetheless interpreted strictly as a request, and Hashem spoke to them gently. For if Hashem had spoken to them angrily, His words would not have been accepted. Thus one may learn a kal vachomer (a fortiori argument) to mortals; that they also should speak gently.

You will have. The verse implies that the prophets will be Hashem, therefore Rashi explains “if you will have prophets” and that the word “Hashem” is read together with “I will make Myself known to him in a vision.”

The Divine Presence of My Name. In saying “the Divine Presence of My Name” Rashi teaches that the meaning of “Hashem” is as if the Torah had said “I am Hashem.” For if not so, it should have said “He will make Himself known.”

I told him to separate. You might ask: We say (Shabbos 87a) that Moshe did three things on his own accord and Hashem agreed with him. One of these was that he separated from his wife, implying that Hashem did not command him to do so. See Tosafos Yevamos 82.

I am not aware. You might ask: How did it occur to Hashem that Aharon and Miriam would speak in this way? The answer is that it was because they said “Is it only to Moshe that Hashem has spoken? Did He not also speak with us?” yet we have not abstained from marital relations. Why did Rashi add “… from marital relations”? — because it was a product of their haughtiness. They said “the Divine Presence rests upon him, but since Scripture writes “I will rest upon the contrite and the humble” (Yeshayahu 57:15), given that Moshe is haughty, why then does the Divine Presence rest upon him? It is as if Hashem is not aware that he is haughty.” Consequently Rashi says that this statement is worse than the first, and this is also why it is written here “the man Moshe was exceedingly modest” (v. 3) – in response to what Aharon and Miriam said that Moshe was haughty. This is in contrast to the explanation of Re’m who expounds this from the extra beis of בעבדי (about my servant). However, this presents a difficulty: Why not expound the extra lamed in לעבדך ליעקב “to your servant, to Yaakov” (Bereishis 32:19) and also לאדוני לעשו “to my master, to Eisav” (ibid. v. 5)? He brings a different [version of Rashi’s] text there in order to answer the difficulty, but according to our explanation it is not necessary to modify our version of Rashi.

Just as the dead cause ritual defilement when entering. For it is written, “anything that comes into the tent and anything that is in the tent shall be defiled” (Bamidbar 19:14) and concerning the leper it is written, “that which comes into the house for all of the days of its confinement shall be defiled” (Vayikra 14:46).

It is unconscionable for a brother. Meaning that even from its plain implication one can explain the verse without the need to say that the Torah uses euphemisms, by saying “his mother” instead of “our mother” and “his flesh” instead of “our flesh.” Thus their words were not directed towards their sister; rather he meant that generally any normal brother would not allow his sister to remain as if dead…

Who will confine her. Thus the explanation of “let her not be like the dead” is that she has no hope. Given that she came from our mother’s womb, who will be able to confine her? Consequently it will emerge that half of our flesh will be consumed, since her flesh which is one with our flesh is being consumed and there is no remedy for her ailment.

Answer me. Because the word “saying” is superfluous and the Torah should have said “Moshe cried out to Hashem: Please God [please] heal…!” Rather Moshe said to Him “answer me,” similar to “Moshe spoke…”

If her father. Rashi adds the word “if” as if the Torah had said “if her father” because we do not find that her father ever spat in her face or that he rebuked her at any time. Rather the Torah means to say that “if her father were to spit…” He adds “to display to her an angry face” to indicate that “spit” is not to be taken literally, only as reference to rebuke that would be a consequence of spitting.

Certainly, then, in the case of the Divine Presence — for fourteen days. You might ask: Surely the kal vachomer can be applied for any number of days, so why did Rashi specifically mention fourteen days? (Niddah 31a) The answer is that the Rabbis say that there are three partners in [the formation of] a person — Hashem, his father and his mother — for the father and mother each give five things to the fetus and Hashem alone gives ten things. Thus we see that Hashem ‘creates’ half of the fetus. Another answer is that when a leper is closed off for seven days, if the affliction does not spread rather it remains stable, we close him off for another seven days. Then if it spreads he is definitely impure. Therefore Rashi mentioned fourteen days, which refers to definite impurity, meaning that it is fitting for her to be a metzora permanently.

The one hour. One may explain that this is because the attribute of goodness is five hundred times greater than the attribute of punishment. Thus Miriam, who waited for Moshe for a third of an hour was repaid with five hundred thirds of an hour — equaling seven days. They waited with her day and night for twenty four hours — and seven days and nights equal one hundred and sixty eight hours. This divided into thirds equals five hundred thirds. Though there are an extra four thirds in excess of the five hundred — the seven days — nonetheless, since it was not a complete day, only one and a third hours, this is insignificant. Furthermore it is also possible that in reward for going to call Moshe’s mother, another four thirds of an hour were added on for her. When Rashi says “one hour” he did not literally mean a whole hour, one out of the twenty-four hours in the day, rather “a period of time” meaning a third of an hour.