The unexpressed subject of וּבֵרֵךְ (ûbērēk), “and he has blessed,” is God. The verb is a Piel perfect, third masculine singular, and therefore cannot directly refer to Balaam, who has just spoken in the first person, “I have received” (לָקָחְתִּי, lāqaḥtî). Nor is Balak a plausible subject, since Balak’s stated purpose has been to procure Israel’s curse, not its blessing (23:11, 13). Balaam contrasts his own constrained reception of a blessing-oracle with the prior, decisive action of God: God has blessed Israel. The immediate context makes this identification explicit. In 22:12 God had already told Balaam, “You shall not curse the people, for they are blessed.” Balaam then asks rhetorically, “How can I curse whom God has not cursed? How can I denounce whom the LORD has not denounced?” (23:8). The same divine sovereignty governs the present statement. Balaam has received the commission or oracle “to bless,” while God himself has established Israel’s blessed state. The final feminine suffix in אֲשִׁיבֶנָּה (ʾăšîbennâ), “I cannot turn it back,” most naturally refers to the blessing as the declared and effectual divine verdict. Balaam is thus neither the originator nor the master of the blessing; his prophetic speech is bound to the blessing God has pronounced upon Israel.

The masculine plural suffix in לָהֶם (lahem, "to/for them") refers to the men whom Zelophehad's daughters might marry, not to the daughters themselves. The relative clause, אֲשֶׁר תִּהְיֶינָה לָהֶם (ʾăšer tihyeynâ lahem), is idiomatic marital language: the feminine plural Qal imperfect תִּהְיֶינָה (tihyeynâ, "they will be") has the daughters as its subject, while the masculine plural suffix identifies the prospective husbands. Thus the phrase denotes the tribe of the men who would receive them in marriage. English versions properly render the sense as "the tribe to which they belong" or "the tribe into which they marry," rather than preserving an awkwardly literal construction. The grammatical expression makes the legal concern more exact. Should the daughters marry men from another tribe, their inherited estate would be "added" (וְנוֹסְפָה, wenôsepâ, Niphal perfect with waw) to that husband's tribal holding, while it would be "taken away" or diminished (יִגָּרַע, yiggāraʿ, Niphal imperfect) from the inheritance of their paternal tribe. The verse therefore treats marriage as affecting the recognized tribal location of a landed inheritance. It does not deny that the daughters themselves remain members of Israel or descendants of Joseph; it identifies the practical consequence that their land, passing through marriage and then remaining with their husband's descendants, would enlarge another tribe's territorial patrimony. The following legislation resolves precisely this contingency by requiring marriage within their father's tribal clan (Num 36:5-9).

The “first month” is best understood as the first month of Israel’s fortieth year after the exodus. Although the year is not supplied in v. 1, the ensuing narrative places Aaron’s death in the fifth month of the fortieth year (Num 33:38), and Israel’s departure from Kadesh, the sending of messengers to Edom, and Aaron’s death form a continuous sequence in Numbers 20. The date therefore marks the arrival of the new generation at the threshold of the land after the period of judgment announced in Numbers 14, rather than a return to the events immediately following the earlier rebellion at Kadesh. The expression בַּחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן (baḥōdeš hāriʾšôn), “in the first month,” consists of the preposition בְּ with the definite noun “month” and the ordinal “first.” Its brevity presumes that the larger chronological setting is known from the narrative’s progress. Numbers has passed over approximately thirty-eight years with little narrated material between the judgment generation’s condemnation and this renewed arrival at Kadesh. The death and burial of Miriam at this point accordingly function as a boundary marker: a principal figure from the exodus generation dies as Israel enters the final movements toward Canaan. Her death also precedes the failure at the waters of Meribah and the announcement that Moses and Aaron will not bring the assembly into the land (20:12), underscoring that even the remaining leaders of the exodus are nearing the end of their appointed service.

The phrase כְּבָשִׂים בְּנֵי־שָׁנָה (kĕbāśîm bĕnê-šānâ), literally “lambs, sons of a year,” identifies animals in their first year rather than requiring animals that had reached an exact twelve-month anniversary. The construct expression bĕnê-šānâ is an idiom of age: the lamb belongs to the year of its birth and has not passed beyond that first year. English versions commonly render it “year-old male lambs” or “lambs a year old,” both of which adequately convey the required youthful stage, though the Hebrew idiom is less mathematically precise than the latter wording can suggest. This age requirement corresponds to the established sacrificial legislation. The daily offering restates the continual burnt offering ordained in Exodus 29:38-42, where two “lambs a year old” were offered, one in the morning and one at twilight. Numbers 28:3 accordingly introduces a fixed public cultic obligation rather than a new category of sacrifice. Lambs in their first year were a regular sacrificial animal, also prescribed for the Passover (Exod 12:5) and various purification and consecration rites. Their youth was not an arbitrary preference for small animals, since the requirement is joined here to תְּמִימִם (tĕmîmim), a masculine plural adjective meaning “whole, sound, without blemish.” The specification of first-year lambs and physical wholeness marks the offering as a fitting gift for the holy God. The daily burnt offering, as an עֹלָה (ʿōlâ), was wholly given over to the Lord on the altar and represented Israel before him in the ordered rhythm of each day. The particular requirement also supplies part of the sacrificial pattern later fulfilled in Christ, who is described through Passover imagery as “a lamb without blemish or spot” (1 Pet 1:19). That typological correspondence does not reduce the Mosaic prescription to symbolism alone: in Numbers it regulates Israel's actual daily approach to the Lord through the divinely appointed, unblemished sacrificial victim.

The clause does not restrict the cloud’s presence to the instant of departure. The preposition בְּ with the Qal infinitive construct נָסְעָם (nasaʿ, “to set out,” with the third masculine plural suffix), בְּנָסְעָם, means “when” or “in the course of their setting out.” It identifies the circumstance in which the cloud was over Israel: whenever the camp moved, the cloud accompanied the people. The verbless clause, “the cloud of the LORD [was] over them by day,” gives a general description of the wilderness march rather than reporting a single appearance of the cloud. This summary accords with Numbers 9:15-23, where the cloud rested upon the tabernacle and determined both Israel’s encampments and departures. When the cloud lifted, Israel set out; when it remained, Israel stayed. Numbers 10:34 therefore emphasizes the moving phase of that established pattern. The expression עֲנַן יְהוָה (ʿanan YHWH, “the cloud of the LORD”) is the covenantal manifestation associated with the tabernacle, yet during the march its protecting and guiding presence extended over the people. The adverb יוֹמָם (yomam, “by day”) does not imply divine absence at night; Numbers 9:16 identifies the nighttime appearance as fire. The verse thus summarizes the LORD’s visible accompaniment of Israel in all their departures from the camp.

The plural בִּגְדֵיהֶם (bigdehem, “their garments”) does not require the conclusion that Joshua and Caleb each tore several distinct articles of clothing. The noun בֶּגֶד (beged) commonly occurs in the plural for clothing or garments as a class, and the third masculine plural suffix distributes the possession naturally between the two men: each tore his own clothing. The Qal perfect קָרְעוּ (qareʿu, “they tore”) narrates a completed, visible act immediately following the congregation’s rebellious lament and Moses and Aaron’s prostration (14:1, 5). The expression identifies a formal gesture of extreme grief, horror, and covenantal distress rather than supplying an inventory of their apparel. Tearing garments was an established Israelite sign of mourning and dismay in the presence of death, catastrophe, blasphemy, or grave sin. Its occurrence here is especially suited to the crisis created by Israel’s rejection of the Lord’s promise and its reception of the faithless spies’ report. Joshua and Caleb had seen the same land as the other spies, yet they recognized the congregation’s response as a grievous repudiation of God’s faithfulness. Their torn garments therefore introduce the speech of vv. 7-9 as solemn protest and lament. The gesture is not directed primarily at the inhabitants of Canaan, but at Israel’s unbelief before the God who had pledged to give that land to them. The plural wording is idiomatic and emphatic, marking the public character of their grief without specifying the number or kind of garments torn.

Eleazar’s identification as Aaron’s son prepares for a divinely ordered transfer of the high-priestly office within Aaron’s line. The construct expression בְּנוֹ (beno, “his son”) does more than supply family information: in the immediate context, it identifies the son who will receive Aaron’s priestly garments (v. 26) and therefore succeed him in the office. Eleazar is not brought to Mount Hor merely as a companion or witness to his father’s death, but as the appointed recipient of Aaron’s cultic authority. Ithamar’s absence is consequently significant. Both Eleazar and Ithamar had survived the death of Nadab and Abihu and continued priestly service (Lev. 10:6, 12; Num. 3:4), but Eleazar had already been marked out with special supervisory responsibility among the Levites (Num. 3:32). The command’s naming of Aaron and Eleazar alone, followed by the plural object suffix in הַעַל אֹתָם (haʿal ʾotam, “bring them up”), establishes a private, official succession scene rather than a general family gathering. Although hereditary descent belongs intrinsically to the Aaronic priesthood, the selection of this particular heir is presented as the Lord’s explicit appointment through Moses. The narrative thus preserves both priestly continuity through Aaron’s seed and the sovereign designation of Eleazar as Aaron’s successor.

The singular וְנִסְכָּהּ (weniskāh, “and its drink offering”) treats the Sabbath sacrifice as a unified burnt offering rather than assigning a separately stated libation to each of its two lambs. The feminine singular suffix, 3fs, most naturally refers back to עֹלַת (ʿōlat, “burnt offering”), the construct head of עֹלַת שַׁבָּת (ʿōlat šabbāt, “the Sabbath burnt offering”). It does not refer to the two lambs individually, nor most immediately to the Sabbath itself. Hebrew sacrificial directions regularly speak of a complex offering as a singular cultic unit, even when its prescribed animal components are plural. The provision in v. 9 has already specified the two lambs, the doubled grain offering, and “its drink offering.” Verse 10 therefore summarizes that entire rite as the Sabbath burnt offering with its accompanying libation, then sharply distinguishes it from “the continual burnt offering and its drink offering” (עֹלַת הַתָּמִיד וְנִסְכָּהּ, ʿōlat hattāmîd weniskāh). The repetition of the singular suffix in both clauses marks two complete sacrificial services: the additional Sabbath offering and the daily continual offering. The Sabbath rite supplements rather than replaces the morning and evening tamid prescribed in Numbers 28:1-8. The singular wording should not be pressed to mean that only one measure of wine accompanied both Sabbath lambs. The immediately preceding legislation governs the quantities: each lamb’s grain offering is doubled in comparison with the ordinary daily lamb, and its libation belongs to that prescribed offering. Numbers 28:10 is a compact designation of the Sabbath whole, whose additional character rests upon, and does not interrupt, the continual daily worship of the sanctuary.

The singular verb presents Israel as a corporate body in its confrontation with Moses, whereas the plural forms reproduce the complaint as the speech of the people’s constituent members. The subject הָעָם (ha'am, “the people”) is grammatically singular, and the Qal wayyiqtol וַיָּרֶב (wayyareb, “and it contended” or “quarreled”) therefore stands in the singular. The following וַיֹּאמְרוּ (wayyo'meru, “and they said”) is plural because the quoted words are placed upon the lips of the Israelites collectively as speakers: “If only we had died” (וְלוּ גָוַעְנוּ, welu gawa'nu). The alternation does not indicate that one group disputed with Moses while another group uttered the complaint. It is a conventional movement between the collective designation of Israel and the plurality of those whom that designation comprises. In the narrative sequence, the whole congregation is gathered at Kadesh (20:1), and “the people” are treated as a united, covenant community in their dispute with Moses. Yet their complaint is articulated in the first-person plural, identifying them with their “brothers” and expressing a shared desire for death rather than the present wilderness crisis. This grammatical movement also sharpens the representative character of Moses’ conflict. The issue is not an isolated private quarrel but a contention between Israel, viewed corporately, and the LORD’s appointed mediator. The plural speech makes clear that the rebellion belongs to the congregation whose collective action the singular verb has already summarized.

The plural תּוֹצְאֹתָיו (tôṣĕʾōtāyw, “its outgoings” or “its termini”) is a conventional boundary term and does not require that several separate mouths of the Brook of Egypt or several distinct seas are intended. The suffix is masculine singular and refers back to הַגְּבוּל (haggĕbûl, “the boundary”). In such geographical descriptions, the plural can designate the boundary’s extremities, terminal reaches, or points of emergence as a collective whole. English “exits” is formally close to the Hebrew but may suggest openings or channels; “its terminus shall be at the sea” conveys the sense more idiomatically. The expression occurs repeatedly in this chapter for the points at which the prescribed line reaches its next major feature (vv. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12). Thus the clause concludes the southern boundary’s westward movement from Azmon along the Brook of Egypt. The final ה of הַיָּמָּה (hayyāmmâ) is directional, indicating movement “to” or “toward” the sea. In this setting “the sea” denotes the Great Sea, the Mediterranean, as v. 6 makes explicit. The verse therefore identifies the Mediterranean coast as the western termination of the southern border, rather than describing the physical outlets of the watercourse itself.

The noun אֲתֹנוֹ (ʾăṯōnô, “his she-ass”) identifies Balaam's animal as female, not simply as a generically designated donkey. The term ʾātôn normally denotes a she-ass and is retained throughout the ensuing episode (vv. 22-33). Many English versions render it simply “donkey,” since English ordinarily does not preserve the animal's sex unless it bears particular significance; nevertheless, the Hebrew feminine noun governs the feminine verbal forms that describe the animal's actions, especially her seeing the angel and turning aside from the road. The specification is primarily narrative and realistic. A she-ass was a customary riding and pack animal, and the possessive suffix presents the animal as Balaam's own mount rather than an animal supplied by the Moabite officials. It also binds v. 21 tightly to the account that follows: the animal Balaam saddles becomes the one through whom the LORD frustrates his progress and exposes his spiritual blindness. No symbolic meaning should be assigned to the animal's sex itself. The theological force lies instead in the reversal established by the narrative: the seer who had been summoned to discern God's word fails to perceive the angel of the LORD, whereas his ordinarily speechless animal sees the divine obstacle and acts to preserve him.

The verbal shift marks the verse as a concluding summary of Israel's repeated wilderness pattern. יַחֲנוּ (yaḥănu, Qal imperfect 3 masculine plural) and יִסָּעוּ (yissaʿu, Qal imperfect 3 masculine plural) have habitual or iterative force in this context: whenever the cloud rested, Israel encamped; whenever it rose, Israel set out. The preceding verses have stressed that the duration of each stay could be long or brief, and that Israel's movements were governed entirely by the divine signal. The imperfects therefore portray a continuing, recurrent order rather than a single pair of actions. By contrast, שָׁמָרוּ (šāmārû, Qal perfect 3 common plural), "they kept," gathers those repeated acts into a completed assessment. Israel's willingness to remain or depart according to the cloud constituted their keeping of "the charge of the LORD" (mišmeret YHWH). The perfect does not imply that their obedience was flawless in every respect throughout Numbers, for the narrative will repeatedly record rebellion. Rather, within the matter under discussion, namely the ordering of the camp's journeys in the wilderness, the narrator can characterize the people as having carried out the command entrusted to them. This conclusion also distinguishes the Lord's immediate direction from Moses' mediating office without setting them against one another. The repeated "at the mouth of the LORD" identifies the Lord as the ultimate commander, while "by the hand of Moses" identifies Moses as the authorized human agent through whom the divine instruction was administered. The grammar thus supports the literary function of the verse: Israel's many individual encampments and departures are compressed into a retrospective testimony that, in this prescribed sphere, they observed the Lord's covenantal charge.

The Niphal perfect נִטְמָאָה (nitme’ah, “she has become defiled”) identifies sexual unfaithfulness as a defiling act, yet it does not establish that the wife is guilty in the case envisioned. The verb טָמֵא (tame’, “be unclean, become defiled”) can denote ritual uncleanness in a narrow sense, but it also expresses the contaminating character of grave moral rebellion, particularly illicit sexual relations. In this passage its meaning is governed by vv. 12-13, where the possible defilement consists in a woman’s sexual intercourse with another man while married. The term therefore gives the alleged adultery cultic and covenantal significance: such conduct violates the exclusive marital bond and introduces impurity into Israel’s holy community. The perfect form does not function as a judicial verdict. Verse 14 deliberately presents two parallel possibilities: the husband’s jealousy may arise when she “has become defiled,” or when she “has not become defiled” (לֹא נִטְמָאָה, lo nitme’ah). The same suspicion can arise in either a true or a false case. The ensuing procedure is therefore designed precisely for a concealed matter lacking ordinary witnesses, as v. 13 has stated; it places the determination before the Lord rather than authorizing the husband’s suspicion as proof. Later wording confirms the sexual sense of defilement, since the priest’s oath contrasts remaining undefiled with having “gone astray” and having allowed another man to lie with her (vv. 19-20).

The pronominal suffixes in מִנְחָתָם (minḥātām, “their grain offering”) and נִסְכֵיהֶם (niskêhem, “their drink offerings”) refer most naturally to the preceding sacrificial animals, specifically the bulls, ram, and lambs of v. 29. The prepositional phrases that follow, “for the bulls, for the rams, and for the lambs,” explicate the referent and allocate the accompanying offerings to each animal class. Although Israelites present the offerings, the idiom regularly describes the cereal and drink offerings as belonging to, or appointed for, the burnt-offering animals because they accompany each animal in the sacrificial rite. The singular מִנְחָה (minḥâ) is best understood collectively: it denotes the entire grain-offering provision attached to that day’s animals, even though distinct measured portions were required for individual bulls, rams, and lambs. The plural נסכים (nesākîm), “drink offerings,” reflects the distributive character of the libations more explicitly, since a separate wine offering attended the prescribed animal sacrifices. This variation does not imply that one common grain offering was brought for all the animals while several drink offerings were brought; the detailed proportions in Numbers 28:12-14 establish that both cereal and wine offerings were apportioned according to the species and number of the animals. The wording of Numbers 29:30 thus compresses those fixed provisions into a formula while retaining the distinction between the collective grain-offering category and the several libations attached to the sacrifices.

The object of “we have brought them” is the other Israelite tribes, not the women and children of Gad and Reuben. The form הֲבִיאֹנֻם (hăbîʾōnûm) is a Hiphil perfect, first common plural, with a third masculine plural suffix: the armed Transjordanian men promise that they will lead their Israelite brothers to the destination appointed for them. The nearest and controlling antecedent is “the sons of Israel” in the preceding clause. By contrast, the speakers distinguish “our little ones” (ṭappēnû), who are to remain in fortified cities east of the Jordan while the warriors join Israel’s campaign. “Their place,” מְקוֹמָם (meqômām), does not refer to a single sanctuary or encampment. The singular “place” with a plural possessive suffix functions collectively, denoting the settled inheritance allotted to the tribes in Canaan. The following context confirms this sense: the tribes will not return to their houses until “the sons of Israel have inherited, each man, his inheritance” (v. 18), while Gad and Reuben disclaim an inheritance west of the Jordan because their own inheritance has been assigned east of it (v. 19). Their proposal therefore seeks to demonstrate that receiving Transjordan first will not diminish their obligation to assist the whole covenant people in obtaining the land promised by the Lord.

Syntactically, תְּמִימִם (tĕmîmim, masculine plural adjective, “blameless” or “without defect”) modifies the immediately preceding masculine plural noun כְּבָשִׂים (kĕbāśîm, “lambs”). The construction reads literally, “seven lambs, sons of a year, blameless.” Since פַּר (par, “bull”) and אַיִל (ʾayil, “ram”) are singular, the plural adjective cannot grammatically agree with each of them. The stated requirement of blamelessness in this clause is therefore attached directly to the seven yearling lambs. This grammatical limitation does not imply that the bull and ram could be defective. The sacrificial legislation consistently excludes blemished animals from offerings brought before the LORD, particularly from burnt offerings, which were wholly offered upon the altar (Lev. 22:17-25; Deut. 17:1). Numbers 28:19 employs the same festival formula and explicitly describes the animals collectively as “without blemish,” while the detailed wording here places the adjective after the plural lambs. The verse thus presupposes the wider sacrificial standard for the bull and ram while expressly characterizing the final, plural element of the offering. The requirement accords with the nature of the ʿōlâ, the burnt offering. Because the whole animal was presented to the LORD as a “pleasing aroma,” it had to be fit for his holy presence. “Blameless” does not denote moral innocence in the animal, but physical soundness and freedom from a disqualifying defect. Within the Pentateuch’s sacrificial system, the integrity of the victim corresponded to the holiness of the God to whom it was offered.

Iezer in Numbers 26:30 is best understood as the ancestor or eponym of the clan elsewhere called Abiezer. The correspondence is especially clear in Joshua 17:2, where Abiezer appears among the clans descended from Manasseh in substantially the same sequence as Iezer, Helek, Asriel, Shechem, Hepher, and Shemida in Numbers 26:30-32. The difference in the first name does not warrant the multiplication of Manassite clans, since the remaining names and the tribal setting identify the same established genealogical complex. The Masoretic Text of Numbers reads אִיעֶזֶר (ʾîʿezer), with the gentilic הָאִיעֶזְרִי (hāʾîʿezrî), “the Iezerite,” while Joshua 17:2 has אֲבִיעֶזֶר (ʾăbîʿezer), “Abiezer.” Abiezer is therefore the fuller and more familiar designation in the historical narratives, where Joash and Gideon belong to the Abiezerite clan (Judg. 6:11, 24, 34). The form in Numbers may represent a shortened or alternate form of the ancestral name, though the precise history of the variation cannot be recovered with certainty. In either case, the census employs the conventional genealogical idiom in which a clan is represented through a named forefather, and the Abiezerites of Judges belong to the Manassite line of Gilead enumerated here.

Phinehas is sent because he embodies the priestly administration of Israel's holy war under Moses's command, while Eleazar apparently remains in his high-priestly position with the congregation. The narrative calls Phinehas "son of Eleazar the priest," grounding his authority in the Aaronic priesthood, yet it does not style Phinehas himself "the priest" in a way that would displace Eleazar. The repeated phrase "to the army" (laṣṣābāʾ) makes him part of the expeditionary force as its priestly representative, not its military commander. Moses remains the one who sends (wayyišlaḥ, Qal wayyiqtol of šālaḥ), and the tribal contingents supply the fighting men. The choice also deliberately recalls Numbers 25. Phinehas's zeal against Israel's apostasy at Peor halted the plague and brought the divine grant of an enduring priestly covenant to his line (Num. 25:6-13). Since Midian's seduction of Israel at Peor is the stated ground for the present judgment (Num. 31:16; cf. 25:16-18), Phinehas's presence establishes continuity between the earlier covenantal crisis and this campaign. His participation signifies that the action is Yahweh's judicial vengeance for Midian's assault on Israel's covenant fidelity, rather than a merely political raid. Eleazar is nevertheless far from absent from the chapter: the returning army reports to him with Moses (31:12), and he gives the authoritative instruction concerning purification and the division of spoil (31:21-24). The narrative thus distinguishes Phinehas's delegated priestly service in the field from Eleazar's continuing high-priestly oversight of the community.

Nethanel son of Zuar is introduced here as the appointed representative of Issachar and is the same figure who recurs in the wilderness narratives. The prepositional phrase לְיִשָּׂשכָר (le-yissakar, “for Issachar”) assigns him to the tribe, while the construct expression בֶּן־צוּעָר (ben-tsu'ar, “son of Zuar”) supplies the ancestral identification by which this particular Nethanel is publicly distinguished. In the setting established by Numbers 1:4, each tribe was to provide one man, described as “the head of his fathers’ house,” to assist Moses and Aaron in the census. The name and patronymic therefore function as an official identification, not as incidental biographical detail. The subsequent notices confirm this identification. Nethanel son of Zuar is named as leader of Issachar in the camp arrangement (2:5), brings Issachar’s offering at the dedication of the altar (7:18-23), and commands the tribe’s division when Israel sets out from Sinai (10:15). These repeated formulas portray a stable, recognized tribal prince throughout the early wilderness period. Zuar is otherwise unknown in Scripture, but his mention locates Nethanel within a paternal household and accords with Israel’s organization by tribes, clans, and fathers’ houses. The census is thus not conducted through anonymous numerical units: it is administered through identifiable covenant representatives whose authority is grounded in Israel’s inherited tribal order.

The phrase “by the shekel of the sanctuary” identifies the authorized cultic weight standard by which the silver vessels were measured. The preposition בְּ (bĕ) in בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ (bĕšeqel haqqōdeš) has the sense “according to” or “by the standard of.” It does not most naturally mean that the vessels themselves were weighed within the sanctuary, nor does it necessarily posit a different kind of shekel in substance from ordinary commercial weights. Rather, their stated weights were calibrated against the officially maintained sacred standard, preventing ambiguity in gifts brought for Yahweh's service. The same standard appears in legislation concerning sanctuary payments, valuations, and priestly dues (Exod. 30:13; Lev. 27:25; Num. 3:47, 50; 18:16). Exodus 30:13 defines the sanctuary shekel as twenty gerahs, indicating that it functioned as a fixed measure for the cultus. Its mention here therefore certifies the precise value of the leader's gift: the silver dish weighed 130 shekels and the basin 70, together 200 sanctuary shekels. Numbers 7:85 later totals these identical donations from the twelve leaders according to this same measure. The detailed specification belongs to the chapter's concern that the tribal offerings, though presented through distinct representatives on successive days, were equal, regulated, and received within the order Yahweh had established for his sanctuary.