There are two verses in this week’s Parasha (Bamidbar 10:35-36) that are surrounded by two upside letters, both being the letter “nun.” Rashi, based on the Talmud (Shabbos 117a) and Midrashim (e.g. Sifre), tells us that these “markings” are meant to indicate that this is not where this two-verse paragraph belongs. Rather, it was “moved” here in order to interrupt a sequence of troublesome narratives, which most understanding to be the nation being anxious to leave Mt. Sinai “like a child who runs from school” and their complaints about traveling. Last year, Rabbi Yaakov Rabinowitz (AMvE”Sh) asked me why this instance of things being taught “out of order” is different than all others. After all, since “there is no chronological order” in the Torah, there should be no need to signify that these verses are not in order. Such indications aren’t needed (or used) for any of the other instances that things are taught out of chronological order; why are there upside down “nuns” here if no such marking is needed elsewhere?

Usually, there is something about the narrative that tips us off that things were taught out of order. In this case, however, the verses prior to these are about the nation traveling, so there is no indication that this is not where this paragraph, which describes Moshe’s request that G-d leave the Mishkan so that the nation can prepare for travel and his request that G-d return to the Mishkan after each trip, belongs. It is only because of these upside down letters that we know that this is not its proper place. [This has ramifications for how we understand what occurred, as if this was where it belonged, we might think that Moshe only made these requests the very first time the nation traveled; now that we know it really belongs earlier, we know that these requests were made for each and every trip (see Gur Aryeh).] It should be noted, though, that Rabbeinu Bachye implies that even without the upside down “nuns” we would have known that this was not its proper place. Nevertheless, Rabbeinu Bachye himself, when explaining the opinion that the upside down “nuns” tell us that these two verses constitute its own book, says that, at least according to that opinion, “this section is written in its appropriate place, for it is written when discussing the travel.” Since it would seem to have been written in the right place, we need the “nuns” to teach us otherwise.

Normally there is a thematic connection between one subject matter and the subject matter taught next to it. Therefore, without any indication otherwise, we would have thought that such connections also exist with the verses taught before and after this paragraph. These demarcations not only tell us that this paragraph doesn’t really belong here; they also inform us that such connections should not be made.

Rabbeinu Bachye makes a couple of suggestions as to why the letter “nun” was chosen to teach us that this paragraph belongs elsewhere, based on the letter “nun” having the numerical value of 50. There are several places in Sefer Bamidbar that discuss details of how the nation traveled, including when the Degalim were described (2:1-34), when the nation traveling based on G-d’s divine cloud rising from the Mishkan and returning to it is discussed (9:15-23), when the first trip occurred (10:11-28), and right before the two verses under discussion (10:33-34). By inserting upside down “nuns,” we know that it really belongs 50 paragraphs earlier than where it appears in the text, i.e. within the description of the Degalim when the Mishkan starts to travel (2:17). Another “50” reference is to Yovel, the 50th year of the Sh’mitta cycle, with the “Great Yovel” referring to a time after the world has run its course. Without getting into what this means exactly, for our purposes suffice it to say that since at that time this paragraph will be moved back to where it really belongs (as I’ll discuss shortly), a “nun” is used in order to allude to this time. Either way, if there is a message embedded in the “nuns” aside from just telling us that this paragraph belongs elsewhere, it is possible that even if the “nuns” weren’t needed to tell us that things are out of order, they would be there to teach us these messages.

Ramban says that if not for the interruption that this paragraph provides, there would have been three consecutive troublesome narratives (with the desire for meat being the third). In order to avoid the “chazaka” three in a row would have created, which would have set a precedent that would make it more difficult for the nation to avoid future troubles, these narratives are broken up. However, this problem only exists when the possibility of sin still exists, so, as the Talmud says (and as explained by Rabbeinu Bachye), in the future, when there is no more sinning, this paragraph will be moved to where it really belongs. The very fact that this paragraph really belongs elsewhere is enough to differentiate it from all other instances of things that are taught out of chronological order, as despite being taught out of chronological order, they are still taught in “their place,” i.e. exactly where they belong. Even more so, then, if this paragraph will eventually be moved from its current location to where it really belongs, it cannot be compared to any other instance of things that are taught out of order, and a special demarcation isolating which verses will eventually be moved to their rightful place is only necessary here.

In Avos D’Rav Noson (34:4), rather than saying that “in the future this paragraph will be uprooted from here and be written in its place,” the wording is “in the future this paragraph will be uprooted from its place and be written in a different place.” Based on this, Rabbi Menachem Kasher (Mishpatim, Appendix 33 chapter 7) suggests that instead of referring to it being moved in our future, it refers to the “future” from when it was written down by Moshe. Working within the opinion that the Torah was written one piece at a time, as it was taught to Moshe (as opposed to all at once shortly before his death), Rabbi Kasher is proposing that when Moshe was taught this paragraph he was told that eventually it will be moved to a later place in the text. (That “eventually” refers to when our Parasha was written down a short time later.) Not that it will be moved from where it is now, but that it was already moved from where it was originally taught to where it is now. The marks (the “nuns”) were made then, so that Moshe would know which part would be moved, and they were kept intact after the paragraph was moved so that we know that this happened. Obviously, if this is why the “nuns” are there, there is no comparison between this “out of order” section and any others, and there is no need to wonder why no such demarcation exists elsewhere. However, the wording of the texts (except for the Sifre) has the statement that “this section will, in the future, be moved” being made by Rabbi Shimon; according to Rabbi Kasher, it would have been G-d telling Moshe what will happen in the future, not a Talmudic sage telling us what will happen.

The bottom line, though, is that since other “out of order” sections belong precisely where they are, whereas this one really belongs elsewhere, and the marks themselves teach us things that only apply here, and in this instance there aren’t any connections to be made between these verses and the ones before and after them, and there is nothing about the context that would tell us that these verses don’t belong here, this paragraph is surrounded by upside “nuns,” while others, even those taught out of chronological order, are not.