Nombres 12:14

If (lit. “and”) her father were to spit in her face. If her father were to display, to her, an angry face, would she not be humiliated for seven days? Certainly, then, in the case of the Divine Presence, [she should be humiliated] for fourteen days. However, it is sufficient that the derivative equal the source of its derivation. Therefore, even with My rebuke, let her be confined for seven days.

And after that, she may join again. I say that all אֲסִיפוֹת mentioned regarding lepers are related to his expulsion from the camp. When he is cured, he is brought into the camp. Thus, אֲסִיפָה is written concerning him, meaning bringing in.

And the Lord said to Mosheh, If her father had corrected her, would she not have been disgraced, and secluded seven days? But today, when I correct her, much more right is it that she should be dishonoured fourteen days: yet shall it suffice to seclude her seven days without the camp; and for thy righteousness will I make the Cloud of My Glory, the tabernacle, the ark, and all Israel, tarry until the time that she is healed, and then re-admitted.

הלא תכלם, she deserves to experience this shameful embarrassment.

תכלם שבעת ימים, “should she not be locked up for seven days?” According to Rashi, we are dealing here with a lesson in logic. If for insulting a parent the penalty is seven days of being ostracised, is it not logical that for insulting G–d the penalty must be at least ostracism for fourteen days?” G–d shows Moses that He is very considerate of Miriam by decreeing only seven days of such ostracism. Rashi raises the question that the so-called logic here is halachically incorrect, as we have a rule that this type of logic may not be applied to something being in excess of the basis for the comparison. (Compare Talmud, tractate Niddah folio 31) The sages say that man was created by three partners, G–d, his father, and his mother. The father supplies the semen, which later on forms bones and tendons, nails, brain and the eyes. This makes five parts. The mother supplies the blood, and the material forming the flesh. G–d provides the spirit and the soul, as well as the appearance of the face, eyesight, sense of hearing, ability to formulate thoughts into words, the lips, and the ability of the legs to walk. In other words, G–d makes ten contributions, twice as many as the father. This is why the number 14 appears here. It is not appropriate therefore that the punishment for Miriam, only a human being, should symbolise something Divine, but seven days of ostracism suffice, as they represent the part of father and mother in the development of the human being. Rabbi B’chor Shor raises the question that if everything that is serious is derived from something that is less serious, the kal vachomer principle, and that therefore the number 14 would symbolise a type of infinity, [like G–d. Ed] something that has no end, this would mean that a person stricken with tzoraat, who is examined at weekly intervals by the priest to determine the progress of the disease, would be condemned to carry that disease till he dies if it had not healed after the priest’s second inspection. Rabbi Baruch ben Yitzchok disagrees, saying that the two inspections by the priest cover a period of only thirteen days, as the seventh day is considered as belonging both to the first week and the second week. The difficulty with this interpretation is that we have no source for knowing that a father’s curse is limited to seven days, as seems to be taken for granted in our verse. From where did the Torah consider this as axiomatic? Perhaps the number seven as the length for such negative phenomena …